DISQUS

Disclaimer: I'm biased as I was on the Dunkin' Twitter strategy team, but I couldn't disagree more with the general sentiment regarding Twitter and brands.

My first question would be, "since on Twitter you only experience who you choose to follow, why would you EVER follow a brand if you think hate brands on Twitter?" My second question would be, "even if you hate brands being on Twitter, do you not care that others love connecting with someone 'on the inside' of their favorite brands?"

I agree with the point that companies are doing it wrong in a TON of cases... however, using Dunkin' was a particularly bad choice as Dunkin' is one of the few doing it right. By connecting with Dunkin', you talk directly to Dave at Dunkin' no a brand monolith. This is exactly what I, as a Dunkin' Brand fan, want. A guy a can talk to and get cool insider info from about a brand I like.

This comment is dead on and I second it wholeheartedly.

To Chris's list I would add:

Accurate tracking of brand, video and other social media tools.

Right now there is no perfect answer to tracking/reporting.

I take a 180 take on "viral" I think. Interesting that our views are so different. I view "viral marketing" like I view "television marketing" or "online marketing". "Viral" in this case answers the question "how?" not "how successful?".

The "viral" in "viral marketing" only identifies the delivery method of the marketing message. How will I attempt to make this marketing message a hit? Virally. Virally as opposed to 'using a television' or 'via print media'.

That said, we're often asked to make a video go viral and we have the same feeling/answer as you. I agree on that point. I simply don't agree at all that viral = success. To me at least, it describes the delivery method and that is all. A failed viral video is a video that never successfully passed around the internet. A successful one saved the company the cost of distribution (akin to getting free ad placement on TV or in a magazine).

Cheers to the article either way.

Charging $30/month would be applying an old model to a new service and would fail.

Why?

Because, while they provide tremendous service, both facebook and twitter are clonable if need be.

The value they provide is largely based on the size of their network... shrinking their network (via charges) would lessen the value of everything they do. What they should do, and are already doing somewhat in facebook, is charging corporations for access/advertisement and charging users for additional features... simple.

If only companies weren't in the pathological "cover up our flaws" mode at all times!

Great post! I think an open/honest "we learned from this failure" white paper would speak volumes about a company. The same way someone openly and honestly admitting a mistake is MUCH more likable than someone who's constantly scheming and pointing fingers.

Very good post. Just gave you some love on Mixx.
B

Very solid point. Great post once again!

Great post!

I operate under the "under promise; over deliver" creed, and have seen much success.

An interesting twist, however, is found in the studies they've done to show that some levels of self-promotion (bragging) internally actually leads to a more successful career.

So we might possibly create a rule from these two combined ideas: "under promise to clients, over state to your boss"

It's a funny thought, but I have seen it in action in sales reps specifically where the squeaky wheel was repeated greased (promoted/commissioned/rewarded)when MUCH better producers sat overlooked and unrewarded... and yet THESE unrewarded underpromised to clients and built the strongest relationships for the company.

Great post. I'm going to RSS you, so keep up the great content.

Brennan

LOL! Cute and hilarious. I kinda want that puppy.