In the reflections discussion board, there is a post on the POST strategy for Social Media (SM). What this (and other) articles assume, is that at deployment, one has already undertaken brand development, and understands the “identity(s)” one wishes to create online.
However, in my experience, this is not always the case. I joined an event management company called Lizzard Blizzard Entertainment, which had previously started an SM campaign. Unfortunately, they did not decide how they wanted to be “known” by their audience until very recently, as ‘LizBliz’, and the following was their identity situation, with proposed solutions:
URL: lizzardblizzard.com AND lizbliz.com (latter registered to carry new brand)
Solution –have lizzardblizzard.com redirect to lizbliz.com, instead of aliasing, so people register the ‘lizbliz’ identity, see it in their URL bar, etc.
YouTube handle: LizBlizVideo BUT now want LizBlizTV, in preparation of streaming functionality
Solution – change channel name to LizBlizTv and request handle name change, brand videos with LizBlizTv, example below
Music: LizBlizMusic BUT three official logos, as below
Is this a music logo, or a general logo?
The graphic designer’s first response to me saying it needs more definition.
Cohesion! Different colour, but same style as LizBlizTv. Finally!
Solution – use yellow logo that matches style of LizBLizTv
Twitter: @lizzardblizzard
Solution – rename handle @lizbliz, also saving valuable characters (know your platform!)
Whilst each brand identity is not particularly bad, not determining how to tie the brands together in a way that is memorable and reflects the overall identity “LizBliz” is detrimental to the brand growth.
This situation is also apparent in the library-sphere. In a class contribution I made on using Pinterest, I noted that VPL (Oakridge) on Pinterest (oakridgebranch) does not link to their Facebook page (oakridgelibrary), but instead to a blank user who “Likes” their page (oakridge.branchvpl ← thought in identity development). Their handles are not helping build the “one identity” that is VPL Oakridge, and their content is too similar to argue that each are speaking with particularly separate voices.
My takeaway – prototype your identities, and then, using a model such as POST, which will help develop strong prototypes, determine which should be brought online.
References
Bernoff J. Empowered [Internet]. Groundswell. 2007. Available from: http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2007/12/the-post-method.html
Brown J, Broderick AJ, Lee N. Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing [Internet]. Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company; 2007 Jun 1;21(3):2–20. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/dir.20082
Cuddy, Colleen, Jamie Graham, and Emily Morton-Owens. “Implementing Twitter in a Health Sciences Library.” Medical Reference Services Quarterly 29.4 (2010): 320-30. Web. 31 Mar. 2012.