Personal Branding

There is no better forum for examining the power and peril of personal branding than the current race for president.

Written Oct 23, 2008, read 1349 times since then.

I was recently voted "Dadpreneur of the year" for 2008 at the Company Picnic event in Seattle. What this means for my future, I'm not entirely sure. But I will definitely ride it til the cows come home. It will become a part of my personal brand, and directly influence my business brand.

The concept of personal branding is altogether critical these days. As the final days of the presidential race unfold before us, there is no better forum for learning about how powerful a personal brand can be. This is from a recent NY Times Magazine article:

"The selling of a presidential “narrative” the reigning buzz word of this election cycle has taken on outsize significance in an age in which a rush of visuals and catch words can cripple public images overnight. Mitt Romney, it is said, lost because he could not get his story straight. Hillary Clinton found her I’m-a-fighter leitmotif too late to save her candidacy. By contrast, the narrative of Barack Obama has seemed to converge harmonically with the shifting demographics and surging discontent of the electorate. It may well be, as his detractors suggest, that Obama is among the least-experienced presidential nominees in our nation’s history. But to voters starved for change, the 47-year-old biracial first-term Democratic senator clearly qualifies. That, in any event, is his story, and he has stuck to it."

No matter which candidate you support, it should be clear that Senator Obama has had a much clearer understanding of his personal brand than his opponents have of theirs. Senator McCain seemed to grasp this concept early on, but lost his way as the economy started to tank. He attempted to co-opt Obama's "change agent" brand, but that was a lost cause - the maverick offered too little, too late. Now he's back to the "country first" badge he more or less began with. It would've served him better to stick to this brand and seek ways to make it relevant in the face of voter desire for change. If Kerry's failed bid for president taught us anything, it's that being labeled a flip-flopper is just about the worst thing a candidate's brand can stand for. Especially when it's your competition driving the message.

Enduring brands are nothing if not consistent. People, whether they're labeled consumers or voters or producers or media are consistency-seekers. If there is no consistency, they will attempt to connect the dots on their own, essentially taking control of the message and weaving a story that they can buy. So do yourself and your customers a favor and sell them a story worth buying. Start with your personal brand, and then extend it to your business brand.

A word of caution: a brand is not a marketing strategy. Your brand is the core of your identity, and the most basic and defensible representation of your character. A company's brand is no different. Effective marketing strategy should bolster a company's brand and add dimension to it in the minds of consumers, but the two are not the same.

When a strategy fails, it's time to move on to new strategies and learn from your mistakes. When a brand fails, however, the problems are not so easily solved. You can no more adopt the brand of your competitor any more than you can adopt the character of the leading presidential candidate.

Consumers, and voters alike, will see right through you.

Learn more about the author, Alex Hillinger.

Posted by Alex Hillinger, Seattle, Washington | Oct 24, 2008

I'm interested to hear your feedback on this, Bizniks. Don't be shy. Alex
Posted by Judy Dunn, Seattle, Washington | Oct 28, 2008

Alex,

Just found your article. It's interesting to compare the presidential elections through the lens of branding. In my experience in working in campaigns, it is not always what a certain party or candidate does to brand themselves, but what the opposing party does, how they craft messages to voters, color the facts, paint a certain picture of the competitor—messages that stick in voters' minds.

And slick 20-second commercials that conveniently leave essential truths out. I'm talking about both parties here. So it is not the candidate, but the perception of the candidate that matters.

The branding of a candidate as a flip-flopper is a great example. As a thinking person, I have great respect for people who are honest, open and receptive. If more facts or information causes someone to change their mind, that's not necessarily a bad thing. And I wouldn't want a president to continue to charge down the road to war if he or she had new facts that would warrant a different decision. So I don't see the brand as flip-flopper. More like honest and analytical.

The good thing about branding as a business, at least a solopreneur, is that you don't have competing businesses trying to distort your marketing message and rebrand you. At least that hasn't been my experience.

I really enjoyed your article, Alex. Hope I didn't take the conversation too off base. And congratulations on your "Dadpreneur" award!
Posted by Alex Hillinger, Seattle, Washington | Oct 28, 2008

Thanks Judy! Great feeback.
Posted by Kirk Davis, Bellevue, Washington | Oct 29, 2008

Alex,

You really have me thinking on this. Because the election is a week away. It is interesting to analyze the effect of candidate branding in my own mind.

You are right about consistency!

However, if your brand isn't working or making people want to buy or vote, the greatest temptation has to be to change it.

From your experience, what should you do when your brand fails?
Posted by Alex Hillinger, Seattle, Washington | Oct 29, 2008

That's a great question Kirk. I could write a whole article about this very topic, and maybe I should...

The way I see it, it's all in how you define the scope of your brand. If you define it too narrowly (e.g. we're IBM and we make business computers) then you're going to run into trouble when the market shifts or people stop wanting what you're selling.

Smart brands give themselves latitude to operate based on their core competencies (e.g. we're IBM and we help businesses leverage technology) that can extend into a whole range of products and services.

Brands, by their very nature, are not easy to change. They are, however, capable of expanding in scope to define a broader and oftentimes deeper set of meanings.