By that I don't mean brand planning for social web brands. I'm talking about the way we describe and define brands in general and how that plays out on the social web.
Onions, triangles, keys, whatever shape you want to use: if we're honest, these frameworks often end up containing sets of words which don't always make complete sense.
Or rather, they make sense in a hyperbolic context like advertising. The words "more refreshing than any other beer" are understandable and make sense within the confines of the sentence. But many people would - in a conversation in the pub, for example - challenge the idea that one weak, watery lager could be more refreshing than one of the many other weak, watery lagers. But wrap that idea up in some advertising that claims the said beer "refreshes the parts other beers cannot reach", and suddenly the tenuousness of that original idea no longer matters because the ad is funny.
However, when we come to think about how the same brand might behave on the social web, that model tends to fall down. We're not creating a dramatisation of a thought that we then fire at people. We're talking to people. And that means you have to make sense. At least it does if you want people to listen and respond with something vaguely relevant or connected to what you've just said.
It's a waifer thin observation but one that is potentially quite useful because it helps answer the question: should my brand be actively using social platforms? If your brand is based on an opinion, such as dirt is good, that people can talk about and debate, then chances are social stuff will work for you. If your brand believes it's so good you'll have magical powers over the opposite sex, then it probably makes sense to stick to translating your advertising hyperbole into digital things for people to play with and share.
And, by extension, if you're developing a new brand that you hope will live in the always-on social web, then consider defining it in terms that people can understand and talk about.
Comments