I was shopping the other day and noticed a product on-shelf that had the coolest packaging. Then, I read Brandweek, and noticed that an article in there was featuring this packaging, and the strategy behind it. I was just about to tweet that article… but I stopped myself.

As I was finishing up the article, I realized that the article went on and mentioned several products that my company was in direct competition with. This was where I stopped with tweeting process. I found myself asking the question: if I tweeted this, would I be somehow endorsing my competitor?

I was not asking this question because I would think that my company would somehow get involved. I was asking this question because I am loyal to the entity that pays my paycheck. Why would I want to promote my competitor, even if it’s only in the most indirect way… I wouldn’t want to do it offline or online.

Now, this made me reconsider who controls the information on the social networks?

First, let’s consider that much of the information on the social networks first get circulated by a few social media celebrities. These celebrities have large circle of influence on the various social networks. Their friends / fans / followers on these social networks redistributes the information. So, on and so forth, and the information spreads.

Many of these social media celebrities are self-employed consultants. However, many of them also have ties with big corporations. They could have projects with them. They could be employed by them during the day. They could be formerly employed by them. They could just have lots of friends in these big corporations. They could just love the products these corporations make. So, are the information they provide completely neutral and without bias?

I think we know that these individuals have enough influences in their own rights that they are quite free to speak their mind. However, to say that their real-life connections with these corporations have no bearing on their message seem just naive. Their messages are always influenced by their real-life experiences with the companies.

Social networks online are always ever-so-intricately intertwined with real-life experiences offline.

What does this mean?

I’ve heard too many comments that go along the lines of “how should my company leverage social networks?”

For many companies, the right question to ask should be “how should my company leverage my real-life networks online?”

Companies have long talked about their fear of participating on social networks, because they’d lose control. The truth is the only thing they ever controlled was how people would interacted with their brands. If they have 100% control of this, they have control of social media.

If you know that every interactions people have with your brand is positive, messages about your brand on social media would only be positive. Nothing has actually changed.

Photo credit: most talked about brands – 2008, originally uploaded by Will Lion.

I watch a lot of TV. Inevitably, I watch a lot of TV commercials.

And perhaps I’m growing old and have already started reminiscing about the good old times… when TV commercials actually featured company websites.

Within one show, I have seen multiple commercials that had a call-to-action to a social media site, such as facebook and youtube.

I posted about a month ago asking Whose Commercial Is It? when commercials place more attention to an iPhone app than having a good service / product.

At that time, I commented that Coldwell Banker’s execution was an interesting approach. They integrated the technology message with their superior service message. Technology, including apps, would just be another way for them to service you better. Today, they employed the same approach with www.youtube.com/coldwellbanker. It was just another way for them to deliver valuable information. However, I questioned if this was necessary. Couldn’t the video live on their own branded website? Well, at least youtube gave you the ability to brand a “channel” completely and entirely. So, I guess if you had to pick a social media site, youtube would be a good choice.

On the other hand, www.facebook.com/hgtv was, in my opinion, less successful. The commercial did not point you to HGTV.com for more design tips, etc. There wasn’t even a “be a friend with the designers” type message. The website was just there. What’s the point? Why? In addition, in case you didn’t know, there was no way to brand a facebook page.

So, yes, I ask, what has social media done to branding?

Though, Coca-Cola demonstrated that there is a way to be both social media savvy (is that a phrase?) and be mindful of your brand equity at the same time. They launched their own version of short URL with cokeurl.com, fully branded. This allowed them to be friendly with social media, while making sure that their brand got all the attention it deserved.

So, my conclusion is: Being savvy about social media is great. But being involved with social media is at the end of the day a tactic. Social media marketing is just part of the marketing mix of a given marketing campaign. But any good marketing campaign has to be good at the basic. And the brand will always be the foundation of any marketing campaign. You have worked hard to build your brand, and your brand, hopefully, will last forever. Marketing campaigns, and the associated marketing mix, will change. Never compromise your forever for the sake of now.

Photo credit: Wordle Cloud of the Internet Marketing Blog – 08/15/08, originally uploaded by DavidErickson.