To add to your comments about how companies are “losing control” of their brand, because customers expect to have input: I agree, it seems the boldest companies are embracing this trend and co-building brands in partnership with their customers. Zappos is a great example. Although this a radical shift, in some ways, it’s simply taking the principles I remember from marketing class about building customer-centric brands, and then extending these principles several steps (daringly) further.

Another interesting twist from Josh Bernoff of Forrester Research and co-author of Groundswell: what happens when your brand isn’t *interesting* enough for customers to care to shape the future of it? With “exciting” brands like MTV, customers are so engaged, they may demand input. With brands like Tampax, probably not. But, we know that brands that enjoy deep customer loyalty have active, engaged customers… so how do you engage customers with “boring” brands like Tampax? (which, to be fair, probably falls in the category of “brands/products that most people specifically *don’t* want to talk about”)

To address this challenge, P&G is applying another tried-and-true marketing principle to social media: Successful companies don’t just sell products; they solve their customers’ problems. So, P&G built beinggirl.com, an online community that’s about pre-teen life and challenges, with a bit of tampon-related discussion mixed in. By inviting pre-teen girls to discuss their problems, they build loyalty to Tampax — in fact, according to P&G, this is 4x as effective per dollar spent as advertising.

(Plus, perhaps P&G will take a cue from Power Soccer and leverage their pre-teen community for input on product development etc… that’s all I’ll say on that subject.)