Snarky redhead just tryin to live the dream. Social Media Strategist at @smallarmyagency by day & passionate designer, entrepreneur, & faux-socialite by night.
3 years, 5 months ago on Brand Bullying: A Tale of Ragu and Social Media
I think that this is also a valuable read for individuals and their personal brands.
"Be prepared. At some point, someone is going to set their sights on you. At some point you are going to screw up. At some point you will deserve it. I feel your pain, but you are going to have to take smarter chances and frankly, you are going to have to become better PEOPLE."Eventually someone isn't going to like something you have to say. They're going to crucify you. But, usually, it will pass. You will learn.
Also, to add on to my own point, Edward- I don't think you have any extra responsibility because you are "influential" on Twitter. You are still a consumer. You should share what you want to share. Whether or not you actually have accounts with Eastern wasn't the point you were making and I think you got your point across no matter which way you said it. When it comes to talking about my day at work or my clients I certainly use some censorship, but for my experiences out in the "real world" as a consumer? I'll let you know if I'm REALLY happy, REALLY angry, or REALLY confused- like any other consumer.
3 years, 10 months ago on Social media and responsibility
Rather than both being in the wrong, I think you both did what could be expected of you.Eastern Bank: did crappy advertising. A lot of brands do.
Edward: responded with annoyance. Most of us do.Twitter: served as a medium to vent that frustration. It usually does.Twitter user: brought Eastern Bank to the attention of your tweet. The Twitter community does a pretty amazing job of policing themselves like that.
Eastern Bank: responded to you with some good ol' customer service. As they should.Edward: responded, humbly, with his thoughts. He kind of owed them that.All in all, it seems to me like a prime example of the state of social media. One of the things I've been telling my clients recently is that customers will generally provide feedback in one of three instances: If they had a really positive experience with your brand, if they had a really negative experience with your brand, and if they have a question about your brand. The only thing that's changed about this since 10 years ago is that the medium and volume with which they're providing feedback has changed.
While I'm surprised to see that an agency was behind the video (not some sort of consumer advocacy group a-la-Bogusky) I actually liked it. I think you are right, WE (as in you and I and the others who are on the 'cutting edge') don't need 12 year olds to tell us this- but the majority of those in marketing and advertising still do.
3 years, 11 months ago on Why do marketers and advertisers hate themselves?
I've always had trouble with the word Digital. For awhile I considered myself a Digital Strategist, but I don't do TV- isn't TV technically Digital? It didn't resonate with me- felt too broad. So I started calling myself a Social Media Strategist, which I think is getting warmer... but as a friend pointed out recently, isn't that like someone calling themself an e-mail strategist? I remember awhile ago reading a post you did about putting check boxes on a business card with different skills- that's probably the most accurate way I could imagine ever classifying myself. It's an ongoing discussion, I think.
4 years, 2 months ago on Digital, social, mobile and the problem with buzzwords
@Ari Herzog@Kaitlin What I am trying to say Ari, is that I see personal branding and professional branding as two different things. How I manage my personal network is not indicative of how I represent a BRAND on Twitter. My personal objectives in social media differ greatly from my professional objectives. My client's goal is to increase followers and influence, whereas my goal is to engage with my friends and like-minded individuals in my field of work. If I wanted to change companies, why would a HR manager judge my legitimacy as a candidate based on my Klout score when my objectives on my personal accounts may be entirely different than the objective of the previous brands I've worked with and the HR manager I am interviewing with. To negate me as a candidate because I only have 300 followers completely discounts the hours I've spent everyday building my client's brand through Twitter and not my own. It's an inaccurate representation of my skill. Furthermore, no great candidate for any job or speaking opportunity- architect, social media "guru" or otherwise- should be without a portfolio (prior work representative of skill). Why would an architect OR social media "guru" be hired for speaking opportunities without the portfolio to back up their knowledge of the field? What could they possibly have to discuss without experience to prove their legitimacy in the area? An individual's Klout score does not accurately represent the breadth of their work and the fact that HR managers would support that is only fueling the fire of ignorance in the social media realm and relegating the hiring process to the status of a popularity contest.
4 years, 6 months ago on How to hire social media strategists