In the last three months, have your morning newspapers surprised you with news you did not already know? The answer is probably never.
Welcome to the world of social media. As a Twitterista (Twitter addict), by the time I leave my office (desk), I am usually familiar with all the breaking news my paper is likely to carry the following day.
But that’s not to say newspapers are dead. Yes, funeral arrangements are under way but it’s a long journey to the graveyard.
However, the popularity of social media as a preferred engagement platform between people, and between stakeholders and juristic persons, is indisputable. I guess that explains why companies and brands (corporate and individual) are falling over themselves to create and sustain communities of audiences in the social media landscape. Except for the die-hard technophobes, the benefits are quite obvious.
But it’s not all plain sailing in the social media world, and some of the rules that apply to traditional media are becoming increasingly more relevant and legally enforceable in the social media arena.
A case in point is the recent ruling in the UK by that country’s ...eh kingdom’s… Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) against a famous global brand that manufactures sportswear. The company figured that people are generally interested in other people, so the best way to send messages to woo an audience is not through a social media profile of their company brand, but by piggybacking on the popularity of an individual brand. They made an arrangement with a well known Manchester United soccer star, who allowed the company, according to reports by the UK newspaper The Guardian, to use his Twitter account to send messages or tweets, as if they were authored by our famous soccer star (the tweet has subsequently been removed from his profile).
The UK’s ASA was apparently not amused and banned the campaign (on Twitter at least). It ruled that the tweets constituted advertising, and that the soccer maverick’s “followers”, who number 4-million plus, deserved to be informed that the tweet was actually an advertisement.
It did not matter that the tweet was something as innocuous as “... start your day as a champion…”
The moral of the story is that you cannot hoodwink people (at least not the authorities) by turning your advertising into PR by stealth. PR is third party endorsement while advertising is outright self-promotion. Nothing wrong with that, just don’t confuse one with the other.
The ruling won’t break the bank for the soccer star, though, and the WAGs - the wives and girlfriends of the sportsmen - have absolutely nothing to worry about: That shopping spree in Milan will probably stay on the calendar.
So, are “brand ambassadors” worth the dough?