About Face |
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate, it's that we are powerful beyond measure. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented and fabulous? Ask instead, who are you not to be? Follow me on Twitter @bcavanaugh or take a moment to see what made me do an about face with my career: My New Gig |
-
Photo
If there was ever a time to seek the advice of a smart, dead guy, this is it. When it comes to personal branding and specifically @GeoffLiving ‘s post last night, I ask WWKD?
Philosophicall speaking, it doesn’t get much more straight forward than Emmaneul Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Which is why his writings came to mind immediately in the personal branding controversy. If I can remember way back to my sophmore year in college, Kant’s Golden Rule goes something like, “treat others not as a means to an end, but as ends in themselves.” It applies beautifully to branding.
A common misconception of a brand is that it is a logo, fan page, product and now a person. As “ends in themselves” brands are a collection of behaviors and actions that accrue, evolve and are defined over time. Brands can be hyped in the short term with clever advertising, product launches, a feature story or a controversial blog post. But when put in context of a life’s work and not an event, a well guided brand strategy (personal, corporate or product) is one that bases action on rightness and good will. Customers will see through a brand who’s directive is, “what’s in it for me?”
Because branding is behaviorial, it’s the act, not the intent that truly defines it. In the marketplace, only the act can be seen, felt and perceived. Consider the recent TechCrunch and Twittergate. The act of publishing 310 documents will be remembered, not the intent. It’s too soon to comment on this one, and will just leave it as an example for now.
In an authentic, transparent world, brand behavior as a means to an end is quickly detected by customers. So, how can a brand best treat others (consumers, stakeholders, employees) as ends in themselves? By defining a sense of duty, purpose and good will that guide the actions in a way that that transcend share price, buzz building, personal ambitions and hype.
Do you agree or disagree?
(p.s. philosphy majors are not encouraged to rip apart my logic ;-))
