Archived Post
How much should a founder be involved in a brand's social media?
It’d be nice to get interviews or some feel for the founder when it comes to newer brands or ones that have a real story behind them, but too often, founders are incapable of behaving professionally for long. I think that they should consider having personal accounts and sharing some behind-the-scenes aspects of what they do, but they need to be very careful about interacting with customers on social media.
— Christine
With all the drama going on on Twitter regarding Deciem right now that seems to be very sensible advice.
I would prefer that founders leave PR to the trained and talented professionals they [hopefully] hire. When a new palette is first announced with terrible punctuation and grammar on the founder’s instagram, or a skincare company owner starts communicating awkward messages to his suppliers via public tweets, or a brand owner responds rudely to consumer concerns, I’m less likely to purchase their products.
So much this! The CEO/owner would not likely write the copy for marketing materials. The CEO/owner would not likely be in the lab specifically mixing ingredients for products. While they may sign off or give approval for these things, they would certainly allow the experts to do the work first. Social media is no different. I don’t follow a company on social media because I want to witness someone’s meltdowns or personal vendettas being aired out. I want to learn more about the products and the company.
Couldn’t agree more with what you’ve said, Christine. There’s a good reason why big brands have huge PR teams (more often that not the owners have them, too).
I notice that there’s a dangerous trend of brands wanting to be our friends. It does feel nice to know there’s a real person behind stuff I like, but this creates room for emotional exploitation. The loyalty isn’t build on solid products anymore but on feelings the brand makes us feel. In the end, even the drama/tea-spilling/we-have-receipts attitude benefits the brand. When something unprofessional happens, who’s side are you on? Are you gonna keep purchasing from the brand? Are you a fan or a hater? In marketing world being polarizing is better than being neutral, especially in the digital era run by “relatable” influencers.
On a side note – I believe some brands could benefit from having a more clear disjunction between the owner and the brand itself. I like Too Faced, ABH and KvD (even though their products aren’t always top notch) but I’m usually disgruntled with Jared, Norvina and Kat.
I think they should let the products be front and center, not themselves. While they can draw buyers in, they can also repel. For example, because of a certain Kat von D statement a couple of years ago, I’ll never buy anything from that company.
What did Kat von D say?
In general I could care less about the founders, their opinions, attitudes, backstories, etc. And as for getting involved in social media, we’ve seen what a disaster that can be at many levels. Social media can be a demanding and ravenous monster that feeds off of other people. When you add to that the multitude of really nasty people out there who believe they have the right to censure and bully anyone whose opinion, appearance, or whatever they don’t like, who would want to expose themselves to that! If I were a founder, I’d rather tend to the business and leave the marketing to the pros.
The beauty biz is about making big money marketing a dream and not every founder is going to be an interesting person, have a compelling story to tell, or even be in the least bit interested in revealing anything personal about themselves (which is entirely their right and probably a lot better for them and the company). That’s why they turn to PR/marketing people to manage the brand’s image for them. There are notable exceptions like Tatcha’s founder Vicky Tsai, but for most founders it is more about watching the bottom line; not about how many “likes”they’ve got. LOL
I have not bought any Deciem brands yet, but several of their products are high on my wish list (for when I finish up the 18,000 other similar products in my collection). Watching Brandon Truaxe’s manic breakdown unfold on Instagram has been unsettling. It’s sad. But then look at the US president. It’s a sign of the times, but it’s bad news.
Here is an assistive thought to this thread while I’m thinking about it: not only do I feel brand leaders need to be more professional and reserved in their personal gripes, but I also think that more work needs to go into hiring responsible social media staff. I feel like 2017 was the year of SM teams making huge messes on a brand’s Instagram or Facebook or Twitter that could have been easily avoided.
As someone who’s been in the beauty social media scene since 2012 (when I was in my early 20’s), by 2018 I have to say all this addiction to drama plus dramatic CEO’s is so exhausting and immature. Of course brands should be held accountable for big oversights (ie. Tarte) but I get so frustrated now having to witness a public, social-media heavy founder deal with the daily ups and downs and dramas of our social media era–that is, IF they are very emotional and unprofessional. It’s interesting when I was a teen and in my early 20’s, but as I’m getting older I say enough! There’s too much nonsense to have to deal with the back and forth and emotional boding/manipulation of a lot of these social media-centric brands, when, at the end of the day it should be about the product and a more professional, mission-statement style view of the brand so people can decide whether they want to spend money on the brand or not, and everyone can stop acting like teenagers.
Sorry for the rant haha. I also did a decade of retail customer service and phone customer service, so I 100% understand what it’s like to deal with customers, and the more outlandish, mean and unrealistic customers can feel magnified over the more realistic majority of your customer base who may just be giving you constructive criticism. I highly agree with others here about why people need more professional social media/PR people on their staff. I think a good example of that is Colourpop–I know very little about the owners, don’t really care, but their have Sharon and Jordynn in their marketing team doing the social media in a friendly yet professional manner.
Just a girl who’s tired of the symbiotic high school antics that seems to be the 2018 makeup social media landscape..
I think a founder should have their own, separate personal accounts and treat the brand accounts as a corporate channel to be handled by PR/marketing professionals. I understand that some very small indie brand owners are often a one person business in the beginning, but a pro to take care of social media should be one of their first hires after their accountant. Leaving SM to interns, or taking care of it themselves when they’re so emotionally involved, is a recipe for disaster – and we’ve seen a lot of drama in the past year that tarnished brands’ reputations.
No matter the industry, owners and CEOs generally need to stay away from the brand’s social media. I work in social media and the things I have had to stop some clients from saying… whew! Your social media person or team is there to communicate diplomatically with your customers, even if the customers honestly are being jerks. Although we’ve certainly seen examples of the so-called trained professionals failing in their diplomacy, too.
Communications operations ought to be left to the professionals. I get that CEOs are the ‘captains of the ship’ and in cosmetics are often the creative force and even sometimes the name of the company.
But: it’s the responsibility of the corporate communications people to handle such factors from a business point of view (revenues/financials; governance; company issues), and the marketing people from the marketing point of view (branding; marketing; sales). Smart pros will factor in the CEO/leader/face factors.
It’s often very hard for CEOs to deal with that, especially if they built the company and operation, and it’s the responsibility of the communications people to build trust and competency so the CEO can step back and lead an organization versus be a day-to-day twitterer. I read an interesting article years back written by an attorney about the difficulties in coaching CEOs in deposition and trial situations; this is similar.
Mishandling things like revenues, shares, etc. have really significant consequences not least of which is regulatory requirements (e.g., fair disclosure, if the company is public). Mishandling on a marketing side can also tank a company.
We saw how disastrous this can be when Norvina got herself entangled in the whole social media drama of the Subculture debacle….not good. Or the other ugly incident involving Jerrod Blandino’s sister. Yeah, those don’t speak well for company founder’s who embroil themselves in the SM drama pool.
Now, if they instead kept their personal involvement regarding their company to the *barest* minimum on SM, I do believe that this would give off a much healthier vibe for their company’s public image!
I think you said it very well, Christine. I see so many company founders royally eff up on their social media. They are too close to the product, and can’t take any kind of criticism against it. They open up their own flaws to consumers, which will backfire sooner or later. I think if they can’t show restraint and be professional, they need to stay behind the scenes.
I think it depends how the brand starts out – Jeffree Star started out as a social media personality and then started his own cosmetics line so I think he’s inextricably linked with his brand, for better or worse. It took me an awful long time to buy a single product of his, because his outre doesn’t really connect for me (and I doubt I’m anywhere near his target market, so eh) but he is very talented and obviously has appeal to a wider audience. I’m glad the beauty industry is representing markets other than just “traditional” ones but he worked hard to make that happen for him and he deserves that recognition and respect. I did think the recent pearl-clutching outrage over his waterproof mascara review was pretty funny – nobody can say they didn’t know what they were getting with JS.
For brands that enter the market with a heavy social media presence (eg, Violet Voss, Colourpop) but without any “figurehead” I think it can be a double edged sword. They’re professional (for the most part) but a number of customers want to “be friends” and engage with someone they see as their friend, not a faceless entity on social media. The personal connection and immediate trust isn’t there, but this isn’t necessarily a huge hindrance.
Some… should just keep their mouths shut, stay off Twitter and Insta and let the professionals handle it. I know it can be hard when your brand is your baby but I don’t know if a founder can easily maintain objectivity, especially if things are going pear shaped. The urge to defend/explain/deflect must be overwhelming and that’s when mistakes are made. Those are the things that stick in peoples minds and don’t go away – you get a crappy blush, you get annoyed, get rid of it, move on and pretty much forget about it but when someone you admire and respect behaves in a disappointing way, the damage is done and sometimes permanently.
And don’t even get me started on vindictive spats between personalities on social media – any exposure is good for business, right? No, not really!
so many brands get none of my money because their founders act like mean girls. it’s incredibly off putting, unprofessional and downright embarrassing. so yeah, I think founders should be very little involved in brand’s social media, if at all. there should be a social media team for that and then if the founders want to share their personal life and have childish/petty spats they can do so on their personal accounts so customers can choose whether they want to witness it.
also, while I get that a brands reflects the artistic sensibility and aesthetic of its founder I don’t think the makeup should draw directly from his/her life. I find it creepy and weird to have my makeup remind me of someone’s mom, boyfriend or dog. I also don’t want to contribute to a cult of any one personality for any one reason, that is so inherently wrong to me.
I don’t think it matters either way. While some “dramas” have occurred, has anyone really stopped buying from these brands? While a few people have, and still others say they will, once their current supply runs out, chances are they’ll repurchase; either the drama will die down/be forgotten, or they’ll have an excuse as to why said product/brand is the only one their special, snowflake skin can handle… I’m personally not bothered by what the owners of a brand feel/post about social & political issues, but I do feel those things should be limited to a personal account, as some can be offended, and regardless of which side you’re on, you’ll end up alienating half your base.
Yep. I won’t buy from a few brands because I dislike the person or message behind the brand or product release. Sometimes it’s because they do or say something I think is ill-advised, sometimes I get sick of continually sub-par products being sold for an inflated price, sometimes I just decide I DON’T LIKE YOU ANYMORE for whatever reason and I think, nope, no more of my dollars for you.
So far, my list is OPI, MAC, KvD, Smashbox and Too Faced, and it really hasn’t been hard to stick to. There are plenty of other choices out there.
I completely concur with you Christine and could not have said it better. I am pretty naïve and uneducated regarding what constitutes politically correct copy. I saw the recent communication regarding the product name, G*psy. I would not have even thought about this being a sensitive name. My daughter who is of mixed heritage and who majored in Gender Studies and is very aware of what is politically correct and what isn’t, corrected me. I rather thought that people were becoming too sensitive about what is on social media. She totally set me straight. Leave the editorials, copy, PR to the people who are trained, well educated and understanding.
This is not so different than the legal profession adage: she who represents herself has a fool for a client.
Personally, I think the founder should not be involved at all on brand’s social media – that’s why you have a Social Media professionalto handle all of that.
Apart from some basic info regarding the ethos of the brand, the founder should stay out of the limelight and let his/her products do the talking.
Everytime founders take up social media, it ends up a disastrous PR exercise for the brand – turning off more customers than not. Some founders also need to grow up.
I don’t think we should put a limit on how involved they are with the social media of the company. As long as they’re being professional, it can give the brand some real personality.
I think 2017 showed us all that their involvement should be kept to a minimum. I can be hard to separate yourself from the products you worked so hard on, and when people are critical (and let’s face it, often downright cruel) of your “baby” it can be difficult to put your ego aside. And, as many have said, leave social media to the trained professionals. If you’re the owner of a multi-million dollar brand, you don’t balance the books and mix up your own formulas, you hire people. The same should be true of social media.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS! CEOs are so unprofessional and it makes me not want to buy their products especially when their accounts are just full of drama with beauty gurus/customers/other brands. I feel like a lot of them are also just really into showing off how rich they are which rubs me the wrong way. Like I respect the hustle but I’m not one for gaudy displays of wealth personally.