Will Personal Brands be “in” in Web 3.0?

Like you, I’ve read and shared my good dose of articles, posts, and even a couple of books on personal brands.

I suspect that the personal brand movement started in earnest more than 10 years ago when Tom Peters published his book Brand Called You and Fast Company magazine wrote an article based on it. My post on the 10-year anniversary of the book at The Blog Herald, built on the concept.

At the time, it was in intriguing thought, especially for those of us who worked on creating and developing brands for organizations.

Those were the times when advertising and marketing budgets were still substantial, as were agency fees and media empires. Brands were invented and built up through sheer push – design the logo, have a big enough media buy, and talk it up in the press.  

Peters proposed that people, too were brands. The presentation was new, but it was not an entirely new idea. On the personal front, a certain class of people and professionals have benefited from the idea of “brand” before it became the phenomenon it is today.

Aristocrats, captains of industry and celebrities enjoyed instant recognition and distinction. They were known for having created a new way of doing things, or for leading a particular project. Recognition came at a cost – the marketing budgets of big ticket movies, or the empire building of industry captains.

In both cases, the exclusive image recognition was the domain of that protected class. Protected because the representation was often the product of an artificial process – building an icon or a star meant defects and true personalities were swept under the carpet or hidden from any praying eyes. If you add the political arena to this conversation, you will then understand the whys of investigative journalism, the birth of the unions, and that of the paparazzi.

We’ve always had a fascination with the behind the scenes, the unvarnished angle, the story that contributed to the façade. Fast forward to today, and you have the democratization of self-publishing and self-expression tools, which have accelerated the networked effect of this idea of personal brand.

The accelerators to this process have been many, but fundamentally we can point to a couple of shifts. The experience economy, which followed the service economy, and the break-down in what used to be the work contract. I would also add that right now we’re in the age of disruption; everything that was proven and worked in the past is brought into question.

There is no job security anymore, and career is a much broader concept than any one job. It’s also not attached to any specific discipline or industry forever, especially when it comes to marketing, communications, and public relations. One could argue that customer support functions are also changing nature.

Hence the increased emphasis on personal brands. But parallel to this movement that Dan Schawbel calls Me 2.0 in his book written for Gen Y by a member of that tribe, there is another, more profound change taking place in the way we do business.

Crowd-sourcing, co-creation and co-working are becoming viable alternatives to the industrial, castle building age of organizing resources and work. Here comes everybody is very much a reality, even when dormant.

More than Gen Y, those of us who are living and contributing to this change in the way we work, this new information architecture for how to organize projects to get ideas done, are Gen “Why”.

With social media, the tension between serving the needs of the individual and paying off the networked nature of how things get done is somewhat reconciled.

The me-centered conversation may not go away any time soon – we are, after all, human. However, some of the best practices that are emerging today are around service to the community, sharing, and giving. You can create a powerful personal brand using social media, but careful on how you go about that.

We’ve been talking about the power of conversation – as in two-way – also for more than 10 years. While there are some useful guidelines floating out there on how to build a personal brand, few welcome Me 2.0 as in Ego 2.0. I’d think about it more in terms of Us 2.0. How can we use our skills and experience to elevate not just our own status and condition, but that of those who come in contact with us?

We’re learning to build a personal brand in a Web 2.0 world. Will the idea of personal brand still be “in” in the Web 3.0 or semantic Web? Is authenticity online really authentic or is it the evolution of the mechanisms that produced stars?

Are personal brands leveraging their friends and colleagues for their own benefit? Can there be a common outcome? How does community reconcile with personal brand?

These are all  important questions. I've been managing my own career since the beginning - across countries and languages. I can tell you the high road is not an easy one. Balancing your needs with the needs of others and the community can make or break your credibility and reputation. 

I dedicate time and resources to help young professionals emerge - entrepreneurs, leaders, people with interesting projects alike. We've met some of those young talents here. Are you using your influence?

Read the book, learn about the tactics and strategies Dan recommends, but consider these questions seriously. And remember that with greater power comes greater responsibility, so handle with care.

Comments

[Rick Simmons]

Another issue that has been in my thoughts the past few days is "which me"? The work me, the church me, the dad me, the social me, the Twitter me, which one. They are all part of my brand but then again are they?
They are all part of a different brand of me depending on audience and my role, so which one is my "brand"?
Actually I must admit to not being sure except I know that for each tribe or community I belong to they know and connect with me as they know how to. The lines are becoming blurred but at the same time somewhat easier to keep apart - I know confusing but true.
Just my 2 cents of confusion.

[Sander Duivestein]

Hi Valeria,

My compliments for your article. Enjoyed reading it.

The reason that your article triggered me, is the fact that I am the co-author of the book "Me the Media: Rise of the Conversation Society". It was recently released in the US.

You can download a free copy at www.methemedia.com/download.

I hope you like the book and that it adds on to your thoughts!

[Lauren Vargas]

Valeria,

You truly do dedicate your time helping young professionals emerge and grow, thank you.

Unfortunately, the term "personal brand" is not going away any time soon. The term has stuck. I shiver when I say 'Me 2.0.' For so long (in big corporate world as a twenty-something), I have been told to banish 'I' and use the term 'We.' I do not think this is old-school thought and have found this advice to be helpful when forming relationships/partnerships. So why now the 'I'? Leveraging my friends and relationships sounds dirty.

As does curating my personal brand on every platform. Is that truly authentic? To have a strategy for each platform? Will the real ME please stand up?

I see the benefits and understand both sides of the argument, but I think we need to be look past the digital mirror of our own reflection and see how our digital crumbs have truly helped or hindered.

[Jason Dojc]

Is authenticity online really authentic or is it the evolution of the mechanisms that produced stars?

I'm leaning towards "evolution". People have been managing their reputations since high school. Most of us grow out of the petty teenage cliquishness but I don't think we ever entirely grow out of a primal need for external validation and therefore the need to manage our reputations.

The words "reputation" and "personal brands" are practically interchangeable. Celebrities have been managing their reputations for years and the Q Score was invented precisely for that purpose ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Score )

What's happened is a gradual democratization of celebrity. We went from watching celebrities on the silver screen to watching them on TV to competing to become celebrities on reality TV, to creating our own celebrity on MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Blogs etc.

As we all migrate towards a more public life, we become more cognizant of the need to put of best foot forward.

[Adrian Chan]

Valeria,

It certainly does appear that personal branding is happening, if not as a strategic business practice (to wit social media experts on twitter) but authentically, as you put it, also.

The significant change from then to now is that media have gone social, and branding has become less about image (on social media) and more about conversation and participation. I think there's even a "participatory branding" approach emerging for those who can leverage their brand through conversational touchpoints.

This should get more sophisticated as we get beyond influence as measured in the aggregate to influence in contextualized by one's followers, topics, interests, and also personalities.

The key to executing on personal brand in social media is to make most of one's social network or graph. If you will, social graph marketing as an upgrade to relationship marketing of yesteryear. Branding on tools like twitter is fast, flowing, and very dynamic. I don't think we have the tools to measure this yet, as many social analytics tools are derived from a document and site traffic model. But it wouldn't surprise me that we see new tools soon that enable personal brand managers to take advantage of transient, conversational, and attention-rich opportunities dynamically and on the fly.

cheers,
adrian

[Tiffany Monhollon]

There are so many nuggets here, I don't know where to start.

I think the concept of social capital is interesting when it comes to personal brands. Building social equity does, in many ways, create power. So the question that arises is, what does one do with that influence? Too far to one side, and you have pure self-promotion, which seems to ring untrue with the concept of community. But so many people are doing this, or at least have the potential to.

So, do we really value community? Or perhaps, "who values community?" is the more important question. Will the semantic web be divided into people who do and those who participate just to push branded messages, whether those of individuals or those of companies?

I think of Adrian's comment - and if "the key to executing a personal brand in social media is is to make the most of one's social network" - isn't it important for us to ask what they are making the most of their networks for? Or are we all really out to push our own agendas in the end?

I guess one thing that's always rung a little odd in my ears just about the term "personal brand" is that a brand, in marketing, has one very clear purpose: sales.

The same simply is not true of people, even if you apply the metaphor to careers. I am not a product, and my goal as a person is not purely to be "sold" (employed). People and our motivations and goals are much more complex than this metaphor will allow.

Clearly, I agree with you that there are important questions to ask - and answer. First for ourselves. Thanks for a great jumping off point!

[Adrian Chan]

Tiffany your point is right on... I'm leaning towards the idea that social capital in social media has two forms, and this comes from anthropological theories of pre-industrial "tribal" communities: units and flows. It holds up to the present day, though, in that we still have capital accumulation and currency flows.

Where this leads us, if it's worth using, is to a notion of social capital accumulated (units, think piles), and social capital expended (flows, think conversation).

I think what's unique to social capital online is that the economy of social media isn't scarcity but is surplus. Social capital is not a "thing", just as influence isn't a "property". It's relational -- a measure of the relative importance (understood perhaps as ability to get attention and amplify conversation) of a person. We don't have influence if it's not perceived as influence by others. Influence is just "power" as a social currency -- it can disappear as quickly as it can be obtained.

Which would suggest that social capital increases value as it is expended in social media -- as influencers spend their influence, it accrues to those who participate.

I think the whole model of brand equity needs to be re-interpreted in social media. It's not something the brand possesses, but is a social flow that captures attention precisely because it smiles upon those who pass it along (they get attention by association). It is not managed, owned, possessed, defined by the brand, but depends completely on the community's participation and interest.

cheers,
adrian

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Rick - we exist at many levels for different circles of people and it's hard for them to recognize when we change or to see us as something else in a different context. For example, to IABC I'm just a member, one who got the accreditation, paid dues for years... when they look for a someone to write about social media they tap someone met on Twitter, or become famous via a campaign. It's actually the same thing companies do - they hire outside consultants and agencies for counsel when sometimes they have greater expertise inside. The brand is in their minds.

@Sander - that's very kind of you, Sander. We do tend to pay attention to information when we're attuned to it. Which is one of the reasons that online sometimes feels like an echochamber.

@Lauren - you often add to the conversation, and I think that is part of who you are. Critical thinking is a good thing. I actually do see the point of developing a personal track, so to speak. Companies rarely put the resources and support behind someone these days. And mentors are a very rare thing these days. Everyone is just so busy and everything needs to happen, now.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Jason - thank you for that inspired thought. Maybe what's happening is that we're all living out loud.

@Adrian - you present a very compelling case for dynamic content creation. And you nail it with "the economy of social capital is surplus". Those who don't get both will be left behind.

@Tiffany - "isn't it important for us to ask what they are making the most of their networks for?" It is critical that we do. And yes, the payoff for personal brand is not sales (even though many take it there), it's legacy. People seek recognition, they want to matter... and endure.