I first saw aplusk’s video challenge to CNN in CK’s thought-provoking post on celebrity worship and social media. Oddly enough, what struck me first was not that Twitter had jumped the shark, as Mack Collier suggested, or that I should run out and follow Ashton (which I was already doing – what? – he’s funny!)
No, what struck me was the asymmetry between Kutcher as a living, breathing personality and CNN as a rather impersonal and even indistinct brand.
This asymmetry was only intensified when Kutcher promised to ding-dong ditch Ted Turner’s house if he won. My first response was, “What does Ted Turner have to do with this?”
Obviously, I know that Turner started CNN and, frankly, I find him a more interesting personality than young Ashton. Nevertheless, I don’t associate him with CNN. To me, CNN is Wolf Blitzer (and, on a more personal note, my old college chum, Daryn Kagan, who used to be an anchor there). But it doesn’t matter if CNN makes you think of Wolf, Anderson, or Larry – the important point is that, as far as media go, personalities matter more than brands.
While this was always true of the broadcast media – I followed Letterman to CBS because I was a fan of his – it is especially true of social media. When people assert that companies are leery of getting into blogging, or onto Facebook andTwitter, etc., because said companies are afraid of losing control of their brand, I disagree. What keeps most companies out of social media is a lack of personality.
If you want consumers to have face-time with your brand, it has to have a face. Social media are “social” first and foremost, and people want to socialize with other people. Therefore, it’s not surprising to me that celebrities, and the sports/entertainment industry more broadly, are entering this space in force: personality is their stock in trade.
Similarly, it makes sense that companies which push the expertise, insight, and intelligence of their individual contributors have also made a conscious push to get these people into the “conversation.” Forrester, for example, is Jeremiah to me, because I “see” him everyday.
As social media become THE media, companies need to stop worrying about their brand and start worrying about their personality. Think about it this way. If you were sitting down to dinner, who would you want sitting next to you? Campbell’s Tomato Soup or Andy Warhol?
Timely piece, Matthew.
About a year ago, I wrote a post for this very site about the importance of casting in social media and how important it is to have a likable frontman whose personality matches the brand’s personality.
Link: http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2008/07/but_hes_really_nice_in_person.html
One problem more and more companies will face is that when they do find a personality to represent the brand, said personality will ultimately prove unlikable.
Think about how many people you’ve encountered via their social media personas who you might describe as “cringe worthy.” Now imagine that person as the voice of a corporation.
I think social media amplifies both our best and our worst traits and so the “you know Bob, people don’t really like you” talk is going to be a difficult conversation many companies will be forced to have in years to come.
“If you want consumers to have face-time with your brand, it has to have a face.”
.
This is so apt. A terrific piece and, as both you and Alan explain, a really big point for companies to grapple with because a logo doesn’t mingle well and a tagline is like a really bad one-liner by the weird guy at the bar. But where CNN does do well is with Rich Sanchez’s own twitter feed as he really listens to his audience and gives shout-outs during his broadcasts. In sum: he’s real, he involves us instead of just talking at us, and his personality shines through.
(another major point that co’s will have to grapple with: when they build up a personality, only to have them then leave the brand–yikes!).
“Think about it this way. If you were sitting down to dinner, who would you want sitting next to you? Campbell’s Tomato Soup or Andy Warhol?”
Well, since you asked. You can have Demi and Ashton over… but can I have CNN’s Jack Cafferty? His no-nonsense, gripey-but-such-common-sense style would have me in stitches all the way through dinner
Alan – thanks for directing me to your bygone yet still timely post. I really like the idea of “casting” when it comes to developing an organization’s approach to social media as well as the idea of deploying an ensemble of players that you suggest at the end of your article.
Since you end with a reminder that you need to stay (or at least seem) spontaneous and authentic, here’s my most recent take on the irony of authenticity: http://tinyurl.com/cendef
Again, thanks for commenting.
CK – you raise a good point about the double-edged sword of personality – if a personality is effective/successful, there is always the chance that it/he/she will strike out on its/his/her own.
Brands need personalities more than personalities need brands. Gatorade needs Tiger Woods, he doesn’t need Gatorade (or probably even drink it). Etc.
Interesting is the “fit” of personalities. Tiger Woods with Gatorade = good. Tiger with Buick = disastrous (so not his style of car and hence, the deal was pulled after 2 years… which was 2 years too long).
But with SM, since a lot of these sites aren’t “starting” with a celeb (save the Ashton’s and Demi’s) but with their own people they can build around those personalities. Look at how un-Microsoft Scoble was/is and yet he gave the tech audience such a newfound respect/face for MS (he started blogging while he was at MSoft still, not there now.) And now that he’s gone I honestly don’t know who is blogging over there.
“What keeps most companies out of social media is a lack of personality.”
“If you want consumers to have face-time with your brand, it has to have a face.”
I had to rewrite these 2 qotes from your post because i think they are SPOT ON … very nice, but also tough to do.
It’s a tough thing to do, build thought leadership, personality, personal connections, etc… from within a large oganization.
http://twitter.com/franswaa
Thanks, Frank!
Matt, your insight about personality is spot on, and the best example is your own post. It’s playful,got a little attitude, and a touch of sass, i.e. a great personality!
Communicating that personality came out in your writing. And individuals, products and companies can also display that personality, via their communication. Apple gets it, but for others, it’s kind of a duh.
As an executive coach, I’ve helped CEOs develop their personal brands thru their own targeted communication. They’ll work weeks on a killer PPT, but I’m amazed that the same attention isn’t paid to copy on their web site, collateral materials and ad messages to customers and partners.
From website to marketing materials, brand personality gets baked in a nano-tweet! It’s all about a CONSISTENT, holistic marketing persona–one with a memorable personality.