As the world flocks to social media, it is important to remember that not every tool is right for every situation. On a tactical basis, Twitter is an excellent example of this. Just as nearly every marketer who wanted to look plugged-in 18 months ago was starting a blog, the same crew is now crushing on Twitter. Lost in this rush to appear like a modern marketer is even a cursory examination of what the tool is designed to do. As its heart, Twitter is an announcement vehicle disquised as a conversational vehicle. It is ideal for passing along news, gossip, and funny quips. It is a mediocre vehicle for dialogue. Yet, I have heard many a marketer justify their Twitter efforts as a way to have a deeper conversation with their customers.
This begs the larger issue of using social media strategically, as part of a plan with real objectives other than to use the latest thing. To make the point, I’ll go so far as to say there are some companies for whom social media in general is a bad idea. Social media implies an effort to open up your brand to your consumer. It is about providing more ways to connect with people. But there are some brands for which connecting more intimately with their consumer would work against their basic strength. That is because the success of some brands depends more on impressing people than on connecting with them.
High-end luxury and fashion brands in particular succeed to a large degree on their aloofness. The democracy of social media promises a degree of access that undercuts the sense of elitism that is central to these brands. Many brands succeed by instilling a sense that they are our friends or our supporters. But some succeed by instilling a sense that they are our superiors. To use an analogy from the pet world, not every brand should aspire to be a golden retriever — fun, bouncy, always happy to see you. Some brands succeed better as the Russian Shorthair cat, keeping an elegant distance that makes each encounter a hard-earned pleasure.
The Ryan Report 