When Personal and Corporate Web 2.0 Brands Collide
Ford's Scott Monty Provides a Glimpse Into the Blurry Lines
David Armano also writes the popular Logic + Emotion blog. |
Since I only had 20 minutes for the talk, I missed out on very important part of this phenomenon: the potential risks and downside of this activity as it can relate to your full time profession -- especially if you are not self-employed. Take Scott Monty, who currently heads up social-media initiatives at Ford. If you go to Scott's Twitter page, you'll immediately notice a dichotomy between Scott Monty, the individual, and Ford, the company he works for. Ford's logo is evident all over the page and even hovers over Scott's "avatar," which shows up in thousands of Twitter streams globally. Scott has more than 12,000 followers on that social network alone.
Scott was well known in the social-media space prior to his employment at Ford (which probably helped him get the job) and uses his network to talk about work- and personal-related issues. The lines that separate the two are blurry. Recently, Scott's been receiving some criticism over how he handles this delicate balance between his brand and the brand he works for. To pull a recent quote from one of the blogs:
"... if Scott Monty wanted to show that he was really doing this for
Ford, he'd open up a Ford Twitter account -- an idea seconded by another social media site -- to use daily for his work rather than his current ScottMonty twitter account. Because right now it seems like he's set up more for ScottMoCo promotion than for FoMoCo promotion."
This post is not meant to defend Scott, though I do know him and we have spoken on several occasions, but I think there is something much bigger worth thinking about which goes well beyond the surface accusation that Scott is promoting himself at Ford's expense. And for the record, based what I've seen, I think Scott is being rather generous leveraging his personal network to help jump start Ford's initiatives (which includes several Ford Twitter accounts and outreach programs).
Powered By People
Here's the simple truth. If you are going to have your company play on the social web, then you have to be ready to play a full contact sport which includes unpredictable scenarios. The latest evolution of the web and the ways business tap into this are enabled by technology, but fueled by real live people. This means that hiring people like Scott means bringing his existing network into your organization and your organization into his network. On the flip side, individuals like Frank from Comcast, Lionel or Richard from Dell or Tony from Zappos have put their company first in their profiles, thereby building equity through their jobs.
In either scenario there is still common ground. The social web is personal and dependent on people, and when a person leaves your company, at the end of the day no matter if their persona had JohnatBrandX attached to them, the people they interacted with in all that time will remember the person behind the brand. That person takes their equity with them while leaving the infrastructure they have put in place at the company they worked for. If it sounds messy it's because it is and will be. It's powered by people and people are messy. People also tend to be more loyal to other people than they are to faceless organizations.
If your company, or you as in individual doesn't like this, don't even bother investing seriously in social initiatives, because they aren't automated, easy or quick solutions.
Blurring Lines
Some will say that separation of church and state is the way to go. Always lead with the brand. I'm not sure it's that simple. Take a look at Frank Eliason's (@comcastcares) personal blog. Frank talks about life, his family and, yes, his work. While @comcastcares on Twitter leads with the service that Frank and his team provides, Frank has swapped the company logo for a picture of himself. It's not always business on the social Web, often times it's personal, and this is what makes it work. In my humble opinion, while we can try to compartmentalize our "personal brands" with the brands we work for, the more we try to separate them, the less human it becomes. The social web thrives on personality, mixing a "personal touch" with a professional service. When Frank talks about life and business on his blog, it makes him not only a person, but an employee like many of us. And vice-versa on Twitter, which is why I assume he ditched the Comcast logo for a photo of himself instead.
At the end of the day, the social Web blurs the line between individuals and brands. It's not exactly clear what the rules of engagement are in these scenarios. But they will undoubtedly emerge as more companies put their people on the front lines of communication & interaction.
More Human Than Human
I've had some interesting conversations about this topic with people who have invested time developing and nurturing their own networks. Though they may not have the notoriety of a Monty, an Eliason, a Menchaca or a Hsieh, they may be unaware that they represent the organizations they work far more than they know. Using social networks on company time can help you do your job better or can be viewed as unproductive time. Either way, it brings up questions about how clear the line is between our work, our social networking and where they overlap.
And what about when social networking is your job? That's when we need to remember that at this point, it becomes about human contact regardless of who you work for.
The Road To Co-branding
Recently I talked about the idea of "brandividuals" (my hobby is making up words). For some, the idea is scary -- the melding of our personalities with the companies and brands we work for. Call it whatever you want, I believe we'll see more of it, not less, which means we'll need to figure out how the balance works. In it's simplest form, the phenomenon will look like "co-branding," two brands coming together toward a common goal. As someone who spends intimate time in this space (I am an full time employee for Critical Mass) the dance is delicate. It requires an understanding that the arrangement can be mutually beneficial along with a comfort level of the space. If your company is dipping it's toes in the the social Web, then you're going to attract employees who are active participants across multiple networks. Some, like Scott, may bring that network to your job.
There will be risks for both sides. But in the end, the switch from automated to manual means being powered by people. People with real faces, lives, families and potentially fans (not to mention critics).
Lastly, let's not forget to keep our eye on the prize. As Scott says himself in his video interview:
"We're not interested in advertising on social networks—we're interested in getting in there and interacting with people."
RSS Feed›› DigitalNext
Most Recent Posts 
- 'Giving Thanks': Helping the Hungry
- More Asians in TV Spots? It's About Time
- Is the Promise of Viral Success Holding the Ad Industry Back?
- JC Penney's 'Doghouse' Returns
- Autism Speaks Hosts Chicago Fundraiser
- The Invisible Hand of Agency Culture
- Buffalo Soldiers Wings & Things
- Publicis' 'Boost' Wins Create for a Cause Contest
- A DigitalNext Challenge: What's Your Favorite Consumer Mobile Application?
- BCS Enters Twitter: Beat Down Like Notre Dame in a Bowl Game
- What Kind of Agency Are You?
- Vice Finds Oil in L.A. for Palladium Boots
- Scuzzy Bubbles Are Filthy Little Pervs in Method Video
- The Coming Darwinism of IPhone Apps
- Behind the Redesign: Virgin.com Mixes Social Activity and Lead Generation
White Paper
The New Female Consumer: The Rise of the Real Mom
This Advertising Age and JWT white paper explores what multiple generations of American women want when it comes to family, work and life in the 21st century, decades after the women's liberation movement.
Bob Garfield
Verizon Exiles IPhone to Island of Misfit Toys for the Holidays
Too-Cool Apple Now Finding Itself on the Receiving End of Competitor Ridicule
Special Report
America's Hottest Brands
Advertising Age Honors the Top Brands of the Year -- and the Brains Behind Them
3 Minute Ad Age Video
Wal-Mart CMO Defends Private-Label Brand Expansion
Cites 'Pay-Check Cycle' Customers Who Don't Eat at Month's End
Special Report
Marketer of the Year: Hyundai
The carmaker won handily in our reader poll, besting Walmart, McDonald's, Lego and Amazon
Ad Age Video
Eddie Murphy's Long-Term Effect on Ad Agency Diversity
The Video Story of Dallas' Marcus Graham Project
Weekly Online Poll
Will small digital-production shops working directly with clients turn big digital agencies into unnecessary middlemen?
White Paper: 2010 America
What the 2010 Census Means for Marketing and Advertising
2010 America explains what you need to know about the biggest consumer market-research project of the decade: the 2010 U.S. census. Demographics expert Peter Francese, author of this highly readable Ad Age white paper, analyzes what the census will reveal about the changing face of consumers.
Most Read Most E-Mailed
Most Read Most E-mailed
Be part of the celebration at The Ad Age Media Mavens Awards Luncheon
Sponsored by ESPN. Join the world's leading media strategists for a celebration of creative thinking, innovation and a look at how the best are preparing for 2010. More
(What is RSS?)
Ultimately though, is this really a new evolution or just a return to the way things were when there was just one mom and pop store on Main Street. Back then, we didn't do business with a business, we did business with a person. I think we're coming full circle back to that point.
Here's the problem with Scott Monty's Twitter promotion of Ford: If you're a general consumer on Twitter looking for information on Ford, it doesn't make sense to have to search for the Twitter user "ScottMonty" in order to get it -- which was Monty's claim on FBN.
Monty's argument in retort will be there are different Twitter accounts based on niche areas like Ford's "Drive One" campaign and "Ford Racing." Fine and good. In retort to that I'd say first, those accounts were not originally easily found (until Jalopnik brought his self-promotion to light). This is because he's not running the majority of his activity on Twitter through those niche accounts but rather, primarily, through his own individual account and because they're not aggregating significant Twitter users.
That brings me to my second argument -- maybe there aren't so many potential Ford consumers on Twitter and it could be that Twitter's nothing more than what I originally claimed -- a self-congratulatory (I used a different, more naughty-sounding word in my original post) social media echo chamber.
Scott Monty's promotion of himself over the corporation paying him his salary continues to smack of self promotion and not corporate brand promotion. If Ford knew any better they'd have nipped this in the bud and forced Scott to start running his tweeting activities for Ford through the brand Twitter accounts. But they haven't. So in reality, in his year at the company, all Monty's proven by his continued self-promotion is how poor of a job he's done to teach the rest of the company to fish in this new PR medium and just how out of touch Ford actually is with his efforts.
I hope he'll prove me wrong.
Ray Wert
Editor-in-Chief
Jalopnik.com
I find it interesting that Wert started using Twitter just two months ago and suddenly he seems to be an expert on it. The fact that he questions that there may not be potential Ford consumers on Twitter shows his fundamental misunderstanding of the medium. In other exchanges on the Web, he has implied that *real* drivers only frequent automotive blogs and are out of place on Twitter. My contention is that Ford needs to connect with real people who have real experiences, whether or not they're enthusiasts or core fans. Twitter provides an opportunity to have a conversation with everyone. And I believe that people would rather have a conversation with a person than a brand.
As far as Twitter's search function - it used to pick up terms in the bio section of users - which is why it used to be easier to find Ford. We've got a much wider Twitter strategy that we began back in Sept/Oct that will be much clearer as we build out The Ford Story at http://thefordstory.com. And it will include information about the teams of people who will be manning the many corporate Twitter accounts we have.
I'm happy to speak with anyone about Ford's social media plans at length. It's about humanizing the company and supporting our ONE Ford efforts under Ford's CEO Alan Mulally (btw, is Alan self-promotional because he gets a lot of coverage in the media?). Ford trusts me to get the job done and the executive team has been very happy with the results to date - including that we were named #12 on the Top Social Brands of 2008 (as reported here on AdAge): http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=134180
Scott Monty
Global Digital Communications
Ford Motor Company
Mr. Monty is an archetype of the new incarnation of celebrity. To put it in perspective, imagine if Eva Longoria were hired to promote Ford. It wouldn't make sense for Ford to say "Stop being Eva Longoria when you talk about our products, and instead just be an anonymous spokesperson."
In Monty's case, he was hired for his personal celebrity and online connections, and he's doing just what Ford needs him to do -- promote the Ford brand to the people who follow him.
The first issue is a dangerous one. Irrespective of the world of the internet, branding, advertising, etc. there is the individual. People. Society. We don't realize it right now, but social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter actually propagate rampant narcissism. We're losing ourselves.
People aren't just being people. People and being what they want other people to see. In other words, people are constructing images for themselves instead of just being themselves. For instance when you update your Facebook status, chances are you aren't just flowing in your behavior at the present. You are thinking of how your friends should think of you based on what you write as your status. Narcissism is not, as is commonly perceived, merely the inflation of the ego and thinking highly of oneself. It is the loss and denial of the true self vis-à-vis the construction of images, or personas, based on what we want others to think of us. We let others define who we are rather than just "being."
The second issue has less to do with society at large and more to do with the splintering of brand equity. While ordinary people have a mere micro influence, that influence can turn macro without warning if an ordinary person happens to blow up in the media (e.g. Ashley Dupree and Gov. Spitzer, Nadya Suleman and her 14 children). Suddenly your brand is in the spotlight.
There has to be more oversight from the corporate level so that communication is from the brand itself rather than from an individual who is connected to the brand. Letting your employees be the voice for your brand could be detrimental and could erode at or contradict the brand messaging your ad agency is working towards. Don't get me wrong – if a company's marketing or PR department wants to turn an employee into a voice for the company, that's fine because the company is aware. But using people as vehicles for brand-building is risky. What if there is a falling out? The employee quits to work at a competitor? People still expect to connect to this employee and they will continue to connect with this employee because, as David rightly points out, "people also tend to be more loyal to other people than they are to faceless organizations."
So yes, it's messy, but it's better to dive into the social media mix with as much awareness, oversight and control as possible.
"Ultimately though, is this really a new evolution or just a return to the way things were when there was just one mom and pop store on Main Street. Back then, we didn't do business with a business, we did business with a person."
I could not have said it better myself. Ironically, Scott and I had an in-person conversation where he said nearly something identical. He said "somewhere along the line, big companies forgot how to talk to their customers".
Ray, you probably have insights into the auto world which I don't have. I'm not an expert in that area and respect your opinion. However, I've been on networks such as Twitter for a while and companies like Dell who leverage them regularly (and with success) have flown me out to pick my brain on these matters before they even started engaging in spaces like this. From what I can see, Scott's efforts seem to be beneficial to Ford. In fact, he comes off like a die hard believer in the company. I believe this works for both brands and I'd wager that before Scott's work is done, you'll see Ford employ a team dedicated to this type of media.
That's my somewhat educated guess. Thanks for the comment here.
You mean the "Ford Story" website that only links site visitors to your personal twitter account?
As for choosing to air these issues in a public forum, I assume these would be valid questions to be raising in a public forum. That notwithstanding, given Scott's propensity for breathlessly doing the same ( http://jalopnik.com/tag/river-rouge-roof-collapse/?id=5116995#c9645141 ), I just assumed this was his preferred method of issue resolution.
I've never stated or implied auto enthusiast sites are the only haven for "real" drivers, and I find Scott's insinuation to be quite disingenuous.
I'm no expert on Twitter (Scott's flailing accusations of my beliefs notwithstanding), but I'm thinking an auto enthusiast site -- let's use Jalopnik as an example -- with 2.6 million unique visitors looking at automotive content may have a greater number of potential auto consumers than an 11,000+-person Twitter account made up primarily of social media fan-boys.
I have no personal crusade against Scott Monty, merely a desire to bring to light a legitimate industry issue -- that Scott's being paid a lot of money to publicize himself and not Ford.
Ray Wert
Editor-in-Chief
Jalopnik.com
I think of those positions where your personal connections are tantamount to your ability to do your job (i.e. sales). Personal brands are now carrying the same weight. Scott Monty had his personal brand before he started working for Ford. I have to imagine his personal brand influenced Ford's decision to hire him. I think it is great that he is willing to use his personal brand to promote the company. I think the risk was far greater for Scott to associate his personal brand with Ford, than Ford to be associated with Scott. Ford has benefited from the audience/reach/credibility/human voice that Scott brought with him.
I think we are going to see more "brandividuals" as the younger generation joins the work force. Their entire life is public. It is natural to think that their employer and their work will be part of their public life.
Paula Drum
It also shows dedication on their part since they know I have a personal brand. Losing me would be a mistake. I'm not easily dispensable since I'm well recognized as a face of the business. I don't try to manipulate my company based on that, but it does provide me with confidence that my word and my brand count as the company is moving forward.
Do the folks at Ford corporate marketing know or care what else he is accusing prospects and customers of being, one at a time?
I think you got it all and at the same time many more questions about personal branding vs company branding will arise in the near future. Most of the companies are not even aware of these issues!!!!
And again many ethical issues will arise as whether there is a disclosure of confidential information in this social interactions.
Many companies will try to create rules and procedures and reduce their scope of action, like many years ago about msn usage and the like, and it all depends on the size of the company, but I believe the "good" companies will be the ones that will be able to run risks because it pays on a long term basis!
Luisa Agante
Lisbon, Portugal
"Scott Monty called a potential Ford Fiesta customer who had some garden-variety/not-atypical sentiment about Ford "woefully misinformed."
And this hits the crux of the matter I think. If Scott said something like this (I'm making the assumption it's accurate) then it's showing his personality. Again, human beings are unpredictable and well, human. And what if there were 20 Scott Montys to manage? (which I predict will happen in more organizations). That's the point. A staff of 20 are still people (not machines) out there representing your brand.
If communications become so watered down, so legalized and companies become so risk averse to direct interactions because as you've pointed out—this might not be the way a company talks to a prospective customer. Then what do we have left?
We have traditional advertising, PR, and marketing. Safe, traditional and inauthentic. Should their be guidelines? Yes! I'd a agree with that. But direct interactions are a bit of an art and not always a science with tried, proven methodologies. Guidelines and best practices can only go so far. There will always be unpredictable scenarios.
Regardless it's a very valid point and why I felt compelled to write about this topic. Thanks.
This begs the question:
Should companies actually review personal brands as part of the interview process in the same fashion as a merger?
Are the brands compatible and can the two "corporate cultures" coexist?
Does this demand a new type of HR skillset similar to due diligence?
Many questions - few answers.
http://www.twitter.com/admaven
http://admaven.blogspot.com
The top name and example in searches I came up with for social media was Scott Monty. I began to follow him. I have learned a ton from him about branding and reaching out to people (potential customers). I had not thought about a FORD in years if ever. I have read more about FORD because of him and will totally look at FORD models as a potential for my next auto because of him. It worked.
I set up our twitter and several other accounts with our "company face" but have tried to make it personal and friendly. On the other hand, I have ended up also doing facebook and several other accounts with my "personal face" but lots of Bulldawg Illustrated content. I think you need to cast the net in several directions to catch the most fish. Scott Monty does that for FORD.
Cheri Leavy
www.bulldawgillustrated.com
Athens,GA
Thanks for the feedback on my comment (and trust me, it was verbatim what i cited).
Far be it that i would tell you how social media marketing should go down. It is your craft - who is better?
But I've put my stakes down where 90% of the money is still spent. Yes, "traditional" advtg/mktg can seem watered down, etc., and it will only get worse if lonely, mostly-broke "traditional" consultants like me don't badger clients to stick to some good fundamentals of marketing. My God, how many more articles do we really need on marketingprofs.com about how to pull off a good email campaign? Am i the only one left who gets excited about good branding, targeting, positioning (seen a good value proposition lately?), and customer experience?
Long after we are gone, I believe it will still come down to those four things. Messy is OK. Broken is not.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I shall return to my regularly scheduled program "traditional-marketing consulting in a recession."
Now for two people I follow and respect: @jalopnik and @ScottMonty - put your egos aside and go back to serving your communities. I read Jalopnik every day and I have owned Fords (though not anymore) and still participate in Ford clubs. Your bickering and pi$$ing match you have created does neither of communities any good. You both are behaving unprofessionally.
MOVE ON!
I have written an article of best practices of how to deal with online conflicts, when business is involved. You may benefit from reading it.
http://leanstartups.com/2009/02/how-to-deal-with-online-public-fiascoes-disagreements-miscommunications.html
I am also on Twitter at http://twitter.com/apsinkus
the point I made was that authenticity has value. It's easy to point out a comment like that as "you should never say it". What I'm bringing up is that when you have real people engaged in this medium, they might actually talk like real people vs. "customer speak". As a blogger, you know this all too well I assume.
Kevin,
I hear you loud and clear. Let me clarify. Traditional marketing and advertising will never go away and nor should it. I am one of the few people in the bubble of the social web that believes broadcast has it's place and works. I also believe "facilitation" needs a fighting chance and people like Frank Scott etc. are pioneering this space. So it's a supplement not a replacement. Sorry if I made it seem to black and white. Also, a big AMEN to your point on customer experience!
Nicholas, you asked:
"Are the brands compatible and can the two "corporate cultures" coexist?"
The best employees (personal brand included or not) are those that can positively enrich your company's culture. Some people call this "fit". In my experience, you always hire for "fit". Or call it chemistry. It can trump talent and experience. Just a personal opinion.
It's a good thing personalities are revealed behind the brand Twitter accounts and it is great that brands have come to allow personal expression so we know who the man or woman behind the curtain is. It definitely helps and makes sense in a personal expression medium like Twitter. What seems to be at issue here with Ray and Scott is the idea that Scott solely brands himself through his ID that makes it difficult to find Ford for those who are not aware of Scott as Ford's Twitter ambassador.
I wrote about this topic in a recent blog (http://automarketingblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-twitter-right-for-automotive.html) and felt this whole situation would be moot if guys like Scott simply did something like create an account called @Scott_at_Ford or something similar this would assist with the search issues and would also communicate "Ford" in each of his posts for the brand.
I've thought about that angle and it's an interesting one. It would mean that every time someone like Scott takes a job such as the one he performs for Ford, they would have to change their social ID. For example, Twitter.com/scottmonty had many thousands of followers before he joined Ford. So he would either have to change his name to what you suggested, or start a new account from scratch (which he's already done for several products/services).
It's a valid question. I guess the decision for folks like Scott who do social media full time for their company is do they change their ID's to reflect it once in the job?
I can't answer that question. Personally, I feel in Scott's case—his employment with Ford is very clear, and perhaps the Twitter search engine will start to pick up Ford's mention in his bio.
I see two interesting factors at work. With social media, Monty has been able to show a human aspect of the Ford brand that otherwise had no outlet through traditional marketing channels. It takes some courage for corporate management to give Monty the freedom to engage with people in real-time. There's no script and no corporate review. Somebody believes in him and the power of social media. And we all know they'd shut him down in a minute if that trust didn't exist.
A second factor, and the cool one, is that Monty is showing us all how to use this new medium to break down the artificial corporate persona that consumers loathe. That means acknowledging that he's a real guy with a life and a family and a particular personality (he wears bow ties and loves Sherlock Holmes). He's teaching us that social media is about a new attitude towards marketing and communications.
So, I buy that Armano's new term "brandividuals" is a useful concept. That still leaves the question of how much brand equity sticks with Monty and how much sticks with Ford? Realistically, any one of us that does great work for a client gets a return on that effort in the form of an enhanced reputation. Why should Monty be any different? So, he's enhancing his personal stature and value. Isn't that one of the rewards of doing a good job?
On the other hand, how does Ford protect its investment? This would be my advice to CEO Mulally:
1. You can't entirely delegate your commitment to social media. To get lasting value from Monty, you need to draft behind him and experience the power of Twitter first hand. That means spending some time with the tools and building your own social media brand.
2. Mandate that the entire executive team get their hands dirty and write a blog post and set up a Twitter account.
3. Empower Monty to spread this new philosophy through the organization and build centers of competence by department or function.
4. As part of your corporate governance, determine exactly how to balance this new transparency and openness with the needs to manage a corporate reputation. Without this step, the spirit of social media will be snuffed out after the first snafu.
For me, these are the fascinating topics that social media has introduced into the marketing world. If you want, you can argue with me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/philjohnson
Philip's statement is spot on. To quote Philip, "Monty is showing us all how to use this new medium to break down the artificial corporate persona that consumers loathe." Very true. Having a human voice is very important.
David, your point about having to create a new Twitter account every time a social media person moves companies is definitely a flaw in my suggestion of doing something like Scott_at_Ford. Your point actually makes a strong case for my preference which is to simply brand the account with the company name, just like Jet Blue, Comcast, and Zappos have done. Sure there is a clearly known person's name behind these branded Twitter accounts and that should be. It supports Philip's excellent point.
The best part is the brand continues uninterrupted once a person leaves the company and nothing has to start all over. Sure the new person has to build a reputation, but people understand people leave companies and they can 'vote' by un-following the new person if they don't like the new personality. That's why it is important for companies to find effective communicators, like Scott, to support their brand engagement on Twitter.
If Twitter really does have staying power, it is important the brand own the relationship and effort of gaining followers and that the audience doesn't leave with the person.
Knowing Scott, he gets reputation and would definitely help in any handoff once he does leave Ford. But trying to transition a mass audience is never easy so there would be a decent amount of drop-off that the new Ford Twitterer would have to rebuild.
"Your point actually makes a strong case for my preference which is to simply brand the account with the company name, just like Jet Blue, Comcast, and Zappos have done."
Scott has already created several accounts under the ford name. They are:
@FordDriveOne, @FordDriveGreen, @FordCustService, @FordMustang, @FordTrucks.
None of them have the amount of Scott's followers because as I mentioned, Scott built his reputation prior to joining Ford. This means that the priority for Ford will be to grow initiatives such as this, but Scott Monty will still be attached to the Ford brand and vice-versa for as long as he stays there and will undoubtedly attract new followers rapidly. Those new followers for Scott BTW will not be following him just because they interested in buy a new car. They hope to learn from him.
So the argument over identity is really moot. People following Scott on Twitter do so because he identified himself as the social media guy at Ford. Sure, he had more than a few friends follow him based on his stature, but it's clear that the vast majority of people following him do so because he works for Ford.
Why?
Because they saw it as an opportunity to talk to a *person* at Ford, rather than a faceless entity. And I think that in itself justifies his strategy of not hiding behind the brand. There was an obvious hunger among Ford fans for a person who would give them access. Scott is that guy for now. But his personal fame in the role does not mean that someone else can't fill that role in the future. It just means that someone always *should* be filling that role for the brand.
You bring up some really good points. I checked with Scott and prior to working at Ford he had just over 3k followers on Twitter He now has over 12k. But I'm not sure you can dismiss that earlier number. Anyone on the network will tell you that to generate a quality following of 3k on your own is significant. It took @comcastcares who has nearly 11k followers many months of 1-1 customer service just to reach the 5k mark.
So I don't know if it's moot—but to your point the distinction is work calling out and putting numbers behind. It's also worth noting that people don't want to talk to Scott just about Ford. Have a look through his conversations, you'll see a mix of personal, social media related, Ford related, and other topics in there. Again, this is the blurring I speak of.
http://twitter.com/ScottMonty
Thanks for the comment, a solid point.
Sure, it's risky to afford "star" power to an individual or individuals in association with your brand. If the people leave, they take the stardom with them. But if you have solid and reliable people in these roles, it can be incredibly beneficial. People feel like they are getting to know the inviduals who work at for the brand, and for many that creates increased brand affinity.
So essentially, I'm saying this blurring you speak of can be a good thing for a brand if it is managed well.
And BTW, my name is Bob ;-)
http://beancast.us