Often I meet people who hate using the word “brand” or “personal brand.”  They think the term is a load of bollox and is either meaningless or too confining.

I think the word does have merit.  Sure, it gets thrown around by every wanna-be marketing professional out there, but it does serve a purpose.

Cutting through all the hype and BS, the word “brand,” really boils down to one thing: the expectation your fans/friends/consumers have about you. It’s that simple!  You don’t need to be a marketing professional to understand it.

Think of any service or product and you will have an expectation.  If I say the word Pepsi or Disney or Southwest Airlines, a thought enters your head and you have a perception of what those companies are or should be.  These expectations can be as flexible or as inflexible as you’d like.  They can vary by the thousands, and no one is more right or wrong than any other.

Big corporate brands spend millions to help shape and form your expectation.  They create packaging, logos and commercials because it benefits them if everyone has the SAME thought on their product or service.  Over in the creative world, those expectations are built around the content that is produced.  Mainstream artists may spend more money and attention shaping their brands, but it’s not necessary.  Peter Gabriel fans “expect” him to take many years to create new music, but know that it will be inventive, creative, and different than what came before.  Stephen King has been labeled by some as a horror author, while others know him for his dramatic (Shawshank Redemption) and escapist (Dark Tower) works.  Both have content that form their respective “brands.”

As individuals, we can also create and manage the expectations of others.  Are you funny?  Kind of a dick?  Punctual?  Professional?  Casual?  Do you proceed with caution or jump face first into new projects or ideas?  The answers to these questions form an expectation about you, and thus your personal brand.  It can be whatever you want it to be, and you can make it as important or as unimportant as you choose.

So the next time you hear the word “brand,” don’t think of all the marketing hype that goes along with it.  Simply remind yourself that its an expectation, and not a dirty word.

However, every now and then I stumble upon a survey or poll I feel IS worth a look.  Such was the case when I discovered this SOPHOS poll on Jason Calacanis’s blog:

60% of Facebook users consider quitting over privacy

Is this a truly scientific poll?  No, and SOPHOS admits as much.  But it DOES provide an incredibly compelling look into where facebook currently finds itself.  You may recall I recently blogged on where facebook stacks up in the forest of social media.  Since then things have only intensified as more users become disillusioned, mainstream media picks up the story and Mark Zuckerberg refuses to care.

This poll, while not scientific, gives us a glimpse into the current user-base.  I take away two things:

First, the % of users who have already quit the service is slightly higher then the % of those who have stated they will be staying.  These numbers also follow standard polling and survey results where “absolutists” at both ends are in the minority.

Second, and more importantly, there is a HUGE chunk of users currently on the fence deciding whether to leave or stay.  A combined 60% if you believe this poll.  The real number may be lower, but I don’t believe by much.  The biggest chunk of facebook’s active user-base are casual users; people who joined the service “because their friends or family were on it” and have no deep loyalty or brand-love for it.  THESE are the people that facebook needs to worry about.

The longer and more mainstream the negative publicity against facebook becomes, the higher the likelihood this “middle ground” of users will be swayed to delete their accounts or simply stop using them.  A “dead” account is just as threatening to facebook as a “deleted” one.

Facebook has survived scuffles in the past because their user-base was smaller.  This time may be different.  This time they pushed TOO far and risk offending too many average people in the middle, people who leave a service for the same reason they joined it….because their friends did.  The market is incredibly fickle, and contrary to what others might have you believe, facebook does NOT have a guaranteed spot at the table.

There is a lesson here for brand managers, marketers and even politicians.  With every fan-base or consumer group there are passionate people at opposite ends of every decision.  However, it’s the people in the middle (less passionate but greater in number) who truly decide things.

We’ll continue keeping an eye on this group as the evolution of facebook continues.

What are "Zuck's" real intentions?

But lately I’ve been feeling like we’re all just hoes to the social media company pimps.  We give more and more time, attention and information to these services, and I want to ask a question that most people seem afraid to:  are these services really worth the short-term gain at the risk of supplanting long term brand equity?

Put another way, for a brand (or even you as an individual) is it worth using these services in lieu of a website, app or interactive model that you’ve built and control yourself?

Yes, twitter and facebook have millions upon millions of users.  Yes, you can use these services to find people you care about all in one spot.  Yes, they’re FREE, and no they don’t require a whole lot of effort.  And with the rapid growth of facebook, it would seem a moot point to even consider NOT using it.

However, we’ve been down this road twice before.  The first time was with a little website called Friendster – a service too ahead of its time, in my opinion, yet one which built a solid userbase of young people and new media professionals.  They thought it would last forever until suddenly, a newer, sexier model came along.  This new network had more features than Friendster and EVERYONE you knew was suddenly using it!  It might be hard to remember, but myspace was once this service.  It was hip, easy, free and you could make it your own little place on the web.  Or so we thought because once again a NEWER network came along and “EVERYONE” got in facebook’s back seat, leaving myspace cold and lonely on the side of the road.

I bring this up because countless entertainment and business brands threw millions of dollars and man hours into myspace, making it their holy grail of online marketing.  Artists dropped their official website in favor of a myspace page.  Whole businesses were born off the back of myspace and there were even professionals in Nashville excited about the arrival of “myspace music charts” saying they would “probably end up replacing Billboard and radio airplay charts.”

It saddens me because that same energy, time and money could have been spent making existing websites better and more scalable.  Brands could have discovered new ways to increase traffic to their existing hubs.  (To be fair, many artists and businesses DID use myspace as a limited tool to drive traffic back to an official site or offer, but these were the exception to the rule.)

So now here we are, repeating the same mistakes with twitter and facebook.  Too many people are once again putting their lives and business hopes in the hands of proprietary networks they don’t have any control over.

I know what some of you will probably say…

“That’s the game, you just have to move where the market takes you.” You know what, I don’t buy that.  Why should you have to follow the whims of whatever company is in vogue at this moment?  Why can’t each of us build a brand and a platform that are one in the same?  The technology is there!  It’s free!  It’s open source!  There’s NO logical excuse for why this can’t be done.

So what should we do?

All of us should continue to use these services, but recognize they are supplementary tools at best.  And as tools, we should always consider how they can help drive traffic back to a hub that YOU control.

If twitter goes away tomorrow, what would you do?

If facebook started charging $30 month to use the service what would you do?

These AREN’T rhetorical questions.  Social media companies can do what they like, and in their path to monetization WILL do whatever THEY feel is in THEIR best interest….not yours.

I want leave you with Molly Wood’s recent CNET rant about facebook’s latest features (click here for that article).  It’s very worth your while, but if you’re too lazy/busy then I give you this gem of a quote:

“There’s nothing wrong with making a LOT of money. But you should not, Facebook, get to make that money by tricking me into making personal information public, by creating an increasingly baffling web of privacy-violating loopholes, and by opting me in to every new moneymaking scheme you come up with. That’s how you lose user trust, and losing user trust is how you lose users.”

Do you really want to build your business strategy around a company like this?

That was all going swimmingly until little over a week ago.  Google released a service called Buzz, a new component for gmail that integrates facebook-like social networking functionality.  On the surface this idea is interesting and actually provides some of the functionality originally promised in Google Wave.  Unfortunately, Buzz has turned out to be a nightmare on every level.

First, it attempts to merge email and social networking – two things that a lot of users still view as mutually exclusive.  Email has grown to become a utilitarian tool – social networking is a mini version of the internet.  Folks use them to communicate in different ways.  Google took a finely tuned, 5-year old service (gmail) and bolted on an untested, totally new service with a totally different form and function.

Second, it was thrown at users automatically as an “opt-out” service, not an “opt-in” one.  Gmail users simply logged in one day and found this mess running.  You had to search for and then remove the service if you didn’t want it, not the other way around.

Third, and most important, Google took the long-established trust of Gmail users and trashed it by circumventing their privacy and publicly displaying information that was otherwise private or obscure.  As a result, Buzz is now on the Federal Trade Commission’s insidious-services-to-watch list and multiple class-action lawsuits have been filed against it.  All within the span of about a week and half.

all avoidable

My biggest problem with this, and the fundamental jist of this post, is that this ALL COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDABLE.  Google isn’t some little rag-tag “mom and pop” – it’s a major billion-dollar corporation.  Smart people work there.  Common sense should have easily made this a typical, successful release.

Even worse, Facebook has notoriously suffered major privacy snafus themselves, providing any competing business a case study in what NOT to do when rolling out a new feature.  Why did Google not pay attention?

who’s to blame?

Simply put, Google has become too big for it’s own good – too caught up in it’s success to consider the needs and behavior of the public.  Instead of listening to what their users need and creating products around it, they force-feed what they pompously think is best and throw privacy to the wind.  A recent interview with CEO Eric Schmidt proves as much.  Google engineers, who often are responsible for too much of a product roll-out, become more arrogant and blind to what users want.  They ask “why wouldn’t you like this?” after the fact instead of “how would you like this to work?”

And because they’re so big, they likely won’t change.  While Buzz is a failure, it hardly puts a dent in Google’s overall business.  The stock price may get dinged, legal defense will have to be paid for and egos will be bruised, but this event won’t sink the ship.

the point?

Even though Google won’t change, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t learn from their failures.  Small and medium businesses can’t afford such costly mistakes and rule #1 should ALWAYS apply: know your users, know the marketplace.

Google is huge, but slips like this are what give competitors the edge.

Business cards are one of the most important connections to your brand.  The Japanese have a cherished etiquette and respect for giving and receiving cards.  Whenever we network, “do you have a card?” is almost always uttered before meeting’s end.  Think of all the times you’ve gone looking for someone’s card to track down an opportunity or referral.  Cards are the lifeblood to your business or brand.

However, it’s never been more important to consider WHAT your card looks like and HOW it represents you.  Everything from your card’s colors, to the font, text size and what the card is actually made of – are all equally important and should be carefully assessed.

Simply being “professional” is no longer enough.  Personal businesses and the rise of individual brands have flooded the market with competition – you need to stand out.  Your card should reflect your personality, your goals, your interests, your selling points, your creativity – it should be a small consolidated reflection of YOU.

For example, I did a google search and found this card belonging to one Andy Wilson:

What does this card say about Mr. Wilson?  In short, that he’s a boring, black and white individual who likely has no particular personality or creativity and just sort of goes with the flow (in this case, whatever Microsoft tells him).  This is not an individual I would hire for any of my projects.

But what about the actual function?  Cards are meant to convey tangible information as well – specifically your name and contact information.  Why then would you make that information microscopic?!  Often times I’m sitting at arms length from a newly acquired stack of cards, and its annoying to have to hold the damn thing up close to my face just to read it.  Microsoft, and by association Andy Wilson, apparently aren’t anxious for you to contact them.

Does your existing business card look like Andy’s?  If so, start thinking about what you can do to change it.  Here is a great list of innovative and unique business cards to help inspire you.

A label’s catalog is its most valuable asset.  Once a song or album is commercially released to the public, it becomes part of a label’s history of music assets.  From that point forward, its the label’s job to do everything in its power to expose, promote and sell that product.

So why do none of the majors promote catalog or history on their websites?  Why is there never a whisper of past successes or the legacy of their artists?  Exposing new artists is only PART of the game folks – you’re intentionally leaving money on the table by not recognizing your catalog.

Check out a few examples: Warner Brothers Records and Universal Music are bad enough – no different than any generic music streaming portal.

But Sony Music, my God….what happened?

They don’t even promote their CURRENT music!  Sony’s site is like a basic business card site I could create in under an hour for fifty bucks (I’m pretty sure they spent far more than that on it). Sony’s site says to me “We don’t care if you buy our product or not, we aren’t even going to try, you may as well not even bother.”  They should post a single photo of Droopy Dog with that speech bubble over his head.

Sony controls some of the best catalog in the history of recorded music!  Elvis, Alabama, Bob Dylan, Miles Davis, and Aerosmith just to name a few.  Where are they?!?  Where are the artist bios, music charts, photos, videos, album buy links, iTunes buy links?  Looking deeper and tracking down their affiliate labels, the story is no better: Sony Nashville‘s website is pathetic and RCA Records is a joke.

at least Motown gets it…

Their site splits into a current and classic section – the classic side doing just what I’m suggesting.  They list all the old artists, list album cover art with buy links and sell ringtones and other new media around their catalog.

Think about all the music that was financed by labels that gets shelved and never heard because the first single didn’t hit.  Majors could start featuring and selling that music on their site too!  Using Long Tail economics, they’re going to sell at least ONE copy of everything and it would cost them nothing to do it.  Why don’t they?

Ultimately its a tragic waste.  A waste of opportunity and a waste of a company’s potential, especially in this case.

And for those non-music folks out there, this same idea can still apply.  A company’s history is good content that not only gives your brand more depth but gives folks a reason to visit.  All of that content, properly positioned, can be searchable and used to increase traffic.

Increaed traffic = more potential customers = more $

There is literally NO excuse for not doing this.

I’m a firm believer that in today’s hyper-competitive marketplace, we need clearer, more definitive marketing and branding.  Using a crazy baby-name for your company (Mebo, Tada, Yoku) doesn’t tell ANYONE what your company does.  Saying your project is in “beta” is just another way to say “We’re lazy and didn’t get the full project out in time.”  The words “new paradigm,” “web 2.0″ and “new model” are meaningless to regular people and only speak to an industry-based audience.

Now, I realize a brand name is merely a word – the stuff BEHIND the name is what defines a brand.  However, this rule goes by the wayside when EVERYONE is using the same crazy terms without any regard to what they really mean.  This confuses the casual consumer – the person you ultimately want invested in your business.

If you truly want to stick in the conscious of the consumer, you need branding and messaging that is honest and straight forward.  Avoid hype-driven nonsense.  If the majority of new start-ups are doing it, chances are you’re better off avoiding it and finding traits and terms that arise organically from within your organization.  I recommend conducting early focus groups with potential consumers and let THEM define your brand message.

And for the record…this post is most certainly NOT in “beta.”

As long as I’ve been a “workin’ man” I’ve had the desire to break out on my own, call my own shots, and give my thoughts, dreams, and ideas, breath and life. I feel certain I am not alone in this and for the million or so Americans (and countless others worldwide) who have been laid off in the recent months, this is the opportunity of a lifetime.

Venture Capital firms and banks have gone dry, so your dreams are going to have to be funded by guts, bootstrapping, and intuition. Fortunately for many of us, technology has presented the ultimate avenue to open source applications, high speed efficiency, and the potential to lead others through a jungle of applications.

Most recent data focused on 2008 will show a downturn in business sector services and a continued upturn in consumer start-ups. (Washington Post).

Not to go, all, Seth Godin, on you, but, it’s time to get re-energized about what you’re passionate about. Now, in this time of chaos, is a chance to channel your inner Steve Jobs, Larry Page, or Kemmons Wilson, write your plan, get your ducks in a row, and take leap of faith.

…. and once you’re up and running and ready to market your brand, I’ve got the perfect solution for you

While this was certainly an “oops” moment for O’Reilly, it served as a powerful lesson in just how far viral marketing, mashups and online culture have come. There are several interesting nuggets to take away from this:

1. Something can only be viral if it’s shocking, funny or in this case both. I’ve been irked for a while at companies and brands who seem to think ANYTHING can lend itself to “viral distribution” – as if merely calling content “viral” makes it so. As a result, there have been countless failures, and there will likely be more. What few understand is that a true “viral” moment occurs when you, the consumer, are so intrigued by a piece of content that you immediately email or IM 5+ friends telling them about it. The ONLY kinds of content which apply to this psychology are media that are truly shocking/violent or truly funny to you the user. And in the rare case you can have both, it’s golden. More than anything the O’Reilly video proves this point as it was circulated to every video portal and had 10 million + views within the first 3 days. After only 2 weeks it reached total saturation.

2. Content adaptation or “mashups” come with the territory. Remember when Saturday Night Live used to be in tune with our cultural conscience? When the show dabbled more in relevant parody and was THE cool, hip place to find it. These days mashups have taken that role, and engage the under-25 crowd. Only 5 days after the O’Reilly video leaked, the folks at BarelyPolitical.com released their update on the original, brilliantly taking the same footage and adding reactions from the “producer. ” If SNL was still relevant, Lorne Michaels would have beaten them to the punch – debuting something similar on the SNL website then airing it on that Saturday’s show.

The very same day, Stephen Colbert aired his own parody of the video which was fortunately different than the BarelyPolitical version.

Youtube is also filled with other mashups, parodies and remixes of the original video, which have gone on to generate millions of hits themselves. Further proof that the orignial video was TRULY viral.

3. The time frame to capitalize on viral media is SHORT! The response time to this video was already incredibly fast, but if you want to be TRULY hip and “in the now” you’ve gotta monetize the hype and viral before it fades. The guys at BustedTees did just that and in 6 days from the release of the video were pre-selling these T-Shirts. Think about how perfect their timing was – the early adopters who had already discovered the video were ripe to be sold something, and new/casual viewers were just finding out what all the buzz was about. If BustedTees had waited a day longer, they would have missed out on being in the HEAT of the moment, and likely several hundred sales.

Remember when “Vote For Pedro” shirts were all the rage, and then several months later a bunch of sad wanna-bes started wearing them, long after the fad had faded? Well, that was 2005 and today the time frame would be cut down to 3 weeks. You’ve got to be THAT FAST if you want to capitalize on cultural fads, internet hype and viral marketing. Free tools and services today give anyone the chance to join the fun and make some fans or money off of these experiences.

On a final note…
Wouldn’t it be truly something if Bill O’Reilly actually created this video on purpose…….as a way to generate viral traffic? Obviously he didn’t, but just pause for a moment and consider if he had. Watching the original video, it’s almost as if the angry pauses he takes were created on purpose, to allow for mashups and parodies. Lisa Nova is already doing exactly that!

And “We’ll Do It Live” is a classic one-liner that lends itself to all kinds of products……it’s even a brand onto itself! So again I ask, wouldn’t it be truly something if O’Reilly was smart enough to manufacture this whole thing on purpose, as a way of keeping his brand relevant and hip? He didn’t…….surely. But then again, he was the first one to sell “Don’t Taze Me Bro” bumper stickers.

Links:
Original Video
BarelyPolitical Mashup
Stephen Colbert Parody
Buy the T-shirt