Wikipedia has become an primary resource. Last week, I was visiting people on Capitol Hill and started chatting with new legislative staff working for a Congressman from New York. The more senior of the two had been assigned a new issue. I asked him about research and he said – with a smile – that he would start with Wikipedia.
Wow. With all of the resources available to Congressional staff, including the Congressional Research Service, it’s amazing to me that Wikpedia is the first stop. But, in truth, it’s much easier. In order to receive information from the CRS, you need to submit a formal request and explain why the information is needed: to prepare for a hearing or a Congressional vote or to draft legislation. Based on what I have observed, most requests are submitted to CRS in anticipation of legislation.
Nonetheless, the process takes time and Wikepedia provides answers to questions with one simple click. Even complicated policy issues like the War in Iraq have a Wikipedia page.
This week, I used Wikiscanner to learn more about Under Armour, a Baltimore, Maryland-based athletic apparel company. I love the Under Armour brand and I am excited that it’s a local company. To date, 52 different IPO addresses have edited the Under Armour pages, 14 of which belong to the UA corporate headquarters.
Base on the discussion tab, people are disputing one of Under Armour’s claims to fame: the development of material that wicks away sweat during physical activity. According to the UA camp, the company can claim development of this important fabric. But, many claim that Nike is actually the original source of wicking material. And, one lone soul credits Reebok for the innovation.
In a separate discussion, several people have expressed dissatisfaction with the spelling of Under Armour. In general, they just think it’s goofy with the”u.” Finally, there were several discussions about other language the company uses to describe the features and benefit, which leads me to believe the marketers must have used some terminology, like “compression,” that might be tipping the scale away from credibility.
The Under Armour vs. Nike sentiment seems to be running high at both companies. Recently, Ad Age suggested that Nike’s “Better” advertising was better than Under Armour’s “better” campaign. He concluded the article by suggesting that the Under Armour audience is “angry” and cultish. And, according to him, being cultish is a bad thing.
