Brands and Twitter

re: Brands and Twitter

John Gallen — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:04:53 GMT

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO ENGAGE IN BRANDS - SOCIAL NETWORKS CAME FIRST AND BRANDS INVADED THEM BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE DESERTING TRADITIONAL MEDIA (at a slower pace than is claimed) !!! People may have a giggle with a brand like the new Walkers Crisps campaign but when that's done its over. No more engagement, like a social networking friend that can be dropped at the click of a button, Its over... Dumspville, population 1 = THE BRAND THAT THOUGHT IT WAS ALIVE AND WAS CAPAPBLE OF SOCIAL ACTIVITY. We've all seen The Corporation movie, and if you haven't please vacate the industry, and that told us that if the corporation (all brands lead to corporations) were human it would be locked up for psycopathic behaviour... this we cannot deny.

I really dislike using block caps, sorry 'bout that earlier. I was in a mood.

Now, really people, lets do the numbers. example No. 1 above, Burger King has 1,882 followers since it started on Nov 14th 2008. That's 1,882 over 14 weeks or 134 / week; 19 / day.... this isn't exactly a gold rush of engagement. A TV advert properly placed can drive far more to a site; click red; send a text or whatever in just 30 seconds, job done. Not, 14 weeks.

Example 2, Starbucks, just under 60,000 followers since Aug 14th 2008. Not exactly a landslide either.

Now ask, How many are actually reading? How many people are active followers? How many bad comments did the moderator stop? How are you going to measure "your brand at an emotional level"? (Hilarious that one).

Accountable? Prove it.

Say a single Twitter brand-site cost 1 employee salary to maintain... and you can be sure it's not BK minimum wage, its a social media expert type wage; a consultancy fee; a copyrighter to get it started; image consultancy on the look of it; moderator fee; and possible a final typist at the interface. And that's for starters. By the time you are done and paid the wages (so far, the medium is free), do you really think that this so called engagement is doing any worthwhile good for your brand?

At a time when the issues for brands and advertisers was how do we make things accountable there appears to be an intent to muddy the waters with wishy washy nonsense about people, wait for it.... "WANTING TO ENGAGE BRANDS !!

Let's just watch the investors throw money at these sites that have no way of making any and watch them get inflated, implode and die. Maybe even cause another dot com crash.

Good to get that off my chest :)

re: Brands and Twitter

Anil Kapoor — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:17:34 GMT

"human bandwidth" - parlez-vous anglais?

re: Brands and Twitter

TESS ALPS — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:14:18 GMT

Didn't someone say that ideally all sales would be conducted on a one-to-one basis and personalised to them? However, the point of mass marketing is that it can be a really efficient way to talk to lots of people if you can create the right umbrella for them all to stand under. There just isn't the human bandwidth available within most brand marketing departments to try and engage personally with individual consumers. Even segmenting consumers can sometimes not be worth the effort/extra cost it entails. There have been attempts to 'fake it' eg standard responses triggered by certain words but they are just cynical and backfire horribly. Clearly the exception is for high ticket-price products. No issue engaging in extended one to ones with anyone wanting to buy a yacht. But toilet tissue, beer, car insurance?

re: Brands and Twitter

SEAN RUTTLEDGE — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:00:28 GMT

What a load of old hogwash

I've never had the desire to strike up a converstaion with a bran of washing powder or bog roll, meaningful or otherwise, the world's gone mad!

re: Brands and Twitter

James Cooper — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:46:12 GMT

Wow, you used a lot of words to say, 'there is no magic formula, but if you are going to do it, think about it and be honest'.