Arthur Germain from the Communications Strategy Group just posted a piece called "Does your brand have a front man". It's well thought out and he makes the argument that brands should encourage a strong personality within the company to be tightly associated to the brand, a front man if you will. You can find his post here.
I disagree. Making one person a core element of a brand is very risky. It can be powerful, yes. People love to connect with other people, especially those they admire. But what happens when the person falters, has health problems, dies, retires, acts like a jerk, or screws up? Martha Stewart comes to mind. Arthur mentions Jobs and his health problems. GE struggled when Welch retired.
In the past when most, if not all, communications were one way, the notion of a single person as the core element of a brand were few and far between. For every Jobs there are thousands of nameless CEO's.
Social Media is changing that. Social media is a two way conversation and increasingly, individuals are becoming the know entity for a brand. Frank from Comcast. Jeffrey W. Hayzlett is the strongest voice on twitter for Kodak, @JeffreyHayzlett. More and more companies are placing incredible power in the hands of one individual. Big mistake.
Barry Judge is the
CMO of Best Buy and has become a strong voice of that company in twitter. His twitter name is @bestbuycmo. He had an exchange with an influential blogger in twitter and he came off like a real jerk.
That hurt the brand. I watched it unfold, made a judgment (Barry is a real jerk) and then my judgment and perception transferred over to Best Buy... what kind of company hires jerks like that to run things?
This will become a larger problem as more and more companies empower an individual with the power of being the brand through conversation in social media.
What my company recommends is that a well thought out engagement manual is created that clearly spells out the dos and donts and establishes the brand voice. We also recommend that several people represent the brand in social media. A cross functional team is best. Brands are much too important to leave in the hands of one person, even if that person is Barry Judge, Steve Jobs or Jack Welch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Greg,
You're right in the instance that a person, who is not the business owner, becomes the face of the company. This happened with @ColonelTribune here in Chicago. The person who garnered all of the followers, created IRL meetings, and engaging perfectly left. Now the person who is the voice behind the brand is not as engaging and people are not as engaged with the newspaper any longer.
That being said, if you are a business owner or CEO of a private company, YOU should be the brand personality and the voice behind the social media. People don't trust CEOs any longer. People want to have access to the CEO (this is a great way to re-establish credibility) and have it in some cases (think Zappos). It is the responsiblity of the CEO to execute this for the business.
Gini
http://spinsucks.com
http://twitter.com/ginidietrich
Greg, you raise an interesting question: Is the default mode of a brand simply the culmination of a company's culture, good or bad? Certainly, many companies have operated this way. Frank Perdue comes to mind. But, what I'm getting at is perhaps a little deeper than "front man." You mention Barry Judge as being a jerk and wonder "what kind of company hires jerks like that to run things?" To take that thought a little further, is this culture, in fact, the Best Buy brand?
On the positive side you've got Richard Branson, whose personality permeates the Virgin culture and brand. Both, it seems, are the same.
All brand theories put aside, and whether it's a good practice or not, is a brand simply an extension, or projection of a company's culture?
Bridging the gap between social media and marketing is an awesome challenge. Great thoughts here. I agree that this is the direction this is going. You have to be deliberate in your approach to branding. If your company does not revolve around an individual, your marketing should not be dependent upon one either...perhaps an invented persona? Other brands have done this. I think it is Volkswagon that has Helga or something? An invented persona that of course could be operated behind the scenes by anyone following a manual. Less personal of course, but it is a corporation after all...
Gini - I agree with most of your points. The average person stays at a job for 4.1 years. CMO's are closer to 2 years. Once they leave, poof goes the relationships they established on behalf of the company.
We disagree on the point that smaller or private companies should make the CEO the voice. My take is that he or she should be one voice among several. Showing that more than one person is talking makes the brand and the culture more powerful. For most companies it should be done in a somewhat controlled manner. Companies should build twitter profiles and facebook pages that state "these people" are talking. See Jet Blue www.twitter.com/jetblue and Ford www.twitter.com/ford
Peter - great comment. Thanks. My take (and I am certainly not showing original thought with this) is that brand is the culmination of a companies culture, history, and what is unique and different about it and its products. Branding is establishing those characteristics in the audiences mind. People come and go, but company cultures are more permanent.
This is a good article on the subject http://businessmanagement.suite101.com/article.cfm/organizational_culture_and_climate
This is why I think it is imperative that anyone who represents a company in social media fully understands the brand (and thus the culture) and represents it in the right way. It is also why I think more than one voice is crucial. Jack from Sears might spout off (and he should be fired if he does) but Sally, Fred and Beatrice have kept the voice true to the brand.
Christian - if the persona is an icon (like Tony the Tiger) than having that icon in social media as one voice could work. Haven't seen it done but that doesn't mean it hasn't been done or isn't working. That said, people want to connect with people. And people trust people. It used to be only people you know in the real world but it has shifted to include people you get to know digitally. Some of those people can and should be real people from companies. Just so long as it is not one and only one person.
The old Ogilvy concept of 'Brand Stewardship' comes to mind. Unfortunately, some executives confuse and overlay their own idiosyncracies and peccadillos on the brand. However temporary.