This Time, It's Personal

While proper planning is an undeniably critical component of successful brand communications, we are in an age when most professionals and experts subscribe to the belief that “content is king.” This means that the execution of communications plans—like how messages are crafted and delivered—can easily determine the ultimate success of even the most well-designed plans. Following through with creative and interesting content that sparks conversation and builds relationships with consumers is imperative if we aren’t to have our strategic plans regarded as “all bark and no bite” and in order to prove our worth as communications professionals.

Easier said than done, though, right? Absolutely. And to make things even more difficult is the fact that communications strategists have yet to reach a consensus on how to do this “right”—especially when it comes to crafting messages for new social media. One such debate revolves around the effectiveness of brands “acting like people” through their messaging and social interaction with consumers.

This act of humanizing brands isn’t referring to dishonest and unethical measures, but rather transparent attempts to communicate the brand in a manner that is approachable and relatable to people. To be honest, this concept has always seemed like an inherently good idea to me; in fact, I have been preached to about the importance of portraying personality through brand messaging by several class speakers and at just about every industry conference I’ve ever attended. Countless articles have been written on the subject, including a great one I read at Forbes.com by Britt Peterson, Director of Growth Strategy at Cole & Weber United, called It's Time Brands Started Acting More Like People.

I didn’t even know there was support for the opposing side of this issue until coming across an article last week on AdAge.com titled No, Brands Aren't People—and Consumers Don't Want Them to Be by Corey Mull. To defend his stance against the humanization of brands, Mull reached for stats from a CEB study that stated, “only 23% of consumers have brand relationships—and they are already fans of the brand in question. The rest aren't interested in a relationship, regardless of whether they like a brand or not.” Instead of striving for humanity, Mull insists that brands should focus on simplifying noise, achieving long-term goals and staffing effectively.

I’m not so sure I agree with Mull’s position, and I feel that the support for his argument is rather weak. Once I scrolled down to the comments, I soon found that I was not alone in this. Commenter Emmelie De La Cruz of Washington, DC, for one, made this good point: “Brands are not human, but they take on human traits such as honesty, openness and humor. (At least the good ones do.) As consumers in a social era, many want to be able to relate to brands in a similar way that we relate to people.”

As another commenter, Sean Hazell of Toronto, ON, wrote, “Consumers are well aware that brands aren't people.” But this awareness does not necessarily mean that they are not receptive to more “human” communications. I believe that this approach helps brands effectively convey personality, reflect their values and most importantly, make a connection with people. 

Socially Speaking

While Wednesday’s Strategic PR class was a nervous experience for a few public relations virgins, I must shamefully admit that this was not my first time to be an advertising student curiously experimenting with the subject. However, it has been a while, so I appreciated the brief introduction into PR with which we were all provided.

Some of the slideshow’s information was far from forgotten, as previous professors’ relentless attempts to drill it into my head had proven successful. But interestingly enough, even in just my five years of college, technology has had a dramatic effect on how pretty much everything is done, so it seems that every year, I am learning a new way to do things.

Regarding PR, what I and many others believe to be one of the most influential tools to come about in recent years is social media. And it was a point that Professor Bufkins made during this section of her presentation that got me thinking. She stated that social media platforms—like Twitter, Facebook, blogs and others—have come to have just as much power in conveying important information as traditional media outlets.

While I definitely feel that there has been a positive shift in favor of certain social media vehicles, I wonder if the messages projected via these methods have yet to fully reach the level of credibility in the eyes of the public as something, say, printed in a newspaper. Some still feel that the fact that anyone can publish content online diminishes the effect of even legitimate information accessible online. But then again, this only reinforces the idea that media literacy—especially in the digital arena—is an important responsibility of the general public.

The same way that it is now generally considered common knowledge that a story printed in Star Magazine and that sort are not to be taken very seriously, there is a need for people to become similarly selective in their online media choices for information. I am curious to see how this develops over following years. And hopefully it does; the Internet provides amazing means of information delivery and communication that definitely deserves to see continued growth in the future.