People Aren't Brands. Ever.

by Jason

A person becoming a brand used to be a complement. It meant they'd become bigger than themselves. Bigger than human.

But today? Calling me a "brand" is an insult.

I respect them and acknowledge they're smarter than me, better (and waaaay more frequent) writers, but...Armano’s wrong. Chris Brogan's wrong (to his credit, he says he might be). But people ain't brands.

I like what I do (I'm an iAgency creative), and believe it to be a valuable, honorable job that can help drive the engines of commerce, creates jobs, etc. But calling people brands is the ego of marketing/advertisers who think our jobs are important. Total bullshit.

My disappointment is that these guys--of whom I'm a fan--are marketing innovators/leaders who tell their clients--and mine--“Let go of the control” , only to sweat and bleed themselves dry to create and then maintain their "personal brand", as if there's value in becoming a brand. They’ve become the marketers they say are wrong.

I think they're righter than they know (that's a compliment) when they advise clients to "let go". They don't need to become a "personal brand." You don't need to "brand U". Or me. Or whoever.

You want to become a media personality and gain a following? Then do what you tell billion-dollar brands to do--deliver a good product (in your case, insights), and create good experiences between you and your audience.

But make no mistake. It's you and your output, not your "brand", that wins us over. Brands, by definition and necessity, are simple. Not complicated. Tradeoffs, not dichotomies. Dependable. Unchanging (for a time). People are the exact opposite.

We aren’t brands. We are what we produce or what we offer, but that changes day by day.

And now, with the advent of interactive messaging with consumers, brands aren’t brands anymore. They’re just companies that make stuff. People like or hate the company or the product...the brand is irrelevant in the face of truth (see Alan Wolk's "The Real Digital Revolution").

The brand is declining. The brand is worth less. The Brand is Whatevered. Look for more from me on my next post.

Comments

[David Armano]

"The brand is declining. The brand is worth less. "

I don't think this is the case though I can understand the issue you take with "brand U". But brands are real though it's hard to put a finger on. And in the case people, it's why we favor some actors over others and have preferences.

You said:

"You want to become a media personality and gain a following? Then do what you tell billion-dollar brands to do--deliver a good product (in your case, insights), and create good experiences between you and your audience."

And you are correct. That's the best way to create and maintain a brand. To serve, to add value in a meaningful way. I know a little bit about this because that's what I preach, but also do with the visuals I provide etc. The effort on my part goes mostly into the content—the managing of my "personality" is secondary.

There are simply too many similarities between how we can feel about both brands and individuals to dismiss this in the black and white fashion that you are doing. But that's just an opinion and I could be wrong. We agree on providing good experiences, so by that logic I think the brands that do this will become stronger for it as opposed to becoming "worth less".

[Patrick Algrim]

Yeah I don't know if I agree. In this day and age, while social media doesn't work for most people without something worthy of talking about -- a person can still turn themselves into a brand. Biggest case study on this is Gary Vaynerchuk, you know you understand his name, you know you have heard of his name. But before you heard of his name, you didn't know about WineLibrary (the actual brand).

Thus, Gary Vaynerchuk has literally become THE BRAND. It's an odd loop hole, but the problem in the equation for most is... You don't have a product, or a service to turn you into the brand. Just blogging and using "social media" isn't going to be enough, join the rest of the 100 million people who are trying to do that.

[Rob]

Brands are for cool people and cool companies that want to make money, become famous, and perpetuate business cycles that are less than innovative. As you say, "...brands aren’t brands anymore. They’re just companies that make stuff." Spot on.

For everyone else? Quality, experience, and expectations matter. I drive a "luxury brand" car not for the name but what I've come to expect in terms of the aformentioned.

[olivier Blanchard]

Hey Jason.

Interesting thread. I look forward to reading more.

Are you saying that at the height of their careers, Britney Spears and J-Lo weren't brands?

You don't think Miley Cyrus is a brand?

[crawford]

A brand is a promise, a covenant, neither a product or a person alone.

[Justin Boland]

In the context of your argument, your last sentence was hilarious: "Look for more from me on my next post."

Was that intentional?

Anyways, sure -- my brand is not me. This is true for my stage persona -- that's not me, either. The human being is a beautifully mysterious singularity, nobody would deny that.

Just the same, other people never perceive this elusive "real me," just like I'll never understand the real You.

Appearances are only skin deep, but it's also the only thing most people will ever see of you.

Look for more from me in my next comment.

[doohan]

hmm. inspiring post. makes me think.

brands are perceptions created based on the sum total of experiences people have. somebody like armano has a brand created through his personal interactions, through his work, and virtually through his lifestreaming. sometimes he tweets about biking, sometimes karaoke, sometimes dinner, sometimes design... all contributes to my perception of him. I think i could guess what some of his consistent guiding principles are. they're an awful lot like brand attributes. so why couldn't he be a brand? For me the key is Armano could be a brand but only within a super-small audience. most people wouldn't get it. it cannot be explained. but those who follow him, might just understand.

I was talking to someone in Europe last week and tried to explain Slim Jim. He had no idea what it is. I explained. It's a meat stick. It's spicy. It snaps. It comes in a plastic tube. There's no way Slim Jim can be explained to the uninitiated. But if you know the brand, you understand. The brand makes a difference but only to the audience who has learned what it stands for through all their experiences with it.

If brands are really "whatevered" you need to be looking for a new career cause I think your bills today are paid through the time you spend designing things that inspire consumer to brand connections. I hear that law enforcement is a safe career choice. We always need cops...

[Jonathan]

I agree with you...in fact, I just published an entire book on the subject, entitled BRANDING ONLY WORKS ON CATTLE. Brands are not top-down conceits that need to be measured in make-believe ROI, bottom-up experiences of reality that can be measured in transactions (informational, purchase, etc.). I love the Freudian fantasy of mind control as much as the next guy, but it's nonsense, and language like "brand is a promise" or seeing brands in any/every aspect of existence is the same thing as brands not existing at all. Defying a concrete, objective definition -- with real measurements that are obvious even to the uninitiated -- isn't proof of brands...it's proof that they're a consensual hallucination. And a profitable one, too...

[Scott Weisbrod]

Jason,

What is your definition of brand? Looking for a level set before I reply with any thoughts.

Cheers,
Scott

[jimmymac]

I believe semantics are getting in the way.

Most marketing folks agree that a company's brand lives in the hearts and minds of its customers. The brand is build up, or torn down, by the experiences the customer and his/her influencers may have. It is the same for people.

In essence, to have a "brand" as a person is marketing-speak for a person's reputation and character, usually in reference to their business expertise. As you say, do they provide insights? Are they providing value? What is your experience with them? Each interaction adds or subtracts to their perceived brand.

If you overheard a guy on the street say that Microsoft was going to tank, you wouldn't believe it. But if you knew that the guy was Warren Buffet, you probably would. That's the power of a brand (and maybe some inside information).

A brand can influence the value of having something (information/product/service) come from the company or person instead of somewhere else. Indeed, it's a key differentiator in commerce and it is far from dead.

[Doug Haslam]

I think jimmymac nailed it with the "semantics" argument. I talk about "personal brand" all the time, but in terms of reputation, and the extent you put yourself out there - for you.

It is cynical to boil a human down into a "brand" but the idea of creating an image of yourself (an honest one of course) for the public and using that to represent you is not at all repellent. For some, the person is synonymous with the company brand (think entrepreneurs like Laura Fitton or Gary Vee). For me, it's how I network. The "brand" is my blog, Twitter or Utterli persona and that's how i meet and interact with people. On the other hand, I don;t refer to myself as a brand. I refer to myself as Doug (or "DougH").

But if you asked me the broad question- can a person be a brand? In the end, I would say yes.

[bender]

Holy crap, guys. I'm blown away that anyone's reading this, let alone commenting (and totally honored that Armano responded...super cool).

I'll take more time to answer in more detail in a bit, but I thought I'd hit a couple of quick responses:

@Armano: You're right, it's not b&w...but for some reason, your post (and Brogan's) triggered a very real, emotional, and visceral reaction. It clarified a lot of stuff in my head.

@Justin Boland: I see what you mean. Hilarious in context, but no...I'm not that funny (on purpose). Just making a public commitment to my imaginary audience to keep myself motivated and all that...

Anyway, thanks for all the feedback.

bender

[Jamaaludeen Khan]

When the world was a bigger place we could argue that people were not brands, and that people only support and/or constituted major brands.

But the world is small now. Tiny. And we as small business, entrepreneurs, soloists, etc - we live on the Long Tail. We want to be small businesses now. We no longer use the "we" and "us" talk - we say "I" - because "Small is the new big" - ask Seth Godin.

How we've done business in the past, how we've communicated, etc - all of these have changed. CNN no more has control of the media. We are the media now.

I believe there will still be a place for major news networks, for billboards, etc - but the Web has changed and disrupted industries and continues to do so.

Yes, we are what we offer. But let's not divorce that from our brand. That ties in directly to our brand. Our brand is us, and everything we do - internally and externally.

My 2 cents.

[Jon McLeod]

A lot of interesting comments. I come from a 10-year career as a REALTOR, where "personal branding" was the hot button - and still is. However, I wouldn't consider that a true "brand". To me, a true brand will outlive the creator of the brand. Dave Liniger (founder of RE/MAX) realized this - hence the Real Estate MAXimums name instead of Dave's Cool Realtors. A true brand is developed to perpetuate a business model and a profit center. The personal brand has little to no value after that person leaves the industry. The name recognition gives a current competative advantage, but the name awareness dies when the individual retires, gives up, or goes broke...

[Jon McLeod]

@Jason - Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, etc are not brands because they can't pass the image on to the next leader. They are individuals that perform (or are perceived to perform) better than the next. Britney won't survive past Britney (or whatever stunt she pulls next), while 3M has survived many economic climates, varying degrees of leadership and GreenPeace complaining about them cutting down trees :)

[Josh]

@Patrick - Who is Gary Vaynerchuk? Apparently he hasn't done as great of a job at branding himself as you think.

[Robert Worstell]

A Rose is still as smelly by any other brand - but people won't ask for a daffodil and expect to get a rose.

People used to be "as good as their word" - when people had integrity and could be trusted. People may or may not have/be brands - but they do have name recognition, reputation, integrity - all these things which people "know" them by.

I agree that people are not "Brands", but the same rules apply to their reputation as people apply to "brand-name" commodities. People cannot ever be commoditized. But a "Stephen King" book is different from a "Louis Lamour" book.

And certainly, the most Academy-award-winning actor ever - Jack Nicolson - has a certain way of acting and a certain type of role he plays (and arguably plays each role the exact same way). Many actors and actresses do this same thing. And many painters are known for painting the same subject with the same style and quality over and over and over. That's why a Manet and a Monet are different from a Picasso.

Brands - maybe not. But people treat other people by their consistent actions. And similarly we also judge companies by the consistent quality of their routine production (a Ford is not a GM is not a Renault...).

So are people so different than corporations when they become "celebrities" and use their faces on products (Famous Amos, Tiger Woods)?

And where is the line drawn?

[olivier Blanchard]

@ John McLeod,

"Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, etc are not brands because they can't pass the image on to the next leader."

That makes zero sense. Not only that, but the mere fact that their mojo is not transferable proves that they are indeed brands all on their own.

Martha Stewart. Oprah. Tupac. Elvis. Sinatra. Not brands? :D

Get real.

[Jon McLeod]

@Oliver,
Everyone you mentioned are indeed famous/infamous for what they've accomplished. Doesn't make them a brand. Martha Stewart has branded an image using her name. She is not the brand, she represents the brand. Symantics? Maybe... Oprah is doing the same thing. Sinatra and Elvis are hugely famous, But does fame/fortune necessarily make them a brand? With that logic you need to include everyone from Hitler to David to Jesus and beyond. It is true that some people have created an image that has outlasted their own careers. However, I still contend that the image is the brand - not the individual...

[bender]

@Doohan: Just to clarify a few key points (especially for you, as you know the side on which my bread is buttered :)...
I'm not trying to confuse "brands" with marketing.

IOW, just because Miley Cyrus isn't a brand doesn't mean that she and her products shouldn't be marketed or advertised.

My point is that, in the past, the "brand" was the end-all be-all. In the past, the product/company/person decided what the brand would be, and if they said it often and loudly enough, consumers said "o.k." They don't say "o.k." anymore.

Now, the "brand" is just another element in the arsenal, along with product quality, experiences with said product, what other people have to say about the product and their experience, etc...

The "brand" is a have-to-have BUT growing-smaller piece of the pie. That doesn't mean that marketing goes away--on the contrary, it's more important than ever--but it includes so much more than what us marketers WANT to say. It's all the other pieces of the pie (and the new or about-to-be-created ones) that are growing in importance.

[bender]

Besides, I'd make a TERRIBLE cop.