Brand "U.0" + The Chicago New Media Summit
Next Monday I'll be kicking off the Chicago New Media Summit with a talk called "Brand U.0". As far as I can tell, the Chicago New Media Summit is styled somewhat like TED, with a high volume of presentations lasting around 20 minutes. The back story for the presentation comes from an article I originally wrote for Ad Age in which I said:
"The hallmark of any great brand is authenticity -- just ask Harley-Davidson, Coke or Apple, especially when all of these brands lost their way and learned from it. Same thing applies to Brand You. In every tweak or a template, upload and keystroke, you have an opportunity to be authentic or disingenuous. Know what makes you special and unique, and tap into those qualities as you build your personal brand online. Most people can spot a fake when they see one, so remember that being genuine is more important that presenting yourself in an artificially glossy manner. It used to be important for bloggers to "find their voice" -- now it's relevant to all of us.
These are a few things to consider, and you don't have to be Robert Scoble or Seth Godin to benefit from them."
I think personal branding is a behavior we'll see for quite some time. Just take a look at how much time is being spent by kids on their own profiles—and of course, you don't have to be a kid to have your very own "brand" online. If you are attending the event, be sure to say "hello".

Great dek, David. I wonder if Dan Schawbel's seen it yet.
Posted by: Daniel | Monday, September 08, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Looking forward to it!
Posted by: Andy Drish | Monday, September 08, 2008 at 07:17 PM
Didn't we used to call this "reputation management" ? It used to be all about making sure important people who your next client/boss may call before employing you would say nice things about you.
Now we've just got far more groovy tools to do it with, to a larger, unknown audience. And we call ourselves Brands instead of People :)
Posted by: MikeZed | Monday, September 08, 2008 at 09:32 PM
David,
I love the head as the point.
Brian
Posted by: Brian Monahan, Expert in the Rough | Monday, September 08, 2008 at 09:32 PM
Muito bom.
Vc se tornou um referencial para minhas pesquisas.
Posted by: Fernando Motta | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 at 07:01 AM
Good Prez that reminds me old stuffs but always fresh.
Posted by: ipub | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Great slides. Can't wait to see the video of your presentation.
Matt
Posted by: Matt Kern | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Great presentation - I pointed a client to this earlier today as a great starting point for them to begin cultivating their personal brand.
Posted by: Ryan Moede | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 at 01:39 PM
Is Brand U.0 part of Web Who.0? I demand royalties if so, dagnammit.
http://makejohnnycash.blogspot.com/2006/12/web-who0.html
Posted by: John Carson | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 at 02:05 PM
How disappointing.
Brand is a notion gone wild. It is the convenience of having a spare room where all of our extra stuff can go. For some it is a Mecca-medium for the expression of corporate purpose and for others it is an amusing plaything for selling a product or a company on the road to success – popularity and financial reward. For some it appears to be a conversation that can include hopeful concepts like authenticity and vision and for others it is a convenient chemistry of hedonism and avarice bypassing consciousness by trafficking in endorphins. The list goes on in my mind as I imagine the cast of characters from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. These days I am inclined to believe that there is actually less in the container than there is more.
You say: “Interactions + feelings = brand” My response is, “If you say so, it is so.” It is disappointing to know that you have thought about this so hard. In short, I think what you are referring to can be more accurately named “A strategy for the creation of POPULAR VALUE.” These days my only recourse in discussions on brand and its accompanying vernacular, or tools for evangelism, is to be reminded that there are other more effective words, such as commitment or accountability, words that are quite at home in both the world of life and the world of business (as we are lead to believe there is a difference).
For the moment I find it more amusing to notice that BRAND VALUE is value that can be something other than what it is. In other words it is the image of value and not the value of the thing itself and even perhaps of little value altogether. To make use of your illustrated view, can you think of any examples where ‘hell’ has been made to look like ‘heaven’? Authentically of course. What a schmozzle!
Robin Uchida
Torch Partnership
Posted by: Robin Uchida | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 at 02:06 PM
Robin,
“A strategy for the creation of POPULAR VALUE.”
Means absolutely nothing to me, especially compared to the quote I pulled from Marty N.
I really don't fully comprehend your critique. For me, this doesn't seem like rocket science.
1. Brands are built of off feelings (through things like interactions).
2. Personal brands are too.
3. People are using social technologies to build their own brands off of how people feel toward them (based on steps like the ones I outlined)
I'm sorry you're disappointed. It's how I see it.
Posted by: David Armano | Tuesday, September 09, 2008 at 04:06 PM
David,
Brands are very interesting. I some what disagree with you, but also agree this is the direction I see people moving. It's an interesting subject matter, but not something I believe needs to be taken lightly. I don't believe it's as simple as personal. Apple is not personal with me. It's a computer I sit behind everyday that acts as a tool. I don't communicate with Apple and I have never met anyone who actually works there. I doubt Steve Jobs is going to hang out with me for the day.
So is Harley Davidson personal? I believe the people who buy their bikes are personal. They create a community of people who want an American bike that they can cruise and fix. The heritage comes from the people who ride the bike. So would you say they are the brand?
I love my Apple computer, but I'm not a part of their brand. I don't wear a t-shirt with a big Apple. They make a tool that supports my career. What is personal is my connection with the community that surrounds me. Not a logo that says I must place at the top of a letterhead a 1/4 inch down from the top and 1/2 inch in from the left edge of the paper. I agree they have service, quality products, and great leadership. But they are not part of my community nor are they personal to me. I don't even know them personally. I know their names.
Another question... what happens to the people who are not connected to social networks? What happens to the people who have no resources to making themselves a brand? Why all of a sudden are we selling our personalities? Shouldn't people either a.) like me for who I am or b.) find new friends. Or should I come up with a strategy and become less personal and more broad so that I can please everyone?
Branding is an economic producer.
What are the long term psychological effects this will have on the greater society? What happens if everyone is branded? What will make us unique. Are we not already beginning to see the generic look appear out of brands? Is it because they do not have personalities?
I could go on. Question after question. I have been in Advertising and Branding for over 12 years now and I cannot see any correlation between humans and brands.
All I ask is that you explore the complexities behind your theory instead of trying to make it so black-and-white.
Posted by: Benjamin Kinzer | Friday, September 12, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Hi, David. I'm writing to introduce myself and let you know that I'm looking over your "Brand U.O" presentation for an article I'm writing. I also just signed up for your blog and Twitter feeds. Regards -- dtd.
Posted by: Douglass Davidoff | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Whoops. In the previous comment, I also meant to point you to Collin Canright's blog post about your presentation:
http://blogs.canrightcommunications.com/blog/onlines/0/0/personal-branding-david-armano-on-brand-u0
Posted by: Douglass Davidoff | Monday, September 22, 2008 at 12:38 AM
brands are made up of our perceptions of them. They are more complex and emotional than what is described in the presentation. I wish i could have been there to hear you chat about this. Brand U is complex because they go beyond just need, they go to consumer desire. Band U is about our desire for recognition and moreover for fame in a celebrity laden culture.
In the US social networking is hardly a new idea. it is how our country was founded. right? a group of people who were a community who had the same beliefs and desires. In a democratic, classless society, celebrity is royalty.
Technology, sites like YouTube, FaceBook and blogs are helping amplify ones self-image but more importantly...allowing them to have no borders to their connections.
In a country where we laud connectivity, self expression and encourage it with the promise of our democracy.(i.e. even you can be president)..what you get us Brand U.
brands and technology has the ability to facilitate my fame.
However there is a exception to this theory. I think there is a generational divide. GenX, Y and millennials are all about this. anyone older than seems to view this in a completely different way.
Posted by: Joanna Pena-Bickley | Friday, September 26, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Great post topic!
As a member of generation Y here's what i think ...
We are all branded whether it was a conscious decision or not (rockers, rappers, cool kids, geeks, see what I mean?).Who among us has not taken a Luscher colour test? These tests were designed to segment the population so that companies could design products and services that appeal to who we are or who we think we are. Social medias like face book and my space just provide regular people (those not involved in marking, advertising or public relations decisions) to do for themselves what we've had done to us since we we're old enough to be a conscious observer of the world around us. I think that the long term psychological effects are going to be a generation knowledgeable of how malluable image is, maybe it’s a good thing, the public finally having the power that media has known about for years. But in reality I believe it will probably do more harm than good , creating a generation with no definitive sense of self and to susceptible to trends and fads.
Posted by: Lisa Linhares | Monday, September 29, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Personal Branding has always been there: Social Media just boost its efficiency. The concept of ecological self helps explaining it.
I just wrote a post about it, and set up a quick poll.
Everything here http://bit.ly/zxLI
Posted by: Stefano Maggi | Saturday, March 14, 2009 at 12:12 PM