Wednesday, October 6, 2010



Wikipedia is success
It is a strong brand

Should the wiki replicate it's success?
Do you think “Yes”?

Isn’t wiki concept worked for them?
Banking on similar offering and type?
By creating other related wikis?
They are already doing it with wikibooks, wikiquotes, wikisearch,..

Will these be equally successful as Wikipedia is?

These offerings are based on the idea,
“as it is Wikipedia, similar for books, quotes, search,… now”

“similar” points out to repeat satisfaction as in case of Wikipedia

Isn’t wiki concept worked for them? Why not repeat same?
This does not replicate success,
but defocuses Wikimedia organization.

What worked in one type of contents may not work with same Avtar called “wiki”.
There are video, photo, presentation, document... content publish and share sites.
These are big brands in their own territory.
These are not “wiki”, but they are their own types.
There are user shared contents through video, blogs through video,...
but these are not same As “wiki”,
these are forms of content delivery under category “online video”.

What leaders do? once they become “Leaders”, recognized well for their success?
They put their hand on replication gear.
A common mistake, out of self confidence or self satisfying success needs.

A manager successful in one division soon gets bored of his success in the division and wants to take on to another division.

A CEO after done well with one segment of products, want to start another Product line.

An actor good with one type of role, want to take another type.

An entrepreneur successful in one idea, want to take another soon after the success of earlier.

Replication is common human desire
If I can do this, I shall be able to other as well.

This thinking is common.
This is trying to be successful over all pockets.
This is not diversion mind but the drive for completeness.

“Not just this but other as well” sounds going to 2nd grade after passing 1st.

I can
Basic human tendency, drives need to prove “I can”.
That’s good, motivation to keep taking challenges and repeat.

It makes sense,
as we acquire any skill first time,
we want to be sure to be able to repeat again, equally or better.

“Acquired the ability” is a big sense one can feel.
But for that one shall attempt again to prove it works for next incidence.

Often, once you create a success,
often through "first to conceptualize" something,
you have same thing tight bound to you as identity.

The success replication attempts after do not materialize,
with the same identity.

Do not loose your identity,
to let you try second, third and more replication attempts.

As you loose identity,
you loose success too, almost instantly.

What should Wikimedia do?
So shall Wikimedia keep all line extensions?
Only if, to support their main character the “Wikipedia”!

If it is, to make the single choice from many,
all other options compete each other.

To avoid that all other options must be chosen carefully,
to not to compete each other,
or must cater a distinct needs to avoid competition,
or all other options must deliberated to lower grade to make the single option out stand visibly.

But all wiki extensions do not compete each other.
They are all alternate offerings for totally different types of contents.

These still compete each other,
to get energy and attention of the Wikimedia,
which is limited.

as people regard different respect to each offering,
the ROI on each is not same,
highest for Wikipedia.

So in limited energy condition,
which single choice should Wikimedia pursue,
if Wikipedia is going to stay for very long and well established too.


  1. With all due respect...

    What about Diversification ?? Is it wrong if a company thinks so ? Or attempts so ? We users down the line look for immediate benefits. What if the company is "working on" to transit their core values into sister concerns ? They may be building on it.

    Wikipedia is a brand built on trust of mass. Maybe, we can give them some some time.

    Just my innocent views. :-)

  2. I do agree that other wiki products will not be as successful as wikipedia is today, but the brand wiki is gonna help is supporting other brands.

    That is also one of the reason why small companies struggle more in the early stage as compared to established company to empower their brand.

    Take an example of Apple product. They all are branded with i... whether it is iPod, iPhone, etc... They have made such a big success, that "i..." has become one of the most respected brand these days.

    I think it is all about, how do you empower sister brands with a strong management abilities. An ability to multiply the success of one brand one after the other, making the parent brand stronger and stronger every day.

  3. Hi Abhishek,

    Appreciate your views. Question still remains. Will "Wiki" carry its brand across ?

    I believe "YES". Its only matter of time.

    Will appreciate your feedback. :)

  4. Thanks Jay for your feedback

    Having said that about branding, I once again support that Wiki is gonna be a success (just a matter of time)

    I do agree that handling big brands becomes very difficult, so they should eventually partition different product into different sister companies and then concentrate well on their marketing. The division should be internally, the customer should see it as one.

    When your sister company works in altogether a different area, then making it as a separate entity in front of customer does makes sense.