Branded comments

Written by Verne on July 22nd, 2007

It seems like everything we do these days has to be done strategically. Take commenting, for example. Looking at John Chow‘s top commentators list, this is what you see:

Branded commentsNotice anything? Of the 10 proud members of that exclusive list, only 2 have real names (Debo Hobo may count as an amusing third…), while the rest are strategically branded to give the maximum exposure to the commentators’ own blogs.

Do people develop commenting strategies to get to the top of these lists, or does being a top 10′er come as a convenient benefit from interacting immensely with the community? I applaud those in either category.

I don’t know about you, but when I comment, my name is Verne. Or should it be ‘creative marketing blog wants traffic’?

Update: Turns out John actually encourages this strategy! How evil. Check it out here.

8 Responses

  • Satish

    July 22nd, 2007 at 5:41 pm

    “Satish Untitled wants traffic”? Personally, when I comment I sign off as Satish. I figure if someone values something I wrote in a comment or really wants to know who to beat up over what I said, then they’ll click through to find out who I am. The same goes for the blog owners themselves as they read comments.

    Someone signing off with their blog/company name as their ‘Name’ makes me question their intentions and the value of their site.

    Luckily of your 5 top commentors everyone’s clean (with 1 fake name in there). Hmm…

  • David Airey :: Graphic Designer

    July 29th, 2007 at 10:04 am

    Personally I sign all my comments as David Airey :: Graphic Designer.

    Here’s the thing, it sets me apart from other commenters whilst also telling people my name and my job.

    I don’t go around leaving two word comments like I suspect a lot of JC’s top commentators do (you know the ones – ‘great post’ or ‘nice work’).

    I always try to contribute to the discussion and get people thinking.

    What’s your opinion, Verne? Do you think it comes across as spammy? I value your thoughts on this one as it’s not the first time I’ve read a similar type of article.

  • Verne

    July 30th, 2007 at 1:05 am

    David:

    I don’t really find that a ‘branded comment’ is all that intrusive, I just found it fascinating that everything we do these days, including how we conduct a public conversation, must be done so strategically.

    On the one hand, it does imply that the purity of the message being communicated is compromised when there is an alternative intention present. But on the other hand, I think we’ve all come to terms with the idea that it’s a competitive environment that we operate in, and that so long as what you’re doing still holds some value to others (i.e. posting an insightful comment), then everything’s fair game.

    I think for the most part, we can all distinguish real spam from strategically branded comments. I suppose the rule of thumb is that if you have to think twice about whether your comment will be seen as spam, it probably is spam.

  • David Airey :: Graphic Designer

    July 30th, 2007 at 3:23 am

    I’m not sure if you’ve read the article on Dawud Miracle’s blog, do you brand yourself in blog comments? That got me thinking back in March about how people relate to you.

    Of course more and more blogs are using the MyAvatars / Gravatars plugin, which helps brand us even more, and I’ve been thinking of changing my avatar to show the ‘d’ and ‘a’ of my logo.

    I think you’re absolutely right when you say:

    If you have to think twice about whether your comment will be seen as spam, it probably is spam.

  • Verne

    July 30th, 2007 at 3:30 pm

    I like your approach as it gives you an opportunity to brand your own name as well. Like you mention in your latest blog post:

    One of the best things about blogs is that they enable conversation between people with shared interests.

    The more we brand our comments with something other than our name and our face, is the less personal these conversations get. For the most part, I’m more intrigued by somebody with a photo of themselves as their avatar than by somebody with a logo or some other piece of abstract imagery. It reassures me you have a face and that you’re human (as stupid and basic as that sounds – it’s true).

    The growth of social communities like Facebook (and Friendster before that) has spawned from the idea that you’re actually meeting and interacting with real people – not just some guy with a clever screen name. Blogs (and comments) should follow this same mindset.

    But at last, we must adapt to where the market goes. Personal values don’t go very far when you’re trying to get click-thrus.

  • David Airey :: Graphic Designer

    July 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    You make a very good point about faces being more personal. It’s something I’ve thought a fair bit about, and thinking back, I’ve probably said I prefer to see faces than logos.

    Isn’t it odd how so many people use FaceBook, yet have the standard question mark avatar? It’s like they don’t know the name of the site they’re using.

  • Verne

    July 30th, 2007 at 3:56 pm

    Haha! Well the way I see it, there are 3 possibilities:

    1. Some Facebookers are self-conscious and don’t want to put up pictures of themselves.
    2. Some Facebookers are technologically inept and don’t know how to upload a picture.
    3. Some Facebookers use Facebook for its other purpose – to see other people’s faces!

    I’d place my bets on the last one. ;)

    Back on topic: do you think it’s more valuable to build equity for your site by associating it with popular topics, or to build equity for your name by associating expertise to it? I think the former is harder to achieve, but is much more rewarding in the long-run.

  • David Airey :: Graphic Designer

    July 31st, 2007 at 5:30 am

    I reckon the former of your two choices is more rewarding aswell.

    As for the three FaceBook options, you can never underestimate the amount of dirty old men there are online. My money’s on #3 too.

Leave a Reply