The Harte of Marketing

Christa M. Miller:

Actually I’m sitting here laughing because I never even noticed! I came into the chat late and jumped right in to the always-busy stream and…

And I think maybe your test shouldn’t be confused with ghosting for blogs etc. because the situation is unique: a chat most of our small group were familiar with, a ghost not far off your opinionated-ness, a very busy stream.

A corporate blog? Differences would stand out in the “slower, meatier” environment. That’s one reason why I make it clear when I blog vs. this one particular client. He’s not a writer, and it shows. His blogging is passionate and it makes sense, but he makes spelling and punctuation errors which I don’t. It would be painfully obvious for me to pretend to be him, especially to those who know him and his voice.

Whether anyone would care which of us blogged as long as they got what they needed? I don’t know, though I think it could be really embarrassing if at a trade show someone asked him about something they thought he wrote, and he hadn’t read it so couldn’t answer.

Plus, you talked about measurement vs. feeling… well I’m very intuitive, and I still feel very uncomfortable with the idea of blogging as client. Even if he reads what I write and can follow up on it (arguable since he could never be in my head as much as I was writing it), it still doesn’t feel “right.”

And I still think that if a CEO has no time to blog and needs to turn it over to PR/marketing, then the blog should say that’s who it’s written by. It doesn’t mean the C-suite will never blog. Just that they have help from competent communicators (assuming, of course, those people blog without trying to “sell.”)
Christa M. Miller´s last blog ..Who determines the standard?

Richie Escovedo:

Beth – What an interesting experiment to try in order to test assumptions. I think this bit of invisible theater had good intentions and therefore do not think that any feelings of betrayal are warranted.

That said, I think the trust that can be fostered from an agency/consultant on behalf of an organization is not as delicate as conventional wisdom might perceive.

If the messages are developed so that the words and theme resonance are based on an organization’s goals and values are maintained, then fidelity of voice will be achieved. If, on the other hand, messages are crafted and contrived without much thought as to voice of the organization, then you may be in store for a few wheels-off moments.

Thanks for coming clean

@vedo
Richie Escovedo´s last blog ..9 PR rules my daughter learned in kindergarten

Leigh Fazzina:

Once again Beth Harte puts her brilliance to work. Beth, I applaud you for doing this and giving it a try… And I was glad to help you in some small way.

First, if I offended anyone tweeting as Beth Harte – my sincere apology goes out. Becca – I didn’t meant to stomp on you in any way. I think someone said to me… oh, I mean said to Beth – a comment such as “be nice to Becca!” So forgive me there.

This was an interesting test for me being on my side. I got to pretend I was someone I was not. For a few moments though I thought “Hmmmm, how would Beth think? Am I to think like Beth and write like Beth?” Then I just said, “I am going to write and respond like me, Leigh Fazzina…” which is so different from how Beth writes. It definitely made me double think everything…

Then I asked myself how I felt pretending to be Beth Harte for 75 minutes?

As a PR professional who works with public and society at large, I took an oath many years ago (like many of you have) stating that I would tell the truth 100% of time in all the work I do; as my PR work affects the public and resides in the public domain. So I have to say – I felt like a liar! Could I go ghost Tweet for someone else? No, I cannot. But that’s me. Could I do it for a corporation? Yes I could, but I would make it extremely transparent that it was me, Leigh Fazzina, the PR/Social Media professional doing the work.

Was I okay with this test today for 75 minutes even though I felt like a liar? Yes, I was because I knew it was just that – a test. A very interesting one in which I learned a good deal from and hope you all did too in some way.

Beth, thanks again for asking me to help out, and keep up the great work in helping our PR community learn more about social media.

@LeighFazzina

Mark Harai:

Hi Beth,

I’ll keep this brief – this is a very interesting “un-scientific” case study you did… goes to show, there is much to learn about the best practices and strategies utilizing social media. Those with the “ignorant” blinders on are missing out on the true potential this medium holds and the diverse uses that can be successfully implemented. Thank you so much for getting me/us to think, consider and expand our notions about the space.
Mark Harai´s last blog ..Capitalism, The Digital Age and Freedom

hchybinski:

I continue to learn and be inspired. . .I am not a marketing or PR professional – I’m an auditor (my paid job) but I am loving the freedom of the blogging and SM world that is exploding. So thank you all for letting me be a hanger-on and learn from your experiences.

Beth – nice experiment – well done – and I would say based on the comments here, successful!

Before last night’s chat – I never gave much thought that a blog I’m reading (or tweets) were not written by the person I thought they were. . .which is odd for me – because my very nature is skepticism.

But accross the board – I am for transparency, and honesty, and plain language – I think we need it in Corp Annual Reports, loan documents, credit card agreements, everything. . .and as a company, if you let me down – I’m going to tell everyone I know – via blog, twitter, phone, etc.

On the other hand – if you are true to your word – and put forth your good faith effort – that too I will tell everyone I know.

So again – thanks for being part of my ever-expanding world of knowledge – I’m lookikng forward to more.

Hillary
hchybinski´s last blog ..the last of the single digits. . .

Ken:

Full disclaimer: I work for @Validize, an identity and profession verification company. But all I have to say is Wow!

It was so refreshing and satisfying to hear a social media maven like yourself question the current trend of opinion based “just be real” social marketing.

I agree that there needs to be transparency, authenticity and trust, but there also needs to be credibility. Too many people seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of blind trust without giving any thought to credibility.

I’ll definitely be following you on Twitter and adding your blogs to my RSS.

Russ Somers:

Thanks for being willing to put your beliefs to the test!

The difference between an employee blogging/tweeting on behalf of a brand and an agency or consultant doing the same is really only a matter of degree, IMHO. No person ‘is’ a brand. So in my mind representing oneself as a person at a company (@chrisbatdell) is the optimal solution, rather than representing oneself as Dell.
Russ Somers´s last blog ..Dear Product Team

Leigh Fazzina:

@DanMcCarthy You just nailed this on the head! “Ghosting applies better to static media, like articles and speeches. In “relationship media” it creates unnecessary and often counterproductive layers.”

I was first taught to ghost write in 1991 in some of my first PR 101 and journalism classes in college. I was taught that it was done for press releases, quotes, speeches, newsletters, soundbites, messaging, etc, – weren’t all of us PR people? And this is what we’ve done for many years. Heck we know it may take many ghosts to formulate even just one quoted sentence, right? The are where I don’t think transitions is in the relationship media and social media, like you say…. However I’m seeing some PR people feel its okay, and I’m seeing others don’t.

I am curious what is being taught at the undergrad level these days about this. Anyone aware?

Becca Bernstein:

First off, wow. Very interesting experiment considering last night’s chat. This is a nice way to really talk the whole transparency issue. However, I wasn’t offended that it wasn’t Beth moderating b/c the questions and insights Leigh provided were still insightful and thought provoking.

As for transparency, my opinion is mixed. I think SM scares the beans out of most companies and individuals. But in reality, it’s just the same work marketing professionals have been doing for a long time. The twist here is that we’ve been doing it for them. And now—it’s their turn.

But is it? Are corporations ready to take on this task? It’s time-consuming and from the marketing departments I’ve worked with and for, no one has enough time to complete his/her normal day-to-day work, much less add on this new task on.

As for me, I feel the need to do a bit of explaining. I’m a copywriter by nature. I’ve been crafting advertising/marketing concepts for over a decade. This experience provides me with the knowledge to assist clients when approaching new tools.

As a recently laid-off professional, I saw an opportunity to help clients get up to speed on all the new platforms, help them understand their personal goals and develop relevant and timely content. Often times our discussions turn into updates and postings, usually written by my clients and then tweaked by me. And while my scope sometimes evolves past the role of editor/ghost writer, I don’t this as a problem.

When I develop a concept for a print ad, website or any piece of collateral, it’s on a freelance basis. Meaning, I am not a member of their organization yet, I am using the established corporate voice to sell a product, service, etc. Why does this need to be different in the world of social media? As long as the intentions are honest, the voice is consistent and the values of the company are aligned with all communications—the only difference is the medium.

On another note, did your test fail? If no one realized that you weren’t moderating (and from reading the comments, no one seemed to care) then how is transparency an issue? Leigh had authentic intentions of leading a thought provoking discussion. I’m glad this experience is allowing you (and all of us) to reconsidering the issue of ghost blogging/tweeting. Social media is still relatively new and if we don’t try new things—we will never evolve.

Jim Mitchem:

I think we’re using the term transparency wrong in this case. I mean, do any of us think that the executives at McDonalds are designing their TV commercials? And because they hire an ad agency – does that make them deceptive? No. We understand that certain people are more apt to think about ways to get masses of people to think about something differently. Thankfully. Transparent means what you see is what you get. There’s nothing impeding your vision to a thing. That someone tweeted on behalf of Bethe Hart without stating they were doing so is very deceptive. The fact you told us the truth (after the fact) isn’t even transparent. The problem with this exercise is that you are a person, not a branded corporation. I’ve seen some brands use a corporate umbrella for their writers, and then each writer takes on their own personality within the brand umbrella. Heck, some brands even update their twitter pages when new shifts (in people twittering) occur. *That* is transparency. No, these people are not the CEO of the company – but really, does it matter? These writers are not *people* first at all, when they’re writing under a brand umbrella. They’re the brand first, people second. But there’s credibility in the people because they’re making an effort to let the audience know they’re people. I recently agreed to tweet on behalf of a couple of brands. I don’t really want to do it, but I feel it’s the best way to ease a team of other people into the role. However, part of my agreement is that I use my main twitter handle in my bio line – as a reference (this is @smashadv tweeting on behalf of XYZ, Inc.) Like Becca said – it’s something I’ve done my whole career anyway – serving as a translator for brands to reach their audiences. It’s no different here. Only, writing ad campaigns is a lot easier than building and managing a twitter account for a brand. Anyway – I think this whole issue is a matter of semantics. Transparency means different things to different people.
Jim Mitchem´s last blog ..How Social Media Healed A Little Girl’s Broken Heart

Rick Simmons:

interesting test coming from the Queen of transparency – on the other hand i agree with your assessment that you needed to test.
From our perspective – we have quite a number of smaller clients and with this economy are just making things work – to tell them they need to work with new tools they barely understand and take time to do it is a tough sell.
Often the only alternative is a writer who learns enough about the company to be able to be their voice – we draw the line however if the company tries to sell it as a voice of a particular person in the company. The result is that they are starting to see value and that on all levels is a good thing moving forward in being part of the conversation.

Justin Goldsborough:

@Teresa I think you just hit on another significant negative that comes from ghost blogging — how it can set back an organization’s efforts to truly embrace online conversations.

Think about how company cultures work. The majority of employees adopt from the top down, meaning they look for some type of authority to say “From now on it’s ok to do your job this way.”

If companies, especially execs, say it’s ok to ghost blog then that’s the education that filters down throughout the organization. And as messages are filtered down the chain, they’re original intent isn’t always there — we all played telephone as kids, right?

So even if a company adopts ghostblogging with good intentions, by the time the message hits the manager level it could easily have changed to — “You can represent yourself in social media forums as someone else.” And keep in mind that many employees (think it was 50% at my last employer) will get their first intro to social media via their job.

That’s a scary proposition for any organization and one that could have a negative impact on a brand’s reputation.

Just my two cents as I continue to think this one through. What do you think?
Justin Goldsborough´s last blog ..KU sports scuffle offers colleges social media lesson

John Cass:

Beth, I think you could have taken another approach to starting the discussion rather than actually having someone ghost write for you. Perhaps introduced the idea as a concept, and even let people know before the experiment someone else was writing in your name. However, your post has produced an excellent discussion from the community, so I’d have to admit the experiment probably had a bigger impact because you did not tell people. However, now, I will always wonder if I’m talking with you or your ghost writer.

I think this question of authenticity is all about money. Basically a few years ago few companies used social media, and there was not much of a market for generating content via social media. Those people who started using social media developed the community, and used many of the ethics from the field of journalism. Authenticity became the order of the day.

The genesis of authenticity is basically if I write content, where people have the ability to write back to me, I’d better be prepared to answer otherwise I may be caught out as a fraud.

As more and more people started using social media, and more companies jumped in to start using social media for promotion, the market for developing content in social media grew.

Customers for social media content were either unused to developing the content, did not have time or assumed that as they had once paid for content in traditional media from other authors to represent them, it was completely okay to do so for social media content.

The market for ghost content grew, and though most writers would probably prefer authenticity, it actually helps to have more bylines; ghost content writing does pays the bills.

As the number of customers and vendors of ghost content has grown over the years, the voices for authenticity though still vocal have grown less significant.

I think the debate is really about what the ROI of authenticity. If the community believes ghost social media content is a cost effective way to promote a company, the community will continue to ghost write social media content. If the community believes writing such content doesn’t get the sort of ROI they are looking for it will diminish. I think the level of ghost writing in social media is more dependent upon the market, and that market is dependent upon the law, social rules in the community, and how the community responds to revelations of ghost writing. If the community criticizes social media ghost writing and the consequences of ghost writing social media content is harmful to a brand there will be less of it. If not, I think the practice will grow.

I look at the market and the changes that have happened over the last few years, and wonder if the ideas contained in the cluetrain are dead, or were ever valuable. The central idea people are online and they are talking together is still true. The web is not one large community but a series of different companies. I read in this thread that many people suggest ghost writing is okay, and it’s been done in PR and communications for a long time. But I wonder if those people are living in the PR echo chamber, or maybe the ghost writing echo chamber? And if you may be setting yourself up for a fall when you write for a community that takes a dim view about writing in an inauthentic way.

Gini Dietrich:

Beth – Like everyone else here, I commend your honesty in this blog post.

It reminds me of something that happened in Chicago earlier this year. @ColonelTribune was consistently one of the top Tweeters. He gained a huge following. He hosted TweetUps. He engaged consistently, and quite well. When the gentleman who was the voice left to go to an agency, the brand changed. No longer is the voice as engaging. His growth has stalled. No more TweetUps. Just information and no consistent engagement.

So…if you’re going to outsource your social media, make sure it’s with someone who is going to be around for the long haul and that can speak for you without having to get approvals. It’s about all of the things you mention in your post, but also about not hurting the brand should your brand take another job.

Thomas Scott:

Trust and authenticity ARE important as is transparency and like Beth, they are major components of my social media approach.

Up until recently, I would have said a company needs training to tell their story on a daily basis so they can build trust. Lately, though, I’m beginning to believe that people need help telling their story. I work as a VP in a franchise company with 52 franchises. I’m stunned by how hard it is for each owner to get involved with telling their story, blogging and in general jumping into the conversation.

I’m beginning to think that some form of structured ghost blogging really does have a place. After all, many companies outsource the writing of PR releases and have good results so why not blogging too?

Jumping in is easy for me – I have a journalism background and worked as a large paper journalist for 15 years. The average employee at a company just isn’t equipped – I think ghost blogging will become more and more accepted simply because the gap is too large for some people to jump.

Eric Brown:

Beth, Hi
First, and with all sincerity and respect, and no ill will intended, my first blush after reading your post was it was preposterous. I didn’t like it, and find little to no comparison of the “experiment” to your long string of opinions about ghost writing, of which I have mostly followed, and been in the middle of a couple.

Having someone fill in for YOU, for a program that YOU are the voice behind is clearly trickery, and sure does not feel at any level the same as someone being behind a Corporate Voice, and masking as the Company.

Having said all that, I almost was hesitant about leaving a comment after seeing both the amount of comments, but also that some folks nearly wrote a novel, makes me rethink, What have I missed here, as I didn’t find the “experiment” useful.

So, a different question for you, What was your Motive To Do That, as we are seeing so very many shifts in opinions and theory here in this Social Media Space we all play in, particularly from the original “purists”

2Go Media:

Social media are creative tools to share insights to a particular subject whether it is for promotional services or just ideas from the owner. For me social media is widely used nowadays as an online tool for marketing and free advertising through systematized and well organized internet marketing techniques like interconnecting each of your social medias to your main content. Most internet marketers utilize tools which contains some of the most popular social media tools in one interface.

Social media marketing seems to have inscreased its popularity, I’ve been doing a lot of social marketing myself and observed their changes over the years. Some even come up with tools that monopolizes a bunch of social media tools which is cool. I love using social media tools for my marketing goals, I think its the easiest way to keep my updated and feed with great ideas and impressive information.

Becoming Brand aware is like targeting your audiences directly and it doesn’t root to anything not related to your community building. Social media is a specialized tool that manages updated to your own tweet or status. The transformation of these tools have greatly reached general audience world wide which continues to reach and cross borders.

Alexis Ceule:

Holy cow you brought about some of the longest and most profound comments I’ve seen yet regarding ghost blogging. Let me keep mine simple. I always have visible on my clients social networks that it is ME posting comments and updates for the client. Full disclosure. I also believe if you have a ghost online community manager, it needs to be someone who is a wonderful evanglist for the brand. I personally approached all 5 of my clients because I loved what they did, how they did it and Iknew they knew I was a huge fan! These are clients who I frequented often and always made a point to comment on their product or their service. So when it came time to pull the trigger… it was a no brainer. I feel like I am tremendous advocate for all… just like Leigh probably felt pretty cozy representing you. She believes in you and what you do and what you’re about. Now… full disclosure might have been nice, but we get it was a test.
GREAT post. It’s sure got everyone TALKING!!!
Alexis Ceule´s last blog ..Will Books Become a Blickensderfer #5?

Alexis Ceule:

Great question Beth… I don’t “ghost”. I actually have in the twitter bios and bios on any other social network: Tweeting now: @AlexisCeule . For instance… check out @Johnnystavernpv and read the brief bio. Granted, some of my clients want it to be more stealthlike, but I tell them (convince them) that full disclosure is best for everyone. I know many “ghost twitterers” who would never let anyone know who they are. But as a business, I think I’d want that “out” if something were to be said or insinuated. I think it’s safer for the client. Does this all make sense? This is why I call myself an online community manager. “Ghost” didn’t fit the description at all. I loved this blog. Meeting with some other like minded/career folks today to talk about the future of keeping it quiet or laying it all out there. You know which side of the fence I’m on. LOL!

Alexis Ceule:

I think it shouldn’t feel right to be ’someone’ else. Now keep in mind… I know a fist full of people who actually try to do that. Tweet for one person. Otherwise 98% of the “ghost” tweeterers I do know, do it for corporations or non prof’s or small businesses. Whether they are as excited about those companies as I am mine… well, the jury is still out. LOL!!! I think it comes down to…. if it doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t.

Jeremy Head:

I don’t really get this. A brand/corporation can never ‘be’ a person. It is always going to have to be an individual participating on behalf of a brand. What difference does it make whether it’s a full time employee or someone else? As long as the person blogging/tweeting totally gets what the brand and its products is about and is passionate about them what’s the isssue? As long as whoever is blogging/tweeting etc makes it easy enough for anyone who wants to know who they are then fine. (eg on an about page or twitter profile)

Joel Foner:

I thought I’d add a quick note to reinforce the full transparency choice. FTC guidelines published late last year require bloggers to be transparent about any relationship in which there a blogger (celebrity or not) receives compensation – direct or indirect – for any sort of endorsement in a social media setting. As far as I can tell, writing in support of a company and attaching your name to the work is in the sphere of activities that requires disclosure that it is a paid engagement.

I am with Alexis in believing that being transparent a net positive. Disclosing that you are being compensated for the work provides public proof – an endorsement by the client – signaling to your other and potential customers that they value your work sufficiently to pay for it. This seems to have benefits all around.

Here’s a link to a post with an abstract of the new blogger disclosure guidance http://joelfoner.com/2009/11/the-u-s-ftcs-use-of-endorsements-and-testimonials-in-advertising/. Researching and writing this one turned out to trigger a surprise request to be on a Ziff-Davis panel about the issue. It was fascinating to compare the blogger and professional journalist perspectives on these issues on that panel.