4 ms·

Interesting -- this goes straight to some concerns I had about Zach's whole 'brand' and 'persona' response to the (overblown) controversy on swearing. I agree w

Interesting -- this goes straight to some concerns I had about Zach's whole 'brand' and 'persona' response to the (overblown) controversy on swearing. I agree with most of what Jason says here. But I still have an issue with the notion of my character and reputation being tied to the language of 'brand'. I think it cedes too much ground to the encroachment of marketing into some of the essential parts of human interaction, reducing what we present and edit of ourselves to mere marketing. Contrast with _why. Here's a guy who clearly edited himself in a radical way, created a persona, built a following, but it would be hard for me to see _why as a 'brand', because the content of his persona was focused on creativity and his contributions to the community, not his marketability. I totally get that we're all always editing ourselves to present a certain point of view of who we are, from the profile pics we use on Twitter/FB/LinkedIn, to the style we use in our tweets, speeches, presentations, etc. -- it's impossible to eliminate that from our interactions publicly and online. But do we have to concede that much ground to the business side of things that we call it "branding"? I hope we have different ways of tying our public selves to a kind of integrity that goes beyond the ethics of commerce, to something deeper. Commerce is such a powerful force in our everyday lives anyway, can we find a broader language to describe this process than something that tends to reduce us to products?

aristidb 15y ago
So what you're asking for is not to use the emotionally cold language of marketing, and use the warmer language of traditional human interaction instead? Perhaps not a bad idea.
- davesims 15y ago
  Yeah I'll buy that. ...oops
jasonshen 15y ago
Thanks for the thoughts. I used the word "personal branding" mostly because it is the established term that covers what I'm talking about. But I agree with your point in that it sort of turns people into products. I guess a larger point I should have made in the blog post and that I did in the talk is this: Your name has a meaning to people, even if you choose to not think about it. Recognizing that what people think / feel when considering "you" is something I want to encourage. Shaping your reputation/brand/name into something positive and making it a useful tool for achieving your goals is, IMO, a worthwhile endeavor.
- davesims 15y ago
  Hi Jason, thanks for responding. I liked your post, and I appreciate that you didn't coin the term -- 'personal branding' has been around a long time. But the idea of 'Public Rhetoric' has been around far longer, and that's what we're really talking about -- the connection between what I present in public speech or other forum, to a truth about myself -- the 'ethos' of rhetoric. It's an ancient problem, and the concern I have with propagating the language of 'branding' is that it pulls it too close to the ethics of Mad Men for my taste. There are other ways to, ahem, spin this I think. The intent of our public rhetoric should be more than just commerce or marketability, as you demonstrate with the charity you started at Stanford. But I see a problem with the language of 'branding' so close to the idea of 'charity.' It raises a question of ethos -- why are you doing this? For self-promotion or for some other human good? Of course this has always been a problem, and language can always be used to obscure our true motives. But declaring something as 'branding' outright seems to me to subtly give too much license to our more selfish intents. I'd rather we still talk about Speech or Rhetoric or Reputation than Branding, if for no other reason than it at least creates some distance between commerce and altruism. And now I've taken this conversation into Aristotelian waters way outside my pay grade...
  - jasonshen 15y ago
    Hey Dave, It's great to have a discussion about this. I think the concern that people have with businesses is that profit is a rather cold motive. We wonder if at the core of every corporation is an empty vessel, an icy void, a dispassionate pursuit of the bigger bottom line. As I mentioned in the post, I think the best brands (and businesses) have a mission that is higher than profit. Of course, some might dispute that claim as simply another cold-hearted way to make a buck, but from what we know about Steve Jobs, it seems that he really saw Apple as a vehicle for delivering insanely great products to the world. And that's why their advertising and marketing resonates so much with us. I think of it like this: brand -> reputation -> character -> legacy. You've got to work backward from what you want your legacy to be. The usefulness of calling "branding" is that we can use other words/tools/strategies from business and marketing in an analogous way. Business can be more than "just commerce" in my opinion. But yes, we have to watch our words because they suggest our intent. Would love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Jason
kd1220 15y ago
Zach really doesn't push the envelope with his posts. He's enthusiastic and outspoken, but at the same time very green. I can't hold it against him. Time will temper his views. (Disclosure: He's an alum.) However, I think someone like Sachin Agarwal would benefit from reading this and taking it to heart. Sachin's recent post, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3218607 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3218607, came off as douchey. What I took from that post is that Sachin used his self-proclaimed fanboy relationship with Apple for gain. The tone of the post was slightly cocky and speciously reverent. Branding is important and it's increasingly difficult to avoid it as our lives become more public through technology. Consciously putting effort into presenting yourself in a good light isn't something that's automatic; it requires practice. If you put too much effort into it, then you might come off as a sleazy used car salesman. Focus on what you do and how you do it and the branding will emerge effortlessly and naturally. You won't be a product that way; you'll be a process (or a platform, as Jason puts it). It's typically not my style to call out specific individuals and make examples of them. Sachin's post didn't make an explicit reference to his persona, but I thought it was useful for the discussion. Both Zach and Sachin have appeared on the front page several times. I think they can handle the criticism - positive or negative.

aristidb 15y ago

So what you're asking for is not to use the emotionally cold language of marketing, and use the warmer language of traditional human interaction instead? Perhaps not a bad idea.

davesims 15y ago
Yeah I'll buy that. ...oops

jasonshen 15y ago

Thanks for the thoughts. I used the word "personal branding" mostly because it is the established term that covers what I'm talking about. But I agree with your point in that it sort of turns people into products. I guess a larger point I should have made in the blog post and that I did in the talk is this: Your name has a meaning to people, even if you choose to not think about it. Recognizing that what people think / feel when considering "you" is something I want to encourage. Shaping your reputation/brand/name into something positive and making it a useful tool for achieving your goals is, IMO, a worthwhile endeavor.

davesims 15y ago
Hi Jason, thanks for responding. I liked your post, and I appreciate that you didn't coin the term -- 'personal branding' has been around a long time. But the idea of 'Public Rhetoric' has been around far longer, and that's what we're really talking about -- the connection between what I present in public speech or other forum, to a truth about myself -- the 'ethos' of rhetoric. It's an ancient problem, and the concern I have with propagating the language of 'branding' is that it pulls it too close to the ethics of Mad Men for my taste. There are other ways to, ahem, spin this I think. The intent of our public rhetoric should be more than just commerce or marketability, as you demonstrate with the charity you started at Stanford. But I see a problem with the language of 'branding' so close to the idea of 'charity.' It raises a question of ethos -- why are you doing this? For self-promotion or for some other human good? Of course this has always been a problem, and language can always be used to obscure our true motives. But declaring something as 'branding' outright seems to me to subtly give too much license to our more selfish intents. I'd rather we still talk about Speech or Rhetoric or Reputation than Branding, if for no other reason than it at least creates some distance between commerce and altruism. And now I've taken this conversation into Aristotelian waters way outside my pay grade...
- jasonshen 15y ago
  Hey Dave, It's great to have a discussion about this. I think the concern that people have with businesses is that profit is a rather cold motive. We wonder if at the core of every corporation is an empty vessel, an icy void, a dispassionate pursuit of the bigger bottom line. As I mentioned in the post, I think the best brands (and businesses) have a mission that is higher than profit. Of course, some might dispute that claim as simply another cold-hearted way to make a buck, but from what we know about Steve Jobs, it seems that he really saw Apple as a vehicle for delivering insanely great products to the world. And that's why their advertising and marketing resonates so much with us. I think of it like this: brand -> reputation -> character -> legacy. You've got to work backward from what you want your legacy to be. The usefulness of calling "branding" is that we can use other words/tools/strategies from business and marketing in an analogous way. Business can be more than "just commerce" in my opinion. But yes, we have to watch our words because they suggest our intent. Would love to hear more about your thoughts on this. Jason

kd1220 15y ago

Zach really doesn't push the envelope with his posts. He's enthusiastic and outspoken, but at the same time very green. I can't hold it against him. Time will temper his views. (Disclosure: He's an alum.) However, I think someone like Sachin Agarwal would benefit from reading this and taking it to heart. Sachin's recent post, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3218607 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3218607, came off as douchey. What I took from that post is that Sachin used his self-proclaimed fanboy relationship with Apple for gain. The tone of the post was slightly cocky and speciously reverent. Branding is important and it's increasingly difficult to avoid it as our lives become more public through technology. Consciously putting effort into presenting yourself in a good light isn't something that's automatic; it requires practice. If you put too much effort into it, then you might come off as a sleazy used car salesman. Focus on what you do and how you do it and the branding will emerge effortlessly and naturally. You won't be a product that way; you'll be a process (or a platform, as Jason puts it). It's typically not my style to call out specific individuals and make examples of them. Sachin's post didn't make an explicit reference to his persona, but I thought it was useful for the discussion. Both Zach and Sachin have appeared on the front page several times. I think they can handle the criticism - positive or negative.