1. Social Media Impersonation 1
Social Media Impersonation
Anthony M. Minosky
The Ohio State University

2. Social Media Impersonation 2
Abstract
The global rise of social media has had many impacts, both positive and negative, on
brands and individuals. One such impact is social media impersonation. This can be
summarized as an individual assuming the identity of a well-known persona on the
Internet and having the ability to influence others. Currently, the main hub of
impersonation and parody is Twitter. Twitter is the largest social media site that
allows for parody accounts. These accounts have had significant impacts on brands
and individuals in terms of defining brand image. Affected brands have to deal with
this new form of “mistaken identity” and should learn quickly how to react to such
situations in order to maintain a positive brand image. The more initiative brands
take in engaging with their audience via social media can help mitigate the effects of
these unauthentic imposters.

3. Social Media Impersonation 3
Social Media Impersonation
The global rise of social media has impacted almost every aspect of day-to-
day individual interaction. It has dramatically improved the way people
communicate with relatives, friends, brands, and acquaintances. This new
generation of communication has increased the number of secondary relationships
people have, thus increasing the amount of influence an individual has over others.
At any given time, a person can post how he or she is feeling, what he or she is
eating, where he or she is going, or any other depiction of whom they are for
everyone to see. Because of this new form of influence and power for the individual,
these networking sites have become a huge platform for everyday, regular people
who, otherwise, don’t have much of a voice. It allows them to express their
creativity and spread a message to the world and this can be a very powerful thing.
Alongside regular, everyday citizens, this new medium of communication has
become an intriguing source of information and public relations for established
marketers, brands, and famous individuals. This different form of engagement helps
brands and marketers gather information about their consumers on a more
personal level than at any other point in history. It also allows them to clarify,
develop, and spread their message about their image and values as companies.
Famous people have taken to sites like Twitter and Facebook to connect with their
fans and get their messages out to the world as well. They are marketing their self-
image and values just like established brands and marketers engaged in social
media.

4. Social Media Impersonation 4
The mix of everyday, regular people with famous people and brands
accessing the same networks with the same ability to influence others can also
cause negative effects. Companies and celebrities are finding out first hand that
social media is not going away and that they need to maintain their images, whether
they like it or not, in the digital arena. Because people have this new ability to
influence a greater amount of people on a quicker and more frequent basis, word-of-
mouth travels faster than ever. If brands aren’t careful, it can snowball out of
control in a hurry. Individuals with access to social media know this and are using
this freedom in a way that would have gotten them sued before the Internet. They
are taking on fake personalities or, as I like to call it, social media impersonation.
Prevalence & Psychological Factors
Looking at data from the explosion of social media compared with other
innovation shows that it has caught on with more people quicker than ever. The
following graph illustrates just how fast social media, specifically Facebook, has
reached the masses:

5. Social Media Impersonation 5
This graph illustrates just how quick penetration was into this new technology. This
quick process undoubtedly has lead to companies and individuals learning “on the
fly.” This type of learning brings many challenges with it. Other technologies, like
the television, telephone, and cell phone had longer periods of market penetration
and allowed brands the benefit to adjust to these mediums at their own pace.
Among the many issues encountered with social media, one has been of particular
concern for brands: social media impersonation.
Impersonation is nothing new in terms of it’s historical lineage. Writers have
used impersonation and satire for years. The dawn of the Internet has sparked this
form of writing style and humor well beyond what anyone could have imagined just
a few decades ago. Since it’s inception [on the web] in 1996, The Onion has been the
leader in topical humor and satirical articles on the web. The company was founded
in 1988 and sold as a satirical newspaper. It’s revenues as a paper hit one million
dollars by 1994, and it’s website helped boost the companies revenues to the tune of
7 million dollars in 2003 (Keighley, 2003). After surviving the dotcom bubble, The
Onion is still going strong today.
Following the success of satirical based web-publications such as The Onion,
many start-up writers and individuals began trying their own hand at blogging and
satirical humor with the rise of Web 2.0. The basic idea of Web 2.0 is that it focuses
on user-generated content from all over the globe versus content that is delivered to
a user from a corporation, News Company, or other web-writers. In other words,
users are communicating with each other through the web as infinite,
interconnected links. This new idea of the World Wide Web allows users to submit

6. Social Media Impersonation 6
their own content for public consumption no matter where you were in the world.
Websites began developing their whole business around the ability to share
information with anyone by anyone. Early sites like AOL, Usenet and Geocities
paved the way for sites like MySpace, Friendster, and Blogger for mainstream use.
With this new wave of Web, came a new power for the individual. Anyone
could pretend to be anybody they desired. Even more earth shattering was the fact
that, with the new interconnected links, people could share this information with
virtually anybody with an Internet connection. If someone was good at
impersonation, they could get others to believe they were that individual or brand.
One of the first widespread forms of impersonation was on MySpace. Users
frequently were falling victim to others claiming their virtual identity. In its early
FAQ section, MySpace dealt with this form of harassment by having members [or
non-members] send them a “salute” with a picture of themselves and a sign that
read MySpace.com (Myspace FAQ). It was only then that MySpace could remove a
profile that used that individual’s identity without permission.
Today there are other websites with similar problems regarding
impersonation. The most prevalent website, and main focus of my research, for
social media impersonators is currently Twitter. Twitter is unique from other Web
2.0 type-sites in that it allows for users to “parody” others. Over in the
“Twitterverse”, there is no shortage of impersonators or, as they call it, parody
(fake) accounts. Many of these accounts are clearly labeled as “fake” or “not”
accounts. On the other hand, those unfamiliar with Twitter, or accounts not labeled
properly, can be confused as being authentic. Individuals or groups, posing as

7. Social Media Impersonation 7
anything from famous brands or well-known individuals to animals and inanimate
objects, run these accounts.
While the motivation of these individuals is still under question, there are
some theories as to why these accounts are set up and maintained. In an article
from PC Pro titled “The Twitter Fraudsters,” (Jennings, 2011) they interviewed Dr
Arthur Cassidy, a member of the British Psychological Society. He claims that the
characteristics of these individuals emerge during adolescence. He’s quoted as
saying, “People evaluate who they are, and those who aren’t comfortable with their
identities explore who they want to be.” As time goes on, personality traits become
more obvious: “it’s people with impulsive personalities and slightly above-average
intelligence.” He continues by saying that impersonating a celebrity [or other
famous brand] gives a person a shortcut to increased self-esteem. Cassidy also
notes that users find it easy to “anchor onto a particular celebrity” and that this can
be done anywhere in the world.
Dr. Cassidy’s research isn’t very surprising seeing as impersonation is
nothing new to psychology or popular culture. Comedians and writers have been
doing impersonations and jokes about well-established brands and individuals for
years. The difference between now and then is that comedians and writers had
intentions to entertain and inform, whereas social media impersonators can
sometimes have a tendency to deceive by portraying themselves as authentic. For
brands, this is where public relations of the past can differ from perceived first party
marketing by a brand.

8. Social Media Impersonation 8
Fast Company recently interviewed the minds behind three parody Twitter
accounts, @TheBillWalton (it should be noted this has since been changed to
@NotBillWalton), @NOTBurtReynolds, and @FakeAPStylebook (Penenberg, 2011).
The first two are run and maintained by one or two individuals and
@FakeAPStylebook is maintained by a group of writers, journalists, and professors.
When asked why he created the fake account, the creator of @NOTBurtReynolds
said, “I love to make people laugh and model my character very loosely on Burt…
You only have 140 characters, so it's funnier if there's a point of reference, like
imagining Burt's voice, that help people identify with you.” When asked the same
question, the creators of @TheBillWalton said, “We wanted to showcase our writing
and have an immediate impact on Twitter.” They assumed the role of famous
basketball personality, Bill Walton, and used his colorful persona to amass a current
following of over 70,000 followers. The account @FakeAPStylebook currently
boasts over 200,000 followers and its creators have had a book published due to
their success from parodying on Twitter.
Getting these first person descriptions of their respective parody accounts, it
shows a somewhat similar comparison to what Dr. Cassidy was mentioning. All
three of these accounts are successful examples of regular, ordinary individuals with
impulsive personalities using an already popular brand to boast their own brand.
By pairing themselves with these popular personalities, they have created a virtual
cult following of people who enjoy satire based on impressionism. This following
uses their knowledge of this persona and applies it to these satirical Tweets and can
ultimately affect the way the “authentic” brand is viewed.

9. Social Media Impersonation 9
Impersonation vs. Parody
There is a fine line people sometimes walk on the Internet between parody
and impersonation. Twitter’s terms of use describes to users that it is okay to use
parody accounts, but not okay to impersonate others. Part of Twitter’s parody
policy states “In order to avoid impersonation, an account's profile information
should make it clear that the creator of the account is not actually the same person
or entity as the subject of the parody/commentary” (Twitter Parody, commentarty,
and fan accounts policy). They go on to suggest ways users can clarify that their
account is a parody. These suggestions include altering the handle (username), bio,
and communication with others in a way that doesn’t mislead other users. On the
flip side, Twitter’s impersonation policy defines impersonation as “Pretending to be
another person or entity in order to deceive. Impersonation is a violation of the
Twitter Rules and may result in permanent account suspension” (Twitter
Impersonation Policy). This page clearly states that any person intended to deceive
users about their identity will have the account permanently suspended, but
parodies are, indeed, okay.
Companies and brands can report claims about impersonation to Twitter
directly for review. If Twitter deems that the account is indeed a parody and
correctly labeled as such, there is not much a company can do. However, if the
account is deemed to be impersonation, Twitter will either warn the account holder
to change certain features of the profile or suspend it immediately. This, along with

10. Social Media Impersonation 10
other features Twitter offers, is one way to fight back against impersonators with
intention to deceive.
Another feature Twitter rolled out in June 2009 was their verification system
(Barnett, 2009). This has been Twitter’s most successful feature in regards to
protecting companies, individuals, and brands. This feature places a blue check
mark “badge” next to authentic accounts of famous users. This special badge is only
available to certain users and not everyone can petition for a badge. When
searching for a famous user on Twitter, it is not uncommon to stumble upon dozens
of parody accounts. By clicking on certain ones with this verification badge, users
can be sure that the account they are about to follow is authentic. Although this has
greatly improved reliability in authenticity, it is still not a full proof system of
preventing confusion.
Effects on Brands and Individuals
While Twitter has made great strides in their efforts to limit impersonation
with features like a verification system and their impersonation policy, the parody
accounts still have impacts on brands and individuals. The fact that these parody
accounts are allowed and even encouraged by users, allows individuals who are
creative to have a legitimate impact on how brands and individuals are viewed on
the website.
One such example of the effect these accounts can have on an individual is
demonstrated in the account @petermolydeux. Peter Molyneux is a notoriously
ambitious game developer/designer for Lionhead studios in the UK. He is known

11. Social Media Impersonation 11
for his over-hyped ideas that, typically, fail to deliver. One might see this type of
individual as a prime target for a Twitter parody. That’s exactly what an anonymous
game developer did. This anonymous user took it upon himself to parody Molyneux
under the Twitter handle @petermolydeux. His tweets were sly and hilarious to the
tune of about 20,000 followers he had amassed using the Molyneux character.
In response to this following, Lionhead and Molyneux insisted that Twitter
take action against this account. Under pressure from the studio, Twitter eventually
shut down the account. In response to this action, users reacted in a very negative
manner towards Lionhead. The following graph, compiled by Brandwatch (Windels,
2011), illustrates the amount of positive and negative tweets regarding Lionhead:
The graph showed several spikes in terms of tweets regarding the game studio, but
the most important piece of information came on November 23 when Twitter shut
down the account. We can see from the data that the number of negative tweets
about Lionhead skyrocketed. The high percentage of positive tweets on November
14th is attributed to the parody account posting a survivor horror bowling video
(Crecente, 2011) that its followers deemed humorous. According to the anonymous

12. Social Media Impersonation 12
account creator, Twitter or Lionhead never contacted him to change or modify the
account.
What does this indicate about how companies should react to this type of
unwarranted publicity? Brandwatch suggests that even if the unofficial publicity
generator is not increasing a positive brand image of a company, it still may well be
harmless. They also suggest that the costs associated with shutting down these
accounts may be worse off for the company than letting the account continue, as
was the case with the Molyneux saga. The way Lionhead reacted to this situation is
not an atypical way for brands to react. It should be suggested that brands and
individuals do more extensive research on situations like this to determine the best
course of action for the brand in the future.
A Case Study: @BPGlobalPR
Perhaps the epitome of parody versus impersonation comes in the case of the
appropriately named Twitter handle @BPGlobalPR. On April 20, 2010, the Gulf of
Mexico was ravaged by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon that was drilling for
BP in its Mocando Prospect. The result of the explosion initiated an oil gusher to
rupture and resulted in an unabated leak of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico. The
resulting leak went uncapped for about three months and is considered the largest
accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry.
During this three-month period, BP and their public relations team did their
best effort to keep the affected area free from the public and any publicity they were
receiving. Any information on the spill came to the media via BP and its

13. Social Media Impersonation 13
representatives. This, in turn, allowed BP to spin the story as they saw fit and they
attempted to minimize the negative publicity as much as possible. This obvious
cover-up of information rubbed one person the wrong way.
On May 19, 2010, 29 days after the start of the oil spill, Josh Simpson created
his own Twitter parody account handle @BPGlobalPR. Simpson, who went by the
pseudonym “Leroy Stick”, did not find BP’s explanations and reassurance very
comforting. In an interview with The Strategist, Simpson was asked why he created
this parody account and why he selected Twitter as a platform. Simpson responded
by saying that he found “BP’s own PR efforts to be disingenuous, flippant and
offensive” (Jaques, 2010, p.11). He continued by saying that “it seemed to me that
BP cared more about saving face than they cared about saving the Gulf of Mexico.
The fact that they didn’t accept any responsibility for what had happened and
downplayed the severity of the situation was offensive to me.” In regards to why he
chose Twitter, he said, “I decided to start the Twitter account because it was
accessible, there was the potential to reach a large audience [and] I wanted to see if
it could be used effectively for something other than self-promotion or talking about
the sandwich you just ate.” It’s very clear that Simpson was correct in his
assumption to reach a large audience. As of August 20, 2010 when the interview
took place, the account had over 190,000 followers.
There are many factors that can be attributed to the success of this parody
account. The first factor is the fact that BP had almost no presence in social media
before the crisis hit. Kevin Dugan, APR, director for social marketing for Empower
MediaMarketing in Cincinnati says that because BP waited so long to engage in

14. Social Media Impersonation 14
social media, the fact that “they turned their website into a deep resource of
information didn’t matter [because] conversations were already taking place on
Twitter, Facebook and other social sites” (Schock, 2010, p.10). Dugan is simply
suggesting the fact that because BP waited until the wrong time to engage in social
media, the public had already formed their opinions of BP in the digital arena. Since
BP’s PR tactics were being considered deceitful and spun to save face, the public
wasn’t interested in what BP had to say online and, in turn, turned to third party
sources. This is most likely why @BPGlobalPR was so successful. Simpson knew
that he wasn’t the only one with doubts over BP’s PR spin and used the account to
garner support that what BP was doing was wrong.
BP did eventually respond to the Twitter handle and apparently contacted
Twitter to make @BPGlobalPR label itself as a parody. A Twitter spokesman, Sean
Garrett, said, “BP requested that the account holder be asked to comply with
Twitter’s guidelines regarding parody” (Stelter, 2010). Simpson found BP’s requests
nothing short of a joke as he did, in fact, change the bio of his handle. After the
request of BP, the bio read: “We are not associated with Beyond Petroleum, the
company that has been destroying the Gulf of Mexico for 50 days.” After the change
was made, Simpson said in an email “The changes we have made are the only
changes we will make. If there is a problem, they will have to shut us down.” The
public reacted essentially by rolling their eyes and actually created more interest in
the parody account and garnered Simpson even more Twitter followers. Simpson
went on to return the favor by tartly suggesting that BP should shut down their own
Twitter PR account because “no one can tell if it’s a joke!” This is clearly the

15. Social Media Impersonation 15
response BP didn’t want. After this debacle, BP essentially left Simpson and his
account alone in an effort to not add more fuel to the fire.
Simpson not only used his parody handle to mock BP, he used it to spread
awareness and raise money for a cause. In many of his tweets sent out via
@BPGlobalPR, Simpson used the hash tag #BPCares. This was a frequent tag used in
his tweets mocking what he called “PR talk.” Many of the accounts most successful
and retweeted tweets were the ones that could be confused with BP having written
them themselves and included this hash tag. Simpson used this as an opportunity to
raise money for cleaning up the gulf by selling t-shirts with the words “BP Cares.”
These t-shirts were sold for $25 a shirt and all of the money went to support the Gulf
Restoration Network. The t-shirts design featured BP’s logo with an oil slick
dripping from it along with the print. It was a wildly successful campaign as
Simpson reportedly raised over $20,000 for the cause (Carr, 2010).
BP’s overall reaction and handling of the situation is still up for debate to
this day, but most agree they could have handled the situation much better. Shel
Holtz, principal of Holtz Communications + Technology in Chicago, suggests BP
could have followed Dell’s idea of crowd sourcing they did in 2007. BP could have
created an online discussion in which individuals could contribute to the cause of
making suggestions on how to fix the leak. This would have undoubtedly helped
BP’s image by making them seem like they were legitimately concerned about the
real problem, rather than pretending it didn’t exist. Chances are someone probably
would have come up with an idea to stop the leak more quickly had BP created an
outlet for this sort of discussion.

16. Social Media Impersonation 16
The Strategist article suggests that there are three main takeaways that
communicators can take away from BP’s blunder. These three takeaways are
communication doesn’t matter as much as action, how you communicate matters,
and learn social media before a crisis occurs. In an interview with Ad Age, Simpson
says that, “This isn’t a PR nightmare, it’s an actual nightmare” (Parekh, 2010). He is
suggesting that no matter what BP would have said, it wouldn’t have mattered until
the leak was fixed. The public is more concerned about what a company does,
rather than what is says. The Strategist article also mentions that companies with
an effective “crisis plan” are more likely to finish their fiscal years at a higher share
price than companies who do not. They compared the BP spill with the Exxon
Valdez spill of 1989. Exxon’s share price finished 7% higher than before the
accident, whereas BP’s value was cut in half. The final point involves understanding
and building your brands social media following before it’s too late, as was the case
with BP. By giving your customer base a reliable outlet on the web to communicate
with your brand, companies can build a reputation for listening and engaging with
their customers. If these interactions increase and a brand builds a loyal following,
they are more likely to be supportive in times of crisis.
To Parody or Not To Parody? That is the Question.
Until this parody phenomenon builds up a track record in court and the court
of public opinion, it will be up in the air in regards to what brands should do in
response to these accounts. Right now, the majority of research has shown that it’s
most likely in the best interest of brands and individuals deal with these matters on

17. Social Media Impersonation 17
a case-by-case basis. Each circumstance is different and may require a different
action to be taken by the authentic entity.
Corporations in particular should build a policy that embraces and
familiarizes their PR professionals with these satirical nuisances. In an article by
RedZebraWorks (Walsh, 2010), she states that, “Viewing a parody account informs
the reader of all activities taking place for the corporation—and none of the
information is sugar coated.” This was most definitely the case with BP as well as
other corporations facing the same issue. The article also suggests that these
accounts serve a similar purpose as T.V. shows like The Colbert Report or The Daily
Show. People tune in to these shows to get a straightforward, satirical take on
issues they care about.
As far as PR policies go, Coca-Cola seems to be on the right track with this
parody issue. In addition to its main Twitter account, Coca-Cola has created an
account for Doc Pemberton who is the long-deceased inventor of Coca-Cola. The
account currently has over 70,000 followers and is one of the more popular brand
created parody accounts. According to an article by Platform Magazine (Kallam
2012), this allows “corporations to overcome the snarkiness and humor to tap into
the PR potential of these accounts as ways to reach their audiences.” Because these
accounts vary on a case-by-case basis, they can help the brand, hurt the brand, or
confuse the audience. At a corporation level, this is why it is of vast importance for
their “PR professionals to be aware of their influence to counteract their negativity
or tap into their potential to reach new audiences (Kallam 2012).”

18. Social Media Impersonation 18
There is no denying that this new form of satire and impressionism is here to
stay. The quicker brands and individuals learn and educate themselves on this
matter; the better off they will be when it comes time to save face. As long as the
Internet exists, there will continue to be new issues like this and with the “learning
on the fly” approach, brands beware.

19. Social Media Impersonation 19
References
Barnett, E. (2009, June 08). Twitter launches verification system to protect celebrities.
Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/5475445/Twitter-
launches-verification-service-to-protect-celebrities.html
Carr, A. (2010, June 14). @bpglobalpr revealed to be funnier in 140 characters than in
real life. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/1659954/twitter-bp-rep-
bpglobalpr-revealed
Crecente, B. (Writer) (2011). The best survival horror bowling game you'll never play
[Web]. Retrieved from http://kotaku.com/5859304/the-best-survival-horror-
bowling-game-youll-never-play
Impersonation policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://support.twitter.com/articles/18366-
impersonation-policy
Jacques, A. (2010). Meet the creator of @bpglobalpr. The Strategist, (Summer), 11.
Jennings, M. (2011, December 09). The twitter fraudsters. Retrieved from
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/371674/the-twitter-fraudsters/3
Kallam, K. (2012, March 07). Parody twitter accounts: Friend or foe?. Retrieved from
http://platformmagazine.org/2012/03/parody-twitter-accounts-friend-or-foe/
Keighley, G. (2003, August 09). The onion: Funny site is no joke. Retrieved from
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/08/28/bus2.feat.onion.site/index.html
Myspace faq. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20060726162621/http://www.myspace.com/Modules/
Help/Pages/HelpCenter.aspx?Category=2&Question=26
Parekh, R. (2010, June 04). Ten questions with @bpglobalpr. Retrieved from
http://adage.com/article/adages/ten-questions-bpglobalpr/144275/
Parody, commentary, and fan accounts policy. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://support.twitter.com/articles/106373-parody-commentary-and-fan-
accounts-policy
Penenberg, A. (2011, August 08). Secrets to a successful fake twitter character.
Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/1771228/secrets-to-a-successful-
fake-twitter-character
Schock, N. (2010). Handling a fake twitter account. The Strategist, (Summer), 9-10.

20. Social Media Impersonation 20
Stelter, B. (2010, June 09). Bp account on twitter? just a joke; k thx bye. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/us/10twitter.html
Walsh, T. (2010, October 13). Twitter parodies attacking your brand!. Retrieved from
http://www.redzebraworks.com/blog/twitter-parodies-attacking-your-brand/
Windels, J. (2011, November 28). [Web log message]. Retrieved from
http://www.brandwatch.com/2011/11/dealing-with-twitter-parody-accounts/