Twit or ter-woo?
Are social networking sites for gibbering air-heads with nowt else to do, or can companies use them to their advantage, asks Dougal Paver.
Let's be honest, Twitter seems aptly named: the random, 140 character musings and exclamations of folk who seem to have so little between their ears that telling the world at large that they're just ironing their y-fronts strikes them as quality social discourse. Heaven help us.
We're looking at twitter and other internet-based social marketing tools to see how they can draw people closer to us, whilst helping disseminate our clients' messages more broadly.
And the bottom line is, the internet continues to demonstrate remarkable innovation in ways that make it even more critical that businesses remain on top of it.
It's not the whole deal, of course, although converts will tell you otherwise. After all, 'to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'
But when major corporates like Ford and Pepsi can use twitter and other social networking sites to protect their reputation on key issues you know the landscape has shifted again. Just check out this article from today's FT.
So, we've formed a working group in the business to examine the internet landscape and react quickly to emerging opportunities. Expect on-going changes in the structure, links and content of this web site throughout 2009 as we put our findings and recommendations in to practice. But don't expect any gibbering f-wittery, that's all.
COMMENTS
Ian Denny - Fri 2nd Jan 2009
P.S. Apologies for any typos - it's difficult to review what you've said in this little box - sorry again!
Ian Denny - Fri 2nd Jan 2009
Social Networking, twittering, or spouting forth any old nonsense can be achieved in any medium.
I love to think some of my deepest and wisest monologues come out via the medium of the pub. My companions universally disagree.
I realise I am on dangerous ground commenting in the medium of an agency that projects brand values in carefully crafted messages to woo the various publics of the listening audience of the client.
However, for the minnows of the world like me, I hope I can't go too far wrong just saying it as it is.
People buy people. And you can't be all things to all people.
But you can be yourself and "connect" with like-minded souls who love you like you love them.
Social networking can be seen as the loud-speaker, amplifying whatever message you wish to shout from the rooftops.
And while little of it currently goes through the professional filter of a quality agency like PS, there is growing evidence that the old adage of people buying people is beginning to happen in these new media.
Granted, it can polarise opinion - people may hate the real "you" without that filter.
Equally, it can more rapidly decimate a brand than ever before because of the rapid dissemination of your message - and ill-conceived and damaginf messages I suspect travel more rapidly than positive news!
While the medium may have different qualities than the traditional, I bet the same core principles apply.
The big difference I see is the lack of editorial control.
Does the PR agency become the policeperson for the budding client looking to harness the power of social networking? And to what degree is that transparent? In other words, does corporate and traditional PR-speak work in this very personal medium?
Perhaps the agencies need to train people in how to talk in this medium. In other words how to give a little of yourself, NOT overtly sell, and still occasionally sneak in the odd golden nugget of brand-building and product positioning.
The debate will has only just started...
POST A COMMENT
