Articles, Social Media, Web

I spend way too much time thinking about how organizations participate in social media. Regardless of whether or not you agree that companies should be allowed to join these long-standing, ad free communities, there is no denying the fact that they won’t be leaving any time soon. Not while there is a chance to reach their customers.

But the fact that brands now hang out in the same places that I connect to my friends  made me reflect on the changing social dynamics of the word “friend” when brands hang out in my social context. These companies are not my friends in any sense of the word – they don’t call me, they don’t go out for beers with me, and they definitely weren’t at my last birthday party. They have no legitimate connection to me whatsoever. It’s scary to think that when I connect to a company through social media, I may have just given a psychopath access to my life.

For those of you who haven’t had the chance to see The Corporation, let me summarize its core thesis for you – based on the DSM (the set of testing criteria used to assess psychological disorders), a corporation would be considered a psychopath.

Here are a few of the assessment statements:

• The corporation is irresponsible because in an attempt to satisfy the corporate goal, everybody else is put at risk.
• Corporations try to manipulate everything, including public opinion.
• Corporations are grandiose, always insisting that “we’re number one, we’re the best.”
• Corporations refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions and are unable to feel remorse.

Without a doubt, there is significant variety in the quality and type of social participation that gets put out by an organization. What I would like to know is how many companies are keeping track of the type of friend they’re being? Where as brand communications used to be command and control, mass media is dead and peer-to-peer interactions define a brand’s story. In peer-to-peer, “Coke”, “Nike” and  “Apple” are just another friend (all be it, a well connected friend). But are they being a good friend, or are they being that person from your high school you added to facebook just to be nice.

The reality is, a “brand friend” is really more of an acquaintance.  If they start spamming your twitter feed, you’re probably going to block them. If they start messaging erratically, you tune them out. If they post in erratic voices you will be concerned about them, and if they lie to your face, you’ll be ticked off at them. It’s dangerous that more companies don’t evaluate what kind of friend they’re being.

While I’m first to say I love the idea of organizational transparency, I always question the authenticity of messages delivered by corporate brands through social networks. How can we expect such a fundamental shift in how organizations operate in such a short period of time? Despite global warming, companies still pollute. Despite public uproar, child labor still exists. Is it possible that peer-to-peer communications can really change the nature of how corporations act in such a short period of time?

While I’m skeptical, I also believe that the organizations that use social media effectively get it because they live it. These aren’t last-generation brand managers; they are people who grew up in a social, web-enabled world who understand the communities they participate in.

Social media participation personifies a brand. But until I can be sure I’m not friending a psychopath, I’m going to start being more cautious about the companies I invite to connect with me.