In my close cadre of friends, personal branding has become quite the topic of conversation. Some of my friends are even making money sharing what they know about the subject, and are undoubtedly on the cutting edge in that regard. But even so, I still often wonder if personal branding is bullshit and if it’s not why I feel repulsed as much as I do thrilled by much of the personal branding movement?
What I realized while having a discussion on this very topic was that personal branding can—and indeed must—be seen from a larger framework. This larger framework is inspired by the language of author Ken Wilber’s “big three perspectives”, the subjective, inter-subjective, and objective. Each perspective offers a different way (or angle) of viewing a particular phenomonon, in this case of “living the good life.” This model, I believe, helps us make better sense of personal branding in relationship to some other real forces in our life.
Authenticity, Popularity, & Brand
Personal branding deals almost exclusively with symbols, design, and slightly removed perception—that is to say with objective perceptions of individuals. Activists like Al Gore, artists like Madonna, and politicians like Barack Obama have strong personal brands. What’s interesting is that each of these people are symbols, more than people, and personal branding works at the level of symbology. Its aim is to turn one into a symbol, a symbol that is clearly portraying something in such a way that would have others attracted to it (or in some cases repelled). When one is working on their brand, they try and find ways to design a particular symbol of themselves that they wish to present to the world, and that symbol is to be perceived, in many cases, by folks that don’t even have a relationship to them. At least initially…
Popularity is another dimension of this puzzle, this puzzle of being and presenting oneself in the world. Popularity is an inherently inter-subjective perception, one that takes advantage of symbol but often has more to do with relationships. When you hear someone speak, have a conversation with someone, or experience something they’ve created you get a better sense of who that person is, and more importantly how you relate to them. Do you disagree with them? Do you find that they are easily likable? Do you appreciate some skill that they possess? When we relate to someone all of these things are decided almost immediately, and about the only thing that can change our mind on these viewpoints are the opinions of those closest to us. As you can see these two dimensions are almost inextricably intertwined, but I would argue that they should be distinguished as there are many examples of historic figures who come down to us almost exclusively as symbols, but who we then enter relationship with. Or vice versa, there are people we meet who we immediately like but whose branding we may have very little experience with.
This brings us to a sometimes over-looked dimension of living the good life, and that is the subjective dimension—of how one experiences themselves. Words such as passion, confidence, and authenticity come to mind when I reflect on this facet of living as a human being. Religious figures like Gandhi, Mother Theresa, and the Buddha immediately come to mind as examples of people who were powerful symbols, and who by today’s standards would probably be considered branding experts. The odd thing about them however, is that none of them had a particularly strong intention to become popular, but rather were following a unique passion or calling. We obviously can’t know their subjective experiences, but we can deduce that this internal dimension of their lives were of prime importance, as was their purpose.
Harmonizing
What I realized, after seeing these different dimensions of living the good life, is that each can be developed somewhat separately, but if they are out of balance in severe ways then one is missing out on building a truly gift-worthy brand as well as living a meaningful life.
Most criticisms of branding, I think are rightfully criticisms not of the techniques of getting oneself out there in ways where others can hear and digest their message, but are rather criticisms of using techniques or methods to try and popularize something that is vapid and devoid of true meaning. Without the subjective dimension then you have a flat and robotic attempt to share something that is superficial at best. Those who brand themselves only with financial gain in mind, but have nothing of true value to offer, come to mind as being severely out of balance in this regard.
That being said I don’t think it’s also unreasonable to question those folks who have a deep understanding of a particular field or fields of human knowledge and experience but do not consciously find ways to share it, and thus enhance other’s lives. Taken to extremes this can be the epitome of selfishness or foolishness. But when we recognize someone who has done both, who has become an authentic master, is deeply passionate about what they do, and has also found ways to brand themselves so that they can get their message out their appropriately, you see the emergence of deeply admired and generous folks.
So when we are seeking to live the good life and share it with others, all of these perspectives are important, all of these approaches valuable, but without a proper harmonization between them we end up either hiding our gifts from the world or throwing out more useless crap into an atmosphere of already stifling mediocrity.
UPDATE: Based on a really fun back-and-forth on Twitter, regarding Personal Branding, I figured I’d flesh out some of my current thinking on this particular topic. I was asked, “Do you start with who you are or who you’re pretending to be?” This is an interesting question. On the one hand it’s pretty easy to see, and agree, with the assumption contained within this question, namely that if one starts with who they’re pretending to be then they are simply lying (to themselves and others) and there isn’t much good that could come from this lie. One is more interested in the way that they are perceived, then in who they are actually are. That being said, it get’s a little tricky to define “who you are” especially with regards to the things you do and know. Doing and knowing are constantly evolving & changing. Oddly, the process of becoming often involves setting a vision for oneself that has not completely come into being, and then closing the gap between how we behave most of the time and who we want to become. It becomes even more tricky, when we often feel that what we are trying to become is something that is already a part of who we are, that it just needs to be nurtured, cultivated, etc. In that sense no matter how we portray ourselves, or even think of ourselves, will always be wrong. That being said, we can’t escape the fundamental problem of identity or of ways of communicating that identity.
Even trickier is when we actually already possess particular skills and talents, but because we have a particularly disempowering view of ourselves, we don’t acknowledge it, can’t help others with it as well, etc. Seen from that angle, Personal Branding, could (and probably should) be a journey of discovery of our gifts, talents, and deepest desires. And some people are in fact using it that way. Others aren’t, but that’s not a fault of personal branding, per say, as much as it is people looking for a quick route to fame, fortunate, and the like. That has been happening (probably since humanity arose) in various ways and through various guises.
Stepping back even further, I find it interesting that there seem to be two polarized sides to this conversation. One that is generally excited about personal branding, see’s it as the next big thing, etc. The other that is reactive to personal branding, points out it’s superficiality, etc. This is a classic thesis-antithesis situation, which these days almost immediately screams to me: integration is needed, balance is needed, a broader perspective is needed. Of course, the dialectic itself has value, and so perhaps it isn’t appropriate to try and jump to a point of integration, before both sides of gotten entrenched enough in their views, and then a natural integration occurs. The real opportunity, and I see it happening in pretty much every field of human knowledge and expression here in the West, is to see that all of our major problems are largely a result of not seeing the deep interconnectedness between objective, subjective, and intersubjective realities. All are valid, but when they’re fragmented, all we’re left with are shards of truth.
August 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I’d add another criticism that personal branding is a symptom of a larger culture of narcissism, because creating a personal brand means taking the perspective of “How do I look to other people?” Which is not to say that this isn’t a valid or useful perspective, but in my interactions with people with this obsession, they seemed to not show up fully in the intersubjective we-space. Instead, they put forward a cardboard cutout version of themselves and were limited by the narrowness and partiality of their brand.
The concept of an image is a good metaphor: looking out of a window, I can alter my perspective and the view dynamically shifts with me, but when I’m looking at a photograph, it seems real for a second, but it doesn’t move with me, so as soon as I shift, the picture’s unreality is revealed because the perspective it embodies is static. In a sense, there is something more satisfying when I am *with* what shows up for me, even if that picture is of an ordinary tree versus a photograph of something like the Grand Canyon, bathed in a dramatic sunset, etc.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:37 am
I like this post a lot. Inspired by a conversation at Foolish Craig’s I believe. Anyways, well said, and I think you yourself have done a great job at implementing the principles outlined above. I looking forward to getting your critical feedback on my ongoing branding statement. Rock on Vinny!!
September 21st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
As someone who prides himself on authenticity, is not a realized Master but wants to share the knowledge and help beings, I find the topic of branding in general, and personal branding specifically interesting. In my case, it’s all about intention. I try to be the best practitioner I can be, the best representative of the Buddhadharma and the sacred teachings that have been freely dispensed in my direction.
I’ve written a book based on my personal experience and, while not intended to be a sacred teaching, is definitely coming from the expert perspective. Who wants to read somebody who lacks confidence? From that position I have a commitment and an obligation to get the book out there, both for the sake of reimbursing the publisher for their faith and investment in me, and for the sake of benefiting addicts, and the people who love them.
It’s necessary to put forth a consistent brand identity to that aim. So on we go with marketing. Getting the message out there. Maybe it’s obnoxious to some Buddhists, who think that advertising is proselytizing, or to 12-Step members who feel that everything needs to stay anonymous and out of the spotlight. Well, I disagree. In my case, and I don’t speak for anyone else, my personal brand represents my personal best, on all levels: my best thinking, best Dharma, best intentions, best creativity, best marketing efforts and best use of Web 3.0 and my lifelong obsession with the Internet.
Moreover, the concept of being a 12-Step Buddhist has implications that will move beyond many current limitations in both the Buddhist and 12-Step worlds. It’s never easy to push the envelope, to break free from mental formations and seemingly concrete notions. To move the status quo, you have to make a big push. In this sense, I’m ready to take some heat for my personal branding efforts. Because I know that the point isn’t to create a cult of personality, as one Zen master in recovery warned me about. Rather, we’re moving into an integrated world where the principles of Buddhism can be applied to the most serious personal and social issues that we face as a civilization. Not to be overly dramatic, but have you watched an episode of Intervention lately? I respect Dr. Watt’s notion of selecting the prospective elite for his Contemplative Ph.D program, but who’s going to help my friend the junkie who can’t even begin to tolerate one second of his present moment reality, in the place where he lives?
In summary, there is a need for new thinking in the areas of addiction and Buddhism. Consistent branding is vital to the process of stimulating ideas and discussion among those who need it for those who would benefit from it.
-d
Darren Littlejohn
the 12-Step Buddhist
http://the12stepbuddhist.com
September 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Ai. I don’t know, Vince. Spin it how you wish, but I can’t quite ignore what to me feels like an undeniably implied prostitution in such commodification of the self. I don’t want to be a brand, and I worry that for most people it’s well-nigh impossible not to confuse the already blurred lines between of authentic self and mask-for-the-masses–and that for most the mask ends up winning. Furthermore, I don’t want to interact with a brand–I want (as, I presume, do most people), to interact with a person. Even if this mask comes is an ossified projection of something ‘truly me’ it’s still a representation, and could never substitute for, nor truly express, that which has produced it. Also, it’s silly to think that there’d be no reverse effect–that is, that the brand you create wouldn’t end up inevitably branding (as in ’scarring’) you.
Perhaps it comes down to values. If you measure satisfaction and success in capitalist terms, than there’s nothing wrong with turning yourself into the same sort of entity as Coca-Cola or IBM. I, though, don’t really see the appeal.
September 21st, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Hi Siona,
Since you had what appears to be a strong reaction to my post (or more accurately to personal branding) I figured I’d respond.
First, though I respect your opinion, you didn’t appear to understand the basic concepts that I laid out in this post. You basically re-hashed the standard arguments against personal branding (which I think are valid, but only in certain contexts and with certain people), and then relegated all of my other points to “spin.” By doing so you have immediately grouped me into the category that you so clearly dislike, and I think this is a categorical mistake. I won’t take it personally, but just so you know, I think you’ve misunderstood my position pretty dramatically.
So, just to further clarify, I am defining personal branding as any individual’s attempt to communicate some sort of personal value that they possess or can offer in objective ways. This can include building a web presence, having a social network profile (like Gaia community), micro-blogging, presenting a biography, pictures, artwork, blogs, written work, communications, etc. Really it’s all the ways that we portray ourselves (intentionally or even unintentionally) in the world. With this definition (which I think is both more helpful and more accurate philosophically), we really can’t escape personal branding. We are a brand from one perspective, which is to say that we are always being perceived a a symbol of sorts, and by choosing to more consciously work with this brand (or in other words, work with the perception that others have of us) we can, I would argue, live more consciously. Perhaps I should just call this “conscious branding”, as to distinguish it from personal branding, but really I want to challenge all of those who are vehemently opposed to ANY sort of personal branding. I think this is an extreme view, and one that simply isn’t tenable.
Thanks for your interest and for your comment.
September 21st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Hi Darren,
I agree with you that branding is an essential part of getting a message out, though I would argue slightly with the notion that “To move the status quo, you have to make a big push.” Sometimes the most subtle brands are the one’s that are the most powerful. They aren’t in your face, non-stop, and over-bearing, but rather are just representing something so useful or so beautiful that people just can’t stop talking about them. In that sense, I’m of the mind that content is king when it comes to branding.
In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that some marketers who are overly aggressive in their attempt to reach folks (Bill Harris’ Holosync technology immediately comes to mind) can seriously retract from their core message, and end up devastating their brand. Obviously, this can be a fine-line and there is, as you say, that added dimension of Buddhists having an immediate dislike for anything that sounds like advertising or marketing. Personally, I’m with you that all of these technologies, when combined with a really amazing message, can be a stellar combination. But still, I think the message trumps the marketing methods any day. If the message is great, the marketing should be easy.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 am
If you have written a deep and profound, yet accessible book of say spiritual philosophy, yet have a crappy, boring cover that nobody will pick up, then far fewer people benefit from it than could.
If you instead have an incredibly flashy title like Unleash the Buddha Within: 27 Proven Power Principles for Instant Enlightenment NOW for Lazy Stupid People!! and have nothing but totally recycled, superficial content designed to make a buck, that’s lacking in substance.
Where it gets muddy is when your editor tells you to rewrite your spiritual masterpiece to be more accessible, to leave out the chapter on ethics (nobody likes to be told how to live), and to write under a pen name (how about “Adyabudda Da”? That has a good “enlightened guy” ring to it). One of the appeals of Dan Ingram’s book is that he hasn’t compromised his hard-core approach to the teachings of the Buddha because he has self-published his work and has not tried to make it more “marketable.”
To apply the metaphor specifically to personal branding, if you have the heart of Jesus but nobody’s listening because you smell like hippie, it might be best for your mission to clean up a bit to look good on camera (Eckhart, shave the chin beard dude).
If you however are seeking fame at any price, well, you deserve the circle of hell reserved for PR people, spammers, and pop stars….
The tricky thing is where to draw the line, especially since we have more power than ever to not only shape our appearance but actually change our fundamental identities. The question “Do you start with who you are or who you’re pretending to be?” contains the presupposition that your identity is a fixed thing, rather than the morphing, fluid story you tell yourself and others that gives coherence to who you “are”…today.
There is an art to public presentation. It could be contained perhaps in a koan:
How do you craft an authentic personal brand?
A similar question is being asked by marketers, especially in the line of thinking of Seth Godin.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
I’d like to throw in my thought that the entire premise of “personal branding” is a response to a major shift in professional life, away from long-term, corporate career with benefits and pension and into a more individually focused, every-man-for-himself project-based professional market we currently find ourselves in. Given this professional landscape, “personal branding” is essential to maintain employment and advance professionally. A resume is (and always has been) a personal branding statement and the fact of the matter is, a well-crafted resume can be the difference between getting an interview and not. Obviously, we have to back up all of our claims made in any branding, or risk our own integrity. The market will pick up on the bullshit quickly and punish misleading proclamations with impunity.
Combine that with an increase in individuals seeking income based on self-actualization values and you get the current tensions around selling oneself and branding and such.
That’s my take.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
I’d like to see some authentically spiritual form of this practice, and I feel Vince pushed in that direction with the “update”. Basically it’s an extremely interesting and challenging field. If personal branding isn’t enough, why not consider transpersonal branding?
Re-designing one’s own relative self by embracing, purifying and enhancing the found material both personal and cultural, guided by wisdom of radical honesty and authenticity, in a process fueled by raw developmental creativity and bold improvisation - this could well be the vehicle for an embodied, engaged, “tetra-enactive” spirituality. At any rate, I believe it could easily go quite beyond any narrow notion of branding based on the conflict of pretending vs. who you are. This duality is not as contingent as it may seem, because changing who you get to be either way is not as easy as picking a new online avatar. Before serious awakening, there’s not enough wiggle room. After fruition, often there’s no incentive. On that note, cultivated intention (i.e. “vow”) seems to work well in such longterm contexts.
Also, we may consider self-branding in 3 stages (h/t to Deida), depending on maturity and stability of one’s motivation: first, egoic self-projection, unreflective, manipulative, and dependent on others’ opinions; second, honest self-presenting, reflective, respectful, more interested to discover others; third, stark self-offering, insight-based, energetic, and devoted to baring oneself and others to reality in mutual exchange.