Should corporations try to join or build social networks like Facebook, Linkedin etc. in order to brand their products? The discussion really took off in December and Doc Searls have some interesting insights into the subject.
"First, I’m not sure a “brand” can get social at all. The term was borrowed from the cattle industry in the first place, and will never escape that legacy, now matter how much lipstick we put on the branding iron.
Second, the notion of “brands” either “building” or “joining” social networks strikes me as inherently promotional in either case, and therefore compromised as a “social” effort. Speaking personally, I wouldn’t join a social network any brand built, and I wouldn’t want any brand trying to join one I built."
I quite agree with Searls. Corporations should not try to strategize about how a certain social network is to be used as a vehicle for their branding. Such an effort will fail because social networks are not a traditional dumb marketing channel. They consist of people and people are clever -- well, most of them anyhow ;-)
It is my bet that a network will quickly call the bluff and see the branding effort for what it is; a conceptual thing thought out by a marketing department.
In stead companies are much better off allowing their employees to freely join any network they want and blog about any subject that they might find interesting. In this way employees become ambassadors for the brand.
Searls says:
"[...] Most companies would benefit from having their employees talk about what they do. Yet there are still too many companies where employees can’t say a damn thing without clearing it somehow. And in too many companies employees give up because the company’s communications policy is modeled on a fort, complete with firewalls that would put the average dictatorship to shame. If a company wants to get social, they should let their employees talk. And trust them."
Comments