It is interesting to watch the dynamics of our virtual worlds and the collision of old methods to the new human methods. Brands and celebrities jump into twitter hoping to establish “human connections” with their product or service.
Some come in using the brand name while others put a human touch to the process i.e Frank Eliason with Comcast. As time goes forward fast we see which process attracts the right kind of conversations. Is it the human voice of the brands voice?
Max Kalehoff writes: Activating A Brand On Twitter: Do you like speaking with humans or inanimate objects?
I think most people prefer to speak with humans, and that’s especially true when it comes to interacting with companies. In fact, customers get frustrated when companies limit or dehumanize interaction, especially when product or customer service is involved.
That’s probably why personal blogs authored by employees often resonate better than official corporate blogs. And why corporate blogs that include more human elements, including strong personal profiles, resonate more than ones with less.
All this makes me wonder about micro-blogging, specifically Twitter. I’m not going to debate whether your brand should be on Twitter. I’ll just say that your brand should be where your customers are, and that often is on Twitter.
But what’s the right way for a brand to activate itself on Twitter? Specifically, is it better for companies to actively engage on Twitter with a brand profile, or a human profile?
The Human Factor
Anything new requires critical thinking beyond existing references, experiences or mental models. One of the biggest challenges for brands is they attempt to “manage” deployment of plans to leverage the social web as if “it” were a static process that can fit neatly into a “project plan” or corporate speak.
The social web is a dynamic “system” of ever evolving human behaviors influenced by technology and the characteristics of participation by the participants. Launching a network or a blog is not conducive to a start and end plan by a brand rather it evolves over time and the driving factor is learning as you seek interactive methods and “connectivity” with people, humans.
While many self appointed “gurus proclaim best practices” the only best practices we’ve observed that works, regardless of network, is the nature and style of the conversations that create connectivity and relevance amongst people, humans.
So which creates more conversational traction? Humans or brands?. Since the beginning of time people prefer to converse with people. Get it? What say you?