One of the hardest things to tackle when creating a social media strategy for a brand is the logistics behind it. Twitter seems to be the place that causes the most issues, as it requires the most time. Interestingly enough three strategies seem to have emerged when handling who, as in the character, should be tweeting.
The CEO
The first idea that came to mind, and it’s because of @Zappos, was that the CEO should be sending out Tweets. Obviously this is great because it shows a dedication to keep the conversation flowing. The ability to reach out and speak to the head of a company as a friend can lead to a loyalty to that brand. Because I like @Zappos and because of how he takes care of the company, treats his customers, and has built my trust, I know I will buy shoes from them.
The problem with this is that it requires a CEO with a pulse (both literally and figuratively). A boring CEO Twitter account is still a boring account. The value doesn’t come from simply being a CEO, but from what you talk about and how you engage your consumers. Secondly, if the CEO is actually beyond busy, they might not have the time or want to constantly update their Twitter account. Although the practice of having an assistant update your Twitter stream (@downingstreet) is great in theory and sometimes does work, I don’t see it building the same loyalty the CEO would.
The Brand
Another way to use Twitter is by Tweeting on behalf of your brand. If your company name is all that matters, talking as if you’re a giant billboard can work for some. Tweeting as a brand that gives information, reminds consumers that you exist and places a seed in their mind for when they are buying products. @JetBlue does this well, assigning multiple people to the duty of updating the Twitter account and engaging consumers.
The downside to this is that if you’re a brand that doesn’t have much going on, there might not be enough to update. Also, with multiple users updating the Twitter account, it’s difficult for a consumer to create a connection or a back and forth, when the next time I send a message someone entirely new might be reading it.
A Personality
This is my favorite strategy, if only because it can be a lot of fun. Creating a character to be the face of a brand on Twitter is great idea because it personalizes the brand. It gives you someone to actually talk as and allows you to switch users updating the Twitter account, without actually changing the character.
The problem with this method is that it’s difficult to achieve well. It’s hard to play a character, and to get multiple people playing the same character. Also, how many updates does a fictional character have? There’s only so much you can make up about the life of a brand mascot.
Do you have another idea for how to use a brand Twitter account or something to add to what I’ve said? Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Check out Training Social, a comprehensive resource that will help you build and execute a social media plan for your business!
{ 16 comments read them below or add one }
Samir, like you, I think it would be fun to talk to a “Geico Gecko,” or some other company’s main character (I don’t like the term “mascot” for this role, though) on Twitter. But the only way it works is if the creators of the character abandon the idea of constantly trying to “sell” the brand through the character in an obvious way. I think the most successful company characters are those who could exist independently of the company, and people would still follow them. The figure needs to have cultural relevance and substance to thrive in an independent environment.
Successful CEOs and top executives realize that they need to be opinion leaders as much as they need to be managers and strategists. If they’re “too busy” they need to reprioritize. Composing 500-word blog entries might be out of the question, but a 140-character tweet is eminently doable.
Got here from your post at Mashable, and I like the way you compiled those big names. But in my opinion, it’s not really the question of who should tweet but rather how to tweet.
Social sites like Twitter was created to be bridge to all of us, including the top names in a company to the end user of their product. Although the “relationship” is professional, it should somehow be with a personal touch. In this way, customers will feel that they are very important in a business.
Regards.
I stumbled on this article just as we were debating what angle to use for a major client of ours. Great suggestions to consider. really. I am really tempted to create a character. It just seems like fun!
@Steve I agree, it’s all about standing out without going too far. On Twitter I can appreciate a personality that makes me smile, much more than someone that is very serious. It’s all about having fun.
@samir
I think on Twitter a persona does need an edge and something slightly differentiated. That’s why I claim to be the “Jackson Pollock of IT” – and if space permitted I would also be ‘an ice-cream shaman’. It’s about standing out, without playing the village fool. I think instead of Tweeting one account from multiple people, it would be better to just have one account per person. This gives wider spread and more chances that someone will have the right mix in terms of ‘engaging personality’.
@samir
I think that a Mascot or fictional character is nice, but I think it’s more of a niche, and has to be carried off well. Take for example @jackbox which since Jack was hit by a bus on Superbowl Sunday, has been posting updates about http://www.hangintherejack.com/ which has video, blog posts and tie ins all to his accident. Obviously, that campaign is a major effort, and not just afterthought and twitter ties into it as a social branch.
I totally agree with Jeremy. Mascots can be fun, but they’re fake. People feel more engaged when they interact with a genuine person, than some fictional, uhm.. mascot.
Talking Head
Foten big companies are somewhat faceless, so offering up a genuine person as a Twitterface for their company can be successful. I mean, look at @mattcutts, he’s the ultimate talking head for Google to the webmaster world. Certainly, he has his actual powers and influence, but he is a human connector for the company, and he has become the new Twitterface for Google.
@Jeremy, @Igor – Wow I’m glad I wrote this post, it gives me a view at how others see it. I agree that having a genuine person is great, but I guess I always thought it’d be fun to talk to “The Burger King” or the “Gieco Gecko”. I see it working if the mascot is funny, and really conveys the culture of the company. Based on your feedback I see that I might be the minority, and that maybe a real person is better. The fictional character idea might still work in conjunction with having real employees from the company. What do you think?
@Rich Thanks for the input, and I agree its meant to be a bridge. But what happens when your CEO or top guys are sincerely too busy to use Twitter, or what if you just don’t want them there (They may be able to run a huge company, but they might not be that personable.) So what next? That’s where the “character” strategy comes in for me. After reading all these comments I do think I agree, professional with personal touch is the optimal situation.
I agree that top executives and CEOs should be opinion leaders but for some, Twitter just isn’t for them. I’d rather have a CEO that really wants to be on Twitter instead of one that I’m forcing. But, yes I can agree with you that between blogging and using Twitter, micro-blogging is an easy way to continue to be a thought leader online without the huge time investment.
@Sonja I’m wary about having an account independent of the company. It needs to be run by the company, but only once they understand how to use it properly. Staying away from trying to “sell” the brand is absolutely the most important thing to know.