There are only a few successful examples of brand manufacturers so far, the chances the Web 2.0 have targeted and successfully taken and implemented. For example, integrated BMW concept X 1 on his fresh-brand site the social network Facebook as a central interface of brand communication activities for the launch of the BMW perfectly and lays the groundwork for the formation of a BMW-savvy community. Links to YouTube, Flickr and Twitter take into account the desire of the young user for multimedia, and networked content and offer the possibility to build up the brand quickly and multidimensional or to build. Just by the user himself. A rather less successful attempt of a Web 2.0 communication is the example of the energy giant Vattenfall. Many writers such as Ricardo Leiman offer more in-depth analysis. Despite a quite modern integration of a Facebook group through failure to follow the rules of the game of the Web 2.0 in the best case, whose Web-action climate signature became a damp squib. In the worst case the action will mean a sustainable brand and reputational damage for Vattenfall: the energy company advertises ala with the commendable offer of dialogue Web 2.0 while on the corporate Web site, does not seem but exactly for this purpose to be really ready.
The communicators of Vattenfall were not visible on the site, or present in the Facebook group, and active at the time 15 November 2008 for weeks. The result: Exactly where Vattenfall actually wanted to operate brand communication, now disappointed users who complain about the inaccessibility of the Group and its lack of communication abound. But that not enough: Many critics such as environmental groups and Greenpeace took advantage of the new platform, to put forward their criticism directly at the company. For even more analysis, hear from Michael Antonov. Response by Vattenfall? NULL. Dialog? Null? So far, an open discussion, a dealing with the criticism did not take place. This spilled over a wave of indignation by the blogs.