Self-Portrait – Vincent van Gogh |
I believe this strongly about the Internet: There is no such thing as a brand.
To me, a brand is a cultivated fiction, it’s an image spun from a grain of truth. You hear about athletes and celebrities cultivating brands, whether it’s a tough-guy image or a nice-guy image or one of dispassionate competency. Is it true? Doesn’t really matter. It’s a public front.
As I alluded to in my post on LeBron James, brand sorcery used to work in the TV era, but not anymore. The Internet doesn’t tolerate a false front. It loves loves loves nothing more than to expose the truth and stomp all over “brands,” as Tiger Woods and Anthony Weiner have discovered all too keenly.
The only, and I mean only way to approach a world of social media is with honesty, transparency, and authenticity. You can’t fake out the Internet for long.
And it’s not even about morality – look at how the Internet has (mostly) embraced Charlie Sheen and denigrated LeBron James. The key difference is authenticity.
For me personally, this blog reflects my real life. The personality I express here is me, the opinions are my own, and the topics I post about are the things I’m thinking about. Sure, I maintain a certain professional decorum (usually) and I don’t divulge my deepest darkest thoughts (usually) but this isn’t a false front. This is me.
Now that I’m an author, people have suggested that I should change up my “brand” – I should start a blog that appeals to a more middle grade audience, I should start a separate blog for self-promotion, I should stop talking so much about my own book.
And sure, I could try and change up my “brand.” But I don’t think it would work, because it wouldn’t be real. This blog has always reflected where I am in my personal and professional life. I was an agent, so I blogged about agenting. Now have a book out, so I talk about my book. That’s where my head is at. I can only speak with authority on the actual things I’m thinking about.
My advice for people who are trying to carve out their own space in social media is not to think about what you think your blog or your Twitter presence should be, but rather to embrace who you really are. Be yourself. Let your own voice shine through. Lots of people have ideas about what you should be, but you can only be who you are.
The only brand you’ve got is you.
Curtis Moser says
Amen, brother.
Pam Asberry says
This post resonates with me in a way that those about creating a platform and building a brand never have. Thank you, Nathan.
Mr. D says
I figure, for a writer, that "brand" is the "voice" we hear so much about.
Lori Brighton says
Thank you so much for this post! I'm so sick of hearing about branding! People acting like it's the end of the world if you haven't established your brand.
wosushi says
*slow clap*
I posted earlier this week about why I blog, because I've had enough of all this talk of "branding". I agree – just be who you are.
L.G.Smith says
I agree it is about authenticity. You have to be yourself and engage with people honestly if you want to build a relationship, which is the point of all this social media stuff IMO.
You don't have to spill your guts or empty the skeletons from your closet, but being open about who you are and what's on your mind usually attracts like-minded people.
CourtLoveLeigh says
This post is accurate.
Matthew MacNish says
I used to censor myself a lot on my blog, because I was worried about offending readers. Then I realized, by not being myself, I might miss out on connecting with someone who truly "got me."
Not that that person exists.
There are still certain things one should not do though, as we all know. Ideally we must strike a balance between open honesty about who we really are, and the level or professionalism that is necessary to succeed.
Valerie Rieker says
I love your non-brand brand, Nathan! Way to make the world a better place for some people. =D
RobynBradley says
I agree that authenticity is important. We writers need to be true to who we are. But I also think it's important to think about what your audience wants to hear from you. (I'm using the universal "you" in the last sentence.)
In this particular case, Brand Nathan has two audiences: 1) the many writers who lurk here and who love learning from and interacting with a former agent and now published author. And 2) your middle-grade audience (and their parents) who might be psyched to have a blog (or FB page or whatever) from you that talks directly to them.
(I'll get off my marketing soap box now: I'm a marketing copywriter by day…I can't help myself! :))
Bottom line: Brand Nathan rocks!
Josin L. McQuein says
I'm not sure the idea of branding is completely false, more that it's misplaced. People try and brand themselves rather than their products, and products are what need to be branded so that consumers have a reasonable expectation of what those products will contain.
It's reasonable to assume that if a writer has written 10 novels with no sex and little swearing that book 11 won't be an F-bomb laden, near pornographic potboiler based on the name on the cover. To deviate that wildly from your normal material and audience, then rebranding with a new pen name is probably best.
All of that has to do with what you're selling, so brand away, but when you get to your blog and interact with your audience, then you can be you and leave the alternate identities atop your pieces of fiction.
Reagan Philips says
Well said.
Remus Shepherd says
I hate, hate, hate the 'person as a brand' mindset.
How can I be myself if I'm a flawed human being? If I'm authentically creepy, prejudiced or just simply an asshole then all I am capable of making is a crappy brand that people will shun.
It's telling that you used that image of Van Gogh to make your point, Nathan. He painted that side of his face because it hid his self-mutilated ear on the other side. Van Gogh was LITERALLY hiding his damage, because he knew that he would never be loved if he showed it.
Artificiality is necessary sometimes. Many artists or authors need to keep a public face that is separate from the private persona. It sucks, but it's better than the alternative, which is to starve to death while the public reviles you as a monster.
Matthew J. Beier says
Yet again, you prove you are an awesome person. This post hit at the right time and helped me lean further toward a decision I've been needing to make about my future/business. So, thank you, Nathan!
Jennifer Groepl says
Well said! Like you, I am multifaceted. There are many dimensions to my personality. I wear a lot of different hats and I have many different interests. I am who I am.
Rich Friedeman says
You're 100% right about the need for honesty and authenticity, but you undersell the importance on the idea of "brand". When used by the cynical and short-sighted, it's treated as a cultivated image as you describe.
In the real world it's a perception of value held by your customers and potential customers.
That can manifest as "great middle grade author", "tastes great, less filling", or "builds a comfortable and reliable car". It's not what the cultivated marketing message is, though, it's who the customer thinks you are and what they think you have to offer.
Define it the right way, and your prescription is even more appropriate. Brand is not a bad thing when you do it right.
Cathy Yardley says
I'd like to post a little excerpt from Naomi Dunford's (ittybiz.com) book Marketing School:
"When it was time for mom and dad to go to dinner, she [Mom] would hug the kids and they would smell her perfume.
Today, 50 years later, those kids remember exactly what their mother
smelled like. If they smell that perfume on anyone else in the world, for the rest of their life, they will think of their mother.
They don’t necessarily think nice things about their mother. They might think of how much of an alcoholic she was and how every time she made a casserole she would stare sullenly into the sink, smoking a cigarette and
ignoring her kids. But they think of her and only her.
That is branding."
Her point, which I agree with, is whether you believe in it or not, branding is people's perception of you. You can't control it, per se, but you can look at what you're doing and at least think: what am I saying here? Who am I trying to say it to? And am I being consistent?
Jerome Espinosa Baladad says
hmmm, I don't agree w/most of what you're saying on 'branding' on the Internet. I think there's a terrible mis-perception on the idea of 'branding,' w/c it seems to me you find to be somewhat dis-tasteful (I may just be over-reading here, OK?). If you're saying you have to be 'authentic,' then that's your way of branding yourself, which can be effective as as a strategy when done well. Writing (& all other areas of Publishing) has business areas to contend with all the time by writers & all others involved in it. It's simply stupid to leave 'marketing & promotions,'which includes aspects of 'branding, to chance, or even to pursuing the belief that business processes have switched because there's the Internet—there are more works being done that everyone can imagine when engaged in business, which can't be reduced just because they look dis-tasteful to someone. I'm saying all these because I look at my writing works as a business (& a tough business at that!), too. Plus I've been a small business owner myself for many years, & I've got an MBA degree. To just throw into the winds what I've learned about 'branding' when on the Internet, is tantamount to being disrespectful, too, to my excellent teachers who have taught me the basics.
Anonymous says
This too much of a simplistic view of a brand and overlooks what branding is all about in relation to author's and their books.
Celeb's from a sporting or theatrical background who court Celeb' or star status are a different animal. What you are describing is all about public image of the individuals.
No one gives a crap about Stephen King's, or Joan Collins personal traits. What they care about in relation to brand, is that they are known for producing quality entertaining reads in a specific Genre and of a consitant quality that appeals to them. End of.
Ulysses says
Interesting point, more interesting perhaps because I've chosen to remain (mostly) anonymous.
"Ulysses" isn't my name. It's a lie ("fiction," if you prefer).
But that's the extent of it. My blog and my comments here and other places don't reflect any character but my own. I write about things that move me in a way that reflects my personality and presents my thoughts. If I have a brand (and by brand, lets say I mean a face I present to the world which differs in some substantial way from the one currently stretched over the bones and muscles of my cranium), it's not one I've created deliberately.
The contents remain the same. Only the label may be misleading.
Kathryn Elliott says
Spot on, Nathan!
Loree Huebner says
Thank you, Nathan.
Robena Grant says
There is nothing worse than a fake brand. It's far better to be true to yourself and have a small following than be a fake with a huge following. Because the moment you let your guard down and reveal your authentic self, the fake followers will abandon you. ; )
ginny martyn says
I agree, but the people who run the literary world (agents and publishers) swear up, down and cross ways that as an author you must live, eat, breathe and pee your brand/platform. Without it there is no book, no deal and no author.
Two Flights Down says
I can see where people are coming from who disagree with Nathan. However, I think some have missed the point Nathan was making. He is talking about branding in relation to social media. Social media has made it more difficult to keep up a false persona. It just takes that one slip up–and the internet isn't so forgiving. It could ruin your entire reputation. Best to just be honest from the beginning and draw lines as to what parts of your thoughts you allow the public into. To try to generate and keep up a false image seems like a lot of pressure, and could easily turn messy these days.
Anonymous says
You'll get a lot of kudos on this post in the comment thread, from the good, decent, trusting people who read this blog.
But I couldn't disagree with you more.
People want to think they are getting authenticity. Whether they are actually getting it or not doesn't matter. And I've always found that those who say they are the most authentic are usually the biggest culprits of deception on the Internet.
Never trust anyone who begins a sentence with "In all honestly…" They are always going to lie.
Branding is just as important on the Internet as it has always been everywhere else. And if this wasn't the case, good, decent people wouldn't be sending millions of dollars to well-branded politicians via the Internet. They'd be sending the money to worthy charities instead.
Jonathan Dalar says
Great post, Nathan! Very well said, and I believe there's a lot of truth to the points you made about authenticity. A lot of food for thought.
tanyagrove says
Well, it's true that I might not trust a person who begins a comment, "In all honestly," but that's because it's either grammatically incorrect or it's a typo. Either way, the person is not taking the time to write carefully and thoughtfully, so I wouldn't rely on that person. Of course anyone who writes in as "Anonymous" cannot truly be trusted anyway…
But what Nathan said is all about honesty and authenticity, which I applaud.
Sara says
I understand where you're coming from (I think), but I spent 13 years in corporate PR/marketing and worked specifically with branding, and I can say the bottom line is that you ARE your brand.
But don't let that scare you. We are each in control of our actions and choices and therefore our "brands."
So your "brand," Nathan BranDsford, is exactly what you want it to be and what you are (in your own words, in the case of this blog, reflecting your real life, your personality, your opinions, and the topics you post about are the things you're thinking about.) When you say, "This isn't a false front. This is me," it implies that you have the incorrect impression that brands are false fronts.
It doesn't have to be that way. And, in fact, it shouldn't be that way.
Sure, sometimes big "bad" companies are going to try to "re-brand" themselves as good guys (and the same goes for big bad athletes or actors or other public figure), but that's because they're misusing branding to their economic advantage. Classic example: Bill Clinton got caught cheating with the intern. (Brand= bad="I'm a cheater.") Next day takes a stroll across the White House lawn with his wife, daughter, dog; bible in hand. (Re-brand=good=I'm a bible-carrying, family man who loves my wife, dog, and daughter). Did he become a changed man overnight? *Maybe* but doubtful. There's someone trying to re-brand himself in a more-positive light.
HOWEVER, someone who is honest/kind/upfront and who presents that to the world? Well then, that's their brand in the truest sense of the word.
Don't get turned off of branding just because some people misuse it.
Nathan Bransford says
sara-
But if you are your brand, do you really have a brand? Or are you just yourself?
Anonymous says
I totally agree with Sara. She said what I was trying to say, but with PR experience I don't have, and eloquence. (And she didn't mispell honesty.)
Anon @8:48
James says
I think you forgot a loophole.
Richard Bachman. Stephen King.
Pseudonyms.
You can create fictional "real" people on the internet. I'd argue its easier to give them a life with the internet than without. They can live on Facebook and Twitter. Have their own websites and blogs.
Each pseudonym could be a different brand. Hell, you can even give them genre-brand appropriate names.
I actually think what you are describing with the "There is only you" is the cause for needing to create these pseudonym brands if you want to expand beyond what the "you" brand has pigeon-holed you into.
P.I. Barrington says
I agree Nathan. The Internet/social media world is like a vast glass house…
Darley says
I have always thought of 'brand' as expectation. But it's just the best label we can give for identifying with a person or thing. Maybe the word 'image' is better.
But I think no matter whether you make the effort or not, a person (author etc.) is going to be perceived as having a brand and image.
Susan Kaye Quinn says
You are one of the most authentically genuine people I've met on the internet (and NICE!) and my hats off to you for your vision of doing this early (and often). We can quibble about the definitions (is the brand me? am I the brand?) but authenticity is king. I think having some coherence and organization to the professional self is also important, but genuine relations with real people trumps everything. 🙂
Linda says
Yes, yes, yes!!! Your genuineness is why you have such a huge following. We all seek the security of honesty.
Bryan Russell says
Plus, it's more interesting to simply blog about what you want to blog about, rather than trying to do a market analysis and target an audience.
Marilyn Peake says
What a refreshingly wonderful post! I agree with you that authenticity is so much more important than brand, especially for writers. Writers are supposed to be creative thinkers, not PR specialists, no matter how many people recommend tailoring books and authors’ public personas to PR campaigns. When the best writers break through, PR people who love PR and are trained in that field can help expand the popularity of their books. J. K. Rowling is a great example. She’s an extremely private person who tended to avoid PR in the early days of HARRY POTTER. She didn’t use the Internet, didn’t have a blog or website or Twitter account. Eventually, someone created an amazing website for her: J. K. Rowling Official Site. She joined Twitter in September 2009, and has so far posted a total of only 7 tweets, some of which are repetitions of the same tweet: J. K. Rowling Twitter account. Speaking of authenticity, here’s a tweet she’s repeated several times: "This is the real me, but you won’t be hearing from me often I am afraid, as pen and paper is my priority at the moment." Recently, Rowling started her HARRY POTTER online community, POTTERMORE, but that seems to have been the result of her genuine interest in connecting with fans.
Cora Zane says
Exactly this.
P. Kirby says
I find that a lot of writers think that their brand has to be inextricably bound to writing. I.e., that they must blog, tweet, facebook, about writing. For a few, this works. For the majority, IMO, it's duller than butter knife. I think they'd be better off blogging about their kids, cats and favorite spinach recipes.
All one-topic, all-the-time, makes most writers dull boys and girls.
D.G. Hudson says
IMO, the blog owner is the one controlling the content, style, and frequency. The readers or followers have the option of staying or leaving. The blog owner has to consider that audience when they create a post.
As long as you're offering good advice in regard to publishing or writing, I'll read your blog. It doesn't really matter if you write for a different age group(MG), except in the presentation of the product.
Make your blog work for you, Nathan, with our help when you ask for it. That's fair.
BTW – Love Van Gogh's work, and saw where he and his brother Theo lived in Montmartre, while in Paris last year. Good choice, he's definitely a Brand.
Sheila Cull says
Bransford, yes, please do not change a thing about this Blog.
This read was refreshing! Thank you.
Sheila Cull
Roger Floyd says
Sounds like a matter of semantics. You are your brand, your brand is you. Charlie Sheen as a drunken womanizer, Charlie Sheen as an ascetic monk. If you want to brand yourself as honest and realistic, go for it. I'll be behind you all the way. But that will be your brand. I'm pretty realistic on my blog, too. It's me, brand and all.
Anonymous says
"Yes, yes, yes!!! Your genuineness is why you have such a huge following. We all seek the security of honesty."
Then I hope you're all buying his book, too, all you seekers of security and honesty.
(Sorry Nathan…it's just that sometimes I get frustrated with how everyone expects everything for free on the Internet…or for .99)
I did buy and read your book. Loved it and was surprised at how it wasn't like I expected. It crosses over, and adults can read it, too. I didn't expect that.
MT Nickerson says
Nice post as it makes every writer assess what their particular goal is and how to achieve that goal.
Like many things, I believe there is room for shades of gray in the debate. On the internet, writers are able to shape how they are viewed, by presenting themselves as close to who they are in 'real life' all the way up to hyper-controlled branding with pseudonym, slick advertising and all-over artificial flavoring.
Maybe the internet allows us to see behind the curtain easier than ever before, but that doesn't mean that writers don't invent a brand to hide behind.
I prefer the 'There is only You' approach, but whatever works for the individual, I say good luck and write well.
Susie says
I'm glad what you convey here is your vision of your authentic self, and this self that you present publicly certainly resonates with me and clearly many others. However, if you fell into that trap that many bloggers do–"I'm just going to blog about anything and everything that rambles into my brain (the delights of cheetos! petunias in the springtime! crazy grandpa drooling into his soup!)"–I would respect that you had opted to go in a different direction with your blog, but I would probably stop checking in. There are too many rambling, unfocused blogs out there as it is. Yours is a engaging, insightful look into the publishing and writing world, a niche that I hope you will retain for some time.
John Wiswell says
I wish everyone saw everyone else transparently, but it doesn't function this way from the other side. Most celebrities have a public perception that is, at best, a superficial reflection of what they are if not a complete distortion. Human-brands are often out of the hands of their human representatives. Several groups are going to see The Pope a certain way no matter how he behaves.
I do sincerely strive to be transparent and audience with anyone who listens, but perception is a fragile and fickle and thing. It's also something, which you rightly identify, as not in my hands.
Selena Robins says
Every so often a new word emerges into society (eg. surreal) and it's so overused that it actually loses its original meaning.
I'd rather work on being recognized for my style of writing (voice), when crossing genres. My goal is that when a reader picks up one of my books, they will know what style (voice) they will be reading.
People who visit my blog and get to know the type of information I impart and my style of blogging, will know that what to expect: lots of foodie conversation, Italian culture, writing life, interviewing other authors, etc.
We know what to expect when we visit your blog, Nathan, and of course it will change as your own goals change or careers in your case. I wouldn't call you a brand though, I would say, that is what you're known for, no matter what subject you are writing.
Anonymous says
Nathan, I have so much respect for you, but I disagree.
Just today I read a really emotional post by a food blogger who also had to fight the urge to bury her true self on her blog.
But the conflict for her was the hateful, hurtful, and threatening speech directed at her, her husband, and her child via her blog and twitter. Guys, the comments were rapidly approaching death threat status. All because the blogger was really enthusiastic about living a gluten-free life. Yeah. Seriously.
That blogger's solution was, after much soul-searching, to embrace her true self, be authentic.
But for me, it's not worth it. I think the world is a beautiful place, but the internet is full of dark, dark shadows. That's why I'll likely always be one of the many anonymous.
Anita Saxena says
Great post and I agree with your opinion entirely. On my blog I'm just me. If people like it, they'll visit. If it's not their cup of tea, they'll go on to someone else. But, I'm not going to sacrifice being me to increase my page views or to cultivate a "brand."