More on branding: the “personal brand”
What does it mean to have a brand? Is it anything more than a company’s “persona” (notwithstanding the cognitive dissonance that comes with anthropomorphizing an entity that way)? These days in the online world you see the prominence of “personal brands,” which I characterize as the gravitas behind an individual which is often more powerful than the effect of that person’s affiliation with a company. Look at Frank Gruber. It takes some digging to see that he’s with AOL. In my perception, at least, Jeremiah Owyang is larger than his affiliation with Forrester. And a few people whom I’ve known for some time have expressed surprise to learn that I’m with a law firm, and not just working under Internet Cases.
Is there any meaning to be had from thinking about reputation and association in terms of “personal brands”? Is it anything more than persona? I wonder if there is anything new under the sun to be had in thinking about it in these terms. Or is it something that’s been there all along, just now coalescing into a notion articulated in this way. Regardless, it’s an understatement to say that reputation, credentials (whether real or illusory), goodwill, and the sum total of what you create and share online are currency in the modern information marketplace.
Sphere: Related ContentBranding in a Web app world
Among other things, I’m a trademark lawyer. I’m also a social media enthusiast, and I can prove that by my use of Twitter, Facebook and Friendfeed.
The social media space is aswirl with fast pace conversation and ever-changing memes. New features, companies and third party apps come on the scene every day. Just read Somewhat Frank for awhile to notice that.
I’m learning a lot about new media/social media by reading Geoff Livingston’s book Now is Gone. Brian Solis wrote the introduction, and one of the points that really resonates with me is the fact that modern Web users don’t want to be marketed to. Instead, according to Solis, wise PR activity requires an entity to become a part of the community it serves.
Where does this leave traditional trademark law? Given the cultural environment of the modern web, it would seem anomalous for companies in that space to take a hard-line stance when it comes to trademark protection like they might have in the good ol’ days. Look at the number of apps that play on the name Twitter. When is Google going to say something about ReadBurner which obviously mimicks the name Feedburner?
But these brands have enourmous value. Scott Karp put up this insightful post which led me to consider a new facet of this. The thesis of Scott’s post, I think, is that the value and goodwill of a Web app comes largely from its user base. From a trademark perspective, does this clarify or obscure the analysis? To whom does the goodwill belong? The company or the community around it?
Sphere: Related ContentMore trees these days?
If so, is “capitalistic stewardship” the reason?
I used three paper towels to dry my hands in the men’s room. A coworker chided me for it and in so doing called me out as as being unsympathetic with environmental causes. I responded that there are more trees now in the U.S. than there were in 1900. That’s something that my dad used to tell me. Then I started wondering if it’s true.
The answer did not lend itself to a quick Internet search, but I did find this editorial from a publication in Hawaii. Wish I could find better authority, like the Forest Service report the author cites, but I haven’t taken the time to do so.
In any event, the proposition seems to make sense, and one of the main points of that article is that greed motivates conservation. The example he gives is that timber companies don’t want to destroy all the trees because that would but the companies into bankruptcy.
I wouldn’t necessarily characterize it as “greed” being the motivator if called on to put it in my own words. “Rational economic activity” would suit it better. How about something along the lines of “capitalistic stewardship”? Wise, sustainable “use” of natural resources, in my book (printed on recycled paper, of course!), presumes the same kind of progress — economic, social and cultural — which we’ve grown to enjoy in America.
Sphere: Related Content2001: A Space Odyssey - that last scene is pretty messed up
A few months ago I saved Stanley Kubrick’s awesome 1968 movie 2001: A Space Odyssey on the DVR. As you know, the movie is based on a book of the same name by Arthur C. Clarke who, incidentally, passed away a few weeks ago. I finally got around to watching it last night.
The movie is great, with its cinematography and photographic effects. Makes you think about ethics and technology too, in that one of the fundamental points of the plot is the conundrum of how to deal with HAL, the powerful computer that was essentially in charge of the mission to Jupiter.
The last scene of the movie (Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite) is way screwed up, and one is naturally left to ponder its meaning. Here’s what I think:
You’ll notice that Dave became that which he saw. When he arrived in that white, illuminated bedroom in the pod, he first saw himself standing in his space suit before himself. The pod then disappeared, and Dave was alone, standing in the space suit outside the pod. Then the space-suited Dave saw himself seated at a table, eating, as an old man. He then became that old man. The old man, after knocking the glass of water off the table, looked over and saw the wretched version of himself lying in bed, whom he became. That wretched version then saw before him the black monolith. We then see the transformation of Dave into a fetus. So, bottom line, the monolith must represent something of the origin of life.
Here’s a really interesting mashup, the scene with Pink Floyd’s song “Echoes” laid over the top of it.
I had always heard that Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon synched with The Wizard of Oz, but didn’t know about any purported synchronization between Echoes and 2001 until doing the research for this post. Here’s some more background on Wikipedia.
Sphere: Related Content