Google's Sidewiki: The Only Thing to Fear Is...Not Much?

Proving once again that it is the Santa Claus of the Internet, Google last week announced yet another free toy: Google Sidewiki. Sidewiki is an addition to the Google Toolbar (so far only for Firefox and Internet Explorer) that allows anyone to leave comments and links on any web page anywhere on the Internet. The comments appear in a left-hand slide out that can be opened and shut either from the toolbar or by a small handle icon that appears on pages when you have the toolbar active. This video shows it in action:

This morning Sean Carton of ClikZ ruminated over the possibilities and pitfalls of Sidewiki for businesses and marketers. On the fear side, Carton asserts that this is one more giant leap toward complete loss of control by marketers over their message. That has certainly been true for some time now; do something that pisses off consumers and it will be all over social media, blogs, forums, and product review sites. Sidewiki significantly ups the ante, however, in that now those comments can appear right on your own web site, and there is nothing you can do to stop or block them. (Actually, that's not completely true. One commentor on Carton's post said that he had successfully used an SSL certificate to block Sidewiki. This has some backfire potential, however, as a Sidewiki user visiting a site so blocked may have suspicions about what the site is trying to hide.)

Two things occur to me that are not brought up in Carton's post:

1. It is not yet clear how widespread Sidewiki usage will be. How many people will actually bother to install it (and have to take on the Google Toolbar if they don't already have it)? And among those who do install it, how many will form the habit of using it and checking it regularly? I'm a Google toy addict who installed Sidewiki the moment I heard about it, but even I forget about it most of the time I'm surfing.
2. Marketers who have already gotten over the fact that you can't hide anymore--and better yet have embraced the idea--should welcome whatever community does end up using Sidewiki with open arms, viewing this as one more channel for valuable listening and interaction. Google has put in place some safeguards to try to minimize spamming and abuse (comments can be voted up and down, and there is an easy link to report abuse), but it remains to be seen how effective they will be.

Finally, here's an example of a Sidewiki post I just did. Recently my family enjoyed a wonderful weekend on Bald Head Island off the coast of North Carolina. While there I capture a number of videos of the island's gorgeous sights with my iPhone and uploaded them to YouTube. I was able to embed one of these YouTube videos (of pelicans flying over the surf) as a Sidewiki at the home page of BaldHeadIsland.com, the web site of the island's prime vacation home developer. If you have Sidewiki installed, go to BaldHeadIsland.com and view my brief video.

In fact, I love Bald Head Island and its scenic beauty so much, I'll even share my video with you if you don't want to install Sidewiki. Here you go:

Update on SEC's Bad Call

RE: My post yesterday "The SEC Makes One Hell of a Bad Call"

The New York Times reports today that the SEC has clarified their rule. Turns out they weren't really after Joe Bleachersitter sending his blurry phone cam picture of pinpoint-sized outfielders to his Facebook page. The real targets of their rule, they say, are the bloggers and web site owners who capture video, images, and descriptions of the games and then post them on their ad-supported or subscription-based sites. In other words, people who are making money off what the SEC and its schools seek to (exclusively) turn to profit. And it's not just the lucrative TV contracts that are at stake; they also worry about losing their monopoly on game and season highlight reels through DVD sales.

All ethical or legal considerations aside (such as whether it is right for sports leagues to maintain a monopoly over images and descriptions of their games), I'm still left wondering if the bad feeling raised by such ultimately unenforceable policies will end up being a bigger loss for the SEC than any actual dig into revenues by bloggers and fan site owners (paging the RIAA).

The SEC Makes One Hell of a Bad Call

College sports' Southeastern Conference (SEC) has probably had to overrule a few bad calls by umpires in its day. This week it was forced to overrule one of its own calls.

The conference had actually proclaimed a ban on any and all social media postings about its games by fans at the games. This meant no posting about anything happening on the field to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, wherever. The main target was uploaded video, as the SEC feared endangering its lucrative television contracts with CBS and ESPN, which forbid the producing or disseminating of "any material or information about the event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information.”

Not surprisingly, the conference is now strongly considering rescinding this ban (as reported by the Charlotte Observer), citing unfavorable media and social web attention.

This is yet another indication that although we are many years into the social web revolution, many established entities still don't get that the world has changed. Those who are winning now are organizations which have decided to join and encourage rather than attempt to ban. The simple truth is that you will be unable to stop people from talking about (and posting media from) your organization or events. What was not indicated in any of the articles I saw was how the SEC even thought it could enforce such a ludicrous policy.

By contrast, the Big 10 conference has an official social media policy that encourages fans to post from games. Social media is the true "information super-highway" of our day; it is where the buzz happens. You can't "beat it"; but if you try, it just might beat you into the ground. On the other hand, encouraging the flow is the ultimate leveraging of the old dictum "there is no such thing as bad publicity."