Getting personal

Sometimes, social media can feel a bit like a game of Monopoly. It's a fun group activity. Sure, sometimes you get into arguments; sometimes the stuff you get from the "community chest" of knowledge isn't that great. But sometimes you do well; you gain precious "real estate", in the form of conversation and followers. You're really enjoying yourself... and then a shoe comes along and ruins everything.

Of course, the shoe thinks its "engaging", and "joining the conversation". It wants to play too. It's been told that if it gets enough "share of voice" and it cultivates its own digital "real estate", it will win the game (and of course, this means money).

In a game that's built for people, though, a shoe's intrusion can feel like just that, an intrusion. It's a fine line that brands have to tread between being personable and interesting to follow and being invasive.

Do I really want a conversation with a squeezy bottle of tomato sauce?

This is not a question any previous generation had to ask. At least, not the sane members. Sitting at McDonald's yesterday, staring at the little sachets of tomato sauce that came free with my meal, I found myself thinking: "I bet Heinz has a Twitter account." Sure enough, it does. If you so desire, you can follow @DipandSqueeze. Over 3 000 other people do. Dip and Squeeze - named after the latest tomato sauce packaging from the brand - wants to trade jokes with you and give you prizes for re-tweets.

This is the epitome of a brand under pressure to perform as a person in the space where the people - the customers - are. It has to differentiate itself somehow - I mean honestly, there's only so many times you can tweet about tomato sauce and make it sound interesting. So it does this by attempting to start a conversation with its customers.

Which begs the question - do I really want to have a conversation with it?

In the flurry of articles by "social media gurus" that carry the message that social media is about being social, about acting natural with people and about engaging them where they choose to be, part of the message seems to have been lost.

If you're a person, social interaction is its own reward. If you're a brand, however, you're interacting on social media because you want something. At least you should be, there should be some kind of strategy; you shouldn't just be doing it for the sake of doing it. And consumers know it.

My reaction when a brand tries to be buddy-buddy with me in my space is not a sense of sudden and inexplicable loyalty towards it. Rather, it's a bit like when you're chatting to your friend at the supermarket and a complete stranger tries to join you.

If you're a person, social interaction is its own reward. If you're a brand, however, you're interacting on social media because you want something.

A colleague was telling me just the other day about how she was talking to a friend on Twitter, and suddenly a brand responded to one of her tweets with a "lol". Awkward.

I am personally guilty of going off at a brand that sent me a link to its product while I was reminiscing about something only slightly related with one of my followers.

This doesn't mean I want brands to be brainless automatons spamming marketing messages, but there is a middle ground.

Brands can have personality. Some of the brands that are doing it right do: Nando's is cocky and humorous, rbjacobs (FNB) is friendly and approachable, and Miista is one shoe (brand) I wouldn't mind having a conversation with. The brand is positioned as pro-women and stands proudly behind women's rights, composing controversial blog posts and tweeting fashion pictures (thanks Wessel van Rensburg for pointing me in its direction).

Yes, brands can have personality, but they will never have a personal life. They don't go out for coffee, or fetch kids from school. They don't have mood swings or egos. They don't want to be your friend. They are the clown at the circus, there to entertain you and provide you with value. If they were to follow you home, however, you'd be less inclined to laugh and more inclined to run away screaming.

What could make me want to have a conversation with a bottle of tomato sauce?

Not noise about packaging, not re-tweets from people who like the brand, not if it was to pick up on every time I mentioned ketchup and commented on it. Also, not if it suddenly had a wife and kids and liked the odd latte. The only thing that could make me want a conversation with some tomato sauce packaging, or a hot chocolate brand, or a block of margarine, or, indeed, a shoe, would be if it provided content that was relevant to me and gave me value.

The great irony of social media is that we've created a platform where people strive to brand themselves, while brands strive to be people. "Engaging" with your audience and "joining the conversation" are the new mantras of consumer marketing. In the end, though, the relationship between brand and consumer hasn't really changed. I'm still a selfish consumer, looking out for my own needs, and brands are still selfish brands looking to make money. Pretending any different isn't going to earn anything but awkward silences.