on branded accounts
May 26th, 2009 • posts i've written
At Undercurrent we like to experiment. We try out new products, new ideas, and new behaviors and see what’s worth keeping around and what’s worth tossing out.
In that spirit, last February we created a Twitter account for the whole brand.
And then, about a month ago, we collectively decided to kill the account. It just didn’t fit our DNA or our needs. Undercurrent is, and should always remain, a bit of an enigma. We don’t talk about fight club – with anyone. And moreover, we don’t have the need for a strictly homogeneous mouth piece. Our strength lies in our people, who just happen to be some of the most visible people on the web for what they do (see @juliaroy and @joshspear). And it helps that I happen to work with generally brilliant human beings. Why would you want to distill and dumb that down into some corporate-ish vehicle? Even at its most humorous, or useful, the whole never equaled the sum of its parts.
It’s a bit of a misuse of Twitter, anyhow. It may make sense for a giant brand to need one single account for people to turn to for customer service, but a think-tank? a small think-tank? You can just follow those of us you’re interested in following (check out Undercurrent.com to find us all quickly). One could argue that it is better to appear more often in someone’s twitter stream, and with around 17 of us, if we all earn your follow, then we’re having a much more dramatic impact than that single account ever could.
I’m blogging about this because I’ve seen some conversation here and there about the topic. There is no single right answer. You need to ask yourself what needs you have, and how a branded account could help or hinder those needs. And I would also let this choice fuel some thought about your point of view – such in, do you have one? If you ask someone to follow a brand, what besides a logo are you offering? What’s your reason for being?
For a company like Undercurrent, our main objective should be continually leveraging the independent and generally brilliant voices within our walls.
Related posts:
- how to protest in the age of twitter
- interview with amc’s blogger
- it oughta exist: twitter and the numbers game
10 Responses (add your comment)
-
-
Bud,
We went through the same thing at Taylor. We had a “Taylor” twitter feed for a while, then it sort of died a natural death. But like a hydra, it’s death spawned multiple heads. In addition to our internal Digital & Emerging Media team, many general account staffers have jumped on board and several have really created their own voice, which seems much more natural, and better, for us.
-
Bud,
I can definitely see why you wouldn’t have a brand account; however, I think there are some valuable reasons why a company should consider it. Like you said- there is no right answer, all media usage varies from company to company. For Neboweb I think it is a great way to connect conversations on the blog to other parts of the web as well as provide a central way to initiate conversations on behalf of the company. There are many branded accounts that have made good use of Twitter and it shouldn’t be ruled out as an option.
-
I like that you are deciding to zag while others zig. And certainly if the branded account was being used as a “corporate-ish vehicle”, you were right to kill it.
However… you appear to be killing the execution when the strategy is obviously ‘wrong’.
Even if you used the account to be a clearing house for the very best of your 17 individual accounts, that of itself could be of value. I mean, people are already seeking greater ways to filter information, not simply aggregate it (or find more friends/followers).
Or it could be a back-story channel, as opposed to a corporate loud-hailer. Such as insights and ideas about what undercurrent is experiencing (as a business) and what things you guys are discovering that will help other ‘progressive’ organisations be great models for success.
There certainly are other options to what too many brands do; like RT’ing other people’s compliments (WTF!!??) or promoting their own work and launches!
-
“..we don’t have the need for a strictly homogeneous mouth piece.” — This is right on point.
One thing I learned when I worked in sales was that people don’t buy from companies — they buy from PEOPLE.
No one wants to talk to a brand. People want to talk to other people. A brand is ultimately an umbrella, and it’s the people working underneath that umbrella on the front lines, interacting with customers, that will determine that company’s success (or not).
I also agree that the individuals at UC (and any other brand) can have a synergistic effect that’s greater than the brand itself.
It seems like the best ways for brands to use Twitter so far have been 1) promotion 2) customer service. But I just can’t see anyone wanting to have a dialogue with a brand, which by one definition is something intangible. It’s just plain weird and Twitter doesn’t seem to be the proper venue.
-
We genuinely use ours, first and foremost, as a network for the people in the company, especially as a kind of collective, real-time scrap-book of stuff that we’re hauling out of the stream for group attention.
Trackbacks:
donate your two cents
NOTE: Anonymous and/or hateful comments get deleted. My blog, my rules.
I agree overall with this but as a social media agency you’ve gotta factor in personal agenda. I don’t doubt that employees at any agency are committed to the cause and betterment of their place of employment – but as individuals I also think that we are (and should be) more partial towards our own voice and developing our own ‘following’ on social media. Esp. in the agency world – I understand the need future leaders such as you or me or anyone else for that matter might have with ensuring our own place in the industry. And Twitter is one way of doing that.
I just had to state that because although this seems like a negative reason on why agency branded feeds don’t necessarily work – its gotta be a part of the dialog.
Another point – yours is a social media agency and so it is expected and not surprising that all employees are active on SM. For a non-social media agency with non-social media active employees, I actually do see value in a company feed. Case in point: BBHLabs.