Much has already been written about Skittles being forced to remove a Twitter feed from its homepage, after it had been hijacked to publish obscene messages. Within 24 hours, an initiative that had been considered bold and innovative – a great example of how to use a hot, new social media platform to support a brand – was undermined by the subversive or scatological behaviour of its users.
It will probably be of little compensation to Skittles and their digital agency partners, but this will be seen, in time, as a really important case study. The world of social media is anarchic, messy and uncontrollable. That’s what makes it so compelling. But it is also the antithesis of corporate behaviour, which, almost by definition, is cautious and responsible. Companies and institutions might like the idea of associating themselves with free speech and self-expression – and get very excited by the creative forces that can be unleashed - but, to use our vernacular, they are riding a very dangerous wave. Without moderation, without editing, without some constraints, they can run into serious problems.
The social media purists will splutter with indignation at the suggestion that social media should be moderated or controlled in any way and argue that the crowd will regulate itself, but in the real world people need constraints. In the same way that no newspaper will publish a letter full of abusive language, companies and their followers should not have to put up with abuse. If this means that live, unedited social media feeds cannot be used by brands, so be it. A short term PR stunt cannot compensate for longer term reputational damage.