It’s Easier to Bitch at a Logo

Thank you, great advice. Timely for us, as well. Have a couple of companies we haven't yet settled on the 'avatar' or logo. This puts some ideas out there for us and the example was really appreciated. Thank you.

Great point of view from @ready2spark: http://www.ready2spark.com/2009/06/first-impres...

She is strongly pro-photo over logo.

TOTALLY DISAGREE with Ben - Twitter is all about conversation, either with one or the many. You obviously don't use it enough or are not having interesting conversations.

AGREE with Jason - people want to connect with people.

I have been struggling with idea of having a Twitter account for our company, Fathom. It just doesn't feel right. What is working well, is that 4-5 of us are actively on Twitter and making our connections while building our own fan base, while still getting the word out about the cool stuff happening at Fathom in a very personal way. Altho, if we do decide to put the Fathom handle out there, I would do what this agency does, and have folks sign off each Tweet so that we can still keep the personal flavor: http://twitter.com/cmithun

I feel like, if you have a strong legion of die-hard fans (like a non-profit) AND you start conversations that are interesting, insightful and engaging (versus just adding to the noise), you can connect with your audience as an organization. But, there is still a wall there if you present the corporate face only (logo) vs. personal face. Plus, your content can only get so personal if you are under the mask of a brand vs. a person. Or can it?

Agree (with accompanying laughter) though in part that's because the tweets under logos I encounter are less engaged in conversation than in one-way statements. They may be non-promotional interesting, useful links to other blogs, in-house blogs or retweets, but there's little if any exchange with the community. At the same time, I understand having gone profile just for that- essentially a company "news feed," while individuals from the company participate in their own right. Of course any time I feel like I'm being "sold" something - I just feel like bitching and blocking -photo or logo.

People come and go. You can't have a person tied into a brand icon. Like Michael Jordan would have his face on Nike, what if the next year they sign LeBron?

Some iconic brand images are far more powerful than faces.

more powerful is one thing. but creating a conversation is another. it depends on a companies goals for Twitter I suppose. I am assuming, to some degree, that the goal is to drive discussion, conversation, relationship.

Your point was echoed tonight in the #PR20chat on Twitter that @BethHarte puts on. Asking what happens when a personal brand is a CEO or account rep at a company and leaves that company. Do they take all that built up trust and personal brand with them?

I would argue no. I think personal brands are healthy for companies to encourage. Treat them well and they stay. Personal brands can also benefit a company long after they leave. Just as Jordan will have lasting effects on Nike. And most importantly, people are going to have personal brands one way or another, especially within Social Media. Forcing that personality outside of your brand is missing out on the best part of that employee.

First of all Twitter is not a conversational format. I don't care what anyone says. Blogs are conversational though. Second and obvious point you have to take it case by case. Oprah is brand and a person. Microsoft is brand that transcends even Bill Gates, hence Microsoft on Twitter. You want to tell a story than a person is better. You want to reply to a question, an icon avatar will do.

I see that perspective Ben. Respectfully, I disagree.

Twitter is very much conversational for those that use it most. If you are reading feeds and searching for news, I would agree, not much discussion going on there. But for me, 50% of my content on Twitter are @ replies, responses to others, conversations. This very post began with 2 pretty large conversations on Twitter.

The photo avatar as a reflection of personal brands is obviously something I am more supportive of than others. Perhaps a blog post is due on my part about why I think brands should invest in the personal brands of their employees.

Thanks for your comments

Personal brand is separate from a corporate brand and increasingly so. Frankly I find your idea of shaping a corporate brand with a person a bit passé. Sort of a through back to the corporate past and dare I say totalitarian cult of personality past. Fact of the matter is that people are less and less tied to a job or a company. This change is fast and furious and for the better.

PS You have your experience with twitter and I have mine, but those things change as you know.

Thanks for the post! I couldn't agree more that the Ning model is the best of both worlds. @kodakcb is another example. There's something about talking to a log that is more stilted and less personal. It's easier to build a relationship with a face versus an inanimate object. The challenge comes in when you have multiple people tweeting for a company... how would you handle that?

the same way. Ning has several people tweeting. they choose to use logos to help with the consistency.

Dell, Twitter, IBM, Zappos, etc all have several people extending their brand through Twitter. Most of them are real people, with photos as avatars. Companies should allow all their employees to extend a brand through whatever social networking they are naturally drawn to. Zappos teaches every employee about Twitter, has a simple Twitter policy, and lets them decide whether they use it beyond that.

I was thinking more along the lines if various people are tweeting from the same account. But, I guess what you're saying is that there shouldn't be a "corporate" brand? Just employees?

Just was reading more about you... so, the @highheels account... what are your thoughts on that?

that is a longer story. ping me on Twitter and I can give the back story there. but it was originally a bit of an SEO play, before my time there.

there can be. I see the impulse to have a corporate account, but I just find them less engaging, more of a bull horn, less of a relationship. ideally, if you have multiple authors on a corp account, I like when they are signed tweets, preferably signed with twitter usernames. our local newspaper in Charlotte is playing with that (@theobserver) as well as a local design shop (@studiobanks). I would prefer the signatures link to real people so I can seek out that relationship.

Agree... I like the signed tweets idea. I agree with everything you're saying, but do struggle with the idea of how a corporation can have an account and be personable. I haven't seen many who do it well. (excl heels.com of course!)