DISQUS

Mashable - The Social Media Guide: 2008/12/12/twitter-brands/

  • Dan Schawbel · 12 months ago
    Good discussion starter here. I think it's smart to have corporate brands in Twitter, as long as you say the persons first name at the end of each Tweet.
  • Mary · 12 months ago
    Agreed. Even better - allow a corporate brand, and then sub accounts for different people within the company. So users could follow the company and all tweets, or just an single person and his/her. For example, my company has a company twitter account and anyone is allowed to tweet (as long as it's relevant to our customer base). But folks interested in engineering updates are sometimes different from those interested in business updates. But we do NOT want to have multiple people owning individual Twitter accounts associated with the company and have them go silent, go rogue or turn into personal accounts. People should find our company in one search, then decide from there who at the company they want to follow.
  • John Moore · 11 months ago
    Twitter is 100% opt-in, so who cares if there are brands and corporations there. If you are offended by a brand - don't follow it.
  • Nathan Eide · 12 months ago
    I agree in part, but not entirely.

    If you are using Twitter as an organization, you are doing so to discuss issues relevant to your company, industry and customer/client base. You want to be visible to your customers, but current and potential. If someone in your organization has worked diligently to become part of the social media world, and they leave the organization, why would you want to force the next person in the position to have to do all of that work all over again? Why start over from scratch, building new relationships, building a new following, conversing the the same people, but struggling to find them and to build trust and relevancy?

    Many companies and brands on Twitter do so to provide yet another channel for their customer base to find news and information on that brand, as well as customer service (@comcastcares for example). If you are only communicating with individuals, and those individuals leave, you are no longer able to easily use Twitter as a resource to interact with those brands. Ultimately the consumer loses.
  • Seth · 12 months ago
    You write:

    "So, does anyone really want to talk to @DunkinDonuts? Or would they rather talk to Bill Rosenberg, the founder of Dunkin Donuts of Canton, MA, or perhaps the local franchise owner on Capitol Hill, or a disgruntled but funny summer employee punching in at 4am? People connect with people, and so I think the latter."

    The answer is, I want to talk to Dave from Dunkin Donuts in Canton Mass. I think @dunkindonuts has done a great job of allowing a pio to represent both the organization and an individual. Unlike many brands on twitter that simply dump you to an email address if you have questions, Dave has been incredibly helpful in responding to @replies and dm. Twitter is about people sharing information with other people and that is exactly what Dave is doing.

    No question, there are many, MANY, brands doing it wrong on Twitter. Your post is dead on about that. There is nothing I hate more than replying or sending a dm to a brand I connect with and not getting a response. But I truly believe @dunkindonuts is doing it right. The thing is, people don't just connect with people, they connect with brands too, and it's about striking a balance between those two relationships that is the real challenge. Not just picking one or the other.

    Side note: Maybe it's just me, but I actually like getting the updates I used to get via RSS, on Twitter. It's simply more convenient.
  • Brennan · 12 months ago
    I agree with the point that companies are doing it wrong in a TON of cases... however, using Dunkin' was a particularly bad choice as Dunkin' is one of the few doing it right. By connecting with Dunkin', you talk directly to Dave at Dunkin' no a brand monolith. This is exactly what I, as a Dunkin' Brand fan, want. A guy a can talk to and get cool insider info from about a brand I like.

    This comment is dead on and I second it wholeheartedly.
  • Dave Kresta · 12 months ago
    I believe brands do belong on Twitter because of the simple fact that everybody/every organization IS a brand. @davekresta is my personal brand on Twitter, and @ontier is our fledgling corporate brand on Twitter. How do you decide which one to ban or try to monetize? What about the case of independent consultants where personal and "corporate" brand are one and the same?

    The important thing regulating my Twitter use is not "personality" but "useful information", at least for me. When I follow a media outlet on Twitter, I don't want to hear personal noise. When I follow a friend, I do.

    Great post, look forward to the ongoing discussion.
  • Warren Colbert · 12 months ago
    I am NOT a brand. I am a human being. While I love technology, and I pride myself in being a technologist. Lets not cross the line. Some people might consider their persona on twitter as a brand. I consider my persona on twitter to be me, a human in silicon valley.
  • Dave Kresta · 12 months ago
    Defining BRAND broadly as how people perceive you, you have no choice. Of course we've come to associate "brand" with impersonal, but I don't think this is a necessary association.
  • Vicki Brown · 12 months ago
    We're arguing semantics here. These days, you are a "brand". Your (personal) reputation, who you are, what you've done, what you say... it's on the web and it is (whether or not you like the word) your "brand".
  • David Leonhardt · 12 months ago
    This is a really tough one. I see some brands I subscribe to use Twitter really as a broadcast medium. That's OK, since anybody following them will recognize that they are just receiving broadcasts. http://twitter.com/globeandmail is a good example of this. In other cases, the brands clearly are people. Just to compare apples with apples, http://twitter.com/SteveatLFPress. Then there are others that are in between, trying to show an official corporate face, but still engaging in conversations. http://twitter.com/zoomit is an example of this, and to lay cards on the table, this is an account that I run. As you can see, finding that right balance is tough. This account follows a lot of people, so it's not just for broadcast. I try to keep it from sending lots of replies, because when people visit the account I want them to be able to easily find the news. That makes it tough, because, although the account engages, it does so mostly through direct messages. I don't pretend to have found the right balance yet...still searching.
  • Peter Kim · 12 months ago
    These are silly ideas. The idea of "work/life balance" does not exist today as it did for most of the 20th century, which makes charging account fees for social media accounts difficult if not impossible. You're advising people at brands to be honest, transparent, and authentic - which the social media echo chamber has been recommending for years. I wholeheartedly agree with the implicit answer to your rhetorical question though: social technologies like Twitter shouldn't be used for outbound marketing communications.
  • Melissa · 12 months ago
    I think work life balance is a rather new notion. When you farmed the land your work was your home. Ditto for the cobbler. So now, we've come back around, in a sense. I've tried, to no avail, to keep my online life separate from personal life separate from my professional life. Forget it. With Twitter, I have one account and it's all of me.

    As for corporate brands, I like seeing them online. If I like Coke's products (and I do), I think a PR person who loves the brand and interacts would be great...answer questions, press releases, etc. "Corporation" means body--a collective of people working for one goal. So, they are in a sense a "person". If the company interacts like a person with their customers, Twitter could be a good medium for them.
  • Doug Williams · 12 months ago
    Brands are assets and should be treated as such. More people are going to recognize, know about, and discuss @dunkindonuts for more than any single Dunkin' employee.

    If I'm ordering a custered filled treat from an airport Dunkin' and I want to tweet about it... I'd say something like "@dunkindonuts doing everything I can to gain weight" rather than try to remember who it was that I'm following that works at Dunkin. I want to talk about the brand, not about a person.

    I agree that when people have complaints or questions, individual users offer a compelling customer service option. @dunkin_doug will foster a much more personal and lasting relationship with a potential customer. But to say that brands should stay away is a mistake that disregards the value of recognition and comfort that brands offer most users.
  • Seth · 12 months ago
    Great post Doug! You nailed it.
  • Nikki Scoggins · 12 months ago
    I think there has to be a balance between the brand on twitter and the person behind the tweets. I manage much of the social networking for Vans Shoes and with twitter specifically I've felt that it's been a great experience so far. I agree that as with dunkin donuts, people want to talk about how much they like the donut...not the guy that works at dunkin donuts. So what do I do? People want to talk about Vans and what's going on with the shoes/events/culture/art & our lifestyle. People follow Vans, but I always DM back with my name & contact info if someone has a question. Of course I disagree with Mark, however, I did change one thing after reading Mark's article...I added my name to the profile info so that if people on twitter want to address me personally it's one step easier. Thanks for the food for thought everyone.
  • warrenss · 12 months ago
    There are several brands (we all have our favorites like Zappos, Comcast, HR Block) that have done a fantastic job of engaging their customers on Twitter. Furthermore, in a recent survey of 240 Twitter users on brand perception, most users (89%) agreed that brands should engage their customers on Twitter. The majority also had a better impression of brands that use Twitter for customer service (81%). And if brands were not on Twitter, the monetization opportunities would be limited to advertising and users fees. Clearly, unacceptable options for many.

    So banning brands from Twitter would be a big mistake in my opinion. - Huge!
  • Nathan Rice · 11 months ago
    Completely agree with you. Banning brands would be a poor decision. If you don't want to follow them - don't but personally for those brands I am passionate about I want to hear from them. I want them to interact with me and I want to interact with them. I love the fact that the co-op (www.wedge.coop) can now live outside of its walls. I want to hear what is happening between publications of my favorite magazines. Let'm Tweet!
  • Marko Bon · 12 months ago
    I'm surprised that that value of Customer Service from a Brand over Twitter wasn't referenced in the above. There's value in tweeting "@HomeDepot 10016" and receiving local store listings as well as a Customer Service Rep asking "Can I help you find anything in particular?" Brands are part of our lives and conversations, the question is How and When they enter the conversation, not whether they're allowed to.
  • Rachel Kay · 12 months ago
    Great post! I imagine the challenge for brands is identifying who they can trust to be the faces, voices and personalities of their companies on such a volatile medium as Twitter. Who can they trust to engage with consumers in such a public medium? Many companies have stringent approvals processes for any messaging, so how does that work for Twitter - does every tweet need legal approval? Obviously, that would never work because it moves to fast.
    In its current model, I am not sure how they could charge companies to use the service as a marketing tool - if you think about it, who of us isn't using it that way? If I renamed my profile RKPR (my company) instead of @rachelakay does that mean I pay a fee? It will definitely be interesting to see how they decide to define marketing a brand.
  • Linda Wadman · 12 months ago
    Your suggestion about banning brands altogether on Twitter would limit some of the things I currently use Twitter (and some of the associated social media applications) for and force me to look for other options for things Twitter is now useful for.
  • Ronald · 12 months ago
    I think the premise of the article is mistaken. It is not about allowing or banning but rather of clarity.

    Companies have a place on Twitter and a company account can offer value. For me, there is nothing like a tweet from your web host to say things are up (or down as the case may be) - or you tweeting the brand with complaints/congrats (and the brand knowing that thousand others are looking at that tweet). There are brands I enjoy and want to keep up with them - Twitter just happens to be my preffered way of keeping up - partly because I know that any message will forcibly be cut short so I can make a decision quickly.

    Brands should be able to get a "brand" account not a "person" account to avoid confusion and I think Twitter should charge for such accounts. I, for one, would be happy to pay either per twit, number of followers or a combination of the two plus other services.
  • brian · 12 months ago
    Fascinating argument, there are definitely some real good points around booting corporate identities from the twitterverse. That being said, I personally enjoy receiving tweets from certain businesses as an easy means of short news releases. My local news station for instance, the local young professionals organization sounding reminders of upcoming events, and my favorite brewery updating fans on future release dates of their seasonal beers are all of value to me. I will say it's nice to have a name and humanness behind those corporate accounts, but overall I think there is room for corporate accounts on twitter, providing they are branded correctly.
  • Andrew · 12 months ago
    I think this article is very myopic. Twitter can be used in many different ways. There are many "brands" that I'm glad do not post personal information and/or engage me, because I subscribe to their twitterfeed because of the value they provide me.
  • Pete Blackshaw · 12 months ago
    Thoughtful and certainly provocative post. The point about transparency and disclosure is a fair one, and that probably needs to be vetted out a bit more. That said, I don't think the transparency issue here (e.g. not knowing the name of the person behind the "company" twitter handle) is nearly as evil as the practice of companies or brands (or their agencies) impersonating "real people." I'd keep tacking the latter first, and that's precisely what we've been tacking at the Word-of-Mouth Marketing Association in our ethics code.

    As for banning companies, here's the rub. Part of what's drawn brands to Twitter has been the very enthusiastic reception of Twitterites (tens of thousands of them) who have been preaching company and brand "engagement" and "responsiveness" and "participation." If anything, the Twitter crowd has flirted with righteousness in encouraging brands to participate. The digital trail that back this up is rich and abundant. Brands certainly need to exercise good behavior, and not resort to the common "I see you are talking about Apples, let me sell you oranges, and I ultimately think their good behavior while be shaped and mediated not unlike how Wikipedia whacks any brand that pushes self-interest too far.

    - Pete Blackshaw www.twitter.com/pblackshaw
  • tsand · 12 months ago
    "So, does anyone really want to talk to @DunkinDonuts?"

    I'm loving the tweets from @dunkindonuts, I complained about no DD in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and they played along...

    -tsand: WTF? @DunkinDonuts is on twitter, but still not in Green Bay.
    -dunkindonuts: @tsand Green Bay, California or Green Bay, New Jersey?

    -dunkindonuts: Yesterday a Boston radio station had people calling in who’d found love at DD's. Anyone in Twitterland met a future sig other in a DD?
    -tsand: @DunkinDonuts Sorry... Green Bay, WISCONSION doesn't have a DD, had to fall in love at the Pizza Hut.
    -dunkindonuts: Thanks for all the @replies today! Lots of good stuff. And thanks for the international shout from @tsand who lives in Green Bay, Greenland.

    IF they ever open a store in GB, WI... I'll be in line often partly because of the above conversation -- yes, I have no real friends. :)
  • jason · 12 months ago
    i disagree mark. i think that brands should be represented on twitter by the brand and not an individual as that's how most consumers see brands - as entities. think about the last time you had a bad customer service experience. you probably didn't say, "joann at olive garden gives horrible service" or "adam at sprint is so f'd up, he can't get anything right". no, you say, "olive garden gives horrible service" and "sprint is so f'd up," even though the truth is that, for the most part, it's an individual who gives you bad service and we blame the brand.

    so why not, as a brand, own up to the fact that each individual IS the brand? they are the ambassador and the FACE of that brand when you go into that brand's physical location. why not then use an individual's voice as the voice of the brand? if i start a company and hire an employee, my expectation is that whenever that person is on the clock whatever they say about my brand is exactly how i want my brand to be regarded. so yes, individuals can represent a brand and brands should be on twitter.

    lastly, nobody is ever forced to follow anyone on twitter. if you think that twitter should just be personal tweets, fine. only follow individuals representing themselves. that's the great thing about the service; you choose who you want to be in a conversation with.
  • zach braiker · 12 months ago
    there is a space for brands as long as they contribute value and follow similar thinking that makes individuals compelling: giving back, recognizing fans, having something to say. There isn't one definite way for them to act other than in keeping with who they are. If you're woot, for example-- offering deals online, I'll expect you to tweet about it. If you're virgin airlines or vans, perhaps the conversation will be richer and even more dynamic but still in keeping with the message and value you support.
  • Mark Drapeau · 12 months ago
    I have nothing against brands or branding. I have benefited from @comcastcares, and I subscribe to @nprnews and @breakingnewson. However, I would like to see more transparency. Maybe I could research it, but I don't know the person behind @nprnews, or even @housefloor or even still @change_gov.

    So I think that Twitter and similar products like FriendFeed are about conversations, and conversations are for people. No one has a conversation with a billboard or a television ad or a picture of cologne in a magazine. You have conversations with sales reps, store clerks, and clothing models.

    I propose that Twitter should be for people, and that brands should not be overtly allowed. Nevertheless, authentic and transparent personalities may indirectly influence organizational brands in a more intimate manner - better branding through personal contact and conversations.

    People say that I promote the Mashable brand. Sure. But look at my account. Look at Pete Cashmore's. We use our real names and then sometimes talk about the brand (Pete a little more than me, understandably). We have conversations with people, we go to events, we talk about things other than the brand, and you get to know us.

    Indirect, intimate influence (I3) is where it's at, I argue - for people, for hobbies, for brands, for everything.
  • Andrew B. Clark · 12 months ago
    Brand is driven by the consumer's perception, so why NOT have Corporate Social Media tactics installed in your marketing plan?!? If I, as a consumer, care enough about a brand (@starbucks, @thehomedepot, et al) then I'll follow to receive relevant updates. This makes ME part of the TRIBE!

    I recently posted the results of a survey on "Your Perception of Corporate Social Media." (http://tinyurl.com/55xp7y) The results were pretty obvious as to what people thought of companies having a presence on SM.

    Basically, TRANSPARENCY (authenticity) IS KEY. And ultimately, it's YOUR choice to participate in their network. No harm, no foul.

    Great post!
    Keep Cooking -- great conversations!
    Andrew B. Clark
    The Brand Chef
  • paul · 12 months ago
    (try this again)

    It cuts a bunch of ways -

    1. I am NashvilleHype! and NashvilleHype! is me. Its known, and if not, going to my site is the fastest way to find out.

    2. Faith Hill, Martina McBride, etc ARE NOT them - they are the labels. They suck the life out of you by spamming all the time. Artist like Natalie Grant and Melida Doolittle are great to follow because they are themselves and they tweet regularly. Companies running a name sucks as much as a no name running a company.

    3. I recently shuttered a business relationship because the person who I was following (and had found the company through on Twitter) posted - "movies over... now to get her DRUNK... and take her to the strip club!" -- I did not approve. He doesn't 'represent' the company on twitter - but his bio is linked there and his bio says what he does. -- people who only casually represent a company can do a lot of damage.
  • Mervyn Alamgir · 12 months ago
    I have to disagree with the belief that brands do not belong in Twitter. It seems that some are taking the 'social' part of social networking too literally by saying only people should be represented within Twitter. Twitter is a social networking site, much the way facebook, myspace and linkedin are. At the end of the day you follow people/identities based on what they have to say and you build trust with that person/identity. The fact that brands are able to be represented only enhances Twitter as a universal communication tool. If a brand is using Twitter to promote their own goods and services and is unable to build a following because of that, chances are they will leave Twitter, so be it.
    There is also the reality that not everyone feels comfortable putting their real name our there in the social networking world. I would rather hear from @dunkindonuts if they are interesting than @joesmith_dd who is afraid to put himself out there and contribute. We shouldn't legislate how Twitter should be used, let the community hijack it for their own needs.
  • golfgirl · 12 months ago
    Seems fair enough as it doesn't prohibit marketing at all just requires that a slight bit more feeling be put into it.

    A good 1st step would be to ban mindless feeds immediately.
  • Wardell · 12 months ago
    The beauty of twitter and sites like it are that users can structure there networks how ever they like. Each individual can decided is they'd rather talk to Dunkin Doughnuts or Bill Rosenberg, and if they don't want to socialize or network with brands they don't have to but at this point I think it would be a bad idea to change the rules to fit the preferences of some.
  • Anna · 12 months ago
    I agree with those that have said there IS a place for brands on Twitter.

    Let's not say that no brands should be on Twitter just because many brands are doing it badly or incorrectly. Many brands/companies have terrible websites, blogs, Ning networks, etc. Should we ban them from the web completely? I think that would be a disservice to consumers/clients/media/other stakeholders.

    What we SHOULD encourage is for them to use the social media space, but do it correctly and profitably. If they don't know how to do that internally, there are many consultants that will do it for them. Some will even work for free, if only for a few hours. I've done it just because I like a brand and don't want to see them fail on Twitter. Most just need a little guidance and then they get the hang of it.
  • Christine Perkett · 12 months ago
    Hi Mark,

    Thanks for linking to our blog post. I think this is an interesting debate and - like anything - comes down to personal preference. That's why I actually love Twitter - I can choose to follow, unfollow or even just save a certain brand's "Tweet" that I want to remember.

    Obviously as a marketer - and one of the brands on Twitter (in addition to the numerous clients that we've helped kick start on Twitter) - I am a fan of such. However, I think more specifically, I am a fan of brands doing it right. And by that I mean - engaging and being personable as you suggest. Not just using Twitter as an RSS feed. Not just blasting your own news/agenda. Combining industry insights with opinions and news and, when warranted, even humor. And, identifying who is behind the corporate handle.

    For example, some corporate entities on Twitter don't say who they are in the bio but then talk to followers in the first person. They say "I am feeling the love" but who is "I" when your bio is a description of a company and not who is behind the company brand? Others do a better job of saying "We're ABC company - our Twitter feed is managed by @ABCGeorge and @ABCSally. How can we help you?" That helps me to engage with them on both the personal level you mention - and on a "why I'm interested in their brand" level.

    Others make it very clear why they have a corporate presence. Take our client Constant Contact, for example. Their handle, @CTCThelp states that their handle is an extension of their customer support team - and includes photos and names. Their update content reflects this mission. I may be biased since they're a client, but I think this is a great example of a valuable corporate brand on Twitter.

    I also appreciate brands that mix personal comments with engaging industry opinions AND news about their own developments. I believe that's why @zappos has been so successful. Oh, and the coupons and customer contest prizes certainly help! We try to do this on our corporate @PerkettPR handle as well - and we've received a lot of positive feedback.

    In addition, although we have a corporate brand handle we all also have personal handles. As you state, people should just have a personal handle - "People could still tout their businesses, hobbies, and anything else in their handle, bio, or feed" and not have a corporate brand handle. But in my personal feed I like to talk about a wider variety of things outside of work/my industry - like my children or fashion - and once in awhile I say something about PerkettPR that I'm proud of or excited about. But if I talked about PerkettPR and our clients as much as we do on our corporate handle, I would alienate a good deal of followers that I'm interested in on a personal level - moms, writers and artists, for example.

    I look forward to reading more comments and opinions but again - I think it comes down to personal opinion. Either you enjoy engaging with brands or you don't. And the ones who do it right are - well, engaging.

    Thanks so much,
    Christine Perkett
    @PerkettPR
    @missusP
  • Melissa's Cozy Teacup · 12 months ago
    I like brands on Twitter. Leave it alone.
  • Nishant · 12 months ago
    Mark,

    I think using the term "Brand" confuses the issue. If you believe the hype, individuals are brands too. And certainly, a lot of people are using Twitter to try and create their own brand.

    Whether organizations should be on Twitter is not something that should be controlled (in staying with the spirit of the internet for all). Twitter is not just about conversations, it is also about information flow. And organizations (like CNN, Oracle or Dunkin Donuts) are part of that. Twitter can be a valuable tool in building a connection with an organization.

    Oracle has used Twitter in many ways - for keeping attendees at their openworld conference up to date on the latest goings-on, including scheduling of unconferences, and special events. This is valuable in building a relationship with a customer.

    I'm a big believer in Twitter. We don't have restrictions on the mediums of print, TV and the web; why restrict Twitter? If nothing else, you are probably killing one of the best ways Twitter can monetize and therefore stay alive. And don't suggest inline ads, because ad-supported businesses are so pre-recession :-)
  • Mark Drapeau · 12 months ago
    @Nishant - I believe in persons and personalities but not personal brands. This expands on that a little bit (http://www.livingstonbuzz.com/2008/11/06/i-dont...)
  • Brian Mays · 12 months ago
    I disagree that brands should be banned. If brands being present bothers individuals, those individuals will find another space to inhabit. Or they'll hang around to complain about it :-)
  • Dan Schawbel · 12 months ago
    @Mark - I think Geoff's post is very inaccurate and was just written to spurr controversy. I like Geoff, but he's very anti-personal branding, yet promotes his own brand by being that way! Being a brand is inescapable. You frankly don't have a choice whether you're a brand or not because you're already being branded. People know you for a certain skills, topical area, facial expressions, party behavior, etc. It's your reputation. Your post has nothing to do with that, but something more about the face of big brands in social media. You made your case and it was a good one, but I wouldn't start going on a binge about "personas" versus "personal brands" because that is not relevant or accurate.
  • Dave Johnston · 12 months ago
    Ban brands on Twitter? Yikes. I'm not even sure where that kind of sentiment comes from. It's rigid and hardline. You do realize that it's almost impossible to spam on Twitter...it requires a follow. That's essentially an opt-in.

    That said, I'm not sure brands on Twitter are working very effectively. I'm dominating brands like Bed, Bath, and Beyond. But then again, I'm pretty much dominating everybody at this point.
  • Philipp · 12 months ago
    Guys, WE will decide wether brands make sense on twitter!

    Follow them, if you like their updates or otherwise do not. If brands cant attract followers, they will soon stop twittering. In case pr people start to spam, twitter can integrate search rating algorithms, for example number of followers.

    There are many brands that will be able to use twitter to find and connect their tribe.
  • Gabriel Rossi · 12 months ago
    The evolution of the internet from a primary transactional medium to one of relationship building has been confusing corporate culure a bit. Therefore, It'll take time for some brands to understand that custumer on-line jouney (faster though) has to feel as much credible and plausible as off-line route.

    Credibility and plausability, nowadays, refer to good listening, fast feedback, relevance and personal dialogue. I believe tat Brands will eventually improve their behaviors in the digital arena as long as they learn and practice (just like us).

    Let's give brands a little bit of time to fit in?

    Cheers,

    Gabriel Rossi- Brazil
  • brendan · 12 months ago
    Brands definitely belong on Twitter.
    It is another way to contacting customer service in a company. @comcastcares
    It is a great way to broadcast deals, specials, and information. @starbucks
    I choose to follow the brands or not. Having them on twitter does not affect me if I don't follow them. Not having them on twitter or not following their name does affect me when I need another way to contact them and actually get service. search @dendari and @sears

    Yes they belong on Twitter and I think further more Twitter should reserve the names of large companies specifically for this purpose. If they choose to sell the names to provide revenue that is up to them.
  • Mark Drapeau · 12 months ago
    Many people are commenting on "how does this affect me?" - I also wrote the article from the standpoint of "how does this affect Twitter and their business model, and longevity?" "how does this affect persons thinking about getting onto Twitter?" and "how does this affect how microsharing is protrayed in the popular press and in real life conversations?" What do you all think about that?
  • @EmmaJoan · 12 months ago
    Good questions, Mark. This is the whole thing with Twitter and social media - it's all about me, me, me! It's so hard to think from somebody else's perspective. Part of the awesomeness of Twitter for brands is that you can get better insight into your audience. That's more "you!" and less "me!"
    One of my main goals in life is to brainstorm/create/collaborate on an Internet/media revenue-making business plan BESIDES advertising. Does anyone know any barcamps/unconferences/conferences/forums/real-life people thinking about this?
    Maybe Twitter can charge based on how many people are saying positive things and @-replying your brand. Or maybe they could charge subscription fees either to brands or to everyone. I'd give $5/month for Twitter. Heck, I just donated $20 to TweetDeck (and you should donate to all your fav free online BRANDS).
    Ads creep me out most of the time. That's why I like Twitter and interacting with my fav brands. It's opt-in (as so many lovely people have pointed out) and I get to give credit where credit is due with @-replies.
    (**As an aside, I wish there were paragraph breaks in Mashable comments!! And that when I hit tab to sign in to post to Twitter, it didn't bump me to the top of the page. kthnx Mashable :) !!)
  • @EmmaJoan · 12 months ago
    I don't know whether or not brands "belong" on Twitter. But, this is what I DO know:
    1. I like linking to my favorite brands on Twitter. I tried to @-reply Pandora.com when I was tweeting about them last week, but discovered that @pandora is some chick in Brazil or something. So when @Pandora_radio started following me, I was elated! I followed back and now I can give them credit whenever I tweet about how much I love their fabulous product (and therefore their fabulous brand).
    2. I am part of a team that runs @USArmy. Yeah, I'm putting it out there, for transparency's sake. As a 22-year-old pink-loving girl (not to mention a lowly contractor!), there's no way I can put my personality into @USArmy tweets. It doesn't match our brand. It can be overwhelming to manage two Twitter streams per day, and it's frustrating that I can't be 100% transparent with @USArmy, but honestly, I think it's better that way. For the Army public affairs, at least. Should we have an actual Soldier tweeting? Probably. Does he/she have better things to do with their time? Maybe. All stuff we're working on as we play and slowly develop strategy (as is everyone on Twitter! We're playing and developing strategy, all of us :))
    3. Seeing a Twitter brand that runs solely on TwitterFeed nauseates me.
  • Danny Mack · 12 months ago
    Wow - This is so fitting for me, I may have to come back when I have more time to write the full story..
    My name is Danny Mack....but on Twitter, I am @CampbellSoupCan. It was [and will be again once I pick it back up] an experiment and statement in Social Marketing...[this is killin' me, cause I really plan on the full story once done, but...].

    The idea is that twitter is for people and/or personalities. @CampbellSoupCan takes the identity of a can of soup...not the Cambell Soup company and not a person who calls himself this. As you can read in the postings, I've made humorous statements that have attracted a few followers...so far 120 total. I agree with what many have stated that Twitter is no place for brands....at least not ones that simply represent a company and not a specific personality. I do not work for the Campbell Soup company, but I plan to prove the impact that a brand can have when taking this form. Twitter is about connecting with people and my followers feel connected with me. One recently wrote, "I'll never crack open a can of soup again"...ok, not the type of reaction a marketer wants to hear, but think about that statement. This person assigned a personal connection and emotion that could never have been created by a corporate twitter account. As for why they follow me? - cause it's fun and the posts are funny, odd and much different that most of what's on there. I certainly enjoy making poeple laugh...

    I plan to continue this experiment and I have lots of fun directions to take it, but in the end, I plan to prove a brand strategy in the social media space that can influence buying decisions without ever trying to sell anything outright. In the meantime, follow me...and then you can say what some of my followers have said ..., "I can't belive i'm following a can of soup now...and lovin' it"
  • Marko Bon · 11 months ago
    This reminds me of "Fakesters" (people on Friendster who take on characters such as BigCorporation, Tequilla, and in my case, the Hamburgler) just for kicks. A brand like Speedos won't communicate on Twitter **as a pair of speedos** -- although it'd be a great laugh coming from an enthusiast. For the Brand it's not a true test of how they would use Twitter -- only a small spectrum of brands would communicate in the voice of the physical object they produce (brittish ads for a slim-jim-like Pepperoni Stick comes to mind).
  • Pat Ryan · 12 months ago
    Twitter is like television. If you don't like what you're watching, change the channel. If you don't like who you're following, stop following. Let brands tweet. If there's no value, they'll have no followers. If there is value, it will only be to those who follow. No harm, no foul. My two cents.
  • M Foley · 12 months ago
    I think:

    1. America runs on Dunkin Donuts!
    2. Coke is it!
    3. WAZZUP! True True!
    4. AFLECK!
    5. HOME OF THE WHOPPER!
    6. Mikey Likes It!
    7. Plop, plop, fizz, fizz!
    8. I'm Lovin It!
    9. Just Do It!
    10. And for the Canadian's "Molson Canadian, what beers all about!"

    If you read this comment, you just proved advertising works!
  • jim · 12 months ago
    Great questions. How about no logo's? Just pictures of real people. @briantracyintl seems to just spew a ton of marketing crap not engaging in any conversations because it is not him behind the Brian Tracy Logo in my estimation.
  • Brennan · 12 months ago
    Disclaimer: I'm biased as I was on the Dunkin' Twitter strategy team, but I couldn't disagree more with the general sentiment regarding Twitter and brands.

    My first question would be, "since on Twitter you only experience who you choose to follow, why would you EVER follow a brand if you think hate brands on Twitter?" My second question would be, "even if you hate brands being on Twitter, do you not care that others love connecting with someone 'on the inside' of their favorite brands?"
  • Michael Pratt · 12 months ago
    We use Twitter a ton for both ourselves and our 2 brands. mark, you call for more transparency but could you define it better in this context? I mean, when I see a brand on twitter, I certainly know a person at that brand must be typing in the message and my expectation are already set as to what I will "get" from that brand. What kind of transparency is, then, lacking in your eye?
  • Paisano · 12 months ago
    Excellent topic! However, I hate to disagree with a fellow Mashable writer but I think Brands belong on Twitter and anywhere online as long as it doesn't become just noise and spam. If you start this form of censorship then where do you draw the line in the sand? I know a ton of PR and marketing types that are extremely noisy and spammy... do you ban them too? We all have the right to follow whom or WHAT we want to follow which is the beauty of twitter. We have the choice and the power to customize our stream the way we want. Personally, I don't follow any brands except perhaps a couple of things like Boxee. But it's good to know I could if I wanted to stay on top of anything like Starbucks or Netflix or whatever.

    Here's a great example of a brand that gets it. Thanks to Ted Murphy
    http://www.ted.me/pancheros-twitter-kinda/

    Pai
  • Mark Drapeau · 12 months ago
    @Paisano If PR types are noisy and spammy, at least we know who they are.
  • Manuel · 12 months ago
    Get brands out of schools first, then worry about twitter.

    The difference is: to follow brand on twitter is a choice.

    Back to the subject, I'm more concerned about those who use twitter covertly to help brands. Brands on twitter are a lesser evil than brands paying twitterers.
  • Dave Johnston · 12 months ago
    "Get brands out of schools."

    Again, do not understand stuff like this.

    Why don't we ban products, then? All products. Anything that has a label on it or is subject to a sale at some point in its lifecycle. That way nobody gets any bad advertising messages, or...has anything to enjoy during the day. Enjoyment is bad. Making life easier by giving people a product to eat, clean, or laugh...also bad.

    There's no way I want my children to be influenced by products at school. I do not want them establishing any preferences for things. It's very harmful. They might enjoy stuff in their life.
  • markw · 12 months ago
    So what's really interesting to me about this whole discussion...

    is Mark being just completely foolish here with his suggestion and damaging his reputation as a knowledgeable consultant because he is recommending something that is overwhelmingly considered a bad idea...

    ...or is he enhancing his social media status because he has created a lively discussion with much participation over what is essentially a non-issue?
  • Mark Drapeau · 12 months ago
    MASS RESPONSE @jim I'm with you, I like pictures with real people. @brennan I dont "hate" brands on twitter; I'm just not convinced it's good for people, for the brands, or for Twitter. @michael pratt If there's a person on the other end of the brand, I'd like to know who it is. Pete Cashmore (for example) is the Mashable "brand" but uses his real name and pic and sometimes has personal notes. For things like @starbucks or whatever, who's tweeting? What's your name? going to any events soon? It's deception not too, basically - just like putting tv ads out. Nothing wrong with tv, but that's not what Twitter is. @shiela ruth Sure, free advertising, of course that's what brands want. is it good for twitter? unclear. Does it work? rarely. Does it involve conversation? hopefully but rarely. @pat ryan Twitter is not like television. @danny mack you should use your real name and "campbellssoupcan" as a handle. why use your real name here but not there? I go by cheeky geeky but also use my real name there. PS funny @emmajoan the @usarmy "tweet strategy" may be "wrong" - I don't want to talk to a logo, and I can get the news on Army elsewhere. USARmy is rarely conversational, though you as a person are very engaging. THANKS FOR ALL THE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION!
  • Becky Carroll · 12 months ago
    This is a great conversation around Twitter. When I talk about how to use Twitter for business in my UC San Diego class on Marketing via New Media, I tell my class the first thing a brand or business should do before starting is to listen to your customers. Listen to what people are saying about you.

    Now, if you hear a lot of customer service issues on Twitter, it makes sense to have a brand's customer service team helping out via Twitter (and with the appropriate Twitter handle to match, like @comcastcares). Help the customer where they are hanging out!

    If your customers on Twitter want a conversation with you (and many consumers DO want to talk with their favorite brands), then join the conversation via your brand's Twitter account. Just make sure to be a human being with them (and I agree with comments that the brand's account should be the one to use, but sub-identified with the person responding, in order to keep those relationships going).

    If your customers just want a stream of company news, then that is fine, too (like Dell does with @delloutlet, which has over 2500 followers looking for deals).

    I really think it depends on 1) whether customers are on Twitter, and 2) what do they want from the brand?

    I look forward to more of this discussion! Thanks for getting it going, Mark.
  • glenn letham · 12 months ago
    I think there's room for a mix message and the user is smart enough to interpret it. For example, I'm a publisher and have a twitter for our publications (@gisuser / @lbszone) and the twitter pages are branded accordingly with a logo etc... so its obvious that the account is fed via twitterfeed and is a company Pr effort. The there's "my" twitter @gletham, branded to promote me (although I do promote the company - obviously)... BUT, you get may face, my bio etc... no hidden agenda and it works. Naturally, my personal twitter outpaces the corp branded twitters 10-fold but each has its place and each is effective in its own right... so in short, yes, there's a place for corporate branding as well as personal branding.
    Nice converation -- Glenn (@gletham)
  • @toddlucier · 12 months ago
    What to use as a @username is clearly a question of why you choose to use twitter.
    Twittering to build relationships? Ditch the cutesy names and brand identifiers and use your real name, regardless of whether building business relationships for yourself or your organization.

    Twittering to have a presence to receive inbound tweets from your customers and respond to their needs? Brand name matters. Using brand identifiers in your username could make you easier to find, but rather than that, I'd suggest encouraging Twitterers to use hash tags instead for raving or complaining about your business brand. ie: I had a terrible time with #businessname!

    Encourage one or more staff members to keep up with your reputation management by tracking the use of your brand name and / or related hash tags.

    Replies should always be personal. The best way to express that people in your organization care, is to have real people reply to raves and rants using twitter named accounts with real people's names.

    Ask yourself this question: What moniker would serve your followers best? I think it will always be a person they can connect to. This is the same reason Call Centres fail. It's difficult to get to the same person you dealt with last time if you followup. On the other hand, having a twitter person to connect with can engender genuine brand loyalty.

    In the past week I've had really great replies to my tweets that included brand identifiers for organizations like Ford, @scottmonty, as well as other smaller companies and event managers who have been monitoring their brands. I was able to connect with real people, and it made their brands stand out from all the @business people out their pushing outbound marketing at me waving their brand id in my face.
  • crawford · 12 months ago
    If you've ever lived in an older urban neighborhood, where stoop was a place you met and not a posture you took, then you can appreciate that as Twitter is today's front stoop, a place to meet up and share news and views and opinions and help. And every once in a while the Fuller Brush man or the Avon Lady would stroll by and check on how things were going and whether we needed anything, or had any suggestions from the last purchase trial...and then the ice cream truck would roll through for the kids...and then crazy Uncle Charlie would flash us from the upstairs window and all the children would run screaming... Ah, life.
  • Robyn McIntyre · 12 months ago
    I follow the CEO of Zappos because of the opportunity to get a glimpse into a creative business mind. I don't want to get discount coupons from Safeway or a relentless barrage of sales oriented chatter. Maybe it comes down to what you want to get out of twitter. I'm there for the conversation, self-improvement, knowledge, exposure to other viewpoints. I'm not sure where I stand on the I'm-my-own-brand thing, but I do know that people who consistently tweet self-promotion are people I don't follow. There's got to be give and take or it's not a conversation. Ban brands? I don't think it's necessary. You can follow them as you please. As for me, I will stick with people.
  • Scott Pierce · 12 months ago
    What a lot of corporate users are realizing is there is an even larger intersection in customer service and brand awareness than there was a decade ago, and places like Twttier and GetSatisfaction have wound up as the venue to broadcast to everyone how their brand actively rocks on a daily basis. That is, if used appropriately.

    What is appropriate now may not be down the line, but as of today if @scottpierce is getting bombarded by a robotic stream of the same messages I could get on TV, I unfollow in a heartbeat. I know, horrible twitterquette, but that's how I react to a betrayed experience.

    It sounds like a broken record to keep pointing at the imaginary map of social media at the large label that says "Here Be Humans", but it sounds like that's what we're all getting at here.
  • Mark Havenner · 12 months ago
    I believe absolutely that brands should be on Twitter, but going into they need to be clear on their purpose. There is definitely pushback on brand names acting too personal, yet they can be criticized for not being personal. If you are going to run a feed for the purpose of communicating with customers, than use a brand. If you are going to run a feed for the purpose of networking with customers, businesses and affiliates than use a name. And try not to confuse the two.
  • Michael Pratt · 12 months ago
    Mark - I realize you like to "know" who the person on the other end of the brand is but I, like most people (I think) just need to know that it's a person. Heck, I don't care if that person rotates. If I know the person's name, then let me build a relationship with them separately - under their own Twittername. I love Pete to death and he has helped us out quite a bit, but I must state that his Mashable Twitter account has become 90% re-posting & marketing of Mashable content and 10% Pete. I really wish he'd split out the account name into an @mashable and a @Pete. There's not much of a human face to his Twitter acct any more. There's no deception behind a brand Twittering. Why on Earth would I expect a brand to be "going to an event" I'd rather think of it as a talking brand I can interact with.
  • Christine Perkett · 12 months ago
    I already commented once but I have to share this. This morning on Twitter I was talking about a brand - BagBorrowOrSteal.com and how they had expanded their wares and changed their name. Then, tonight, low and behold - they had joined Twitter and commented back to me with a Tweet about their free shipping - and started following me.

    I was thrilled! Check 'em out @avelle

    The only thing that would thrill me more is if they hired us!

    Brands you love on Twitter - who do it right - rock.

    Cheers,
    Christine
    http://www.twitter.com/missusP
    http://www.twitter.com/PerkettPR
  • Mary Canady · 12 months ago
    HI Mark,

    As a small company being represented on Twitter, I obviously am biased, but I have found many benefits from representing my brand on Twitter, as well as interacting with other brands in my community. For example, I have met Nicole who works at BIO, and we have had some meaningful interactions, as well as David Bradley from ScienceBase--if they weren't representing their brands on Twitter, how would I know the professional connection I have with them? The personalities of the people behind even large company Twitter accounts shines through to their persona...

    While we're at it...people should use their real names for their Twitter persona, not hide behind a cute, rhyming profile names ;) (whatever happened to cheeky_sneaky?)

    Mary Canady aka @Comprendia
  • JessieX ... and sometimes @Vec · 12 months ago
    Oooh, Mark. Did you stir up quite a conversation. Fascinating. I agree that transparency, voice and being a person behind a brand is important. I do that with the account I use at my J-O-B. I am the person behind @Vectorworks, and I'm an integrative communications/PR kinda gal, too. So my tweets vary from posting about a great product review that just came out, or a link to some pictures we took at a big user group event to my mortification that I might be fired because of my potluck dish disaster. I own the range from the corporate mouthpiece (via Twitter, and with all the Zen of a good tweet) to being a flesh-and-bones person who thought she messed up her corn casserole in a big way.

    Interestingly, I find myself quite open to following company's tweets. It's much, much better than getting an email from them; rare is the day I actually check my RSS feeds; and it takes an awful lot of work for me to go check a company's website. So tweets are a nice solution for me to get bits of data in a timely way ... and to feel more connection to a company even when the twitter name is a company/brand.

    See you 'round town, @cheeky_geeky. ;-)
  • voiceofreason · 12 months ago
    Twitter is shit and a joke, doens't matter if brands are on there or not it was a stupid concept form the start and just another meme in the big picture. advertising will be present on EVERY AVENUE that comes on the internet, deal with it, and fail when you try to keep up on the latest stupid gimmick that the net brings, most of it, like twitter, is a joke
  • Christine Major · 12 months ago
    I don't think brands should be banned on Twitter. We interact with brands in everything we do and it is usually a one way communication. Having the opportunity to communicate directly with a brand on Twitter, espeically one that you really like such as @dunkindonuts (mmmmm...donuts) brings it to a whole new level.

    If done right, brands have such an amazing opportunity to connect one-on-one with its customers and turn them into brand ambassadors, but they need to remember that in order to gain a following and the respect of the Twitter community, it is important that they keep their involvement personal and transparent. As @peterkim mentioned above, social technologies like Twitter shouldn’t be used for outbound marketing communications. As everyone on Twitter knows its about building relationships and trust :)
  • Arsen Yeremin · 12 months ago
    "When I follow a media outlet on Twitter, I don’t want to hear personal noise. When I follow a friend, I do." --Dave Kresta (@Ontier)
    I agree. @garyvee also nails it on brand vs person in his video post http://garyvaynerchuk.com/2008/10/17/brittany-s...

    Twitter should be looked at a platform that hosts brands, bots, individuals, organizations, schools, neighborhoods, blogs, etc... It's simplicity, flexibiity and opennes is why it's so successful. We should not be figuring out what type of entities we need to discriminate against. Instead let's find ways to use the system in innovative ways.
  • Kai · 12 months ago
    If I complain about experience with a brand/their customer service on twitter, and the brand responds to my issues, that's wonderful!
    Twitter is a great way to engage!

    Brand does belong to Twitter!
  • Matt | Small Biz Bee · 12 months ago
    Keep in mind that Twitter is a completely "opt-in" system. For those of you who don't want to see brands on Twitter, just don't follow them. That's the cool thing about Twitter is you can customize your experience regardless of what else is going on in the Twittervere.

    Personally I'd be more interested in following the people behind the brands. I think Howard Schultz would be way more interesting to follow than Starbucks.

    Matt
  • Anthony Idem · 12 months ago
    Do brands belong on Twitter? Well, yes and no. The problem with most brands on Twitter and with many people on there in general is the lack of respect for the "art" conversational engagement. Many brands who use Twitter have no idea how to approach the medium in the correct way.

    The ones who are able to "join the conversation" and appear at the very least like *gasp* real people and interact with follower from this perspective will do well. This point seems to be lost on the masses of business who don't yet get it and think that its all about them and what they have to offer. (surprisingly similar to the now dying television commercial ad model)

    So the brands who "get it" will do well and the rest? Unfollow.
  • Mark Drapeau · 12 months ago
    I like brands. I use them all the time. I just think that the best way to market brands on Twitter is by real people interacting with real people, perhaps using indirect, intimate influence (I3). IMHO every account should have a real name, real address, and real photo - not unlike Facebook. I think that building trust through authenticity and transparency, something that "billboard" brand blogs, microsharing, etc. lack. I think it's fine if "David Wallaby" is rocking an account called @WallabyPR as long as he has a real name, location, and pic. And some people certainly do this; Pete Cashmore is one good example, maybe Scott Monty of Ford is another, and Frank Eliason from Comcast is yet another. They're using their real names, being themselves, and sometimes repping a brand. No prob! Yes, some "anon" brands, like @dunkindonuts, are doing a decent job; I argue that as more people get on Twitter, they will have to do a better job, and maybe have a diverse set of people handling Twitter users. Donuts are kind of a silly, fun example, but many brands want to use Twitter in a more serious manner. Now, I realize that many commenters work for brands or are social media marketing consultants - and their opinions are understandable. But mainly I wrote this from the point of view of an "armchair analyst" viewing what might be good for Twitter moving forward. True, we are discussing an opt-in system ("just ignore what you don't like"), but what is the expense to Twitter of having millions of marketing bots out there? Is there a physical cost? A psychological cost discouraging newbies from joining and opting for a "clean" competitor? Imagine if your TV had three million channels - would you be able to find anything easily? Now, perhaps there is some solution where Twitter is divided into two sections, one for people and one for "other" and perhaps it may be difficult to distinguish between the two in some cases - but does that mean you don't try it? Mary's idea of allowing corporate accounts with sub-accts for individuals is an intriguing one that I might get behind - what do you think? Finally, I do like Crawford's "front porch" metaphor, but let me add to it that "Jane the Avon Lady" comes to see you and say hi, not a billboard. Having a nameless Twitter brand account is like mailing you a catalog. Indirect, intimate influence is like Jane stopping by twice in one week ;)
  • Ronald Coyle · 12 months ago
    I think brands should be on Twitter. Personally, I feel they help add to conversation. In fact, I just started following Scott Monty of Ford. Similar to other people's opinions, brands should be transparent though.
  • Rob Bunting · 12 months ago
    Good post and excellent comments thus far. If brands or companies want to use Twitter in a "Web 2.0" kind of way, where they are sharing useful information AND listening to their stakeholders (i.e. in this case Twitter followers) than they can add something positive to the Twitterverse. If they merely want to use it as another one-way communication tool for PR, than they are much less likely to be successful and may end up to doing damage to their brand instead. I say let companies and brands use Twitter and let the market weed out those who are self-serving or ineffective at it.
  • Dave Saunders · 12 months ago
    Great points. The DunkinDonuts example is a great one. Whomever is working that account is interacting with other people and not "billboarding" but because the "real name" associated with the profile is also Dunkin Donuts there's no relationship created, even if temporary.

    If you notice the profile for @jetblue, they use the name of the person monitoring the account to show there's a real person behind the curtain. I think that makes a huge difference and is a great use of appearing as the "company" but showing there is a real person behind the wheel.
  • Heather · 12 months ago
    HI,

    I disagree... behind every "brand" on Twitter is a human (unless they are using it for RSS...which is lame). The people of Twitter are following brands... and we live in a branded world... no mystery here... not only do brands belong on Twitter, they already are... see a tiny fraction below:

    http://twitter.com/nonprofitorgs
    http://twitter.com/higheredu
    http://twitter.com/smbusinesses

    Thanks.
  • Recession Guy · 12 months ago
    I will also love to talk with @DunkinDonuts, @StarBucks or @my-local-hardware-shop for that matter. I second the opinion of having a vertical network on top of Twitter API and use it have a personalized 2-way communication.
  • meznor · 12 months ago
    Your last sentence in the article is EXACTLY the point: "Why try to gain ambient awareness via TwitterFeed, when each person associated with an organization is a word-of-mouth advertising device?"

    Social media is about us, not them; it's about empowering followers and fans to market your brand for you. A tech company would probably have a better buy-in on Twitter or other social media sites than a donut-making company, since the tech company's fans likely have the tools and understand the technologies better than the wider donut-loving audience... but what if that donut-making company's CEO or President or someone else in the company who learned how Twitter works put in the personal effort to join the community? Suddenly, the brand is tied to a real person, a donut enthusiast and social media user, and can reach online populations s/he was otherwise not reaching.

    It's about synergy... reaching out to all potential audiences. Suddenly, with an online presence, the CEO for Debby's Donuts becomes a cult favourite on Twitter... maybe she posts recipes for donuts, or has funny anecdotes about her life that become internet memes... maybe she connects with other audiences, other mothers or business women who respect her work-family balance. Maybe teenage boys find her hot and relate to stories about her teenage son. Then, maybe the Twitter community retweets her stories that might have nothing to do with the brand, but are popular enough that her brand develops a human face, the real person behind Debby's Donuts who's this amicable, down to earth lady.

    People connect with people; you're absolutely right. The_Real_Shaq is proof enough of this... I was never a Shaq fan; in fact, I sort of didn't like the cut of his gib. His media/public face is (I can't think of the English word, in Italian it's "antipatico") -- uncharming (imperfect translation). But I'm following him now, and I think he's awesome... he's funny and cool and I think he's awesome for reaching out to his fans the way he does.

    I don't think Twitter should necessarily ban brands from the site. I have a couple of brands following me on Twitter. I just ignore them and don't follow, or block them if they're annoying. And people do follow their brands, so obviously there is a demand for it. But I think brands would be wise to use social media in a far more strategic way and link real people with their brands... that, to me, is far a more likely tactic to gain respect for the people who actually stand behind their product, and ultimately, loyalty to the brand.
  • Mark Drapeau · 12 months ago
    This post is not about banning brands, it's about HOW brands use Twitter. I say, use actual people to build trust. Dig?
  • t_de_baillon · 12 months ago
    Poor world, where brands have outsourced many customers relationships into offshored call centers. Reading all these comments, it looks like Twitter is now one of the only ways to COMMUNICATE with our brands.

    You got it right, Mark, Twitter is for people, not for call centers. If a brand is correctly embodied, yes, it has its place. If not, don't let it do anything but push corp material, and have it put real people behind phone lines and counters.
  • Vicki Brown · 12 months ago
    > So, does anyone really want to talk to @DunkinDonuts?

    I do.When I call or email Customer Service for a company, I am contacting a Company representative who speaks for the Company. Whether it's "Hi I'm Nancy" at 8am on Monday or "This is Bob" at 5pm on Friday, it doesn't matter which representative I reach. I am contacting the Company. I have absolutely no interest in talking to a "disgruntled but funny summer employee". When you punch in and answer that phone (email, Twitter comment) you aren't an individual at that moment. You ARE the company.

    Brands (companies) belong on the web. They belong on Twitter.
  • meznor · 11 months ago
    @Vicki Brown (sorry, for some reason the comments aren't working properly and I can't see page 2; saw your post via feed):

    "Author: Vicki Brown Comment: > So, does anyone really want to talk to @DunkinDonuts?

    I do.When I call or email Customer Service for a company, I am contacting a Company representative who speaks for the Company. Whether it's "Hi I'm Nancy" at 8am on Monday or "This is Bob" at 5pm on Friday, it doesn't matter which representative I reach. I am contacting the Company. I have absolutely no interest in talking to a "disgruntled but funny summer employee". When you punch in and answer that phone (email, Twitter comment) you aren't an individual at that moment. You ARE the company.

    Brands (companies) belong on the web. They belong on Twitter."

    I think this is shortsighted, from an organization's perspective... the reason that organizations require their call center people to give a first name is for accountability. In fact, here in Canada, Bell requires their employees to say their employee number as soon as they answer the call, and at the end of the call they say, "If you need to call back, and speak to me, ask for Nancy, 11308." (Ironically, I find this dehumanizing, if anything; in fact, it removes blame from the company's inadequate product quality onto a front-line call center person who, most of the time, isn't to blame for the technical issue you're encountering with the service/phone... but I digress...)

    Anyway, to compare social media tools to a call center is comparing apples to oranges. A call center is there to answer questions and solve product issues; Twitter is used by people to connect with other people for social purposes. In turn, if a company is on Twitter, wouldn't it be better to have a *representative* of that company tweet to fellow human beings instead of the brand itself?

    Sure, each of us is "our own brand"... but the people who tweet on behalf of @DunkinDonuts are NOT DunkinDonuts, and therefore should not pretend to be. DunkinDonuts has nothing to day; DunkinDonuts is not a person. But Bob, the Vice President of DunkinDonuts IS a person, and maybe he has a lot to say about the world of donuts. Maybe he's interesting enough that I want to follow him. DunkinDonuts is only interesting because I like to eat their donuts and maybe drink their coffee, and until Twitter has eat-o-vision integrated in its interface, I don't care what it has to say.
  • scott · 11 months ago
    You may want to check out yonkly: http://yonkly.com

    The first "create your own microblog" to integrate with Twitter
  • Jason at Dr.MOZ · 11 months ago
    I'm a founder of a company (Dr.MOZ) that started Tweeting a few days ago, and I really can't say that I've seen many brands hiding behind their logos. I don't know about you, but I'd love it if the President of the company that made my cell phone made himself available on Twitter like I do for our customers. My profile reads "Jason at Dr.MOZ", which mentions the brand along with my name to address the transparency issue. I'm certainly not shy about the fact that Dr.MOZ sells gifts for new and expecting dads (online or offline), but I save the "selling" for our retail partners and our company website.

    I've already found it to be a great way to connect with those in our industry, particularly when it comes to off topic issues. It only took a single Tweet to find a huge number of midwives, doulas, and lactation consultants interested in joining our free US birth educator directory. The tweet didn't include information about our products, and we didn't have to shoot out a mass email to our entire list to let them know about the free service.

    Let's not forget, Twitter isn't a non-profit organization or a government agency backed by tax payers. They'll start charging the "brands" in the same way Craigslist charges for job listings. Those including their logos will be more than happy to subscribe or pay a one-time fee, and in turn this will cover the huge hosting fees and programmer salaries that come with keeping your Twitter account "free".

    Thanks for the great post!
    Jason, at Dr.MOZ
  • apollo gonzales · 11 months ago
    "So, does anyone really want to talk to @DunkinDonuts?" Evidently, 2832 people want to. And just do a search for replies to @DunkinDonuts and you'll see that the conversation is happening. Sorry, but I think you are off base here. If a brand thinks they can have a home on Twitter, and sustain it without a real face, they should be able to give it a try. Let the users decide whether or not the succeed. And let the brands decide if they get a good ROI. I follow a few brands, and have dropped a few too.

    Also, I don't think IBM could do anything better. Bluegrass? Come on.
  • Adriel Hampton · 11 months ago
    Your argument is a godsend for Twitter's possible emerging model of special features for brands. Because, Twitter IS best for personalities, not corporate labels. But "Will the real Dunkin Donuts please stand up?" will always be an issue, unless ... Twitter steps in with a badge verifying a corporate identity for a PERSON running a twitterstream, and even facilitates community building around that brand, like a sub-badge for "official" trusted fans who are out there evangelizing a product or service. Now that would be valuable.
  • Guillaume · 11 months ago
    Interesting post. I agree about not following a brand but someone working in the company, like dell has done it by making its own employees becoming brand ambassadors on twitter.
  • Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago
    Thanks Guillaume. I think that's right, and I should have had that in my post, in hindsight. No brands on Twitter, just brand ambassadors. What does everyone else think?
  • Michelle BB · 11 months ago
    I respectfully disagree. I believe brands do have an important place on Twitter and can be tremendous resources for their followers. As a victim of the recent ice storm in New England, I looked to @psnh and @homedepot for information, tips and guidance as my family made decisions about where to stay and what to do to protect our house (as I write, we're still without power and at a hotel). Twitter provided more information and Twitter representatives responded quickly to my requests.

    I think you're post should serve as a warning to brands: Twitter doesn't suffer fools lightly. Brands must recognize that the beauty of Twitter is the personal connection made with every Tweet. Look at a few exemplar brands (@comcastcares, of course) and model your Twitter accounts after them. And always remember, Twitter is about the conversation, so engage, don't just talk.
  • Miguel · 11 months ago
    I disagree about businesses being banned from Twitter. Twitter is about connection, and there is NOTHING wrong with a brand wanting to connect with customers. Are brands doing it wrong? Yes. But Twitter is a technology that is still in an exploration phase. Some credit should be given to businesses joining Twitter and trying to actually join a conversation. But, we also have to keep in mind, like so much social media, there is a learning curve. There are no absolutes when businesses attempt to use social media because there is no manual that says do this versus that. There may be guidelines, sure, but those guidelines a constantly evolving and growing also.

    People need to get off their high horse, and stop bitching at businesses and instead offer some advice. Help them get on board. I know this because I have many clients that are trying to figure this stuff out. They don't know what is right or wrong. Instead, our business does our best guide them, and more importantly teach them what to do. That will provide better results and allow businesses to create a social media personality.
  • Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago
    "Members of social networks want to spend time with friends, not brands." (http://is.gd/bDBH) (RT @jayrosen_nyu @nytimes)
  • Arsen Yeremin · 11 months ago
    "When I follow a media outlet on Twitter, I don’t want to hear personal noise. When I follow a friend, I do." --Dave Kresta (@Ontier)
    I agree. @garyvee also nails it on brand vs person in his video post http://garyvaynerchuk.com/2008/10/17/brittany-s...

    Twitter should be looked at a platform that hosts brands, bots, individuals, organizations, schools, neighborhoods, blogs, etc... It's simplicity, flexibiity and opennes is why it's so successful. We should not be figuring out what type of entities we need to discriminate against. Instead let's find ways to use the system in innovative ways.

    Example: Maybe even my car can tweet from time to time.
  • Queen of the Click · 11 months ago
    I don't mind brands being on Twitter, but I agree they need to be transparent. Asking a group of women to talk because they are being compensated harms the authentic conversations that are happening on twitter. As long as people disclose who are are working for or even designate the talk with a symbol (like a plus or pound symbol), I think that's enough disclosure.

    We choose to follow or unfollow various accounts. In the past two weeks, Twitter has had a surge of porn accounts. Some people follow these accounts not realizing that they are a porn site until they start tweeting up the porn. So we can we ban the porn brand if we don't ban all brands?
  • Maria Lavis · 11 months ago
    Seems we were on same wavelength on the weekend Mark as I wrote my take in my blog on how to merge corporate interests into Twitter without making a mess of things:

    http://tinyurl.com/5vj6uk
  • David Berkowitz · 11 months ago
    If you really don't like brands on Twitter, don't follow them.
  • Len Kendall · 11 months ago
    Here's my own collection of brands on twitter and how they score in terms of engagement:

    http://snurl.com/8fqwi
  • Jon Henshaw · 11 months ago
    I this is really over-thinking it. People will either follow or not follow branded Twitter accounts. If they do follow them, it's probably because they offer something to users. That could be anything from good conversation to coupons. Either way, the vote is in the "follow" and why anyone would charge the "user" for user-generated content (regardless of whether or not it's a brand) is beyond me.
  • Michelle BB · 11 months ago
    I respectfully disagree. I believe brands do have an important place on Twitter and can be tremendous resources for their followers. As a victim of the recent ice storm in New England, I looked to @psnh and @homedepot for information, tips and guidance as my family made decisions about where to stay and what to do to protect our house (as I write, we're still without power and at a hotel). Twitter provided more information and Twitter representatives responded quickly to my requests.

    I think your post should serve as a warning to brands: Twitter doesn't suffer fools lightly. Brands must recognize that the beauty of Twitter is the personal connection made with every Tweet. Look at a few exemplar brands (@comcastcares, of course) and model your Twitter accounts after them. And always remember, Twitter is about the conversation, so engage, don't just talk.
  • Jeff · 11 months ago
    Banning just about anything on Twitter goes against what Twitter is about. Don't want to receive clutter from a "brand" on Twitter? Don't follow.
  • Walter Schwabe · 11 months ago
    Isn't the issue beyond simple transparency are more about a willingness to engage? There are brands on Twitter and elsewhere that still cling to the "push broadcaster" model. They're mandate is not to respond to commentary. Thereby bringing Seth Godin's "interruption marketing" approach to the twitterverse. I use my corporate name on twitter @fusedlogic, if you want to know more about me you can click on the profile, go to my site or better yet ask me flat out. Having said all of this, every time we follow one of these brands (just like the 8% who buy viagra from spam emails) we promote the activity. Ban by unfollowing. Unfortunately a hundred years of broadcasting may has us all brainwashed...
  • Thorren Koopmans · 11 months ago
    The beauty of twitter is that you choose who you follow. There is no rule that says you must follow everyone who follows you, this means that if you believe brands do not belong on Twitter, brands will not be on Twitter (at least not in your stream).

    In my personal view, some brands are doing this right (I follow some) others may not be. It doesn't really matter, I am empowered to do my own thing, I get to choose.

    I say to each their own!
  • Elana Centor · 11 months ago
    The whole concept of banning brands on Twitter reminds me of a conversation I had in 1995 with my then technical team. We were hired to create websites for clients but when we proposed using these websites for marketing purposes, the tech guys balked ...saying it was not an "elegant" use of the internet. They felt using websites for marketing would destroy the spirit of the internet.
    I'm confident that having brands on Twitter will only be a plus-- Pay and play or don't play nice and get kicked out of the sandbox.
  • Ricky Paredes · 11 months ago
    My twitter page is basically just about me and my random tweeting life.
  • free medical videos · 11 months ago
    good efforts
  • B Dolan · 10 months ago
    I think the big push is towards massive corporate transparency, and Twitter is one way to make that happen, if it is used the right way.

    Ford's social media director,@ScottMonty is a good example of showing how the nuts and bolts of a corporation work. While I'm sure that there is much that he cannot talk about, what he does share on Twitter is engaging and informative. Considering that his brand is under a considerable amount of scrutiny (both public and private), those small Tweets make me feel as though I have at least a partial line of communication with a very large brand.

    @wholefoods is trying to do some of the same thing. While sometimes lapsing into spam-eqsue ads, they do try to show a reasonable amount of interaction with their customers.

    My corporation (a government agency) is wrestling with the "how much do we say" question. Transparency is essential, but there is a *lot* of old-school thinking that I am trying to change. I think interacting with the public is essential to further our brand, and increase our positive perception with everyone.
  • Mr.Jade Cadelina · 10 months ago
    I think its innovative and smart for a brand to in Twitter. Every business needs a customer. Twitter is another way to connect with your loyal and new customers. Use Twitter to improve your brand..
  • Kyle F. Reinson · 10 months ago
    I am concerned about the Twitter Twits.
  • gabriel · 10 months ago
    EVEN A PERSON CAN HAVE A PERSONAL BRAND - OBAMA IS THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE...

    BRANDS CAN BE ON TWITTER, IN THE END TWITTER IS A SORT OF NEWSLETTER WITH NEWS ON (PRIMARILY PERSONS) THAT INTEREST YOU. BRANDS CAN BE ON TWITTER, AND WHOEVER WANTS SOME NEWS ON THEN ARE FREE TO FOLLOW
  • Brian · 8 months ago
    Personally I don't see anything wrong with brands on Twitter. However the point is that if you are going to try to promote your brand on Twitter you should be attempting to add value to community, not just spam it with links for your offers.

    Maybe if brands took a more interesting approach to Twitter such as talking about their history or posting interesting trivia, more people would be open to having them on the site.

    But what most companies have failed to realize is that people who use social networking sites don't want to be sold to 24/7.
  • Rich · 7 months ago
    Your bio snippet should read...

    Dr. Mark Drapeau is a biological scientist, government consultant, arrogant know it all hippy liberal douche, and regular contributor to Mashable.com and other venues. These views are his own and do not represent the official views of any organization.
  • Brianna · 5 months ago
    I agree that if brands are to get involved there must be personality. But then, I think it's really hard to keep in mind your brand and staying aligned with that brand when pursuing that persona.