Google’s new social media technology is causing concern among organisations, with a widespread belief that Sidewikis will be exploited to promote criticism of brands. This is driving debate about how brands can effectively manage a new form of potentially damaging user generated content. However, if brands look beyond the initial scepticism, they’ll quickly realise that the technology presents opportunities to engage target audiences in a more controlled, timely and cost effective way.
What is a Sidewiki?
Google has evolved the wiki concept with the introduction of its Sidewiki. Previously, wikis enabled internet users to easily create and share content in one destination, the most well known being Wikipedia. The Sidewiki application allows users to write comments next to a brand’s website, presenting users with a direct way of linking their content to a specific organisation or issue.
Sidewikis are only viewable by users who’ve uploaded the technology to their browser bar. A few earlier versions of Sidewikis have launched in previous years, but never really taken off. Given the increasing popularity of social media and user generated content, and the fact that this particular Sidewiki is supported by a search engine used by millions around the world, this technology has a much greater chance of widespread adoption.
Why is it causing concern?
Getting wiki with it
There is a fear that citizen journalists (a.k.a. netizens) can use Sidewikis to post comments and opinions that conflict with corporate messages and identities. Where as this content would have once existed in a separate destination such as a chat forum or anti-site, it’ll now be viewable by an organisation’s target audience in a place typically used to promote positive messages.
Sidewikis were recently posted on the websites of shipping company Trafigura and its lawyers Carter-Ruck when a case was taken to court accusing Trafigura of improperly disposing of waste using a third party supplier. The Sidewikis criticised an injunction placed on the reporting of the case, drawing more attention to the controversy surrounding the whole issue. This, and other social media postings on twitter and Wikileaks, led to Trafigura agreeing to allow The Guardian to report on the issue.
What are the positives?
The opportunity... and the threat?
The fundamental concept of the Sidewiki is for users to positively share information, to assist other users surfing websites. In many ways, this could quite easily lead to credible endorsements from brand advocates that positively influence audience opinions. Since the dawn of marketing, companies have searched high and low for case studies and testimonies that create reasons to believe. The Sidewiki does all the work for them, including amplification, in an era ruled by online word of mouth.
Social networks such as twitter and Facebook are buzzing with brand conversations, both positive and negative. The user generated aspects of the Sidewiki will help bring these more quickly to the attention of the relevant brand, which saves the organisation some of the effort and expense of listening to communities. This will help organisations to better understand how their brands are perceived online, what matters to their audiences and the language they use online. All of this valuable information, which is often collected by costly surveys and focus groups, can be used to inform research and development, and sales and marketing strategies.
What if it’s negative?
If Sidewiki comment posts are negative, but accurate, organisations should use this valuable information to address customer concerns and post responses outlining the action they’ve taken via the Sidewiki thread. The technology enables users to air grievances and the opportunity for companies to more immediately address concerns.
Badvocates ahoy
If the comments are negative and unfounded, deliberately malicious and verging on libellous, companies do have the option to have them removed. Before taking this option, they should consult legal and communications expertise, and consider the impact that censorship may have on the situation. For example, it could lead to the ‘badvocates’ spreading their negative messages elsewhere in cyberspace, alienate audiences, cause bad feeling and create suspicion about what is fact and fiction. Organisations may be better advised to respond using the Sidewiki to post positive and factual messages outlining their position and countering negatives in a non tit-for-tat way. Before taking this approach, organisations will have to consider the sector they operate in and any restrictions governing how they interact with the public.
Sidewikis have arrived and have huge potential to capture the attention of the social media masses. Organisations would be better placed to look at how they can embrace the new technology inline with their marketing strategies, rather that ignoring or fearing them.
The most comprehensive ever review and assessment of the top communicators and marketers working in public services in the North West: the Public Sector 100. READ
The North West’s top marketing folk who collectively control marketing expenditure in excess of £500m and whose endeavours help sustain tens of thousands of jobs. READ
The full listing of How-Do's Media 100. The 2009 list in its entirety, offers the definitive compilation of the most influential and powerful media, creative and digital folk based in the North West. READ
The How-Do poll
Latest comments
bert: XLDPhack, if you are really are an ex-LDP hack, then I'd like to congratula...
READ
Danny O'Neal: It's a bit weird having your step-son be your manager. Chris Bisson is Eamo...
READ
Gaynor: The road was only closed from early evening to early morning. Traffic durin...
READ
Comments (4)
