The role of personality in messaging

How necessary is it to ensure that social marketing messages are delivered with personality?

As a society, it seems we are attracted to and want to associate with personalities: the rich and famous, the funny, the beautiful, and the flawed diamonds…those who demonstrate human characteristics that have been tempered by extraordinary “presence” or skill.

The question, then, remains: Do we need to feel some sort of attraction to the messenger for us to listen to the message?

The success of peer-to-peer or viral marketing efforts appear to underline the inherent value in messages received from a trusted source, or at least a real person.

Certainly, in fundraising, monthly donors are being acquired on the street all over the world—from Australia to Europe to North America—for well known organizations based upon human interaction with (ironically) paid-to-be-friendly solicitors. The same success has been found in the last several decades with the explosion of “a-thons” where participants in a charitable event (golfing, running, walking, biking, fasting…) solicits the financial support of friends, family, and colleagues.

We also can presume that any of us are more likely to pay more attention to family or friends, and possibly change our behavior(s) based upon those peer or blood relationships.

But what about the danger of the cult of personality? If the message becomes synonymous with the personality who represents it, will the marketing remain effective if the person leaves the cause, does something that is out of keeping with the message, or passes away? What about the future of the David Suzuki Foundation without David Suzuki? Would such a scenario mirror the decline in awareness about USC after Lotta Hitchmanova’s death?

Perhaps the fear of linking charitable purpose with a person has lead the charitable sector intentionally to use sterile and "mission" language in official correspondence, while fundraising appeals are laden with often applied personality. By this, I mean that the copy is written by a professional to sound personal, and then it is “signed” by a significant person—a director, a celebrity, a benefactor—as if it were there own words.

In the quickly expanding world of social media, it is clear that we will all “listen” online to very personal accounts: blogs like this one, tweets, Facebook updates, etc.

Look at the success of the ING banking advertisements with that quirky individual whose name we don’t know who simply states “Save your money.” This message is certainly delivered with personality.

My conclusion, then, is that social causes--even at the risk of fostering a cult of personality--should use more genuine personality in their attempts to get a point across in order to foster behavior change.

In a world of spin doctors, political correctness, and communications theories, maybe we just need to feel that behind the message, there is true conviction, belief, and honesty.

Maybe we need to know that social causes are championed by the true flawed diamonds among us.