Feed on
Posts
Comments

Skittles and Twitter – What’s Missing

March 4, 2009 - ט' אדר תשס"ט by admin

Hopefully you’ve read my initial gut reaction to the whole Skittlesgate affair. (If not, there’s still time to do that and see where I stand on the matter.)

There has been much debate about whether Skittles screwed up or not.  I received several great comments on this blog and also on my Twitter. Some people agreed with me and others thought that I simply didn’t get it. Beyond my own exchange and debate, one of the best commentaries out there is from Brian Morrissey who eloquently praises their efforts in the context of innovation and fear of failure in the advertising industry.

I think there’s a key point that seems to have been ignored.

The biggest issue, in my opinion, is not that Skittles decided to embrace Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia etc.  I commend them for that – a CPG company reaching out to their community. The issue is that they did it a) without engaging in any intelligent conversation and b) without being present.

Let me use a simple analogy to illustrate my point:

They opened the doors and windows to their home; abandoned their place of residence; let the entire world in (fans, detractors, spammers, bums, social deviants and all); let them have free reign to destroy it and publicize it to the world.  Yes, we all know that consumers are in control but, as the Cluetrain Manifesto stated, “markets are conversations.”  Skittles isn’t there to engage in any conversation.

What to do next? Skittles, please come back home and talk with your guests. Don’t simply let your home be destroyed.

Comments?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments

  • Agree completely. This is not a good idea, and the fact that they are choosing to "experiment" make it one. Yes, brands should evolve and experiment more in the new digital landscape; no, they should not throw away their identity to do so.
  • There's of course room for disagreement with the tactical execution. Even people at Agency.com would allow for that. Would it be better if Skittles initially established itself in some organic way in these communities? Certainly.

    I was more referring to the general tenor of the negative reactions. Many of them were not very constructive. It was like that Internet thing that makes me cringe to just blurt "FAIL." It's part Internet commenter culture, part advertising backbiting.

    As a practical personal matter, the taboo on failures sucks. Nobody will discuss stuff that came up short. Instead, they just want to talk about their successes, which are dwarfed by the down the middle mediocrity of most of their work. Lots of industries face this dilemma. Risk-taking is not a part of my own industry, media. Look how that's working out.
  • The need for innovation vs. the fear of failure that inhibits it is at the
    core of of our current global economic scenario.

    I agree that the taboo of failure sucks and it certainly does have
    significant repercussions.

    The current economic scenario is scattered with companies and industries
    across this innovation/fear of failure spectrum. On the one extreme you have
    GM and auto makers who failed to innovate because of the taboo of failure;
    who continued to produce gas-guzzling SUVs and didn't embrace alternative
    fuel technologies. On the other extreme you have the financial services
    industry who took the innovation thing to the extreme and created complex,
    exotic derivative instruments that no-one understood, that no-one could
    price and that everyone bought in abundance.

    In that context, I guess the entire Skittles thing becomes a non-event.

    We're certainly at a global turning point - time to "reboot" everything
    including media, advertising and marketing.

    Great conversation ...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Twitter links powered by Tweet This v1.6.1, a WordPress plugin for Twitter.

Web Analytics