But the biggest issue right now appears to be the potential damage to Google's image and brand of their decision to aggressively censor search results in China. This has become more than do-gooders whining about freedom and human rights -- it has the potential to seriously devalue Google's biggest intangible assets -- trust, image and brand. More than any other asset, from superior search technology to massive computing infrastructure, Google's image is the one asset that competitors can't copy. If Google is sacrificing this asset to obtain me-too access to the Chinese market, it would be more than an ethical compromise - it would be a major strategic blunder.
So Mark Mahaney (Smith Barney), Safa Rashtchy (Piper Jaffray), Benjamin Schachter (UBS), Heath Terry (CSFB), Lauren Rich Fine (Merrill Lynch), how about asking the most important question of the call tomorrow, and see if you can get an answer:
"You stated that the decision to censor search results in China compromises your mission, but you believe that benefits of censored access justify compromising your principles. Since it appears that there is a lot of media visibility to this issue at the same time Google is fighting the Department of Justice over access to search keywords and URLs, how will Google avoid irreversibly damaging its most valuable intangible asset -- Google's trust, image and brand? In short, if Google follows the competition into an ethical quagmire, how will Google avoid becoming just another conventional company?"