In a Reuters article, Eric Schmidt talks about their stated philosophy - "Don't be evil" - and how this translates into practice, and what it means to the company.
In an on-stage interview with writer Ken Auletta of the New Yorker magazine, Schmidt said "Don't be evil" is meant to provoke internal debate over what constitutes ethical corporate behavior, rather than representing an absolute moral position.
Google will likely continue to have difficulties in the PR arena, because, for many people in this culture, CORPORATION = EVIL RICH = EVIL, and BIG = EVIL, thanks to a variety of social factors.
And because BIG (or rich, or successful) = EVIL and CORPORATION = EVIL for many people, there is simply no way that G can avoid being viewedas EVIL as they continue to expand into new business areas (regardless of the validity of such a view).
See, when Google was the upstart, the underdog, the brash newcomer, the better alternative, it could get away with the slogan, and it worked well for them. It's not working so well these days.
Note that I'm not calling Google evil (although I think Google sometimes does things that makes people wonder if they take their stated philosophy seriously). I'm pointing out a cultural trend towards class (and economic) rhetorical warfare, over which Google has little control. And that is what will cause trouble for Google, over the long haul.