Twitter has become omni-present. A lifeline for Iranian protesters; kept open at the request of the Whitehouse. Quoted on the Today programme. Dropped into sitcoms to make them feel up to the minute. Even my, 80-year-old, mum wants to know what it’s all about.
These days we’re constantly meeting bewildered people who feel under pressure to enter what, to them, looks like a geeky world of impenetrable #tags, re-tweets, and tiny urls. They know that if they don’t join in, they’ll get left behind.
One recent tweet summed it all up: “Saying you don’t use Twitter is like saying you don’t use email.”
Inevitably as more people are tweeting, other people, with dollar signs in their eyes, are trying to harness Twitter for commercial (or charitable) gain. Yet, despite the attentions of growing numbers of experts, it’s hard to isolate techniques that will guarantee success.
Twitter is frustratingly resistant to marketing. And that’s part of the appeal to most of its users. Even with it’s huge popularity, Twitter still feels guerrilla-like. A bit underground. I love the fact that it’s got so many marketeers stumped.
Of course, that doesn’t stop them trying. Companies are springing up all over offering to tweet on behalf of their “too busy” clients. Personally, I think that money spent in this way is wasted. No-one is fooled by these corporate tweeters pushing a party line. It’s a bit like charging into the middle of a private party and yelling: “BUY BUDGENS BISCUITS!!!” You may interrupt the conversation for a moment but you’ll be ignored for the idiot that you are.
Sometimes, the consequences of this kind of disconnected tweeting are downright disastrous. Habitat’s ‘social media agency’, noticing the trending discussion on Iran was attracting huge numbers, added keywords (with hashtags), like ‘#Iran‘ and ‘#Mousavi‘ to its tweets, so people watching the twitterstream and discussing those subjects would see the firm’s marketing messages. Result: mass offence was taken at such crassness.
Far from selling products, Habitat found itself at the receiving end of a consumer backlash.
Personality, emotion, authenticity – the sense that a real person is talking – these are the drivers at work on Twitter. The paradox of Twitter is that it is a massive collection of private conversations being held in public (like a great big party). Be sensitive about how you join them.
Remember, it’s a social medium. It offers the possibility for social alchemy – the right statement at the right moment, to the right group of people, with the right emotional ring to it can result in actions that become social gold.
If you want people to be interested in you, you need to give them a reason. You need them to like you. Marketing rules don’t apply here, more the rules of the schoolyard.
Tags: Habitat, iran, marketing, Twitter
Great post, Simon!
I would further your point…”If you want people to be interested in you, you need to give them a reason.” If you want people to be interested in you, your organization, your cause or your campaign, you need to be interested in THEM! You don’t show up to a party where you don’t like or care about anyone else there and then get mad when no one wants to try your dessert, even if it is a revolution in the culinary industry. The same on Twitter (and really anywhere online). A network, a community, a public forum, it only works and conversations only build then you care as much as those you want to reach.
Thanks for starting the conversation here!
Social alchemy – Love the concept but would appreciate your help
You write: “is a massive collection of private conversations being held in public” which is understood.
A conversation in my understanding of the word means listen or read communication – understand and then respond to the message received.
I have see small evidence of this happening – conversations
This would seems to me be a function of the volume of traffic – if it is not how is it done with the sheer volume of tweets and that is for someone who has limited followers.
Habitat case was painful, however it seems like it was an internal mistake, not an outsourced work:
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-habitat-drops-intern-after-iranelection-spam-faux-pas/
Not only that they messed up, they find the individual to take the blame for it (not the lack of brand consistency). Not sure if that was the best response;)
I agree with your points on genuine representation of brands on-line. I also think there is a high risk in agency work on Twitter (or any social media channel within the brand’s social lanscape) front though I would leave the space open for those who can do it wisely – in some cases better than the brand employees, for example. I think it is difficult to generalise when it comes to Twitter. In some cases brands will pick up Twitter themselves, in some they need help in understanding the value of genuine tonality and content – in which case tweeting with or for them does help. Having worked for few agencies and various clients myself, I think it’s a challenging work which depends on internal comms of the client and clear goals of their social media engagement. I am personally the fan of tweeting by people who simply know what the brand has to say/respond/converse about – whatever their relationship with the brand is (as long as it is disclosed, of course!).
It’s an extremely interesting topic, I am glad you started the discussion!
I would love to see the point in time when all marketers and other brand representatives see the value of real Twitter conversations…