[ photo courtesy ]
Whenever we think about brands and brand values, we generally think in terms of personality traits and characteristics we want the brands in question to embody.
And rightly so, because some of the most-loved brands are undeniably human – they’re alive with personality and there’s a real sense of character about them.
I was chatting to the exceptionally smart Justin Basini the other day, and he observed that for many of the strongest brands, their founders are still very much involved in the company. The Apple, Virgin, Ben & Jerry’s, Howies, Innocent and Dyson brands are inextricably linked with the personalities of Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Ben & Jerry, Clare & David Hieatt, Richard Reed and James Dyson. The founders are central – with the unmistakeable imprint of the personalities and the values on which the companies were founded deeply embedded throughout the business. And when the founders are no longer involved, the brand has to replace the founder as the core of the business, to represent what the company was founded to do and shape how it should behave. Which is of course a lot harder to deliver in practice.
Similarly, Mike Arauz posted not so long ago about the role of personal brands of individuals within agencies vs the agency brands themselves – and how far the reputations of CP+B and Edelman are bound up with Alex Bogusky and Steve Rubel / David Armano (and Zappos with Tony Hsieh).
It’s about people. The individuals in question are charismatic, confident and decisive with what Justin has pithily summarised as ‘heart, vision, ambition and human understanding’. The key bit being human. And there’s a big difference between human-sounding attributes detailed in a brand pyramid / onion / molecule / insert branding model of choice and real human values.
Values aren’t supposed to be the result of an academic exercise, attributes that are carefully detailed in brand guidelines (that invariably contain more about the prescribed typeface and logo, how a brand should outwardly appear, than the way its people should behave, what the brand should actually do) – and then languish thoroughly unloved on brand managers’ desks.
They’re supposed to be the maxims we hold dear, the principles that guide how we behave in everything that we do.
Those brands whose founders are still involved demonstrate the difference that living and breathing those values has. It’s clear that it’s do-able.
So what excuse do the majority of brands, who behave in such a thoroughly un-human, un-personable way, have?
As you point out there are many benefits to having your founders still involved in your company but the biggest one I think is that it gives your brand a story to tell.
And the most interesting stories are those that involve people.
“We’re not a large multi-national corporation. We’re just a group of guys who had an idea in our garage and got lucky”
The other thing they have in common is whether the company will outlive their departures.
I have a LT bet about Apple not surviving post-Jobs for 10 yrs in its current form.
Am I wrong?
I completely agree- when you see the face behind a brand, that brand is much more desirable- it’s no longer just a logo or a product. You can trust a face easier than a logo, slogan, or any other type of branding paraphernalia !
i love a human brand ;-)
http://danburgess.typepad.com/tap_tap/2007/01/human_brands.html
I think I agree with your underlying point, but I am drawn to the examples you mention specifically because they are *not* brands, they are people. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about CP+B, but Alex Bogusky is cool. Same for Apple and most of the others. Charismatic, brilliant and inspiring people have been around as long as history, while branding is a fairly new idea. Maybe it’s a semantic difference, but I think the notion of “human brand” cheapens the human.
Si!! RT @daniseuba: Human Brands de katy lindemann, muy buena reflexión http://tinyurl.com/y939vfh
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @ConversationAge: Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @ConversationAge: Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916 >> a nice reflection that brand managers should consider #fb
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @ConversationAge: Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916 < interesting points
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Love the segment on the personality of founders…those who steward big ideas. #the5 RT @ConversationAge: Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916 (via @ConversationAge)
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @JDEbberly: #Human #Brands http://ow.ly/1a916 (via @ConversationAge) #corporate #brands #behaviour #socialweb
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @ConversationAge Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
Human Brands have “Heart, Vision, Ambition and Human Understanding”. The key bit being human. http://tinyurl.com/y939vfh
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @HAmarketingPR: RT @ConversationAge: Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916
This comment was originally posted on Twitter
RT @wenbryant @ConversationAge Human Brands http://ow.ly/1a916
This comment was originally posted on Twitter