Comments on: "Personal Brand" – An Exercise In Linguistic Olympics?

By: Is Telling The Truth Bragging?

Is Telling The Truth Bragging? — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:17:19 +0000

[...] wrote nearly a year ago about personal brands and reputation – “Personal Brand” – An Exercise In Linguistic Olympics? That post briefly looked at the debates that were then raging about personal brands. For me – [...]

By: Personal Brands, Personalities, and Persuasion | City Sparkle DC

Personal Brands, Personalities, and Persuasion | City Sparkle DC — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:26:44 +0000

[...] in the social media and PR blog world about personal brands, what they mean (if anything), how they relate to reputation, and what your personal brand means online. Does your personal brand work for or against you? [...]

By: Worry About What You Say More Than What Others Say About You

Worry About What You Say More Than What Others Say About You — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 03:38:29 +0000

[...] he blogosphere and print media are full of articles about corporations leveraging the Internet, including social networks such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter (among others), to provide customer service and to manage their online reputations. I recently wrote about “personal brands” and whether people are brands. [...]

By: How To Succeed As A Creative On crowdSPRING - Community Guide — crowdSPRING Blog

Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:02:13 +0000

[...] professional would approach this issue, but also earns you a great deal of respect from others. Your reputation is important. Protect it at all [...]

By: bender

bender — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:32:42 +0000

Ross, thanks for the link to Famine City. Wanted to throw in a few more cents on your thoughts, and clarify my position.

First off, reputation is important, but it’s not the same as a brand. Your brand might be “Tasty Cakes”, but if your cakes aren’t tasty–well, then that’s not your reputation. And that’s a real distinction, not linguistic.

The point I was trying to make in my post, if not eloquently, was just people aiming to be brands are aiming too low.

Actual brands are doing everything they can in the digital space to become more people-like–multi-faceted, responsive, communicative, dynamic, etc.

So why would a person aim to “just” be a brand? I mean, position yourself and market yourself if you’re trying to establish a professional name and credibility, but a logo/positioning are just the beginning. They’re not the end-all be-all, as some of the “personal brand” enthusiasts suggest.

Be a person who provides something of value. THAT’S more valuable than being a brand.

By: Worry About What You Say More Than What Others Say About You — crowdSPRING Blog

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:34:20 +0000

[...] The blogosphere and print media are full of articles about corporations leveraging the Internet, including social networks such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter (among others), to provide customer service and to manage their online reputations. I recently wrote about “personal brands” and whether people are brands. [...]

By: Personal Brand Value or Bust » The Buzz Bin

Personal Brand Value or Bust » The Buzz Bin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:00:39 +0000

[...] "A personal brand is your reputation. Pure and Simple," so says Ross Kimbarovsky of crowdSPRING. It’s the culmination of online and offline digital escapades. The outcome of which – ideas, creativity, connections and energy – builds social capital (a.k.a. your brand equity). Your brand equity is leased by your company. [...]

By: fredK

fredK — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:59:27 +0000

A brand always involves reputation, but reputation doesn’t necessarily involve a brand. I’d have to agree with Jason Bender: people ain’t brands.

By: marckohlbrugge

marckohlbrugge — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:08:45 +0000

@Ross
Yeah I think we agree . I haven’t read much into this stuff so I’m not aware of how and when the terms are used, “personal branding” does sound real marketingy.

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:19:20 +0000

@marckohlbrugge – I think you and I mostly agree – except for the “linguistic olympics” reference. The linguistic difference may be important, but as I wrote, it’s a distinction without a difference. I agree, however, that if a person is more likely to to work on their “personal brand” as opposed to their reputation, then there’s a good reason to use a different term. The term certainly means something – but it’s been stretched and pulled in so many directions that much written about it is marketing goo.

@mayobrains – a picture, colors, and how you present yourself (assuming this doesn’t include substantive contributions) don’t make a brand. In the world of commercial brands, Nike, Google, Apple would still be top brands even if they didn’t have their logos. Gary Vaynerchuck, Chris Brogan and others haven’t built great online reputations because of their pictures and colors. While there’s a temptation to import into this discussion some of the same terminology that’s used in branding companies and products, this is a false temptation. It’s the equivalent of using terms meant to describe wine when talking about high end audio. At the end of the day, it’s not about the color. It’s not about the picture. It’s about reputation.

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:19:00 +0000

By: mayobrains

mayobrains — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:10:26 +0000

See this is where I wholly disagree with Brogan et al – the buzzword known as “Personal Brand” is not the same as the buzzword “Reputation.” Not by any stretch. Personal Brand is about the picture you use to represent you, the colors you choose, and how you present yourself.

Most people brand themselves as a professional – blue collar, slacks, and the like. Some people have a bit more creativity…

By: marckohlbrugge

marckohlbrugge — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:38:58 +0000

I agree “personal branding” itself is nothing new, but by giving it this name and thus linking it with concepts which people are probably more familiar with it makes the whole thing more accessible.

If you ask a random person to work on their reputation they probably don’t know which is the best way to start, but if you tell them to work on their “personal brand” they will understand they can use the all concepts they already know about companies and apply them to themselves.

Of course this depends on the person, but for working on my “personal brand” seems more interesting and accessible than working on my reputation. Even if it’s the same thing.

So if the discussion is about whether or not it’s a new concept I think we agree, it’s probably not. But I wouldn’t call it “linquistic olympics” because that makes the linquistic difference sound unimportant while I do think it can have an impact.

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:35:22 +0000

@marckohlbrugge – It’s a distinction without a difference. You can work on your reputation – it’s the same mission statements, vision, strategy, etc. And reputation has never simply formed by itself. It takes lots of effort. I think there’s been too much talk about personal branding lately as if it’s some new, novel concept. It’s not. This doesn’t mean it’s unimportant – it is important. It means only that “personal branding” didn’t introduce any novel breakthroughs in what people needed to do to develop credibility. The Internet has merely offered more opportunities. But it’s always been about reputation.

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:35:00 +0000

By: marckohlbrugge

marckohlbrugge — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 12:18:25 +0000

The difference may be linguistic but that doesn’t mean it’s not a big difference. As soon as you call it “personal branding” it becomes something you can truly work on. You can set up mission statements, define your vision, work on your strategy, etc. – You can actively start thinking of ways to better yourself and thus your reputation.

If you just call it “reputation” you won’t think as much of your values and the directions you want to go. It sounds like something that forms by itself, although you CAN really work on it.