A friend emailed me today because she is exploring Twitter and how her museum might use it to connect with fans. She wanted to know my thoughts on using a real person’s name versus an organizational name. In other words, should individuals employed by the museum post to Twitter under their own names or under the organization’s name.
There are pros and cons no matter how to do it. <!–more–>
Twitter is the very essence of social media, and the primary thing about social media is that it’s social. People don’t socialize with brands. They may use brands in order to further their social status, but they don’t socialize with them. It’s the difference between getting email blasts from Microsoft and getting handwritten notes from Bill Gates.
A lot of organizations are on Twitter under their organization’s name. Not coincidentally, many of them seem to Twitter fairly institutional type content. They post about upcoming events, big news and all your basic press release type material.
It makes sense – how much more personality can an institution or a brand have? It can’t make friends, start or join conversations or express any kind of opinion on anything but the most narrow subject matter. I mean, sure, some brands have plenty of “personality,” but I wouldn’t follow @hottopic or @anthropologie or @windex or @sevethgeneration (all names made up – no idea if they’re really Twittering) in an effort to connect to real-live people. In fact, I would only follow if I were already sold on the brand.
There’s a logic in doing that, though, because only your biggest fans will follow you. It doesn’t matter how many there are. If they’re following you and you give them something valuable, they’ll spread your message.The big catch here is that you have to already have some fans who will be happy to connect with you. Probably easier for brands like Seventh Generation or Anthropologie than brands like Windex or Kentucky Fried Chicken. This is where you have to know your audience’s technographics.
(Ironically, nearly all individual politicians on Twitter fall into the category of Twittering as a brand. @algore is a brand in most people’s minds, not a human being. Fodder for another post)
Then there are people who are on Twitter with their own personal brand first and foremost, with their company connection secondary. We all know that @ev and @bizstone are the Twitter founders.
Then there is the middle road, where your Twitter name is both human and corporate. @richardatdell is a famous example.
So what’s the best way to go?
As with all other social media tools, I think it totally depends on how you plan to use it. What’s your goal? What will = success? Start there, and work backwards.
Want to be more human and accessible? Maybe @name_at_yourbrand works best. Already have a good fan base that you want to empower, @yourbrand could work well.
Do you trust the people who work for you to build your brand with the skills they already have? Let them use their real names.
You can probably answer a lot of these questions for yourself by hanging out on Twitter, perusing posts via search.twitter.com and getting familiar with the etiquette and mores of the medium.
What’s your experience? What works for you? What engages you or turns you off? What would make you click that Follow button?
PS – If you are on Twitter, go on over and follow @KasjaSabatke, who has gone with her real name.