A definite great read.. ..

-Bill-Bartmann

i could write pages upon pages why someone wouldn’t tell what company they work for and who they are. it really depends on how creative the campaign is and what the campaign is selling. (also you could argue that you do agree with the product and that people already use monikers online, so it is okay as long as you believe in the product you’re marketing- which is a whole other topic)

and again, to me, if you do it right- everyone should win. i will say, it is a very small part of any full scale campaign if it is used. one shouldn’t ignore short team tactics in a long term campaign. there are strategies i’m morally against (credit card companies on college campuses)..this just isn’t one of them if done right.

lastly, i would say- these identities even borderline being real- they’re usually more updated and developed than my own online persona, since i’m a private person. you can use these online personas in a positive way or a negative/potentially negative way. i’ve seen it both.

but i get your point, and it’s something someone should ask themselves constantly if they feel capable enough to do this sort of thing. do you think the people on the herpes commercials really have herpes?

identities should only be used when they have to be.

theyre only used to jumpstart campaigns. fake identities are used to get real ones.

they should usually point people in the right direction. not convince them of anything.

I just challenge whether you could do those things without a fake identity. Why can’t I just be who I am – admit that I work for a company, come into a community and say “hey, I work for Juice Client. We just came out with this new product. If you interested in trying it we’ll (send you a sample/give you a discount/etc). We made it for parents like you and would really like to get some feedback on it.” or something along those lines. That covers point 2 and 3 without having to lie to the consumer. Because like you mention below – if for some reason they do figure out your not real (because your profile never gets updated, you never respond to the questions they ask, etc) the backlash from consumers who feel “tricked” can get pretty bad (Think along the lines of the fallout from the fake Exxon employee.)

I won’t argue that it never works, I think it probably does. I just wouldn’t recommend it for the points I’ve listed – it’s not long term and there’s a possibilty you’ll get caught and you risk the range of punishment from posts being deleted (as some of this campaign’s were), losing faith from your consumers, or starting a PR firestorm. To me the pros, fast and easy, don’t outweight those cons. That’s my opinion and like I said, I’m the first to admit I come from the idealist camp of social media marketing and PR. Maybe that’s a good follow up post…hmmm…

i’d like to mention one more major thing. most studios/firms aren’t intelligent enough to use created identities. when a company does something they don’t respect and understand it almost always turns sour and turns off the customer. with that being said… i would say almost all firms aren’t mentally equipped enough to use them.

most people miss the biggest point when posting with a created identity. it’s not supposed to trick people into anything and you shouldn’t use it to lie or make claims that arent true.there are a few other things i would also consider personally when using one of these.

the identity must be developed over time before ever being used in marketing.

identities cannot be used in all projects.

identities should only be used when they have to be.

theyre only used to jumpstart campaigns. fake identities are used to get real ones.

they should usually point people in the right direction. not convince them of anything.

As all things in marketing do..tactics go in and out of style. This has been around forever..Betty Crocker was a fake identity on the radio and it worked really well.

Yet another great post. I too think that setting up ‘fake’ people online is a big mistake – but its funny that it seems to be one of the things that comes up when thinking about starting a social campaign.
One of the things that is tough for an agency is to convey that social campaigns are long term investments – its like the treasury bill of marketing. Slow but steady growth. And clients understandably have a hard time committing the dollars or time to such a campaign. Its funny how social has made business stop and work at the tried and true tactic of actually building business based on relationships again – the way it was done ‘back in the day’. Now we’re just using different tools.

Let me ask you this: Do you know if the Juice Client was happy with the ‘fake bloggers’ or the results that The Agency provided? Sometimes those of us in social media have a lower tolerance for this kind of thing than businesses. I’m just curious if this was an acceptable short term gain for the Juicer.

Thanks again – This is something I hope to elaborate on, as its a great example of what not to do.

@ryancmiller