and TechDirt has also picked the story up.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1548133348.shtml

“because centralized messaging like your .com analogy isn’t of interest or
relevance for me or you to follow on Twitter.”

I was under the impression a brand was created in order to have a unified message, a trust, rapport, etc. tied to a product. So the @brandname would be the best channel to provide this message imho.

I think this “centralized messaging” is of interest depending on the customer and brand and what you are providing in your “message”. Yes, simply spitting out press releases is a pretty lame way to do this. I won’t disagree there, but aren’t there other things that a brand can do with a channel like this other than that ? Let’s be a little more creative with our brands.

Customers want to have interaction with the brands and places where they can “touch” the brand. It’s different for every brand and different for every customer and each brand can use a respective “channel” differently. My point on the Twitter accounts was that I believe that each brand should be using their @brandname to control some sort of message on this platform. It’s not my job or place to say what that message is or what it is that would be “of interest or relevance” to each brands’s customers. Isn’t this what social media is about though ? Providing a way to directly and transparently interact and what better way for a company to engage in this then on the brand name?

You mention : “I know many of the brands and their corresponding digital strategists/social media practitioners who are indirectly cited in your post… and I can tell you that looking top down as an exercise or research into Twitter activity won’t provide for an accurate assessment of brand activity.”

I’m sure there are scads of people from the companies I mentioned on Twitter and other sites, but why is their no focus on the @brandname? Team members can and should carry forward the message of the brand individually and I don’t mean to discredit any work by you or others in your efforts to do that. However shouldnt a brand have a voice as well?

I can sympathize with some of what you seem to be conveying. A global brand may have a tough job connecting and providing a centralized point because of scale alone. In this evolving landscape though, I believe that this is what customers will demand. They want the direct connection to the brand. I believe brands that provide this will succeed in this landscape.

I believe that this shows your customers that you are accessible and actually care about providing a point of contact and a way to interact. What I believe the brands aren’t getting is that the central point on Twitter or any social media network should revolve around the brand name. It’s refreshing to here that Intel and others you cite have teams of people devoted to Twitter, but the brand is where your customers are looking for answers. I’d also like to think that people aren’t looking for the Intel brand and a way to connect at @bryanrhoads. They’re looking for it at @intel.

I think I practice this in my own use. We are using @domainnamenews for the content we produce and currently just spitting out our posts. (As soon as we figure out a better use we’ll be sure to jump on it). However we also use the channel to respond to contacts and engage with others in the community. I also have my @adamstrong account which I use to discuss domain names and other items outside of the DNN brand, but I also make sure I link back to the mothership.

btw isn’t intel providing a sort of centralized messaging in blogs.intel.com ?
Maybe I’m just green and don’t know what I’m talking about. . . . either way I do appreciate your comments and providing some discussion on the topic directly from someone involved. Thanks again

As part of the Intel Social Media Center of Excellence, I’m going to respectively question your analogy and math. For one, the Twitter platform is primarily an individual medium utilized for both professional and personal communications. I think that most of the brands you cite have gobs of employees using this service, but not from a corporate messaging perspective simply because centralized messaging like your .com analogy isn’t of interest or relevance for me or you to follow on Twitter. Right now, there are only a few good and useful exceptions of brands using Twitter, mainly in the news space, but pioneering voices like Comcast (and Intel to show my bias), have come through with real-time customer service solutions. At Intel, we have taken the approach that the individual can best represent the Intel brand on SNS platforms such on as Twitter. I cite our PR team as one example who use this service as individuals to establish relationships w/ the press, customers and serve to be a personal connection inside the firewall as opposed to solely publishing static press releases via intel.com. We both don’t have enough fingers to count the employees or the specific campaigns or physical events that have Twitter accounts in association w/ Intel. I know many of the brands and their corresponding digital strategists/social media practitioners who are indirectly cited in your post… and I can tell you that looking top down as an exercise or research into Twitter activity won’t provide for an accurate assessment of brand activity. So follow me on Twitter… @bryanrhoads :)

Reece . . . it’s pretty broad to call it all squatting. Is the guy who has @bmw squatting. Not in my book.