Who Is the Genius Behind Merriam-Webster's Social Media?(lithub.com)
lithub.com
Who Is the Genius Behind Merriam-Webster's Social Media?
http://lithub.com/who-is-the-genius-behind-merriam-websters-social-media/
30 comments
Errr... That qoute was probably marketing.
I think it's possible to be both. It's possible to recognize that your authentic voice is a valuable marketing asset, and thus be intentionally authentic while also intentionally marketing.
This is ultimately the advice of a ton of content marketing/blog/thought leader type people, including HN's patio11
This is ultimately the advice of a ton of content marketing/blog/thought leader type people, including HN's patio11
Also, that's an interesting view, and made me contemplate something - I wonder if it a view worth prescribing to.
Consider that it's a good idea to use your authentic voice only if that voice sounds virtuous/good - I mean it's better for them not to say anything, or deceive, rather then say that "We got a great marketing guy who knows how to manipulate social media and gets us lots of press by intentionally writing tweets that'll go viral but that don't really have anything to do with us".
If that is the case, then there are two insights:
1 - it's rather the other way around - make sure the authentic you is something that people would like to hear rather then "use your authentic voice".
I.E. if you don't have anything to hide, you don't need to deceive anyone.(or try and portray yourself in a different light)
2- if as a consumer of marketing you subscribe to the philosophy that marketing can be authentic, then you'll eventually be convinced of something that is pure fiction since not all marketers will be authentic. As such the best course of action for a consumer is to assume that all marketing pieces are unauthentic.
If that is the case, is it even worth it to use an authentic voice? like in the case above, even if you are being authentic, there are many people who will consider you an hypocrite by "trying to sound authentic", which could be worse for sales/brand-awareness then being obviously unauthentic.
Perhaps even if your authentic void is just right you should consider appearing unauthentic, so that people will not perceive you as being artificially authentic.
Perhaps the best marketing is sarcasm about your self/company/product?
Consider that it's a good idea to use your authentic voice only if that voice sounds virtuous/good - I mean it's better for them not to say anything, or deceive, rather then say that "We got a great marketing guy who knows how to manipulate social media and gets us lots of press by intentionally writing tweets that'll go viral but that don't really have anything to do with us".
If that is the case, then there are two insights:
1 - it's rather the other way around - make sure the authentic you is something that people would like to hear rather then "use your authentic voice".
I.E. if you don't have anything to hide, you don't need to deceive anyone.(or try and portray yourself in a different light)
2- if as a consumer of marketing you subscribe to the philosophy that marketing can be authentic, then you'll eventually be convinced of something that is pure fiction since not all marketers will be authentic. As such the best course of action for a consumer is to assume that all marketing pieces are unauthentic.
If that is the case, is it even worth it to use an authentic voice? like in the case above, even if you are being authentic, there are many people who will consider you an hypocrite by "trying to sound authentic", which could be worse for sales/brand-awareness then being obviously unauthentic.
Perhaps even if your authentic void is just right you should consider appearing unauthentic, so that people will not perceive you as being artificially authentic.
Perhaps the best marketing is sarcasm about your self/company/product?
In my limited experience, presenting an open and self aware honesty coupled with comfortable humor (for me it's often self-deprecating) is the best way to endear yourself to people. You're right that being perceived as inauthentic is the death knell for attempting to engage with people; it's a tight line to walk but I think it's possible for a lot of people if they take their stress and tension out of the conversation.
My favorite social media success of the past year (at least I think it was the past year) was the Hamburger Helper mixtape. They enlisted some talented local artists to produce a genuinely entertaining piece of marketing that was self aware enough to avoid being seen as a "fellow kids" stunt. It was honest about its nature, and its quality allowed it to breach the trust gap.
My favorite social media success of the past year (at least I think it was the past year) was the Hamburger Helper mixtape. They enlisted some talented local artists to produce a genuinely entertaining piece of marketing that was self aware enough to avoid being seen as a "fellow kids" stunt. It was honest about its nature, and its quality allowed it to breach the trust gap.
I was trying to be witty, but obviously my intent wasn't properly communicated.
I meant, these kind of comments, in an interview (or any PR piece) are the result of a calculated marketing effort, and the choice of word is carefully chosen to depict the company in the best light, rather then in the most accurate one.
Without better information from unbiased sources the cynical view is the best way to deal with PR stories, and so I can only assume that it is false, misleading or at best self-delusional.
I meant, these kind of comments, in an interview (or any PR piece) are the result of a calculated marketing effort, and the choice of word is carefully chosen to depict the company in the best light, rather then in the most accurate one.
Without better information from unbiased sources the cynical view is the best way to deal with PR stories, and so I can only assume that it is false, misleading or at best self-delusional.
That qoute is not probably marketing, it is marketing. It is more about being geniue or not.
There is a reason that companies become less outward about their employees' beliefs when they become large, and it's to protect the company first. If the bigpharma company I work for takes a stance on an issue that doesn't have to do with our business (either recruiting or pharma issues), it can turn customers off. It can also anger employees, and make them feel like they don't belong.
What makes Merriam-Webster stand apart from others is that it doesn't feel overly contrived.
The Denny blog - http://blog.dennys.com/ - is similar. A hilarious blend of surrealism and non-sequitur.
I've never eaten Denny's in my life but I hope it's as delicious as its social media is witty.
The Denny blog - http://blog.dennys.com/ - is similar. A hilarious blend of surrealism and non-sequitur.
I've never eaten Denny's in my life but I hope it's as delicious as its social media is witty.
Denny's is often the only restaurant open at 3AM. I've been there more often between midnight and 6AM than any other times...
Avoid any form of potato there except the hash browns, which are decent. Avoid any cheese sauce. Everything else will be recognizably high-calorie food.
Right now the best thing on the menu is the pot-roast melt sandwich on multigrain bread.
Avoid any form of potato there except the hash browns, which are decent. Avoid any cheese sauce. Everything else will be recognizably high-calorie food.
Right now the best thing on the menu is the pot-roast melt sandwich on multigrain bread.
It's not even as delicious as its social media is delicious.
The Denny's blog reads as overly contrived to more "hip with the youth" audiences because it is constantly trying way too hard to jump on the latest trends in slang, internet grammar, memes, etc. The complete void of brand values or content on Denny's media presence (as all values have been replaced by eddying internet culture) makes for an unpleasant aftertaste once the original novelty leaves. It just leaves the audience feeling exploited or at the very least patronized. Building a brand voice requires a clear story to tell and "authenticity" (blech, I know) in how you deliver that narrative to audiences. The Denny's online brand has no story other than keeping up with disposable internet ephemera (nihilism is in this year for memes, run with it!) and as a result rings hollow.
Perhaps. But when you consider the platform each targets (Denny's on Tumblr - younger, values visual content. Merriam-Webster on Twitter - older, values witty shortform word) this is excusable.
Fans of Denny's social media presence might also enjoy:
https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys
(Not really from Arby's, but still hilarious)
https://twitter.com/nihilist_arbys
(Not really from Arby's, but still hilarious)
Good social media is a sign of a good organization. Why? Because it shows it gives employees the autonomy they need to do a good job. Poor organizations on the other hand sound canned and corporate because they have to follow some type of guidelines and get things approved before publication.
Is anyone concerned that these institutions are trading a level of detached respect for a temporary boost in popularity? I really don't need my dictionary to be "woke" and I'm not sure I enjoy listening to it shade people on the internet.
I think it weakens trust in institutions when they are all willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.
I think it weakens trust in institutions when they are all willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.
I think it's a question of professionalism and whether it interferes with their ability to achieve their primary mission. I think the fact that Merriam Webster is a descriptive dictionary, rather than a prescriptive one makes a difference here. A lot of words are being coined and redefined on social media, and you could argue that by demonstrating a proficiency at interacting on these mediums they are also making an argument for their competence.
I personally think it's fine. I care about the quality of the dictionary, not the quality of their marketing, but marketing plays an important role in making money. I assume they'd have a twitter account no matter what, and this is probably better marketing than whatever a "professional" account would look like. Since I doubt their irreverence will put off people a substantial number of people from buying dictionaries, I'd say their account is probably a good thing.
I mean, it's a dictionary. It's not like they have a substantial role in world politics or anything.
I personally think it's fine. I care about the quality of the dictionary, not the quality of their marketing, but marketing plays an important role in making money. I assume they'd have a twitter account no matter what, and this is probably better marketing than whatever a "professional" account would look like. Since I doubt their irreverence will put off people a substantial number of people from buying dictionaries, I'd say their account is probably a good thing.
I mean, it's a dictionary. It's not like they have a substantial role in world politics or anything.
So you'd rather them be impersonal and haughty?
Personally I have less respect for "detached" institutions nowadays. It removes them from the concerns of their users and attendees and creates an echo chamber. I love that you can directly petition companies with twitter and air grievances against them in public. It's high time companies act like they are run by and for humans and not just some black box of capital.
Also it's a dictionary - it's supposed to engage and work with language. And right now, twitter is where a lot of new usage of language is being fomented.
Personally I have less respect for "detached" institutions nowadays. It removes them from the concerns of their users and attendees and creates an echo chamber. I love that you can directly petition companies with twitter and air grievances against them in public. It's high time companies act like they are run by and for humans and not just some black box of capital.
Also it's a dictionary - it's supposed to engage and work with language. And right now, twitter is where a lot of new usage of language is being fomented.
> (“This vending machine uses pizza as a verb; I thought you should know.”)
I have to wonder: 1: How? 2: Vending machine pizza?
I have to wonder: 1: How? 2: Vending machine pizza?
Since when is a point in space -- "between" -- the answer to a "what" question?
What is the place [...]?
I certainly expect a point in space here, either in physical space or in metaphorical space.
I certainly expect a point in space here, either in physical space or in metaphorical space.
[deleted]
Probably the funniest writeup of a twitter account I've seen: http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/08/merriam...
A guy writes about his brush with fame when MW was rude to him on Twitter.
A guy writes about his brush with fame when MW was rude to him on Twitter.
"Rude?"
He spent the night insulting them and they told him that no one cared, that's not rude that's response in kind.
It might be odd seeing defensiveness from a marketing account, but it's not unexpected. They're going for hip and cool and it's neither to let a rando insult you.
He spent the night insulting them and they told him that no one cared, that's not rude that's response in kind.
It might be odd seeing defensiveness from a marketing account, but it's not unexpected. They're going for hip and cool and it's neither to let a rando insult you.
> He spent the night insulting them and they told him that no one cared, that's not rude that's response in kind.
That's not true. Asking, in one tweet, if it's "narcissistically gratifying" for MW to be the "chill dictionary" may be insulting, but not needlessly so, as I think that's the central point he's trying to make. Overall though, they are a meandering, somewhat pointless series of tweets, aimed at a company, and not an individual.
Stating that "No one cares how you feel." is needlessly insulting and isn't attempting to make any point. It's also directed at an individual, and not a large company, so it's always going to be perceived as more cutting.
That "No one cares how you feel." is, apparently, an expression commonly used in English teaching doesn't excuse it: the author, and the vast majority of Tweeters didn't get the reference.
That's not true. Asking, in one tweet, if it's "narcissistically gratifying" for MW to be the "chill dictionary" may be insulting, but not needlessly so, as I think that's the central point he's trying to make. Overall though, they are a meandering, somewhat pointless series of tweets, aimed at a company, and not an individual.
Stating that "No one cares how you feel." is needlessly insulting and isn't attempting to make any point. It's also directed at an individual, and not a large company, so it's always going to be perceived as more cutting.
That "No one cares how you feel." is, apparently, an expression commonly used in English teaching doesn't excuse it: the author, and the vast majority of Tweeters didn't get the reference.
Pretty shocking - the response from MW, and then the vitriol on twitter, and on the slate article.
kkoomi(1)
I really wish this mind-set was more common.