A couple of posts ago I talked about the danger of judging someone totally on their image; how they interact is far more important if you want them as a friend or indeed as a Prime Minister!
But we all do it and as you know, first impressions count.
So Twitter: Photo or Logo?
Up until recently I was convinced that faces were best every time.
Faces engage, personalise and attract. They give you clues about who you are dealing with and are re-assuring, especially when you are connecting with strangers.
Pete Cashmore from Mashable uses his own face to front his brand on Twitter , which happens to be a hugely successful techno blog. I am quite happy to have his face popping up in my Twitter stream all day while a Mashable logo might be irritating in a -“What do you want now?”- kind of way.
But imagine if you are BBC news?
Do I want a journalist’s face, a newsreader’s face, or do I want a clear logo to pop into my stream and tell me instantly that something of interest has happened in the world?
Now look at the fuzzy area in between those extremes.
Is there an instance where company logos are more efficient? Would a logo stand out in a sea of faces? Would a logo make more sense if you were only there to provide a clear, specific service, like information on the Olympics?
Twitter is changing all the time as new users mould it to their needs. As more businesses come on board they may start to do things differently and there are no prescriptive rules.
If you are in any doubt about which way you should go, photo or logo, spend some time looking at a busy Twitter stream. As the logos, photos and Avatars spin by, make a note of how they make you feel. Are there any that really annoy you and if so why?
This can be really helpful in deciding how you want to appear online; friendly, smart, sharp, trendy? Pets, cartoons and the default Twitter bird are all huge no nos but other than that, as long as you have thought about the issues, you are free to make your own choice.