Brands and Avatars: Good Idea or Epic Fail?

By Scott Hepburn | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (2)

Apple LogoJust for fun, David Spinks and I decided to pick a fight. The topic: Is it a good idea to slap a brand logo on your avatar? Or, more broadly, where do advertising, transparency and common sense intersect in social media?

I’ll let David kick things off:

Don’t Brand Your Avatar Please

People have come up with some interesting forms of advertising recently. We’ve seen tattoos, sponsored tweets and now there’s talk of branded avatars; that is unaffiliated users adding a brand logo to their twitter avatar. In concept this may seem like a good idea and as long as the user is willing, who cares?

I’m not saying it won’t work to drive traffic/make money for either party…but here is why it’s a bad idea:

  1. Misrepresentation. An ad is clearly an ad. A sponsored post should always have full disclosure. If you have someone put your logo on their avatar, there’s no upfront disclosure. You could put it in your bio but most people don’t look at your bio after they’ve followed you. This will mislead people to believe that the user is a representative of your brand. That won’t end well for either party when the user is contacted by your customers with questions, or if they slip up and make your brand look really bad…to name a couple of the many issues that could occur.
  2. Increased importance placed on numbers. I’m assuming brands will choose twitter users with a lot of followers. Increased focus on number of followers encourages spam and a disengaged userbase.
  3. Sacrifice of reputation. The same issue that people are bringing up with sponsored tweets, this will ruin the twitter user’s reputation. Their followers probably follow them because they provide content that is valuable to them. If they’re paid to share content, their credibility goes down the drain.
  4. Dehumanization. It’s one thing if you actually work for a brand and you add their logo to your avatar. It humanizes the company by putting a face with it, and it ties the individual to the brand they represent. If the user does not represent the company however, the brand logo on their avatar will only dehumanize them.

So is the traffic/money worth it? I’d say no…what do you say?

I Say…What’s Good for Dale Earnhardt is Good for Me

Does tattooing a corporate logo on your Twitter avatar cross into advertising no-no?

David makes some great arguments against human billboards, but here’s why I’m okay with it: Endorsing brands is as American as apple pie (with a refreshing dollop of Cool Whip).

Nascar FansAttend any NASCAR event and you’ll see fans decked head to toe in Budweiser, FedEx, Sharpie, and Frosted Flakes apparel. Do you really think Joe Sixpack wants to tell the world he’s a Viagra man? Of course not. He’s traded a small sliver of his editorial integrity to support his driver – and the sponsor that keeps the race team in business.

If we can sell out for the brands that sponsor of our favorite drivers, why not wave a flag for the companies we actually admire? We do it on Facebook all the time (I’m a fan of Wegmans, by the way). And if Tony Stewart can get paid to wear an Old Spice logo, why can’t I?

The social media glitterati are quick to beat the “full disclosure” drum – as if to say, “Ha Ha! I have a client…nanny-nanny-boo-boo!”  Enough already.

What exactly constitutes full disclosure, anyway? Is a single Tweet sufficient? Should I put a disclosure in my bio? On the about page of my blog? What if someone misses my disclosure statement?

I think we get overzealous in our call for transparency. Does anyone ask Jeff Gordon for full disclosure before he sips a Pepsi in victory lane? The average American understands that sponsorships subsidize the things they enjoy for free, and that includes blogs.

I’m not against transparency. But I do think a little common sense is sufficient. If I tattoo Ford’s blue oval on my forehead, it’s safe to assume I’m either a diehard fan, handsomely paid by Ford, or both. Do you really need a disclosure?

And frankly, if you’re compelled to buy a Ford because the logo’s tattooed on my forehead, you’ve got bigger things to worry about than my transparency.

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader.

Tags:
Topics: Social Media
  • As someone who tweets for a particular brand (@1800GOTJUNK) it's pretty obvious who I am speaking for. I am not sure if I could be disclose any more than I already have. What I am seeing more and more often is people using social media to endorse the companies they like and raise issues over companies and services that have not met their expectations. This is something that everyone does all the time. I like the point that whenever anyone wears a team's jersey it can be assumed they really like that team. The Nascar concept is a bit different. The drivers are sponsored by a brand and then the fans wear that brand because they are supporting the driver. It's effective marketing, but I am not going to assume that someone likes Tide so much that they are going to drape themselves in the logo.
    The beauty of social media is it's necessary transparency. I think that is it's real strength and the more people reveal who they are and who they speak for the more constructive the conversations will become.
    Being on Twitter is like being at a party where everyone is wearing their business cards on their foreheads.
  • I'm with Scott here.

    You don't have to turn to Nascar races to find people are who happy serving as human billboards. In person people brand themselves all of the time with logos, whether they be from designers, sports teams, or actual brands. Sometimes it's a show of support, others a show of irony. Either way, it promotes brand awareness, it doesn't come with a disclosure, and it's so common that we hardly notice it.

    Why should an avatar on a social network be any different?

    The Social Network upper-class of digital natives love to pretend that networks are sacrosanct and shouldn't be perverted by this sort of casual marketing presence, but SM is just a digital representation of our physical selves. If you'd wear an Apple shirt in real life, why not emblazon your avatar with a logo in a show of support? If you won't go anywhere without your Uggs, why not make your avatar equally as Uggy?

    Personally, I try to get away with living my life as unbranded as I possibly can, and I'm sure my avatar will stay the same. But, I've long since given up sneering at people in Baby Phat jackets or Phillies t-shirts. For people not as OCD about their personal brand image as me (or David, I suspect), providing a tacit sartorial endorsement is a way of feeling included in a movement with other people - whether that's the movement of an obscure rock band or an AIDS ribbon.

    What makes it any different if it's a Gap logo or a green avatar in support of Iran?
  • No one's paying you to support Iran.

    I think that's the issue I have. If you're a big fan of a brand, or even just want to look cool...then logo away. I think it crosses the line when a user is being paid to sport the logo. It's untruthful and misleading. On twitter, I don't think there's any way to legitimately disclose this arrangement and therefore it shouldn't be done.
  • While I feel that writing a sponsored blog post or leaving comments on the behalf of a brand is worthy of clear and specific disclosure, I have trouble making a distinction between avatar advertisements and advertisements on someone's physical person - paid or otherwise

    When a character in a television show prominently uses a brand, we assume it could be because that placement was a paid consideration. Race car drivers are obviously being paid to wear logos or appear in commercials.

    Yet, is it always assumed and obvious? Scott says it's a matter of common sense, but I'm sure many people see those advertisements as completely organic, which is exactly the intent of their placement. Similarly, if I saw an Apple tattoo I'd assume it was organic support, not paid support.

    In both the former cases, a fictional character is doing the advertising - yes, even the race car driver's public persona is partial fiction. You'd be hard-pressed to name a paid visual endorsement in real life that isn't at least partially fictional due to a personally being filtered through a lens of a PR person or media coverage.

    The Apple endorsement is personal, which is why it seems so shocking. We're encountering it without any filter or context. Person-to-person.

    Because of that, what I feel like the two of you are arguing here is digital authenticity. Does Twitter represent a personal relationship or a fictional one? Because, if it's personal, then endorsement would be shocking, and David would win the argument.

    While the three of us likely all take a personal approach to Twitter, I would posit that all online identities are inherently fictional because they are selective - filtered and with context. It would be impossible to attain the shock value of an Apple tattoo online, as there is an inherent untrustworthiness in an online identity.

    Is avatar advertisement misrepresenting and dehumanizing. Yes. AS MARKETERS, should we hold ourselves to a higher ethical standard? Yes. But if we're talking about a one-to-many online relationship on a blog or on Twitter, then the persona in the avatar is just as fictional as any other endorser we'd encounter in life.

    That means I agree with Scott: the same common sense applies, even if each person is not uniformly armed with it.
  • Like most general questions, I think the answer is "it depends."

    Are logos in avatars good? It depends on many factors and I'll bet we could all come up with examples of cases where it is good, where it is bad, and where its very debatable.

    E.g.,

    Good: As more companies execute social media "embassy" strategies, it makes sense for individual "ambassadors" to brand their avatars. This not only makes it clear when your dealing with an ambassador from, say Comcast, IBM, MS, etc., if done well, it can help to enhance brand equity. (Of course, if done poorly, it could detract from it.)

    Bad: A brand pays otherwise unrelated folks to sport the brand on their avatar. This is pretty much the opposite of the previous example. It creates confusion about who your dealing with and itis very likely to reflect badly on the brand.

    Debatable: An individual sports a logo for a brand they are affiliated with but on an avatar for a persona that is only sometimes in the role of ambassador for that brand.
  • I like the way you outlined some different scenarios here, Andy. That's exactly what I was hoping for: Deeping and added dimension to the discussion.

    Other scenarios that tease out the boundaries of this debate:

    * Is an unaffiliated individual who wears "official team apparel" of Team Rackspace or Team Mac any different than someone who wears the apparel of the Dallas Cowboys?

    * If a brand (let's say Snickers) pays me to wear their logo as facepaint on Twitter, should I disclose? Am I know a spokesperson? Or does my "endorsement" begin and end at being pretty?

    * If a marketing/PR pro does "the right thing" by disclosing a client relationship when expressing love for a brand, is he doing "the wrong thing" by not professing his admiration for a brand that competes with his client?

    * I love McAlister's Deli (FULL DISCLOSURE: They're a client.) (EVEN FULLER DISCLOSURE: Their baked potatoes are friggin' amazing!)
  • David
    This is one of the best blog stories I've read for a while - what a great debate.

    While I'd back Mr. Hepburn in a real fight, there is no danger of getting hurt here so I'm throwing my lot in with the Spinkster!

    The whole idea of selling one's avatar space is just ridiculous. You want to show your love for a brand? No worries, just look at all the Apple logos you see planted all over the place by the Jobs army of fanboys and girls. I have no problem with that enthusiasm, heck my avatar is my brand - ME!

    But here's my big problem, I'm a marketing guy that hates marketing. I'll go to great lengths to avoid all advertising - I'm an inbound marketing persons dream subject. If Twitter (or other social media hangouts) becomes too spammy and overrun with advertising, I'm out.

    Have you ever seen anything uglier than that NASCAR gear? Why not just wear a label that says moron? People actually walk around like that, even here in New England. Actually, Michael Schumacher in that nasty Marlboro kit was just as bad, but at least Virgin with Brawn F1 is a cool brand!
  • I like the compromise. A photo (aka Human) with some type of logo, name, background that denotes the brand representation (see @http://twitter.com/LauraOatNing).

    Although, when the account is purely for information syndication/distribution, or not on Twitter (see Facebook pages) a logo usually makes the most sense for clarity's sake.
  • I think branding within avatars is better then a disclosure. You are clearly setting yourself up as a voice for that particular idea/brand. You don't have to disclose something...because the branding is already implied/assumed. I actually have "The Lost Jacket" in my avatar because I think it lends more credence to who I am and the company I represent.
  • Just wanted to note that I agree with Stuart -- when the person is an actual representative of the brand (e.g., The Lost Jacket). But I believe most of David and Scott's points relate to a paid avatar sponsorship.
  • I see no reason problem bedecking yourself with a brand affiliated with, although sporting an employer's logo still raises questions: Can an employer compel you to embrace the logo? Should you disclose that you draw a paycheck from the company whose logo you wear? Etc., etc.

    Kellye, to your point: Why should readers assume my opinion is "genuine" or "unbiased", but Jeff Gordon's is not? Are we not both working men trying to earn a living? He provides entertainment, I provide entertainment. His "work" draws an audience, my "work" draws an audience. Why must I live by a higher standard.

    As a former journalist, I understand the arguments for objectivity, transparency, etc. But are all bloggers journalists? And should marketing bloggers have the same standards of disclosure as, say, literary bloggers? Should our standard be stricter or looser.

    Heck, in this industry, you might be best to make the default assumption that I'm paid by another company. It's pretty much a given. (Editor's note: I mean that sort of tongue-in-cheek. Sort of.)

    But back to logos and avatars. I think that's different than, say, being paid by Target to say nice things about Target on my blog. A logo tattooed on my forehead is a pretty upfront disclosure, if you ask me.

    I dunno...I just like arguing.
  • Scott- congrats on having the first post ever to use the phrase "nanny nanny boo boo!" This post is a nice point/counter-point, and I have to disagree with you on this one.

    Social media differs from a racecar driver sipping a Pepsi because here, we are offering our (supposedly genuine) opinions. Is it fair to allow your followers to assume you're a diehard fan of a product, when in fact you're being paid to give that impression?

    I recently shared my thoughts on some of these issues (http://soloprpro.com/what-disclosure-issues-mea... ), and I think we're only going to see more of these sticky situations as the media continues to evolve. The more we talk about it, the better off we'll be as new quagmires emerge -- so thanks for getting us thinking.
blog comments powered by Disqus