An Interesting Question
I recently was sent a really interesting article posted at Adweek.com titled “When Silence Can Be Golden” written by Benjamin Palmer, co-founder and CEO of The Barbarian Group. It was an interesting commentary and perspective on how brands should consider utilizing social media. We’ve all heard everyone say stuff like “get your brand to ‘join the conversation‘ or ‘build a real direct relationship with your customers‘”.
That’s all fine and dandy and of course as a social media guy, I can’t disagree with that statement. However, the article I mentioned above discusses the potential absurdity behind having a static or inanimate brand engage customers directly or attempting to build a relationship with them. A couple lines from the article that I really liked and hadn’t thought about before were:
“Maybe some brands shouldn’t be conversational. Maybe most shouldn’t.
Social media was not made for brands. Lots of other stuff on the Internet was, but not Facebook and not Twitter.”
I mostly agree with the above, with some exceptions. I agree that some brands maybe shouldn’t be conversational but I also think we need to remember that business IS people. People make products and then people pay for those products. ‘Tis life. Later on in the article he talks about how a company should probably evaluate their approach with social media. Your evaluation does not mean that you should wonder if your company should even get into social media at all (of course it should). The real question is: Does it make sense for you to promote your brand having the conversation with your customers OR does it make more sense for your brand to promote the environments where your customers have conversations with each other about your brand and it’s products/services?
What Are Your Options?
So based on what I’ve said above, you basically have a couple concrete options that could be considered a best fit for your company. You ALSO have a massive grey area that may need to be explored, demanding that you get creatively amorphous and nimble with your approach.
Join The Conversation:
This is the old adage, the trendy social media goto defacto standard tagline that any marketer uses to bring his/her newly discovered career path to the customers. It still has value and substance and has a proven track record for success when done right. Industry types where I think this would be most appropriate are ones whose business is serving human beings and their experiences, where tangible goods are just a facet of the overall experience. These would be anything like hotels (as mentioned in the article by Palmer), restaurants, airlines, general product support services like Geek Squad, etc. People pay for a good experience from other humans that represent or are employed by these industries so direct engagement with them via social media would most likely feel more natural.
Instigate, Observe, Tweak, Observe, Repeat.
Next up is the other concrete option that Palmer spoke of which is: create an environment, or mechanism, or medium, for your customers and target audience to hang out and discuss your brand with each other while you watch and learn and strategize your next moves. In many cases, you can learn how to humanize your non-human products. You can learn much more by listening to your customers as a fly on the wall of your company’s Facebook Fan Page, the stream of tweets containing your brand name (or your competitor’s for that matter), and so on. The industries or companies where this applies are pretty much any company where a tangible product represents their brand. A hard drive, a pack of gum, a bottle of water that supposedly has vitamins in it. 
Meet Me In The Middle
The third option is that your real triumph may require you to do a combination of both. You may have a static tangible product that you will sell the most of if you create environments for your customers to talk with each other about their experiences while also conversing with them directly in the same environment so they feel like the brand is their for them, backing it’s product(s). It all depends. Every company and audience is different and complex in it’s own way. It’s all doable but the intuition of your social media/marketing team is crucial to find that balance yielding the best return so that your compay’s foray into social media is worth the hype behind the lengthy social media pitch you just gave to your execs.
Onward.
[ Talking Heads image courtesy of, and borrowed from, 8ninths ]
Twitterocalypse 2010: Etiquette vs. Value
The Two Schools of Thought
So I’m not gonna talk about the old discussion about quantity vs. quality of followers here. That horse has already been beaten into the center of the earth and we all know the truth there by now. In this post, I’m more talking about the line between etiquette and value on Twitter, one vs. the other, OR are they one in the same OR does it depend and is it to varying degrees? Depends on who you ask but I’ll break it down. Now, I’m talking about personal here, not business. Although the fact that everyone is now their own brand kinda lends itself to a blurry mass of grey area.
Option 1: Follow Those Based On Their Value to You
Option 2: Follow Everyone That Follows You
To me, the difference between these two is obvious. It’s the difference between hosting a bbq at your house and telling your close friends/family to come on by (Option 1), and (Option 2) posting flyers all over town about the bbq you are having at your house, to see who shows up, regardless if you know them or not, having no idea if they might bring any value to you.
Who/What *Really* Defines Twitter Etiquette?
Who the hell decided, with a stone tablet and chisel, up on top of the highest mountain, with a long flowing white beard and white robes while the sun beameth down upon them, that following someone back if they follow you, was the official etiquette on Twitter? What is this etiquette based on? If my content offers you no value, why would I expect you to follow me? If you did follow me and I offer you no value, then it’s hollow and lame and almost insulting. If your content is of no real value to me, do you really feel the need to have me follow you? If so, why would that bother you if I didn’t reciprocate. Is this etiquette requirement just a revelation of how fragile everyone’s egos actually are? If you find someone’s content valuable so you opt in, does it bother you that they don’t feel the same about your content? If so, why do you care? The more you attach your emotions to this Twitter craze, the less useful and efficient you make it. My opinion of course.
The Bigger Question: How Do You Define The True Value of a Follow/Follower?
The true value of social media is and will always be (at least for awhile longer) one of the most highly discussed topics. Taking that convo to a Twitter-only discussion, I think it’s important to really think about why you follow someone and what makes you or anyone else ‘followable‘. To me, followable means that your content is truly and legitimately valuable to someone other than yourself. By content I don’t mean just business-related. It could be anything – your hobbies, interests, sense of humor…standard stuff that brings people together. For those of you that follow 50,000+ people: If you were to look at the list of people that you follow, does every single person bring real value to your Twitter experience? If your answer is ‘no’, I recommend you think about that, especially if you carry that philosophy into your social media business practices (which is ludicrous if anyone does).
Onward.