PR vs. CYA

Any organization in the business of certification runs into the problem of having to market the reliability of certification while also covering their bums.

Google’s Qualified Developer Directory

Google just released a new directory for its Qualified Developer program.

This program has been public since last year, but it’s only recently been marketed. A message marketing the program popped into my inbox a couple weeks ago:

Dear Developer, Congratulations on your acceptance into the Google Qualified Gadget Ads Expert program! This program is designed for professionals who are currently developing Gadget Ads. This qualification can provide credibility and help promote your development expertise in Gadget Ads.

For more details on the program, please visit http://code.google.com/qualify/

Achieving and maintaining qualification consist of acquiring points in four areas:

1. Your references

2. Active development examples

3. Community participation

4. Qualification exams

It’s pretty obvious why Google is interested in having a stronger presence in developer certification. They want to make sure that its easier for skilled developers - skilled particularly in Google APIs - to get jobs, because what’s good for the internet job market and internet web application usability is good for Google.

But it’s more illuminative to look at what specific APIs and platforms Google is offering for certification. They’re clearly encouraging qualification for Adsense Gadgets, which are like customizable interactive widgets that usually helps increase CTRs.

I have a hunch - just a wild guess - that the new Developer Directory will get high rankings for any relevant searches, and that Google has a big, shiny, and probably fully achievable vision for their Qualification program. It’s certainly exciting to think of the possibilities. I actually think that Stack Overflow Careers is eating Google’s lunch (with money salad on the menu) as far as useful recruitment data is concerned. Crowdsourced peer validation is tots malots the best form of certification.

But to get back to the point of this post, there’s a conflict that comes up with certification programs of this nature. As usual, HN commenters wittily and succinctly addressed the issue in the discussion thread for the new directory site:

“Qualified Developers are thoroughly vetted by Google … and meet rigorous qualification standards.”

Followed three lines later by…

“Google does not make any representation, endorsement or warranty regarding the services of these developers.”

These statements seem at odds with each other.

Skill certification is one of the more obvious areas where this conflict arises, but it appears surprisingly often. Safety products or products that are potentially dangerous are another example of marketing making strong, unequivocal promises (Our bungee jumps are safe, tots malots) while legally dodging responsibility (If our bungee jumps kill you, your family can’t sue us because we’re warning you that our bungee jumps suck. Caveat emptor, bitch. )

Healthcare and medical services and products also fall into this category, and it’s the area where the PR/CYA paradox is at its most frustrating, as medical malpractice lawsuits have helped aggravate the status quo of draconian healthcare policy.

Can you think of any other product spaces where the legalese and marketing aren’t allowed within a 100 mile radius of each other?