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 ContentThe connected-immersive world as we’ll know it
While reading my RSS feeds this morning I ran across two interesting stories that relate to one another inasmuch as they’re futuristic, and describe technologies that will underlie the “online” experience. I put “online” in quotes because these technologies may change that experience not only in magnitude but in kind.
The first article talks about ultrafast connectivity which makes broadband look like a soda straw: ‘The Grid’ Could Soon Make the Internet Obsolete. The second article addresses processing that would enable a more real-life virtual experience: Matrix-style virtual worlds ‘a few years away’ See the connection between those two things?
I just hope that talk about this stuff doesn’t seem as quaint as some of the predictions in this article: What Will Life Be Like in the Year 2008?
Hat tip to Paul for a couple of these links.
Sphere: Related ContentPaused a moment to rethink time travel
For awhile I’ve been convinced that time travel must be impossible because there are no tourists coming from the future to visit us in this present. This theory does not originate with me, of course.
I paused for a moment this morning while having a conversation with Jill about this, when the thought occurred to me that perhaps the reason there are no visitors from the future is because the future has not yet occurred, and those visitors have not yet come into existence. Their existence, of course would be a necessary predicate for them traveling back in time to this present.
But then I remembered, there is only one present, this present, back to which those future beings could travel. It is in this, and only this present, that they would return. So I think my doubts concerning time travel remain valid. Right?
Sphere: Related Content