Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

MiggyfromPOUT — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:57:05 -0000

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

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Mark Leonard — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:50:59 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Andre Shoumatoff — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:17:23 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Rico — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:55:14 -0000

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

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Mark Drapeau — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 06:45:35 -0000

On this same topic, I've developed my thoughts further and just wrote a guest post (http://prsarahevans.com/200... about brands, people, transparency, and government, where I come to an interesting conclusion - please read and comment!

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Bert DuMars — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:02:50 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Craig — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:41:52 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Randy Roberson — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:12:06 -0000

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/bet...
The post may help and it also shows the needs for increased focus by non-profits on social media.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Mark Drapeau — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:07:45 -0000

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)

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Mark Drapeau — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:56:30 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Bart Vickers — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:39:00 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Chuck — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:17:22 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Guest — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:02:35 -0000

"What I mean is donâ€™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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Guest — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:59:39 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Chelsea — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:33:35 -0000

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!

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Randy Roberson — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:10:10 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Ryan Moede — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:04:51 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Mark Drapeau — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:47:49 -0000

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

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Randy Roberson — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:20:12 -0000

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 â€œhot babeâ€ heâ€™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 otherâ€™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 â€“ 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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Alan Wolk — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:13:39 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Mark Drapeau — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:42:23 -0000

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?

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Emma Dozier — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:34:04 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Alan Wolk — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:00:48 -0000

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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Jim Storer — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:55:13 -0000

@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.

Re: Why Brands ABSOLUTELY DO Belong on Twitter

Laura Powers — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:09:37 -0000

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.