Sean Stannard-Stockton wrote a reflection on my analysis of the list of “foundations that tweet” on the Philanthropy411 blog. I look at what was being tweeted and the voice used (institutional versus personal versus a blend).
Sean takes a point of view:
So he feels that Twitter profiles that are all organizational brand or all personal are boring and that a co-mingled approach (Institutional Profile with Personality or Employee with Institutional Association) work best because:
I think the lesson to be drawn here is that in the search for how best to share knowledge, the key thing is to put humans at the center. Knowledge is not some sort of physical element that we can stack in a room somewhere and index easily. Knowledge is a concept that is rooted in the very fact that we are human.
As we strive to build a more effective philanthropy, to share knowledge and support what works, let’s not become disconnected from the human element that drives philanthropy.
Using social media to be authentically human seems to be pattern today in my reading. Kivi's Nonprofit Marketing Blog has a summary of Chris Brogan and Julien Smith's book, Trust Agents. Kivi describes the central theme of the book as how to be human through your computer. Kivi goes on to summarize four principles in the book that apply to nonprofits.
And finally, Dana Boyd debunks a study that found "Twitter is 40% of Useless Babble." She goes on to say that conversations on Twitter are, well, human.
Why is it that we're afraid of being human in our social media channels? Sean alluded to an article in the WSJ that suggests it is because we don't equate being human with being professional.
What do you think?