There’s a company here in NJ that I’m speaking with right now that I believe has a terrific opportunity to utilize social media to build buzz about their brand. So for them, I’d like to tweet “about” them — upcoming events and locations, about the founders, the product. But that would be me sharing my knowledge about the company.

I feel pretty strongly that “ghosttweeting” is misrepresentation. How could a CEO or senior executive possibly have the time to approve every tweet? How does your tweeting as someone else bring any credibility or authenticity to your client, their company, product or service?

Short and sweet? Tweet “about” not “as” and then your good to go! Hope this adds a bit to our conversation. Best/Geri R

I have had the pleasure of working for both an agency and an association, which is pretty similar to a corporation in my mind (ie. the company that gives me my paycheck and the one I do PR for is the same).

An interesting comparison to your blog post is that of Edelman and Wal-mart, although they were not transparent about it at all, and in fact, made up the person who was blogging. However, if they had been up front that the agency was doing it, would it have made it better? Slightly, but not much.

If a company has a corporate social media plan, to even claim transparency it needs to be someone in the company. An agency is paid to bring positive about the company through media relations. Are they going to be viewed as a reliable source for transparency? In my eyes, no. They don’t have the corporate personality that the company is trying to get across to either their customers, members, target market, etc. It completely takes away the one-on-one feeling that a person might have.

It’s kind of like the automated phone system for customer service: which is better, a live person or the recorded voice? Which is going to make a person more at ease and relatable? Which is better, agency blogging for company or company blogging about themselves? And does an agency have the clout to blog about anything they want, gaining that transparency?

I agree with your post – two thumbs up. It’s great!

Thanks for putting it out there. I’m sure this topic will continue to spur many more great conversations.

That 3rd response… well, it’s not that you didn’t hit it outta the park, it’s just that the park is big and swampy. And if people were to focus on your first two points they likely wouldn’t have to deal with the third!

YES! I agree. That’s why ghost blogging is not only dishonest, but it brings limited/no value to your organization. Over time, people learn your “voice.” They come to expect it. What happens if the person at the agency who writes your posts leaves or if you hire a new agency. Your name is still on the banner, but suddenly it doesn’t sound so much like you anymore. And people *will* pick up on that.

@adam needles – Sorry to cause such a stir in the Needles house! Hope you didn’t get banished to the couch.

“the problem with social media is that the person whose name is on the post is assumed to be the person who wrote the piece.”

I wouldn’t refer to that expectation as a “problem” generally, but it does present the problem for ghost blogging. As I said, the difference in the space is the expectation that people have. You’ve summed that expectation up perfectly here.

@PRJack – Darn you and your good question!

“What if said exec simply didn’t have the time/isn’t a good enough writer to write a full post, but is willing to respond to comments made to the ‘ghost written’ blog?”

1. If said exec doesn’t have time to blog, why can’t he micro-blog instead? or use a multi-media platform like Utterli to share short videos with his thoughts? The point is that he doesn’t *have* to blog. There are lots of ways to engage with the community that aren’t as time intensive as blogging.

2. Why does it always have to be the busy executive/CEO who blogs? It doesn’t. You can identify a number of passionate employees from across job functions to blog. Many do that. At that point, the exec may have time to participate, since he could do a monthly or bi-weekly post on the state of the industry, or some other high-level topic.

3. Interesting question about ghost-blogging but the exec responding to comments. I actually think the ghost blogging part may be found out quicker, though, if you do that. Again, “voice” is important. And the exec and agency would have to work damn hard to make sure they are always matching in personality and voice. It could be mimicked for a while, but you’d always be a couple responses away from slipping.

@christine needles – Hope you’ve forgiven Adam.

“A corporate blog might also have a goal of serving as a platform for sharing insights and information – providing an avenue for thought leadership. Is that wrong?”

Heck, no it’s not wrong. In fact, it’s one of the benefits of corporate blogs. I wasn’t challenging it’s purpose as a thought leadership tool. It’s about letting readers now who’s thoughts they are and who’s writing it.

I don’t have a problem with facilitating the sharing of another person’s thoughts. I have a problem with masquerading as someone you’re not. That’s the difference.

I agree that we need to be open and honest about how the substance is generated and shared. Ghost blogging is the opposite of open and honest, though. See what I mean. As I mentioned in the post, I wouldn’t get upset about a blog being up front that the agency is doing the blogging. But I wouldn’t recommend going that route because I don’t think it delivers the best opportunities for you to attract and engage your customers. Why? Because they want to hear from *you!*

@doyle albee – I see no problem at all with someone engaging in the process, but getting help with grammar, punctuation, etc.

@brandon Chestnutt – “human to human interaction” Love it! That’s exactly what it’s all about. And you’re right that setting expectations with clients when developing the SM strategy is important. That could also help shape your strategy. If execs don’t have time to commit to blogging, you find other ways for them to engage that are less time intensive.

@amber naslund – Great point on identifying why folks are even coming to your blog in the first place. That definitely helps shape everything about your space. And, as you point out, you better damn well deliver on their expectations.

Also a great point about canned messages. That’s another reason why I think there is no appetite for ghost blogging in SM. People are tired of it, IMO.

@Jacqueline – Wow! “Hate” is such a strong word. I don’t think it’s beneficial in the long run. And, it’s really only beneficial in the short run until people find out someone else has been writing it all along. The initial reaction to that will be losing trust in the organization. And for good reason. If we aren’t transparent up front that someone else is writing all this stuff, then the expectation is that the exec is writing it. So, in essence, we would have been telling a lie. Yes, I believe omission can be considered a lie, too.

Again – why do they have to blog? Why can’t they use Twitter or Plurk or Utterli or any of the other platforms that allow you to engage in short bursts. Remember that SM is mostly about relationships. Blogs aren’t the only way to build those.

@Patrick Evans – “I like authenticity in the voice of the company.”

Exactly. Isn’t that what we all want? That’s how companies actually humanize their brands and benefit from the relationships with customers that SM facilitates.

GREAT conversations. Any other thoughts?

In case you thought I wasn’t going to jump back into the conversation…

I think that if your audience is expecting that they’re hanging out at your corporate blog to get an authentic, real voice from real people behind the company, you had better give that to them. If they’re there expecting something that’s informative but not necessarily personal, you’d better deliver that, then. And how do you know? You ask. Before you ever launch that blog, you best be talking to the people that will be reading it.

There’s no one right answer, but I think certainly part of the backlash against mainstream media is the “canned” messaging. If we’re using blogs to perpetuate just another canned message, we’ve simply opened another broadcast channel, not made our communications any more “social”.

It’s all about goals and expectations between the writers and the readers.