Is authenticity the nucleus of social media?…
Post by Eric Ungs.
Photo Credit spybart
Social media is still a new medium for today’s marketers, they’re still trying to grab hold of its underlying logistics. So they’re off to the races reading, writing, testing, etc. in what makes a successful social campaign tick. At what point does it tip to its community? There are all kinds of folks in the blogosphere considering themselves gurus or experts in the space. — I myself am far from this recognition (not title, this has to be perceived by others) and am only fueling off of passion. I am only a beginner in the blogging world but still feel I am deserving of an opinion based off my own experiences. –
Often discussed is the importance of authenticity in your web presence.
Hear the voice, trust the voice.
Recently there was an event where Beth Harte, author of the Harte of Marketing blog, was subjected to ghost tweeting during a weekly twitter chat without any type of disclosure. News of this ‘leak’ created all types of reactions; some hadn’t even noticed, others noticed that the tone of her tweets seemed different, and others were up in arms and felt they had just been punk’d – they were duped. The source of this leak was a post she (Beth Harte) had written and informed her audience it was a ‘unscientific test’ on authenticity, trust, and transparency. Brilliantly done — the comments from the post speak for themselves.
…would anyone really notice or care as long as they are getting whatever it is that they think they need?
In essence, the answer to the above question would be nobody would care as long as the same valuable content is being generated. Why would I care if you or your colleague pump out the same information, as long as I am getting it, right? In the social media space it’s about more than just the valued content, it’s also about the relationship. There are hundreds of folks out there blogging about email marketing and a lot of them have good sound advice. The authors that pull away within their niche are the ones that have created their own game in making that extra effort in connecting with the reader and developing a trusted bond. There was a comment left on Beth’s post stating that he’d do anything for Beth even though they have never met in person. The relationships being formed in this arena is fascinating. A couple of years ago nobody would dare to keep their address, phone number, email out on the web for everyone to see.
I could go on for weeks on this matter. Should organizations hide behind their logo and company name? Why not have a face or a HUMAN name to go along with your highly reputable company to create a relationship that your customers/clients have been seeking all along?
Authenticity is the inner core of your online strategy in which you are able to create growth (awareness).
The truth of the matter is that being authentic holds your credibility in relationships. It’s what distinguishes you against the next guy in your niche. Once trust is earned your presence is valued even more than just posting valuable content. You’ve gained respect by being the real YOU — by being authentic.
What are your thoughts on heading your SM strategy with authenticity? Did you read Beth’s post, what’s your reaction/take?
Hi Eric, thanks for picking up on my little experiment, I appreciate it. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the paragraph below, but I wanted to clear up a few things…
First, I was not ‘subjected to ghost tweeting.” I specifically slected my friend and fellow PR pro Leigh Fazzina to ghost tweet as me (as part of the experiment). Second, there was no “news or news leak.” I wrote the post and posted it immediately after the chat was over to let everyone know of the experiment. Third, I haven’t heard from anyone that they were “up in arms, felt they had just been punk’d or were were duped.” Can you show me/tell me where those comments appear so I can reach out to those folks? Thanks!
“Recently there was an event where Beth Harte, author of the Harte of Marketing blog, was subjected to ghost tweeting during a weekly twitter chat without any type of disclosure. News of this ‘leak’ created all types of reactions; some hadn’t even noticed, others noticed that the tone of her tweets seemed different, and others were up in arms and felt they had just been punk’d – they were duped. The source of this leak was a post she (Beth Harte) had written and informed her audience it was a ‘unscientific test’ on authenticity, trust, and transparency. Brilliantly done — the comments from the post speak for themselves.”
Hey Beth… I appreciate the comment.
I understand fully you were not subjected to ghost tweeting nor was there a ‘leak’ of this news created elsewhere. The first part of that paragraph (scenario) I wanted to lead my readers to think that this was an “actual” major occurrence with a well respected individual whom was not being ‘authentic’, which was the point of your test. I continued by expressing the different reactions your readers had experienced before ending the paragraph disclosing that it was indeed just an experiment.
Maybe I should have worded it differently or quoted parts of your post into mine, but my intention was to set it up as if it were actually true and for my reader to click through to read your post for themselves.
“they were duped” statement; I took this from a remark in your posts’ comments. This was the individuals initial feeling but after reading your post was applauding.
I hope this clears things up. If not, feel free to contact me via email. ericungs@gmail.com