For no reason other than curiosity I decided to look up the Twitter feeds for the corporate names of the top 20 brands on Interbrand's Best Global Brands list.
As you can see, a combination of squatters, locked accounts, actual people who happen to share a name with a brand, and the occasional brand actually using their Twitter name (Intel and Google).
Clearly not scientific. I'm sure many of these brands have accounts under different names (e.g. a brand name within their portfolio) or use a shortened version of their corporate name (e.g. Coke v Coca Cola). But it is uncanny to look at them all in one place.
Not sure what to make of this, but I am struck by the lack of activity.
Thoughts? Opportunities? Observations? Warnings? Anyone from these brands care to comment - I'm sure readers would be interested to hear (1) if you own your own name and (2) if you have any plans for it.
Wow. Not controlling your brand in the social media space is just asking for trouble. These brands should seriously rethink this space.
Posted by: Rich | May 21, 2009 at 03:39 PM
I find this absolutely fascinating. Especially McDonald's - one of the best brands in the world if you ask me. I admire almost everything that they do. I'm very surprised. Thanks for posting, Ian.
Posted by: Nick S. | May 21, 2009 at 05:20 PM
Rich and Nick: The only thing I caution against is assuming that none of these brands have active Twitter presence. In fact, I got a Tweet yesterday from @Alicia_at_Honda telling me how hard it is for some of these brands to secure their name before a squatter gets there.
Posted by: Ian | May 22, 2009 at 08:43 AM
Hmm tried to post comment yesterday and wasn't sure if it came through..
It's looks like some brands are having some luck: http://twitter.com/palm/status/1885166129
I remember not too long ago it wasn't that hard to get Twitter to help with squatters. I'm sure the requests became too much to handle but if they don't want people selling profiles why not hire someone full-time to just handle these? They hired someone to take care of celebs...I guess brands aren't as important?
I also don't believe that CNN did not pay the owner of @CNNbreak as part of their agreement to take it over. Their workaround was saying they brought him in for "consulting".
Posted by: Johnny | May 23, 2009 at 12:09 PM
I thought the "consulting" statement was a bit odd myself. But I get why they have to say that. It's an interesting situation, and one that I think will play itself out over and over again.
Posted by: Ian | May 23, 2009 at 03:50 PM