A few days ago I published a post titled Twitter Advice in which I said:
“I’m not so sure putting an intern in charge of the firm’s Twitter account is a bad idea.”
Well, after spending some time on the phone today with a senior exec from a decent sized bank, talking about his firm’s social media strategy, let me say this: I WAS WRONG. Putting an intern in charge of your firm’s Twitter account is an absolutely terrible idea.
Now mind you, the firm for which the exec I was talking to doesn’t even have a Twitter account. But after hearing what his firm goes through in running a site which enables consumers to post comments, I’m pretty convinced an intern wouldn’t last five minutes there.
Twice a day — every weekday — a committee at this bank meets to review the comments that have been posted on their site. The committee discusses, argues, and wordsmiths their responses to the comments. They argue over whether certain words (e.g., suggest) can be used in their response.
No intern should be subjected to this level of lunacy.
The bank in question is in the process of determining its Twitter approach, and, indeed, trying to decide who will “staff” the Twitter account. The exec I spoke to (did I mention he is a senior exec) told me that HE may have to be that person when the account is first launched, since the bank isn’t sure there’s anyone else who can trusted to understand the marketing, strategy, customer service, and legal ramifications involved in responses.
And to think that for a moment there, I thought it might be OK to put an intern in charge of the account. What the hell was I thinking?
[...] Twitter Advice: Correction « Marketing Tea Party by Ron Shevlin marketingteaparty.com/2009/10/14/twitter-advice-correction – view page – cached A few days ago I published a post titled Twitter Advice in which I said: — From the page [...]
Certainly there is a happy medium in there somewhere, right?
Once again, very thought provoking. Thanks!
I wonder how on earth the 4 authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto ever figured out that corporations speak differently than human beings? It’s a real head-scratcher.
Social media clearly isn’t right for every firm.
I figured that I like my team because they have great ideas and aren’t afraid to suggest the craziest things be considered (though sometimes in jest) and I don’t want to suppress that (or the jests).
When it came down to it I was the one with the direction in the front of mind and the knowledge to deal with social media as team members are often more specialist. So that left me to blog, tweet and deal with the interaction.
The ‘word appropriateness committee’ sounds like a lot of manpower directed at killing those qualities I value in the team. Of course if I had a big team then there’d probably be a social communications department and perhaps like sports stars, corporations would also sponsor social networkers with credibility who share their goals. If we’re going to have a departmental committee then we might as well make it the whole world.
Produce your position paper and template.
Ours was ‘get people thinking, challenge our competitors ideas in open forums and project our ethical and social position’. If people see consistent messages that fit their idea of correctness they’ll hear your message.
I’m not sure I’d actually try and directly sell something using social media, more stimulate curiosity and just let people know what sort of people we are so they can decide if they’d feel happy doing business with us. I think I’ve mentioned the company name only a half dozen times but probably every one of those hundreds of thousands of readers probably knows who I work for. Sometimes my competitors mention it for me.
Social networking is after all about people.
It would be foolish to make any assumptions about a person or their network but I entertain the probability that my next holiday will be somewhere with/through someone or using the services of someone I correspond with on social networks and that will no doubt creep into everything I do.
That is why a lot of smart companies are investing some of their best people people in social networking.
Fear no-one – only speak the truth and don’t be afraid to break a few eggs, not everyone is going to want to do business with you even if you were Elvis reincarnated and you probably don’t want to be doing business with them anyway.
WTF <– oops… forgot to get that approved by the committee. Your joking right. Do they have a committee that this committee reports to:
"Twice a day — every weekday — a committee at this bank meets to review the comments that have been posted on their site. The committee discusses, argues, and wordsmiths their responses to the comments. They argue over whether certain words (e.g., suggest) can be used in their response."
My jaw just dropped when I read this. How many people are on this "committee". What are they… Big Brother… the Nazi's.
When it comes to social media sometimes you just have to give up control and let things be.
Wow. That much effort just to monitor comments? No wonder an “intern” couldn’t handle a twitter account- these execs wouldn’t have time for any other meetings! I agree with @Matt- clearly social media isn’t for everyone. Thanks for the post!
Thanks to all for your comments. Some thoughts back at you:
Matt/Kelsey: I’m not sure I’d conclude that social media isn’t right for this firm. The problem lies in figuring out the cause/effect direction. Will getting into social media help change this firm to become more “human”? or… Will this firm have to first change, and become more human, IN ORDER to effectively participate in social media? It’s not a simple issue to resolve.
JRL: The committee doesn’t need to report to a committee. These are relative senior people on the committee. They’re decision makers. What blows me away is how they’re spending their time. What a waste of brainpower.
Dean: Your comment reinforces a couple of things: First, why working in a small company can be so much better than working for a big one (a thought echoed by Morriss in a tweet). Second, why it’s more important to choose your boss than to choose a firm to work for. By giving your team freedom and opportunity to contribute, I bet it wouldn’t matter to them if yours was a small firm or a large firm.
Firms can not be human. By definition. Only humans can be human. (Unless we want to get into discussing artificial intelligence.)
Going back to the Cluetrain Manifesto point number 84 (We know some people from your company. They’re pretty cool online. Do you have any more like that you’re hiding? Can they come out and play?), there are *human beings* working at companies. It’s these *human beings* that other people do or do not want to work with. (I know, radical concept.)
Firms can’t become more or less human. Efforts by companies to “be more human” are just illusion, veneer, and will never “work”. Companies that don’t really get this will never achieve meaningful success in social media. They’re thinking that social media is another form of one-way advertising (with the added hurdle of comments to contend with) to be mastered. It is not. It’s an entirely different animal, being a two-way dialogue.
OK, true: Firms cannot be human. But…humans can have a “relationship” with a firm. )I have to believe that there are Everything CU members who feel a connection to Everything CU). My use of the term “human” was shorthand for “relationship-worthy”. I should have been a lot more explicit.
Ahhhhh, very interesting point! What I recognized from a very early time in EverythingCU’s evolution is that really the only reason that EverythingCU is as successful as it is has next to nothing to do with me, or the people who make EverythingCU run, and everything to do with the fact that they are connecting with their colleagues… people JUST like them, facing exactly the same issues in their work lives. It’s really kind of an accident that that connection then sometimes translates over to an affinity for us as a company. In that regard, EverythingCU stands as a proxy for the personal connections people are making.
Absolutely. But ECU members develop an affinity for ECU because it enables them to make the connections they’re able to make. And let me tell you something: God forbid you should take this away from him. Take a look at this blog post. It’s a letter from some guy to the CMO of Yahoo who rips her… well complains about the removal of a Flickr community.
http://thomashawk.com/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-elisa-steele-evp-chief-marketing-officer-yahoo-inc-on-the-new-the-internet-is-you-yahoo-marketing-campaign.html
Imagine having dinner at home. Your daughter (or son) asks you a question. You leave the room to discuss your response with a “team” and an hour later come back with your answer. “No, Taylor. I was unable to travel to my elementary school by bus, as I lived in close proximity to that educational institution and the catchment area as set out by the school district…”
There is an important element in social media: social. Fact check, sure. But put someone in charge who knows how to have a conversation.
I hope this firm you’re mentioning puts half as much thought into what they say on their corporate website, behind their online banking login, on their intranet, around the web in ads…
Most don’t.