Yesterday, the candy brand Skittles relaunched its product with a social media campaign which would annoy the hell out of most social media marketers, let alone their unsuspecting consumers. Their home page at skittles.com has been converted into a java panel over Twitter Search with all tweets using the word “skittles” listed. But as the Wall Street Journal noted, the experiment seems to have backfired, and badly. Following last weekend’s Aussie attempt to hijack trending terms by promoting “fisting” (it was funnier than it sounds here), someone set up a skittlefisting site (which isn’t anywhere near as funny). But more to the point, the vast majority of skittles oriented posts have been characterised more in terms of dismay than anything else. Many commentators on the issue have focused on the ‘bravery’ of Skittles giving up control of their brand on the tweetstream, but it would have been a much braver thing for Skittles to engage directly with their users/consumers rather than just to set up a doorway to… nothing. Give users a mirror and they tend to make funny faces in front of it. Give users some content, and a context in which ideas can be explored, and they engage.
This is one of the key issues about social media strategy execution. Too often there is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of interactivity and the principles that are embedded in user centred design. I know I often use the phrase “social media channel” but I certainly do not think that social media represent a mere content stream in the manner of a broadcast channel. The word “channel” in this case bears more similarity to the one that contains water than any broadcasting content. Traditionally, canals and channels were used as trading and information exchange routes, and were the bedrock of social relations in communities. We’re reclaiming that important collective experience with social media. The channels now are densely populated with ideas and resources and provide links to relevant people and places, ideas and opportunities that were virtually impossible prior to the emergence of microblogging.
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. If you’re desperately seeking the positives, then maybe it’s encouraging that a FMCG company is at least trying to make the leap into social media, but I find it perplexing that such a poor campaign can be regarded as a social media case study and am convinced the entire episode should be regarded as no less than a marketing embarrassment.
EDIT: I’ve also commented at length on this at Paul Fabretti’s blog at blendingthemix.com.
Twitter
Facebook 
LinkedIn
Flickr (photos)
Friendfeed
Google Buzz
Joanne
Thanks you so much for putting the whole debacle into such an eloquent piece! Alas, mine was somewhat less well put, but I whole heartedly agree with you.
Do drop me a line on my blog, I’d love to have your thought!
Best wishes, Paul
On the contrary, I think it was a big success. It got the entirety of Twitter talking about Skittles for a morning – people who might have forgotten about their existence completely. I don’t think it was necessarily even trying to engage people in conversation in the first place.
Duncan – if it wasn’t trying to engage people in conversation then it *isn’t* a social media campaign. And brand awareness is useless if it doesn’t convert to sales. I know I’m less likely to purchase as a result. That’s why it’s an epic fail.
Exactly right. And since there was no new product or message to promote, the whole thing was just so much wind – a colossal waste of bandwidth, 140 characters at a time.
I have to agreed with Joanne here – this was the epitome of a NON-conversation – the social media equivalent of mass-publicised message, which just so happens to use “social media” tools as its vehicle.
Sure, people were talking about Skittles, but there was no interaction between the brand and those people talking – tell me where the value is in that…
Pingback: Skittles: Innocent Candy or Evil Spammer? : Step Ahead | PR, Social Media & Internet Marketing
Pingback: raxraxrax.com » Blog Archive » links for 2009-03-03
Pingback: raxraxrax.com » Blog Archive » links for 2009-03-03
I think it was a great idea, but the execution perhaps wasn’t so good.
I completely applaud what’s at the end of the day a candy brand (and when would they even generate a fraction of the discussion?), doing something as bold as this.
Having Twitter chatter as the 1st thing people see maybe wasn’t best. A number of commentators have pointed out that some kind of cloud taking in elements from their Flickr etc searches might have worked better
Pingback: links for 2009-03-04 at adam hoyle presents suckmypixel
Pingback: Youth Marketing Connection » Skittles Wants to Be Your Friend.
Nice write-up. I think you’re right that Skittles could have made even better use of the opportunity. Still, it did generate a fair amount of traffic for them.
Anyway, since I’m the random Aussie who, on a whim, started the whole fisting thing last weekend, I thought I’d give you the ling to the explanation of how it all started. Enjoy!
Pingback: How Will Social Media Be Leveraged for CRM? | CRM Bytes
skittles made a statement with this “stunt”.
confusing? maybe to older people, who aren’t going to skittles.com anyway so that’s a non-issue
who is going to skittles.com? younger people, and now maybe more.
I think it’s brilliant. seeing “fuck skittles” in the tweet stream jolts a visitor into realizing the level of control mars inc has handed over and the vulnerability they’re enduring to build trust.
The skittles campaign failed because there was a lack of connection between common sense and a marketing idea….
The complete lack of censorship over the content presented the world with an opportunity to expose the brand to unwanted attention but could have been avoided.
The campaign was also likely very expensive so i guess they needed to ensure enough exposure to get the highest ROI
Pingback: Amy Rutherford's COMP113 Blog
Pingback: Some lunchbreak thoughts on Nestles Social Media Policy | The Barefoot Media Blog