Find Your [Brand] Voice

My obsession lately has been with brand voice. Social Media has brought brands into a dialogue with their customers and customers into a dialogue with each other. What that means, is that brands need to figure out how to translate their image into diction, syntax, and tone, and then convey that to their Facebook fans and Twitter followers. There's nothing worse, than Tweeting something witty to one of your favorite brands, one you aspire to emulate, and then receiving in return, 140 characters of lifeless PR script. I think what it comes down to, is that not everyone has figured out how to be themselves online. For companies, it's extra difficult because an individual, with their own unique personality has to interpret and adopt the brand identity. A lot of companies seem to be taking cautious action; getting into the space and being active, but regulating what can be said and how, which results in a stiff, sort of sickeningly corporate voice. 

The other day, I read an article by Jack Welsh, the legendary head of GE about political authenticity. He was talking about how Mitt Romney hasn't been able to overtake the Republican Primary because he's trying to make himself out to be an everyman when he clearly is not. People don't believe him. Mitt's ever-changing persona is simply an example of personal brand voice. I think Welch makes a good point. A candidate that was real, and not afraid to be his or herself would probably run away with the election. Obviously they should act professional and moderate their speech. But be genuine, joke around, have some fun, act like you would in your everyday life and people will like and trust you more. Without getting too political, I think Obama has done a good job with this. He's always seen out and about at local places that him and his family enjoy. Some people think he should be working rather than having fun, but it's nice to know that he's still a normal guy, despite his title.


Being genuine is as important for brands as it is for politicians. Tweets, posts, and videos should all sound natural and not too scripted. Fans already personify companies, so a spontaneous kind of dialogue will get them excited about conversations. Think of how Wheat Thins addressed Twitter haters and adoring fans with a personal visit and lifetime supplies of product. I think the main recommendation for both people and companies is to really put some time into their online personality. Think about how dialogue should flow and what your company wants to say. Develop this and maintain it! If you want to really engage your audience, don't just talk about product all the time. Talk about trends in your industry, related products, and things that your customers and more importantly you find interesting. That'll keep you genuine.

In closing, I want to come back to that point about acting professionally and moderating your speech. Speech should first and foremost reflect your brand. If you're Nickelodeon and you're speaking like a lawyer, you're going to fail. Most companies should speak respectfully and watch your language, but it's stupid to freak out if a curse word is slipped. I was really annoyed when, I think it was Chrysler, fired their social media person because he accidentally tweeted the word "shit". Brands should avoid cursing but if your audience is college students or older, it really shouldn't be a big deal. Everyone curses, and for younger audiences it can actually help make yourself look a little more real as long as you're not throwing out four-letter words like a rapper.

Censorship in 140 Characters or Less

Well Twitter made an interesting announcement today, telling the world that in other countries, if asked, they will censor tweets. The request has to come from some type of authority, which I suppose could mean a verified account holder, government official, or...I don't know, the description is vague.

No wonder Google has been pissed at Twitter lately, they're being EVIL!!!

But are they really? I think there are definitely reasons to take either side. Now I know that freedom of speech is possibly our greatest American freedom and it is largely accepted worldwide as a human right. But, much to our lament, there are still some places that are not free to openly speak their minds, even in 140 characters.

The situation becomes one of global strategy versus localized adaptation. Is it better or more important for a company to keep their values without compromise, or do you adapt to the region you're operating in? It's a really tough call and can depend heavily on the country in question. In class, we often discuss Google's failure in China, which is really a parallel to Twitter's announcement. Google refused to give in to the Chinese government and censor their content and as a result, was essentially blocked from business. The power to their building was shut down randomly, their links often went to competitor Baidu, and eventually their accounts were hacked and used to arrest anti-government activists. In the end, Google pulled out of China and went about their various other pursuits.

Americans have a tendency to think our policies and beliefs are greater than that of other countries, which is why so many people think we're arrogant. We bring Americanism where ever we go and sometimes show it off without much tact. Twitter clearly wants to provide its services to others, but they know if they are to establish and maintain a global presence including regions with authoritarian rule, they have to play under house rules. If, like Google, they try to subvert the system and remain open, the situation could devolve into much worse than censorship, like arrests or hacking. We really don't even know how often this will come up. As far as I can tell, there aren't key words or people that are automatically blocked all the time, but rather specific requests have to be made. It may not be an issue.

But Twitter is definitely going to take some heat for this decision, when they're really only trying to do what's best for their service. It relies on network effect just like all social networks and they are only trying to expand the network. I think that when it comes to ethical issues like this one, the field is gray. Making the decision requires careful analysis and good judgement, and unfortunately I can't say whether or not Twitter went through the proper motions. I can understand the rationale though. This decision is interesting though when you consider the involvement of Twitter and Facebook in last years Arab Revolutions.

I'll be curious to see what happens with this decision in the future. How do you feel about this decision and the idea of complying with local customs? Let me know in the comments section below!