Comments

PEOPLE ARE NOT BRANDS!

People are people, brands are brands... the problem lies in the not-so-hidden assumption that, as Catherine Kaputa puts it - "people are products"... no, they're not!.. i "fell" for the people are brands concept myself when it was first mooted years ago... i bought it hook, line and stinker... quickly worked out my 'brand' and put it into action powerfully... payed it a lot of notice, time and effort... but, it doesnt feel right, and not because i branded myself incorrectly... and it never truely will for any human being who is trying to 're-invent' themselves as a brand... it's a delusion... a very attractive, seemingly sensible, delusion, an oasis mirage in the dry and hot market place... at some level, deep inside, we know this...

the only way you can 'brand' your Self is to be your true Self... often i've read that all self-branding is, is communicating clearly what value you are - but, read the 'how to' and it quickly moves to emphasising some aspects of character over others, to creating 'impression' and to standing in a certain place in a certain style, all of which is, at some level, inauthentic... be your Self, not somebody else that you pretend/want/wish/hope/would love to be... to try and manipulate public perceptions of you by being something 'other' than you true Self is to deceive (quote Kaputa "branding gives you a way to control perceptions")... to do this is to be a mock presentation of your Self... branding is about careful positioning and sending certain messages in order to create a targetted perception... to do this, other than when being totally authentic, is a very attractive trap to fall into to!...

this does not mean you cannot/should not develop certain skills, behaviours and even thoughts in order to 'get somewhere else', but it does mean that manipulating perceptions of who you are is fundamentally false (in all senses of the word)... at it's extreme, self-branding, other than communicating your true Self, is totally unethical... and, ultimately unsatisfying...

my advice (yes i'm a consultant) - be your Self, connect closely with people and open up... don't pretend, brand and position your Self!

Posted by onehandclapping@madasafish.com at May 11, 2006 9:49 AM

... continued...

for those who are about to tell me that self-branding is not manipulation and impression building, i quote directly from "the power of self-brand" on Catherine Kaputa's web site...

"...As in product branding, the most important thing is not what you say about yourself, but what others say about you. You need to think not in terms of what you want to say, but what the market wants. Not what you want to do, but the reaction you want to get from customers "...

Posted by onehandclapping@madasafish.com at May 11, 2006 10:06 AM

Sorry Tom. I have to agree with onehandclapping.

Tom Asacker, Author, "A Clear Eye for Branding"

.

Posted by Tom Asacker at May 11, 2006 2:56 PM

Very true! Be what you are. Pretending or self branding will land you no where. Its temporary ,only to change public perceptions towards you.As you cannot hide your inner self for long so better be true to yourself and people's attitude will change automatically towards you.

Posted by Jenny at May 12, 2006 12:58 AM

I think personal branding is quite relevant for success.

Branding is not just about 'telling' what you want to 'tell'. Its not about pretending either. Its about 'honestly communicating'. Its different. Communcating not only what you are, but also, what do you aspire to be/ want to be!

While many of us are same/similar at present (e.g. By our knowledge/experience, joining communities of the interest), we won't remain so forever. World around us is very dynamic. Each of us will be shaped by what decisions/ actions / judgements we make and how we contribute to our society around us. Each of us shall be shaped by our experience, very unique to us. In that, few of us may decide to consciously be different & better and brand themselves, which is not only different, but also offer more value - benefits / gains/ pride/experience etc etc..- by way of (mutually acceptable and beneficial) association with him/her. Proactively communicating this very differentiation is what is branding individual - & team & organization.

Posted by Shah I at May 12, 2006 5:00 AM

Fascinating topic. Is there something tucked away in this discussion about our ego?

I think about this subject as 'image' versus 'depth.'

William Hague is an excellent Conservative politician (even thought it hurts me to say that as a lifelong Socialist!) So why did he fail so miserably as leader of the Conservative party? All the academic arguments in the world will never convince me of anything other than the fact the guy is bald was his downfall. His ‘image’ did not fit – and yet strangely enough he is now regarded as one of the most thoughtful and influential politicians in the UK. Interesting that David Cameron the ‘new tory kid on the block’ has a full head of hair, as does Tony Blair of course comapred to his Labour Party predecessor Neil Kinnock! How pathetic that people are judged more by ‘image’ than ‘depth’ but sad to say that is the case more so now than ever.

Any person with an IQ above freezing point knows that depth will always beat image but we continue to be conned by image-makers.

I often say there is no such thing as an ‘overnight success’ and I believe that passionately. If you want evidence of that just listen to the wonderful speeches of Tony Benn – now 81 years of age, retired politician and never more popular. His image for years was one of ‘extreme left’ and yet he is one of the most warm, caring, compassionate people one could meet. Tony Benn has too much self-respect and dignity to ‘Brand’ himself – you take him for what he is or not at all.

I am not qualified to argue academically whether promoting one's own Brand is proven or not proven scientifically but I am 100% with Onehandclapping, Tom Asacker (and Tony Benn!) on this.

Posted by Trevor at May 12, 2006 7:59 AM

Since my IQ may be below Freezing, I'll ask the stupid question of the day.

Branding is great and I have holistically jumped into the pool with both feet. I understand the forces behind doing this and many authors have written about this subject (Dan Pink, TP, etc.). We have plenty examples to review and tons of resources to access to help us along the way. But…

What is the Brand Promise for the individual? (Don’t confuse this with the normal definition of brand promise). Perhaps the following:

1. Agility
2. Self-Actualization:
3. Credibility
4. Trust
5. Increased Opportunities
6. Differentiation
7. Survivability

Why should the average Joe spend hours and hours developing his brand? Why should Sally dedicate the next five years becoming a Rock Star in her subject of choice?

Posted by RTodd at May 12, 2006 9:37 AM

The source of my question comes from the Mrs. I am now approaching my 100th publication that spans academic, professionals and subject domains. So on the branding scale, I have done pretty well but she, as only wives can do, laid it out in simple terms.

Tell me again, why are you doing all of this? I tried to deliver my best TP statements on globalization, free agent nation, and differentiation but the message went flat. So I will open it up here to help me communicate it in terms everyone can understand. What is the promise to those that enter into the branding fold?

Posted by RTodd at May 12, 2006 1:15 PM

I started to respond, but my comments were too lengthy. I wrote a post on my blog instead. You can click my name to see it (U R a Brand… R U Authentic?).

It's not my intention to steal traffic or the conversation, so feel free to post your responses here on TP's blog if so inclined.

Posted by DUST!N at May 12, 2006 2:25 PM

A very interesting topic, which is even followed in Germany! (sorry for any grammar mistakes and mispellings in advance!).

I think the main point of the debate is how 'being authentic' has to be defined. I would agree that in the end it is all about 'being true to yourself'. But what does this mean? How much of our personality is actually accessible to us by introspection? In his interesting book "Strangers to ourselves" Timothy Wilson makes the point that parts of our personality (which he calls the "adaptive unconscious") are a hidden mental world that introspection may never show us. Therefore he argues that
1. looking outward to know ourselves might be as important as looking inward
2. what matters is that people commit themselves to a coherent self-narrative that correspondends reasonably well to their adaptive unconscious.

To quote Timothy Wilson: "In this changing, postmodern world, such a narrative might well include some compartmentalization of selves, or a recognition that there a vast differences between ourselves as 'daughter', 'weekend athlete', and 'Elvis impersonator'."

This means, being "authentic" can in the end be defined as playing with different roles, which are still in line with one's main values and beliefs.
When we define "being authentic' this way, branding oneself is just a conscious (re-)shaping of a specific role you are going to play on a specific stage ( be it the office, the gym or ...).

Thus, I would not agree with Catherine's statement that what the markets want is more important than what you want to say. But on the other hand being true to oneself is always a process, not just playing out a static personality core. And therefore, being authentic is a flexible concept of oneself.
And: When we set 'being authentic" against 'branding", does this imply that all brands are in the end fake ("not authentic")?

I am interested in your opinion.

Posted by svenb at May 12, 2006 2:32 PM

RTodd,

My goal in establishing my personal brand is to love what I do and sustain my ability to do so.

Without a personal brand, I would be relenqueshing this goal to another entity (i.e. a boss).

--------

Sven,

Thanks for the input. I agree that introspection isn't everything. To know we are a cog has no value without understanding our role in the greater mechanism surrounding us.

Your comment about trying different roles that fit within our values and beliefs is in line with Marcus Buckingham's Now Discover Your Strengths. He posits that when we say people "change", we are talking about their values and beliefs changing.

As far as brands not being authentic... I believe the brand has to be an extension of the truth. It's a soundbite. Sometimes, we pick the wrong soundbite. Intentionally (manipulative) or unintentionally (misguided).

Danke.

Posted by DUST!N at May 12, 2006 2:53 PM

We tend to think about this from ourselves looking out - what about looking at this the other way round?

Would you prefer to deal/work with someone who was branding themselves or someone who had not taken this step?

What would be the advantages and disadvantages in dealing with both types?

Posted by PaulH at May 12, 2006 3:27 PM

Dustin,

thanks for your comment. I think I will have a look at Marcus Buckingham's book then ...
To add something to my point. I do not think that we only try different roles, but we (consciously or unconsciously) play different roles in different circumstances. Who can honestly say of himself behaving the same way at home with friends compared to being at work (for example). I think personality is a spectrum of values and "behaviour options" we choose from (and add to). Thus, we are actually used to "brand ourselves" in different ways, but it is most of the time not a conscious process.
With regard to authentic branding: I think you are on the spot. Of course, branding is in a way an extension of the truth, a kind of exaggeration. Interestingly enough we tend to accept this extension up to a certain point. But if the extension is "over the top", the brand is not trustworthy anymore, and the branding-process fails.
So we are talking about a certain kind of "tipping point", a demarkation line between a somewhat "staged" but still authentic (self-)branding and a sad delusion. Up to this point, branding is on solid ground and helpful for increasing visibility on the market, going beyond this point is only embarassing.
And to define this point it needs introspection and feedback.

Posted by svenb at May 12, 2006 5:03 PM

I believe this thread is the finest, most intelligent, well-argued on all sides thread I've seen here or any public forum. As a reader, I thank every single person who posted for these lush insights; it's a treat.

Since the conversation has shifted from a discussion of self-branding to authenticity, I think I'll throw in my two pfennings.

To be effective in the workplace, especially as a manager, one has to be flexible enough to display a wider range of behaviors than any one sane person has naturally. If one is the kind of individual who wants people to just suck it up and work whenther they feel appreciated or not, one is going to have to transcend her authentic self for employees who need constant re-assurance to be productive. And if a manager believes that raisiing his voice is personally distasteful, but has some employees that respond productively in a crisis only to a parental harangue, than one owes the employer that behavior.

An authentic self is best. But it's also self-limiting in that one has to recognize the limitations of the effectiveness of that authentic self and, when truly needed, find a way to compromise without consistently violating it.

I suspect self-branding (about which I'm ambivalent for the reasons others here have already stated better than I could have) is parallel. It's not necessarily about fabricating a false self to present to the world, but building something based on one's authentic self, with some carefully chosen Xmas ornaments to get others to focus on our key benefits. I'd be interested in what Catherine Kaputa would say to the many insightful expressions here.

Posted by jeff angus at May 13, 2006 12:32 AM

Jeff,

what you said about "carefully chosen Xmas ornaments" is exactly the point I wanted to make. Thanks! I think "being authentic" is in the end not "that's how I am" but "that's how/what I want to be". A conscious decision we have to take every single day. And I can only agree to what you wrote about effective managers: The systems theorie states that the most flexible part of a system controls the systems. And that's what being a manager is about - having the flexibility to walk in other people's mocassins and communicate according the perceptions he gets by doing that. And all of this based on the background of core values and ethics as the foundation. And even these values and ethics have to be interpreted anew when faced with new situations. Otherwise seminars on leadership and ethics would not make sense; we would just teach things managers should actually have learned at home and in kindergarten (do not lie; do not steal ...).

Posted by svenb at May 13, 2006 2:40 AM

http://www.selfbrand.com/speaking.shtml
Some lectures here, I havn't listen to them yet but
will do so.

I think that we have to be careful not to 'oversell' the concept of brand – by bottling the end and selling it as the means through manipulating a pseudo-values system which often assumes linear cause and effect relationships – giving the illusion of coordination and control. e.g., Live your Brand! or by your Brand Values which is just plain paradoxical. But don't Brands simply mean image? which is the result 'the impression'. A noun not a 'Verb'. i.e. the Brand promise is basically not to oversell your innate functional attributes, though on an emotional level there is a much more forgiving degree of scope for misalignment, between who you are and how you want to be seen.

This includes the following where 'brand' is the result, But I think it does force you to look in the mirror!
• People
• Products
• Services
• and, Business

Posted by Rachel Dorrell at May 13, 2006 2:40 AM

Hi Guys - please forgive me but out of anger frustration and depression about being abused as a paying customer I just wanted to share with you my update after almost three weeks without my internet connection provided by Wanadoo here in the UK.

We have had apalling service from Wanadoo in the and frankly they deserve to be made a spectacle of.

If ever I was UNFORTUNATE enough to be in charge of such a shambolic organisation I would resign immediately upon hearing such a story.

The good news is I have learned a lot and an article in my head about 'emotional connection' has emerged!

Anyway enough of my anger ... here is my update posted today on my own Simplicity Blog ...

Latest report from my local library!!!!

As the days have passed I keep telling myself I am learning through this enforced absence from the Internet.

I am definitely going to find time to write an article about the experience we have had including the following:

*The appalling ‘customer service’ from the Wanadoo ‘customer service’ department
*The failure to deliver by Wanadoo staff on promised ‘phone back’ calls
*The abysmal ‘care’ shown by Wanadoo technical department and the ‘feeling’ of being dealt with by a checklist operated by people acting as robots who are unable to show even the slightest initiative
*I would love the Chief Executive of Wanadoo to have experienced the service we have experienced in the last three weeks and ask him or her self “Am I happy with that?”

I have come to the conclusion there just is no emotional connection between Wanadoo staff and their customer. Not one person in Wanadoo that I have spoken to in the last 20 days has made me feel like a valued customer.

I think if I was in charge of Wanadoo I would be ashamed of the service offered. Frankly however I don’t think they even care!

There is something in this expression ‘emotional connection’ that I want to explore more.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 13, 2006 8:26 AM

Careful Trevor - Wanadoo has want to do attorneys that want what cash you may have given your written outrage! >:}

Seems to me the Brand vs. Self debate is maybe the key facet in blogworld discussion and politics. I'm okay with Brand-You provided it is authentic and real - and then when mistakes happen - willing to step up immediately - like Bill Clinton didn't - and therefore he was impeached.

Posted by Sean at May 13, 2006 10:49 AM

TP has already figured this out, for better or worse. "Brand You= You're on your own, Dude". I guess we all get to figure out how that plays out in our own circumstances.

Posted by Kate at May 13, 2006 1:00 PM

Smart people avoid this "cool f®iend".

Posted by Sean at May 14, 2006 5:52 PM

Smart people, Sean, know who/what they are about. Apparently, there are several folks here not familiar with (like him or not) the Trump Brand. Donald Trump is a brand. He also has brands. Trump is true to himself and what he believes in. That's what makes him an authentic brand. Not many people truly achieve to a level as to actually have become a brand. That is unusual. Bono (from U2) is a brand. Though I am sure Bono would not prefer it that way, I'm sure he's more than cognisant to that fact. Otherwise, why else would he be so deliberate about which magazines he grants interviews and which subject he discusses with them...not to mention U2's brand-alignment with iPod (remember the U2 iPod?). Not everyone achieves that iconic level of branding. Not many people can handle it. For those who know me in a non-work environment, I have successfully achieved a level of branding in my family & circle of friends. Without diving into excessive detail, it's as simple as when someone sees a certain style of shirt on someone they make comments to me that they saw a shirt that was "so you". I have cemented my style branding with those in my circle of influence. For more on this subject, research the pre-celebrity years of Cary Grant. Onehandclapping - do you get where I'm going with this? People are brands. You clearly don't like the job you've done branding yourself. No offense meant. Just offering a response. People are brands - in a psycholigical sense. People see slackers - or at least people they preceive as slackers - and they either do or do not want to associate with said slackers. Said slacker has been branded. Branded by clothing style, attitude, participtation (or lack thereof) in school, choice of work, etc. Get it? Other people then choose whether or not to associate with said person based on their (brand)perception of that person. People are brands. Don't like your brand? Work on what you're about. That transition will, in effect, re-brand you.

Posted by tango5 at May 14, 2006 10:15 PM

Hi Sean - Bring 'em on I say - I can justify every word I have said! :-)

Posted by Trevor at May 15, 2006 6:12 AM

Bono and Mr.Trump, no doubt fine (if polarized) examples, but what is it exactly are we benchmarking here?

Posted by Rachel Dorrell at May 15, 2006 6:37 AM

That's the spirit Trevor and T5 - people are people - brands are brands - syntax is paramount.

Agree Trump and Bono seem to be "brands" - love Trump mainly -

Bono is a jerkweed dickweed brand to me for some reason - could it be his giant ego / bizarre shades / lack of talent / waste of money to African dictator Zurich accounts / flabby face & gut [rockers must appear Jaggeresque]. Have a fun 1.

Posted by Sean at May 15, 2006 8:14 AM

U R a Brand Fans and Detractors – One and All,

Even though my book and its topic have unleashed a lot of pros and cons (especially cons), I must say that I’m impressed with the lively debate and insightful comments Brand You has generated.

Where to begin? First of all, I agree with everyone about authenticity. The fallacy is equating branding with being inauthentic. Great brands, I believe, whether people or products, are built around authenticity – finding what’s unique, different and relevant. Brands that are built on a shaky foundation (fakery) are bound to crumble at some point.

A number of you have criticized my point of view that brands are based on perceptions – other people’s perceptions – and that the strategies and principles of branding gives you a way to control perceptions. I think that is the way the world works whether we are talking about products or people, like it or not. It’s not which product that is objectively best that wins out, it is the product that is perceived best that wins out. Blind tests prove that time and again. Hey, Coke changed its formula based on blind taste tests and had a fiasco on its hands. It’s the same with people, I believe. It’s not the best, the brightest and most talented that are the leaders in various arenas, it the people who are perceived to be so (generally with the help of the branding principles I outline in the book: harnessing visual identity and verbal identity, building a strong network, targeting key markets, emotional connection, etc .

Trevor portrays self branding as “image” vs. “depth” and says that “any person with an IQ above freezing knows that depth will always beat image." I wish it were so! Look at political leaders – are they really depth beating image? And don’t we all know lots of smart, talented people who are underemployed and even unemployed? The fact is we are branded every day and the important thing to realize is that if you don’t get involved in branding yourself, others will do it for you.

Catherine Kaputa

Posted by Catherine Kaputa at May 16, 2006 2:27 PM

Catherine,

Thanks for joining the discussion. I think that is admirable and brave of you.

I believe we're all agreeing on some pretty baseline points here (authenticity is paramount). We probably all acknowledge that perceptions are what drive personal 'realities' as well. So, it is very important to manage those perceptions.

What would interest me is an understanding of how (or if) you delineate between:
• Authentically managing perceptions
vs
• Inauthentically pleasing markets/people

I think it's easy to say authenticity is important, but it is harder to clarify how you merge authenticity with meeting the demands of the marketplace. There is a point where "wins out" equals "sells out."

And don't we all know (or know of) people who thought they "won out" only to find they lost what was truly important?

Posted by DUST!N at May 16, 2006 5:10 PM

Dustin raises an interesting question, and a critical one in branding (personal or product). How to you remain true to the brand (or yourself) in a world where there is so much pressure to do what everyone else is doing or give people what you think they want?

That’s the challenge of product branding and personal branding. In self branding, the challenge is being true to yourself and appealing to your target audience. If you work at a company, the key target market is your boss and senior management. If you run your own business, your key target markets are your clients and prospective clients.

Most of us (if we are honest) who have worked in a corporation have been guilty of being inauthentic (I know I have) in an attempt to please a boss. Or,if we are an entrepreneur, we try to please a client. We tell the person what we think they want to hear or try fit an image we feel they could relate to. We’re afraid to tell them what we genuinely think. We don’t feel comfortable enough to be ourselves.

But interestingly, I found that my value increased with most people when I was authentic with the courage to express my own convictions and be myself. Of course, in going against the grain, you have to communicate your ideas well and connect emotionally. But in my experience, most people respond well to authenticity.

I might add that I find the negative comments on self branding on the Tom Peters website somewhat ironic. While Tom is certainly not the first personal brand, Tom is the person who formulated the concept in his article in Fast Company magazine (I think in 1999) that created a lot of buzz on the topic.

Plus, Tom is a brand in the business world. Use his first name and business people know who you are talking about like other “first name only people” like Oprah or Martha in their arenas. Tom Peters stands for something different, relevant and special in the business marketplace – in short, a brand.

Catherine Kaputa

Posted by Catherine Kaputa at May 16, 2006 6:40 PM