Who Should Run Twitter For Your Business?

Guest Post By William Martin-Genier

Amongst all the different social tools available, Twitter, more than Facebook, allows companies to watch their customers’ opinions and involve them.

However, the different approaches the brands choose are not all good or bad, as this medium has yet to be fully apprehended.

It is easier for the labels that have a strong personality at the creative or business head of the company. Indeed, we have seen brands such as Dolce & Gabbana, Diane Von Furstenberg, and that of the late Alexander McQueen giving the Twitter account to the main stylist and creator, who really embodies his label, designs, and consequently, lifestyle. Therefore, this person will show more or less from his daily life, activities and inspirations.

However, if a fashion house decides to change the designer, who will keep the Twitter account? Will the previous designer, whose personality was part of the company, withdraw himself from the internet? Or will he create a fresh account for the new company which hired him… Still using his name, which is also a label?

Other brands choose to use Twitter as a customer service, caring about the people following them. Subsequently, this web instrument becomes much more of a dialogue, and is the closest to emotional branding: the brands can provide answers to feedback from the consumer, and the return on investment is greater.

Airlines’ aggregator company, KLM, uses the micro-blogging website as a real customer service, easily and quickly reachable.

Furthermore, the brands that appointed a PR person, or a subsidiary person to the creator to the social tool, such as Oscar De La Renta, Bergdorfs, DKNY, or Robert Duffy for Marc Jacobs LLC, make their followers feel that they are almost unique and listened to, as the PR persons seem more approachable than the designer.

However, each of those brands’ Twitter accounts tends to feel like a person expressing an always positive opinion about the designer more than a real “behind the scene” account. And in interacting with their business partners, sometimes letting down some consumers’ feedback, they give the feeling they are creating an exclusive club–yet publicly.

But, when that director is too busy to tweet and passes this task to the employees, what about the engagement the consumers had with him? Speaking of Robert Duffy, when Marc Jacobs’ fashion show ended, so did the updates… The brand’s presence was undoubtedly lowered and consumers who interacted with the CEO now feel abandoned.

Others choose to use Twitter as a storytelling tool.

Those brands count their story and their perfect world, and reflect the established and branded lifestyle that goes with their products.

Hence the mono-dialogue created by the likes of Louis Vuitton and Dior, who chose not to listen to their customers, but to use the social media like a simple feed updated in a very primary way.

Isn’t this the contrary of what the web 2.0 is, a dialogue between several persons?

Nonetheless, it is better for companies that hired a creative director who already has its own fashion brand to have a different type of account. Consequently, the two personalities won’t be confused in the customer’s mind. That is the case of Marc Jacobs, whose own brand, Marc Jacobs LLC., is on Twitter and used to be managed by the CEO, while LVMH is in charge of the Louis Vuitton label, designed by Jacobs as well.

The better case would be to have a Twitter account where both the designer and PR persons are allowed to speak. That way, the customer would have the sneak peek inside the mind of the masthead, and the PR office would be in charge of everything customer care related.

About The Author: William Martin-Genier is the fashion editor of LURVE Magazine; a fashion, luxury and retail writer; blogger and fashion student.

Read the full article at FashionablyMarketing.Me.