Google Sidewiki: Brandjacking? or the Future?
This is a guest post by my colleague, Doug Haslam (blog, twitter).
One of the latest shiny objects, Google’s Sidewiki, intrigues me as a communications professional. Sidewiki, as Google says, lets you “contribute helpful information to any Web page.” Here’s a 1-minute video that describes the concept:
One thing about Sidewiki you must know right away: you can only see the messages posted if you have Sidewiki installed on your browser. That’s an obstacle, but given that it will become part of the ubiquitous Google Toolbar, we can assume Google will eventually create a worthwhile user base. Otherwise, it’s a ghost world that exists on another plane…
What I saw as I explored this Sidewiki universe? Some great comments — some on pages that don’t allow them. It’s an “overlay” of comments: perhaps you would like to say something about McDonald’s or Nike, right on their site? Now you can do it.
As I write this, a cursory look at the sites for some major brands reveals no commentary — yet. There will have to be that critical mass of users before Sidewiki has any real impact.
Then there is the opposite effect: sites that already have their own communities and conversations (blogs and the like). Jeff Jarvis pointed out the problem as he sees it: Google is trying to co-opt the conversation that he feels he should own. As far as blog owners and community folks go, I agree. It’s hard enough to follow commentary about your content on places such as Facebook and Twitter, without a goliath like Google actively creating an “alternate universe” for you to keep tabs on.
Furthermore, as Bryan Person acknowledges, this presents a conversation appearing alongside a brand’s own sites that they have no editorial control over. I doubt Google is being malicious — this is not, as I see it, a case of “brand-jacking” — but, they will have to address the people calling for a “Sidewiki blocker” for sites that do not want this alternate conversation woven into a parallel network.
As for companies that already do a good job of monitoring brand chatter — they are accustomed to keeping an eye on numerous other channels. They have likely built up a base of goodwill among users that could ensure that only “good things” come from Sidewiki. While Google’s new toy offers unique issues for some, for these others it’s simply another in an endless stream of places they have to watch — and engage.
A little under 400 words. any thoughts? Also, wondering about our relationship with Google and any sensitivities and (especially) disclosures we need to add.
Google Sidewiki opens a Portal to a Parallel Social Universe; Do We Need It?
One of the latest shiny objects, Google’s Sidewiki, intrigues me as a communications professional. Sidewiki, as Google, says, lets you “contribute helpful information to any Web page.” Here’s an example of a Sidewiki sidebar on Google’s own page for the download:
One thing about Sidewiki you must know right away; you can only see the messages posted if you have Sidewiki installed on your browser. That’s an obstacle, but I’ll assume Google can eventually create a worthwhile user base. Otherwise, it’s a ghost world that exists on another plane. Actually, as I downloaded Sidewiki I felt like I was preparing to see an alternate world the way Roddy Piper saw it in “They Live:”
(YouTube Embed code- “They Live”)
What I saw was—some great comments- some on pages that don’t allow them. It’s an “overlay” of comments- perhaps you would like to say something about McDonald’s or Nike- right on their site? Now you can do it. As I write this, a cursory look at the sites for some major brands reveals no commentary- yet. There will have to be that critical mass of users before Sidewiki has any real impact.
Then there is the opposite effect: sites that already have their own communities and conversations (blogs and the like). Jeff Jarvis pointed out the problem as he sees it: Google is trying to co-opt the conversation that he feels he should own. As far as blog owners and community folks go, I agree. It’s hard enough to follow commentary about your content on places such as Facebook and Twitter without a company actively creating an alternate universe holding a different conversation that you must own the “They Live sunglasses” to see. Furthermore, as Bryan Person acknowledges, this presents a conversation appearing alongside their own sites that they have no editorial control over. I doubt Google is being malicious—this is not, as I see it, a case of “brand-jacking”—but they will have to address the people calling for a “Sidewiki blocker” for sites that do not want their conversation woven into a parallel network.
As for companies monitoring brand chatter—they already have to monitor other channels. While Google’s Sidewiki offers unique issues for some, to others it’s simply another in an endless stream of places they have to watch- and engage.
Comments
Social Media Comments
-
practical concerns re: Sidewiki would vanish if they made it part of Chrome. RT @TDefren: “Google Sidewiki: Brandjacking?” [link to post] -
RT @TDefren: “Google Sidewicki: Brandjacking? or the Future?” [link to post] [Interesting topic...good post] -
Smart People / Smart Ideas #251 @DougH guest-posting for @TDefren on the new Google Sidewiki – [link to post] -
RT @tdefren Google Sidewicki: Brandjacking? or the Future? [link to post] -
Google Sidewicki: Brandjacking? or the Future? If you have a website, this is worth every second of your time. [link to post] -
Google Sidewicki: Brandjacking? or the Future? [link to post] -
RT @TDefren: “Google Sidewiki: Brandjacking? or the Future?” [link to post] (by YT: Thx for guest-post opp’y, Todd) -
Maybe not brandjacking, but more control for consumer RT @TDefren: “Google Sidewicki: Brandjacking? or the Future?” [link to post] -
RT @TDefren: Will brands who do a good job of monitoring SM benefit even more from Sidewicki? Will “closed” brands freak? [link to post] -
I am intrigued > Google Sidewiki: Brandjacking, or the Future? Good commentary on @tdefren’s blog: [link to post] (via @ScottHepburn)
Subscribe by Email
This is a good nuanced, take of the potential impact of Sidewiki, Doug. I think big content publishers such as brands are particularly worried that Sidewikis on their own sites could turn into veritable virtual graffiti (false statements, brand trashing, hate speech, etc.) and that they’ll have little power to do anything about it.
A recent post by Josh Forrester on Ad Age (http://adage.com/digitalnext/post.php?article_id=139352) offers this wise counsel for marketers and site publishers: If your site doesn’t already have social features (commenting, ratings, etc.) built in, now’s the time the time to add them. A more interactive native page makes it less likely that site visitors will take to Sidewiki to have their voices heard.
Bryan | @BryanPerson
Bryan- Thanks, your blog post on the topic was definitely a source for my own thinking.
The interactive native page is a great counter- but if Sidewiki takes hold, it takes hold, and companies will have to deal with it.
I’m a firm believer that a download is enough of an obstacle that Sidewiki will not take hold (e.g. fail). I guess we’ll find out.
Right on, Doug. I should have added that Josh Bernoff essentially also said, “Deal with it. Sidewiki is hear to stay.” Brands do have to pay attention, starting right now.
Who’s responsibility is it to tell a company to monitor Sidewiki? Who at a 1- or 2-person mom & pop store has the time, let alone the resources, to follow-up? Sidewiki is a clone of Yelp, but it travels with you on Google.
Ari, That’s a fair question, and one of my gripes– the answer may have to be “deal with it” but the caveat is “if necessary.” A 1 or 2 person company that is generating conversation that widely has a pretty good problem on their hands (or an insurmountable one).
who has the time to monitor blog comments or Twitter and follow up? It’s just a reality of the space (or in the case of Sidewiki, might become a reality of the space)
I recently posted about Google side-wiki as well, specifically, that it will open the floodgates for complete brand infestation, even if it is in a parallel “sidewiki” universe.
I Can’t Tell You How Excited I Am To See Google Sidewiki’s Potential Actualized. Unfortunately, As Marketers Have Done With Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, (MySpace – Remember Her?) And Every Other Facet of “The Social Web,” Sidewiki provides yet another means for those who just don’t ‘get it’ to exploit the system and barrage us with broadcast, branded, messaging.
Until now, this usurpation of online communities and the manipulation of our fundamental human desire to generate content and share information has been limited to custom-tailored (if we’re lucky) invasions of specific platforms or desperate attempts at creating their own.
Sidewiki, has, without a doubt, an enormous potential – one to utterly destroy any limitations or barriers on the “information sharing” currently allowed by the internet. We’re looking at the possible information exchange of exponential proportions. Unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion that this will be the tool that unlocks the whole of the internet to the pervasive, abusive tactics of irresponsible marketers.You know the type – the ones who build facebook pages that collect dust and twitter accounts that auto-follow and auto-DM promotional messaging.
I sincerely hope that Google has developed, within it’s algorithm, protection from this parasitism but I fear that these individuals, for all their irresponsibility, have one talent, namely, circumventing those protocols. Take a look at this video – What stops me from using sidewiki to just hop from site to page to blog, highlighting portions of text and promising readers further explanation, only to lead them elsewhere – a deceptive practice that seems to be aligned today’s spammy zeitgeist.
David,
A funny thing– I didn’t think about the potential of Sidewiki as a place to broadcast spam (not your word but let’s call it that). I guess my fundamental optimism didn’t account for that- let alone make me even think of having a client use it in such a way. That’s a more insidious representation of the “graffiti” that Bryan mentions.
Doug, I am not a fan of Sidewiki.
Fracturing the conversation never helps – and Sidewiki is an even more obtuse offender, because it treats pages as discrete items:
For instance, this blog post actually has FOUR Sidewikis, based on these URLs:
http://pr-squared.com/index.php/2009/10/google-sidewicki-brandjacking-or-the-future
http://pr-squared.com/index.php/2009/10/google-sidewicki-brandjacking-or-the-future/
http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2009/10/google-sidewicki-brandjacking-or-the-future
http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2009/10/google-sidewicki-brandjacking-or-the-future/
Each of those are separate.
Now good luck managing those.
And also good luck explaining to conspiracy theorists that you do NOT have friends at Google wiping away their comments, that they just came in on a different URL.
I feel sorry in advance for the first Fortune 500 company to deal with crisis communications involving Sidewiki.
I agree with Josh Bernoff’s notion that Sidewiki will potentially force the embedded “ratings/review” hand of sites that haven’t already embraced it.
Personally, I think that Sidewiki could stand for some improvements. For instance, it would be great if Sidewiki allowed for threaded comments. If I’m a site owner and a visitor leaves a negative comment, I want option of authoring a response that appears in physical proximity to the original message. Also, I think that my response should be color coded to show that I am the site owner.
On a side note, why haven’t more users left their comments on your sidewiki as well?
Sidewiki is greyed out on my toolbar for this site– I’m not an admin here., so not sure why
By the way, folks– Bryan tells me there are Sidewiki comments on this page– for me, the Sidewiki button is grayed out so I can;t access them– Bug? Operator error?
I hate to be a nit-picker, but you’ve misspelled Sidewiki in your article several times (“Sidewicki”).
Doug,
You referenced Bryan Person’s comment that Sidewiki is is content that is outside of the company’s editorial control, but I think there is a larger issue to be explored. The very term wiki portends that it is a community-based aggregation of content aimed at driving towards a common ‘truth’ on the subject at hand. With sites like Wikipedia, there is an editorial process (communal and Wikipedia itself) that takes care to ensure the veracity of the information posted to a particular page. As far as I can tell there is no similar mechanism on Sidewiki. So while David talks about ’spam’ in the comments above, there is also the potential for a more nefarious mis-information campaign that can occur adjacent to a brand’s site, with seemingly little opportunity for recourse. Not good in my view.
@ggruber66
I find some features of Sidewiki interesting and potentially useful for brands and companies. For example, there is nothing more frustrating than to go to a company’s Web site and not find what you’re looking for. The likelihood that you’re looking for the same thing(s) as others is pretty great, so giving a medium to voice your concerns could be potentially useful for brands. Although, while I think social media can be great tools for reaching a greater audience, with so much clutter and chatter, companies aren’t in control of their brands or services like they used to be, say 20 years ago. Sidewiki–an interesting concept, but will probably be more obnoxious than helpful.