Yesterday I posed a question to Twitterland that received some interesting responses on both sides of the fence, so I figured I would bring it here to look into a little more deeper and have even more people chime in. The question was essentially, how do you feel about businesses/websites/organizations who have more than one Twitter account? One which is the more personable account (the face of the organization, much like Scott Monty is for Ford) and another that is primarily for news, company/site updates, and links to articles posted on the site?
My initial thought was it depends. Some of the Twitter responses took both sides of the issue…
So, let me add a few thoughts that couldn’t really be expressed in 140 characters…
- We can’t assume that the “typical” Twitter user uses it just like we do. As marketing professionals, we prefer to see a face associated with the brand and don’t like accounts that just post links. I do think that in the majority of cases, this is true for the “typical” user, but there are exceptions.
- News sites like CNN, ESPN, and USA Today may be better served having an account that just posts links to their articles, and then having one of their more prominent personalities have an account for commentary. That way, people can choose if they want just the facts or want someone to tell them what they think about the facts. Another example would be certain shopping websites. Some fans may ONLY want tweets about coupons and deals from Amazon. Others may want reviews of products, pictures, and a personality. Would it make more sense to separate these accounts to please the highest number of people (even if one group is smaller?)
- If you do have two separate accounts, it is important to make it very clear to followers that the other account does exist.
- Oftentimes, leaders of a business/organization have very busy schedules and don’t have time to tweet about all of the important news and information from their company. Now, before you say that they obviously are being huge slackers, quit thinking about people like David Armano, Scott Monty, and those type people because, quite frankly, most execs don’t have their social media act together like these guys do. In big, international corporations or business that produce a ton of content (like newspapers), it really may not be worth their time informing followers about every news item, so they just stick to the major ones and let someone else aggregate the rest of the news in another account.
- This isn’t to say that the company account has to be entirely links. It could be more than that…
So, what do you think? Is it appropriate for an organization to separate their accounts into a more personable one and one that is mostly news, articles, and the type? Is it even preferable? Let’s hear your thoughts…
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post- I really like the points you brought up, especially the point about companies such as how CNN operate- they have a Twitter account where they post news links, but so do their personalities like Anderson Cooper. I think another factor that needs to be addressed when thinking about whether to have multiple accounts is whether you're a global agency- if you're running competitions and engaging with fans in different regions, should the Twitter account be localized?
Thanks, Sheema! I'd say you do have a bit of experience with the global agency situation, don't you?
I just felt like on the surface, it's our job as marketing people to say “you need to make it personable,” but in reality, when you look at specific examples, this isn't true every time.
Thanks for commenting!
Haha some! Definitely, I think it depends on whether the twitter account is there to inform, engage, or advise.
We are struggling with this issue right now. I feel that we need two Twitter accts – one for marketing people in property management and one for renters. The messages are so different. Other people in my organization feel differently, so we have one acct for now. It will be interesting to see how this evolves.
Exactly, some potential renters may be turned off if they only see the past few tweets that were all about the property management side, causing you to lose them. I totally get that people don't want to spread their messaging too thin, but instances like this seem like two separate ones would be totally appropriate, right?
It's interesting to see how people are on both sides of this issue. Thanks for stopping by Ellen!
Jackie I think that companies should have multiple accounts. The main reason is that like you said there are different audiences. At Vistaprint, we have four Twitter accounts. One is for the main engagement with customers where a soft-sell is applied from time to time. We also have an account for our customer service team that assists customers with their orders. We also have an account for our blog and a deals feed. These two address specific audiences who may be turned off by the other pair.
I have never been a fan of tying a face to the company account and using the person as a brand ambassador for the simple reason of talent poaching. Comcast is a great example as Frank Elliason was the face of the brand. Now that he is leaving, ComcastBill has some big shoes to fill. In a way he is bigger than the brand and built his personal brand using the Comcast name. Now note this is different when looking at Ford as Scott Monty was well established before jetting to the Motor City.
Now back to the post. Since social media touches all aspects of a business, you should look to have representation from every touch point that social media is relevant to including: product, marketing, public relations, research, etc.
Individuals should also only have one profile.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Jeff!
I definitely agree on your first point (obviously). The 2nd paragraph is an interesting one to sift through. I definitely see the point you're making, and it is a valid one. As much as I want to disagree, I'm having trouble doing so. My first thought is that sure, that is a risk you take, but there was also a huge reward in it for Comcast, as their customer service on Twitter has definitely been notable. But, the question is, how would it have happened if Frank wasn't the face of the brand? A lot of companies have done a great job of customer service without a face attached to it. Zappos is one, Wells Fargo another.
The Twelpforce uses people, but so many that nobody takes the spotlight (they might be on to something with that). By doing this, they humanize it, yet curb the risk of a Comcast type situation. Maybe this is a route that more companies will take as they want to humanize the brand, yet don't want to build a person that's bigger than the brand.
Whatchya think?
What about Universities? You've got admissions, undergrads, freshman class, athletics, women's basketball, men's basketball, alumni, etc. Any best practices for how to manage all of these profiles?
Yeah, that's another good example, because each of those units operate completely independent of each other. As far as best practices, I'd say since the units operate independently, the person managing them should probably be someone different in each instance (at least in most cases). Nobody knows your area of expertise, so why would you want someone from admissions managing an account for the entire Journalism department? Of course, the challenge here is getting buy in from someone in each of these departments who can do a great job of maintaining them.
Thanks for stopping by, Liz!