Jonathan MacDonald

–

I have been wondering how and why brands use social networks.

A while ago, David Armano who is the brilliant creator of Logic + Emotion (and provider of much of the conceptual design I use in my speeches), asked on Twitter if anyone had good examples of brands using social networks or social media effectively.

From recollection, my response was fairly negative but an example that was brought forward was ‘Whole Foods’.

Exploring more sites and companies such as Nike, Adidas and Nokia who have created profiles and invitations to become ‘fans’, I noticed that the examples with most activity and engagement seem to be include these 2 factors:

1. Environments which hit significant passion points such as charities, well-being, fashion, stuff that enables things or provides the ability to do something of purpose etc..

2. Environments that are based on honesty, integrity and purity

Growing environments of trust is so incredibly critical to communication, I feel that without such passion and purity elements, the (more questionable) examples are simply not likely to be seen by anyone as a success in terms of engagement, interaction, loyalty and advocacy.

Nevertheless, I am often in the position of recommending social media strategy to brands and quite often, another agency or consultant has suggested that brand x ‘must have a Facebook/MySpace/whatever profile’.

This then seems to be the box ticked.

But its not though is it?

Just creating a profile and hoping people ‘join’ is only the first, very basic step.

Now what?

What is it that your brand is doing? What use is the profile going to be? What is the value exchange with the public? What passion points are you hitting? How true are your intentions?

As I discuss in the Rules of Engagement (relevance/transparency/value/ease), there is more thought needed than a low resolution logo.

It seems far too common that planning starts from a supposed mandatory need for appearance in such places rather than what I believe to be a mandatory need to figure out what it is you are trying to do that helps people.

Helping people interact, converse, do things more easily, find out about stuff or take part in events.

The purity element is almost a science in itself but again, I propose, it is mandatory for ‘success’.

From talking with many social network users over the last few years, it seems there is a high level of skepticism about brands trying to be ‘one of us’.

Maybe these environments are seen merely as some kind of display inventory.

Maybe its just about awareness. Share of mind.

I think we can do better than that. Much better.

We have a great opportunity to ask permission to interact but seem to, yet again, find the lowest common denominator as its just so much fucking easier.

Well I don’t see scale or worth in the lowest common denominator.

Let’s try harder. With more passion and more purity. For the sake of every single one of us.