Brands Struggle with Social Because They Aren't Human

Human beings are complex and messy and completely flawed. We are also incredibly social and driven to connect. We differ so fundamentally from all other life forms on our planet, mainly because of our 'wiring'. We're so complex and fascinating that multiple science disciplines have been dedicated to trying to figure out the intricacy of being human: psychology, sociology, anthropology, behavioral economics, neuroscience, cognitive science, philosophy, epistemology, heterophenomenology...the list goes on!

So when I sat down to make a video to outline and demonstrate how different brand behavior is from human behavior - and, therefore, brands can never truly be social without letting go of the rules and brand guidelines and everything else that makes them non-human - I realized that it's almost impossible to make a comparison. Humans are to brands what horses are to skateboards. Brands are too one-dimensional with their brand guidelines and editorial voice. 

Instead of making the comparison, I created a list of ways in which humans are very uniquely NOT like brands:

 
So, what are the implications here? Am I saying that brands will never be social? That brands should act like humans and have bad days and act selfishly altruistic?

Honestly, I'm not sure what the answer is, but I refuse to believe that brands will never play a true role in social. In fact, long before there was Facebook or Twitter or even MySpace and Friendster, I was seeing people discuss brands online and representatives (employees) of brands be part of those discussions. They weren't trying to broadcast a message, though. They were just part of a conversation. You know: "markets are conversations," and all of that.

People, of course, talk about themselves as brands, and I am as guilty as the next person. That means we are framing ourselves as an image to shape, project, and hone. We are watching what we post and put filters on our photos so we look younger, hotter, and more capable. We hustle. We edit. But the difference between the "brand of Tara Hunt" and the real Tara Hunt is that, at the end of the day, I'm always a flawed, complex human beneath it all. No amount of photoshopping can erase that.

So should brands act more like people, warts and all? I'm not sure that is the answer, either, but injecting some humanity and all of the uncertain, flawed, inconsistent, and imperfect qualities of being human into how a brand interacts on social could be key. Brands that screw up and show the humility to apologize are traditionally well-received. Brands that ask for help or show their struggles are often celebrated and loved.

Of course, there are plenty of brands, like Apple, who project a rigid brand discipline who fare perfectly well, but when you think of Apple, it's not social...it's an icon. Like a celebrity we hold up on a pedestal, the Apples of this world have a gift for showing us an image many of us aspire toward. They don't need to be human. They represent an ideal. Most brands don't have that status.

So what do YOU think are the human qualities brands should adopt and why? Or are you in the camp of "brands will never be my friend, so f&^k off!"? If you watch the video, let me know which important, unique human traits I missed.