Branding: Personal Branding And Reputation Are Illusions

The more people read about personal branding, the more confused they get. It's especially true for public relations professionals and their clients, given how many coach spokespeople to supplant their own name with the company name during interviews.

Geoff Livingston's recent poll on the Livingston blog is a testament to this fact. Almost 60 percent of survey participants could be classified as undecided. And why wouldn't they be? For every post about how to build a personal brand, there are three more that make fun of personal branding.

Why is personal branding such a complex topic?

For starters, branding is a complex topic. When it comes to organizations, people frequently confuse identity with branding. It seems to take a long time before they understand that a logo is not a brand. Logos are merely representations of the brand relationship between the people and organization. Basically, when people see the logo, marketers want those people to attach the context of a fulfilled brand promise to it.

It’s easier to understand than it sounds. Before the BP logo was covered in oil, the BP sun thingy was meant to symbolize its commitment to clean alternative energy.

This brand promise has since imploded because the relationship cannot sustain the weight of reality. Green is great, except when it's blackish brown and covering animals.

Before you can understand personal branding, you have to understand organizational branding. Ironically, most personal branding coaches teach organizational branding and pass it off as personal branding. So you might know more than you think.

The downside is they lied. Personal branding doesn’t work like organizational branding. Personal branding is trickier because it can’t do what organizations do. Organizations get to “make up” their original brand promise out of thin air. People don’t.

Whatever came before you has already established the foundation. You’ve been working on it since the day you were born, with people reinforcing it along the way.

This can be good or bad for you. (I think it's bad, but that's another story.) But regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, it lays the ground work. And that makes changing yourself a bit more complex than buying new sunglasses.

Sure, some personal branding folks often suggest you chop all that baggage off (which isn’t impossible) and then pick one of a handful of models to reinvent yourself. Let's look at the three most common.

1. Be who you are (assuming you know who you are).
2. Be who you want to be (assuming you know what that is).
3. Be what will get you ahead in your career (a very popular premise).

On their own, none of these ideas really "work." They don't work because, generally, people are trying to build their personal brands around outcomes they want (much like companies do). That's not about who you are or what you are. That's about what you want.

Considering three common models for personal branding.

1. Transparency. That one is easy to dismiss. Just ask Tony Hayward what he thinks about it. Or Mel Gibson? Or Tom Cruise? I’m a truth nut, but let’s face facts: transparency can be stupid.

2. Vision. It sounds really good, but it doesn’t consider that most people don't work to be "who" they want to be. They work for "what" they want to be. And that means bending to the audience's will much like some organizations try to do. The real problem with number two is that "who you are" and "what you are" might not be the same thing. A little transparency, much like the aforementioned, will crash all your hard work down.

3. Act The Part. Right. Ask Howard Stern about that one. He often found himself caught between the person he plays on the radio and who he was at home. Those lines blurred, even in public. Take a look on Letterman, 1987; 1993; 2009.

4. Reputation. I didn't list it before because it's not a personal branding model. It is, however, an alternative. This concept tosses out personal branding and attempts to focus on reputation. Simply put, reputation is based on not what you project, but what you do. It has some merit, but advocates neglect that reputation is easily distorted.

People are too complex for personal branding.

The book I've been working on for some time is about this very subject so I tend not to write about it too much here. But given the confusion being created in social media (a place where some people try to reinvent themselves based on social media advice), I thought I'd toss out two ideas. The one above and the one below.

Most people are not cognitively trained to accept how complex other people are.

We tend to remember about others what we share about ourselves — tiny slivers. I was reminded of this simple fact when I shared my A7X review. One of my cousins said she would have never guessed I like metal. (I like many things, across all spectrums, from classical to hip hop.) Another friend said the same. But another, who doesn't know me as well, was not surprised.

So, only two-thirds ever got some unspoken memo. What does that mean?

It's subtle, but it means two-thirds have a slightly changed perception about me, maybe favorably because they like A7X too. For a bigger audience, an equal number of tiny positive, negative, or neutral reactions. And that's just about music.

Let's say we add any number of more personal topics (religion, politics, economics, philanthropy) or minute-by-minute details (ranging from whether I go to the gym or if I accept an invitation to speak in Asia). All the while, keep in mind that masses of people will only remember one or two details (positively or negatively) about you.

So what do you get? A crapshoot. Even if you pick what you share carefully, most people will only remember what fits with a central theme that they create for themselves. You cannot control it. It is what it is.

Political candidates know this all too well. If one of them says they like A7X, people might accept it. But if the other one says the same thing, people might reject it. But more than that, it isn't limited to public figures. It could be anyone. Imagine knowing a few more details (likes and dislikes) about an elementary school teacher. Parents might not be too comfortable learning about a hidden piercing or radical political viewpoint or some other "weirdness."

There's the rub.

If we accept personal branding or reputation is more than identity (styles, clothing, etc.), then the only choice is to find common ground between who you are and what you are and what you are doing and where you are doing it while maintaining authenticity at the same time, assuming you don’t work for a company that is fundamentally different from you.

Do you know what? That's not personal branding or reputation at all. It's something else.

It's called character. And it cannot be taught as much as it can be learned. And, if you ask me, people ought to pay much more attention to that than the labels others might thrust upon them. Branding is better left on the doorstep of organizations.

Being Transparent: Sometimes It's Stupid

It has been months, but people are still talking about it. Last year, Spirit Airlines floated the idea of charging a "passenger usage fee" to cover the costs associated with buying a ticket. Specifically, it would charge a $5 to $10 fee if you booked a flight anywhere other than a Spirit Airlines ticket desk.

This year, Spirit Airlines was considering the opposite. The new fee idea charges passengers for getting help from one of its employees (hat tip: Andrew Weaver. It's not all that novel, given that some airlines already charge as much as $25 to place a reservation over the phone.

And while it might not happen in the near future, CEO Ben Baldanza is not morally opposed to charging a fee to use the bathroom. The justification for it, and all the other charges (including carry-on bag charges and seats that don't recline), was to keep the base fairly low.

Refreshing Transparency Or Just Plain Stupid?

Baldanza clearly has the fragile brand theory on his side. He's always inventing ways to make what most people consider a necessity much more like a luxury. He's unapologetic for it.

Spirit Airlines is fighting to be the low fare leader and treating people a little less favorably than parcels on a FedEx flight. Ultimately, customers have a choice. And some people, reportedly, like it.

This truly blows some holes in many modern business theories. Spirit Airlines customers aren't looking for relationships. They aren't looking for comfort. They aren't looking for anything but the cheapest possible fare to get from point A to B.

The online poll on USA Today Travel shows 59 percent of the people think it's a bad idea; 23 percent think it's a good idea. And 19 percent think it's a good idea if it speeds up boarding because many delays are created by carry-on luggage. The irony there is that the airlines industry created the carry-on problem because of mishandling bags and charging to check them.

Here's the thing. Any company can do whatever it wants, and most of the backlash seems to be from concerns that other airlines will adopt policies that seem idiotic on their face because a heavy enough percentage of people are willing to go for low air fares.

At the same time, Baldanza has succeeded in ginning up publicity in his quest to make Southwest Airlines look like a luxury flight. It's crazy, but seems to be working for him and his airline.

Free Publicity For Silly Ideas Works Until They Stick.

However, there is a caveat. What works today will eventually not work tomorrow. Right now, given the economy, people are hustling and bustling to cut a few dollars anywhere they can. Once the economy stabilizes, assuming the federal government cranks back its aim to make profit a sin, then price conscious flyers might not be so keen on the Baldanza concept.

If that happens, even if all airlines followed Spirit Airlines' lead, Baldanza will be remembered for the push to make everything an extra. Personally, I'm not sure if such a concept is sustainable. Nobody really wants to need a day of recovery after a flight.

Overall, customers want a fair price for what is being promised. The problem for the airline industry is they struggle to keep their promises because most of them allowed price wars to be their only product differential. Add to this the constant pressure for catering to people who don't care about anything but price, and sooner or later you run out of things to cut.

It seems to me that Baldanza is smart for the short-term gain. But over the long haul, people will remember him as the guy who considered charging for bathroom privileges. In a down economy, people might take it. In an up economy, he's a jerk.

Sometimes being transparent is stupid. I don't mean in an intellectual way. I mean in a long-term strategy kind of way. Not all ideas need to spill out of your mouth. And not everything that spills out of your mouth needs to be published ad nauseum, especially when people figure out Baldanza is trying to find a way to charge you for not speaking to a live person or charging you for speaking to a live person. That is his real dream come true.

Confusing Students: What People Learn From Social Media Pros

For all the advice given by social media pros, did you ever wonder how that information is translated by the recipient? I do, every single day. I do, because what is being taught and what is being learned are often two very different things.

To illustrate, I'm paraphrasing a tip list from someone relatively new to social media. He has been following several top social media writers, heard several speak, and read a few books. I don't want to call out the author nor the advisors this time around. The lesson, if any, is meant to serve future speakers, perhaps giving them a glimpse of what people sometimes take away.

What People Learn From Social Media Pros.

• Determine your brand or personal brand and how you want to present yourself online.
• Scan the Web for communities that consist of people you want to reach with your message.
• Join the communities that would be most advantageous for you, even if it is off your site.
• Teach other people in your company to do the same, not just the social media leader.
• Become the image you want to portray and establish a code of conduct you won't break.
• Pay attention to how other people in the community behave and behave like they do.
• Look for people in pain and frustrated to create an immediate meaningful connection.
• Become a more active participant in those communities, saving sales for when they count.
• As you establish authority, introduce value, insight and direction to those you choose to engage.
• Give the people who help you rewards, resolutions, gifts, and shoutouts to increase engagement.
• Earn connections through mutually beneficial collaborations and become advocates for each other.
• Everything you do online should include involvement maps that lead to business objectives.
• Develop programs that make people come back for more and more on a daily basis.
• Become a resource and authority to your community, ensuring they come to you for advice.
• Recognize any contributions and reciprocate, especially among those who are notable.

What do you think? Is this the intent of the instruction? And if not, how do you go about changing it?

I might mention that I've touched on some of these bullet points too, but the echo back is patently strained. I also have some thoughts about how to better align some of them, but it would take considerably more space than a single post.

Any other thoughts I have about this list, I'll include as I have time to address them in future posts. Right now, I'm much more interested in what other communication pros think. If you don't want to leave a comment, drop me an email.

Going Social: Goodbye Citizen Journalist, Hello Journalist Citizen

Forbes isn't the first to flip the switch, but it is one of the most interesting and sure to get attention. Starting today, according to the Business Insider, every reporter will now be required to have his or her own blog. They won't be alone either.

"Moving forward, when I look at an operation like Forbes, I look at a mixture of a full-time staff base and hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of freelance contributors," Lewis D'Vorkin had previously said. "It's a blend."

It makes sense, sort of. For the last several years we've seen the resurrection of the citizen journalist. And for the next couple of years, we might see the rise of the journalist citizen.

What Will The Journalist Citizen Be?

In April, Ike Pigott explored the possibly of organizationally embedded journalists. But journalist citizens might be decidedly different. They won't be embedded in organizations. They'll be embedded in our social networks and, perhaps, actively participating, promoting, sharing, and investigating story leads.

They already are, you know. Early last year, we worked on a brief for several major publishers to do exactly that. It was the first phase of what might later become the journalist citizen. Specifically, they wanted to know how to tap into stories that people in social media find interesting and then give those stories a spin, upgrading those ideas with access to better, harder-to-reach sources.

The next phase is closer to what Forbes is proposing to do (but they were not one of the publishers who received the brief). Journalists will actively participate and promote the stories they create (or each other's stories maybe). They'll have to.

Although most emigrating print publishers are standing firm that reporters will be subjected to eyeball quotas (a standard practice among broadcasters), one wonders if there will be a certain amount of pressure upon the participating press to build their own "tribes" around the subjects they cover. Or perhaps, they'll discover, there are no "tribes."

Online participants are very much as free as ever. Long before anyone called them tribes, we called them nomads, whom marketers and media hope to capture as they wander their way to watering holes for individual conversations, family gossip, fun, and games.

Perhaps more disturbing than journalists splitting their time between investigative work, objective journalism, social networking, story promoting, and defending whatever it is they lend to a topic, will be the increasing loss of objectivity as they serve to cater to what some might call temporary tribes (even if there aren't tribes).

I cannot stress temporary enough. You see, unlike real tribes, they move on if you write about the same thing too much or too many different things. It makes sense that marketers would attempt this balancing act. They wear the agenda on their sleeves, and its name is sales no matter how many relationships or niceties they offer up. There is nothing wrong with that.

But the media? If the agenda isn't to tell us what we need to know whether we want to hear it or not, then what is it?

Don't get me wrong. I think the move by Forbes is the direction that communication is moving. But what strikes me is that if newspapers and magazines have finally surrendered to social media, what valued proposition will they bring to the table, especially if they support a platform that allows hundreds and hundreds of freelancers to submit stories that compete with their staff? And, equally interesting, what will the value proposition be for them?

After all, there is always reality. Reality suggests that if newspapers and magazines recognized that being relevant online was more difficult because it forced them to compete with television and radio news in the same space, imagine what it might mean if they have have to compete on a daily basis with blogs too.

It seems to me that things will be getting messy. Imagine consumers being asked to choose from the people in the field who have blogs (experts), journalists who have blogs (professionals), citizens who have blogs (casual observers with sometimes very good ideas), and, well, public relations pros with blogs. Huh. I'm okay with that. It's stranger than fiction. How about you?

Splurging Consumers: Are They Cash Crazy?

Bloomburg Businessweek calls it the new abnormal. Americans, they say, are broke and depressed but also buying $3 lattes and waiting in line for iPhones. The compelling Businessweek cover story provides plenty of examples, including a woman who explained how tough the economy was while splurging in Las Vegas.

A few numbers behind the article citing the new abnormal.

• Businessweek cites the success of companies like Apple, Starbucks, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW.
• 17 percent of consumers are spending outside their means; 20 percent struggle with needs and wants.
• 20 percent of Americans have bought something in the last 30 days they wouldn't have 6 months ago.
• 51 percent of Americans have fallen behind on their their annual savings plans, but still splurge shop.

Some of these percentages certainly seem far off from the report that The Futures Company put out last year. That think piece, A Darwinian Gale, said that consumers had reshaped their entire thinking, with an emphasis on responsibility, vigilance, resourcefulness, prioritization, and network orientation. In March, another study from Euro RSCG Worldwide, said there were more prosumers than ever before.

Have consumers gone crazy, trading in the "new" society for schizophrenic shopping?

They aren't crazy. Devin Leonard touches on some of it in the podcast, but doesn't go deep enough in understanding consumers, especially those who are broke or feel stressed by the lackluster economy and low consumer confidence.

It's not impulsive shopping as much as it is backlash against the pressure of isolation, intense savings, and preparation for the worst (which he does say). But even more importantly, most consumers, especially those who had not faced any hardships in previous economic downturns, splurge now and again because they remain unbalanced.

This is one of the reasons most financial planners I know always suggest building entertainment in to a budget, no matter how small that budget might be. Simply put, it's little luxuries (scalable to our financial picture) that help lift our spirits up and keep us moving forward. It may also represent a re-prioritization to a mindset that tip earners tend to have all their lives.

Since tip earners have unfixed incomes, they tend to avoid fixed expenses such as magazine or newspaper subscriptions. They also cut back on other fixed expenses as they can, such as grocery shopping or gas consumption or premium cable. Why? So they feel like they have more control over their daily finances even if that means they purchase something some would consider "luxurious."

The same psychology played out during the Great Depression. Despite being the worst economic collapse in the nation's history, this era also helped launch the major motion picture industry. The same psychology prompted hungry children in Europe during World War II to buy candy instead of soup if they happened to find a few cents. And the same psychology may have even been present during the Renaissance, when theater for the masses become an important part of life.

For a few minutes (if it's a cup of coffee) or a few hours (if it's a movie) or a few weeks (if it's an iPad), consumers can take the edge off a repressive economy and chronic uncertainty. And the need to do so grows exponentially if they didn't balance out their finances prior to the crash, which increases the pressure to splurge rather than spend a smaller amount on themselves every week or every month.

Marketers can empower consumers with fewer fixed costs.

Does this change how consumers spend? Sure. From a big picture perspective, it skews purchases much like the Businessweek article says. However, it tends to be for very different reasons. This behavior isn't a new abnormal. It's very normal. And as long as consumers can limit the pendulum swing between feast and famine, it might even be healthy too.

The question marketers ought to be asking themselves is how do they adjust their message to meet the mood? Some might make the mistake of cutting prices. But others will likely find some lift in removing "fixed" costs and giving consumers more flexibility.

Speaking Simply: Fresh Content Project

I read a quote this weekend that stuck with me. I believe in the concept anyway, but quotes are always fun to find in order to share what you think with someone else's articulation of it. Here's the quote...

“Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.” — Charles Mingus

The next five fresh picks are much like that. They provide smart and simple solutions, like why the Old Spice guy might have really worked or why thinking of your blog as a loss leader is a bad idea. They show you why the media isn't trusted all the time, why chasing comments is silly, and why algorithms that include the "number of followers" don't tell the whole story.

Best Fresh Content In Review, Week of July 19

• How to Reproduce the Old Spice Video Phenomena.
I'm not a fan of the Old Spice euphoria nor the Old Spice cynicism, but John Bell did one of the best jobs asking the right questions. Was it successful? What about it made it so? And did it drive sales? But more than that, he warns people away from trying to duplicate the tactics. (Elf Yourself is no fun for hotdog buns beyond a chuckle.) Like most great advertising, it was breaking the mold that captured our attention (even if some ideas were in play before). With exception to not noting that the social media element was part of a larger campaign, including a huge coupon drop, we need more thinking like this.

• Blogs As Loss Leaders.
Chris Brogan debunks some of the myth behind considering a blog your or your company's loss leader. He suggests looking at it differently, as part of the entire value chain. While the value chain may have different parts that cary more financial weight than other parts, they are just as important. If you want an analogy to help this sink in, think of your car having a value chain. The seat might not have anything to do with getting you where you need to go, but leather sure feels better while you're getting there.

• Social Media is the Servant of Strategy, Not the Master.
Adam Singer considers the problem with comment counting, which was all the rage in determining (gasp) influence a few years ago. (If you had more comments to count, you counted more. Whatever.) Singer then goes on to point out something we can never hear enough of — drive outcomes instead. As he mentions, comments don't do much for businesses. And not all comments happen on blogs anymore, anyway. That doesn't mean to discount them. Just keep them in perspective.

• The I-Dumbing of Journalism.
Ike Pigott shares one of the most blatant and silly stories sensationalized by a media outlet. The reason is clear enough. It was a ratings period and the Oklahoma City television station knows that fear for family drives eyeballs. So it spiked up a story on audio files that kids download to make them high and how these sounds are, basically, the new gateway drug. Pigott debunks a small part of the story simply by noting that binaural or "two-tone" sounds are easy enough to come by. Telephone tones, among them.

• My Followers Are Bigger Than Yours: On Twitter, Quality Beats Quantity.
Ian Lurie has been doing an unscientific study by tracking what happens after someone retweets his posts. He noticed that people with a moderate following actually generate more responses from their RTs than people with larger followings. No surprise, he also found spammy people do not generate as much interaction, engagement or link clicks because they have already established a reputation for sharing junk. Ergo, the only place spammy guy has reach or influence is on algorithms.

Want to review more Fresh Content picks? Click on the Fresh Content label or join the Fresh Content Project on Facebook.