This content has been marked as final. Show 3 replies
We did this very briefly a few years ago. It was actually quite awkward in cases where someone called and asked to speak to so-and-so who didn't exist :)
We had good intentions but at the end of the day we felt it undermined the authenticity of our communications and our brand.
We now use real personas exclusively -- our VP Product for product news, our account reps for account related stuff, and me for our "stay-in-touch" content nurturing. It feels a lot better.
I have no doubt you have sound business logic behind the idea (perhaps avoiding issues when one of your personas leaves the company, etc.) but these benefits may be offset by a less genuine connection between you and your customers.
My take is that people like engaging with real people, even when they are engaging with brands.
You also have the option to create a mailbox that you department shares. Something like Information@...
And sending marketing emails from it. This is what we do and when a client replies to it, we just redirect it to the right person.
It avoids problems mentionned by Justin above.
I second Justin's thought. It can be dangerous unless that persona is known to the person who picks up the phone or there's an email box you are monitoring as a team.
A better way to handle this is to have a real person, but use a fake box. For instance, I've used the middle initial in the email box even though the person's real box was something else.
firstname.lastname@example.org is my real box
email@example.com is a fake box that goes to marketing. Thus, marketing reviews and filters. If I need to respond, I do, otherwise it goes to sales. This helps avoid getting reverse spam or inundated with useless requests or crazy people.