Think about the best TV spot you’ve ever seen. Can you name the agency that did it? Probably not.
Think about the best print ad you’ve ever seen. Any idea which agency it came from? Not likely.
When you read a profile of a successful individual in print or online, does the PR person who arranged the piece get mentioned? In almost all cases, no.
But when a social media firm posts content with links onto a client’s Facebook or Twitter feeds, is it okay for the URL shortener to include the name of the agency?
To me, it appears that the agency is promoting itself along with the client. It also seems less authentic, less organic. It may even distract from the message if, before clicking the link, a person wonders, “what is this agencyname.com?”
I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time. Do followers really care whether a link begins with bit.ly, ow.ly, goo.gl or agencyname.com?
In my social media work for clients, I try to remain transparent. If I post on a client’s Facebook or Twitter channels, followers should have no awareness of my involvement. It’s not about me, it’s about my clients.
Yes, I’ve posted links to media coverage obtained for clients on my own social accounts. But my involvement should not matter to viewers, listeners and readers.
Bud Light, K-Mart and others have had successful edgy commercials that never aired on broadcast or cable, but were shared online. If you saw them, you likely accessed them via Youtube, not through the websites of the agencies that created these viral videos.
Those agencies know that content for consumers is not about them, it’s about their clients.