With an involuntary guest appearance from Chris Brogan (thanks Chris!)
In Monday’s post, order I critiqued the term “Personal Branding” which generated a fairly lively discussion – including input from the patron saint of “Personal Brand Experts” Dan Schawbel. But it got me thinking about some basic terminology I use all the time – in particular the difference between “Identity” (Andrew Mueller called me out on this one) “Branding” (David Sandusky thinks we should abandon the term), about it and “Brand” (Rob Frankel doesn’t think this word ever belongs with “personal”).
Then I got to thinking about how these things could be expressed using the Twitter universe as a metaphor.
Here's my first attempt. Does it make sense to you?
Originally, I was going to use my own Twitter account as an example, but who am I kidding? There just aren’t enough people out there talking about me to make my own little corner of the Twittiverse a very good example.
I know that it’s not the perfect metaphor, particularly since in corporate branding terminology, “identity” means name+logo+design standards – all of which overlap with the “branding” category above. But it’s working for me for now.
How about you? Is there a way I can make this stronger?
“Personal branding” isn’t new, pills but it seems to be a term that’s spiking upwards right now, viagra buy pushed by an enthusiastic tribe of “personal brand experts” who are starting to throw their weight around – particularly in Social Media. They dominate every Twitter search on “branding” for example. But for me, malady as a brand guy, a #brandchat conversation last week and blog posts by Mitch Joel and Rob Frankel set me to wondering: Is a “personal brand” even possible?
My son "branded" himself as Batman for a Halloween party over the weekend. But was it "personal"?
The case for “personal branding” (i.e. it’s not an oxymoron)
Brands are important: I’ve built my career around the idea that the concept of a “brand” is a powerful tool to build relationships between people, products, companies, services, government programs, charities, and various combinations of all of the above. So when I hear someone – anyone – reinforcing the importance of brand-oriented thinking, part of me yells out an involuntary “Amen, preach it brother!”
Persons can have brands: individuals can and do become incredibly powerful brands – and many of them consciously cultivate these brands in much the same way a smart company manages their brand portfolio. No one can ignore the phenomenal impact of the Obama, Oprah, or even the Glenn Beck brand – although impact may be the only thing those particular brands have in common.
Tom Peters: I was inspired by a ground-breaking article in Fast Company from 1997 called “The Brand Called You” in which Peters says:
It’s this simple: You are a brand. You are in charge of your brand. There is no single path to success. And there is no one right way to create the brand called You. Except this: Start today. Or else.
The rise of Social Media: this development more than any other is what is driving the growth of the “personal branding” industry. Just look at the Personal Branding Rock Star Apparent Dan Schwabel’s Web site, blog, or Twitter stream: your Social Media “footprint” is mostly what he’s talking about. And indeed, now that our thoughts, deeds, and misdeeds can be broadcast to the world with the click of a button, we all need to be aware of how our online actions affect our perception by employers, business colleagues, and potential customers.
My own work: I myself have done almost a dozen seminars on branding for individuals at universities, professional organizations, and networking groups. My first such presentation was at a “Company of Friends” meeting in 2001 (selected slides below), in which I encouraged attendees to look at their careers, areas of expertise, and public communications through the lens of branding. I even wore a T-Shirt with “I AM BRAND” on it and encouraged them to repeat that phrase in their heads.
So let me be clear: I’m not against “Persons” “Branding”
To sum up, before I get to the negative stuff: the intersection of “Branding” + “Individuals” is a powerful connection that I strongly believe in and promote.
Clear? Got that? Cool. Let’s move on.
The case against “personal branding” (i.e. it is an oxymoron)
Personal branding often confuses “identity” with “brand”. These are different things. Identity is the part of your brand that you control – that is, your name, what you say about yourself, how you look, etc.; but your brand is much bigger, and includes a lot of stuff that you don’t control – most importantly what other people say about you.
Branding is not about you. It doesn’t matter what you are trying to promote, your brand is only as good as what it does for human beings– that is, how useful your brand is to human beings as a way of finding, understanding, and referring others to something they value.
No one can “own” their own brand. Here’s my definition of brand for the record – one which I’ve honed and refined over 15 years of building practical brand strategy for companies big and small. Note as you read that “brand” can not be created ex nihilo (from nothing), nor can it be owned by the same people who own the “product”:
A brand is the whole set of ideas, words, images, and expectations that humans* associate with a product**.
(* “humans” means multiple customers / influencers / observers.)
(**”product” can mean a corporation, commodity, service, concept, or individual)
Or, a shorter definition: “a brand is a promise.” And a really strong brand is a promise kept consistently, and reinforced publicly, over time. This is where the “personal” part starts to break down: it implies private, non-public, just between me, myself, and I. Say “personal promise” to yourself. Sounds wrong doesn’t it? That’s because a promise is only meaningful if it is made to someone.
At its worst, the personal branding movement misses the point. Far too often, even most of the time from what I’ve seen, “personal branding” is a fancy word for “narcissism”. It’s a cover for the selfishness, greediness, and egomania that are temptations for all of us – and should never, never be celebrated or recommended. That is, bad personal branding is about introspection or “self-help” – or making your life better, not about making the lives of your fellow humans better.
So can “personal branding” be redeemed?
Personally, I’m going to avoid the term as much as I can. It’s just too distracting for my corporate clients if I get too deeply tangled up in the narcissistic side of the field.
But there are people out there on the Light Side of the Force. And on that note, I’m going to leave the last word to Mitch Joel from Six Pixels of Separation:
“If there’s one lesson/opportunity when it comes to developing your personal brand, it is to make everything about the people you are connecting to and not about yourself.” (underline added by me)
– Mitch Joel
So what do you think?
Am I being fair to “personal branding”?
Should we use the term “personal branding”at all?
Is there a better term for the branding of individuals?
So, medications after months of waiting, cialis 40mg the baby is finally here. No, ed I don’t mean my actual baby – my wife and I are still waiting for the arrival of our third little bundle at the end of November. I’m talking about the new chicken sandwich Brandvelope named for KFC in Canada – which appeared in stores on Friday. Beg to Differ often gets asked what goes into such a process, so as a public service, here are a few insights for brand managers from the Kentucky Fried trenches.
The Colonel calls
When Priszm (the company that manages the KFC brand in Canada for Yum! Brands) called Brandvelope this summer to ask for help naming the new sandwich, they already had a great product in development. The concept of the new sandwich had been pretty much nailed down after several cycles of focus group testing, refinement, and more testing.
We learned that they were launching this new product to be a “hero” – or “flagship” of their line of sandwiches. And we learned that focus group subjects loved the sandwich, but they didn’t love any of the names that had been tested.
Our job: find the right name for the new sandwich.
The sandwich concept:
The chicken: fresh, skinless chicken breast fillets breaded in-store with the Colonel’s 11 herbs & spices, then fried on-demand for customers.
The extras: fresh lettuce, a sesame seed bun, and peppercorn mayo.
The packaging: the product is the only KFC sandwich served in a box, giving it a premium, high-value appeal.
The concept sounded like a winner to us (as a matter of fact, the early concept photos had our mouths watering). But what do you call such a thing?
There are two basic ways to approach naming.
The wrong way: creative first; strategy last.
This is the most common approach to naming. Sit in a room and brainstorm until you come up with the most creative, crazy, or compelling name you can think of, then run with it. This approach can be loads of fun, and usually leads to names that work great for the brainstormers, but not for customers.
The right way: strategy first; then get creative
This is our approach: take some time to understand the context that the new product will be launched into, the “brandscape” around it, and most importantly, what the name is supposed to do. Then and only then do you move to the creative part.
A great name is never just a name; it’s a tool to help people find, understand, and remember products, services, and yes, chicken sandwiches.
What we needed to know before we started:
Intentions and strategic goals: what was the impetus behind the launch on the part of the people managing the brand?
Customer expecations: what did we know about the hang-ups and desires of the target audience?
The Brandscape: what competing products would the new product be compared to and how could we highlight the differences?
Brand architecture – how would the new name complement and contrast the rest of the existing portfolio of products?
The unknowns: what additional information did we need, or at least, what were the areas where we’d have to make educated guesses?
The process from there:
So how did we get from these questions to the final name “Big Fresh Chicken Sandwich”?
Good question. We’ll get into more details in a series of blog posts over the next few days. But in the meantime, here are a few “take-aways” to think about.
Thoughts for branders:
Does your company treat product (or corporate) naming as a creative process first, or do you start with customer-facing strategy?
Can you answer all five of the areas we needed to adress for KFC above?
Are you treating your products as individual entities or as part of a bigger system that helps customers make decisions?
Are you listening to people outside of your board room when you make such decisions? People who are willing to challenge you and your assumptions?
The Chicken Sandwich Series
How to name a chicken sandwich: thoughts for branders (this post)
Breakfast Cereal brands that didn’t stand the test of time
After yesterday’s post on Laser-Engraved Corn Flakes, and Beg to Differ took a look at the Wikipedia list of breakfast cereals and noticed just how many of these cereals failed for one reason or another. Either they were meant to promote a short-lived movie, prostate character, ed or cartoon, or given names that became liabilities for other reasons, or they were just hilariously bad ideas.
A short-lived cereal based on the equally short-lived Saturday morning cartoon of the late 1980s starring a pair of teenaged slackers – one of whom was a very young Keanu Reeves. Funny, he never made the cereal aisle again with subsequent movies. Perhaps Dangerous Liaisons Crunch? The Devil’s Advocate Loops? Matrix Flakes?
Interesting concept. These two characters were set up as mortal enemies – World War I flying aces in a dogfight for breakfast-table supremacy. They both spiraled down in flames, but you have to admire the effort.
This of course was a cereal based on the Star Wars character, C-3PO. I remember seeing this one on the supermarket shelf. Why the fussy, anally retentive protocol droid and not Leia Cinnamon Bun Crunch or Wookie Pops? Who can say.
This cereal was described on the box a “sweetened chocolate flavored cereal – fortified with 8 essential vitamins”. Its mascot was named Newton The Owl.
But is it just me, or is there a striking resemblance to the logo of a certain chain of restaurants?
To me, this name is an odd duck – or perhaps a weird heifer? The idea is that it would turn your milk a “crazy” artificial pink colour. But as if that weren’t appetizing enough, I’m pretty sure after the Mad Cow scare of a few years back, this one won’t be making a comeback any time soon…
The brand connection between the chain of adult focused coffee-and-donut stores and a kid-oriented breakfast cereal is a bit of a stretch. Particularly in 1988, when I would have expected this to taste like Styrofoam, day-old coffee, and cigarette ashes. Mmm.
Tag line: “Crunchy little donuts with a great big taste!” Two varieties: Glazed Style and Chocolate.
Named for quarterback Doug Flutie, these ones actually lasted quite a while, and the cereal became an ironic pop-culture hit – with a box appearing in the background on Seinfeld for example.
Wikipedia also notes that Flutie Flakes became the subject of a minor controversy in January 1999 when after Doug blew a playoff game against the Dolphins, Miami Dolphins‘ head coach Jimmy Johnson poured Flutie Flakes on the ground and invited his team to stomp on them. This made Flutie very angry.
Very elaborate product line and character universe, but a fairly sizable flop for Ralston’s first attempt at sugary breakfast cereal. But even today, you can order T-Shirts from this Freakies fan site: http://www.freakies.com/
As a famous man once said: I pity the fool that ridicules this cereal. So I’ll let another famous man introduce this cereal to you (and the other denizens of his demented playhouse).
Mmmm. Tasty. I’m going to award this one the “Least Appetizing Name” award. Of course, it’s a promotional tie-in worked out with the Disney merchandising folks and meant to promote the launch of the Lion King franchise.
And yes, I can see the “gross-out-mom” appeal of “Mud & Bugs”. But even as a kid who loved grossing out mom, the name alone would inspire me to skip breakfast entirely.
Sorry, I take back the Least Appetizing Name award and give it to this You Can’t Do That on Television spin-off. Funny though, that this would have come after the lifespan of the show – with the golden era of You Can’t being the late 1980’s.
Cap’n Crunch apparently had a few spin-0ffs, including this violent-sounding sidekick. The “Punch” refers to the fruit-punch-flavour of these cereal rings. The mascot was a hippopotamus named Harry in sailor duds, who actually does some villain crunching in the old commercial below.
How did this kid ever get a cereal? Named for Steve Urkel – the supremely annoying fictional character on the ABC/CBS comedy sitcom Family Matters, portrayed by Jaleel White, this one was mercifully short-lived and now we have only the commercials on YouTube to remember how close we came to the end of civilization as we know it.
Funny, I’m married to one of these. But this cereal probably predated the wide use of the term for a nice-looking female with children. Also known as “Fruity Yummy Mummy”s, this cereal was part of the same cereal family as Count Chocula and Franken Berry.
From Mr. Breakfast.com: Yummy Mummy was a “fruit flavor frosted cereal with vanilla flavor marshmallows”. The yellow marshmallow pieces seemed to resemble the shape of a head. On some of the cereal boxes, they were referred to as “monster mallows”. The other cereal pieces were red and orange. They may have also been intended to resemble heads, but the primarily circular nuggets with two slits in the center looked more like colorful little pig snouts.
Kellogg’s pushes boundaries of food product branding
File this under weird but compelling: The Telegraph in the UK is reporting that Kellogg’s will be testing new laser-etched Corn Flakes in selected markets. It’s very hard to tell how serious this is, malady and without a clear press release or better imagery, viagra 100mg Beg to Differ wonders if it’s even real. But it got us thinking…
Image sent out from a UK Kellogg's Twitter account to show new laser-etched corn flakes. Sorry, but this looks more like PhotoShop than Star Wars to me.
Branding problem / branding solution
From Wikipedia article on Corn FlakesThis science-fiction-sounding technique might seem frivolous and wasteful on first pass (it did to us).
But when you think about it, the idea is actually very strong from a brand strategy perspective. Kellogg’s wants to help consumers distinguish between the “real / original” Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and all the other products called “corn flakes” that are so common around the world.
The branding problem here, of course, is a classic trademark case study. The name Kelloggs chose ,”Corn Flakes”, is about as plain and useful a name as you can imagine from a consumer perspective. But from a corporate perspective, Kellogg’s is now stuck with a name which is not considered trademark-able in most countries because it is a purely descriptive phrase. It would be like trying to trademark “apple pie”, “automobile”, or “battery”.
And if you look at the turn of the century ad to the right, you’ll see that this has been recognized as a problem since those first Toasted Corn Flakes were produced by accident by John Harvey Kellogg in a misguided attempt to quell sexual desires with dull food.
Notice the line:
“The original has this signature: W.K. Kellogg”
Later products like “Rice Krispies” were given much more distinctive names to fight this effect.
Burning it in
So really, if it works and isn’t a publicity stunt, this idea of imprinting the word “Kellogg’s” (which is trademarked) on the flakes is a smart way to show that the product in the bowl is different from all the others out there.
In essence, it’s no different from what Levi & Strauss did back in 1886 when they sewed the first branded leather patch on 501 jeans to scare away imitators.
We’ll see if this idea lasts as long.
The enemy: one of hundreds of other "Corn Flakes" out there.
1) 
2) 
5) 
6) 
7) 
8 ) 
10) 
11) 
14) 
15) 
