{"id":18463,"date":"2023-01-20T16:56:51","date_gmt":"2023-01-20T16:56:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocialelement.agency\/us\/twitter-gold-heres-what-you-need-to-know"},"modified":"2023-01-20T16:56:51","modified_gmt":"2023-01-20T16:56:51","slug":"twitter-gold-heres-what-you-need-to-know","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocialelement.agency\/us\/twitter-gold-heres-what-you-need-to-know","title":{"rendered":"Twitter Gold: Here’s what you need to know"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Michael Baggs, our strategy director, has tested Twitter Gold and gives us his perspective on the new Twitter verification system for brands. Get ready, there is a lot to consider.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s happening on Twitter Gold<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Twitter invited brands to join the waitlist for Gold verification last weekend<\/a>, their new distinction for official business accounts. While details of what will happen next or what’s required are a little thin on the ground, some of the promises of Gold verification for businesses and Grey verification for governments and Blue checkmarks for subscribers or previously verified accounts have been detailed<\/a>. These changes continue to  questions about risk and reward<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Gold checkmark and square profile picture are the new indicators that you\u2019re looking at the official handle of a company. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It appears that Twitter is also accounting for verification for affiliated accounts too, though the cut off has yet to be defined. These could  be everything from the customer service accounts and local market handles, through to c-suite or indeed all of a company\u2019s staff if you choose to go that far. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The impact on brands<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This has already created confusion as without warning some brands have been given Gold checkmarks  and square avatars, while the majority of verified business accounts maintained their Blue checkmarks. Of those who are still Blue, most have the legacy description where Twitter says it \u201cmay or may not be notable\u201d which isn\u2019t helping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As illustrated by The Washington Post<\/a> only a week ago, when a journalist registered a verified account for a US senator for only $8 a month, Blue verification itself is still volatile as new subscribers are not forced to undergo any notable or authentic criteria and prove that  someone represents who they claim to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This creates an odd gulch in the truth where there are multiple  different tiers and scenarios for brands on Twitter currently: those without any verification, those with blue legacy verification, those with Twitter Blue, those with Twitter Gold, and impersonators who\u2019ve signed up and been approved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is this a brand risk? Yes.<\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

But if a bad actor wanted to register a verified account for a CEO, company or an affiliate, pay the $8 and are approved, there\u2019s little a brand can do to mitigate that risk until it has happened and either detected through listening tools or have been otherwise alerted to it, by which point it\u2019ll likely have done something newsworthy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019ve all seen this happen several times already. Is it as notable now as it was on day one of Blue verification? No. While it\u2019s not a massive risk in terms of PR, it is potentially a larger risk if a fake account starts inviting customers with issues to DM them their order number and credit card details to receive a refund. These aren\u2019t new risks though.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The bigger issue now is about affiliated accounts.<\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The examples given by Twitter include news organIsations having journalists all verified and affiliated with them, athletes verified and affiliated with their teams, and companies to have their support staff, leadership or even all staff affiliated with their main brand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The question is, would it be wiser to have all, none or some of your staff verified and affiliated on Twitter? Is there greater risk or reward with one of these strategies?<\/strong> The answer is unique to each organisation. What\u2019s right for Children in Need won\u2019t be right for Samaritans, and what\u2019s right for Foxtons won\u2019t be right for Burger King.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The answer will frequently come down to the risk profile of the individual first, and then the brand. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nobody should be expected to shoulder the burden of visibility in a public space without their consent and willing participation. It\u2019s the right of British American Tobacco and Moderna staff to live as private individuals without the attention that kind of spotlight can bring. The reality is many will quite rightly say that the burden is above their pay grade. However, for sales staff in certain industries, I can see willingness to be verified as an affiliate of the brand as a strong want by their employer. It may well be essential for PR and corporate comms staff, although less so for the people behind the management of corporate social media accounts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opposite is also true, of staff being a risk to the brand, although I don\u2019t anticipate it\u2019s an issue as big as many will assume it would be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you believe you\u2019d be putting your brand at risk by having staff verified and affiliated, then why are they working for you in the first place? <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

If you\u2019re worried staff may post offensive content, sexually harass strangers or bark discriminatory nonsense online, why are they allowed to interact with the public or other members of staff in your premises already?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our recommendation<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Get on the <\/strong>Gold waiting list<\/strong><\/a> now<\/strong> to be at the front of the queue when further details are revealed to make an informed decision about what option would be best. Start discussions about exactly how willing your brand is to expose itself to risk through affiliation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a lot to think about. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n