Coke is making the right move here, but I'm really shocked at the timing of it. Releasing this info now just makes it look like a "me too" marketing ploy to piggyback on the much more prominent (and, I think, more successful) Pepsi un-campaign.

This looks like a smart move by Coke with the statement by Prinz Pinakatt really getting to the core of the decision. Added to the recent changes to their Social Media Policy, Coke have come out with a couple of positive statements and ones that look like they understand how to move forward in Social Media by treating both customers and staff with respect and trust. A blog presence may be something Coke are currently looking at – allowing all staff to blog on a central platform may be incredibly difficult for an organisation of their size to create and manage but I wouldn't put it past them – they are currently encouraging staff to act as spokespeople anyway. 
 
http://www.twitter.com/robertpickstone

I agree that Coke is making a smart move. And the social media strategy, particularly blogging, will crest opportunity for Coke to start conversations with employees and customers to drive engagement. Continuing to build trust in this regard empowers the voices of both constituencies and further strengthens the Coke brand.  
@cytaylor 
 
Note: please forgive any errors in spelling as this comment was posted via a mobile device.

Honestly...who builds microsites anymore? Nike, for years, has done a GREAT job of incorporating campaign content into property sites like NikeBasketball, JumpMan23.com, etc. It set precednce in its url strategy - don't create 50 million domains to control, set one and use subdomains if absolutely required, for all its lines of business and brands.  
 
 
 
Containment strategies like Nike's build traffic and repeat visitation. So I presume Coca-Cola will still maintain a few properties sites like MyCokeRewards and use social sites to push traffic. They have to, you don't have the flexibility within, say Facebook, to extend the story beyond just a few applications that are available. 
 
 
 
I also believe that people won't look for the latest from brands within those communities, at first at least. Once they idenitfy a way to add a brand into their social wheelhouse then they will cease travelling to those sites anymore. But they need a trigger and that's where a good, socially built site, will create dialogs and extended conversations. 
 
 
 
When digital scaled we all used offline to drive to online. Try building a Facebook presence without some sort of organic traffic driver (like your blog, etc.) it takes a lot longer to create a useful and necessary fan base without traffic driving capability.  
 
 
 
Jeff Reckseidler 
 
http://jreckseidler.posterous.com 
 
 
 

If the goal is to buy Coke, it's best to create the straightest road to their message. The SM will drive the traffic to the one strong, focused message. That's ideal.  
In the case of Hubspot: You're B2B, I'm sure you are demonstrating your expertise on the Grader sites and its paying off. They still lead people to the goal, which is great. Having a ilovehub-bee.com, not so much!

I understand the concept of "fishing where the fish are", but at the same time, you are not in total control of your messaging or gathering the information about those people that are using your products.  
By offering Coke hosted Social Media applications and asking people to register on your site, you can gather important information and target messaging to those individuals based on information that they have given to you, pinging the right people that are in the right places at the right time. What is Facebook/Twitter/YouTube were all of a sudden to pass policies and whatnot that limited your interaction with those people, or for some reason, they become irrelevant (MySpace, with the exception of the music industry). 
I saw a commercial the other night (it was a few years old) that pointed people to the brands "My Space" page. Do you think that still worked in these times? If they were to point to their own website, it would still have been a relevant commercial. 
Wondering what others think about this? 
 
Mike 

Definitely! “We would like to place our activities and brands where people are, rather than dragging them to our platform,” says it all.

Coke is not the only one. Absolut Vodka now puts the link to their facebook page at the bottom of their print ads, not their website.

Coke is so right to do this. Those campaign sites (I've built dozens for other clients) cost $30,000-200,000 each, take a month or so to build then are simply abandoned. While I'd love the work doing them, it's more efficient and inexpensive to ramp up and down campaigns through their existing presence online. Of course I've been telling clients that for years, but now that Coke has done maybe they'll listen.

Yes, Coke is doing the right thing. Trim the fat. Too many destinations dilute your brands message. One over-arching brand message, represented on one amazing site, and there all your smaller campaigns can live, too. Just has to be architect-ed right.

In this thread there are a few comments that tagging ads with Facebook destinations (url) is the new du jour and likely the way to go in the future.  
 
 
 
Umnn, does Facebook really need more traffic I think the point of being inside Facebook is to attract the traffic that is already there, not produce more.  
 
 
 
If I was spending a lot of money on TV I would push traffic to my site, where I have more creative licence, space and flexibility. Driving to Facebook, Twitter, etc could work at times but to become the default is decreasing the ROI on an ad.... 
 
 
 
Good conversation on a pretty important topic!

Pam: you made my point for me. If there are 10M active users in Facebook, strategically use Facebook's organic traffic to drive users to your presence; create a compelling content strategy where they will friend you, and continue to develop content that engage that audience and incent interaction. Your friends will spread the word on your behalf. 
 
 
 
Why spend millions of dollars to send them to a site they are already going to? I'd rather use my spend to create my own traffic and extend that interaction to my social property 
 
 
 
i.e.: 
 
ad > site > social property fan acquisition (instead of email reg) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I have been predicting this trend for a while. The fat cat agencies padding their profits with overdone campaign sites with short shelf lives and little ROI are over.

Coke is making a smart move. It took some companies longer than others to realize the power of social media. 
 
 
 
http://www.SavingQueen.com 
 
http://www.Twitter.com/TheSavingQueen

The only micro-sites I see these days are for Hollywood movies and pop music albums. Not so much for marginally edible food-like products. 
 
Now, on Facebook, young consumers have a new opportunity to directly incorporate big business and into their personal on-line identities. Oh happy day.

By the way, it seems to me that a lot of companies are doing this, not just Coke and Pepsi. 
 
The "rivalry" between Coke and Pepsi and the enormous public interest it has generated since the late 80's could be construed as a sort of inbound marketing. Consumers actively enter the debate with their families and cast their vote for one or the other, The only losers in this election are Fanta, RC Cola, and hundreds of other drink manufacturers.

If they are abandoning campaign specific sites what is your take on this Tech Crunch article http://bit.ly/4ZAnjV that Coke has hired Posterous to help incorporate a Social aspect (idea sharing) to Coke's one-off campaign website NCAA Department of Fannovation?  
 
 
 
http://www.Twitter.com/AWomansWork 
 
http://awomansworkblog.wordpress.com/