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.
I’ve seen this problem with other libraries and organizations, and I often find it really frustrating. Depending on the situation, as a user, you end up not knowing what to search for, or coming across a “dead” or abandoned social media page. I think in cases like that, most people give up, which I think leads to a more negative perception of the institution in question (hard to contact, nobody seems interested in them, etc etc).
Agreed that more libraries/organizations/businesses need to roll out more thoughtful implementation of social media strategies.
Thanks for the comment! Indeed it is frustrating. With regard to dead and abandoned social media pages, I think I this could be an entire topic by itself! One thing is to have an abandoned page like VPL, but they get one point 1 of 10 for having the link to their real page. However, so many companies are abandoning their pages or re-branding without deactivating their old pages (this is FaceBook specific) and its ridiculous that they don’t consider what damage is done to their name when they do leave these identity artifacts online.
Whilst not the same as a dead page, I witnessed this insanity with re branding firsthand two years ago, in our national elections (Trinidad and Tobago). A new government cam into power, and re-branded our ministry of agriculture as the ministry of food production, land and marine affairs. That was cool. But the idiots in charge of the FaceBook page decided to abandon a page with some 15K+ likes to create a new page, when they could have re-branded the exact same page, and no one knew why we weren’t getting new updates until the minister announced his new social media campaign and the new handle. I can only call them idiots because I can’t wrap my head around any sane reason they could have for abandoning a healthy page. None-the-less, the takeaway really is that these organisations need to have tight control of their online identity and treat it like if it were any physical identity, such as an actual office or branch, not as things that can just be put up, taken down, abandoned etc at will.
Your post raises a lot of thought-provoking discussions on branding. I am currently working with the Illinois State University Lab Schools on their web presence, and their identity is all over the map. It doesn’t help that their high school, University High School in Normal, IL shares the same name as a high school in California. When we first started developing their social media, we found that several employees and students had “liked” the wrong school. It sound like I need to generate a white paper on branding for the tech director. Any recommendations as to essential points to include or other similar resources? And thanks for the insights.