i’m glad you brought this up because i hadn’t necessarily looked at “who/how” i follow before… i’m going to think more about this. thanks

Joe, thanks for coming back – I completely see your perspective and I agree, it would be a bigger letdown to discover a fake Facebook(er) than Twitter(er) because of your definition. There is a different expectation/commitment there. You rock.

I guess what first popped in to my mind about Facebook was that if I connect with you on a “friend” level – not as a “fan” or “follower” – then I’m expecting some authenticity and more of a social interaction.

There is also the ability to creat a corporate Facebook profile under your personal account, and then folks can follow that too (and expect more of a business approach to the content – from any source within that corporation).

Maybe I’m just not twitterated enough to see the difference.

Navy Chief, Navy Pride

This issue is near and dear as I offer SMM as a service to my clients. I would never mislead any of our friends or followers by “faking” direct messages, emails, messages, etc.

How does VMS handle this moral/ethical situation? We handle all of the status updates, general tweets, etc. We then notify our client each day if they have direct messages or questions/tweets that need to be answered. That way there is no misunderstanding or misleading on our side.

Does that make sense?

In a nutshell, that is VMS’ standard. Are there any other solutions that you or anyone else has come across? I am always open to new ideas!

Have a fabulous weekend!

Miss GC – Good point about the personality. That does help define the brand. Thanks.

Matt – Thanks for always providing so much feedback. Appreciated! I agree, I think we will see it more and more – as companies want to jump on the bandwagon. I like your hotel analogy … you’re saying you want an expert that is empowered to speak on behalf of the hotel. That’s authentic … and relevant.

Joe – Hi! Thanks for chiming in. interesting perspective, thanks. Sounds like you ‘expect’ more authenticity from Facebook et al . Interesting …. If you have a chance to explain why the difference, I would love to understand it at a greater level.

I think we’ll see more and more of this in the coming year as more social media clubs form in towns and cities across the world. These clubs are great when they help advise newcomers on how to use social media to their advantage, but of course what you learn is only as good as the person teaching it. If a social media club forms with it’s main focus on “how to get 100,000 followers in 10 days” – we’ll see businesses adapt those policies. I’ve seen several people tout different ways to approach social media already and I’m sure there’s a few ideas out there I haven’t seen.

At REbarcamp Denver I watched (online) Rob McNealy speak about social media and one of the things that I disagreed with him on was that he feels you have to use your name as your account ID. I disagree as I am building a “brand” (I still hate that word) around the whole “rockstar” thing, so to me it is more important to get that in there then “Stigliano” (a name no one spells right half the time and one that gets butchered more often than not). Although I disagree with that particular point, I agreed with much of what he said. I use that as the example of where did they learn it from.

I think some companies need to use their corporate identity and some should use the names of the people doing the updating. Look at everything that happened when @tcar stopped by to add his thoughts to the Google/MIBOR mess. Because he is affiliated with NAR, it was quickly assumed that he was speaking for them and a good portion of the conversation then was used to sum up that this or that was or was not official NAR doctrine. Perhaps there is a middle ground that will be found – ie, Bob Dobbs from ABC Company speaks as both “bobdobbs” and “ABCbob” – one account for the more personal social aspects and one for the more company line aspects.

A good example of who to let speak for you would be a hotel (this is my example). In the case of a hotel, let’s say the luxurious Hotel Atlantic Kempinski in Hamburg, Germany – if they had @hotelatlantic and were tweeting about the hotel, great. If I needed a question answered and wanted a great response I would sure hope that the hotel concierge was doing the tweeting (they have/had a great concierge who can tell you all about the hotel and Hamburg). Concierge’s always are the best resource at a hotel and often know more than just about anyone in a hotel. So in that example, I wouldn’t mind if a person was doing the tweeting for the hotel…now if the maids were doing it or someone 5,000 miles away at corporate headquarters…well, then I might.

Sorry, I rambled way to much on this comment, but I hope you see where I’m coming from.

1. What they tweet about?

2. Am I looking to their tweets for advice, council, or inspiration?

If their content is bland and simply informative, I might not give a rip, especially if none of #2 apply. If I feel some sort of bond with the twitter user and find out they are not who I really have a bond with…that would tick me off.

I think it comes down to trust. Social media IS great because people are transparent when they are involved. If you are misrepresenting yourself or your company, then all that falls out the window. Thanks again for the article.