The revolution is a shift to a social architecture from a content architecture.  Most online brand experiences today are based on a content architecture.  In a content architecture content is king.  Consumers of the site are users, who experience the content and then move on.  We (marketers) talk about using social tools like facebook, YouTube or Twitter,  because it is fashionable, trendy — whatever.   The reality is marketers still treat consumers like users and content reigns supreme.

I believe moving to a social architecture will require a revolution, because it will require marketers to think differently about consumer to brand interactions; it will change core marketing procedures (e.g. content creation, budgeting;, and it will require a certain level of brand self-awareness (i.e. btw not everyone is an advocate for your brand).

So what are attributes of a social architecture?  In my view there are two significant differences between content and social architectures:  How content is used and how the consumer is treated.

Content Usage: Brands using a content architecture center the experience around the content.  In a social architecture, content takes on a new context.  First off, definition of content is more than video, images or copy, it is all content within the experience regardless of who generates it. 

Secondly, brand content takes on a new purpose.  It becomes a catalyst for action.  Many brand videos are a brand talking to themselves.  Rarely does a brand listen to the community and then provide content relevant to the conversation — therefore, fueling the conversation.

Consumer Treatment:  As I stated prior, consumers in a content architecture are users.  In a social architcture, consumers are participants — they are contributors — consumers are king.  A social architecture is designed to engage the consumer both initially and longitudinally.  We want a person to act immediately.  The action may be to comment on content, share it, or contribute their own content to the experience. 

Longitudinally, we would like to continue build a relationship by encouraging additional action.  We can accomplish this by inviting the consumer back based on how we, as a brand responds to their action, how other’s respond, and/or an invitation to contribute more content. 

To move to a social archtiecture measurement needs to evolve too.   Many marketers struggle with how to quantify their social experience.  They focus on visits, video views, content sharing, or commenting.  These measurements are not bad, just difficult to interpret the vibrancy of  the social experience.  

I would challenge us to assess how much of the conversation is carried by the brand versus the consumer.  If  90% or more of  the content is generated by a brand, this is still a content architecture.  Although the experience may include all of the appropriate tools, it is not resonating with the target consumer.  The brand should re-evaluate their overall experience premise.  A good start is answering the following questions:

• What are brand target consumers saying out there?  Are they talking about the brand?
• Does the site lack a unique value proposition when compared to other communities about the brand?
• Does the brand content on the site encourage commenting?  Sharing?  Consumer contribution?
• Are their activities on the site encouraging collaboration between consumers?

Finally, beware of novelty.  In my opinon slapping a social tool on your site is not a social architecture.  To me it is more of a novelty to say, “Hey look at me.  I’m a cool, hip brand that gets the social space.”  Sorry Skittles.  If your objective was to create buzz, you succeeded.  However, in my perspective you catered nicely to the Twitter evangelists, while you treated your target consumers like users.

Instead of a web site, Skittles has deployed an aggregation of social tools. Their primary site is a twitter feed. Product information is stored on wikipedia. Ads have been posted on YouTube and flickr. Oh yeah, I am also a fan on facebook with 581,772 other facebook users.

Pretty impressive.

Skittles executed a well-thought out online social expression. Is this a glimpse of new marketing? Or a social stunt which will run its course soon? In reviewing the twitter banter, it seems the communication is not about skittles, but an industry love-fest (or backlash) for a marketer deploying a 100% social play. The tweeting included:

tevan: the redesigned http://skittles.com uses social networking to the extreme. those aren’t little candies; they’re colorful balls of steel.

  

ner1ssa: discovered Skittlesis using new media for its website – Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, FaceBook and mobile web. Interesting. http://skittles.com

 

ahhyeah: Looks like http://skittles.com isn’t the only one with this idea, Check this out: http://www.modernista.com again, brilliant!

johnmills: Skittles thinks they’re cool. They are not. Just another stupid publicity stunt from a corporate giant. Side note: I want some skittles 

 

Papstio: Had to see what the whole Skittles hype was all about. Not bad! Doesn’t exactly make me want Skittles though.

Love it or hate it. The Skittles Social Experiment has struck a cord — at least in the industry. But can it work?

One awkward practice working against Skittles, is the requirement of providing an age prior to entering the site. Seems like this would alienate many Skittle consumers (e.g. my six-year-old son LOVES Skittles). Although common in the liquor and beer industry, it is not a common practice for CPG. The reason for age filtering is (obviously) some comments may be objectionable. And, yes, there were a few f-bombs, porn references, and other select profane comments in the feed.

Is Skittles turning over its brand? I am advocate for listening to customers and engaging brand advocates. This is not what Skittles is doing. Look, skittle-ites already own the brand. They don’t need Skittles.com to artificially inflate their advocacy. A Skittles advocate can blog, comment, or post about it anywhere on the social sphere. The goal should be not to replace the advocacy, but amplify it. But Will the Skittle advocate take time to contribute?

When the furor dies down and we (the industry) move onto our next social shiny object (should be about 72 hours), will the Skittles customer be heard. Right now, it is hard to tell if the site works for Skittles customers/advocates. With the advertising/PR industry flooding the site with comments, an advocates comment will get buried in the twitter barrage. Obviously, we (the industry) have plenty of time on our hands to use a twitter soapbox to profess admiration or disdain for the site. When the twitter dust settles will anyone care? Or will there be social silence?