Why Brands (Except Russell) Should Stop Posting in First Person

I/we have seen a number of brands following in the footsteps of Netflix and MTV in their decision to use First Person in their social media posts. And I/we see there’s been a lot of debate about whether this is a brilliant thing or the worst thing since Fyre Festival. So as the subject continues to divide the marketing world (and our office) like a slightly less important EU referendum, I/we come bearing an opinion on the matter.

For full disclosure, I should first explain that I’ve spent a large portion of my life tweeting, Facebooking and Instagramming on behalf of brands, TV shows and celebrities. I’ve sat behind my keyboard pretending to be everything from a pub to a monkey to an American female pop star who’s not so great at singing but has more followers than Barack Obama (that’s all the clues you’re getting). 

The brutal truth is, if you’re a brand it’s difficult to get people to care about you on social media. Human beings are of course more likely to strike up an emotional connection with fellow human beings than they are with, say, a toilet-roll manufacturer. I get that. And I’ve seen it first-hand when I’ve posted something I thought was brilliant and hilarious for a popular headphones company, for example, only to see someone immediately reply: “just die.” (not sure I ever got over that one).

But despite occasional insults from the haters, and apathy from those who aren’t interested in talking to toilet-rolls on the internet, using ‘we’ in your copy allows the brand to remain the brand: a lofty famous thing that is bigger than you or I. It has some heft, some purpose, some stature.

When brands start talking as individuals on social media (known by some as ‘Stanning’ as an ode to Eminem’s song about the crazed superfan, pictured above, who loves banging-on about himself), that loftiness disappears. No longer have you just been tweeted by One of The Biggest Selling Toilet Roll Brands in the World (omg), instead you’ve been tweeted by Terry the community manager who works for a social media agency in Shoreditch that is on a retainer with the bog-roll brand to make them a bit more interesting online. The magic has gone. The illusion is shattered. Your favourite toilet roll is just… Terry.

And without wanting to dampen the mood too much, let’s remember that the aforementioned rap song ends with Stan losing the plot and driving off a bridge. Which is clearly Eminem warning us against using first person copy as part of a social marketing strategy.

It’s also worth noting that you can inject a large amount of personality, and individuality even, into a social account without having to write in the first person. You can use ‘the royal we’. That’s how I’ve always done it. That’s how we do it for most of our clients. It allows you to maintain the heft and authority of a brand with the opinions and personality of an individual which, as a writer, is an exciting space to play in. And far from shackling you editorially, ‘the royal we’ gives you more than enough licence to surprise people – particularly if you’re running an account for the usually polite BBC. (sorry BBC)

One of the first super-brands to go big on first-person social was Netflix. I should state for the record that I’m a big fan of Netflix on social media, they do some bloody brilliant stuff. But then they go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like…

If brands just want engagement and a frictionless human connection, perhaps they should shut down their own feeds and pay an influencer millions of pounds to become the sole representative of their brand online for the rest of their life? Joey Essex could become Joey Andrex (sorry Terry, you’re out of a job). Deliciously Ella could become Deliciously Stella. Joe Wicks could become Joe Wickes. (“Maaaate! Get your carpets clean in 15!”)

My point is that there needs to be a distance between normal people and brands; a mysterious gap in which imagination can grow. When Netflix likes your tweet, you should think: “fucking hell! Netflix knows who I am!”, not “oh look, it’s Terry again doing a few likes before he hits the vape-lounge.”

To be honest, the second a brand speaks to me in first person, it becomes small, desperate and unexciting. Like Tom Cruise.

There’s also the added complication of when something serious happens that your brand needs to comment on. If, for example, the aforementioned toilet roll brand has been found guilty of funding Donald Trump’s secret visits to Russia, it’s gonna be quite difficult for Terry to comment on that subject as Terry with Terry’s usual lighthearted lols. “I’d like apologise to all customers about today’s news. Although, I guess it does go to show… behind every trump is a good toilet roll.”

Also, the unexpected tense is off-putting. It’s like when Craig David starts talking about himself in the third person. I’m a huge Craig David fan, but when Craig David says “Craig David is so hungry right now” it makes me want to slap Craig David on Craig David’s big forehead. (even if he’s chilling cos it’s a Sunday)

That being said, if brands really want to stand out, 'Craig David-ing' instead of 'Stanning' could be an interesting approach. "Branston Pickle gazed down at the cheese sandwich lying on its bed and smiled. "Looks like you could use the tangy crunch of 30% lower fat Branston Pickle" it giggled, seductively." Perhaps not.

My point is, just because it’s social media, that’s no reason to break the brand:human barrier. Someone clever once said: “no man is an island.” Similarly, no man is a brand (especially not Terry), and although that doesn’t sound quite as profound as a sentence, I’m probably the FIRST PERSON ever to say it so shut your face.

Hello? Oh, you’ve gone.