As I have written before, I keep 2 Twitter identities, one of which is one of our brands, Wrox.  The identities are distinctly different, but both “me” – @chriswebb is Chris Webb, editor who talks about publishing, social applications and their occasional intersection.  @wrox is still Chris Webb, editor, but the conversation focuses on programming, web development, .NET and other topics of interest to Wrox readers.

Why keep them separate?  Well, followers of @wrox may not care at all about what @chriswebb has to say about social media and publishing in general, while @chriswebb followers probably are not interested in the latest ASP.NET MVC release.  It is not obvious to @wrox followers that it is Chris Webb behind the username (although I don’t really hide that fact,) and I don’t think they care.  To them it’s just Wrox – a source of programming books and online content.

I touched on this subject briefly via Twitter earlier today, and got an intersting comment from a follower of both @wrox and @chriswebb:

@wrox is fundamentally different than, say, @mcdonalds or @tylenol
@wrox has the ability to gather a community (in this case developers) into one, big conversation. it’s a great experiment.

But back to Shel’s point – is Wrox being social or is it all just Chris Webb?  Is part of what defines the Wrox brand already social?  What do you think?

An early adopter of Twitter, I have struggled with communicating the value of tools like it for my organization – as have many others I am sure. Today I picked up on three great posts in this theme (via @jowyang on Twitter, no doubt.)

David Armano, VP of Experience Design with Critical Mass, says Twitter is a Conversation Ecosystem, and provides some great visuals that help to drive the point home.

Explaining Twitter is an act in futility unless the person you explain it to understands the intricacies of social networks (saying conversation ecosystem is a bit abstract to someone not participating in online conversations).

And that’s really the rub, isn’t it? Getting companies immersed in “classic” models to take the time to understand the new models and find value,potential, and connection.

Forrester Senior Analyst Jeremiah Owyang says the Fabric becomes stronger as the Threads connect.

If you’re in the tech industry, and in marketing, you should be paying attention to what’s happening on twitter.

Jeremiah also brings up the “what you had for lunch” argument that is often the first response to the value of tools like Twitter. (And by the way, Twitter is just one tool – my point stands for many others as well.) I simply reject this argument now, as there are some great tools to help reduce the noise and focus on conversations that are applicable.

Forrester’s Peter Kim has published a report on Twitter (registration required) that speaks to the current demographics of Twitter users, and their reactions to branding, advertising, as well as a short list of companies like Dell, JetBlue and Carnival Cruise Lines and how they are using the tool as part of their online strategy.

Six percent of online US adults use Twitter at least monthly or more frequently. Twitter users are, on average, 78% male and 31 years old, and they draw an annual income of $78,000. In comparison, members of the online US population are, on average, 49% male and 43 years old, and they draw an annual income of $68,000.

Is your company using tools like Twitter as part of its online strategy?

(Photo credit ecstaticist)

Collegaue Ellen Gerstein, who had been managing the Dummies Man Facebook profile, was recently alerted that Dummies Man was banned from using the social networking site and all evidence of him had been purged.

Your account was disabled because you violated Facebook’s Terms of Use, to which you agreed when you first registered for an account on the site. Accounts can either be disabled for repeat offenses or for one, particularly egregious violation.

Facebook does not allow users to register with fake names, to impersonate any person or entity, or to falsely state or otherwise misrepresent themselves or their affiliations.

I think this is the beginning of a very intersting discussion. We didn’t impersonate anyone – we are Dummies Man, and he was only on Facebook as a goodwill ambassador for the brand. As Ellen says,

Over the months since, Dummies Man has been friending people, commenting on profiles and fan pages, and benignly exploring the site. It wasn’t a huge organized marketing campaign, more a way for us to dip a toe of the brand into the social networking waters.

Perhaps the profile could be considered as advertising a product, which may be the rub. I wonder if this precludes other well-known brand ambassadors from having identities on Facebook? I see that the Michelin Man has a page. I wonder if Disney approached Zuckerberg about a Mickey Mouse profile what the response would be.

What do you think? Should brands be allowed to have Facebook profiles?

A recent post discusses authors using socia applications to promote their books – a great way to build the author platform we publishers often talk so much about.

Our Facebook Group is now approaching 250 members. Many thanks to everyone who has joined, contributed, posted links, images, and discussions. It’s come as no surprise to me that the most active members of this group are authors. This supports a little theory I’ve had for a while:

Authors are doing more with social media than publishers.

Well, that may be true but it’s not for lack of trying. I suppose sheer numbers might indicate there are more authors in social applications than publishers, but that stands to reason. Many of us are pushing into this space and although it is too slow for my taste. For example, our For Dummies brand is experimenting in Facebook, our Wrox imprint has a Facebook Group and a Twitter Stream. But for now these efforts are currently the work of a few ambitious individuals.

When I worked in publishing houses, the main complaint from authors – rightly or wrongly – was usually to do with marketing. Usually an accusation of a lack of marketing when a book didn’t sell. Which may have been for any number of reasons – possibly including poor marketing, but possibly also including unrealistic sales expectations, and simply publishing in a niche with a small readership, or in an area that was already crowded with competing titles.

Given the volume of titles produced, and finite resources, people and time, publishers must also prioritize. But authors have always had a role to play in marketing their own book, and the more successful ones are proactive about it.

Recently, I have also been doing some social networking in an “unofficial” capacity as a representative of one of our brands, Wrox. Primarily this experimentation is on a Wrox Facebook Group I started, and in a Wrox Twitter feed. These identities are Wrox branded, and the conversations I have are Wrox-centric. So far the growth rate of followers/members is slow, but it is picking up. I have to say that I am pleased with the results in such a short period of time as I have been able to make connections to some programmers I might not have been able to reach as easily otherwise, and it looks like I may have found some new authors and technical editors.

At some point, we will figure out what the message is we want to send to Wrox readers via these channels, but for now the important thing is that we are a part of the conversation.

I like to think that I am keeping my personal brand and my company’s brand separate, but since I am discussing both here that might not be entirely true. There is certainly often a far amount of overlap between the two, and I am not “hiding” the fact that I participate in conversations as the Wrox brand. I certainly represent the brand often at trade shows, and in conversations with partners, customers and authors.

But I wonder if keeping the social application identities separate is the right thing to do. Robert Scoble didn’t really try to do that – he is just Scobleizer. On the other hand, I don’t represent my company on this blog, my personal Twitter feed, or my Facebook Profile.

So, I wonder – is having both disingenuous, or do each serve a purpose? What do you think?

Like blogging, I see Twitter more as a disruptive Web publishing tool with ramifications to existing media business processes than I do as a way to find out when and where my friends are going to lunch and how much indigestion it gave them after.

Exactly, Twitter is a tool. The value in Twitter and other social applications lies in how you choose to leverage it.

A couple of days ago, I noted how Twitter is the sort of technology that could completely up-end subscription-driven outfits like Bloomberg or Reuters. Investors subscribe to these services and sit in front of giant consoles as editors from these organizations spit out one-liners at them — one-liners with material information to investors — in near real-time.

Yes, that’s certainly one example. Others might include using social applications like Twitter as a marketing platform to reach customers.

I’m happy to see more thinking along these lines with respect to social applications.