During the last two years of running a user generated site I’ve seen plenty of examples of brands hiding behind fake identities to create “presence” and push content. We do have plenty of sponsorship opportunities on MyItThings.com (fashion focused social network I run), which would be probably more appropriate for brands, but from some reason some choose the shortcut.
The latest example is the much discussed Supermodelquins campaign by Old Navy. I posted my opinion about it on my fashion blog, then twittered about it, and immediately was followed by one of the Supermodelquins, a fact which freaked me out a bit.
Few days later, this post appeared on the site and now it seems like the Supermodelquins follow me everywhere (ok, I might be too paranoid). “Exclusive First Look into the Lives of the Old Navy Supermodelquins” included promotional video, couple SEO links leading to the new and sleek Old Navy microsite and sounded exactly like a press release, which you can also find on the blog of M80 – a social media agency.
After running a community site for so long I know that if the newly created user allsweetness was a real person, he/she would sound more like this or this. While I don’t have a certain proof – this just doesn’t seem to be the case.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that our social network is on the “target list” for fashion focused social media agencies, but I think that hiding behind a (possibly) fake user profile and posting a press release isn’t different from placing Old Navy flayers on a community board. It’s tasteless and useless.
This is obviously just one very specific case, but there are lots of discussions going on today on whether brands belong on social networks like Twitter and Facebook. There is no one right answer to that, but one rule I believe brands should follow is being authentic, even if you are a SuperModelquin…
I agree, and I’m glad you wrote this! One great example is @ThinkGeek on Twitter. I’m really pleased w/ the way they interact. It’s professional, and obviously they’re promoting their business, but it’s also personable. I DMed them with a request for a community outreach project and got a quick, personal response. More companies should follow that example. They’ll get more loyal customers by being personable and accessible and not so gimmicky. Then again, I’ve never really liked Old Navy’s advertising style, have you?
It seems like on Twitter mostly brands tend to use real names, identities etc. Maybe because it’s very easy to spot promotion in 140 characters…
I don’t think brands should become part of a community to pull a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am.” If a brand/retailer moves into a community, they 1) should be transparent, 2) engage the community members and 3) contribute something of value to that community. The results are always positive, the company builds brand awareness, reconnects with old clients and draws the attention of new ones; ultimately resulting in product sales. Communities are commitments, just like any marketing effort. So brands (and their agencies) should have a well thought out engagement strategy. BTW, I am the director of Marketing for 1928 Jewelry. Thanks for calling out social media abuse Yuli.
Thanks for your comment Macala, this means a lot coming from a director of marketing
[...] with how she’s merged fashion with Web 2.0 marketing tactics. Yesterday, she wrote, “How Brands (Ab)use Social Media“. In her post, Yuliz discusses somewhat creepy experiences with Old Navy’s [...]
First of all, that is really creepy to have a mannequin following you! I have mixed feelings about the idea of brands on Twitter. I do think that it can compromise the authenticity of such forums, but at the same time, the purpose of the medium is that anyone can be heard. It’s a true democracy in that way. But yes, Old Navy’s marketing tactics have always been a bit off-putting, to say the least. I agree with macala that the brand should be transparent and engaging… for instance it would be a great forum for the RED campaign (they may be doing, it, I don’t know). Personally, I have 2 Twitter accounts… a personal one and one for a character I started to develop for a series of short stories I had planned. Such a wealth of ideas and conversations have been generated through the account and blog that I have been keeping it up as it has really helped my writing. I try to make it clear that Camille Maurice is a character on the blog, but with the limited name space on Twitter, I worry about whether or not this could be considered abuse in a different manner.
I just hope that they don’t start sending you pictures of the Supermodelquins or anything!
While it’s a bit more of a risk to take the “create a presence via a character” route in building your online brand, it’s not completely against the rules. The problem is that it takes so much more work to do it right. You nailed it when you illustrated how it can go so wrong….probably because the brand took the lazy, easy way out (Hey, it’s only a character, right?)
Thanks for your comment Macala, this means a lot coming from a director of marketing