Is it an issue for businesses to have different personas on different social media channels?

It is absolutely reasonable -- and many times, strategically appropriate -- to use different personas across channels, especially in a B2B situation. In B2B, multiple decision-makers and multiple influencers can be involved.

If each social network has a role in your overall social media plan, that role typically begins by understanding which of your target personas tend to use that social network, and what topics they tend to share, retweet, click, etc.

it's also true that particular target audiences respond best to certain communicators from the company. Engineers want to hear and interact with other engineers. Financial managers may be more likely to interact with other financial managers.

This is why many large companies rotate those who post on their blog. First Monday could be the CEO, first Wednesday could be the CFO, every Friday could be the CTO, etc. Each "persona" tends to attract its own audience.

It's also true that not every social network makes sense for every company, and not every social network reaches the same audience. So a large hotel chain has discovered that Twitter doesn't make sense for reaching its consumer audience, and now they use Twitter solely to reach press and bloggers.

Easy question; tough to answer. Yes, it is important to teach different audiences, perhaps even for radically different purposes. A slippery slope, the targets, messages, and expected actions/responses need to be carefully thought out.

But, if/when a company's special magic is the key to success (e.g., Zappos or Apple), it can't risk muddling the message. That said, different voices/personas can deliver consistent messages that support core values, philosophies, and perceptions.

The greatest thing (in addition to delivering value) that a business can do to build strong relationships with customers and its market(s) is to be genuine and transparent.

Don't change your face to fit what you think will be more appealing to a particular audience. Be who you are, and never waver on that.

Besides, what a pain it will be to have to figure out what your persona should be, each time you join a new channel!

Jim Watson
http://bit.ly/rmOYIf

Only if you really know and understand your target/niche market(s).

As long as the message provided represents the foundation of the business or individuals involved then your motives are still right and it is only strategic to have a different approach on other channels. God bless.

Let me link you to a webinar which will help you a lot. If you have any more questions after it, feel free to contact me.

http://www.siliconcloud.com/building-a-social-media-strategy/

http://www.siliconcloud.com/contact/

Perhaps coherence is a useful standard here.

It is more difficult for companies with diverse holdings, vast organizational structures, and complex interests to achieve what likes of Apple and Zappos have done. (Though some would argue that Apple is on the bubble)

When a marketing and communications strategy cannot maintain coherence over time it raises some questions in my mind:

Are we making this more complicated than it need be?

Are we avoiding the work and the tough conversations required to develop a clear coherent voice?

Have we gone "native" on our own messaging universe and started to believe the hype?

Do we think that prospective employees, partners, and customers benefit from a more complex comms strategy?

My question is: why would a business do this? There's really no good reason, unless two different people manage the 2 different channels. And even then, the voice should be similar enough to blend. It's fine to have multiple people working on social media, and they can always designate who's talking.