I’m still feeling curmudgeonly about the concept of personal branding, and when I read skeptical views about personal branding like one called “I am Not a Brand. I am Me,” by Gareth Jones, my curmudgeonliness is reinforced.
One of Jones’s arguments against the personal-branding concept contrasts typical brands with humans:
Brands are largely static. Brands don’t rationalise their actions. Brands don’t change their behaviour or opinion after life changing events or after reflecting on some new piece of evidence. Brands don’t offer humility in the face of arrogance. Brands don’t eat humble pie when they got it wrong and then share that experience over social media.
Even though part of me wants to agree with Jones’s conclusion that “the whole notion of a personal brand is a bit of a nonsense and serves only to create another bit of jargon around which some ‘instant guru’ … can build a consulting proposition that preys on the insecurities of others,” I started to wonder if brands really are static.
Given my belief that brands must have stories and the best brands are the best because they have great stories (like the Moleskin notebook for example), can brands really be static? Stories suggest an ongoing plot.
I find it amusing and ironic that personal-branding gurus assert that one’s personal brand must be authentic, but the very thing that personal-branding naysayers rail against is a lack of authenticity, or as Jones writes, a watered-down authenticity:
And then there is the question of authenticity. Brands are strong, stand for something and carve out their definitive position in their relevant consumer space. They don’t try and water down their personality or message on the basis someone might not buy them if they don’t.
Jones’s final argument is that his online identity does not comprise a brand:
I am the sum of a number of profiles, opinions and conversation online, nothing more. These do not constitute a brand. Yes, I should definitely keep out any potentially offensive content. But water down my online and offline personality or manipulate it to present myself as something other than who I really am? Most definitely not.
Well, of course, Jones’s “profiles, opinions and conversation online” do constitute a brand because, in part, they help tell his story; it’s just not a brand or story that he has consciously crafted and manipulated. He has not concerned himself with whether or not anyone will buy his brand.
And there’s the issue — whether we want to put our brands and stories out there as they are or whether we feel we must watch what we say and massage our stories so as to make them more palatable to the rest of the world. Much depends on whether we have something to sell — ourselves as employees or purveyors of products or services.
And the other question is whether we can truly be authentic — be ourselves — if we seek to present our storied-branded-selves to the world.