DISQUS

Pete · 11 months ago

BTW, Lon: we have a technical issue with displaying your avatar...we're attempting various fixes.

Brandon J. Mendelson · 11 months ago

I think the real issue comes down to this: Many Twitter users like using the services because it is a conversation between two people. So when a brand enters that conversation, even if it is in a helpful capacity (@JetBlue) or an informative capacity (@Marvel), it still constitutes advertising at a basic level.

This "ruins" the conversation because many online are constantly running from advertising and will run elsewhere.

So the question of whether or not a brand belongs on Twitter is not so much about Twitter acting like a phone book but because Twitter acts like a dialogue that is now being disrupted.

Andy Arnott · 11 months ago

I couldn't agree more, brands completely belong on twtter! I think what most people don't like is the fact that it's hard to tell who's just having a conversation, and who's selling something.

A service like twitAD is needed so that people KNOW the difference between an ad, or someone having a conversation.

If we create a place for advertisers to advertise, then we won't have to figure out whether someone is sincere in talking to us, or if they are just trying to hock goods and services.

Dave Johnston · 11 months ago

Just a tremendous post...

It all comes down to #1, and #1 is at the very core of this service.

You OPT-IN to everyone on Twitter. If you are feeling spammed, OPT-OUT by unfollowing or blocking.

As has been discussed in many places, brands should be represented by actual people and not boring, empty logo accounts. I want a real person, just like when I scream and press "0" like a madman when I'm trying to call AT&T customer service.

Ryan Chartrand · 11 months ago

Thank you! I was so discouraged from the article you have written this rebuttal about, and am so glad to see some defense.

And Brandon, honestly, how does a company entering a conversation really ruin it? I've watched @starbucks for a while now start great conversations, answer questions and help people. And do you have any idea how "cool" it makes those people feel to know that Starbucks, in its almighty throne, took the time to answer their questions? Brands on Twitter just makes the conversation even more interesting.

Aside from spam, porn and George Bush, all are welcome in my Twitterverse.

Brad · 11 months ago

Like corporate blogs, there's a good and a bad way for companies to market via Twitter. In fact, the ones that are doing it right tend to be the ones that I follow. They create or are engaging personalities that offer value add or at least a reason to listen.
Dunkin Donuts is green to the Twitter world and they're still finding their sea legs, so to speak; their posts are mostly pictures of new locations. Meh. Now, start pushing hush-hush promotions or taking input on coffee/donut flavors, they might get a bit more bang for their caffeine-soaked buck.
SouthwestAir, on the other hand - my undisputed king of corporate social media - is rocking the Twitter world, offering useful travel advice and localized tweetups at airports. An airline is a perfect fit for the highly mobile-enable Twitter world (TwitterBerry, Twitterific, Twittelator, etc.)

Jason Gooljar · 11 months ago

I welcome brands to Twitter. It makes it easier for me to monitor their PR machine and go after them. Hi there @americaspower!

Brandon J. Mendelson · 11 months ago

@Ryan

Some people have a problem with advertising; No matter what forms, no matter how useful.

The allure to any new online frontier is the lack of advertising. There may be a correlation (and causation) to show that an increase in the amount of advertisements leads to a decrease in membership or desire to utilize a service.

That would be a great guest post for Mashable ...

Jim Storer · 11 months ago

I couldn't agree more. At the end of the day, there are people behind brands whether they're serving you in a store, manning the phone banks in the customer support center or listening (and responding to) a conversation on Twitter. It really comes down to how they (the individuals) respect the medium. Just as it's distasteful for a sales person to be overly aggressive in a store, it's important for brands to respect the boundaries and mores established by the people that use Twitter.

What would have happened if Motrin had people associated with their brand monitoring and joining the conversation that fateful weekend last month? My guess is "Motrin Moms" wouldn't have developed into as big of an issue.

Jim | @jstorerj

Ryan Chartrand · 11 months ago

@Brandon

Well I agree with the fact that the allure to a new online frontier is the lack of advertising. But the effective uses of it on Twitter aren't intrusive like when advertising appears in an online environment. For example, when Pandora started the audio ads, that was intrusive, there was no opt-in. With Twitter, you have that choice to accept those "advertisements," but again, we only follow the companies that do this creatively and effectively, and most importantly, use it to connect with customers, to build their brand (not just another outlet for ads).

Tom Altman · 11 months ago

I have no problem with brands - AS LONG as they tell us. I have an issue (not for long - 'cause I un-follow quickly) with people who have an agenda. I think some people want that kind of stuff - and the follow button can set us free.

Jessica Smith · 11 months ago

I absolutely agree that brands belong on Twitter and if they're smart, they'll engage raving fans from their target market that are already using Twitter successfully as a conversation tool, to be their evangelists.

A lot of the people on Twitter, even if they aren't a large brand, they are still a brand in and of themselves. In fact, I'd venture to say that some people who started using Twitter to connect and converse, have now branded themselves, whether intentionally or not.

I agree with those who point out that you can opt-in or opt-out. I love engaging with my favorite brands, offering them feedback and getting excited about new product and service offerings.

The thing I love most about Twitter is that you get to know people on a personal level and a professional level all at the same time. To me, asking Twitter to ban brands is going down a slippery slope. What's next? Forbidding folks from talking "shop"?

Brandon J. Mendelson · 11 months ago

@Ryan

That was an excellent point.

Eddy Cole · 11 months ago

It irks me to no end how people write about brands as if they're entities or people. Brands are not people so they cannot communicate.

People communicate about brands and as long as those people act like people on whatever network they happen to be on, I'm all for them being there. If I find what those people are doing or saying interesting, I'll follow along and may even try to develop some sort of relationship.

But as Shel Israel said over on twitter "Me, i'd rather not talk to a Coke bottle." (Link)

Anrkist · 11 months ago

It's very simple. They need to be as valuable to me as I am to them. You can "Where's the beef" me till the cows come home with your personality but if you don't give me anything other than a smile, take a seat. Throw some deals my way. Give me something of value. If you simply link me to your website every 5 days, you're no better than a popup banner.

Seamus Condron · 11 months ago

Whether you agree or disagree about Brands being on Twitter, the fact is that not just Twitter, bust social media as a whole is giving brands the opportunity to start engaging their consumers at the level that consumers engage with each other. In time, there simply won't be a choice: Brands will HAVE to engage. They will have to be on Twitter, and whatever platforms and communities their customers live on. And they will have to have a top to bottom social media strategy. The truth is the some brands will try and and buck this evolution, and others will simply fail at it.

At a social media panel this past week in New York, Saul Colt, Head of Magic at Freshbooks, responded to an audience question question: "Will social media kill brands?" His response (I'm paraphrasing): It will kill faceless brands.

Right now, brands thinking about social media need to scrutinize how companies such as @Zappos are successfully embracing tools such as Twitter. Their customers are loving them for it, and that's the best measure of success.

Ari Herzog · 11 months ago

Whoa. Jim Storer argued in an earlier comment that corporate representatives work in stores, man customer service phone banks, and respond on Twitter (and other social networks). The difference is the first two examples typically include said company rep saying his or her name, e.g. "Hi, thanks for visiting XYZ. My name is Charles. Can I help you?" Or maybe he doesn't say his name, for a badge imprints his name. Switch to Twitter, and where is that personal name? That's my beef, encapsulated in tweets earlier tonight between me and @WholeFoods: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=ariherzog+wh...

Emma · 11 months ago

Yes BUT, are you calling up Charles or are you calling up company XYZ? And do you remember that customer service because Charles was a nice guy or because company XYZ had surprisingly helpful service?


Playing Devil's advocate here, mostly. I like talking to people as much as the next person, and make it a big deal to become friends with any telemarketer-ish/representative.

Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago

My point is that, just as when someone answers a phone or sends an email, that every Twitter account has a person behind it - I'd like to know their name and location. If there's a brand involved, I'd like to know their connection to it (CEO, cust service, fan, etc)

tiphereth · 11 months ago

yes brands do belong on Twitter but brands also need to be mindful of social media etiquette and be interesting in their engagement strategy rather than just being spammy or tweeting links to other channels, digital or otherwise. Its also a long term strategy rather than just a tactical tool, and it takes time and love to build up a following rather than just pushing for a quick fix

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.

Laura Powers · 11 months ago

This post is excellent, as are most at Mashable!
tiphereth makes a good point too - brands need to realize that this is a long-term relationship developer, not a quick way to market themselves.

Jim Storer · 11 months ago

@ari - good point on knowing the name of the people in my first two examples. unfortunately, twitter doesn't allow enough characters in "about" field for large organizations to list everyone Tweeting on their behalf. To date, it doesn't offend me if the anonymous people tweeting for a brand are consistent and recognize the unwritten rules of Twitter. YMMV.

...but if you don't like what you see from companies like @wholefoods on Twitter why don't you just stop following (#1 above)? Everyone has the opportunity to create their own stream on Twitter, which is a big part of the allure for most.

Personally, I see a lot more questionable behavior on Twitter by small, one-person firms promoting their services than with large companies trying to "be there" for their customers.

Alan Wolk · 11 months ago

While I am in complete agreement with your overall theory (brands belong on Twitter)-- and I think you have some innovative ideas for how brands can use it-- I think you're oversimplifying the situation.

Brands on Twitter started off by providing "useful spam" - e.g. I complained that my Comcast installer hadn't shown up yet and poof! @comcastcares shows up to help.

Now that's useful and helpful, but it was still unsolicited.

Brands "spamming" us with @ messages was fine when there were just a half dozen brands on line. But what happens now that hundreds if not thousands of brands are?

So where do we draw the line? What's a useful wanted unsolicited message and what's not?

Similarly, there's the whole notion of collecting followers encourages brand spam since so many of the collectors are on Twitter to push some sort of product, even if that product is themselves.

Many of these mega-users seem intent on pushing Twitter to become scrolling classified ad board, with little, if any, social interaction. So the war between those who see Twitter as an asynchronous IM device to chat with friends and those who see it as a promotional device is far from over.

Finally, though your suggestions for creative uses of Twitter are excellent, I'd caveat that they need to be used sparingly. If Coke is sending out hourly updates, it quickly becomes annoying. Weekly updates? That could work. It's not that different from the ways companies use- and misuse- opt-in email efforts.

Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago

Thanks for this follow-up article to mine on Friday about a complex issue. My opinion on this can be summarized as follows: No anonymous brands where we don't know the author, but interesting "brand ambassadors" talking about brands (or anything else) are fine, and even great. I'd be surprised if someone argued that they had more affinity for an anonymous car driving the roads than for one with Tiger Woods or a beautiful bikini clad spokesmodel talking about it - that's why brands hire spokespeople - it works. My suggestion is that for Twitter, for brands, and for people, it is better to have personal, authentic, and transparent brand ambassadors. Disagree everyone?

Alan Wolk · 11 months ago

Agreed. And that's why @comcastcares works so well- because Frank's name and email address are up there on the Twitter page.

Only exception I'd make is news organizations, where my interest in the tweet is getting an update, not having a conversation. So it's okay for an @ESPN to tweet Nets 102 - Raptors 96 (F) with a link to the write-up on ESPN- if that's all I want to know from them.

meznor · 11 months ago

Having brand ambassadors is definitely a better way to go. The key to all of this social media stuff is in the genuine conversations that result from real people interacting with other real people... to me, Coca Cola telling me about a new brand of product isn't a conversation. But Cindy from Coca Cola, who served an orange-infused cocktail using Coke at her Christmas party, who shares the recipe through a tweet, is kind of more interesting, and maybe even if I'm not a Cokehead, I'd follow her 'cos it'd give me some ideas for the holidays.
The people who stand behind the product have to genuinely love what they're doing and who they represent, and when you start conversations using enthusiasts from within your own company, talking about something other than the product, the chance of reaching *new* audiences (e.g., the audience of people who like to host parties and need tips on new cocktails) is greater, IMO.

Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago

Of course. There is always a balance between the persona and the brand. Some will do it better than others. My main point = there should be a persona. Then, the Twitter account in some sense becomes "more than just a brand" to readers.

Randy Roberson · 11 months ago

Why not all "Brands" on Twitter are a bad thing...
As a head of an international relief agency, the social web and especially Twitter are increasingly important to me for two reasons.
First, in this day and age spam mail gets you nowhere (plus who needs/reads it?) and telephone solicitations are just plain annoying, plus most of us are smart enough to have our phones on the do not call list. However, at the same time market conditions have resulted in a dramatic downturn in giving/support for non-profits and - as such - have all but killed MANY non-profit agencies. Tools like Twitter might just save our bacon. Oh and by the way, our effort endeavors to save lives all around the world, so it is not just our bacon we are worried about. This can save countless lives as well.

The point raised here regarding Twitter being "Opt In" is completely on target. If you read my Tweets about our efforts, the desperate pleas for humanitarian assistance we receive each day, our need for support and/or our latest efforts to expand out telemedicine or disaster situational awareness technologies, you can either read on, or opt out.

I am rather amazed and dismayed that who is complaining about brand promotion, apparently thinks I have even the smallest concern about some “hot babe” he’s having drinks with tonight or what basketball game tickets he scored. While that may seem like the most important thing in the world to him, it means little to me. Conversely I can also opt out of what I consider to be meaningless drivel and would normally say nothing about it. The exception of course is when I hear him complaining about other’s promotional use of Twitter.

In the meantime, I will happily use twitter in an attempt to share the needs of people suffering around the world, of the pain and anguish experienced by refugees searching for food and medicine, and for our desperate attempts to find caring people who can help us in this pursuit.

If that – or this post - is annoying to you, then I kindly expect you to opt out. If our efforts are interesting or if you would like to learn more... then opt in. Regardless, when you are having a drink with that hot babe or enjoying that basketball game, just know that there are some who are desperately trying to use the "BRANDING" promotional capabilities for the greater good of all man kind. Deal with it.

Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago

Randy - Well, you know what Christopher Hitchens says about the ad hominem attack. When your prickly attitude wears off, you might note that I consult the government on issues like energy security, climate change, and biotechnology, and work with groups like STAR-TIDES (http://star-tides.net) (TIDES = Transportable Structures for Development and Emergency Support) and NIUSR (National Institute for Urban Searh and Rescue) on exactly the kinds of things you're interested in. Honey vs. vinegar. Thanks, Mark

Randy Roberson · 11 months ago

Prickly? Ok, perhaps I deserved that. However, as adults we should be able to agree to disagree.

I am quite familiar with your involvement in Star-Tides, that is where I was first exposed to you. I too am involved in that same network, albeit in quiet corners.

My concern was not as much with you as with the topic as it pertains to desperate non-profits who do not have the benefit of government funding. Tools like Twitter may be our last hope. As such, if use of banding by some is seen as annoying, i felt equally compelled to target the use of twitter for mundane updates (having drinks with a hottie, etc.). Admittedly perhaps some of my angst was also due to the fact I was working and you were having drinks with a hottie (smirk).

While I noted above that you have stated now that not all branding is a bad thing, my "prickels" are a bit more relaxed. I just thought it was good to point out a contrasting point of view, especially as important as it is to save the life of and agency tasked with saving lives. Hope my prickliness didn't ruffle you feathers.

Ryan Moede · 11 months ago

If a brand respects the proper etiquette within Twitter, provides genuine and helpful information that customers opt-in to receive, then I think it's perfectly fine for brands to participate in Twitter. At the least, every brand should be monitoring conversations on Twitter to be aware of if/when they are being discussed so they can respond appropriately.

Chelsea · 11 months ago

Brands DO belong on twitter! These days twitter is helping companies get theirs name out there in a big way. The best part is being able to build long lasting relationships on twitter, which will definitely help you in the long run when you're trying to promote your business - because people will know and respect you. However, there's one thing I hate. If your brand is on twitter and all you care about is tweeting about yourself or your company - no one wants to hear that. They want to get to know you first. So first things first... build your network and make friendships... then build your brand.

Twitter rocks!

meznor · 11 months ago

"What I mean is don’t revert back to the tried and true methods to market whenever a new media technology comes along. Brands should watch the space and learn how others are effectively using it on a personal level and then just play along. It is quote simply, watch and learn."

Spot on. As long as the brand understands that social media is not a "push" medium, and they recognize that they can't manipulate the content, they can be successful.

Chuck · 11 months ago

Part of what's great about Twitter is that it's this simple tool that can be used in a huge variety of creative ways. Clearly there are arguments on both sides about whether/how much allowing brand use of Twitter harms Twitter, but I'd argue that beginning to restrict how Twitter can be used in the first place harms it more.

Bart Vickers · 11 months ago

I would argue that Twitter is an appropriate channel for some brands, but not all. Brands should do their homework about who is using Twitter and make an informed decision if that user profile matches up with their brand and its associated messages. Frankly, given Dunkin's "average Joe" brand positioning, their presence on Twitter leaves me scratching my head. It may be that the cost of entry is so low that there's a "heck, let's try this Twitter thing" attitude, but that's the absolutely wrong approach to engaging in social media.

Twitter is more "buzz-worthy insider marketing phenomenon" right now than "practical application for the masses." As long as brands understand that and proceed accordingly, they should be fine.

Randy Roberson · 11 months ago

On the outside chance someone reading here has a connection to the challenges regarding non-profits and the current market crunch (montioned above).... http://beth.typepad.com/beths_blog/2008/12/coll...
The post may help and it also shows the needs for increased focus by non-profits on social media.

Craig · 11 months ago

Agree, companies have to be on Twitter now. They can know exactly who is talking about them and can connect with them personally. When else could a company do that. Takes customer service to the extreme.

Bert DuMars · 11 months ago

Coming in late to this conversation has allowed me to review the back and forth on this subject. I am in favor of allowing brands on Twitter for a couple of reasons. One, it is a place where brand employees can engage with interested customers. Two, it is a place where customers can reach someone, other than customer service, representing the brand. There is a two way street of benefits. Also, as has been stated many times above, the customer or Twitterer has the choice of opting in, opting out and/or blocking a brand's access to their Tweets. As one who is responsible for some of our brands (Sharpie, Rubbermaid and Graco) being on Twitter, I and the employees who manage these accounts and represent the brands are very aware of being transparent, following social media etiquette, and participating as people, not just brands.

We must also be aware that at some point social media services like Twitter will have to figure out how to monetize there service. Otherwise, how do they survive? I noted one comment above that advertising, and thus the monetization process, will drive users away. This may be true, but if the given social media service adds relevant and compelling value for the user and the advertising does not become overwhelming and obtrusive, there may be a balance that all can support. Otherwise, we may need to support a fee structure like LinkedIn for the service to survive and thrive.

This is an excellent debate and as a social media ecosystem explorer I enjoy participating in and observing the natural evolution of social media marketing services like Twitter.

Mark Drapeau · 11 months ago

On this same topic, I've developed my thoughts further and just wrote a guest post (http://prsarahevans.com/2008/12/whose-transpare...) about brands, people, transparency, and government, where I come to an interesting conclusion - please read and comment!

Rico · 11 months ago

Hey that was a great article. I just started Tweeting and I like it I don't
use it effectively yet but im working on it.. good way to get side work

Andre Shoumatoff · 10 months ago

It is very basic -- and I've seen several brands do it now. One corporate messaging twitter account for people looking for that stuff. And another (or several) that are intimate. Also, because twitter is searchable and linkable, not everyone using twitter is 'following.' This makes corporate communications important if you want to look up a place where x-transaction or merger happened, x company acquired x company as a client, all communications small and large. This should be the staple approach to using twitter for this type of communication.

Mark Leonard · 9 months ago

I would like to say that I do not have a problem with brands on twitter.
Who pays for twitter and all the other free services on the internet that we
all use for free? What would happen if twitter were bought by a large brand
and then cut and pasted it into the recycle bin?

I personally would be more concerned about hackers and ID theft. We just forget
and expose to the entire world what time we left home, what time we get into
work, when we arrive back to a broken window and a missing 60 inch screen. I
will complain when I receive a bad meal in a restaurant only to get my money
back. I would probably eat it if it were free. What about ads on myspace and
facebook, does that not put you off or is it just added to the noise?

Oh yes and the noise, there is a lot of noise on twitter, I am not interested
in reading what tweeple have had for breakfast and the like but I tend to miss
the user reccommended gadget or travel destination amongst the noise. This may
upset a few people but I am just a tweep like you.

MiggyfromPOUT · 9 months ago

of course! no brands on twitter would be like no cheese on your cracker....just plain wrong!

twitter.com/mIggyfromPOUT