SheGeeks: Why It’s Easier To Control Your Brand, Not The Conversation
medxcentral (Jim)
· 2 months ago
Interesting. But I'm having some trouble...maybe you can help. Where is the line between dominating a conversation and stimulating the conversation? I don't think the answer is brand specific either. Here's what I mean...
Many, individuals and brands, are still so new to social media that they have "cold feet." Many, in my belief, are nervous about the public nature of the conversation. And, because of this, they don't speak. In instances where I've "actively" stimulated the conversation by participating and conversing, some have perceived me (or my brand depending on the venue) as "dominating" the conversation compromising the ability of others to be heard...which is NOT my intent.
I don't just run on at the mouth.. I listen, respond and reach out to others to get them involved in the conversation. I ask related questions, etc. Yet, the perception persists (among some.)
Whether it's a brand speaking or an individual, the challenge is the same.
Got any advice?
Corvida Raven
· 1 month ago
People will only see such negatives if they don't know you and the first thing they see is your brand's name (which they've been previously discussing). You have to get that connection to them without the need for your brand's name to be mentioned.
Stimulating the conversation is also different from jumping in with "cold feet." Stimulated conversations have a sense of credibility, trust, respect, and a deeper need for a better understanding about the topic at hand from people that you can trust.
It's beyond saying the right things at the right times, which can make people nervous when they don't know what to say.
Talk to folks without your brand's name being mentioned. Share your opinions as a person and not just an employee.
medxcentral (Jim)
· 1 month ago
Thank you for responding. I'll feed your reply into the dusty processor between my ears. However, not being able to keep a brand plainly visible while giving a brand personality and presence seems to fly in the face of what made Zappos' approach so successful. See: http://twitter.com/zappos
As much as I like to participate, my personal accounts would never remain truly personal if I participated with only my personal name. See the dilemma?
All Comments
Many, individuals and brands, are still so new to social media that they have "cold feet." Many, in my belief, are nervous about the public nature of the conversation. And, because of this, they don't speak. In instances where I've "actively" stimulated the conversation by participating and conversing, some have perceived me (or my brand depending on the venue) as "dominating" the conversation compromising the ability of others to be heard...which is NOT my intent.
I don't just run on at the mouth.. I listen, respond and reach out to others to get them involved in the conversation. I ask related questions, etc. Yet, the perception persists (among some.)
Whether it's a brand speaking or an individual, the challenge is the same.
Got any advice?
Stimulating the conversation is also different from jumping in with "cold feet." Stimulated conversations have a sense of credibility, trust, respect, and a deeper need for a better understanding about the topic at hand from people that you can trust.
It's beyond saying the right things at the right times, which can make people nervous when they don't know what to say.
Talk to folks without your brand's name being mentioned. Share your opinions as a person and not just an employee.
As much as I like to participate, my personal accounts would never remain truly personal if I participated with only my personal name. See the dilemma?