Twittering on-The sequel

Sorry for absence from these pages last week-leaves on the line and all that. Did you even notice that Cicero was not here?

This week, as trailled when we were last together, we are going to continue to discuss the role of social media in effective brand building. Now you will know from previous discussions that Cicero is not a big fan of sequels but in this case we are hoping to produce another Toy Story 2 and not a Jaws 2 or even 3.

You will recall that when we last came together on these pages we discussed whether or not your brand was suited to appearing on Facebook or Twitter and we argued that only those brands with characteristics that lent themselves to being talked about should seek to acquire Twitter followers and Facebook friends. And given the number of brands out there trying to use social media but who are there in name only and just about clinging on, it would seem that that there are many brands using social media only because it is the latest bandwagon rather than really truly understanding how to use these new platforms for real marketing benefit.

But even if you have agreed that your brand fits the criteria of a talked about brand, please ask yourself these questions before jumping on the bandwagon. You can be assured that failure to ask and answer these questions can have serious consequences for your brand-at best you will look like you have no friends, a real Billy No Mate of a brand, but at worse those who are following you will be stabbing you in the back. Do you really want that?

And so the first question to ask, are you willing to engage in a public dialogue with your friends and followers? Think about it-up to now your communications with customers and prospects has been monologue but these new channels are designed to allow dialogue. This can be troubling for some.

A while back reporters on the Washington Post, the journal that gave a new word to the English language, ‘Watergate’, were banned from using Twitter accounts (personal or Post branded) to speak on behalf of the company, on this basis:

‘......when we write a story, our readers are free to respond and we provide them a venue to do so...... but once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor–and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It’s something we don’t do.’

And so we have an organisation, a great brand to boot, more than happy to embrace social media to promote content, but not so much when it comes to engaging and using the medium as intended. In other words they were using a dialogue medium with a monologue mindset.

Is your business like that? What kind of mindset do you have in your business?

Secondly, is your business geared up to engage in dialogue in real time? You might have the will to do so but do you have the capability? Too often there are businesses out there who either do not want to deal with customers by e-mail or when they do, promise to reply with something like 5 working days. You cannot do this with social media. You need to dedicate resources, and empowered resources at that, to monitor what is being said to you and about you, and to be able to respond in real time.

And thirdly, can you produce enough interesting, engaging and relevant content to keep your twitterati followers and friends satisfied? These media are content hungry and if you want your brand to offer something of value to customers and prospects alike, you need to be able to provide a constant stream of content. Go on Facebook or even visit some company websites and see when last updated. Out of date or non current material highlights that you don’t care. It’s like a shop with a broken light bulb.

Yes social media can be a great force for good for brand and can demonstrate modernity, trust and a willingness to engage but if you are going to put yourself on Facebook or Twitter, please get it right. Get it wrong and your brand will end up damaged. And there is no greater crime.

Is it only me..........but I doubt Nelson would have turned a blind eye to this.

Last week it was reported that a Navy medic had been court-martialled because he did not want to carry a gun and learn how to shoot it on ‘moral grounds’. I think he must have got his application forms mixed up and he thought he was joining the Boy Scouts rather than the Royal Navy.

What did he think was going to happen when he joined the Royal Navy? Maybe he just didn’t realise that the ships of Drake, Raleigh and Nelson were part of our Armed Forces. Look closely and you will see the word ‘Armed’, Mr Jack Tar. Is that not a bit of a hint to you? Or did you just think that it was for people with arms? And what did you think the great big metal tubes stuck onto that big grey boat where you slung your hammock, were for? Balance.

Now I can accept that you might not want to fight on ‘moral grounds’ and I take my hat off to anyone who refuses to fight for king and country on moral grounds but what you don’t do, if those are your sincerely held views, is join one of our Armed Forces. (There we go again, it is so obvious you can’t help mentioning it.)

Presumably if you take this stance and join an institution like the Royal Navy you don’t think it immoral for someone else to carry arms to cover your backside. And when we say arms here we mean the kind that can shoot ordnance over vast distances. Not the kind that contain fingers.

Now maybe it’s just me but when the likes of Drake, Raleigh, Nelson and Perry signed up, they did so in the full knowledge that at some point they might be required to fight. Indeed, for some of the aforementioned, fighting Johnny Foreigner was exactly why they signed up. It is surely not too much to ask that today’s successors to the aforementioned make at least some attempt to follow their lead.

As a taxpayer I pay for 24x7 armed guard security coverage so that I can go to my bed knowing that when I wake up this will still be a green and pleasant land where we, Britons, will never ever be slaves. I don’t want those providing the levels of security I pay for being able to pick and choose which enemy they are going to fight or even if they will turn up for duty looking armed and dangerous. You joined up, deal with it or quit and join the RAC.

Have a great week.

Sis felix. Et sis fortunatus.