And you are correct — I was not thinking about social support centers when I made my comment about social being almost free to maintain. But my guess is that if companies are investing full-time resources to build social support centers their hope is that doing so will ultimately reduce the expense associated with traditional call centers and streamline their support organization.

Anyway, just my $.02… I hereby return your blog to you. Feel free to have the last word and put me in my place :)

But even today I know many companies that have a handful of people working full time running their Twitter accounts, mostly from a customer service perspective.

I just think to a certain extent its odd for people to say “how could an agency be the 'voice' of a brand?” when most brands outsource the actual voice of their brand via call centers.

But overall, I think there's a very big fundamental difference between these two examples — a call center is very expensive to run and requires a major investment in facilities, equipment and personnel. Outsourcing that function can be a significant cost savings for a company; savings that could help a company compete more effectively in a crowded marketplace. But a Twitter account is practically free to maintain — it requires no additional overhead, can be maintained by almost any level of employee and doesn't require a lot of training to build a basic level of competency. There just isn't a compelling business case to be made for outsourcing a Twitter account where it's easy to argue for the overseas call center despite the same “social” risks to your brand.

What's the difference? Why is one scenario frowned on whereas the other, which seems more personal because you're talking to a live person, is standard operating procedure?

It seems the best way for an agency to work with a brand on their social outreach is to be a strategic partner with the ability to train and if necessary augment their staff when necessary. But turning over the keys to an agency and getting a monthly report is NOT the way to go. Authenticity and credibility should be at a premium when communicating with customers.

But it's hard to overcome the disappointment and betrayal that our best customers would no doubt feel if they ever discovered that they were being misled. How would you feel if you found out that a company insider you've been developing a relationship with was actually a ghostwriter or a fictional character?

Authenticity is a prerequisite for a successful social media effort and outsourcing it wholly to an agency is disingenuous at best. Agencies can and should play a role — this is a big job after all, but any scenario that takes the brand out of the driver's seat is a failure in my book.