The question being – does the character (or “brand”) of a company dictate how successful it is likely to be in social media? Does a laid-back, fun-loving, youthful company stand a better chance of success on Facebook, Twitter and the like than an ancient, grey, corporate monolith?

Well, as Amelia Torode of VCCP (who was on the same panel as Ted) pointed out, some large corporates have such torturous processes and regulations that it takes at least  48 hours for a Tweet to be approved by the lawyers – if indeed it is approved! This would make for rather stilted conversations, to say the least. In my experience the unwillingness for companies to free up staff and allow them to engage with customers via social media is subsiding – but there are undoubtedly still a large number of bosses who don’t “get” social media and shudder at the thought of their IT Support guy talking to customers.

But the question goes deeper than mere attitudes. Should the ethos of a company preclude it from engaging in social media? Or, put another way, are some companies so dowdy and uncool that encountering them on Facebook would feel like getting a friend request from your dad?

The fact that BT, Dell and other huge corporates have successfully integrated Twitter into their customer services offerings proves that, if the need exists, people will engage with corporates via social media. Now, it’s tempting to say that this isn’t marketing – it’s “customer services” – but I think the days of those silos have gone. In social media customer services IS marketing precisely because it’s SOCIAL. In these terms the BT brand – which definitely isn’t young, hip and cool – is doing just fine using social media.

So perhaps the question is: does being a funky, relaxed kind of brand help a company to engage via social media? Well, I think it might help in terms of the tone of voice. There’s nothing quite like the fear of getting the sack for killing off any cheeky comments and jokes you might want to share with customers. If the organisation is more easy going, the real character of it’s staff can come through online – and that’s absolute gold in terms of online engagement. Witness the huge success of Amelia’s Compare the MeerKat Twitter account, in which Aleksandr the Russian Meerkat and his IT guy, Sergei, entertain 30,000 followers with their Meerkat price comparison chatter.  Price comparison ain’t that interesting, until you add a couple of speaking, Russian, Meerkats. There’s a lesson for big business in there somewhere.

Tickets are still available for our conference: Monitoring Social Media 09 , London, 17th November

The problem here is the same one companies have on Facebook (which doesn’t allow “corporate” accounts).  Social media happens between people, not companies-and-companies or companies-and-people. It’s a people thing and it doesn’t work well within clearly defined systems and processes. So the question is: how should companies manage social media interaction to ensure that protocols are followed and the process is achieving the desired results?

The answer is simple. They shouldn’t try. Social media doesn’t work within systems because, to state the obvious, companies can only control one small part of the process. For example, they cannot control:

1. Where the interaction occurs ( it needs to follow the conversation wherever it is)
2. When the interaction occurs (customers talk out of office hours)
3. How the interaction occurs (it might be limited to 140 characters, or not)
4. The duration of the interaction (the customer might continue it beyond the point of “resolution”)
5. Who the interaction occurs with (it might be completely public, involving customers and non-customers)

Now, in fairness,  “corporate” Twitter accounts are producing some very satisfactory results for customers. But very few companies are harnessing the true value of social media for customer services. If companies could harness the loyalty and passion of their staff to spread goodwill online, without over-regulating it (i.e. using a fair degree of trust) and without imposing restrictions on who, where, how, why and when –  I believe the benefits would greatly outweigh the risks.

Some large companies, such as Zippo’s - which encourages all staff to engage with customers on Twitter – are ably demonstrating this, but these tend to be isolated examples. Interestingly, the companies leading the way in this area are smaller ones that are quick on their feet and both trust and value their employees enough to empower them as advocates. This is where the real value of customer- oriented social media engagement lies.

I read an article in The Guardian by John Naughton some time back, where he asked the question – “how would you design the world’s first global encyclopedia?”  The traditional corporate response was to assemble an editorial board of the world’s foremost thinkers who would then solicit and assemble high-quality articles from respected authorities. But, of course, we now know, through wikipedia, that you can do this more effectively using social media by sticking up a wiki and letting the world fill in the gaps. Less structure, fewer rules, more trust. That’s how we work best together.

We’ll be discussing this and more at Monitoring Social Media 09, 17th Nov. London