What Brand are You?

A lot of mileage has come out of the concept of turning ourselves into brands. And for good reason. The idea that we can transform ourselves from marketplace automatons into vibrant, passionate and focused super-doers has a lot of energy around it. In fact, so much energy that more and more people today are heeding the call to brand themselves.

But what is a brand and how do I become one?

While there are many definitions, I have always like this one the best: A brand is a promise held in the mind of a consumer of an individualized, personal and consistent experience from a product, person, or organization. In other words, a brand says, “You can count on me. I am dependable, and will meet needs that no one else can. I am unique and special, and that there is no one out there like me.”

Key to understanding the power of a personal brand is understanding four aspects of the above definition.

1. Experience—brands are not icons, names or the product or service. They are the experience someone has using that product or service, or engaging with that person.
2. Individualized and Personal—great brands connect to people in ways that are unique to each person. They’re intimate, emotional, and special.
3. Consistent—strong brands can be counted on to deliver the same experience over and over again. Consistency in delivering a good experience drives loyalty.
4. Promise—likely the most important part of the equation, brands are promises made by the provider of the type of experience the user will receive. Promises are commitments and consistent delivery on the brand promise increases trust – the number one factor of any brand’s success.

With all this in mind, it isn’t hard to see how we can turn ourselves into brands. Think of people who have become brands—Oprah, Martha Stewart, Michael Jordan, Richard Branson, Jerry Garcia, Elvis, Madonna,…and the list goes on. These individuals actualized their potential to deliver an individualized, personal and consistent experience to the world.

But you don’t have to wait until you’re rich and famous to be a brand. You can start wherever you are by simply changing your mindset from employee to owner, resident to citizen, follower to leader. Becoming a brand means you become CEO of your life and contribution. You turn yourself into ME, Inc., and consistently deliver on the promise of you.

Keith Wyche, president of Pitney Bowes Operations, created an incredible chart which helps to outline three critical elements of a personal brand. He calls it his PEP model: Perception, Exposure, Performance. I interviewed Keith awhile back on my radio program. You can listen to the interview here.

I also interviewed Sherri Thomas, author of 5 Steps to a Powerful Personal Brand. In her interview, she offers specific strategies to move forward in your career by building your personal brand.

Both Sherri and Keith will provide you some excellent ideas on how to build and develop your own personal brand.

-- David Kinard, PCM

Branding Disconnect Makes Tote Garbage

Last week I attended an event where I got another tote bag from a well-meaning sponsor. Aside from the fact that we now suffer from an influx of coffee mugs, water bottles, and toe bags (much like we did five years ago with frisbees and mousepads), I was struck by the incredible poor positioning by the company.

REI (Recreational Equipment, Inc) has a longstanding reputation in the Pacific Northwest as being a purveyor of contemporary outdoor equipment and merchandise. From your high-tech sleeping bag, nordic-rated tent, to even a campfire espresso machine, REI regularly impresses customers with the latest and greatest for the outdoor enthusiast. So WHY, please tell me WHY, did they choose to put their orginating date on their bag. AND WHY did they choose a tote bag to convey that message?

Marketers -- we have to stop being stupid and stop choosing the easy way. How does a generic tote-bag further the brand or position of REI? How does putting the only message on the bag your company's origination date reinforcing the image of contemporary -- and even high-tech -- equipment?

The next time your company has the privilege to reach out to a group of people when you sponsor their event, make that thing you give them useful and relevant to your brand. As well, ensure that it reinforces your position in the market as not only the best choice, but the ONLY REASONABLE choice.

-- David Kinard, PCM

Investor Perspectives on Corporate Brand Strength

As a member of the the American Marketing Association I participate in several active discussion boards on topics around marketing strategy, B:B marketing, and branding. Recently a discussion started around the question if a well-marketed, well-branded corporation carries more merit to to investors, and possibly clouds their views.

I really liked one of the responses contributed by Charlie Henderson, Director of Marketing for Aastra. He noted:

I don't agree that the brand is the strongest intangible asset. It may be the biggest but as we have seen over and over it is an asset whose value can be destroyed in an instant. Sometimes to be rewon (Tylenol) sometimes to be lost forever (Arthur Anderson). The value derives not from the marketing of the brand but the performance and behavior of the company over time. If the day to day exeperiences of the firms clients, constituents and investors meet or exceed the promises made by the brand then value is created. If the experiences are counter to the promises then value is diminished.

Too often marketers approach branding as something that is confined to messaging and visuals. What Charlie emphasizes are two components that are notoriously left out of the marketers' equation: peformance and behavior. When considering performance there are a myriad of metrics to consider, but from an investor's POV they include financial, market penetration/share, share of wallet, and future earnings.

But from a behavior standpoint, the metrics that matter the most (to investors or anyone else for that matter) is the alignment between what is said and what is done. Those companies that are focused and do what they say -- delivering on their promises -- they are the ones that garner a solid reputation, and strengthen the value of their brand.

Charlie goes on to say:

Brand value is won not by ads or mailers but by subsequent actual encounters. Even people who do not shop Wal Mart, FedEx or Lexus accept the value of the brand because they know that if the promises made by the brand were not being delivered the companies would not have been successful or would not have maintained the messaging over so long a time. GM has poor brand value becasue they tend to deliver poorly on the promises made by their advertising and thus change the brand images and messages frequently.

Can good marketing overcome poor execution or bad business models? Sure, but only up to a point and seldom to investors who are looking at the fundamental ability of the company to execute a sound busines model over time.

I think Charlie nailed this point. Investors are wary of companies that shift their focus and waver in terms of their identity. They want to minimize the risk in their investment. However, I've seen investors pour money into brands that may be underperforming financially, but are highly focused and have strong alignment between their brand, their target customers, and their business strategy. They know, as we have seen in many cases, that those companies are more likely to succeed in the long run.

-- David Kinard, PCM

Manage the Brand First, then the Product

In some recent discussions with a fellow marketer, we talked about the difference between brand management and product management. He being a staunch product guy came at the discussion from a technical and functional point of view. Myself, being more concerned about the experience, came at it from a more customer-centric perspective.

Certainly, both perspectives and their corresponding activities are important. Each suggests necessary objectives to move closer to company goals. But what struck me is where you start. I think it is from the brand, and here's why.

Traditional product management starts from technological possibilities which lead to concept generation, selection, and design. A more brand-centric approach requires you to first examine the value customers receive from using your products, their expectatations and desires, and what needs they have (known or unknown). This point of genesis requires, however, the company to be more customer attuned rather than engineering focused.

When you manage the brand first, you start with a business review: marketplace standing, competition, distribution, and the customer perspective (whether present customers, competitive, or emerging). Then, if you weave into the discussion the technological possibilities and map them to potential product use and product potential, your perspective is outwardly-focused when selecting options and designing functionality.

Sure, this approach isn't for everyone or every company...just those that want to move beyond vanilla and mediocre into the remarkable.

-- David Kinard, PCM

Jack Trout on Marketing's Mess

There are few in marketing who can legitimately claim guru status – people who early on shaped the way most of how marketing has practiced for decades. Well, I have the privilege of interviewing one of them in my AMA radio show on Wednesday, Sept 24 -- Jack Trout. One of his earlier works, almost 30 years ago, defined how companies approached market leadership. Soon his next book will hope to correct some of the mistakes that he feels we’ve been making since then.

That seminal book I refer to above is Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. Well, Jack has written a new book called In Search of the Obvious: The Antidote for Today's Marketing Mess and he’s taking marketers and companies to task for creating a complex mess out of something that should be, well, obvious.

Be sure to listen to the show live and even call in with your own question. If you're one of the first five callers, you can get a free copy of his book.

Check out the Marketing News Radio program at: There are few in marketing who can legitimately claim guru status – people who early on shaped the way most of how marketing has practiced for decades. With me today is one of those people. One of his earlier works almost 30 years ago defined how companies approached market leadership, and soon his next book will hope to correct some of the mistakes that he feels we’ve been making.

With me today is author and consultant Jack Trout. That seminal book I was talking about is Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind. Well, Jack has written a new book called In Search of the Obvious and he’s taking marketers and companies to task for creating a complex mess out of something that should be, well, obvious.

Be sure to listen live to Marketing News Radio on September 24 at 9 a.m. PST. If you're one of the first five callers you can get a free copy of his book. Also, be sure to check out the archives of the show for other incredible interviews.