Companies are discovering Twitter in droves. More and more, I’m seeing firms set up their Twitter IDs without putting a human face on them. I think this is a big mistake. Social media – whether used for personal or business purposes – is by definition interpersonal. When companies put forth a nameless, faceless, impersonal image, they deprive themselves of the greatest benefits of social media engagement. Instead, they reduce Twitter to just another platform to transmit one-way (and often self serving) messages. It’s not going to work.
Putting a human face on Twitter encourages conversation. When I’m confronted with a Tweet from a company as opposed to a person, I really don’t know how to respond. Think of it this way. What if you answered your telephone and heard this -
Hello, This is Amalgamated Insurance Corporation. Can we talk about your health insurance needs?
My first instinct would be, who’s asking? I want to talk to a person, not an amalgamation – particularly when it comes to discussing my own needs and problems. That’s one reason why in sales it goes without saying that you introduce yourself starting with your own name: it’s so obvious I feel ridiculous even writing it. Nonetheless, companies thumb their nose at this simple and essential rule every time they Tweet behind a corporate mask.
But it’s not only the receiver of the Twitter message that suffers at the hand of anonymous tweeting. The person sending out the tweet on behalf of his or her firm is likewise inhibited. Who feels comfortable talking to a person from behind a curtain? It stifles us. We can’t talk freely about our reactions and ideas because there is no “us” doing the talking.
Company Twitter IDs structured in such a way will have extreme difficulty digging beneath the surface and creating the strong customer bonds that Twitter and other social media sites are so well suited to fostering.
Sure, there is value in corporate Twitter accounts set up for the purpose of announcing sales promotions or broadcasting company news. I suppose in those cases one-way flow of information is fine, since that’s presumably what all receivers are looking for. However, those types of accounts should be secondary. Every company ought to have a primary Twitter ID that features a human author. Personally, I don’t care whether the author is the CEO or somebody who works on the loading dock. I just want to know who it is. Then we can have a conversation.
How do you feel about it? Are you comfortable talking to a company, or do you want a human being?
___________________
Chicago based SEO copywriting, blog consulting, and content strategy consulting.
Agree! And in their avatars. RT @bradshorr: New post – Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://ow.ly/Kcnw
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://bit.ly/8F4NsZ
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://is.gd/5gQet
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
OK to use co name as ID, but incl real names in bio. Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://bit.ly/7F7Fez by @bradshorr
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
This is a valid question for a variety of reasons. We’re grappling with it right now only because we’re trying to capture all of the social media efforts of our employees so we might better understand how those efforts affect our business. One of the ways we’ve looked at doing this is to include the company name in an employee’s Twitter account name, which we don’t mandate today. That would give us a way to track those employee led efforts. Of course we would always encourage that the human behind the account list their name & expertise in their bio.
Good points. RT @merylkevans: Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://bit.ly/7F7Fez by @bradshorr
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Hi Kelly, Thanks for sharing your social media challenges – you are certainly dealing with Twitter on a large scale, so I’m sure there are no simple answers. Tracking and measuring results seems like an inexact science at best right now – do you feel pretty confident in your metrics?
I much prefer real peoples, I will admit.
That being said, it was @SearsCares that contacted me when I was having major washing machine problems…but the person BEHIND that ID signed his full name to our email communications. So I didn’t feel like I was talking to a building.
Barbara, What you’re describing is a great way to handle things, especially when there is a clear and usual next step in communication following Twitter contact. That’s not always the case, though. Sometimes people behind customer service oriented Twitter sites have identified themselves in DMs, which I also like.
Part of this is a problem with Twitter’s naming convention, specially when you have multiple folks at a company trying to twitter. I’ve liked the approach where the twitter id ends up being ‘nameatcompany’. Gives a personal touch and scales a bit. I imagine twitter could actually sell the ability to control that similar to the way domain names are sold. The companies that I have followed that don’t have a human personality get pretty boring pretty quick. (Special offers aside).
Is company twittering human? From @bradshorr http://ow.ly/KjOm
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Fred, I wonder if those who designed the Twitter naming conventions ever envisioned to what extent this medium would be used for business. In any case, it frustrating to have such severe limitations because it frustrates the efforts of companies to combine branding with personalization.
Hi Brad,
I completely agree that companies will benefit from using human identities on Twitter. Humans communicate with humans. Period. Yes, naming conventions on Twitter cause limitations, but let’s not let the technology drive the underlying imperatives to build trust and value for customers.
For those writing the tweets, having their name on the Twitter account promotes a higher level of transparency when writing. Rather than hiding behind a brand or corporate shield, the author becomes more accountable – especially as everything written remains in the public domain (assuming public tweet stream).
Thanks, Brad.
Robin
HUMANIZE TWITTER: RT @bradshorr: Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter | WordSell, Inc | http://ow.ly/Kcnw
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Robin, If trust is the ultimate measure, it raises an interesting question: from the customer point of view, does trust lay in the person or the brand? My guess is, many companies contemplating a foray into social media overestimate brand loyalty and discount personal loyalty. Employees do the opposite – sales people, for instance, tend to believe customers are loyal to them as individuals more so than as representatives of a brand.
Another key point you raise, Brad.
This balance between trusting people and trusting brands is another ‘after shock’ implication that is surfacing in the rush to implement social media.
From a company perspective, “owning” the relationship with the customers is critical.
It’s much easier to facilitate this relationship human-to-brand in the sense that people come and go from companies, but the brand remains. However, what is gained here must be balanced with the vastly inferior human-to-brand communication (and hence relationship driving) experience.
Great discussion.
Robin
I gotta go with you on this one, Brad. One of the best things a company can do is personalize their social media presence, whether it be a blog, a twitter stream, or facebook or whatever. But the big question is, how do you convince a company who’s sticking their toes in the water to just jump in? Typically, the larger the business, the more conservative/cautious they are – sometimes rightly so. And there’s also the inevitable legal questions raised as well.
Excellent point made by fellow Bubba, @bradshorr at Word Sell today! Companies should use human identities on Twitter: http://is.gd/5hcS0
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Hi Bob, If you and I agree on this, it MUST be right.
Yes, I can see how a big company would be reluctant to embrace something new and unproven (or at least perceived that way). But, successful companies allow experimentation, don’t they? In another recent post I made just that point. Reluctance to engage in social media may be a symptom of a much more serious problem.
Again, I’m with ya, Brad! In fact, a friend of mine pointed me to a company site last week. I looked at it for a moment, then noticed the “Blog” tab and clicked on that, only to find it hadn’t been updated in months! My first comment about the company: “Looks like they need help with their social media effort!”
I feel much the same way when I see a company on Twitter with no personal “feel” to their presence. Dabbling is no good, either; you gotta jump in and just do it!
We agree! – Companies should use human identities on Twitter: http://bit.ly/65nOdG (via @bradshorr)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://bit.ly/7H0KfT
#webtr
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
[Web Temps Réel] Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://bit.ly/7H0KfT
#weboff #webtr
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
[Web Temps Réel] Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://bit.ly/7H0KfT
#weboff #webtr
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
I’m with you on this, Brad. Personally, I don’t follow business sounding names, people who use cartoon characters for avatars. A real face is reassuring to talk with even if it’s the face of their favorite dog or cat, but even that has outlived its cuteness and I’m leaning more toward real pics.
Just the other day, I was about to follow a published author on Twitter. Darn it, this author has somebody else tweeting for him. And although I’m pleased with his honesty – the arrangement is disclosed on the profile page – I did not follow the guy. This author is real, displays his real pic, and he’s upfront about someone tweeting for him, but still I balked at following him. What more of a business entity with no apparent personality behind it?
Jan, Thank you for sharing that story about the writer. If I were you, I would have done the same thing. Artificiality or smokescreens just feel uncomfortable on Twitter. Your mention of the avatar issue is a subject unto itself. I can understand why some people are reluctant to post a photo of themselves online: there are a variety of reasons where it is reasonable and prudent not to. I think that issue can be overcome with authentic conversation, but the opposite – a real photo and phony communication – cannot.
Great points Brad, soemthing I’ve never thought of before. We all like interaction with a person not a machine or brand, so why should communicating online be any different? I guess some businesses don’t want there face online, or don’t know who to appoint for the face of their company. However, it’s an essential point to consider for networking purposes. Thanks for bringing it to light.
Companies Should Use Human Identities on Twitter http://bit.ly/6zc0y7 #socialmedia #SMM
This comment was originally posted on Twitter