• http://www.fuelinteractive.com/ briancarter

    I see this as a big shift companies are still sorting out in Social Media… to fully leverage the power of social media for your company, you need real people representing it. I think it’s outdated and exploitative for companies not to see their social media spokespeople as partners. And partners benefit from the exposure as well.

    There are other models- star athletes switch teams- it takes a lot of skills to be a brand spokesperson, and it just seems unfair for a company to try to retain all the spoils. Not only that, but the best employees are passionate (unless their obedient role players, but do those sort of employees make dynamic enough social media spokespeople?), and they tend to think and work outside of 9-5… sometimes having ideas that don’t fit the limited palette of their 9-5 job.

    But apart from the philosophical differences, as you say, I think we’ll see it in the results. Really big brands may get away with robotic role-player spokespeople, but if you want new attention for a new corporate brand, you may need a maverick.

  • http://www.mindshareworld.com Ciarán Norris

    I agree with you, to a point, but think that you’re making an assumption that most of those who jumped on Forrester’s back also made; that is, that anyone blogging on a corporate site must be dull and censored and that those doing it on their own sites are somehow more interesting.

    But at the end of the day, the quality of the content isn’t tied to the place where it’s published. And having a loud voice isn’t necessarily the same thing as having something interesting to say. As for spoils, was Charlene not being paid?