«
»

Why it’s tough to trust Personal Branding Experts

December 9th, 2009 by Andrew Swenson in General
Image Credit: clix

Image Credit: clix

When Carlos Miceli recently banished personal branding to hell, his post reminded me of what bothers me most about personal branding: the experts.

I firmly believe that along with the rise of social networks, we’ve also seen the rise of common-sense-y “experts.” And with them, we’ve also seen entire communities turn a blind eye to critical thinking. This is not just annoying. This is scary.

So, in the spirit of critical thinking, here are three reasons I think it’s tough to trust personal branding experts.

Self-serving rhetoric

In “Is Personal Branding Life?,” Dan Schawbel, one of personal branding’s chief cheerleaders, writes

Years from now, your boss might uncover something about you from a simply [sic] search for your name on any social network or search engine and decide not to trust you.

This, I believe is what Miceli was talking about when he said

Personal Branding bases most of its points on not upsetting…anyone else who will decide if you “live or die financially,” depending on what they find out about you online.

But can you blame the experts…

By leveraging fear as a rhetorical device, the experts are able to position themselves as benevolent guides who will help prevent your personal brand from such tarnishing.

Personal branding experts seem really good at creating a reason to exist. If nothing else, they’ve managed to place a finger between two tender ribs: our desperate desire to be wealthy with little actual work and our insatiable aspirations of notoriety.

Schawbel argues in a different post that everyone can be successful. And, when you do what you’re passionate about, you can achieve a career that’s like a “‘paid’ hobby, just like golf or video games.” Sounds tough, right?

Personal Branding is always the solution

Schawbel goes on to ask:

The big question: “Can I be myself but have a personal brand”? This question comes up a lot for some reason. I think it’s because a lot of people don’t think of themselves as a brand still.

No, actually, I think it comes up because it’s terribly difficult to determine what to share online. The answer is not in thinking of yourself as a brand, but rather in finding a way to combine personal and professional online without pissing people off. As Monica O’Brien observes

…there seems to be an ongoing war between the people who use social media for personal relationships and the people who use social media for business.

And in that war, I think the mix is unique for each person. The simple fact is that not everyone will have a bajillion blog readers. Not everyone will have a gazillion Twitter followers. And for some of us, that’s okay. We’re not interested in video games and golf. We’re not institutions interested in ROI. We’re just people hanging out, adding value where we can.

Be yourself and other inspirational B.S.

Schwabel again:

As I always say: “Be the real you because everyone else is taken and replicas don’t sell for as much.”

First, with all the value that’s placed on being genuine, consider Rebecca Thorman’s stance:

You are not genuine because you told me of your heartbreak…or relationship or promotion or demotion or disability or conflict or how your cat peed outside of its litter box.

“Be the real you,” has a warm fuzzy feeling associated with it, but to be honest, I’m not sure who the real me is, and I’m not sure it matters.

Because in the end, it’s the quality of your work that will determine your success, save for the few that can manage to build a cult following to their own personal brand.

And you?

Feelings on personal branding experts? Please share.

-Andrew

Image Credit: clix; original here

Related Posts

  1. In the Trust Economy, are the @ChrisBrogan’s the bourgeois?
  2. Guest Post: Writing as a way of thinking

Tags:

If you liked this post, subscribe to get updates via RSS or email

  • twitter@Luay Rahil
    Dan Schwabel keeps telling people about personal branding. He does not interact with his followers at all. He seems like a machine on line, nothing human about him. He never tells people about personal development, people can not brand nothing. Nothing do not have value in the market place.
  • abbyannette
    BTW - Dan, you definitely look like a tool.
  • Okay, this is the perfect example of irony. Who actually says this in a public forum? Do you think it's cool to walk up to someone you don't know and say, "hey, you're a tool" ?

    That's what I don't get. People say they don't care about personal branding - they say stuff like, "if you look like a tool in your pictures on your blog/twitter, then you probably are" - and then they attack someone callously online in the name of "being yourself" and "being authentic."

    Look, if we're saying you are online as you are in person... then I definitely don't want to connect with you in person. This comment is a huge turnoff. There is nothing of substance, no constructive opinion - it's just an insult.
  • abbyannette
    Perhaps I should have unpacked why I called someone who looks and sounds like a tool a tool, I just figured it had been covered in previous comments. I don't care if someone is the nicest person in the world in person, your (collective you) site, your tweets, your photos, everything reflects YOU. Yes, even me calling someone a tool (what I believe they are portraying through various avenues). If me being honest about someone who I find offensive to the marketing profession is offensive to you, then I'm fine if you don't want to hang out in person. And personally, I prefer to connect with people who see things differently than me because it challenges me. If this is my "personal brand," then I've done my father proud. :)

    BTW a well-known previous social media professor of mine once said to a reporter that when he hears the words "personal branding" his bs (spelled out) meter goes sky high. I'll hang with him any day.

    I do, however, not wish to be known for making personal attacks toward people I don't know publicly, so for my late in the day comment yesterday, I am sorry Dan. I do not know you personally, and I'm only going off of the image I see you portray online.

    If you wish to continue this discussion off Andrew's blog, I'd welcome it: thepicaresque@gmail.com.
  • To abbyannette's defense,
    It could be your definition of "tool." Myself, I find that tools help me to do something better than I could have done myself which is why I like them. Maybe it was a compliment? Probably not though. :)
  • ^5 :)
  • abbyannette
    Looks like your "knee jerk" reaction provided some focus for blogging. :) You know how I feel about personal branding - personal bullshit. As I say, if you look like a tool in your pictures on your blog/twitter, then you probably are. Preach it to the masses brother!
  • MouyyadA
    It seems like there are a million "personal branding experts" on the web. Personally, I am new to social media. I've only recently begun to understand its value as well as its problems.

    For the topic of personal branding I see the bottom line as this: I am myself online and offline, I am the same person on twitter, facebook, and my blog. Social media just magnifies your passions, values and missions.

    The reason for the existence of "personal branding experts" is people try to separate their public perception online and offline.
  • Big topic. Where to start?

    Personal branding. If you have to think about it that much, you're probably trying too hard. OK, I know we all have to think about it these days, as we live our lives through our mediated lenses. But my point is, your Personal Branding comes from being authentically you. And you can't engineer this. And once you start tweaking or self-editing, you step out of authenticity.

    There have been moments when I've panicked about whether I've stepped too far into personal matters, on my blog, on Twitter, on Facebook. But I don't have a boss ~ I'm my own boss, so who's going to get upset about it?

    There is so much unnecessary worry about pissing people off on the web. I'm not saying it's ok to be offensive. Just be authentic, be genuine and be professional. You should be judged for the quality of your work or your performance (if we're talking about business), not for how nice you were or how many great life-affirming quotes you tweeted last month anyway.

    If you're using social media or a blog to attract potential customers for your business, I think being honest, open and personal only enhances your attractiveness to your Right People, and may help keep the time-wasters away. Being less than authentic is like trying to hide something in the small-print, and is linked to the sort of mind-set that says you can't ever turn a potential customer away. If you're focused on attracting just the right customers, it really won't bother you.

    Personal branding experts should be assessed for their individual merit. I don't know Dan Schawbel but I can think of plenty others in that line.

    It brings to mind one of Godin's recent posts about Dunbar's number. Yeah, it get's pretty difficult to connect personally and authentically with people, once your tribe of followers grows beyond a certain size (Dunbar's number being 150). But there are people who do it, and do it well. Stephen Fry does it, through blogging and Twitter. And he does it by writing his own tweets and keeping them personal and relevant to his professional life. Deepak Chopra does it too. Both of these guys have masses of followers, so why can't other gurus learn from them?

    I think many people just get a bit lazy about connecting and being authentic once they've grown to a certain size on the internet. Just posting links to other people's content (like Guy Kawasaki does on Twitter) or posting streams of life-affirming quotes (like many people do on Twitter) isn't supporting your personal branding, or making you seem more real and authentic.
  • Thanks Sam.

    What do you see though as authenticity?

    I'm interested because we use the word a lot, but I'm never sure what people mean. Is that a carefully constructed authenticity (which then isn't authentic...do you see why I'm challenged here?).
  • Andrew, I agree with you on every point. "Personal Branding" is just another useless buzzword, and a way for everybody with a computer and a Twitter account to name what they are doing in a way that makes it seem exciting and complicated. You're so right - not everyone wants or has a gazillion followers. I think one of the best things about social media is the opt-in factor. You don't have to be on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Digg, etc to have a life and have friends. Great post! Clare
  • I think there is some value in the concept of personal branding, but I'm just not down with the lack of really critical examination of the practice. I tried to link to people in the post who were struggling with the implications of an online/offline life.

    Thanks for stopping by Clare.
  • Andrew,

    I don't see what's wrong with having personal branding experts. So what if the information is conventional to you? A lot of people obviously struggle with what is common sense, and those are the people who would purchase personal branding services.

    As for the few attacks on Dan Schawbel in the comments, I think it's a tragedy that someone is judging a person solely by his tweets. That's just one part of who Dan is. If you hate it so much then stop following him. But don't question where the "value" is there - the information that he's sharing is obviously valuable to over 60,000 people. Maybe you aren't one of them, but you have the option to unsubscribe or tune out or whatever.

    I actually have worked with Dan several times - he's real - his desire to help others is authentic - he gets nervous - he worries - he gets stressed out - and through it all, he maintains a professional, drama-free image online. That's a service - that's something people want to learn to do better. And I see no reason he shouldn't charge for those services as a personal branding expert.

    And that brings me to a point I've talked about with Carlos a few times now, but not directly related to Andrew's post: you don't KNOW someone just because you chat with them online, read their blog, follow them on Twitter, etc. Most of our information about a person's feelings, their sincerity, etc, comes from body language, so how could you?

    Online discussions would be so much better if people would stop trying to throw in their 2 cents about what so-and-so who they don't even KNOW is doing wrong. Maybe then we could actually learn what people are doing well, and figure out how to incorporate and modify that into our own style of interaction.
  • I agree you can't judge a person solely on his tweets and made a point to respond and say that if I was looking through a tunnel at just those tweets then that is how I might come to think what I said. I reworded my response and tried to make clear that I am not judging solely by tweets and did not mean for the response to have a negative tone. Helping people be successful is what I try to do myself. Thanks for the response and I love that this post is cranking some awesome debate!
  • It's cool Shane. It really says a lot that you came back and replied to people who defended Dan and Dan himself, clarifying your points. Shows good character. Glad we also connected on Twitter!
  • Agreed... Do you get it now? Shane Mac and @shanemacsays? :)
  • Monica,

    I don't believe there's anything *wrong* with personal branding experts or the concept in the abstract.

    This post is really about why I think it's difficult to trust personal branding experts. It's the rhetoric, not their intent or their perception of value that bothers me.

    That said, I also realize that value is subjectively measured, and I don't doubt that *for some*, personal branding experts provide a great deal of value. I just am questioning the trustworthiness of the advice that's offered in light of the three main points above.

    I'm sure Dan is a nice guy, but how he's established his arguments online has prevented me from trusting him with issues of personal branding.

    In the end, I think it's a matter of disagreement in philosophy. And I feel that sometimes, an analysis of what's troubling is just as valuable as an analysis of what's good.

    In any case, thanks for your clear thinking on this.

    I appreciate the exchange more than anything.
  • Andrew,

    Gotcha. I don't see a huge distinction over what I argued vs. that it's difficult to trust personal branding experts, but I'm clearly missing something subtle.

    I think it's fair if people don't want to trust Dan and his expertise. Unfollow him. If you are exposing yourself to the guy, it's no one's fault but your own, because we all have choices, especially on social media.
  • I agree and disagree with you. There are certain things we should keep to ourselves because we may hurt someone else.
  • Thorman is awesome. Everyone here should read her blog.
  • Shane, good to hear from you. I do consider myself a resource and supporter of other people's work. I can only create so much content these days because I'm running 8 websites, traveling, etc. Because of this, I do the best I can with the time I have. I use twitter to get ideas out and to point people at blogs/websites that I think are valuable. Although you may think they are foolish, they are helping people and my inbox is letting me know that. Hope to speak with you soon.
  • Hey Dan, I responded above to Rebecca's post and then saw your post here and wanted to personally respond. My post might have came off as rude and elementary after reading it and I wanted to give it another shot. You are helping a large audience of people who don't already have a voice to find one. I applaud you for that. I understand the linking of your account to an extent and realize the purpose for it although I agree a little more with Andrew when he says valuing analysis. Granted I don't have 8 websites and 60K people to help. The mass audience I would imagine calls for a much broader approach and people without any knowledge of where to look would probably find great value with them.

    To my personal call out of your tweets. I meant this in a good way, sort of. What I was trying to state is that, even though you probably are not self indulgent or worried about your follower count, for someone not personally knowing you it could look that way. I was just trying to call to the front that you shouldn't worry about a number or lists and worry more about what you can give. From the sounds of it I think you don't have those intentions at all but if a channel or person that may not have connected with you comes across you it may be thought of that way. Does that make sense?
  • Hey Dan, just went and did some Dan research :). The point I was trying to make is sort of what you you said in your video. "If one person is connected to 10,000 people and another only 50, who are you going to hire? Although that person may not be friends with the 10,000 people, nobody knows that. Perception is more important than reality online."

    That is the moral fact that I disagree with. I believe anyone could know that you weren't friends with 10,000 people and it is almost like a status symbol like going for the job title. Just think that the comment goes against "true" branding.

    Keep doing good and I'm glad you joined in on this discussion! Hope all is well and good luck with all you do.
  • There are two people I know, both of whom graduated in 2009 with their M.A.'s in PR.

    The one who gets 5 times more blog traffic and 3 times more Twitter followers is still unemployed. Her counterpart with the far smaller digital footprint got a job within four months. He was recently promoted.

    The point being that presently, traditional networking can trump online presence.

    Sure this is one anecdotal example, but so is the point in the video.
  • Hi Andrew, how are you? Your analysis is quite good as someone who doesn't know me personally, which is good feedback. The reason for linking throughout the day is that I'm unable to scale and send tweets during office hours, thus I point people to other blogs to support them. Personal branding is life because we're all judged based on what's observable to the human eye. Online it becomes more obvious. The reason why myself and others bring up the dangers of personal branding is because our personal information is available online for the taking and because if you're not online (and active in communities) it will hurt your career later on.

    If you would like to continue this over email it's dan.schawbel@gmail.com.
  • Dan, I'm glad you found my post.

    I understand your approach to Twitter, and while I'm sure it provides great value to your followers, I happen to value analysis rather than mass pointing.

    I understand you most likely have good intentions. I don't pretend to know what you intend, but I can describe how I see personal branding rhetoric functioning. Please know that this post was an attempt to describe the nature of the "personal branding" rhetor (and their arguments), not to demonize your intentions.

    I think that perhaps our disagreement about personal branding and life partly semantic. I think the term as turned into an ideograph of sorts that quickly polarizes. I don't think we'll ever see it the same way, but I do value the conversation.

    Thanks again Dan.

    I'll drop you an email later. Of if you want, send me one at theword@wordpost.org
  • I recently wrote a post (same time as Carlos', we have similar views) about 'Stop Trying To Fit In:' http://bit.ly/6ZcdYz

    This argument seems circular. Although, I do appreciate the dialogue and it's always interesting for me to learn about my 'online' friends and their own personal brand/how they view theirs and others.

    I argue that if you're going to pretend or put your best foot forward (create this personal brand that isn't quite you) then where will that get you and your employer? I feel like I am myself online and offline. In addition, I censor certain things I say online, just as I would if I just met someone in person.

    My network on Twitter or when blogging isn't filled with all my best friends, it's many people I don't know and then a handful of close friends that I do actually trust (from online relationships).

    I also believe that the things you say when you tweet or blog, do not reflect your work ethic or the work your produce. If a potential employer doesn't agree with your online behavior, you probably don't want to be working for them and visa versa. Move on. Sometimes it's not an analogous fit and I would much rather be honest and myself my whole life, versus changing who I have to be for a job that's about 1-2 years of my life.
  • Wow Grace, it's an honor to have you here.

    Your stance seems to reflect how we are as humans—I'm not consistent all of the time. I act differently depending on the context: if I'm with my wife, if I'm at work, if I'm playing with my dog alone in the park, if I'm writing a post or tweeting online.

    Sometimes I wonder if there's too much of a push for humans to mirror the consistency of brands even when that type of rigidity isn't normally part of how we act naturally.

    So maybe it's okay to be a different person online and off?
  • @Andrew Oh no, the pleasure is all mine :) I love snarky remarks and this is a great post.

    You're right that there are different levels to how we interact, depending on the situation. It's really hard to portray true feelings via text/typing versus facial expression, emotion or being in person. Yet, I would still strive to merge the two and take each with a grain of salt by circumstance.

    I do think it's okay to be a different person online and offline, but not too different. I start to have a problem when it's a complete personality flip. There will of course be differences due to the medium and vehicle we use to communicate. Undoubtedly, it's an interesting conversation to have...

    I always say, "To each their own," which is why it's funny that personal branding experts preach how to be yourself or how to "properly" act online.
  • I love this line, "I do think it's okay to be a different person online and offline, but not too different. I start to have a problem when it's a complete personality flip."

    I find sometimes that a person who is really "nice" and "genuine" to your face offline can turn in an instant and talk with complete ignorance and insult online. I strive to talk honestly and openly with respect both off and on.
  • bradfordshimp
    If it takes a personal branding expert to teach someone that they can succeed by being themselves, then whatever, I'm fine with that.

    The fact is, while some of us get this stuff inherently, there are many more that need simple instructions to get a foothold of understanding.

    What I don't agree with is when we are told that we need to worry about offending people, especially possible future bosses. Screw that! Be yourself and find a place to work (or start a business) that you will love. If you have to hide your true identity to get a job, is it a job that you really want?
  • And really, not worrying about offending people is partly what enabled me to write this post.

    It's something I've been thinking about for a while now. I figure, if I'm grossly mistaken, people will let me know.

    But I'm still perplexed about the notion of "true identity." I need to chew on that a bit more. I think *that* may be what's really tripping me up, even beyond the argument presented by personal branding.

    Thanks Brad.
  • Dan Schawbel is actually a really nice (and trustworthy) guy. The type of guy who will do anything for his network. I think it's hard when you've built up your following to the extent he has (and he has worked ridiculously hard to do so), to have the types of personal relationships people expect. That makes people think he's "cliche" or "self-centered" when that's far from the case.

    Most people are really just good marketers of their authenticity, not genuinely authentic. So some of the other examples in your post for instance may not be as genuine or authentic as you may think, and certainly those who are all feel-good in their authenticity are doing that for a reason, as you say.

    It's an interesting discussion and I'm glad so many people are writing about it. Ultimately, it does and will come down to the relationships you have with people in real life and how those connect with your relationships online. Great post!
  • Let me take another stab at this. Dan is probably a really nice guy and working to help a large crowd of people. Sorry if the comment came off rude and putting Dan down, that really wasn't that comment I was going for. I have not put the effort into connecting through his other channels of engagement and was solely stating my opinion based on a twitter feed. I would love to hear what Dan has to say but I just get frustrated when it is about the "number" of people or list that you are followed by. -Apologies to Dan and I have only connected with him online but you are exactly correct when you say it is about connecting your offline and online relationships.
  • Shane, I liked what you had to say, and agree with your take on Dan's Twitter feed.

    How can it be about connecting the offline and online relationships, when many of us are only ever going to have online relationships?

    The question has to be, how can we make our online communication and relationships feel more authentic and less about solely trying to market our personal brand, or build our number of Twitter followers.

    so, stick to your guns.
  • I responded to Dan directly below and made my point clearer I believe. Thanks for the comment. What I really like is the controversial articles which spark so much debate and I believe debate is the greatest of all.
  • Thanks for commenting Rebecca.

    I have no doubt that Dan is nice, nor do I doubt his devotion or dedication to hard work. If I knew Dan, it's very possible that I could trust him on a personal level (like to watch my wallet), but I still don't think I could trust his advice, simply from what I've read.

    My problem isn't really with cliche or self-centeredness but in the quality of the argument itself (the post above is an example of my beef...).

    And I'll agree that most of the time we're just marketing our authenticity. To speak in Derridian terms, as you did in your recent post on authenticity, I'm afraid of making "authenticity" a transcendental signifier (like we could suddenly lift of the veil of language and find "authenticity" staring us in the face). So really, I believe that no one can judge what is "authentic" as such—a scandal in both our personal and online lives.

    Could you show the examples in which you feel I'm overstepping my ability to judge what's genuine or authentic? I appreciate your careful examination, and if I've fallen short in my argument, I'd like to reexamine it.
  • You seem to focus on Dan Schwabel a lot so I guess I will too. What I think is so incredibly funny about Dan is that he post 5 million links a day on Twitter and has gained a following, yet everything that he has to say is total Cliché jargon and usually self centered. He would be better off as his own Digg network and not say anything himself. Obviously just need to finish a book :). Let me just quote some of his "Tweets."

    Dan's Personal Tweets:

    "A line must be drawn now between too much online social activity and too little. Where do you fit in?" - Hopefully not where you do. You rarely interact and operate as a corporation shouting rather than communicating.

    "The more valuable you are the more leverage you have!" - Well no shit. Thanks for the secret but how about telling me how to be valuable?

    "You can't afford not to communicate online each day." - Really? Maybe you can't but I think I'd be alright.

    "Do you think that being on more Twitter lists means that you have more influence?" - I wonder what you said back when you had 100 followers and how long you talked about the number of them you had?

    "Do you care how many times you're listed on Twitter?" - No but obviously you do.

    "If you're easy to categorize you'll get on more Twitter lists." - I think I could post 500 tweets of Dan worried about what or how many list he is on.

    Personal Branding Expert or Personal Branding Linking Guide?
  • Okay, so I picked on Dan to make a point. Obviously he's made whatever systems he uses work. Just don't ask me to trust him.

    And your points are taken.

    Something Monica O'Brien said yesterday was really interesting to me: "Twitter let's people be lazily engaged to the point of fake engagement, I swear." ( http://bit.ly/8wTbYw )

    So couple feigned engagement with common sense, feel-good tweets and you've got yourself a recipe for a new-media guru.

    It's worked out really well for some people (like Dan), I just don't think it's the best for our ongoing conversations.
blog comments powered by Disqus