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.

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.

Posted on: October 6, 2009 at 10:12 am By Todd Defren