
Who Is the Genius Behind Merriam-Webster's Social Media? - JoshTriplett
http://lithub.com/who-is-the-genius-behind-merriam-websters-social-media/
======
jackfrodo
Probably the funniest writeup of a twitter account I've seen:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/08/merriam...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2016/09/08/merriam_webster_dictionary_tweeted_no_one_cares_about_how_you_feel.html)

A guy writes about his brush with fame when MW was rude to him on Twitter.

~~~
BEEdwards
"Rude?"

He spent the night insulting them and they told him that no one cared, that's
not rude that's response in kind.

It might be odd seeing defensiveness from a marketing account, but it's not
unexpected. They're going for hip and cool and it's neither to let a rando
insult you.

~~~
powercf
> He spent the night insulting them and they told him that no one cared,
> that's not rude that's response in kind.

That's not true. Asking, in one tweet, if it's "narcissistically gratifying"
for MW to be the "chill dictionary" may be insulting, but not needlessly so,
as I think that's the central point he's trying to make. Overall though, they
are a meandering, somewhat pointless series of tweets, aimed at a company, and
not an individual.

Stating that "No one cares how you feel." is needlessly insulting and isn't
attempting to make any point. It's also directed at an individual, and not a
large company, so it's always going to be perceived as more cutting.

That "No one cares how you feel." is, apparently, an expression commonly used
in English teaching doesn't excuse it: the author, and the vast majority of
Tweeters didn't get the reference.

------
subpar
"That’s why our Twitter is so good: it’s not a marketing construct, it’s who
we really are."

I really wish this mind-set was more common.

~~~
Illniyar
Errr... That qoute was probably marketing.

~~~
RickS
I think it's possible to be both. It's possible to recognize that your
authentic voice is a valuable marketing asset, and thus be intentionally
authentic while also intentionally marketing.

This is ultimately the advice of a ton of content marketing/blog/thought
leader type people, including HN's patio11

~~~
Illniyar
Also, that's an interesting view, and made me contemplate something - I wonder
if it a view worth prescribing to.

Consider that it's a good idea to use your authentic voice only if that voice
sounds virtuous/good - I mean it's better for them not to say anything, or
deceive, rather then say that "We got a great marketing guy who knows how to
manipulate social media and gets us lots of press by intentionally writing
tweets that'll go viral but that don't really have anything to do with us".

If that is the case, then there are two insights:

1 - it's rather the other way around - make sure the authentic you is
something that people would like to hear rather then "use your authentic
voice".

I.E. if you don't have anything to hide, you don't need to deceive anyone.(or
try and portray yourself in a different light)

2- if as a consumer of marketing you subscribe to the philosophy that
marketing can be authentic, then you'll eventually be convinced of something
that is pure fiction since not all marketers will be authentic. As such the
best course of action for a consumer is to assume that all marketing pieces
are unauthentic.

If that is the case, is it even worth it to use an authentic voice? like in
the case above, even if you are being authentic, there are many people who
will consider you an hypocrite by "trying to sound authentic", which could be
worse for sales/brand-awareness then being obviously unauthentic.

Perhaps even if your authentic void is just right you should consider
appearing unauthentic, so that people will not perceive you as being
artificially authentic.

Perhaps the best marketing is sarcasm about your self/company/product?

~~~
hood_syntax
In my limited experience, presenting an open and self aware honesty coupled
with comfortable humor (for me it's often self-deprecating) is the best way to
endear yourself to people. You're right that being perceived as inauthentic is
the death knell for attempting to engage with people; it's a tight line to
walk but I think it's possible for a lot of people if they take their stress
and tension out of the conversation.

My favorite social media success of the past year (at least I think it was the
past year) was the Hamburger Helper mixtape. They enlisted some talented local
artists to produce a genuinely entertaining piece of marketing that was self
aware enough to avoid being seen as a "fellow kids" stunt. It was honest about
its nature, and its quality allowed it to breach the trust gap.

------
welanes
What makes Merriam-Webster stand apart from others is that it doesn't feel
overly contrived.

The Denny blog - [http://blog.dennys.com/](http://blog.dennys.com/) \- is
similar. A hilarious blend of surrealism and non-sequitur.

I've never eaten Denny's in my life but I hope it's as delicious as its social
media is witty.

~~~
legodt
The Denny's blog reads as overly contrived to more "hip with the youth"
audiences because it is constantly trying way too hard to jump on the latest
trends in slang, internet grammar, memes, etc. The complete void of brand
values or content on Denny's media presence (as all values have been replaced
by eddying internet culture) makes for an unpleasant aftertaste once the
original novelty leaves. It just leaves the audience feeling exploited or at
the very least patronized. Building a brand voice requires a clear story to
tell and "authenticity" (blech, I know) in how you deliver that narrative to
audiences. The Denny's online brand has no story other than keeping up with
disposable internet ephemera (nihilism is in this year for memes, run with
it!) and as a result rings hollow.

~~~
welanes
Perhaps. But when you consider the platform each targets (Denny's on Tumblr -
younger, values visual content. Merriam-Webster on Twitter - older, values
witty shortform word) this is excusable.

------
dilemma
Good social media is a sign of a good organization. Why? Because it shows it
gives employees the autonomy they need to do a good job. Poor organizations on
the other hand sound canned and corporate because they have to follow some
type of guidelines and get things approved before publication.

------
parsnipsumthing
Is anyone concerned that these institutions are trading a level of detached
respect for a temporary boost in popularity? I really don't need my dictionary
to be "woke" and I'm not sure I enjoy listening to it shade people on the
internet.

I think it weakens trust in institutions when they are all willing to stoop to
the lowest common denominator.

~~~
Declanomous
I think it's a question of professionalism and whether it interferes with
their ability to achieve their primary mission. I think the fact that Merriam
Webster is a descriptive dictionary, rather than a prescriptive one makes a
difference here. A lot of words are being coined and redefined on social
media, and you could argue that by demonstrating a proficiency at interacting
on these mediums they are also making an argument for their competence.

I personally think it's fine. I care about the quality of the dictionary, not
the quality of their marketing, but marketing plays an important role in
making money. I assume they'd have a twitter account no matter what, and this
is probably better marketing than whatever a "professional" account would look
like. Since I doubt their irreverence will put off people a substantial number
of people from buying dictionaries, I'd say their account is probably a good
thing.

I mean, it's a dictionary. It's not like they have a substantial role in world
politics or anything.

------
Qwertystop
> (“This vending machine uses pizza as a verb; I thought you should know.”)

I have to wonder: 1: How? 2: Vending machine pizza?

------
eternalban
Since when is a point in space -- "between" \-- the answer to a "what"
question?

~~~
Tomte
What is the _place_ [...]?

I certainly expect a point in space here, either in physical space or in
metaphorical space.

