Digital lifestyle at the intersection of attention, beauty, productivity, and the social web.

Branding (and all branding is online branding these days) is changing at a rapid pace. Gone are the days of message control, and the only way to still manage your brand is to not manage it.
Here’s the latest and very bold example: The masterfood brand Skittles launched something quite radical yesterday that many marketers had thought about but didn’t have the guts to actually do - the "Interweb." Yesterday Skittles' home page was reduced to a Skittles logo over-layed above a Twitter search for the word Skittles. Today it overlays their Facebook page.
This is the ultimate, strategic loss of brand control in the age of radical transparency, turning an alleged weakness into strength. Whether you like it or not, you can’t control what people say about you on the social web where "the ants have megaphones" (Chris Anderson). Hence, as Federated Media writes, “Skittles’ homepage IS the conversation.”
The "Interweb" campaign will definitely give Skittles some nice short-term buzz (and that itself is of huge value in the attention economy), but the provocative appeal of the brand’s new homepage will wear off quickly. Yet it is indicative of the continued rise of the Distributed Internet and the triumph of conversational over traditional web marketing. Who needs static web sites anyway if you can point to much more compelling dynamic content to educate and engage your audience?
Using Skittles as template, maybe tomorrow’s web presence of brands will have only four main elements:
- a twitter feed (short-form real-time content);
- a blog/magazine (long-form edited content, branded and from third parties);
- links to social network profiles (LinkedIn, Facebook etc.);
- and a powerful search function to access everything that’s being said about the brand on Google, Twitter, and elsewhere (press hits, events, other social media sites such as Slideshare etc).
Co-opting right back
Steve Portigal - March 3, 2009
I think the reaction is intriguing and it'll no doubt wear off but the urge to play with (a nice way of looking at it) or defy (a strong way of looking at it) this change can be seen in all the humorously deliberate comments about the brand that people wouldn't normally make but acknowledged that someone is listening/reading/co-opting. I couldn't resist and jumped in by associating consumption of the product with an infamous figure in history.
And a colleague related how she started writing about the product as sk1ttles to hopefully confound co-opt-bots. Who owns our words?
This only works for older brands
Brendan - March 5, 2009
While it's true that "the ant do have megaphones" (and brands will do well to acknowledge that), it is also true that every brand needs a personality and definition. Skittles can pull off this tactic because they already have mindshare and people know what Skittles are. In this case, the tactic allows an old brand align to current consumptions trends and the public's desire for transparency. However, this strategy would not necessarily work for a young brand or a brand making it's birthcry. (Unless, perhaps, that brand was a new web technology, like Twitter). In the Skittles case there is an exchange of brand equity between Twitter and Skittles. But I think, in the end Skittles has lost itself. There's no homebase.
JAEGER-LECOULTRE AND THE
hjg - June 7, 2009
JAEGER-LECOULTRE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERI