>a Brand on Twitter acting like a real human

>send all messages through them as a representative

Not sure what you're getting at. Everyone knows that some social media person/intern manages the corporate Twitter account. How would them sending mails or text messages signed with their name be any different eventually? But maybe it doesn't really matter for much longer anywAI.

I've been the social media person (community manager) for a few large companies: HTC for a few years, a Google account for a bit, then more recently for Qualcomm. At least for the larger companies in general that I've worked with, "interns" never touched writing post copy. Outbound "posts" are typically written by a group of people outsourced to an ad agency, approved internally, then approved by the client, then scheduled to be posted. Typically dozens of people are involved for a single tweet.

Companies (at least the ones I've worked with) take their social media handles as "official" messaging from the company that could easily effect stock prices if incorrect messaging is shared. I once had a colleague incorrectly share that a budget smartphone was going to receive the latest version of Android (at the time) and several tech news sites picked up on it.

Direct replies to users is a bit different. Typically a response is drafted in a tool like Sprinklr then approved by a second person.

> Every time I see a Brand on Twitter acting like a real human I'm sickened to my core. You are not a human, you are a disembodied entity pretending to be human to make people buy something.

Huh? Those messages are written by employees. Those employees are humans. This is the basis of customer service and it’s nothing new. The salesperson at the grocery store checkout is both human and communicating on behalf of their employer.

> The salesperson at the grocery store checkout is both human and communicating on behalf of their employer.

I think this is true in the abstract, obviously the people at the checkout are part of the experience of the store, but they're also completely separate from that entity. When I reflect on the cashier at my local store, I don't think of their specific behavior as reflecting on the entire brand. If the cashier messes up the readout of the total, I don't understand that as my local supermarket making a mistake but rather as a specific mistake of a specific person.

That separation disappears if we put the brand up as a facade and don't interact with the person underneath, like we don't with brand accounts on twitter.

This is interesting. I suppose also which position they hold matters. If a chat-based customer service agent was rude to me I would consider this a reflection of company behavior -- but I reached out to someone who is supposed to actually be an active representative of the entity (customer service/technical support).

But the person who turns around an iPad for me to swipe my card may not fit as a "representative of the entity".

I think GP's point is that when you are interacting with Wendy's social media account, you aren't talking to Wendy herself, you are talking to Sheryl the Wendy's Media Associate. Hiding that actual interaction is uncanny.

I follow a lot of company accounts. Mostly news orgs but also tech ones that I'm interested in. Even the personal accounts I follow are experts in one thing or another. Twitter was founded as some lame attempt at public, personal communication but it's far more useful for broadcasting.