Wikipedia articles on the top 100 advertisers in the U.S. are consistently among the most highly ranked pages in Google on direct searches. This is according to an exclusive Micro Persuasio study conducted over the past week. The study was compiled by simply taking the largest 100 advertisers from AdAge, entering them into Google and then tallying the results.
The obvious conclusion here is that most search results are full of related entries from Wikipedia (not to mention blogs and other peer media). Taking this a step further, this means that millions of individuals who hear about products through these billions of dollars advertising and then turn to Google to research them are likely influenced by what Wikipedia says. Further, many searchers probably do not even know that the encyclopedia is not run by a single body but by a collective of individuals, even people they may know.
Below is a summary of where Wikipedia ranks in the Google results of the top 20 media spenders. You can download the full Top 100 table here (PDF). If you want the spreadsheet so you can slice the data some more, shoot me an email. All data is current as of yesterday. In the notes I have ID'd Edelman clients.
Key findings:
* On average, Wikipedia articles for the top 100 brands appear as result number 11 out of thousands. This is just shy of the magic number 10 required to make Google's first page of results. However, many brands have Wikipedia articles in the first 10 results. Some even have them in in the top five.
* The more domains you have with your name, the less likely you have Wikipedia all up in your grill The more unique your brand is, the more likely its relevant Wikipedia article will rank high on Google
* Results are similar on MSN, Yahoo and Ask, though they're not documented here. I focused on Google since it's the market share leader
So what do you do? In short, nothing. The following article, which appears in this week's AdAge, explains more...
This is Your Brand on Wikipedia
Question to marketers: Do you know what Wikipedia says about you?
Last year Home Depot spent over a half a billion dollars on measured media, according to TNS data. The money was well spent - Google Trends shows that U.S. searches for Home Depot nearly doubled this year.
But it's highly likely that many consumers, in conducting their due diligence, landed on the company's Wikipedia article which, as of this writing, ranks fifth in a Google search for the retailer. Among a lot of neutral-to-positive information, you will learn that there have been several cases where illegal drugs were found inside some Home Depot merchandise in Massachusetts.
Like it or not, the Wikipedia open-source phenomenon looms large right where companies are increasingly spending billions of dollars to jockey for position: on search-engine-results pages. A quick check of dozens of the brands on Ad Age’s Top 200 Megabrands list reveals that Wikipedia often ranks high not just among Google search results, but also among results from Yahoo, MSN Search and Ask.com. The same can also be said for media brands, celebrities, CEOs and other personalities.
Consider the following examples. Febreeze's Wikipedia entry (#2 on Google) notes that the product may be harmful to household pets. Or the article on McDonald's (#4 on Google), which basically summarizes the critical movie Super Size Me. Even advertising icons like Snap, Crackle and Pop aren’t exempt. The trio's Wikipedia entry notes the team once had a short-lived adventure as super heroes in the UK.
In all seriousness, as soon as brand managers learn where they stand on Wikipedia there is a natural inclination to want to control it. Some, in fact, actively police it. After all, anyone can. But doing so is asking for trouble. Case in point: One firm offering to author Wikipedia articles for companies has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that manages the site.
The Wikipedia community prides itself on making sure all articles have a neutral point of view, and this community can and will sniff out corporate manipulation of entries. Wikipedia policy, in fact, clearly states that all articles "must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement impartially."
Nevertheless, brands should have a way to challenge inaccurate information in a way that respects the wishes of the community. Wikipedia should carve out a special area on each page where brand managers and personas can respond in an official capacity to what the community has published. But until that happens, "look but don’t touch" is the best advice to heed.
:Update: Greg Kohs notes that his company's user account was not banned. They were blocked for a bit of time until Wikipedia's "Arbitration Committee" decided that the case didn't warrant a review. The block has since expired.
