Skittles: Innocent Candy or Evil Spammer?

Another week, another blow up in the Twitterverse. And this time it’s all down to a small, sugary treat.

If you haven’t yet visited skittles.com, do so now. They have replaced a traditional website with a small navigation box which overlays a search for #skittles on Twitter, the Facebook Fan page, Flickr-hosted photos and a Youtube channel. The Social Web’s dream, right? Well, maybe.

I first came across it on Saturday evening and thought it was pretty cool, and more than a little daring too. Giving over complete control to the world? Huge potential for that to backfire. Still, a fun idea, and a lot more interesting than most product websites.

Well, as with so much on the internet, it didn’t take long for the backlash to begin.

• Many pointed out that the concept was kinda-sorta ‘borrowed’ (wholesale) from Modernista, an advertising agency in Boston who had done the same thing last March.
• Others complained about having to be an adult to see the site, as Tim Allick puts it, “Can’t believe that #skittles website bans KIDS! Doesn’t send them to a safe page, just tells ‘em to go away. How is this smart marketing?”. (He does have a point. It’s a kids candy after all. )
• The Wall St Journal chimed in with a round-up of comments, most of them negative.
• Joanne Jacobs wrote  a blog condemning the whole exercise as a failure – just one day after the site launch – ‘Why the Skittles social media campaign failed’: ” Skittles has failed in its social media campaign because all it has done is hold a mirror up to conversations, without providing any content of its own, any context for remotely valuable conversation, and any rationale for productive engagement.”
• A poll by PR Sarah Evans, shows that 60% of respondents wouldn’t be swayed by the new site to buy more Skittles.
• Etc, etc, and etc

Sigh. Sometimes it all seems so predictable. The constant flow of negativity. The need to show that ‘I’m not taken in by their sneaky advertising’. Jumping on the ‘this is just a rip-off’ and ‘besides, it doesn’t work anyway’-bandwagons.

Come on people! Where’s the joy? Where’s the ‘Yes, we can’-spirit we keep reading about!?

My 6 year old has recently begun spotting website addresses on things that I ignore – mcdonalds.com, orville.com, quakerkidsdoinggood.com – pretty much *everything* has a website now, and they’re all the same. A nice Flash intro. Maybe a game or something. A code you can enter to unlock the hidden area. Yawn.

At least Skittles.com didn’t do that.

So, personally, I’m sticking with my initial reaction, “It’s kind of cool”.

They may not have been first, but they were the first Big Name Brand to do it, and that’s something. It may not convince 60% of people to buy more, but that still leaves a lot that might. It has generated a ton of publicity, and got them over half a million fans on Facebook. And it’s different and interesting.

Unlike so much of the commentary around it.

Oh Knol!

At least that’s what Wikipedia should be uttering right about now. Yes, Google has done it again. The Internet giant has swooped in with what just may be a better version of Wikipedia. They call it Knol.

Just what is a “knol” you ask? Why, it’s a unit of knowledge, of course.

Just launched last week, Knol allows people to write and upload articles on a given topic. Unlike Wikipedia, which has only one entry per topic, Knol will upload many articles by different people on a particular subject. It’s also different because your knol will have your byline, will allow feedback, and no one can edit your knol without your permission (a controversial feature of Wikipedia). Here’s a great introduction to Knol.

So why should you Knol? Two big reasons:
1) It’s Google, folks, so all knols are well optimized in the search engines, thus increasing your search engine visibility on the topic you deem to write about.
2) It demonstrates your expertise in a given subject, helping position you or your company in the way you desire.

Both are similar benefits to writing a blog, but really better, because you’re getting exposure through a national medium.

I hope to write an article this week on Knol and will offer my input on the process. If you beat me to the punch, please share your experience.

Is Knol a Threat to Wikipedia?

Much as I appreciate Lyn’s excitement for another Google offering, I’m not completely sold on the concept of Knol yet, for a few reasons:

I know there are issues with Wikipedia and their collaborative approach, but I think that over time it tends to balance out fairly evenly, so that Wikipedia’s error rate is about the same as that of the Encyclopedia Britannica (see here).
I don’t see how Knol improves upon the Wikipedia in that regard, in fact it seems to me that you will end up with hundreds of conflicting articles on subjects each claiming to be the truth.

Secondly, allowing people to run AdSense ads on there will encourage a lot of spamming. The editorial process, and nature of Wikipedia, means that articles tend to be written by people who are simply very interested in a subject, rather than those who are looking to make some easy AdSense money. I predict a wave of ‘informational’ pages from places like India on the usual topics of spammers – casinos, and the like. Early evidence is backing this up – there are currently more results for ‘viagra’ on Knol than for ‘New York city’!
(also check the comments on most articles – a lot of spambot activity! “interesting article! Visit my blog www.something.com”)

Finally, the fact that it is a Google product doesn’t guarantee success. I doubt that they would, but if Google allowed Knol pages to rank higher simply because they are part of Knol, it would clutter the natural search results with junk. Then people will simply turn to Yahoo, MSN, or some new start-up that has better search results (Cuil.com perhaps?). There is nothing intrinsically unique about Google’s search that could prevent it from going the way of HotBot, AltaVista, Excite and many others if they don’t deliver what people are looking for.
And, yes, having the backing of the world’s #1 brand gives Knol a head-start that it wouldn’t otherwise have, but so did (does?) Friendster, and how many people do you know use that?

Maybe I’m completely wrong about this, I’m sure there must be a few people at Google smarter than me who have already thought of these points, but I’m going to reserve judgment before declaring Wikipedia dead and buried.