Media Emerging: Should You Have One Social Media Identity, or Two?
Danny Brown
· 11 months ago
Great question, Scott, and not one that has a black and white answer.
As you mentioned, I changed my username on Twitter to @dannybrown from my previous one, which was my company. Cut long story short, I had wanted @dannybrown to start with but it was taken. I later learned it was a dead account so had Twitter release it for me, but if it had been available from the start I would have used it.
It is a personal brand thing, I believe - I use various analytical tools and I find that more clients/potential clients find me by searches for "danny brown pr" or "danny brown + social media". I still get results from press release and PR agency searches, but my name seems to be coming up more now.
Is this a result of my clients beginning to talk about me more, or is it because people recall something I may have said on Twitter or a Facebook status message> Or Friendfeed discussions? So they recall my name and what I do, and that's where the searches come from?
I guess time will tell - but the fact that it's my name and not my company that's being primarily looked for tells me where my brand strengths lie and where I may need to improve.
With regards employees of a company, I do feel that as long as there are certain safeguards in place, then by all means use the brand identity as well. It helps build their authority (if the brand is respected, of course) and it offers the brand itself further outreach.
Love to see what others say, think you've opened up a great debate here. :)
Katie Morse
· 11 months ago
Ooh, GREAT question. We discussed something similar at the Social Media Breakfast - Raleigh yesterday.
I know some people vote for separation, but I belong in the camp that votes for one "persona".
I do keep certain things off certain mediums (for example, I don't curse on Twitter, or reveal my political or religious beliefs). I also use the Facebook privacy controls to limit certain groups of people from seeing items on my profile.
Rosie Reilman @rosebeezy
· 11 months ago
I personally just utilize privacy settings on Facebook. I don't let everyone see the family photos, etc. I've considered creating a second or separate Twitter account but for the reasons you mentioned, it just doesn't make sense. I am me wherever I go or whatever my screenname is.
I've seen a lot of talk about how your Twitter name should be your real name. But I think that it's different for everyone.
For work, I operate under @carolinajobs but my purpose for that account is to push links that might be helpful to job seekers. Or to use it as another means of notifying people of where jobs are in the Carolinas. I think it's about determining what you want from social media, and then deciding the best route - whether that means to use your name, a screenname, a company name, etc.
Good stuff to think about, Scott! I'm interested in seeing how others respond. :)
Scott Hepburn
· 11 months ago
How appropriate that you weighed in Rosie. Even though we've known each other for some time now, I still find myself slipping when I talk about you by name. I STILL screw up and call you Rose Beezy (and I'll never live it down!).
I'm curious -- do you have opportunities to represent @carolinajobs offline, too? I wonder if the name vs. company name issue takes on a new layer of complexity for Social Media users who are not public faces of their companies.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
Rosie Reilman @rosebeezy
· 11 months ago
Yeah I started out using a nickname and realized after the fact that it probably would've been better to use my full name. However, my name is pretty long and by the time I made that realization, I'd already become known to my followers and developed my persona under the nickname. I choose now, not to change it. Besides if you look up my screenname my full name is in my profile. I don't see it as a problem. Some others would maybe disagree with me.
As far as @carolinajobs I haven't really decided what to do with it. It's more of my company's brand than mine. Besides talking about it and signing my name to some DM's I don't really see it as ME. I manage it, I manage the information that it provides those followers. But that's about as far as it goes. Again, maybe there's a better way to to do it. That's just what I've been doing to this point.
I feel a lot of what Rich talks about below with @CruiseSource is similar to what I'm experiencing with the @carolinajobs identity.
Agatha Kubalski
· 11 months ago
I definitely think that these days it's becoming much more difficult to have two separate identities. I've been torn between how I should be representing myself online, whether I should friend clients on Facebook, etc., but I truly believe that you should represent yourself as a real person online, and that means being a professional, having non-work-related interests and sometimes just offering up random thoughts and comments. It really is "all of the above."
For example, with a company account on Twitter, who REALLY wants to hear ONLY work-related, "professional" comments all day long? You have to insert something personal and interesting to keep people engaged. Otherwise you sound like a non-human feed of official information. People want to interact with other people, and it just seems much more difficult to do that under the label of a company name, as opposed to your name.
Then again, perhaps being under the name of a company will force people to think a little more before adding content to the online community, and (hopefully) avoid some of these social media disasters.
On another note, it's interesting to think about the changing dynamic that will have to occur within companies - how much more faith companies will have to have in their employees, knowing that the face of a company is increasingly the face of its many employees. Talk about added pressure to ensure everyone on your team is someone you trust to represent your company! I wonder how social media will affect HR decisions, and increase the need to find people that are the right fit for your company.
@kubalski
PrimalMedia
· 11 months ago
Very relevant in these early days of social media, Scott. I sometimes wish someone would post an etiquette book for SM - we could all use it, I'm sure.
In the beginning, I kept the boundaries rigid: LinkedIn for professional, Facebook for friends, and Twitter had 2 accounts (one biz @primalmedia, one personal @CheriHegi). I've since let my clients in on Facebook and grown my Twitter handles to include non profit projects I'm involved in (@seacoastlocalnh, @heateat, @10percentshift, @10percentlocal).
I'm a big believer in keeping it PG. Since Google indexes Twitter aggressively, everything posted can be found online. Scary and yet thrilling at the same time. So while I share a lot, I try not to post anything I wouldn't want to see in an article about me someday. It's a very, very small world.
In fact, many of my friends have already become clients - or work for clients, or might become clients in the near future. You never know when a friend of a friend on Facebook will be staring you down across the desk, your proposal in their hands. Or if you'll be interviewing someone whose drunk antics you've seen plastered all over a connection's account on Facebook.
Stephen Dill
· 11 months ago
Scott, good question! I've been asking this of SM pros for a year and the answers have been all over the map. Marketing logic says to first ask what the desired results are. If the company wants to be found in organic search, and who doesn't, the cosmic Google juice of Twitter would push a brand or company name to the top in no time. If dialog with one or more representatives of the company serve the company's interests then there is the choice of the individual's name or a mix of both (@ComcastBill, for example). But many of the examples you cite, Scott Monty and Aaron Strout, for instance, have major SM reputations that are not immediately tied to the companies they work for. The transportability of their identities is a personal advantage, but my question is always, "What part of that helps people get to the company?" Anyone as an individual writing a blog can be easily associated with the entity hosting the blog, as communicated on the company site. But link that blog to FriendFeed, Facebook or LinkedIn and the company identity can be lost as the credit is directed soley to the individual.
Should be interesting to see how this settles out in the coming year with a President who intends to maintain an online presence - clearly sustained by his staff unless it is on video.
Aaron Strout
· 11 months ago
Scott - great discussion here. I've talked to a number of people that grapple with the topic of combining their professional and personal lives. For me, a like having a blend of the two. I think it gets back to the days before the phone and internet played a major role in how companies did business. If I was a store owner, I knew about the personal lives of my customers AND let them know about mine as well. It created a deeper tie and made them (hopefully) more inclined to do business with me.
The beauty of all things social/community starting to bloom now (thank you Obama for reinforcing this point) is that we can now get back to those days of mixing business with personal stuff. Of course, there needs to be a balance as too much "noise" vs. "signal" can be annoying. For me, that's more of what I struggle with as I self-monitor my life streaming and blogging activities.
Thanks for the shout out!
Best, Aaron | @aaronstrout
Tim Jahn
· 11 months ago
Interesting (and very important) question you pose here. I think most people are inclined to immediately say you should have a separate identity for work and personal. But does that really make sense?
We're all people...we all have personal lives. We understand what happens in personal lives and can relate.
Doreen Overstreet
· 11 months ago
Someone asked this question this morning at a social media roundtable and it got me thinking too. The speaker said that younger generations are more apt to blend their work and personal lives (work is life, life is work attitude). My work defines a lot about who I am, so I guess I'm more apt to blend the two. I like to follow people who are honest about who they are and what makes them tick - so incorporating personal and professional seems like the most natural thing to do. I agree with the comment about having one "persona." But it is a matter of choice and I'm glad we all have the opportunity to make it.
Eric Matas
· 11 months ago
What would Sybil do?
I used to get very freaked out by the brazen MySpacers--kids these days--putting personal info online. I feared the very rare: bad guys using MySpace to find kids. Nonetheless, kids (and non kids) are used to a new kind of transparency, putting it all out on the web.
There have been incidences reported of people getting fired due to their MySpace party pics. And, interestingly, my sister is in grad school where they do not recommend that students have a MySapce account, but Facebook is OK.
It's sort of the Christmas party dilemna (to bring up another Seinfeld episode): party like work or party like the real me? Perhaps a more transparent world will tame the party animals.
Personally, I like the transparency. But I do have to work to keep it clean. I switched my original twitter handle (@ericmatas) because people were spelling it wrong (now it's @tweric). One friend suggested that I create a "fake" twitter account to say all the inappropriate things, thus protecting @tweric from my inner HR nightmare self. Haven't done it yet... ;-)
Nishland
· 11 months ago
I would agree to keep things personal. As a hopeful business owner, building relationships is key. Sure it is great to promote your business name, but in the end...you want people to trust in YOU as a person first, because YOU are who they are doing business with...your company is just the name you operate under.
We are all human, and have the power to make decisions. if you are going to "consolidate" your online life, then you can decide not to post those 21st birthday pictures. It is very easy to find out about someone online...no matter which name you are using. In building relationships, you put your best foot forward (period).
Tonisha Landry-Gaines (@nishland)
Brandiei
· 11 months ago
Scott – very thought provoking! And it would be easier if there was a “one size fits all” answer.
I’m with you – I can’t turn the various parts of my identity on and off, or segment per audience. But, is the audience really segmented?
I’m looking forward to seeing how the issue plays out for brands. I could argue it round or square. On the one hand, what we seem to embrace is the authenticity of connecting with a person from the company, like Scott Monty or Arron Strout, as opposed to the company itself. I follow Scott and Aaron, not necessarily their brand. That said, their association gives their brand lift in my eyes because I respect the people. So … does the brand then lose equity when/if they pursue other ventures? I guess that remains to be seen.
I will be interested to see how effective corporate social media policies, like those implemented at Intel and the NYT, are at protecting brands. I wonder how long it will be before big companies ban access to SM sites to shield them from legal actions so common in a litigious society. And more, the sort of actions brought against employees that ‘break the rules’.
Awesome job on this, Scott!
Brandie @Brandiei on Twitter
Scott Hepburn
· 11 months ago
Love your point about "brand lift," Brandie.
I am more likely to do business with MarketingProfs because of Ann Handley, whose "Twitter brand" is borrowed from the company. I am more likely to do business with Ford because of Scott Monty, who retains his own personal "Twitter brand."
It begs the question: Does the brand matter?
And here's another monkey wrench: I don't know the first damn thing about Powered, where Aaron Strout works, or about his former company Mzinga. And yet, despite low brand familiarity, I'd be more willing to hear a sales pitch from either of those companies BECAUSE of Aaron.
So, again...does the brand matter? How much? What are the implications for brands?
michsineath
· 11 months ago
Let's face it. Many of us take our work home with us. I'm often blogging or tweeting about work on the weekend; many of my friends on Facebook and Twitter are also my colleagues. So while I lean toward the belief of adopting one social media identity, and believe that's where we're heading, I worry about the consequences of an accidental misfire.
Plain text can easily be misconstrued. So in an environment where plain text rules the roost, it is a concern that my tweet could potentially cost me my job. At the same time, each of my social networking profiles clearly states my professional affiliation for transparency reasons. And if I can be traced back to my organization, won't I still be held accountable? And isn't that the same as having one identity? I don't know. Often bloggers will post disclaimers on their personal Web sites claiming their opinions are not representative of the company they work for. But does that act as a cloak of invisibility and protect them in cases where they really screw up? Of course not.
An interesting debate, for sure. And in my case, I often retweet myself because I share many of the same interests with the affiliates of my organization. Still, I remain cognizant that the organization I now work for has spent a lifetime crafting its message to and for the world. Who am I to mess that up? So out of an abundance of caution, I use two.
@michsineath + @AEJMC
danaedwards
· 11 months ago
Good topic for discussion. I would be surprised if most people online haven't thought for a good bit about this. In the end, I went for having one and that one being the same as my real name. The way I view it is that people are the sum of the things they do and the experiences they have. When I see that someone has a second or third identity, I always wonder why they do. Are they hiding something? Is this some sort of game for them?
I've not been able to come up with any good reasons to this point mostly because I view the separation between work and life as artificial. Life is the aggregation of work, non-work, family, sports, or whatever you do. I believe that people should be proud of all of what they do and understand that they are embodiment of everything together - not buckets. The end result of having one id / site is that you are truer to yourself and will develop trust in your followers faster because they know that there is a real person behind the id (hopefully).
Dana | @danaedwards
Scott Hepburn
· 11 months ago
Great comments, everyone.
Here's a new twist on this conversation: Since there seems to be a lot of support for single social media identities, what happens to brands? Can brands exist in social media without puppeteers? Do we need to know -- personally -- the men and women who give voice to the brand?
michsineath
· 11 months ago
Of course, logistically speaking, brands can't exist in social media without someone manning the outpost. Do we need to know who makes the call? Absolutely. If asked.
Rich Tucker - CruiseSource.us
· 11 months ago
Scott,
Great post...It is an interesting dilemma.
Personally, I am attempting to build two seperate IDs Online. My Personal ID and My Biz Brand...they intertwine because I like my Business Brand CruiseSource.us to have personality. The only Social Media tool where I have set up seperate accounts is Twitter. FaceBook is Personal, Linkedin is Personal/Professional, Blog is the Business and on Twitter I have 2 accounts. CruiseSource is a more narrow focus on Twitter and @RichTucker is me which includes a Travel and Cruises, but also includes family, entertainment, hobbies, other business ideas, politics etc.
Sometimes having two Twitter IDs is difficult and I then I think about just having one...then I think of a tweet I want to post that would not find appropriate in any coming from @CruiseSource.
We are currently working on a strategy for other employees setting up social media account representing the business and themselves...that is a little more difficult!
Thanks for weighing in, Rich. I think of you as an absolute authority on this -- the way you're handling separate IDs for @CruiseSource and @RichTucker is a perfect example of this debate in action.
I'm eager to hear what you learn while crafting a social media policy/strategy for employees. Let me know if you ever need a sounding board.
ebrenner
· 11 months ago
I guess I portray myself as a person who owns one company and works for another. But the better question is how do people perceive me? I go for one profile/account. Twitter tends to be heavier on the professional stuff, Facebook heavier on the personal stuff (though always bearing in mind my "frolleagues" are seeing this stuff too), and LinkedIn is pretty much all professional.
Rosie Reilman @rosebeezy
· 11 months ago
Another thought hit me too: why did you choose mediaemerging.com for your URL and not scotthepburn.com? Why did you transfer over to a new blog and not stick with the PR branded blog? These questions can be asked and answered on Twitter screenname as well, I think. Essentially it's the same concept, no?
Scott Hepburn
· 11 months ago
I created this blog (my personal blog) to give me more latitude to blog about topics outside of PRstore's core business areas. Social media marketing, for example, is something I'm very interested in, but that isn't (yet) something PRstore is equipeed for. Stay tuned, though...
As for the domain name, my thinking was twofold. First, ScottHepburn.com wasn't available. Second, I wanted to leave the door open for building something bigger than myself. Checking my ego at the door makes room for guest bloggers, new team members and more.
Great questions, Rosie!
Nick Footer
· 11 months ago
This interests me much because I work for a PRstore and was asked to create a PRstore identity on Facebook, Myspace, and a few other sites. I feel that the Facebook Fan page has been the most beneficial due to the ability to track our membership at a deeper level and share information.
I have my own Facebook page and have most if not all the connections that the PRstore page is connected with. There are definitely been times where I feel a bit forces into acting a certain way online because I'm representing my store location. It has taken away some of the truthfulness of who I am.
Thanks for the great debate!
PS: In the local paper there in an article, "Facebook, the social-networking site: Great tool to link people, or an ego-driven, time wasting imitation of real friendship?"
Ann Handley
· 11 months ago
If I were to choose my Twitter name again, I might go with @AnnHandley vs. @MarketingProfs. But what's done is done... and while I know I *could* change it, it's sort of become part of my presence on Twitter. So I'm going with it. For now.
I put one foot in both camps. I am Ann Handley of MarketingProfs, and I let Twitter followers know what we have going on there, as well as what's going on in the industry in general, when I can. But I also don't divorce myself from my personal blog or life outside of my work. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. My view is that people connect with me (and Monty... or Strout... or you.. or whoever) on Twitter in part because of Profs and in part because of my own self. I'm not sure it really matters -- unless, as you point out, I leave Profs. If that were to ever happen (and believe me, I have zero inclination to), I'd leave the Twitter name to someone else, I suppose. That's a risk Profs and I share.
The bottom line for me: I hate managing information of any kind. I hate not being myself -- or being careful -- or reigning myself in. It's easier not to, and it's a whole lot more honest, too.
Scott Hepburn
· 11 months ago
Heard a lot of people in a Twitter session at BarCampCLT today advocating for dual identities. I'm with you...the work involved with managing multiple IDs could swamp a person. I have enough schizophrenia already!
Roger, Online PR Agency C&M
· 11 months ago
Use as many as you need. It's fun being different things to different people. Allows you to communicate differently too....
philbarnes
· 7 months ago
I have been debating whether or not to split our corporate Facebook page to speak to our different market segments. It's a pharmacy that serves four unique groups, veterinarians, pet owners, physicians and patients. And within each of these are sub segments that all require specific content and messaging, and mixing them all up into one doesn't sound like a good move. What is the school of thought for a business with distinct market segments having a Facebook profile? Should there be only one, or multiple, and if multiple, how should that be set up?
UmmahDesign
· 6 months ago
Thanks for that, it has really helped. It is simply to much to handle two different profiles online. It is becoming a strain having to duck in and out of profiles...
All Comments
As you mentioned, I changed my username on Twitter to @dannybrown from my previous one, which was my company. Cut long story short, I had wanted @dannybrown to start with but it was taken. I later learned it was a dead account so had Twitter release it for me, but if it had been available from the start I would have used it.
It is a personal brand thing, I believe - I use various analytical tools and I find that more clients/potential clients find me by searches for "danny brown pr" or "danny brown + social media". I still get results from press release and PR agency searches, but my name seems to be coming up more now.
Is this a result of my clients beginning to talk about me more, or is it because people recall something I may have said on Twitter or a Facebook status message> Or Friendfeed discussions? So they recall my name and what I do, and that's where the searches come from?
I guess time will tell - but the fact that it's my name and not my company that's being primarily looked for tells me where my brand strengths lie and where I may need to improve.
With regards employees of a company, I do feel that as long as there are certain safeguards in place, then by all means use the brand identity as well. It helps build their authority (if the brand is respected, of course) and it offers the brand itself further outreach.
Love to see what others say, think you've opened up a great debate here. :)
I know some people vote for separation, but I belong in the camp that votes for one "persona".
I do keep certain things off certain mediums (for example, I don't curse on Twitter, or reveal my political or religious beliefs). I also use the Facebook privacy controls to limit certain groups of people from seeing items on my profile.
I've seen a lot of talk about how your Twitter name should be your real name. But I think that it's different for everyone.
For work, I operate under @carolinajobs but my purpose for that account is to push links that might be helpful to job seekers. Or to use it as another means of notifying people of where jobs are in the Carolinas. I think it's about determining what you want from social media, and then deciding the best route - whether that means to use your name, a screenname, a company name, etc.
Good stuff to think about, Scott! I'm interested in seeing how others respond. :)
I'm curious -- do you have opportunities to represent @carolinajobs offline, too? I wonder if the name vs. company name issue takes on a new layer of complexity for Social Media users who are not public faces of their companies.
Anyone have thoughts on this?
As far as @carolinajobs I haven't really decided what to do with it. It's more of my company's brand than mine. Besides talking about it and signing my name to some DM's I don't really see it as ME. I manage it, I manage the information that it provides those followers. But that's about as far as it goes. Again, maybe there's a better way to to do it. That's just what I've been doing to this point.
I feel a lot of what Rich talks about below with @CruiseSource is similar to what I'm experiencing with the @carolinajobs identity.
For example, with a company account on Twitter, who REALLY wants to hear ONLY work-related, "professional" comments all day long? You have to insert something personal and interesting to keep people engaged. Otherwise you sound like a non-human feed of official information. People want to interact with other people, and it just seems much more difficult to do that under the label of a company name, as opposed to your name.
Then again, perhaps being under the name of a company will force people to think a little more before adding content to the online community, and (hopefully) avoid some of these social media disasters.
On another note, it's interesting to think about the changing dynamic that will have to occur within companies - how much more faith companies will have to have in their employees, knowing that the face of a company is increasingly the face of its many employees. Talk about added pressure to ensure everyone on your team is someone you trust to represent your company! I wonder how social media will affect HR decisions, and increase the need to find people that are the right fit for your company.
@kubalski
In the beginning, I kept the boundaries rigid: LinkedIn for professional, Facebook for friends, and Twitter had 2 accounts (one biz @primalmedia, one personal @CheriHegi). I've since let my clients in on Facebook and grown my Twitter handles to include non profit projects I'm involved in (@seacoastlocalnh, @heateat, @10percentshift, @10percentlocal).
I'm a big believer in keeping it PG. Since Google indexes Twitter aggressively, everything posted can be found online. Scary and yet thrilling at the same time. So while I share a lot, I try not to post anything I wouldn't want to see in an article about me someday. It's a very, very small world.
In fact, many of my friends have already become clients - or work for clients, or might become clients in the near future. You never know when a friend of a friend on Facebook will be staring you down across the desk, your proposal in their hands. Or if you'll be interviewing someone whose drunk antics you've seen plastered all over a connection's account on Facebook.
Should be interesting to see how this settles out in the coming year with a President who intends to maintain an online presence - clearly sustained by his staff unless it is on video.
The beauty of all things social/community starting to bloom now (thank you Obama for reinforcing this point) is that we can now get back to those days of mixing business with personal stuff. Of course, there needs to be a balance as too much "noise" vs. "signal" can be annoying. For me, that's more of what I struggle with as I self-monitor my life streaming and blogging activities.
Thanks for the shout out!
Best,
Aaron | @aaronstrout
We're all people...we all have personal lives. We understand what happens in personal lives and can relate.
I used to get very freaked out by the brazen MySpacers--kids these days--putting personal info online. I feared the very rare: bad guys using MySpace to find kids. Nonetheless, kids (and non kids) are used to a new kind of transparency, putting it all out on the web.
There have been incidences reported of people getting fired due to their MySpace party pics. And, interestingly, my sister is in grad school where they do not recommend that students have a MySapce account, but Facebook is OK.
It's sort of the Christmas party dilemna (to bring up another Seinfeld episode): party like work or party like the real me? Perhaps a more transparent world will tame the party animals.
Personally, I like the transparency. But I do have to work to keep it clean. I switched my original twitter handle (@ericmatas) because people were spelling it wrong (now it's @tweric). One friend suggested that I create a "fake" twitter account to say all the inappropriate things, thus protecting @tweric from my inner HR nightmare self. Haven't done it yet... ;-)
We are all human, and have the power to make decisions. if you are going to "consolidate" your online life, then you can decide not to post those 21st birthday pictures. It is very easy to find out about someone online...no matter which name you are using. In building relationships, you put your best foot forward (period).
Tonisha Landry-Gaines (@nishland)
I’m with you – I can’t turn the various parts of my identity on and off, or segment per audience. But, is the audience really segmented?
I’m looking forward to seeing how the issue plays out for brands. I could argue it round or square. On the one hand, what we seem to embrace is the authenticity of connecting with a person from the company, like Scott Monty or Arron Strout, as opposed to the company itself. I follow Scott and Aaron, not necessarily their brand. That said, their association gives their brand lift in my eyes because I respect the people. So … does the brand then lose equity when/if they pursue other ventures? I guess that remains to be seen.
I will be interested to see how effective corporate social media policies, like those implemented at Intel and the NYT, are at protecting brands. I wonder how long it will be before big companies ban access to SM sites to shield them from legal actions so common in a litigious society. And more, the sort of actions brought against employees that ‘break the rules’.
Awesome job on this, Scott!
Brandie
@Brandiei on Twitter
I am more likely to do business with MarketingProfs because of Ann Handley, whose "Twitter brand" is borrowed from the company. I am more likely to do business with Ford because of Scott Monty, who retains his own personal "Twitter brand."
It begs the question: Does the brand matter?
And here's another monkey wrench: I don't know the first damn thing about Powered, where Aaron Strout works, or about his former company Mzinga. And yet, despite low brand familiarity, I'd be more willing to hear a sales pitch from either of those companies BECAUSE of Aaron.
So, again...does the brand matter? How much? What are the implications for brands?
Plain text can easily be misconstrued. So in an environment where plain text rules the roost, it is a concern that my tweet could potentially cost me my job. At the same time, each of my social networking profiles clearly states my professional affiliation for transparency reasons. And if I can be traced back to my organization, won't I still be held accountable? And isn't that the same as having one identity? I don't know. Often bloggers will post disclaimers on their personal Web sites claiming their opinions are not representative of the company they work for. But does that act as a cloak of invisibility and protect them in cases where they really screw up? Of course not.
An interesting debate, for sure. And in my case, I often retweet myself because I share many of the same interests with the affiliates of my organization. Still, I remain cognizant that the organization I now work for has spent a lifetime crafting its message to and for the world. Who am I to mess that up? So out of an abundance of caution, I use two.
@michsineath + @AEJMC
I've not been able to come up with any good reasons to this point mostly because I view the separation between work and life as artificial. Life is the aggregation of work, non-work, family, sports, or whatever you do. I believe that people should be proud of all of what they do and understand that they are embodiment of everything together - not buckets. The end result of having one id / site is that you are truer to yourself and will develop trust in your followers faster because they know that there is a real person behind the id (hopefully).
Dana | @danaedwards
Here's a new twist on this conversation: Since there seems to be a lot of support for single social media identities, what happens to brands? Can brands exist in social media without puppeteers? Do we need to know -- personally -- the men and women who give voice to the brand?
Great post...It is an interesting dilemma.
Personally, I am attempting to build two seperate IDs Online. My Personal ID and My Biz Brand...they intertwine because I like my Business Brand CruiseSource.us to have personality. The only Social Media tool where I have set up seperate accounts is Twitter. FaceBook is Personal, Linkedin is Personal/Professional, Blog is the Business and on Twitter I have 2 accounts. CruiseSource is a more narrow focus on Twitter and @RichTucker is me which includes a Travel and Cruises, but also includes family, entertainment, hobbies, other business ideas, politics etc.
Sometimes having two Twitter IDs is difficult and I then I think about just having one...then I think of a tweet I want to post that would not find appropriate in any coming from @CruiseSource.
We are currently working on a strategy for other employees setting up social media account representing the business and themselves...that is a little more difficult!
RichTucker
@CruiseSource
I'm eager to hear what you learn while crafting a social media policy/strategy for employees. Let me know if you ever need a sounding board.
As for the domain name, my thinking was twofold. First, ScottHepburn.com wasn't available. Second, I wanted to leave the door open for building something bigger than myself. Checking my ego at the door makes room for guest bloggers, new team members and more.
Great questions, Rosie!
I have my own Facebook page and have most if not all the connections that the PRstore page is connected with. There are definitely been times where I feel a bit forces into acting a certain way online because I'm representing my store location. It has taken away some of the truthfulness of who I am.
Thanks for the great debate!
PS: In the local paper there in an article, "Facebook, the social-networking site: Great tool to link people, or an ego-driven, time wasting imitation of real friendship?"
I put one foot in both camps. I am Ann Handley of MarketingProfs, and I let Twitter followers know what we have going on there, as well as what's going on in the industry in general, when I can. But I also don't divorce myself from my personal blog or life outside of my work. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. My view is that people connect with me (and Monty... or Strout... or you.. or whoever) on Twitter in part because of Profs and in part because of my own self. I'm not sure it really matters -- unless, as you point out, I leave Profs. If that were to ever happen (and believe me, I have zero inclination to), I'd leave the Twitter name to someone else, I suppose. That's a risk Profs and I share.
The bottom line for me: I hate managing information of any kind. I hate not being myself -- or being careful -- or reigning myself in. It's easier not to, and it's a whole lot more honest, too.
food for thought