Rodney Rumford posted a review of Twitter blogs entitled “33 Brands That Suck on Twitter.”
After reviewing the list, it’s apparent that the criteria for suck-status includes:
- You’re brand has been parked or hijacked
- You don’t follow anyone
- You haven’t tweeted in months
In an effort to document brand participation on Twitter (and the larger social segment), I linked to the report from the Index. I personally believe this level of criticism is flawed. I parked a twitter account for my former firm after I noticed a number of other, high-level firms being taken and spammed (most likely by a summer associate that didn’t get an offer). Criticizing someone for not coming to a party is counter productive and, odds are, they will feel the pressure to participate in short order.
As for brands that have been hijacked, how is this different from the mid-90s?
In regards to following: several brand managers I’ve connected with have a policy in place addressing followers. Why should a brand, executive or government office follow me? If I have a problem with a product, I would rather have the person on the other end focused on the signal from the community (e.g. summize) than listening to tweets about being drunk on a bus.
Tweeting frequency is something that I also believe is important, but I was proved wrong earlier today. Someone from oWater got in touch with me after reading about my tweets about their coconut infused water. (Sidebar: it’s incredible!) So this person, who has a twitter account and doesn’t tweet often, offered assistance in helping me find my fav beverage!
In thinking about twitter or other social application, it’s important to remember the Web is a heterogeneous environment. How an organization will use an application must be tailored to it’s community and existing culture.
“I personally believe this level of criticism is flawed.” I disagree; the post was meant to raise awareness and whack brands on the side of the head which it has done quite well.
“You haven’t tweeted in months” Seriously; how engaged can you be with that amount of dead time?
My criteria might be harsh; but that was the point. Actually I wrote the blog post 3 months ago and sat on it while giving ample time and opportunity for brands to not be on the list.
What it really did was get conversations going; which was the point.
Cheers!
Rodney Rumford
I appreciate the comment, Rodney. I agree with you to a certain extent, but the point of my retort is the extent of setting a common bar of participation for all organizations.
I’ve spent an unhealthy amount of time in law firms and similar environments. While this is far from the likes of Zappos and other consumer brands, I feel that there’s room for more conservative organizations to participate without shaming them.
Will wacking brands on the side of the head truly change their behavior?
Best,
Jonathan
It might not change their behavior today. But this is an evolution and the more nimble stand to gain from smart adoption when appropriate.
The legal eagles always want to control everything. Well, the genie is out of the bottle folks; they just don’t want to admit that. They need to find a way to entrust employees to act a specific way within defined guidelines.
Big corps are still struggling with blogs (which have been around for 10 years) so the fact that they are not embracing twitter is really no surprise at all.
There is room for every size of organization to participate. Some cultures will not allow it to happen. Too bad.
If they can’t trust their employees to tweet; then they hired the wrong people.
Thanks for the response.
Rodney Rumford