Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Emily Ma is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Emily Ma and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Seth Godin suggests that brands represent an ideal, not necessarily any tangible goods or services provided by the brand:
The great brands of our time are not about what they are. They are about what they represent.
What happens when a brand is a person (i.e. Sarah Palin) and not a thing (i.e. Apple Computers)? Is this a demoting of the person’s humanity? Or is it a brilliant move to realize the truth of all marketing–it all centers around someone? More from Seth:
Apple, Sarah Palin, Harley Davidson, Tom’s Shoes… In each case, the reality of the product means far less than what the brand represents.
The facts of iPod battery life, knowledge of world affairs, gas mileage and foot comfort are almost irrelevant. What matters is the Jungian rush these brands connote, their ability to allow us to identify ourselves and fellow tribe members, the sense of belonging and labeling and the journey we’re on (or not, our choice).
Great brands represent something bigger than themselves. You can create this accidentally if you’re lucky, but you can create it on purpose if you try.
When you buy an iPod, you must know that you are buying a design straight from the brain of Steve Jobs. Sure, others have contributed to the product, but the bottom line is this: No Steve Jobs = no iPod. The iPod, before it is an Apple product, is a product from the personal brand of Steve Jobs.
Are people who market themselves as a brand simply more honest? More savvy? We all market ourselves somehow. Think about it:
They all say something about you–it conveys an essence of who you are to the people around you. In short, a brand.
Gary Vaynerchuck suggests something similar to Godin. From his latest release Crush It! (affiliate link):
Monetizing a personal brand is not a new concept. A lot of the most successful entertainment figures in the world are personal brand geniuses, like Oprah, Howard Stern, and Emeril. They built their empires out of being who they are and never backing down from it.
Do you see any potential problems with marketing yourself as brand? I love what Gary writes about in Crush (if you’re at all entrepreneurially minded, it’s a must-read), but I’m still wrapping my mind around the “self as a brand”. How does that work and what are the consequences–both positive and negative.
Personally, I’m wrestling with this concept. After reading both Godin and Vaynerchuck, I realized that the BeDeviant “brand” is largely an extension of my own personality. This realization left me with the question, “Is this okay? If so, why? If not, why not?”
Where do you see this concept at work in the world around you?
People buy from people. Everyone that works for a company is an extension of the brand. A brand is a promise, ideally we are promise keepers. My only thought is make promises we can keep. Also promote a personal brand that is consistent with our personal values and have trust in the fact that there's a tribe out there that resonates with those values. Great blog entry.
Really interesting post, Justin, and one I'll have to think about more...The idea of a person as a brand is one that I thought I understood once -- you're representing yourself, showing the world through clothes, actions, etc, who you are. That makes sense. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that, more and more, the idea just doesn't sit well with me.
Companies like Apple do have a product that they sell, and, in that context, a brand makes sense. But when it comes to personal brands -- when does it stop being personal? When do you start looking at the person as a "product" rather than a human being?
When I read your post, I immediately thought of Paris Hilton, though your example of Oprah is just as relevant. Both have created brands out of being who they are and have then used that to create their own products (companies, magazines, perfumes, etc). As a society, we look at them as brands, as extensions of these products, as a name. Not necessarily as people, as humans.
Is this a problem? There's a huge part of me that wants to say yes because it does seem like we're stripping away the humanity, not seeing them as someone with feelings and experiences -- not human -- but rather as something onto which we can project, a "what" rather than a "who." On the other hand, that's how their products, companies, etc, came to be in the first place.
So I have no idea. I don't know what to think as to whether it will be harmful or helpful in the long run. I do know, however, that I would want my own "brand," so to speak, to remain personal.
Great post, Justin. Looking forward to thinking more about this.
@Shane: "People buy from people." You nailed it. Godin had a post a few days ago that all decisions should be traceable to one person because when you can remain anonymous, you do some very awful things. The same concept applies here. We buy from who we know. Thanks!
@Susan: I think "I have no idea" is an honest answer. I'm in the same boat. I never want to be at a place where I'm commodifying myself. Ugh. This demeans what I believe makes us human. I like how Vaynerchuck carries himself as a "brand" but does it where his humanity is 100% intact.