Personal Brands vs. Company Brands
Friday, January 22, 2010
Interesting question that my friend Nick Braccia, a contributor at Culture Hacker, raised the other day:
Are personal brands of individuals within agencies supplanting the brands of the agencies themselves?
Which is more famous on the web? Alex Bogusky or CP+B? Steve Rubel and David Armano or Edelmen? Tony Hsieh or Zappos?
I'm not sure that there's a definitive answer to this; it certainly depends on your perspective. But, no matter what the answer is, there is clearly a tension here.
It's a fascinating conundrum because as more companies encourage a more open and porous presence, encouraging their employees to tweet and blog on their own profiles, a natural competition will emerge. Ideally it's a healthy competition. In the case of Zappos, for instance, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. And I think the best lesson that other companies can take from Zappos is that you're best served by going all in. If everyone in your organization is participating, then it tends to sort of level out.
That's sort of the tack that we've taken at Undercurrent, where I work. Our company's online brand is really the sum of the online brands of the individuals who work there.
I wonder if what we're seeing among digital agencies, which are obviously early adopters when it comes to internet behavior, indicative of what we're going to see across all companies and industries?
And I'm very interested in hearing from people who have insight into Human Resources, hiring, and retaining talent. Do you see this as a benefit or a necessary evil?
Comments welcome.
Are personal brands of individuals within agencies supplanting the brands of the agencies themselves?
Which is more famous on the web? Alex Bogusky or CP+B? Steve Rubel and David Armano or Edelmen? Tony Hsieh or Zappos?
I'm not sure that there's a definitive answer to this; it certainly depends on your perspective. But, no matter what the answer is, there is clearly a tension here.
It's a fascinating conundrum because as more companies encourage a more open and porous presence, encouraging their employees to tweet and blog on their own profiles, a natural competition will emerge. Ideally it's a healthy competition. In the case of Zappos, for instance, it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. And I think the best lesson that other companies can take from Zappos is that you're best served by going all in. If everyone in your organization is participating, then it tends to sort of level out.
That's sort of the tack that we've taken at Undercurrent, where I work. Our company's online brand is really the sum of the online brands of the individuals who work there.
I wonder if what we're seeing among digital agencies, which are obviously early adopters when it comes to internet behavior, indicative of what we're going to see across all companies and industries?
And I'm very interested in hearing from people who have insight into Human Resources, hiring, and retaining talent. Do you see this as a benefit or a necessary evil?
Comments welcome.
10 Comments:
Mike -
Interesting question on personal vs. corporate brands. I didn't come from an agency, but more of an agency-type function inside a major corporation. My blogging started several years before a company social media policy was even considered. I made a strategic personal branding decision to use learnings from my corporate role (planning, strategy, communications) in a blog on strategy/creativity/innovation. Everything was genericized, and my employer was mentioned maybe once or twice in two years. The result was a very separate personal branded blog and Twitter presence. The benefit for my employer came when we turned our attention to social media. From the personal activity in social media, I was much better equipped to help shape strategy than if I had been a novice.
Mike
Absolutely. I think it's a very interesting question. As one of the social guys of my (major) digital agency in Germany I definitely profit from my agency's activities and from my position as the social anchorman of my agency. Even though I am far from being a big personal brand I can imagine that my agency's brand and my personal brand start being perceived as a couple.
So what happens when I quit my job here? What happens if my agency fires me? Interesting question and definitely a lot of space for people to commit horrible crimes to their unknowing employers. ;-)
An interesting chicken or the egg question really. Without those company brands initially would those individuals really have established the presence they have in social media? It's a natural evolution however for individual players, and not corporate brands, to garner the attention for the simple fact that you don't have personal dialogs with a company.
The real question from my perspective is if the individuals become the public persona the company then a) can they ever truly separate their personal beliefs/posts from being represented as those of the company and b) what happens when those individuals leave that organization?
another example would be @scottmonty and Ford
In some of these examples, it was employees / agencies who were early adopters or innovators in web platforms. Some had already built the following by the time they associated with the brand.
It is something that companies should be careful of. Out of your examples, Armano has already shown that people can move. They will certainly take some of the brand followers with them if they are also personal followers.
I think companies like SouthWest Airlines have a good strategy. There are connected people running their web presence and you can see/feel the personal touch -- but it's standing behind the thin veil of the brand
Well of course Dachis is less great without David, and Edelman a lot better off with him.
It's the way things will go, I wrote a post on that last November (http://bit.ly/4KgUPS) titled "who will be 2010's dinosaur(s)?"
In the last paragraph I say "From the current dinosaurs (a.o.) people will emerge and form networks. It won't be companies who value people (”You know A? He works for XYZ”), it will be people who value networks (”Yeah, XYZ. The network A, B and C participate in”)"
Companies are out. People are in
@martijn is right companies are out people are in.
I have been seeing this trend over the last few years. No longer do people care who you work for its a matter of what they think about you. I can honestly say that I have made desicions in staffing on that principle, I have made budget cuts on that principle, and I but on that principle. I no longer read one news source, but the writers who I have come to love. People are what matter and companies ought to hire like their getting a new public face every time someone new walks in.
In the 11 years I've in the industry (and by industry, I mean interactive shops with a mostly similar capabilities set) I've noticed a shift from agency brand name reputation carrying a lot of weight and factoring into client new business decisions to clients focusing on existing relationships with individuals (those with whom they've had a battle-tested experience). Interactive agency core competencies have always been and are very, very similar, but the agencies used to spend more time/money resources on their own branding and "go to market" strategy, usually structured around the type of client they wanted. This branding was often fueled by excited employees in a nascent, seemingly sexy and lucrative field. Options! Bonuses! IPO! Well, since then, things have gotten really messy. That's an understatement. At this point, the notion of "core competency" is kind of a joke. Ask most new business guys what the agency core competency is and they will, if they’re drunk enough, say, “Well, what do you have budget for?” “We need a time machine”. “Yeah? OK, that’s our core competency. Case studies forthcoming!”
Since any brand manager or online marketing manager worth their salt knows how to cut through the BS, they’re going to look for an individual who they KNOW from experience are able to do the work. Where they’re housed is irrelevant. Compounding this effect, you have a lot of employees who value fulltime work (health insurance, et al) but are smart enough to put their energy into their personal brand instead of the culture and perception of their shop. I don’t know many people who wear their agency as a badge or point of pride. This used to be very common. Now, people stand by their work and their relationships. Obviously, personal relationships and trust have always been a big deal re: new biz decisions, but I believe there has been a real shift in the balance…agencies need people who can actually do the work (and traditional media people found out that the tech aspect of our biz can be a real bitch) and, if you’re a person who can do the work, you might not really give a shit about your home agency’s branding, because you know, in actuality, it’s no different from the sundry McAgencies out there…
Hey Mike...super conversation to be having...and one that will really start to gain momentum in the coming years. I must say, evolution plays a part in this pondering though...as corporate brands become more social brands, then the line between corporate and personal brands will continue to blur. People are THE brand. I think the solution to this though is never templated, and never simple. As individual as individuals are; so too are the best approaches to a personal brand existing within a corporate brand. David, Steve and Scott Monty at Ford all have strong personal brands, that I believe add to the credibility of the corporations they represent (and vice versa). In closing I will say this...lasting and engaging personal brands are one thing; passionate, and typically they work for brands that are also passionate about what they do! Therefore, anyone with a strong personal brand will always have a corporate brand at the centre of their story and lives!
Great reflection.
I think about company brands as teams. As relationship between consumer and brands evolve towards even more openness, it's inevitable they're going to deal with team members and their brands. Just as it happens for sport teams.
Agencies have a big chance to support company in this, by appearing and contributing with their own people, skills and capabilities.
Today, agencies skilled for it are basically social media agencies.
Interesting question.
Hsieh and Bogusky both own their companies. It's in their interest to be equally as well known.
Where it gets tricky is when the person is just an employee.
Because you'll have some that are well known for being the voice of the company (e.g. Scott Monty) and others who keep their own voice (e.g. Armano)
I suspect it comes down to corporate culture: some firms will feel that a blogger with his/her own voice & following is worth having, even for a short period, others will prefer a team player, especially if the blogger is not all that senior.
In some ways it's not all that different than the problems TV shows and sports teams face trying to integrate well-known actors or players into a team.
Post a Comment
<< Home