Signalfire | Brand Matters

Brands have to participate to interact with consumers. Common buzz terms like “1.0 versus 2.0” crop up. Gary Vaynerchuk tells brands to “get in the trenches” in this blunt and accurate video. Douglas White calls it “broadcast versus engagement” in this excellent article. Everywhere marketers go, people are looking for one thing—interaction!

Consumers want to interact with a brand. This forces businesses to share their brand with interested communities of people. Thus brands must allow consumers to participate in the brand experience. This coins the term “participatory marketing” and leads businesses down a path where their brand is no longer their own. And that can be a good thing.

Read More →

Content is king. Nowhere is this more true than in political elections. So why is good social media content so hard to find in politics?

Politics is the hot-button topic as we come into the start of another election season. We’ve been asked repeatedly for our opinion and consulting with several campaigns—doing it for free hasn’t really be practical. While we do offer some basics, a lot is left to the candidates or their volunteers.

With the success of President Barack Obama’s social media campaign in 2008 every politician and their siblings have thrown themselves out into the Twitterverse. From Facebook Fan Pages filled with casual acquaintances to Twitter followings that verge on a religion — politicians are trying to make the most out of the newest medium. There’s only one problem, they’re not doing it very well.

From local school boards to US Senate candidates, social media is quickly becoming the most efficient method of keeping a steady stream of information flowing to likely voters, volunteers or other important organizations. Individuals follow due to like views, interest in key topics, or to be informed for the vote. Either way, a key factor is maintaining a solid stream of content.

Content has got to be viewed from a media-rich perspective. More than just the type-written word on a site, content has evolved into video, podcasting, and every other form of communication over the web. Users have become accustomed to leaders in their interest communities being fully wired and event steadily speaking to them in all forms of media. People now expect the same from their political leaders.

So when people look to interact with a candidate, they want to feel part of the team. Getting the inside scoop or inside track on the strategy is why people follow or be a fan. What the interest community is not looking for is “having dinner with wife and kids”-type tweets. Political interest communities want positions, policies and politics. They want shop talk and even talkin’ a little smack.

Social media gives the constituent more access and more interaction with a candidate than ever before. People want to be a part of a political community, an issue oriented community, that allows them to interact not only with their selection of candidate, but perhaps other candidates as well. This “in the trenches with the people” attitude works. We see it with business brands every day. However, many candidates have campaigns run by 1.0-focused people that can quickly cripple a good online movement.

One example is in the Wisconsin governor’s race where one candidate’s team is focusing on Letters to the Editor in newspapers—but they like to review them before the volunteers send them out (really?). The candidate is sending out an infrequent stream of personal tweets that reflect well on his personality, but not so well for an election. “Had a Bible study tonight with friends” demonstrates his values and beliefs, but for many it skims over the larger topics.

While personal communiqués do have a place in the lifestream, most subscribers to the political interest community are more issue driven. Candidates should be developing social media content driven by issues and driven by positions. This may seem insurmountable for some, but given many of the hot topics on all levels of government social media content may be one of the most important outreaches a campaign can do today.

Candidates and campaigns needs to embrace social media content as equally important, if not more, as “letters to the editor” or phone banks. Well thought out, well timed and well delivered content (text, audio and video) can spell the difference between a “we came close” concession and “the people have spoken” victory tweet.

The Internet and social media have always been about free expression and free promotion, but what happens when free expression crosses the line into defaming or damaging someone or a brand? In short, can someone sue you for a Tweet?

In a recent article, Deborah Spanic wrote, “the interesting point that I think may get lost in the he-said she-said of a typical defamation case, is the question of whether or not you can defame with a tweet. I think the answer to that is yes, you can.”  Deborah Spanic is an internet and intellectual property attorney, specializing in trademarks, copyright, domain name issues, e-commerce and e-business issues and social media law with Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Does this mean the threat of litigation will hang over everything on social media? Not likely. Does this mean one should be putting some thought into their tirade before publishing it on the web? Absolutely.

Attorney Spanic wrote, “confining yourself to statements of fact and personal observation are two ways to avoid statements being considered defamatory. Saying, “I was unhappy with how Attorney John Smith handled my case” is better than stating he’s a crook.”

While Twitter, Facebook and many social media outlets are protected under existing law from being sued, individuals are not. A company defamed by an individual via social media may very well have legal standing. While this would clearly be a customer relations nightmare for the company and likely being flammed in effigy by the social media community, it isn’t past impossible.

Give some thought to your Tweets and posts (mind your T’s and P’s?), especially when criticizing. If you have someone criticizing your brand or you personally, think about it in another approach. Would it be better to demonstrate to your interest community that you hear the criticism and are responding? Or that your skin is pretty thin and your product of service cannot stand up without legal help?

For those comments and posts that are grumbling simply for the sake of grumbling, social media and web users have become expert at spotting unsubstantiated gripes. Show that your brand has thick skin and can respond when necessary.

There is always an inherent risk of criticism when interacting with your interest community on the web. While that risk has an equal (or greater) part opportunity, many brands tend to hide. Business is no place to be a wallflower. At the same time, your brand’s social media touchpoint shouldn’t be a place to vent. Just as social media mavens are quick to spot a grumbler, they have zero patience for brands that gripe or bad-mouth the competition.

Remember that social media is quickly becoming the front line of your brand and a key element linking your business to the consumer-driven world. Participate, but don’t get too personal. Keep your brand approachable, but professional. Same should go for your online comments.

Deborah Spanic’s article in full can be found here.