Company communications out of the blue come off as having an extremely exaggerated sense of self-importance. I have a hard enough time keeping up with friends and other desirable contacts on a regular basis, yet your stupid company thinks I want to see your weekly E-mail spams or “notifications” (read: ads) every day on my phone? (And we all know they’d send you “notifications” every 5 minutes if the damn platform didn’t step in to prevent it.)
This is much harder on social media because (1) you don't control the platform and (2) there's often an emphasis on linking in-platform identities to who we are in the real world. The strategy of social media is to get you into a relationship where they hold all the power.
Edit: If they do ever bag on you, though...ask how they make the chili.
Any questionable patty from the grill goes in a unrefrigerated pan, all day long. Then, they mix in the beans/sauce and freeze it for 30 plus days. It's a notable exception to their militant "never frozen", "fresh", schtick. Odd, since the burgers are actually done well, and are fresh.
Honestly, that sounds perfectly fine. The best ground beef has been thoroughly browned, that's probably why people think their chili tastes so good.
If it was unhealthy, people would be getting sick from eating Wendy's chilli all the time, but obviously they are not.
We should be encouraging more companies to reduce their waste, but you're on a weird hate crusade instead.
It is, likely, different across franchises.
It is a fine line between being charming and creepy. The person who made the tweets in the article isn't even trying.
ask how they make the chili
It's also tacky and annoying. None of the intended participants in the conversation want that, and that kind of behavior is either going push the conversation onto private channels or motivate blocking.
A lot of people value an audience of "real people like me, minus the corporate hustlers and corporate ad-bots." It's unfortunate that are current society lets the latter swoop in an choke to death all kinds of good things.
Your analogy doesn't fit to twitter though because this guy isn't having a private conversation; he's broadcasting his opinions publicly to the world. Imagine someone with a megaphone in an outdoor mall shouting about how shitty a company is. People would probably love the idea of a rival from another company engaging with that guy and saying "yeah, they suck, that's why I started this company, check us out." I doubt many people would find it creepy.
And yeah, brands aren't people. But guess what? Brands are made out of people, and those people have just as much a right to be on Twitter as you do!
There are lots of forms of electronic communication that are non-public. If you don't want people reading what you say, use those.
You don't expect big corporations to have spies listening to every conversation in a random party in your local park, but you don't mind other people joining in, it's kinda the point.
People think of social media as a big party of real people, not as a massive corporate espionage listening to every conversation for certain trigger words so they can slimely sidle up, butt into the conversation and try and sell you something.
People expect Facebook and Twitter to be local, and forget, because that's how human society works, but not computers.
Whether it's a couple of friends joking about defacing Marilyn Monroe's grave (with no real intention) or someone moaning about their internet, they don't expect to be watched by tens of thousands of corporations and hundreds of governments.
I want to be able to comment on-line without having tens, hundreds or thousands of companies creating profiles of my personality.
People need to get back their position in politics, economics and the public space. If every conversation is exploited to sell more products, how can we as a society have honest open conversations in the public space?
Sadly, even in the private space (WhatsApp, Facebook, etc.) there is also data collection and commercialization of people private lives.
Yes, it is public. But, no, it is not acceptable to transform everything public in a product.
I was complaining about a property management company who sent everyone in my neighborhood a letter warning us that renters would be moving in, and asking us to keep an eye on them and report back.
They showed up, really defensive, claiming that they didn't want us to spy on their renters, just report issues like if a fence had fallen over (pretty sure the renters can handle telling their landlord themselves). Then they said they were going to send a new letter to clarify.
After more of my friends replied and said their "explanation" didn't really change anything they deleted their promises, and never sent any follow up letters.
Good job company, you really convinced me you're not creepy.
Is it fair game? Maybe. Does that mean I should just accept it? Hell no.
It would be cool if Twitter had a moderated option, like how many blogs manage comments.
"Sky Media sucks? Move to Virgin Media and we'll give you 6 months free if you tweet that you did."
I could see that being a more effective strategy.
Every other initiation of information from a company is invasive, creepy and unacceptable.
Perhaps users who wish to should see a list of 3rd party apps and be able to choose which programmatically granted access to their public timeline. Why is there no gradation between private to my select friends and public to the entire world and all of its annoying APIs?
And more amusingly they now consider the rapper and "parks and rec" actor from the commercial to be part of their brand. Not sure what that even means but they are on the login screen now. Makes no sense
Twitter allows for the mass importation of block lists.
Is there an active project to create a master list of corporate accounts to block?
But what if you start getting 10 of these 'offers' per every tweet you send? That sounds like terrible user experience and something Twitter would need to address internally.
In marketing circles, this is an encouraged marketing technique to generate more sales/leads. I know a lot of hosting companies who employ similar tactics.
What's creepy is when an employee acts like they have no autonomy or personality beyond the brand.
All social media support from big companies tends to feel like that. Social media people who don't have access to accounts or no nothing about the product and are essentially a thin wrapper to forward your query on.
In particular, I'm quite fond of our Film & Lit Classification Office: https://twitter.com/NZOFLC/status/1096147661390995456
1: Size of company — does it matter if the company engaging with a random tweet is big or small? If it’s the founder/creator who is doing the outreach, versus some member of the marketing team?
2: Is it OK for a company’s twitter account to “like” a tweet that complains about a competitor or voiced a problem that the company’s products are aimed to solve?
Of course any technical startup could and would probably spend half a day - not $$$ - on a simple script to do what BrandsEye does, minus the UI that Sky only needs because it's putting it in the hands of marketing/social media dept.
I think it can go both ways - if it's a small company, I'm left wondering why are they spending (presumably) meagre resources watching Twitter so closely, but a large company clearly has money to spend (obviously this is a massive generalisation). But on the other hand, outreach from a small company feels more genuine, whereas from a larger company it just feels like they had a marketing team/money to throw at it.
> Is it OK for a company’s twitter account to “like”...
No - it's the same as negative ads-it leaves a poor taste in my mouth.
2. It will reflect poorly in my mind if you jump on any opportunity to shoehorn your company or product online. Cheap, cheesey and opportunistic are three words that come to mind when I think about that situation.
He reached out a couple of times a year, put time into the email to make it entertaining, and only tried to pitch items that were of high quality.
Now compare that to the shit you get from Amazon, Ebay, and your phone company.
Said brand was "the two-person studio who made the game I tweeted a screenshot of".
Used to be, but now I got used to it
I do have some professional exposure to GDPR and the way compliance lawyers treat GDPR, profiling etc. So if I'm really of the charts, please point it out, but these firms behaviour would be behaviour I would warn against internally. I wouldn't touch externally built profiles with a 10ft pole.