December 10, 2009
Google Sidewiki – Good or Bad?
I don’t see what the big deal is here. Anyone could have created this type of functionality. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has already created a FireFox plugin that does just this. Perhaps not.
You have to have the sidewiki downloaded, installed and plugged in for this to work. So, unless users opt to use it, they won’t see anything.
Honestly, I think this is great. For companies that have sub-par products and services, poor customer service or just overall deliver a bad brand experience to their consumers – I think the consumer has every right to speak up. Before, they could do so on Twitter. Now they can do the same thing in-line with the brand.
What this does is forces the brand to step up its game, provide better products and/or services and provide better customer service. If a company is failing in these areas, perhaps this will serve the brand right. I say, down go the brands with a poor experience – let’s get them out of the way to make more room in the market for successful brands.
Interestingly, if you #bestbuy or @bestbuy on Twitter with some feedback, there is a good chance you’ll get a response from a Best Buy customer service representative. Very cool.
Business is going social. We need to all jump on board.
There are some good points raised here around defamatory remarks (hurting a brand) and dilution and unfair competition (confusing a consumer with suggestions of affiliation, partnership, sponsorship, endorsement, etc.), however, these are not new concerns. The same goes on social networks where users opt-in. Facebook Website users can easily opt-in and become “friends” or “fans of” Brand X. At this point, they could just as easily leave remarks on the pages of Brand X that read, “While Brand X is OK, I prefer Brand Y or Brand Z.” It is up to the brand to maintain their relationship with the consumer.
Now, this does raise the question of choice. A brand may choose to have a Twitter account and follow its customers. A brand may choose to have a Facebook page and allow its customers to become “Friends” or “Fans.” However, with the Google Sidewiki, brands do not have this choice. This, however, does not change the fact that Twitter and Facebook are open platforms that allow consumers to discuss things openly, publicly. If a brand is concerned that social Web users’ voices may be detrimental, chances are, the brand will have to start monitoring the Web. It will likely be too cumbersome for government to regulate free speech on the Web.

I don’t see what the big deal is here. Anyone could have created this type of functionality. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has already created a FireFox plugin that does just this. Perhaps not.

You have to have the sidewiki downloaded, installed and plugged in for this to work. So, unless users opt to use it, they won’t see anything.

Honestly, I think this is great. For companies that have sub-par products and services, poor customer service or just overall deliver a bad brand experience to their consumers – I think the consumer has every right to speak up. Before, they could do so on Twitter. Now they can do the same thing in-line with the brand.

What this does is forces the brand to step up its game, provide better products and/or services and provide better customer service. If a company is failing in these areas, perhaps this will serve the brand right. I say, down go the brands with a poor experience – let’s get them out of the way to make more room in the market for successful brands.

Interestingly, if you #bestbuy or @bestbuy on Twitter with some feedback, there is a good chance you’ll get a response from a Best Buy customer service representative. Very cool.

Business is going social. We need to all jump on board.

There are some good points raised here around defamatory remarks (hurting a brand) and dilution and unfair competition (confusing a consumer with suggestions of affiliation, partnership, sponsorship, endorsement, etc.), however, these are not new concerns. The same goes on social networks where users opt-in. Facebook Website users can easily opt-in and become “friends” or “fans of” Brand X. At this point, they could just as easily leave remarks on the pages of Brand X that read, “While Brand X is OK, I prefer Brand Y or Brand Z.” It is up to the brand to maintain their relationship with the consumer.

Now, this does raise the question of choice. A brand may choose to have a Twitter account and follow its customers. A brand may choose to have a Facebook page and allow its customers to become “Friends” or “Fans.” However, with the Google Sidewiki, brands do not have this choice. This, however, does not change the fact that Twitter and Facebook are open platforms that allow consumers to discuss things openly, publicly. If a brand is concerned that social Web users’ voices may be detrimental, chances are, the brand will have to start monitoring the Web. It will likely be too cumbersome for government to regulate free speech on the Web.

Aaron McLean

Executive VP