A quick update on Skittles' radical overhaul of their web strategy, placing app du jour Twitter at the heart of their digital presence, as discussed here last week.
As I'm sure you know, they've pulled it, replacing it with their YouTube channel, inadvertently proving the veracity of social media shibboleth, 'you can't control the conversation'. It's pretty difficult to imagine a marketing director, or agency, who'd be happy to direct consumers to a page that announced 'Skittles give you gonorrhea', as one 'tweet' did early in the shortlived experiment.
Now I'm all for bravery and experimentation and, of course, hindsight is always 20/20 vision, but did they really think this wouldn't happen? Surely they had a plan B? I actually think it's a big shame as it potentially puts clients off using social media, and overshadows some of the great work they've been doing (notably some of ads - like Singing Rabbit)
The wider point I think this illustrates is the difference between publicity and public relations. It was never true that 'there's no such thing as bad publicity' as Kryptonite, Gerald Ratner, Chrevrolet and many more can attest. As Seth points out in the linked post above, getting publicity is easy, PR, on the other hand, is 'the strategic crafting of your story. It's the focussed examination of your interactions and tactics and products and pricing that, when combined, determine what and how people talk about you'.
In short, you may not be able to control the conversation, but you should at least be able to influence it. Social media thrives on giving people reason and purpose to participate. This is what brands in this space need to offer. But didn't in this case.
Or, in plainer terms, don't start a conversation you've got nothing to contribute to.
-- Toby
Comments