What Happens When People and Companies Are Both Just ‘Brands’?

There is nothing "humanizing" about branding, which turns humanity into a collection of commodities. The "personal brand" is one of the disgraces of modern life; why should people have to market themselves at every turn? Why should they turn themselves into jingles, slogans, big ideas, "lifestyles," rejecting a complex (sometimes beautiful, sometimes ugly) reality? Why give in to this obsequious, solipsistic self-sale? This article verges on criticism but does not go far enough. It's worth asking not only who gets rich, but what gets lost.

Our children's very pricey private school encourages its students to engage on social media to 'build their brand' to market themselves to top colleges. Disgusting. People are human beings, not objects to be bought and sold and traded. The Corporate Overlords are winning.

Yup, as Marshall McLuhan emphasized, 'the medium is the message'. He also strongly predicted the massive marketing power of the simplified 'logo' design and what they represent in our brains. Don't need to even know how to read to understand in part their advertising. Especially negative for very young children. BTW, don't dress your kids in anything that says anything. Unless they pay your adorable children first.

How about old time "generics". Have they become now a brand too? Is "generics" semantically opposed to "brand"?

I am completely nauseated.

Branding is not about "humanization" [that is a positive spin to advertise--or brand-- it], rather, what the author suggests by this term is actually the gesture to "anthropomorphize" a good or corporation.

Right up there (or should I say down there) with the exhortation for individuals to build their “personal brands” is the urgency to define their unique “value propositions.” Marketing-speak is the opposite of authenticity. I enjoyed this article.

After reading this depressing article, I wonder whether mental health professionals are, or soon will be, categorizing a new disorder gripping modern day life, the "brandless neurotic syndrome", affecting those sad and tragic souls unable to successfully create a clever, unique and, especially, profitable persona for self-marketing purposes. I could not be happier in my present status of "middle aged, retired, and unemployed", completely unburdened by the all consuming stress and pressures of not having come up with a satisfactory me/brand. Although, is that generic personal description itself a brand? This is all too tiring. I think I'll take a nice, long nap!

Well researched as the topic obviously resonates with the author. Needs a Part 2, though, to take further and make more explicit the actual harm here, as well as the benefits, although I see only limited ones. A deeper look at branding would be helpful and probably fascinating. On the former, what is the loss to our humanity when we seek to "build our brands," or take a "this is just the way it is now" join-in approach? It would be helpful to identify just what it was that felt repellent about an early Obama Administration official talking about "Extending the Obama brand?" It was, although even as a Obama supporter I could never figure out why, and she was scolded for it. On the benefit side, I disagree with putting the upside of Starbucks' remedial action as brand-supporting, as I think it could really help society at a time we could use it. Still, taking it as that, I wouldn't diminish the development, spreading, and possible non-hollowing of corporate Purpose by inferring it is a bad thing. It's actually vital to addressing some of society's problems and people need to know more about it. Take a look at the sustainable business organization, Sustainable Brands, whose philosophy is to help take other brands in extremely socially positive directions. I would be interested in Amanda's and commentator's takes on these points.

Brand is a form of identity. It used to be an identity for products and services. Then for ideas. Now, for us. Now, we need to have a brand in order to 'be.' It's a testament to the dissolution of the inner self. Without an inner core, the only thing we have left as an identity is what's on the outside. Who we are is just reticulated reflections of what others see, now, largely in social media. Personal identity consisting of a passively competitive, comparative self-conception. We are now just a mosaic of Instagram posts and Tumblrs and emojis bouncing around and off of other amalgamations of Instagram posts and Tumblrs and emojis. Technology having largely mitigated the need for a striving has left most of us living in a near frictionless state. We end up bereft of an identity that consists of interiority having instead only the reflection cast by the media memesphere we participate in to provide a sense of self and an egoistic center from which to extend into the world. "In the light of the light there is virtú" wrote Ezra Pound. Only now, there is no virtú, only light. Given this existential wasteland, we need to keep soliciting engagement from, and engaging with, the media memesphere in order to let us know we are alive -- to affirm a "brand." It's Modernism 2.0. Instead of WWI as the nullifying common experience, it's the media memesphere. "The women come, and the women go, speaking of Donald Trump, you know."

But does it work? It seems...in this social media era...that it does work, at least for a while. And it's faster than doing it the old-fashioned way---your actions dictate who you are, and then you tell people about your actions. I confess I am often sickened by the masks everybody (people, companies, etc.) wears due to technology. I long for the old PR days of tell the story of what you have done...over and over and over again...actions drive communication...and ultimately good actions win out. Is there a crossroads between actions driving branding and branding driving branding---a middle pace to success?

Used to be the best advice was to work hard and build a reputation. But not anymore. Now you're supposed to build your brand, then work hard to protect and enhance it.

When you exist in a world of consumption and you need a way to make an often meaningless choice, how do you do it? When we went from being a society of consumers rather than producers our relationship with the things of life changed. Brands were born from the real connections between creators and production. Hess points out in a world without authenticity the brand is emptied out of all meaning and becomes something more like a Warholian attempt for attention. The clamoring din has reached cacophony and there are few ways to connect what we consume to something authentic to our lives and identifiable with a brand. I predict that those companies that do the actual work they should be doing to ensure there will be a future to exist in will find a way to use brand to differentiate themselves in the market. And personally we are now at the point were our individual “brands” segregate us into lives more or less rewarded in our symbol dense world. None of this comforts much. And much is made opaque in this world.

Excellent article. We need more critical examination of the pernicious effects of personal branding.

David Brooks wrote an excellent column on this topic last September, in which he compared Taylor Swift and Chance the Rapper, drawing on Lionel Trilling’s work to make his point, writing: “The first thing you notice in comparing the Chance the Rapper and Taylor Swift songs is the difference between a person and a brand.” I really can't do it justice, so here's the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/29/opinion/what-sincerity-looks-like.html

The best/often hardest way to promote your own brand & lead people to your product or service is to have your customers do it for you. The ultimate value of legitimate third party endorsements, ("word of mouth") always has and always will be priceless.

We have always had brands of products. They were just brands: they weren't an example of your lifestyle. Kleenex Tissues didn't try and tell you that using their tissues would make you a more fascinating person. How about "you are what you drive." Really? As far as people becoming brands, if someone walked into my office and handed me a "marketing brochure" advertising their "brand" I would immediately throw him or her out of my office. (That's after I laughed myself silly.) This is certainly a brave new world where the most boring person on earth can become a "brand." A fine example is the Kardashian family. Why would anyone be interested in a bunch of under-educated, overly-made-up twits who never have anything interesting to say. What do I know? I'm just a cranky old lady whose been a lot farther from home than around the block, and I find our "brand" society superficial and down right simple-minded. So there.

The original notion of a brand was some kind of value premised on an authenticity and reputation that developed, over time, into something iconic. Today, a few posts and tweets later, voila, everybody and everything is a brand! Grumpy Cat, whose "brand" stands for sarcasm, got a movie! The Kardashians' reputation for self-centeredness, casual sexual relationships and poor choices in men (and women, if you count Rob and Blac Chyna, a brand herself) has built their entire family into a "brand". YouTube "stars" post videos of themselves doing stupid things and get endorsement deals because their "brand" stands for cutting edge risk-taking. But then again, depending on your age and taste, I guess the basics of my definition of brand (authentic and iconic) are in the eye of the beholder. A moron who catapults himself into a brick wall and posts it on YouTube is both authentically stupid and an icon for all idiots who only dream of doing something just as colossally dumb.

Over hyped. We're mainly talking about commodities produced by labor, and individual skills to make a living. People are less concerned with brands than real issues of living. This is mainly a Mad Men fantasy.

Branding. What a sad way to earn a living.

This article reminds me of Harvey Cox's wonderful book "The Market as God" and how the (supposedly secular) free-market worldview came to replace the Christian "myth of origin" with a narrative so dominant as to reshape nearly everything, from the economy down to our vernacular. Talking about ourselves as brands simply reflects the power and scope of the new "business theology".

An often overlooked contributor to this: in post-industrial societies, our relationships are superficial (often taking the form of brief, anonymous transactions) and our ties to primary groups are weak. The structure of the social world discourages long-term close relationships that would allow us to develop intimate knowledge of others and, over time, create shared histories. Still, we have the desire to be known and understood as individuals; developing a brand--an instantly recognizable facade--allows for an approximation of this.

Years ago I noticed ads touted the qualities of a company, such as ‘we deliver customer service’. The companies relied on the ads, as it certainly wasn’t obvious that any change happened at the company. At least a product can really be improved, modiefied, changes. Branding ideals cannot.

Walk the streets of any city, pick up a magazine or open a browser on a computer. The sheer amount of "names of things" is overwhelming. How does a person or a corporation think of yet another name for their product let alone a strategy behind that name which sets the product (person?) apart from the rest? It's exhausting to think that, beyond the viability of a product, its usefulness, how much energy must go into pulling the attention of the consumer to it.

I have long had a strong aversion to the word "brand" and the ideas behind it, but could never explain my feelings in a coherent way. Thank you for this excellent explanation; it's exactly right. I am thankful every day that most of my career occurred pre-internet. I was able to still be a human being.

"Companies that used to manufacture wares or harvest foods — that used to sell things — became brands, which sell ideas." FYI, McLuhan wrote decades ago that civilization moved from product to process. That explains that. As for brands, they succeed when there is a relationship and engagement between it and the 'consumer'.

When I think of brands I immediately consider the type in relation to social media. My peers and classmates prescribe to certain aesthetic brands that represent the image of themselves they want to present to everyone -- through posts, photo filters, and language used. I find it completely distracting as my friends are ensconced in creating this image of themselves, whether it be "artsy" or "grunge" -- it all seems like a way to try and make themselves stand out as different in incredibly similar ways. Yet brands can bring good for finding representation. Specifically I think of new members to the queer/trans community who may find it more comfortable to prescribe to a popular type of aesthetic/lifestyle brand online than in a social setting within reality.

Branding. More noise in an already too noisy world. When everyone is important, no one is.

I always think of that burning hot iron rod that was pressed into the flesh of cows to identify their owners. No different now. Beautifully written, thank you.

As branding becomes more and more ubiquitous, my main question becomes who is listening and does it become disingenuous? Yes, there are so many brands on twitter that have made themselves over as teenage jokesters or meme machines, but does it become its own persona if it's isolated from the rest of their marketing materials? The internet as a haven for micro-culture allows these brands to enter into these micro-cultures phenomenons but to what end? Will I have a different experience with Wendy's if I follow their Twitter or don't? I come to expect something wholly unfood related from their social media 'brand' than from their in-store 'brand.' For the personal brand too, a previous comment mentioned that personal brands become viewed as their own microcosm a separate part of their personhood. I think of Nike's public face versus their internal culture which has joined in the list of entities with a publicly clear hostile environment toward women. 'Brand' has become an umbrella all of the facets of an entity, but moving forward audience will become more important as we realize all the different personas of our brands are contradictory to one cohesive 'brand'

Wow, what an incredibly shallow way to live. You are letting other people determine what you think, do, wear, eat, where you eat, every aspect of your life. Here's a secret: They don't care about you, they just want your money. Unplug, make a decision because it makes sense to you, do something because you want to, not because the crowd is doing it. Wear something because it is comfortable and you like it. People only have power over you if you give it to them. Live your life, not the crowd's life.

Thanks for this great think piece. I was wondering how I got those Nike swoosh shaped scars on my butt.

What an nice article!! Well done. You just naked the reality of Brand in this consumerism society

Yes, yes, yes - everything is a brand. I was early to the world of blogging and gave it up as it slowly dawned on me that I was looking for something different than most bloggers. Once you pigeon-hole yourself it's easy to get caught up in chasing the affirmation of a reader who is looking for you to write in a certain way about certain topics. And, ugh, the worst branding - corporate and personal - involve the word authentic.

Amanda Hess is easily one of my favourite writers for the New York Times and this article is a good reminder why. I often find myself second guessing a writer when they express my exact sentiments to a tee. But when your logic is good and your arguments are sensible I will stop doubting. The ubiquity of a term such as "Branding" is a clear signifier that our culture is at an ever increasing pace being commodified and coarsened. If something such as your social media which purports to be a medium of self expression turns out to be a place where groupthink is not only helpful but a requirement, that is a clear flashing signal to run. Trying to make money off being a "brand" on the internet means you see yourself as a marketing strategy only copying, twisting to and parroting whatever will bring you the most attention, nothing else. This makes sense because the people whom I've heard describe themselves as brands are some of the most vacuous beings I have ever known. Things like "project world" and "collect and market skills and connections" are just corporate doublespeak for "work even more hours for us, but we'll let you pretend it's for something bigger than profit heck we'll even let you think you're completely in charge." This article clearly points out the soulless, cynical and hollow new meaning of the word "Brand". PS: I have a bad case of semantic satiation from the word "brand" now. :^/

Goffman's concept of self-presentation is taken to incredible, new heights when we realize that our audience is no longer just those physically in front of us, but now every single person connected to the internet. Always on profiles spanning platforms have instilled the notion that "someone is always looking", and the opportunity to interact with these visitors, whether we're behind the keyboard or not, are having significant consequences - from job opportunities to home loans. The personal brand is the acknowledgement of this new reality.

"At its core, branding is a process of humanization: It imbues companies with personalities." For those of us Baby Boomers who grew up watching early television advertising - as produced by the original "Mad Men" - we nostalgically remember the famous "Brand X" - used by advertisers to hint at and deride the competition -- but to also completely dehumanize and anonymize the supposedly inferior products -- Your clothes came out looking cleaner and brighter with Tide Laundry Detergent - as compared to "Brand X" -- When I see a person referred to as a "Brand" - I tend to view them more so as a business enterprise, rather than a human being -- In the age where our society has pretty much abdicated direct personal contact in favor of the internet and "Social Media" - the need to be a "Brand" makes perfect sense - because the alternative is Social Media Anonymity - which is the worst possible outcome for any company or individual looking for commercial success...