Timeline for Employer wants us to tweet (etc) about them; what should I consider?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 2015 at 9:12 | comment | added | deworde | @ThorstenS. Depends what you mean by "react badly". It still has the desired effect of getting the brand public. "All I want for Christmas is a PSP" boosted the brand even though it was hilariously terrible. Brand don't care if you're seen as a corporate shill, they care that the name turns up on Google. | |
| Aug 4, 2015 at 8:12 | comment | added | Thorsten S. | @deworde Missing completely the point, I never claimed that people are immune to advertising. The claim is that people almost always recognize advertising and react badly to dishonest advertising which pretends to be an own opinion. | |
| Aug 3, 2015 at 13:15 | comment | added | deworde | @ThorstenS. Entire books have been written which can be summarised as "Users think they're immune to advertising ROLFMAO". | |
| Aug 1, 2015 at 0:36 | comment | added | Dewi Morgan | @DoubleDouble as an indie games programmer, thank you :) That's basically what we do where I work: when we're doing really fun stuff, and we know that the public knows about it, it's considered very OK to talk about it and link to it. If we work on a new avatar, then link to where it's sold so they can see our work, that' s not seen as a bad thing by most people. If we're just super excited about stuff other people in the ream have been working on, the same. But if we're just parroting a marketing line, it comes over as a little forced, because frankly we coders make crap salesmen :) | |
| Jul 31, 2015 at 22:07 | comment | added | Thorsten S. | @DoubleDouble: Granted, but I am confident to pick them out even without pause, music or background cues. The reason is that non-verbal information is transmitted (writing sends the least, direct contact the most information). I try to explain it with the difference of genuine enthusiasm and advertising. If I would write genuine tweets, I am enthusiastic (new feature), annoyed/disappointed (found a real flaw) or acerbic (s.o. trolling the product). Advertising in contrast deliberately tries to suppress negative and foster positive emotion independent of the message which is awfully obvious. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 21:26 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | @ThorstenS. For your experiment, I feel like there are way too many radio cue's that something is advertising. There will be a break from the normal program, and suddenly a (most likely semi-professional sounding) voice will start talking, probably somewhat quickly, with additional music or sounds to assist in grabbing attention. If the actual radio host were to throw in a "I saw that movie, I thought it was really good" in his normal voice and language as a sincere comment you would not notice. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 21:06 | comment | added | DoubleDouble | I personally have always liked seeing sincere tweets from people talking about their business. Especially small game development teams because they don't have overly much PR. It always seems easy to tell when they are sincere or whether they are just saying something for advertising. "Patch ** is ready, it's going to be totally awesome" vs "Can't wait for all you whiners to stop complaining about that bug tonight ;)" | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 13:50 | comment | added | Zibbobz | Opt-in social tweets actually do sound like a decent idea - you don't get people advocating for the company who don't want to do it, you explain to people who do want to do it how to do it properly, and the worst that could come out of it is a group of people working as advertizers for your company. This doesn't sound like what the Asker is describing though - which follows none of the above things. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 12:03 | comment | added | teego1967 | @ThorstenS. is right. My own employer has a social media campaign and has solicited voluntary "activity" from employees. It is painfully cringe-worthily obvious when someone who is a non-marketing professional chimes in with a linkedIn comment. Social media is best when you're speaking strictly for yourself or when you're obviously a marketing professional executing a campaign on behalf of the employer-- everything inbetween just doesn't work well. Sadly many companies fail to understand this. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 11:58 | comment | added | Rory Alsop | Ok - we are talking about two entirely different things then. Let's leave it at that. I think your position is valid for what I think you are describing, but that's very different to what I an talking about. Which is fine - there are as many ways to do this as there are people with ideas, I guess. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 11:43 | comment | added | Thorsten S. | I do not need an extreme viewpoint: Advertising has the fatal flaw that it needs to grab attention (because otherwise it cannot work), but it mostly fails to provide a reason for attention grab (A new milkshake ?!! I might just die of excitement). It is conspicous as hell, you cannot avoid that, so people accept its display as necessary evil. A sh...ambassador is not able to criticize the product, so he presents to be independent while he is not. You can wiggle, squirm and whitewash as much as you want: it is dishonest and that can backfire badly. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 11:27 | comment | added | Rory Alsop | I think you're deliberately stating an extreme viewpoint for the purpose of argument. As I said, I think it is working OK here, but I also see your point and gburton's. Done badly I think it could be bad reputationally. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 11:25 | comment | added | Thorsten S. | Oh, now I understand. There are places where people exchange opinions; lets say I have a personal opinion of having religious core values. There are scientific observations which are irritating. Because people are strangely not sharing my worldview, I decide to only weighing in. I am pointing out current problems and the fallability of science, I want to have a climate of diversity (at least as long as the other persists) and I want that my opinion is as important as science observations and taught in class. This is NOT promoting "creationism", it is only weighing in. Am I convincing ? | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 10:50 | comment | added | Rory Alsop | I must have used incorrect wording - that is not what this initiative is. It's more weighing in on comment threads where we have an opinion, personally, for example. | |
| Jul 30, 2015 at 8:50 | comment | added | Thorsten S. | Please make the following experiment: Get a world receiver radio. Choose a channel where they are talking in a language (Afghan, Chinese, Suaheli whatever) you have absolutely no clue of. You will be still able to tell at once when advertising is sent, our brain is that good in detecting advertising. No amount of training, preparation or being "ambassadors" will hide that fact, you and others are fooling yourself in this regard. There is no non-blatant advertising, using peoples social media will always feel dishonest and I think it is a bad idea. | |
| Jul 29, 2015 at 23:55 | history | answered | Rory Alsop | CC BY-SA 3.0 |