Hello, we are social. We are a conversation agency. We help brands to listen, understand and engage in conversations in social media.

We’re a new kind of agency, but conversations between people are nothing new. Neither is the idea that ‘markets are conversations’.

We’re already helping Ford, Skype, Eurostar, The Economist, Absolut, Dunlop, Barclaycard and the WWF.
If you’d like to chat about us helping you too, then give us a call on +44 20 7576 5137 or drop us an email.

Brands and Twitter

by Robin Grant in News on 24 February 2009 at 22:30

Campaign

So after being on the front page on Marketing the week before last, this week we’ve hit the pages of Campaign, with our inclusion in a feature article about, you guessed it, Twitter:

Three years into its existence, the recent media frenzy around celebrity Twitterers, including Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross, and Barack Obama’s successful use of the medium in the run-up to the US election, has seen the popularity of the “microblogging” site increase 27-fold in 12 months.

Advertisers could learn a lot from celebrity Twitterers using the site to shape their personal branding, creating a close, one-on-one relationship with their fans without constantly filtering their thoughts through a PR sieve.

Robin Grant, the managing director of the social media agency We Are Social, which advises Fry on his use of Twitter, explains: “The advice we gave to Stephen centred on being himself and having genuine conversations with people. It’s the same for brands. It’s about being human, showing your real personality and allowing people to connect with you on an emotional level.”

The article then gets quite bizarre, with Flo Heiss, the creative partner at Dare giving this advice about who should sit behind a brand’s account:

It could be a real person, such as a receptionist, or character made up by yourself

How about an imaginary friend who’s a receptionist, Flo? On to David Bain, an ‘internet marketing consultant’:

it’s cleverer when you don’t anthropomorphise it. What if an inanimate object was to Tweet, for example?

Why is it cleverer David? And what would it say? Amelia Torode, managing partner at VCCP:

It has to be a friendly, chatty brand. A brand such as Coca-Cola would be too large in its entirety. You need to work less at a higher-brand level and go down to the actual campaigns or smaller brands under the umbrella in order to start up the conversation.

Not quite as unhinged as Flo and David admittedly, but I’d point to the examples of brands like Burger King, Southwest Airlines, Whole Foods, Starbucks, JetBlue and even VCCP’s client O2, who are having meaningful and useful conversations at the higher-brand level. As usual, our friend Faris Yakob talks sense:

Previously we had a model of buying attention from media companies. Now we’ve got direct relationships so we have to earn that attention – we have to earn it by being entertaining, useful and also nice.

To be honest, there is no ‘right approach’, but there are some general principles that apply (as expressed by myself and Faris above) and then there is the hard won experience at the coalface, learning what works and what doesn’t, that brands doing it themselves (and the agencies like ourselves helping them) have acquired. Most importantly your approach should be built around, yes, you guessed it again, the business objectives you’re trying to achieve.

This diagram from Fallon’s Aki Spicer of six different potential participation strategies brands could use is a useful thought starter (each of which of course might be used in combination or not at all), but even the approaches I deliberately ridiculed above could be valid in the right circumstances. Fictional characters can work really well as part of a campaign as VCCP’s own Compare the Meerkat work shows, and I’m sure at least one of Zappos’ receptionists is on Twitter. Even inanimate objects might have their place – in fact I’ve been trying to persuade Kew Gardens to get their plant life on Twitter for a while now.

But deciding on a strategy is only the first and easiest step. The hard work is the day after day of micro-interactions with real people, and striking the right balance between the opportunities and risks presented by having a real person as the voice of the brand, which I touched upon in the hotly debated post on learning to speak human. David Armano brilliantly investigates this dynamic in The Age of Brandividualism and his recent follow-up, Battle of the Brands (both of which are required reading here at We Are Social towers):

For each brand on Twitter, there’s an individual (or individuals) behind that effort. It’s both business and personal. The two have become one. The tactic comes from a fundamental truth when it comes to the social spaces on the Web. People want to talk to other people. They want transparency. They want to know who they are talking to.

The potential reward of course, is the ability to spread surprise and delight, turn negative word of mouth into positive and to really engage people with your brand at an emotional level. There is no greater prize…

tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • rentedmule
    As a consumer I appreciate seeing the real people involved in any company on the ground and sweating it out with the rest of us. If you develop a relationship, no matter how small, with someone involved in the company you also develop a relationship with the company.
  • Not much to add, have been sat here nodding in agreement throughout.

    I have one (maybe rhetorical?) question to add which I heard at Web 2.0 NYC in 2008:

    "When does Batman sleep?"
  • I don't know - but I can tell you Robin doesn't get much sleep either ;)
  • <grin>

    Very Good.
  • Batman could be a receptionist, or a real person, or a character made up such a yourself. In which case sleep doesn't really come in to it.
  • It is interesting to see 'little creatures' like blogs and now twitter throwing light at the whole brand thing. I have beaten that dead horse - branding - many times over the years on my blog, most recently last month after spending time with my client who is one of the largest brands in the US (no names please! :P).

    http://www.mediainfluencer.net/2009/01/brand-as...

    I go on about branding as behaviour, which is a point that Robin seems to be making in his post. If you think about brand as identity and branding as behaviour lots of the idiotic advice rightly ridiculed in the post just looks absurd. Fictional or inanimate characters' behaviour fools no one and is just another tool in the messaging toolbox. And one-way communication is messaging, two-way communication is behaviour. Twitter is rather supercharged on that front...

    Oh and let's not forget relationships.. which you can't have until you learn to communicate and, dare I say, speak human. :)
  • Advertisers are never going to stop creating fictional characters on social network because it's easier. But they'll have their work cut out for them because those characters or pet rocks will need to be brilliant beyond belief in order to get an audience.
  • <following on Armano's comment>... It is hard get an audience and harder still to keep an audience. Ask yourself this: How many people will be following the meerkat in a few months? And how much will they care? And how much will it matter? I wonder.</Armano>

    The best I've seen is Jet Blue, which contrary to Amelia's suggestion is using Twitter at a "higher-brand level" ... They use Twitter to provide utility in a straight-forward and useful way. It has character. The people "on duty" are named individuals, and I think that's strong. And they get involved. Posts about bad weather in one place. Answers to a man's question about bringing a special-needs child on board in another.

    What Jet Blue is doing takes time, effort, dedication, a relaxing of the way the legal department operates with regards to "official" company content, and obviously, cash. If you're running a brand (or advising one), ask yourself this: Is your organization capable of doing that? If the answer is no, all you'll end up with is a meercat, and I think we can all Be Better than that.

    Beyond the conversations (and utility) mentioned above, celebrity, charity, customer relations and command line services make up the remainder of my cheesy, wonderfully alliterative, and incredibly retweetable "5C's on using Twitter for business" which you can find here:
    http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2009/02/5c-on-using...
  • Thanks for writing this. Really made me think: http://donttellmymum.com/2009/02/25/the-right-w...

    I totally agree with you when you say that there is no 'right approach'.

    But I do think that you contradict yourself slightly when you say:

    "but there are some general principles that apply (as expressed by myself and Faris above) and then there is the hard won experience at the coalface, learning what works and what doesn’t, that brands doing it themselves (and the agencies like ourselves helping them) have acquired."

    IMHO, Twitter is such a simple thing that it can have an infinite number of applications. As a result, I'd contest that the general principles and experience you talk about might be very helpful but are by no means definitive. We've only scratched the surface.
  • I didn't see the original article, but I agree with your assessment. I think the key for anyone using twitter (or blogging for that matter) is to find a voice and a purpose. For individuals it's quite easy to experiment (no one is watching) but for brands it might be a good idea to do some dry runs before you actually go live - effectively do some practice tweets and see what others think, then try changes in style.

    Ones that really wind me up (no names) are ones that do nothing for a week, then tweet 5 times in a minute, or ones that will not reply to people that they're following.

    On another note I find it fascinating how much other, competing media owners have taken to twitter. For example this list of MSN twitter accounts: http://extras.uk.msn.com/twitter/ - because twitter does not sell advertising they don't see it as a competitor, so they're far happier about using it
  • Very interesting post with some equally interesting follow-up comments.

    I tend to agree with Nick that there really is no right way if using Twitter and there aren't even really any general, over-arching principles: it's so bloody new that I simply don't see how there can be especially as, IMO, Twitter is nothing more & nothing less than a communications tool. It's like saying that there are general principles on how to use a phone. Yes - pick up, dial, speak.

    What there are general principles for are particular types of marketing campaigns, the type that you guys are doing so well. But, as is noted in several places in the post & comments, this sort of interaction takes a lot of investment in terms of time and (human) resources. And brands need to be certain that there is some sort of benefit to be had from this, other than just getting into the trade mags.

    For brands like JetBlue & O2 one can absolutely see the benefit: Twitter allows their customer services to be pro-active and is undoubtedly having a massive impact on how people perceive the brand and, therefore, their likelihood to act as ambassadors for that brand (I still go on about the time smile.co.uk sent me a load of wine). But what we also have to realise is that some brands can get by perfectly well with out this and suggesting that unless brands engage in this sort of deep interaction they're doomed only risks making us look silly when it turns out not to be the case.

    After all, do you honestly think that anyone other than a few geeks will stop using Ryanair because of this http://www.travolution.co.uk/blog/2009/02/ryana... They've been treating their customers like mushrooms for years and (depressingly) continue to do very nicely indeed.
  • Firstly I'd say Twitter is not a site, it's a platform. That it happens to have a site is by the by. Twitter works most effectively when paired with something like twhirl or Tweetdeck.

    But that's just mechanics.

    When we talk about Twitter presence as brand, and brand as person, I'm not sure that works. We'd be equating all successful brands with people, and whereas that's the case with Apple (Jobs), Microsoft (Gates), Virgin (Branson), there are brands out there with strong personalities which don't have prominent figureheads (Innocent smoothies, Coca Cola).

    So there is a case for brands tweeting without necessarily having to be recognisable individuals. JetBlue has been mentioned and, interestingly enough, enviro.aero is another example from the air transport industry that I've worked with, and is using twitter very successfully to send news, blog updates etc.

    Having said which, 'real' people are better. That's where social media's power really lies, in its ability to portray a human face rather than a corporate. It's easy to hate a corporation but difficult to hate a human being (mostly).

    The ultimate is to get all your individual bright and shiny people together to form a community. Twitter's good for this, as people can follow each other. If you can get 'real' people all following you, talking about you and saying how great you are, then bingo.

    I do wonder about the Twitter buzz though. As one of the first commenters said, Twitter can be used for anything. So can the phone. We can't do without the phone but I wonder at what point we'll realise we can do without Twitter?
  • richardstacy
    See this for ONE example of how to use twitter. http://tinyurl.com/cwkysn (One of the best I think - i.e. to listen and respond) Doesn't really matter who / what you are in this instance - because you are a credible brand representative. Concept of Credible Brand Representation is an interesting one now I think about it (add to list of things to blog about http://tinyurl.com/bljmml )
  • mediation
    we need to change our collective idea of what 'broadcasting our brand communications' means. from... a single-minded focus on one-to-many (with things like Twitter playing around the edge), to... having and using a tapestry of touchpoints by which to reach existing and potential customers.

    TV ads and Twitter should be part of the same plan, because they come from the same place - the brand, and more specifically the reason for being & idea that sit behind that brand. understanding and continually and consistently articulating that idea is what will align 'one-to-many' as well as 'many-to-many' touchpoints.

    Twitter isn't something 'else'... like so many emerging platforms its the best kind of brand space; a space where you're forced to be relevant, interesting and polite, but most of all a space where the people you're so desperate to talk to, can talk back. we've never had it so good.

    whole post at: http://chrisstephenson.typepad.com/chrisstephen...
  • The concept of making up characters is truly a bizarre one. We've seen it totally fail in blogland, and if anything Twitter has less room for 'creative executions' like this. Unless you're a Peep Show or Mad Men character. And that's just smart marketing.

    Twitter is surely a platform for two-way, 'real' conversation. As such I'd argue that brand figureheads like Richard Branson are not 100% engaged... I've yet to see an @ reply from him. It's all a bit one way. Maybe he needs a new keyboard.

    Look at how Zappos uses it as a company, and consider its mantra about being 'a customer services company that happens to be in the business of selling shoes'. It makes a lot of sense, and as a platform it fits in with that. Ears and voice...

    Brands can use it to support advertising and marketing campaigns - it makes for a pretty good feedback channel. And it certainly has the viral factor for those that make use of it... what better way of encouraging and tracking word of mouth?
  • Vikki Chowney
    It's really interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on this. It's inevitable that as something new becomes successful (be it a social network, platform or a new event) marketers and those working with brands will try and theorise it. To be honest, regardless of the actual conversation you're all contributing to, that's the underlying thought I'm left with :)

    My view on the Twitter and brands issue? Common sense. There is merit in a brand encouraging their staff to become evangelists, putting faces to the name, just as there is in creating a 'corporate' (notice I use this term loosely) account. @innocentdrinks nails it everytime, as does Ford via @ScottMonty.

    It's an age-old debate this; should those trying to sell something capitalise on an evironment that is successful because of social reasons? Well, as long as engagement is honest, open and RELEVANT - it doesn't become intrusive. Those that want to find out new info and offers from a company can do so, and those that don't are happy that advertising isn't being rammed down their throats.
  • I worry about any claims to "the right way". I think there are MANY ways for a brand to benefit from Twitter.

    BUT...it does require some bending to the rules of the medium (Always On being one of them) and it demands some deep-deep brand soul-searching to answer what is MY way. Many of us are putting the medium before the objective. And we're putting the medium before people's needs.

    Some clients are shocked when I suggest that MAYBE people don't want to have an ongoing 24/7 conversation with your product on Twitter (and others are shocked when I insist that people do seem to want that from you, go figure!).

    A partial answer to "which way is right for my brand" lies in deciphering just what kind of conversation people want to have with us - heck, maybe you shouldn't talk, just listen. But its a soul-search that must be had - WHAT DO WE WANT FROM THEM ON TWITTER/WHAT DO THEY WANT FROM OUR BRAND ON TWITTER? If both those answers align, we got a reason for being there.

    The newness of social media is sometimes blinding brands from doing the due dilligence and insight gathering to understand just what consumers want from our brands. And if we've done that soul-searching, the decision on how/if to use Twitter and the ROI debate gets easier (and feels less like a risky gamble).
  • Thanks to Mark Earls, I'm trying to avoid ever using the B-word: http://herd.typepad.com/herd_the_hidden_truth_a...

    But as for businesses using Twitter - I think there are definitely basic guidelines, such as spending some time listening and understanding, being there as a point of contact for consumers, being able to interact in a timely fashion, and having someone senior enough to sort problems across different departments involved.

    After that, it's down to each business to have a strategy that outlines what is a realistic proposition in terms of time and resources. It's pointless promising the earth and not delivering - far better to be clear and explain whether or not someone can help with a problem or a sale etc from the off.

    I totally agree with Brendan and Aki that Twitter is a platform and a medium, rather than a defined objective - some businesses should be using Twitter purely as something to monitor to mentions of their business, and only responding where necessary, rather than trying to force a conversation - find where those conversations are already happening naturally and then enhance them.

    I'm happy to say I've been involved in a few good examples of that recently, with @empiremagazine, for example, being involved in the discussion around the Oscars, simply by using the #Oscars hashtag and interacting with people. And the fact they've been conversing with a direct competitor in a friendly and informed manner is still fairly unusual, but shows the confidence they have in themselves and their products.

    The main hurdle for some businesses is that using Twitter effectively relies on ceding at least a little control to the people using the Twitter account in order for them to respond authentically and quickly - there's a great Hugh McLeod cartoon 'All Control is Damage Control'....it's that risk/reward factor which benefits from highlighting what may seem to us as common sense, but to most people even in marketing/communication/PR may still be fairly new and scary.
  • Mr. Yakob's insight is the key. When I read the article in Campaign, I scribbled it down on paper with pen (personal twitter fail!). It's been hovering around in the old brain all week. Here are some complementary thoughts:

    Social is relationships with humans and communities. We all agree on that (I hope). If a brand wants to become social, if they want to establish relationships, be a part of a community, they need to act like humans. With that said:

    Humans don't like it when other humans die.
    Humans don't like it when other humans trick them.
    Humans don't like it when other humans ignore them.
    Humans don't like it when other humans fall down on their promises.

    On and on the list goes. The bottom line is you need to be willing to take these responsibilities head on and remain true If you choose to humanize your brand, if you choose to be part of the community. If you fail with them you loose your place in [the] community. If you succeed, you become a member of [the] community - with it comes the reward of trust, admiration, discussion, etc.

    Great article, Robin.
  • Not much to add here but I think Twitter just provides a protocol and if brands can use it to add something people value (by being useful and/or entertaining) then why not – it’s cheap, has potential scale and can provide a unique level of intimacy.

    If the receptionist or inanimate object has charm, a narrative, or helps me in some way, then I may well follow.

    If a brand can add something of value in exchange for being followed then it will work - but once that value goes people will stop following.
  • Lots of valid - and some not so valid ;-) - comments and quotes. If you are 'creating' something, be it a Twitter identity or a blog, then the most important thing is honesty and transparency. You need to let people know what they are getting. If it is a corporate Twitter 'feed' that exists for broadcast only that's fine if people know that is what it is. It isn't fine if it makes them think they can have a conversation. Likewise you can have multiplie identities for different sub-brands, or from a range of individuals in the company. There isn't one right way or wrong way. It's about being crystal clear about why you are doing it and what you hope to achieve. Then being open about it.
  • I like the fact that there's no right and wrong. Twitter is a channel. And as a resource for brands to listen in real time to opinions it's truly invaluable.

    But when it comes to having a presence on Twitter, what's right for the New York Times (180,000 followers using it as a newsfeed) is not right for other brands. Because, as you point out, different brands have different objectives behind using it.

    My take on the whole right/wrong thing is that Twitter works best for brands when that brand's followers get exactly what they expect from it. Or, even better, a bit more than they expect.

    This can be whatever combination of hard news, customer service, links, discounts, entertainment, celeb gossip (i.e. usefulness and entertainment) etc. etc. the brand/personality chooses to provide.

    Where it doesn't work is when followers feel let down in any way by that brand's feed.

    People following Stephen Fry surely aren't expecting an @ reply each time they @ him? I think not - he is (mostly) just one person.

    BUT - and here's where expectations do need to be managed by brands on Twitter - if a brand's followers start to "expect" regular dialogue, problems instantly fixed, or one-to-one customer service, but the brand hasn't got the watertight processes and appropriate resources in place to deliver against those expectations, then that brand's followers are going to be disappointed. And it's at that point when they are doing it wrong.

    p.s. And when it comes to inanimate objects, I remain @towerbridge's biggest fan
  • Didn't someone say that ideally all sales would be conducted on a one-to-one basis and personalised to them? However, the point of mass marketing is that it can be a really efficient way to talk to lots of people if you can create the right umbrella for them all to stand under.

    There just isn't the human bandwidth available within most brand marketing departments to try and engage personally with individual consumers. Even segmenting consumers can sometimes not be worth the effort/extra cost it entails. There have been attempts to 'fake it' eg standard responses triggered by certain words but they are just cynical and backfire horribly.

    Clearly the exception is for high ticket-price products. No issue engaging in extended one to ones with anyone wanting to buy a yacht. But toilet tissue, beer, car insurance?
  • I think the whole marketing model is in for a rejig given people's diminished discretionary

    The number of potential ways that Twitter can be used is close to infinite and I've written more extensively about it in the comments over here if that doesn't make sense.

    http://tinyurl.com/alzdtp

    I had a personal experience about how brands can embrace the medium over here after a person claiming to be Coors added me one morning.

    http://tinyurl.com/axej94

    And a enjoyable discussion about why business entities should just get on it (albeit as real people with real friends and not necessarily representing a brand) and see how they feel about the way they want to project themselves over here,

    http://tinyurl.com/5kzxoc

    But my final thought is something that has been nagging me recently given my ever evolving relationship with the medium since I first joined in late 2006.

    Like Chairman Mao’s 1950s answer about the impact of the French Revolution of 1789:

    “Too early to tell”

    So get on it. Be a real human, make mistakes, apologise, make friends, have fun, share and learn.
  • that should read discretionary spending budget. :)
  • Of course I agree with Faris (boringly right again - does he develop his thinking using algorithms?), Aki & others here who've talked about the switch from paid-for to earned media. For me that's one of the most useful concepts that helps to frame both the potential benefits of using channels such as Twitter in a successful fashion, but also the potential pitfalls. It's actually very easy to NOT earn that media value, and then what do you do? So for clients (& agencies acting on their behalf) the whole switch from paid-for to earned is fraught with risk and prone to clumsy misuse (because it's relies on humans, it's never going to be scientific or entirely predictable).

    The second interesting thread in this debate (for me) is around when Twitter is right or wrong, relevant or irrelevant. Moving back from the white heat of excitement around Twitter itself, surely the same basic principles apply here as to any channel or platform selection? For me two key filters. One, what are the brand's commercial and marketing objectives and can the interactions Twitter facilitates help achieve either of those (for example it might help drive down costs in certain areas, as well as generate revenues in others)? Two, what's the relationship of the brand to its customers or stakeholders? Is it right to bring some of the informality, transparency & twitchiness of Twitter to that relationship? If you're Coutt's, probably not; if you're NatWest, possibly; if you're Egg, probably. Whilst it's painfully clear there's no such thing as a social media expert right now, to Aki's point, I think being clear about when you might NOT recommend Twitter (or other options, for that matter) is certainly a constituent part of being a responsible partner for clients.
  • I’m not one for opining but if you’d like to hear how ASOS use Twitter ... we’ve been itching to talk to (not at) our customers for over a year now, knowing that the online tools to do so were becoming more accessible. We decided to build a platform within our site to start that conversation, with the aims of making shopping our site more social (as shopping should be), to listen to what our customers are thinking, and generally for us to get to all get to know each other.

    The ultimate aim is to shape ASOS through the customer’s eyes. To do that we want to let them into the business; to show them what sits behind the website; the people, the passion, the product; to get under the skin of the business and feel/be part of the process.

    Twitter we merely identified as a public space to start this conversation before the community platform launches. We participate there just as we will in our own community – as a group of people who clearly represent ASOS (we’re all ASOS_firstname and we all describe what we do here so we can help people with questions /problems that relate to our areas of expertise), but who are all just fashion/online/ASOS loving people with normal lives, which we talk about too. We’d be kidding/boring everyone (and ourselves) if all we each wanted to talk about all day was ASOS!

    And, by the way, we all LOVE it; talking to our customers; what an incredible thing it is to be able to do that.

    It may help you to know that I have been at ASOS 10 years. My interest is in making ASOS the best online shopping experience there is; I’m not part of the Marketing, PR or Sales departments; which may be why my biggest struggle with Twitter is working out what to do with the @ASOS profile!
  • I've said it before and I'll say it again.... PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO ENGAGE IN BRANDS - SOCIAL NETWORKS CAME FIRST AND BRANDS INVADED THEM BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DESERTING TRADITIONAL MEDIA (at a slower pace than is claimed) !!! People may have a giggle with a brand like the new Walkers Crisps campaign but when that's done its over. No more engagement, like a social networking friend that can be dropped at the click of a button, Its over... Dumspville, population 1 = THE BRAND THAT THOUGHT IT WAS ALIVE AND WAS CAPAPBLE OF SOCIAL ACTIVITY. We've all seen The Corporation movie, and if you haven't please vacate the industry, and that told us that if the corporation (all brands lead to corporations) were human it would be locked up for psychopathic behaviour... this we cannot deny.

    I really dislike using block caps, sorry 'bout that earlier. I was in a mood.

    Now, really people, let’s do the numbers. example No. 1 above, Burger King has 1,882 followers since it started on Nov 14th 2008. That's 1,882 over 14 weeks or 134 / week; 19 / day.... this isn't exactly a gold rush of engagement. A TV advert properly placed can drive far more to a site; click red; send a text or whatever in just 30 seconds, job done. Not, 14 weeks.

    Example 2, Starbucks, just under 60,000 followers since Aug 14th 2008. Not exactly a landslide either.

    Now ask, How many are actually reading? How many people are active followers? How many bad comments did the moderator stop? How are you going to measure "your brand at an emotional level"? (Hilarious that one).

    Accountable? Prove it.

    Say a single Twitter brand-site cost 1 employee salary to maintain... and you can be sure it's not BK minimum wage, it’s a social media expert type wage; a consultancy fee; a copyrighter to get it started; image consultancy on the look of it; moderator fee; and possible a final typist at the interface. And that's for starters. By the time you are done and paid the wages (so far, the medium is free), do you really think that this so called engagement is doing any worthwhile good for your brand?

    At a time when the issues for brands and advertisers was how do we make things accountable there appears to be an intent to muddy the waters with wishy washy nonsense about people, wait for it.... "WANTING TO ENGAGE BRANDS !!

    Let's just watch the investors throw money at these sites that have no way of making any and watch them get inflated, implode and die. Maybe even cause another dot com crash.

    Good to get that off my chest :)
  • Unfortunately, I'd totally disagree with your comment - I've had a problem with the hosting of my blog, and wanted to get a quick response, so I contacted them via Twitter, and had several replies, an email, and a phonecall within 24 hours.

    Engagement doesn't mean thinking that a company is my best friend.

    Engagement means that a company might be willing and able to respond and assist me in continuing to spend money with them when I have a question or complaint. Or be willing to highlight the things they do which are exactly what I'm looking for at that moment, because they listened.

    And a TV advert can send shedloads of people to a website - the trouble is that it can't make them buy anything once they're there - and the traditional media is still mainly based around display advertising - which means that traffic is actually costing them a shedload of money if it isn't clicking on more advertising.

    60,000 people isn't a landslide in terms of traditional advertising reach. But if you've got 10,000 of them feeling positively about Starbucks and sharing that with other people, then it's worth more than a TV spot increasingly ignored by people who are also viewing their phone, surfing the net and chatting to their friends during the TV ad break (Unless they're on the toilet or in the kitchen).

    And while it's possible to spend some money to help utilise social media, it's also perfectly possible for one person to manage an account in a fairly reasonable percentage of their working day.

    Simple fact is that companies who are using social media as part of their business strategy will either be able to provide enough evidence to show it has been worthwhile, or they'll stop doing it. And so far there are a lot of companies getting results that suggest it isn't going to stop any time soon.
  • Evenin' all

    Reading all the brilliant views and thoughts above, it's clear that the Twitter's got us all thinking overtime on the 'why, what, hows...' of it all.

    I kind of think it's really healthy that people in companies are talking to people outside. The great 'unpicking' of mass one-to-many communications fascinates me.

    i keep likening it to the Wizard of Oz... when Dorothy et al traipse off to see the big ol' Wizard Industries Inc. they find a one-size-fits-all, broadcasting headpiece at the end of the room. They don't get on well at all.

    Then however, thanks to Toto's curiosity, they find that the Wizard isn't this all-powerful fella at the end of the room... he's just a guy behind a curtain.

    But it's the individual conversations he has with each of them in turn that helps everyone out... they each solve the problem that was vexing them personally, and as a result they're all much more likely to return to Wiz Inc. in the future as a result...

    ...well, if he hadn't floated off in a hot-air balloon, but that's another story.

    Anyway, my point is this; brands aren't like the Wizard anymore, we know they're just people behind the curtains.

    We want to converse with them, individually, like people do. Because we increasingly do that with people across the world, be they our friends or people at companies that do speak to any customers who want to chat (like ASOS above).

    Companies don't have to try and channel everything about their company into a single one-to-many conversation anymore; they can just let all of their people (from marketing to accounts to the receptionist to the CEO) talk to people.

    Any company who doesn't trust their own people to be the 'voices' who represent their own community has got bigger problems than whether or not to have a twitter account or two I'd suggest...
  • David Peck
    Real. Believable. Authentic. Genuine.
  • Tweet or twaddle? It's quite simple for 'brands to invade' social spaces, they simply allocate resources and have a go. Overlaying overwrought strategic thoughts to it is a bit premature, especially as tweeting is an emerging behavior that is really about keeping up with what's going on through people and information feeds you follow. Would I follow the diet coke break on twitter? Probably not, but there's nothing wrong with dropping diet coke break tweets into the public timeline. (Come on, laugh, I know you want to). I did a whole lot of research last year into 'can brands be friends', running a seminar at Cannes and another one at AdTech which concluded that brands aren't really ever going to be 'real friends'. They can be trusted, liked, loved, used and be a status reference for the individual, but I'm not going to reply to @kleenex what I'm pissed off about today or how sad I was when my dog died. Maybe that's just me. I would, though, believe Kleenex might be a brand that 'stands for' being a shoulder to cry on, and seeing a good Kleenex tweet reported might just support that belief. Brands that stand for something tend to do well in 'conversational media'. And believing in a brand tends to be a result of a much broader communications and product consideration than simply being on Twitter.
    PS I don't represent Kleenex in any way, just an example.
  • nicely done robin. not sure what all the metaphysical twatter's about either from the 'brand gurus'. i think the old chestnut 'a lack of charisma can be fatal' neatly sums up how to get the most out of social meeja...
  • The 'right' way to use twitter should be the 'right' way to treat any customer. Listen to them, respect the environment and situation, and do as you would be done by. Be interesting or useful, or ideally both. If you want a conversation you have to make it worth my while to converse with you.

    As to the notion that it's only worth investing in conversation on a personal level for high-ticket items, and not for toilet tissue - brand equity has value no matter what your products, and a lot of people buy toilet tissue. Zappos sells shoes. Not designer, exclusive shoes, but regular shoes for the likes of Joe or Jane public. But their customers are still valuable to them - and if a lot of people like their brand and buy their shoes, they make money. And for every person they've had a 1:1 one with, there are plenty (like me) who've never engaged in conversation with Zappos themselves, but have heard good stuff about Zappos, and that they really value their customers, and think better of the brand for it. And maybe go on to consider Zappos over another shoe retailer when they come to buy a pair of shoes, because they trust they'll have a good experience (and that if they don't, they won't be left high and dry). I'd certainly be surprised if Zappos consider their investment of time and resource in one-to-ones grossly inefficient.
  • "We want to converse with them, individually, like people do."

    I agree with many of the sentiments here but am slightly concerned at this one: I agree that, if I decide I do want something from a company, I want to have that question answered/problem resolved by a human. But it doesn't mean that I'm in any way keen to have a 'conversation' with most brands and I do worry that we're making this word meaningless when we use it to describe most interactions between people & companies.

    As Danny Sullivan (I presume the same one who's commented above - Hi Danny!) said a while back:

    '“Getting into” conversations. Yes, how we enjoy that. You’re in a coffee shop talking with a friend, and suddenly along comes the spokesperson for an artificial sweetener, just wanting to have a chat.

    Go. Away.'

    Obviously Twitter makes it possible for people to have conversations with brand representatives, but let's not start to think for one minute that this means anything other than a minority of people actually have any desire to.
  • Ciarán - I think perhaps you're confusing conversations with friendships?

    Your quote from Danny Sullivan is also a red herring - of course a stranger interrupting a conversation between you and a friend is obtrusive - whether they have a commercial agenda or not.

    However, I'd like to be able to initiate a conversation with the waiter about my specialist dietary requirements and I'll also appreciate the value when they proactively engage me in conversation about today's specials. In fact I really feel like the Sea Bass now, when all I came in for was a salad...
  • I don't think I'm confusing anything (I don't have to be friends with a person to have a conversation with them) or that the quote is a herring, red or otherwise (because whilst everyone hear would never dream of 'interruptive' marketing, the things that many people describe as conversations in the wider industry are just that). I totally appreciate what is meant by the Wizard of Oz metaphor, and to a certain extent agree. I just believe that this constant use of the word conversation is starting to deprive it of any meaning.

    Like I've said before, I agree with a lot of this stuff, and tend to preach it too. But there's a danger that people in social media will come to be thought of as the new snake oil salesmen of the marketing world (taking that crown from SEO - the other area I work in) if there are too many genarlisations.

    So I don't think that taking a little bit of care in the language we use, or the claims we make, is too high a price to pay to avoid that.
  • "everyone hear" - everyone here, obviously. This is why I'm now going to bed or my conversation will become incomprehensible.
  • i think that the twitter face of the brand should represent their positioning personified. it offers a direct conversation between what the consumer perceives as the "essence" of the brand and the consumer themselves
  • The phrase 'learning to speak human' keeps coming back to me reading all of this. Surely Twitter simply gives a brand a channel and a chance to show it can?

    How you go about it is clearly crucial. Useful, entertaining, nice (Faris' oft repeated mantra for earned media) are good watch words, without doubt.

    However, any brand - if only it chose to be - could be all of those things in any interaction with its audience. The difference with Twitter and a key part of what makes it the crack cocaine of communication right now (addictive; likely to induce a certain amount of narcissism & vertigo), is the fact that it combines 'one to one' with 'one to many' in such a unique way. Engaging with people personally, yet in public, offers a brand the chance to accelerate perception in its favour. Somewhat sadly, a brand or corporation behaving in a human and approachable way still reeks of the new and is noteworthy. This reminds me of a favourite quote from the cluetrain manifesto, the topic of a hotly debated post here from Robin earlier this month:

    http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/02/learning-sp...

    "In just a few more years, the current homogenized "voice" of business - the sound of mission statements and brochures - will seem as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th century French court."

    Several years after the cluetrain manifesto was written, if Twitter encourages a few more brands to step out of their corporate straitjackets to properly engage with and solve the problems of individuals, surely this should be a cause for celebration.

    It will be fascinating to see what happens as Twitter shakes down and matures into the mainstream over the coming months. To Aki's pragmatic & wise point, which brands really have it in them to sustain the potentially herculean task of managing a brand's micro blogging presence on an ongoing basis? How many will really think through what they can most compellingly offer in this space? And I'd add, how will brands, or the rest of us for that matter, cope with the surge in numbers and cut through the accompanying noise?

    Very simply, when an audience responds to this type of interaction with a brand, ultimately, if not immediately, the brand owner must find a way. A (potentially rich & wonderful) Pandora’s box has been opened…
  • nrieke
    Wow what a great list of replies on this post - I think you are really on to something. Agree with most, except John. As Twitter is opt-in, everyone can chose to follow or leave the brand alone. That is the beauty about it. And for "not wanting a conversation" - well in many cases it might just be information or listening to what they are saying - e.g. media brands. Looking at celebrities - I think they do see themselves as "human brands" behaving just like it - and are great examples for the more virtual ones. From my pov: it is a matter of time, we still do not know if this will be of any value in 24 months - but if brands dont look out they might also miss out on this. As I am based in Germany I just put a post together for my blog (http://iblogforbrands.blogspot.com/) and there is almost no interesting written stuff in German. It is mostly US- or UK-based Twitterers and Media commenting on the medium and the brands using it. From our perspective: way too early to have a final view on it.
  • Ciaran
    "a key part of what makes {Twitter} the crack cocaine of communication right now (addictive; likely to induce a certain amount of narcissism & vertigo)"

    That quote has made this entire post/comment thread worthwhile (not that it wasn't already) - brilliant!
  • I agree with you, Chris and some others that there really is no right and wrong here. The great thing about Twitter (and other emerging communications tools) is that things are moving quite quickly. The growth over the last year has been quite phenomenal (data from Compete.com shows that visits to Twitter grew 1,227% in 2008) and the mass media interest in the UK has seen a sharp rise in the last few weeks alone. This means many things, but it mainly means more users, and different users. Twitter is a medium that is changing rapidly before our very eyes. As a social network, it is really defined by the people in it and the connections they make, so as the number of users grows and changes so the role it plays, the behaviours that are acceptable on it and the uses that brands can make of it will change.

    This means a couple of things:

    1) That your best strategy is probably to keep things simple (often the best strategy in so many things). Be open, honest and truthful online. Act in the way you expect those who follow you to act. So be yourself, upload a photo, follow people back who follow you, talk honestly and openly, respond to (at least some) people who message you, respond to people who talk about you, develop your own voice. So rather than developing a long and complicated Twitter strategy, make a simple one. One that centres on people and being yourself. This makes it easy to replicate and to get more people across your business on Twitter. Please let's not start making up characters if you're looking for actual, real, ongoing engagement. Your people are your best representation of your brand after all. Get people at all level to join and trust them to get it right (with maybe some guidelines and a bit of coaching and knowing that if things go wrong it's not the end of the world because...)

    2) We don't need to worry too much about getting it 100% right first time. In a medium that is changing so quickly as Twitter - where each group of new members uses it in different ways and subtly changes the experience of all other users - we can afford to be innovative. Try new things. Work out how best to use Twitter to communicate with customers not by building long and complicated strategies but by setting up some core aims and principals and then just trying it out. I'm a big believer that brands should experiment more and Twitter offers the best kind of environment to do this. It's rapidly changing so you can change with it. Try things and if they fail try something else. And if you're doing this as yourself people will forgive you. You're playing according to the same rules as them, even if you are representing a brand and have clear brand and business objectives for using Twitter.

    Finally, Twitter really is about one thing: voyeurism. That's why it's best to be yourself. People are more interested in hearing the same message and thoughts from an individual than they are from a brand or a fabricated character. That's also why Twitter really is a threat to traditional media, and really will let brands and celebrities take more control over their own image. But that probably deserves a different blog post.

    Matt
    FreshNetworks
  • Great post with lots of interesting comments and themes from a wide source of people. But for me, because that's all I am qualified to talk about is how I use it, I am @guy1067 and this represents both me as an individual and me as the Online Help Manager at Carphone Warehouse. Wearing both hats you see me both as a person, and as a representative of CPW and how I engage with customers via twitter on a daily basis. Just because I am at work doesn't mean I engage with other people in a different way. Just because I wear a business hat doesn't mean I suddenly forget what bad customer service is, or how to say 'sorry, that experience wasn't great for you'.

    I love twitter, I think it's simplicity offers a huge amount of scope to anyone who is prepared to make the leap of faith and use it. I am still learning my way, learning how it can be used to communicate with other people, learning how it can be used within a work context, learning and seeing...

    For me, the key is simply to be yourself no matter which hat you are wearing. The challenge is to try to understand your customer (they are people also after all), what motivates them and then find a way to empathise with them, in what is simply another channel for engagement, then hopefully you are getting somewhere (wherever that might be). Twitter, together with the increasing ubiquity of smartphones, has given me a fantastic platform to provide real time customer service. It's the start of something simply beautiful...I hope I can live up to the challenge!
  • And for anyone wanting to see Guy in action, have a read of Anjali Ramachandran's post about her experiences with Carphone Wharehouse....
  • and also his Confessions of a corporate tweeter article on Econsultancy
  • mediation
    how not to do it... (although it's certainly on brand)

    "Ryanair can confirm that a Ryanair staff member did engage in a blog discussion. It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy corresponding with idiot bloggers and Ryanair can confirm that it won't be happening again. Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel".

    full story here: http://consumerist.com/5160317/ryanair-employee...
  • the_anvil
    like those annoying ads where people shout out from the tele about NO MONEY DOWN, or pop-ups that expand to cover the entire screen you're reading, i simply push 'mute' or 'close' or 'block' when brands cross the line in my engagement with the media that I choose

    the sooner brands accept that they aren't in control of media consumption - the better they will be able to access this space for their needs. Twitter is no exception!

    but i think this is difficult for most corporate marketing types to understand, hence their confusion

    @anvil
  • Good piece of self promotion again Robin well done. And as usual everyone is saying the same thing.

    So here is my take for what its worth.
    1) Successful business is predicated on being useful and interesting.
    2) Political and social conventions changes over time. There is a bifurcation occurring fueled by technology which gives people the illusion that they are now in control. The big joke is we always were. We just didn't realize it. And, we are not really prepared to change the big things.
    3) Brands are constructed by us and shaped by context. Brands wouldn't survive if we ignored them. Companies would still remain but become irrelevant and their products would remain unsold - like the car industry today.
    4) Brands don't Twitter - people employed by companies do.
    5) Twitter is no different from any other conversation - its just a platform to do so.
    6) Twitter can be used by companies for either customer service or advertising. Smart cpmanies will do both. The successful ones will be useful and interesting.
  • Robin - love the fact that the Campaign piece sparked such a brilliant discussion (on a side note, I assume that the article is up on the Brand Republic site but I bet that there are very few comments there)
    Its always funny reading a quote that you said on the phone down on paper and thinking as I read it that I'm not sure I agree with it (!) When I said "friendly" or "chatty" brands, I think what I really meant was brands that are commitment to having genuine conversations.
    I loved HolyCow's comments, I think that he summed it up perfectly, however in addition I think that smart brands will find short-term as well as long-term ways to use Twitter, for example for more sales promotional or competition type ideas as well as more on-going conversations.
    Good stuff. Thank you for blogging this!
  • Hey Amelia

    I’m feeling guilty now – I obviously took a deliberately confrontational approach (as a tactic to be interesting, but clearly not nice) above, and it was only after I wrote my post that I saw your quote in NMA’s article about Brands and Twitter (behind a pay wall, but typed below):

    Twitter is a conversation, but the conversation must be worth having. People are looking for rules, but while there are different ways a brand can use Twitter, there’s no right or wrong way

    Anyway - I'm glad you found the post and comments worthwhile...
blog comments powered by Disqus