Somewhere along my career I heard that character is defined by who or what you choose to fight against. A character’s foils define who he or she is—and “define” here means both creating and describing. Churchill was defined by his stand against Hitler. Lincoln was defined by his belief in a unified United States. And Superman is defined by his fight against those who would bring evil upon mankind. I keep this in mind here at this blog, choosing to call out meaningless marketers from time to time, at risk of pissing off prospective clients and partners. This lesson can be applied to Brand Characters as well, and Google—the most valuable brand in the world—took a large step toward further defining and improving itself by taking a stand against the evil within the Chinese government last week.

For those who missed the news, last week Google issued a threat to shut down its operations in China after it discovered several, likely government-backed attempts to hack into its servers in order to uncover dissidents’ emails. Google also spoke against the continuing censorship of search results. The business press expressed general shock and awe at the move, wondering how any company could ignore China, and then speculating that this was merely a way for Google to save face in a market where it is not the leader.

I do believe this was a highly calculated move by Google and its company leaders—they would never make such a big move without a lot of strategic thinking and analysis. However I believe the company’s choice is not another Machiavellian move by a bunch of MBAs. Rather, it is the product of a company culture that is founded on a desire to truly improve the world, and a fear for “doing evil.”

Since its very early days as a public company, Google has acted in ways that exemplify its culture, while founding hardcore capitalists. Google allows people to spend 20% of their time on projects of their own choosing. They splurge on free gourmet meals for all employees. And when the company issued an IPO it warned prospective shareholders that it would focus on the long term and refrain from artificially smoothing out earnings results to make large investors happy.

Perhaps one of its most-debated cultural features is the company’s belief that “You can make money without doing evil.” This phrase has attracted many positive feelings toward Google, especially in the technology world where everyone from dominant leaders such as Microsoft to legions of spammers and phishers abuse their access to our computers. This statement has opened Google up to criticism as well—ranging from its avoidance of taxes in the U.K. to using its leading search business to crowd out competitors in new markets. But nothing challenged the company more both internally and among the court of public opinion as when Google agreed to the Chinese government’s demand for censored results when it entered the country in January 2006.

We will likely never know what the conversations were like back then or now in the offices of Google’s leadership. But I believe the censorship issue has been a personal pain-point for some time. I choose the words “personal pain-point” very carefully, as I believe these leaders and many Google employees have had serious misgivings about playing along with government censorship. This is a company that believes that access to information can make the world a better place. The leaders have more money than they could ever spend. And they have a lot of people on their side. The flagrant hacking attempt was probably the personal breaking point.

This, my friends, is why Google is the best brand in the world. The company and its people believe in something good, and genuinely desire to make the world a better place. This is why people in China are laying flowers at the company headquarters sign in Beijing. And if it continues to follow these core values, Google will be a leading company for many years to come. Who knows—Google might even help finally usher in human rights reforms and freedoms in one of the largest corners of the world.

One of the other interesting lessons here is to observe how few companies we could imagine taking a similar stand. No other tech company jumped to Google’s side, and I struggle to think of any other large company in any industry that might follow its lead (much less lead to begin with). Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer has already blown off any thoughts of leaving the country. Not surprising at all; this follows Ballmer’s personality and Microsoft’s culture very well—it is a company based on beating competitors and retaining power. At least he has a personal and company culture, I suppose, as most leaders are simply beholden to the annual bonus and short-term shareholder demands.

I will continue to follow this story closely and root for Google in its heroic stand against evil. Meanwhile, I’ll continue using as many Google products and services as I can get my hands on. I hope you do the same.

One of the promises of digital marketing that has kept our industry excited and optimistic for the past 10-plus years has been the opportunity to learn about individual consumers and serve them relevant advertisements. The hypothesis is that more relevant interruptions will be more engaging, incite positive action, and reduce waste. Aside from behavioral targeting, which uses cookies to help websites personalize banner ads for individual site visitors, social-media services such as Facebook have promised to open up further opportunities by reading into what people are posting about themselves. Even cable companies are experimenting with personally addressable TV commercials.

But despite all of the hope and hype, targeted ads have not become the revolution that we digital marketers have longed for. Not only are people ignoring highly targeted ads just as much as they do all other banners, but new research suggests that many consumers are outright rejecting the idea of personalized marketing.

I’m a few weeks late in catching the results of a new survey by professors at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley in which represents one of the first pieces of research not done by digital marketers (who have an understandable bias). In their telephone survey of 1,000 adults nationwide, they asked: Do you want websites you visit to show you ads, discounts, or news tailored to your interests? Before getting to the results, let me first say that this is an excellent way to word the question. It does not introduce the idea of cookies or other privacy third-rails. If anything, this question format seems to emphasize the positive aspects of advertising and content targeting.

Even as a hardened digital marketer I was surprised at the results: 67% of Americans do not want advertisements that are tailored to their interests. A further 51% reject personalized discounts and 58% don’t even want tailored news. Again, this is without seeding survey respondents with doubt and questions about how their personal information is captured and turned into tailored ads. This is a very, very bad sign for the digital advertising industry and website content creators.

What’s worse, when the researchers started describing how their information was tracked, even more people rejected the idea of personalization. From The New York Times:

“The respondents’ aversion to tailored ads increased once they learned about targeting methods. In addition to the original 66 percent that said tailored ads were ‘not O.K.,’ an additional 7 percent said such ads were not O.K. when they were tracked on the site. An additional 18 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked via other Web sites, and an additional 20 percent said it was not O.K. when they were tracked offline.”

Some believe that this data has little impact on the industry; sure, people will always say that they hate advertising, they say. Others add that people will protest ads until they learn that it’s the only way they will get free content. The problem is that the government is getting very close to stepping in and regulating targeted advertising. David Vladeck, the new head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, has promised to look closely at such online ad targeting, and has already publicly called some tactics “Orwellian.”

Here’s the problem for marketers: No one is going to stand up and tell the FTC to back off us. We advertisers as an industry have punished consumers for years with meaningless messages pressed against their eyeballs by the thousands each day. Because we can, we have hit them with ads everywhere from their email inboxes to elevators and gas pumps. Our level of society respect lies with used-car salesmen. Who is going to protest in favor of more advertising, even when we threaten that we’ll take away our free content?

With data like this study, Vladeck and the FTC essentially have a mandate to act against personalized targeting. It gives them impartial proof that the people don’t value personalized offers, and their job is to, well, do what the people want. Lawmakers and the FTC can also recall how the National Do Not Call Registry unanimously sailed through Congress and home phone numbers have been registered by more than 70% of Americans. The Direct Marketing PACs could do nothing to stop that legislation and there is little hope that we can stop this, either.

Look, I’m an executive at a digital marketing agency and I will feel the pain like anyone else in this business if this legislation goes through. But I also realize that you can’t force people to view or accept your advertising. This is why I am so passionate about the concept of Marketing with Meaning. I fundamentally believe that the only thing we can do to survive in this business is to create marketing that people choose to engage with and advertising that adds value to people’s lives.

So, people don’t like and genuinely fear personalized advertising. I take that as a sign that we’ve got move on to something that they do value. That is why I believe in creating content that people choose to view, read, or listen to. That is why I believe the future of digital, and marketing overall, lies much more in creating services and positive social movements. So while my company and I still make a lot of banner ads, we are also driving ourselves and our clients to create more meaningful marketing.

Isn’t it time we as an industry stop trying to fight against public opinion and do everything we can to make the public embrace our brands?

The OXO brand is a small, high-growing business. A few choices in OXO’s office help to direct its people and thus both product and marketing. The company makes high-quality, very well-designed kitchen tools. You will find OXO products often at Target, where the brand has helped defined the unique “cheap chic” that powered this retailer’s growth and customer passion. For a great view of the company’s belief in design, check out this video of its President, Alex Lee, from a recent Gel conference.

The OXO office is headquartered in the neighborhood of Chelsea in Manhattan, considered one of the trendiest and artiest neighborhoods in the city. When I walked into the building I noticed several attractive 6-foot or taller women speaking in multiple languages. I later learned that this was the Starrett-Lehigh Building, home to fashion designers and modeling agencies, as well as Hugo Boss, the School of Visual Arts, and Martha Stewart’s brand. This setting helps OXO attract and inspire the great designers that it needs in order to stay on the shelves of Target and in the hearts of its consumers.

Inside, I found the OXO office to fit well with my impression of the brand: lots of clean, clear space, a large kitchen, and a group of people who fit a combination of artist and architect. But I was specifically drawn to one of the walls of the office, where there was a vast collection of various gloves hung upon it. I learned that Alex Lee asked employees to bring in gloves that they found discarded on the streets of New York City, and he posts them on the wall to remind everybody that they are here to design quality tools for real people with many diverse needs.

It is a very interesting visual reminder of the purpose of the OXO brand. It does not exist to “move product” but rather to be a helpful part of people’s lives.

My second interesting trip a few days later was to the North American headquarters of the Red Bull brand. As you no doubt know, Red Bull is a beverage brand that has charged onto the scene in the past few years with a rebellious, action-oriented attitude. The brand is a huge believer in the power of events as marketing tools, as it owns several motorsports and soccer teams, helps big-name athletes train, and has created events such as the Red Bull Flugtag.

Red Bull HQ is located in Santa Monica, CA, nestled close to the shore and near media companies such as MTV and Yahoo!—a very inspiring location if you love the outdoors but want to hit the hottest clubs in L.A. in the evenings. That’s a bit of what the Red Bull brand seems to wish to be—powering your morning mountain bike ride, and then keeping you up at the bar scene until 3 a.m.

The Red Bull building itself has what you would expect if you are a true fan of the brand: a gigantic wooden skate ramp that the entire building seems to revolve around.

In doing some digging online I discovered the company hosts skating events at its office on the weekends, of course. A giant 40-foot glass door can be raised or lowered to make the ramp accessible for the inside and outside (more details here and here if you’re fascinated like I was). Clearly it focuses perspective on what your brand stands for when there is a massive skate ramp over your head. And if that doesn’t do the trick, try to ignore the guy pedaling his bike down the hallway, or the handful of people who refuse to wear shoes of any kind. It’s the combination of rebellion and athletics that the brand stands for in our hearts and minds.

These are only two examples of the many great product and marketing companies in the world. But many others are out there. Go back to the coolest companies you have visited and I’m sure you will agree that their office space often lives up to the brand buzz. Another example I love is Pampers, which years ago chose to follow a purpose of improving babies’ development. A key step in this shift was to completely redesign the office space of its employees, decorating it with oversized chairs and brightly colored walls to help people see the world through babies’ eyes.

Perhaps you can do meaningful marketing and design killer products in a boring building with bland conference rooms and cookie-cutter cubes… but I doubt it. At the end of the day, brands are built by the people who work on them. Success starts with convincing your employees that your brand is special, and inspiring them to share that specialness with everything they create.