Influence: Brands vs. People

Influence: Brands vs. People

If you take a look at the Twitter accounts that have the highest amount of followers you will find that they are dominated by people. In fact just 20 of the top 100 are what we could class as ‘brands’. These brands aren’t your typical marketing juggernauts however. They are predominantly made up of breaking news accounts and official social handles, such as ‘@YouTube’, ‘@Twitter’ and ‘@Instagram’.

 Why is it then, in our world of marketing, the biggest brands we tend to work for, hold little resonance and interest in the world of social? Take two of the biggest, Coca-Cola and Nike. Sure they have a number of different handles, such as Nike Football and Coca Cola Music, but their main brand handles collectively have less followers than satirical news site, The Onion. Why is this the case? Could it be down to the content they share? The likes of Coke and Nike turnover billions of dollars each year from their tangible products however the social content they generate is of relatively little interest in comparison. Yet it should be… We consume both their products and their advertising by the bucket load; TV, outdoor, display, video etc, however when it comes to listening to their voice on social we just don’t care. We’d much rather hear what Katy Perry or Rhianna has to share rather than any brand. Facebook is a little different, Coca Cola have almost 97,000,000 followers. However some of their more recent posts have been engaged with by less than 20 people. That's an engagement rate of 0.00001%!

 As much as brands try, we will never have the necessary empathy to allow them to influence us in the way they desire. We just can’t associate ourselves with a brand in the way we can with the likes of say, Taylor Swift. We can’t strive to be like Apple but we can strive to be like Harry Styles or Ronaldo. This has led brands to partner with influencers who can act as the face of the brand and connect the brand to consumers on a more personal level. However the problem with this is that it’s not the brand who is influential, they’re essentially piggybacking on other people’s success.

For brands to become more influential they need to behave more like people. They need to have opinions. They need to share intimate moments. They need to be controversial. They need to give less of a fuck as to what people think of them. They need to have more of a defined personality. We could look at what Innocent Smoothies did so well over 10 years ago by behaving more like an individual with feelings, speaking to us in a light hearted and humourous manner. This indeed worked well then, however this ‘personality’ has now been ripped off more time than one can count. We have seen a recent emergence of brand social accounts following the suit of Paddy Power who’s mix of stunts and ‘banter’ led content have proved very successful. We now see most gambling social handles take this approach by using humourous memes. It’s as if that space is blending into one big ‘Lad Bible’.

Humour is certainly one of the more effective way to cut through the noise and provide content people appreciate. However that doesn’t mean that every brand has to be a comedian. The ones who do it well will be those who push their dated and bland brand guidelines to one side and embrace what it is people want to engage with. Connecting with their audiences on a more personal level, sharing content that truly resonates with them. To do this you need to understand your audience and what makes them tick. I’m not just talking about on a product level. I’m talking about their loves, loathes, passions and desires. Once brands have understood this then they can start to behave more like an influencer.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics