Brand strategist Karen Kang puts the importance of personal reinvention bluntly: “Consider yourself a free agent—no one else is looking out for your best interests but yourself. You need to be crystal clear about who you are and the value you bring to ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on the blog of Havas PR North America.

Brand strategist Karen Kang puts the importance of personal reinvention bluntly: “Consider yourself a free agent—no one else is looking out for your best interests but yourself. You need to be crystal clear about who you are and the value you bring to a world where constant change is the only norm.”

That’s the premise of her insightful and occasionally provocative new book, BrandingPays: The Five-Step System to Reinvent Your Personal Brand. It’s very much worth reading.

Kang’s resume—make that her brand—is impressive. A brand strategist for two decades, she spent years as a principal and partner at Silicon Valley marketing leader Regis McKenna’s firm, which put the Apple, Intel and Genentech brands on the map. She is hailed by her former boss (McKenna) as “the master of personal branding” and has consulted for more than 150 organizations in the United States, Europe and Asia, from Forbes list–level companies to startups and nonprofits. As the founder and CEO of BrandingPays, Kang offers consulting, training and coaching, and she is a sought-after speaker at business schools and professional organizations.

She had a method for personal branding long before anyone else was even thinking about it. Her approach is based on translating well-proven Silicon Valley branding lessons and applying them to “companies of one.” It’s a way of thinking that has helped everyone from newly minted MBAs to long-established entrepreneurs accelerate their career success (yes, established leaders need to reinvent their brands, too; no one is immune in this hypercompetitive, constantly changing business landscape, and they are often the people who have the biggest challenges in defining their image and brand).

One of Kang’s most important truths is that people who aren’t actively defining and marketing their personal brands (i.e., thinking of themselves like startups) are holding themselves back. Old-style beliefs such as “great work equals a great reputation” or “my boss will market my brand for me” no longer apply. And for anyone who thinks self-marketing seems egotistical or unseemly, Kang explains how it’s less a matter of promotion than education—teaching your colleagues, supervisors, clients and would-be business partners what you’re all about and what you (and only you) can do to help them.

Her central metaphor is cake and icing: The cake is your rational value—what you stand for and why that matters—and the icing is your emotional value.

Around that, Kang has built her five-step plan to help individuals reinvent themselves and articulate their new and improved brands:

1. Define your unique “cake,” or rational value.
2. Develop the key messages that consistently and clearly support your positioning. Keep in mind that people will remember only a few things about you, so it’s up to you to try to influence what those things will be.
3. Put your “cake” and “icing” together. Your core values, strengths, personality and image should all drive toward delivering on a brand promise.
4. Define your ecosystem. Know whom to talk to, what to say and when—remembering that it’s what those people later say about you that will define your reputation.
5. Develop a two-part action plan: a brand improvement plan for your “cake” and “icing,” and a brand communications plan so that you can be known and recognized. But don’t jump into social media without a clear strategy.

(You can watch her articulate all this and more on her YouTube book trailer.)

As Kang points out again and again, anyone who doesn’t step up to the plate and become his or her own brand manager is going to miss out in 2013’s “reinvent or die” job market and economy.

Her former Regis McKenna colleague Geoffrey Moore, now a sought-after speaker and adviser, puts it quite well in his foreword to BrandingPays:

“In the new business order, everyone is a contractor all the time. To be sure, you may at present be giving 100 percent of your capacity to a single client—your employer—but that in no way lessens your self-marketing responsibilities. Your boss is your primary client. Your colleagues are partners in your value chain. The company’s customers are your customer’s customers. And your job is to communicate to all these constituencies who you are, what you do and why that is of value to them…. The new business order does not in general have time or patience to discover the real you. You must take the lead here, regardless of how extroverted or introverted you may be. It is simply part of your job.”

Now that social media is clearly a permanent disruption (i.e., here to stay, and making organizations and individuals reinvent themselves if they don’t want to get left behind), it’s worth paying attention to the various ways its precepts can inform professional development, ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on the blog of Havas PR North America.

Now that social media is clearly a permanent disruption (i.e., here to stay, and making organizations and individuals reinvent themselves if they don’t want to get left behind), it’s worth paying attention to the various ways its precepts can inform professional development, organizational leadership and personal branding. Business “best practices” that have been in use since our economy was in the industrial age are simply not the best anymore. Instead, they’re becoming less and less compatible with today’s complex, global and increasingly social world.

Behavior and management experts Maddie Grant and Jamie Notter have been studying the intersection of social media and leadership for several years. Their big idea has been the “social organization”: an acknowledgment that social media hasn’t only changed communications strategies but also is continually challenging some of the tried-and-true principles of organizational leadership, structure, process, behavior and branding.

Their book Humanize: How People-Centric Institutions Thrive in a Social World, emphasizes the increasing importance of individuals in an age in which people buy from people (or at least like to think they do) rather than companies. The authors’ take on professional development and personal branding are rooted in the principles of social media—not daily posts or engagements with followers or fans, but the human components behind the social phenomenon.

Their argument is that by innovating management—making it more human and less mechanical—leaders can become more agile and build real engagement with their workforce, thereby increasing their ability to withstand and manage disruption. Grant and Notter have created a 15-minute online assessment that offers leaders an immediate custom analysis of how human their organizations already work.

Last fall, the authors conducted a survey of 505 individuals in order to understand current perspectives about how social media is used in organizations, particularly related to leadership. The respondents were unusually advanced in their SoMe use, with about 85 percent saying they can participate on social media in their own voice, that their company understands the importance of participating in social media and maintaining an online corporate identity, and that their organization uses social media to connect with people, not just promote products and services.

Grant and Notter found that survey respondents felt it is important for corporate leaders to be involved in social media. Although it was a little ambiguous what constitutes “involvement,” 84 percent said that leadership involvement gives their company a competitive edge. A mere 4 percent said a leader’s social media involvement should be limited to crisis situations.

Yet 45 percent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that they are concerned about the lack of social media involvement among leaders at their organization. Clearly, any CEO who wants to enhance his or her personal brand inside or outside the organization would be wise to step up their social media game.

Most interesting to me from the survey is the traits people find most desirable in a leader. Grant and Notter’s list of 12 leadership traits (from which respondents could pick four) included six from the old model of command-and-control leadership (providing clear direction, being a brilliant strategist, leveraging best practices, being charismatic, holding people accountable and commanding loyalty from employees), and six from the new school of thought they outline in Humanize (embracing change, valuing experimentation and failure, being open to diverse perspectives, being transparent and sharing information freely, being comfortable with conflict, and participating on social media in his/her own voice).

Here’s how it played out (answers in bold are the new-world traits):

Provides clear direction: 76 percent
Embraces change: 65 percent
Transparent, shares information freely: 59 percent
Values experimentation and even failure: 59 percent
Open to diverse perspectives: 52 percent
Holds people accountable: 42 percent
Comfortable with conflict: 33 percent
Brilliant strategist: 31 percent
Leverages best practices: 28 percent
Participates on social media in his/her own voice: 21 percent
Charismatic: 21 percent
Commands loyalty from employees: 18 percent

The response to “participates in social media in his/her own voice” (21 percent chose it as their top four, but it’s third from the bottom overall) shows that people aren’t looking for a leader who is constantly tweeting or blogging. Nor should they be. But it turns out that what they are looking for are attributes that are very much in line with social media values: clarity, transparency, boldness, open to change. People are thinking about leadership very differently in our connected world.

What a shift from even five years ago. Social media is truly influencing the ways organizations should be run and how corporate leaders should be defining their personal brands. Employees—and other stakeholders—are expecting more openness. The smart leaders now are those who understand that “leadership” has different, less hierarchical meanings than it used to. They’re the people who can define themselves as fully human and are fully aware of what it means to be a successful leader today.

I recently received an intriguing email from a former branding executive who now runs a small marketing consulting company. Nancy Shenker, whose new venture is called theONswitch, found a way to build a personal brand by breaking rules, being rebellious and tapping into her self-professed “dark side.”

It sounds like a risky strategy ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on Forbes.com.

I recently received an intriguing email from a former branding executive who now runs a small marketing consulting company. Nancy Shenker, whose new venture is called theONswitch, found a way to build a personal brand by breaking rules, being rebellious and tapping into her self-professed “dark side.”

It sounds like a risky strategy in an age in which women still all too often combat stereotypes (bitch, shrew, etc.) if they dare be anything but demure in the workplace. Our heads butt against a glass ceiling much more often than we’d like. But Shenker didn’t let that hold her back. When she worked as a “change agent” at major brand companies in mostly male-dominated industries, she wrote in her note to me, she was “constantly getting hauled into HR for breaking rules and being ‘anarchistic’ and snarky and tenacious.”

But at the same time, she was “heralded for always innovating and delivering great results.” That—and the knowledge that getting hauled into HR wasn’t the end of the world, especially not when her work was strong and she was constantly proving her own worth—helped give her the confidence to start her own brand-consulting business at age 48, in 2003. Along the way, she defined, honed and redefined her personal brand in ways the rest of us can learn from.

Shenker says her role models include women rock stars and historical figures who “didn’t care if they were perceived as ‘naughty,’ ‘rude’ or ‘disobedient’ as they revolutionized their fields.” She herself has turned those seemingly negative traits into brand assets by continuing to deliver results and making sure her clients value her directness, irreverence, candor and sense of fun. She’s now sharing that empowering philosophy on the speaking circuit and in the line of books she wrote called Bad Girl Good Business.

I asked Shenker if she could share five lessons a bad girl can teach good women about personal branding. Perhaps unsurprisingly, she didn’t follow my instructions—she sent me seven instead.

So here is her advice for aspiring bad girls, or anyone who’s being a good girl (or boy) but would like to do better:

1. Do not be afraid to be the “weird kid” (no matter your age). Just following the crowd leads to mediocrity.
2. No one has ever been fired for innovation. Use your imagination.
3. Confront the bullies (bad bosses, clients, mean girls). They will usually back down if you stand up.
4. Use logic, facts and statistics to sell your ideas. Smart bad girls are compelling.
5. Be a bit provocative in your choices of words and speech. It gets attention. But be sure to use outrageous stories and emotion—not profanity.
6. Bribing people with food and other treats always works.
7. When dealing with other women, rise above the gossip, bitch slapping and emotional crap. It’s not personal … it’s business. And remember that if women are talking trash about you, it’s probably because they are jealous.

All true, but bullet points and marketing-speak get you only so far. Sometimes it’s easier to let all that go and focus on people you identify with. So I asked Shenker about her role models. Here are her replies:

• Hillary Clinton. Perhaps not classically “bad,” but she’s tough when she needs to be—but always kind and compassionate.
• Sheryl Crow and Alanis Morissette. They rock out (and sometimes curse) with the boys.
• Nancy Drew. She was clever and resourceful and went places she probably shouldn’t have gone, just to solve problems.
• Nancy Sinatra. Her boots were made for walking. (She was a tough girl but really glam in her day.)
• Tina Turner. She marches (and sings) to her own drummer.
• Betty White. Timeless and feisty. And inspirational to most of this generation’s successful women comedians—Tina Fey, Amy Poehler and others who prove girls can be funny and irreverent without being ditsy or nasty.
• Any woman who fought for women’s rights and racial equality and was willing to do time in jail for what she felt was right.

In addition to Shenker’s role models, I’d add book publishing’s bad girl, Judith Regan. Judith made “bad” a good art form and a voice.

I also like how Shenker describes the attributes of bad girls who are good leaders. She says they will:

• Come up with creative and innovative ideas to solve problems and not be afraid to fail.
• Treat others (especially women) with kindness and respect—no trash talking, gossiping or petty jealousy.
• Never underestimate the importance of math and science.
• Learn how to succeed in what might still be largely a man’s world. Good leaders will know the facts, learn how to negotiate and be competent in their jobs, and they won’t rely on bad-girl flirtatiousness and tantrums to get their way (although those things can help occasionally).
• Stand up and speak up when they see injustices.
• Not feel they have to sacrifice family for a career. We need more women in the world who are great leaders and great mothers.
• Mentor other women and teach them to be a bit fearless.

I couldn’t agree more. Many of my professional accomplishments are a direct result of being tutored by someone who zigged when the world zagged. I learned to reduce the ties that bind me to convention—in essence, to see and think differently, to be rebellious. Now I’m an award-winning CEO of a top 10 PR agency, author of 15 books and sought-after blogger, with a full global speaking engagement calendar. Seems “bad girl” has worked brilliantly for my brand.

When it comes to family names as brand names, unless you’ve done something terrible or had the bad fortune of sharing a name with someone who did, it’s hard to do much worse than “Trump.” For most of the past four decades, the Donald has slapped his name on some ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on Forbes.com.

When it comes to family names as brand names, unless you’ve done something terrible or had the bad fortune of sharing a name with someone who did, it’s hard to do much worse than “Trump.” For most of the past four decades, the Donald has slapped his name on some of New York’s ugliest buildings, earned scads of bad press and generally behaved like an ass.

As a result, the Trump brand has become severely tarnished, defying the maxim that there is no such thing as bad PR. The name has become synonymous with scandalous affairs and divorces, obnoxious reality TV shows, blatant comb-overs, birther nonsense and general weirdness.

There are plenty of reasons that celebrity children try to stay out of the spotlight (and that their parents, at least the sensible ones, try to shield them from it, though I’m not sure that’s relevant here). For the Trump offspring, was that compounded by fears of being judged harshly for their name? Fairly or not, it must have been hard growing up Trump.

As adults, they’re now changing the family legacy. The most famous of the Trump scions (though given all her achievements, she might bristle at that term and its connotations of unearned privilege) is Ivanka. Although she hasn’t distanced herself from her father—she’s executive vice president of development and acquisitions at the Trump Organization and is a judge on his reality show “The Apprentice”—she has achieved several notable accomplishments on her own: a decade-plus-long modeling career (though she can thank her mother’s good genes for that), an economics degree from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania (her dad’s alma mater), and a luxury line of jewelry, handbags, and footwear that fashion editors take seriously. Ivanka and her husband, New York Observer owner Jared Kushner, are regularly profiled in high-end glossies, like Elle Decor, which recently celebrated the good taste in her New York City apartment.

Her brothers, both executive vice presidents with prominent roles in their father’s business ventures, have also used their fame to do good works. The elder, Donald Jr., who graduated from—you guessed it, the family education brand—the Wharton School, sits on the board of directors of Operation Smile. And seven years ago, the younger, Eric, then just 23 years old, started the Eric Trump Foundation with friends. The foundation’s guiding principle is that young adults should do more for their communities, and a particular focus is improving the lives of children battling life-threatening diseases at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. To date, it has raised nearly $6 million.

Their half sister, 19-year-old Tiffany Trump, who grew up in Los Angeles with her mother, Marla Maples, is still less well-known, although becoming more so after a recent profile on Yahoo’s Shine. She is studying hard at, yes, the University of Pennsylvania, and seems to be on a path to distinguishing herself as much as her siblings.

As the Donald’s kids show, sometimes being good (and being good in school) can be good for resuscitating a troubled family brand. By the time the youngest Trump child, Barron, who was born in 2006, comes of age, he might find the name a golden ticket instead of a blackened liability.

It used to be that receiving a CEO title—and the corner office and tufted-leather sofa that came with it—was the acme of professional success. It was the recognition of a lifetime of hard work, of moving up the ranks, of following the path to its pinnacle. Once you’d ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on Forbes.com.

It used to be that receiving a CEO title—and the corner office and tufted-leather sofa that came with it—was the acme of professional success. It was the recognition of a lifetime of hard work, of moving up the ranks, of following the path to its pinnacle. Once you’d arrived there, where else could you possibly go?

But now, in these topsy-turvy times—when “dropout of” seems to open more doors than “graduate of,” when getting a Thiel Fellowship might be more prestigious than getting a Stanford degree—that CEO title smacks of conformity, of drudgery, of playing by the rules and maybe playing it too safe. The CEO is The Man, plodding along the expected routes, expecting the same of his subordinates, becoming the figurehead of corporate oppression. It’s a big life, but it could have been so much bigger.

What’s much more appealing now is entrepreneurship. It connotes adventure, fearlessness, rule breaking and rebellion. Entrepreneurs are mavericks and innovators. It’s much sexier than winning the C-prize after a lifetime of corporate service. And it’s accessible to anyone, anytime: Think of Mark Zuckerberg in his Harvard dorm, Richard Branson on his private islands (the first of which he bought when he was just 24) or Bill Gates in his garage.

The entrepreneur is the person who was smart enough to sidestep the system. A list on the Strategic Business Team blog of 55 dropout billionaire entrepreneurs is enough to make anyone feel like a sucker for sticking with the traditional professional paths and corporate ladders. Along with Branson and Gates, the top 10 also include Walt Disney, Henry Ford, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison.

Not only are they game changers, but they also seem to be the businesspeople with sexy hobbies: Think of Branson’s kite-surfing escapades and Ellison’s America’s Cup sailing races. Now name one famous billionaire CEO who came up through the corporate ranks and relaxes with similarly adventurous hobbies.

That spirit of thrill seeking and risk taking is not coincidental. Especially now that failure is a badge of honor (better to have tried and not succeeded than to have never tried at all) or even “an opportunity for spiritual growth,” taking bold leaps is seen in many circles as better than mincing along with baby steps. CEOs work to keep their shareholders happy. Entrepreneurs go for it. Their brands are built on being daredevils.

Sadly, it’s hard to think of a woman entrepreneur who fits this image. Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer, who infamously put an end to the company’s telecommuting policy last month, is definitely a CEO. Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg, who has written a controversial new book about work, motherhood and leadership for women, is a C-suite executive. As recently as 2010, women owned only 21 percent of startups that were seeking funding from angel investors, according to the Center for Venture Research.

One very notable exception here is Lauren Zalaznick, chairman of entertainment and digital networks and integrated media at NBC Universal. I think of her as a corporate chair who worked her way up the ranks starting in 2004 but acts much more like an entrepreneur: She until recently oversaw Bravo, Oxygen, Style, Telemundo, mun2 and the joint ventures Sprout and TV One; ran the digital properties Daily Candy, Fandango, iVillage and Television Without Pity; and lad companywide initiatives such as Green Is Universal, Healthy at NBCU, Hispanics at NBCU and Women at NBCU. Each of her businesses saw record-setting ratings and revenue growth, and she has forged new media and marketing partnerships, and won numerous awards for digital, mobile, social and ad sales innovations. But in a shakeup last month, Zalaznick was named EVP, lost most of her cable TV responsibilities, and was charged with focusing on innovation, digital, monetization and emerging technology across the company—a nod to her early and successful embrace of digital.

Yet she’s not nearly as famous as a lot of the boys in this game, and we’re still at a point where there hasn’t yet been a female Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. That’s partly because women continue to be dismally underrepresented in the industry that’s minting the most millions and turning the most people into household names: tech.

Huffington Post Executive Tech Editor Bianca Bosker looked at this phenomenon a little while ago when she interviewed Arielle Patrice Scott, an as-yet-unsung female entrepreneur who aspires to be the next Mark Zuckerberg. Like the Facebook founder, she started her first venture while still in college—but hers, called InternshipIn, failed. At the time of the interview, she was on her second, GenJuice, a project born out of her senior thesis that she sees as the “next MTV,” by providing a platform for 20-something artists, writers and tastemakers to present and promote their work.

Bosker asked Scott why there isn’t yet a female Zuckerberg or Gates, and her answer was insightful:

“Women don’t think big enough. I hate to overgeneralize, because I’ve met some incredible women lately, especially in Silicon Valley, but there’s typically this sense of, ‘Let’s just start off small and see where it goes.’ I think men tend to think in bigger terms, and women don’t allow themselves to.”

That’s not just a commentary about why we’re still waiting for a real woman maverick of an entrepreneur. That’s a call to arms for anyone thinking of launching a venture—and a central reason that an entrepreneurial personal brand is sexier than a corporate CEO one: Entrepreneurs think bigger.

I’m writing this just after the conclave of cardinals announced the successor to Pope Benedict XVI, who last month became the first modern-day pontiff to abdicate the throne. They charted some new ground, choosing 76-year-old Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the first non-European to fill the role ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on Forbes.com.

I’m writing this just after the conclave of cardinals announced the successor to Pope Benedict XVI, who last month became the first modern-day pontiff to abdicate the throne. They charted some new ground, choosing 76-year-old Argentine Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the first non-European to fill the role in more than 1,200 years and the first ever from the Jesuit order. But in other ways, it was a vote to preserve the status quo, as Bergoglio, who has chosen to be called Francis, is a theological conservative.

In some ways, it’s amazing that a successor emerged so quickly. The Catholic Church has been weathering some especially tough times, and a major reboot seems to be in order. The weeks after Pope Benedict stepped down were, a New York Times journalist wrote, “a period fraught with tense discussions about what kind of pope was needed for a church threatened by secularism, the scandal of clerical sex abuse and a Vatican bureaucracy stippled with corruption.”

There’s no doubt that a new kind of pope is needed, one who is more progressive, whose pronouncements are more in line with the times, who will confront the Church’s scandals head-on and make reparations where needed, and who will stay in sync with cultural change. Those are attributes of character, wisdom, experience and political savvy.

But in addition to that, Pope Francis will need some rock-solid branding skills. He’ll have to have a strong personal brand, a vision for the church’s brand in the 2010s and beyond, and an understanding of how outside forces might conspire to brand him.

My fellow Forbes contributor George Bradt, a leadership-development expert and the co-author of The New Leader’s 100-Day Action Plan, recently offered some interesting insights in his column about what the new pope can learn from past leaders: “Now the church is at a turning point and the new Pope must do his part to complete its cultural change,” he explained in his introduction. The last time this was so was in 1958, when Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli became Pope John XXIII. One of his first acts was, says Bradt, “to call the Second Vatican Council ‘to open the windows of the Church to let in some fresh air.’”

That’s a good start but a little vague. The new pope’s personal brand needs to assert that he’s someone suited to fostering changes in environment, values, attitudes, relationships and behaviors. “Given the new environment,” Bradt wrote, “the re-commitment to core values and the new attitude, strengthening relationships by strengthening communication, encouraging more in-depth debate and tackling conflict is critical to making Vatican II’s intended changes real and sustainable.”

Although Bradt concluded by stating that achieving meaningful culture change is a marathon not a sprint, Romy Ribitzky at Upstart Business Journal argued an opposite point, that Pope Benedict XVI’s sudden resignation “jolt[ed] the Church into Catholic 2.0” and “forced the Church to confront his departure in an entrepreneurial fashion.”

His stepping down, she continued, “forced the ancient institution to do what every startup has been doing for generations: adapt or fade.” It also reinforced his own personal brand with some “‘steel’ in his spine, humility, humanity and making the unconventional decision,’” as Ribitzky quoted career consultant Michael D. Brown. “‘You can’t give 100 percent of something you are not passionate about—it’s best to move on a connect back to your passion.’”

Pope Francis would be wise to take that to heart—as would leaders of any organization, whether it be religious, cultural, corporate or entrepreneurial. This is a time for the new pope to prove that he is passionate: about the office, about his position, about committing to real change and about getting with the times. Pope Benedict XVI set a low bar there: His greatest innovation was starting a Twitter account (better than nothing, but still).

Imagine if Pope Francis were to take a bolder approach to branding, using all the tools available today, and commit to a public persona that has transparency, honesty, integrity, respect for relationships, and passion for restoring a troubled institution to a position of honor and respect.

For the record, I’m not suggesting that anyone try to give herself a brain tumor. (How would that even be possible? Tape your smartphone to your head? Slather your scalp with parabens?)

But I can’t help thinking about the fact that for a handful of famous, already alluring women, a brain tumor diagnosis ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on More.com.

For the record, I’m not suggesting that anyone try to give herself a brain tumor. (How would that even be possible? Tape your smartphone to your head? Slather your scalp with parabens?)

But I can’t help thinking about the fact that for a handful of famous, already alluring women, a brain tumor diagnosis has strangely added to their appeal. It gives them complexity, a problem to make them seem more empathetic and human, another dimension to their stories. These women made meningiomas glam.

When Sheryl Crow received her diagnosis last year, she put on her game face, first mentioning it in passing during an interview with the decidedly non-A-list Las Vegas Review-Journal. “I worried about my memory so much that I went and got an MRI. And I found out I have a brain tumor,” she told her interviewer. “And I was, like, ‘See? I knew there was something wrong.’”

Crow went on to say that because it was benign, she didn’t really have to be anxious about it, which proved to be true for her. The breast cancer survivor told Katie Couric that she blamed her cellphone—though she couldn’t find a doctor to confirm that—and said learning that she had a tumor was “a sobering moment” but “nothing I have to worry about.”

When Mary Tyler Moore was diagnosed with her meningioma in 2011, she was similarly nonchalant, dispatching a representative to share the news with the media—which responded to word of a famous actress having a brain tumor by providing some education that most likely wouldn’t have been part of the story if an inadvertent celebrity spokesperson hadn’t been involved.

Going back a bit farther in time, Elizabeth Taylor got a glam boost from her craniotomy in 1997. The Los Angeles Times couldn’t wait to report that the actress was “resting comfortably” after her surgery.

It makes it all look so effortless.

And yet I know that it isn’t. I’ve been there myself. As I’ve chronicled in a series of posts on the Huffington Post, I was flying high in 2007. Chief marketing officer at JWT Worldwide, I’d been credited with popularizing the word metrosexual, and my annual trend predictions were being picked up around the globe. Between all that, plus international speaking engagements and a busy calendar of media appearances, I was the picture of the energetic, successful executive.

Yet I wasn’t myself—not quite sick, but I knew something was wrong.

After I insisted on a CT scan from a local radiologist, I got the not-so-warm-and-fuzzy call in my office the next day and was told what I already “knew”—the scan showed a brain tumor, probably benign.
 I was one of the lucky ones myself. After an eight-hour surgery, I had a remarkably quick recovery. When I came to, I asked for my corporate credit cards and BlackBerrys (yes, plural), panicking that I was out of control and out of touch. I logged on for a conference call at work less than a week later and appeared on 60 Minutes about six weeks after my surgery—looking tired but with my speech, thought processes and head of blond hair intact.

And yes, the brain tumor has become part of my personal and professional identity. How could it not be? 
My post-craniotomy self (aka brand) has become more of an advocate, especially for veterans who return from Afghanistan and other wars and conflict zones with traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress, and also for anyone with serious head injuries. I’ve reorganized my philanthropic priorities at home and at the office, where I’m CEO of Havas PR North America, an agency awarded many times over for our work (both paid and pro bono) for a range of fantastic causes. I’ve also focused some of my writing on brain health, on a new focus on braininess, on the possible digital connection to tumors, and on activities, such as football, that can lead to brain injuries.

Part of the drill for anyone who has had a brain tumor removed is going back for scans at various intervals: three months, then six, then a year, with more time going by between each trip into the MRI tunnel. Normally, with every test, tumor survivors feel better, more optimistic that their first visit to “tumorland” will be their last. But my last scan turned up an anomaly.
 And so here I am on round two.

Like Sheryl Crow, I’m trying to put on my game face, despite the fact that my scan showed what had been overlooked on two previous scans—a tumor that is not only existent but had also grown dramatically from late June to January. (What these “bad scans” have done to my psyche is unimaginable. I used to ignore every ache and pain, even symptom, because if I was tumor-free, I was all clear. Finding out that doctors make mistakes, even big ones, I am trying to tamp down a constant fear that my next doc will be like those radiologists—superficial, irresponsible or worse, suddenly owning up to a mistake when it was substantially bigger six months later. And how can I now trust airplane mechanics, cab drivers and anyone else who holds my fate in their hands?)

My surgery is slated for March 13. I’m optimistic about the surgery, thanks especially to my amazing doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital and my family and supporters all over the world. Like Elizabeth Taylor, I’ll be “resting comfortably” at home myself, hopefully as stylishly as she no doubt was, but not for long. Being busy at work will keep me motivated and help with my recovery. And I’m already eager to discover how my brand will evolve after going through this second experience.

It used to be that the people who presented weather and traffic segments on the news were as dry as the topics they covered. They didn’t have the fatherly gravitas of the anchorman, the dashing charisma of the foreign correspondents, or the warmth and relatability of the lifestyle ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on Forbes.com.

It used to be that the people who presented weather and traffic segments on the news were as dry as the topics they covered. They didn’t have the fatherly gravitas of the anchorman, the dashing charisma of the foreign correspondents, or the warmth and relatability of the lifestyle reporters. They just told viewers what they needed to know: Take an umbrella with you to work. Wear boots that can get wet. Leave home earlier because there’s an accident on the freeway.

Then came personalities like Al Roker of “Today” and Dave Price, formerly of “The Early Show”—weatherman as goofy sidekick—who provided comic relief after a barrage of bad news about wars, economic turmoil and political infighting. Price didn’t make it, but Roker managed to leverage his everyman personality into a full-fledged brand. It was enough to enable him to launch a production company for reality TV shows and publish numerous books. Meanwhile, female meteorologists worked to overcome a bimbo stereotype and the average weather or traffic reporter on W- or K-whatever local news broadcast tried to prove he or she was a serious, trained, credentialed professional.

That was important, because even in the 1980s and ’90s, it was never clear what, exactly, a meteorologist did. Even then, bodies like the National Weather Service were issuing hyperspecific, hyperlocal bulletins about weather forecasts and alerts. Couldn’t the anchor have just read from those, instead of hiring a specially trained weather professional?

Fast-forward 20 years and everyone has the AccuWeather app on his or her phone, or even more sophisticated ones like Swackett that skip the weather step and just tell you what to wear. As for traffic, just open Google Maps on your iPhone and not only will it give you directions, but it will also point out stretches of highway that are overly congested. Apps like Waze are crowdsourced and social in order to provide real-time, up-to-the-minute updates on slow routes and traffic backups. Those are bound to be more effective than a cameraman-and-reporter team hovering in a helicopter over one part of town, right?

But because of that technical obsolescence, the tide is turning back. The people who are reporting on mundane (yet universally interesting) topics such as weather and traffic seem to have realized that they aren’t providing a unique service—and that therefore they must be entertaining. They have to develop compelling personal brands.

Quite a few of them have taken the easy route, making weather and traffic sexy in the literal (not the PR) sense. It’s become a staple for industry newsletters and blogs to rank the hottest reporters, and more than a few of them seem not to mind being pegged that way. Tight skirts and low-cut tops seem to have become de rigueur for women, and a surprising number of male meteorologists have managed to find ways to report shirtless.

It’s gotten to the point where Mother Nature Network, a website launched by Rolling Stones keyboardist Chuck Leavell, surveyed hundreds of local and national news broadcasters to compile a list of 15 of “America’s Hottest Weather Forecasters,” which includes men and women. The explanation for the story was this, in writer Matt Hickman’s word: “It doesn’t hurt to be lusted after while telling the 10 o’clock news-watching masses that it’s going to rain for a week straight, right? A little eye candy makes that bitter, weather-related pill a bit easier to swallow, we suppose.” It was enough to get them picked up by Business Insider.

Traffic reporters are getting—and arguably signing up for—the same treatment. The car-culture website Jalopnik surveyed its readers about sexy traffic reporters and collected a list of 10 women—including former aspiring reality-TV stars, former beauty pageant contestants and a few shown in bikinis—who are livening up the field. As Jalopnik put it, “Traffic’s somehow bearable when you consider that, without it, there would be no need for the warm smile of the always curiously attractive TV traffic reporter.”

And so we have a crop of weather and traffic reporters who have determined that their personal brand isn’t going to be built on conveying otherwise-unknown knowledge or even on employing a comic personality. It’s going to be built on finding the best way to physically appeal to their audience while sweetening a bitter pill.

I’ve been talking about the trend of extreme weather—and our weather-watching fixation—for years, and this adds a whole new spin.

Given all the backlash against corporate executives who dared to get on a private aircraft in the past few years, it would seem as if anyone who doesn’t travel in seat 35E would keep quiet about it. But yet, even as the blowback against personal travel and private aviation has persisted, ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on Havas Peaks.

Given all the backlash against corporate executives who dared to get on a private aircraft in the past few years, it would seem as if anyone who doesn’t travel in seat 35E would keep quiet about it. But yet, even as the blowback against personal travel and private aviation has persisted, certain mavericks have been finding that aviation beyond the concourses at O’Hare can work to their advantage.

In this climate, being seen as a passive, coddled, catered-to passenger probably won’t get you too far. If you’re going to fly privately, you have to go all the way: Fly the plane yourself. It turns out that flying a plane is a solid way to burnish a personal brand.

A study undertaken by professors Matthew D. Cain of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business and Stephen B. McKeon of the University of Oregon’s Lundquist College of Business examined the links between CEOs’ personal risk taking and corporate politics. The high-fliers tended to like to take risks but to be wise about them.

An interview on Notre Dame’s Newswire quotes Cain explaining the findings of the study, “Cleared for Takeoff? CEO Personal Risk-Taking and Corporate Policies,” which included 179 CEOs who were pilots and 2,900 CEOs who were not. His topline was this:

“Firms led by CEOs who are pilots exhibit corporate policies that differ substantially from those led by non-pilots. For example, CEO pilot–led firms are more likely to engage in mergers and acquisitions, have more debt in their capital structure—meaning higher leverage and greater overall stock return volatility. Thus, thrill-seeking CEOs bring a certain element of this personality trait into the executive suite, as reflected by more aggressive corporate policies.”

He went on to note:

“Piloting small aircraft as a hobby is more risky than driving a motorcycle, flying a helicopter or even crop-dusting. Thus, the research shows, these CEOs exhibit a clear willingness to engage in risky activities for the sake of pleasure.”

This might sound like a negative, but CEO thrill seeking in the study didn’t lead to unfavorable business outcomes. Running a large company seems to be an outlet for creativity and to draw out cognitive abilities. As a result, says Cain, “These CEOs tend to complete acquisitions that are more successful than those completed by non-sensation-seeking CEOs. Their creativity- and novelty-seeking characteristics lead them into deals that improve the growth prospects of their firms.”

I’d add that for these CEOs’ personal brands, there’s a clear parallel between embracing the adrenaline rush and the risks of flying, and rising to the challenges of leading and growing a company in these tumultuous times. Playing it safe won’t suffice. Many of them—take Richard Branson and Oracle’s Larry Ellison as two blindingly obvious examples—have also used their unorthodox hobby to define their personal brand. They’re at the controls, in control, and steering an adventurous course.

The trend goes beyond those brand names to all-American corporate executives such as Steve Greenbaum, founder and CEO of PostNet, an international printing, shipping and design company that provides support to small businesses through more than 800 franchise locations worldwide. Greenbaum, the former chairman of the International Franchise Association, says flying his own Cessna 182 helps him clear his mind and sharpen his decision-making abilities.

He notes that flying is a mental escape from distractions, as well as the “ultimate challenge,” but that it also relates to his business in several meaningful ways: There are a lot of moving parts. The only thing that separates you from the ground is your ability to be constantly thinking ahead. And, just like in a business, if you make a mistake, you’re dead. (That dimension of it does pose a serious downside. There’s a serious debate about whether boards should let CEOs put their lives at stake, spurred by the death of Micron Technology CEO Steve Appleton when the plane he was piloting crashed.)

The way Greenbaum got into flying also enhances his brand story, making him an interesting, relatable, memorable guy: His wife is a pilot, and on their first date she flew them to lunch. He knew before they landed that he wanted to learn to fly, and by the time they were married, he had bought his first plane.

Likewise, Gary Green, CEO of Strategic Franchising Systems, says flying his own plane and helicopter helps him relax and focus. When he’s at the controls, he knows not to think about anything except flying. There’s little margin for error, so your mind can’t be elsewhere.

It’s not just about thrill seeking—the ability to focus is a strong brand attribute.

Andrew Mason’s unsurprising ouster from Groupon last week wasn’t entirely about his personal brand. As anyone who has been paying attention knows, the group-discount company has been performing spectacularly badly. Its fourth-quarter earnings report was awful, with a GAAP loss of 12 cents per share—that’s 10 cents more (or ... [continue reading... ]]]> Originally posted on Forbes.com.

Andrew Mason’s unsurprising ouster from Groupon last week wasn’t entirely about his personal brand. As anyone who has been paying attention knows, the group-discount company has been performing spectacularly badly. Its fourth-quarter earnings report was awful, with a GAAP loss of 12 cents per share—that’s 10 cents more (or six times as much) as Wall Street analysts had been predicting—for a net loss of $81 million. Groupon’s stock fell a whopping 24 percent after the beleaguered company posted its earnings report on Feb. 27. (But it bounced back by 10 percent after word got out of Mason’s departure, leading All Things D’s John Paczkowski to joke, “The company should consider firing Mason every day.”)

It might not have mattered how Mason behaved while presiding over a company that had a meteoric rise in 2008 and an even more dramatic fall since then, a company that also has been used as an example of a second hype-fueled tech boom. There were embarrassing accounting gaffes, and Groupon’s share price suffered a staggering 77 percent decline during Mason’s rocky tenure.

But the 32-year-old former CEO, who is reportedly worth more than $200 million, didn’t do himself, his company or his shareholders any favors with what Time’s Sam Gustin called his “sophomoric stunts” and “enfant terrible” personal brand. Trying to bring a new, exuberant millennial sensibility—one that’s unconstrained by usual business expectations—to Silicon Valley makes sense, but Mason pushed it too far.

Gustin wrote about how, after the SEC raised questions about Groupon’s pre-IPO accounting statements, “Mason also annoyed the SEC when he authored a lengthy, profanity-laden memo that was promptly leaked to the press in the middle of the company’s pre-IPO quiet period. In the memo, Mason touted Groupon’s prospects and trashed the financial press for critical coverage of the company.”

He went on to describe Mason’s “occasionally bizarre behavior,” such as the 2011 “death stare” episode, posted on All Things D by Peter Kafka. And the important meeting to discuss the company’s corporate strategy in April 2012, which a Wall Street Journal reporter viewed by webcast (all the more reason to be on your best adult behavior). When Mason’s voice broke and he explained it by saying, “Sorry, too much beer,” the reporter put that in the story.

That’s dubious personal branding for a fraternity president, let alone the CEO of a much-hyped tech company earning millions of dollars. He reportedly went on to tell employees that Groupon needed to grow up.

His stunts included taking a hosting gig at a Japanese restaurant, he said, “to understand what makes local merchants tick,” reported Bloomberg Businessweek. Though it’s unclear whether that taught him anything useful or just made his personal brand look more unfocused and unserious—more adolescent, in other words.

So it comes as little surprise that Groupon Executive Chairman Eric Lefkofsky told the Chicago Tribune that Mason’s replacement would be an experienced grownup, someone presumably more capable of meeting the company’s challenges: He said he’s looking forward to hiring a CEO “who has experience dealing with the issues we’re dealing with … who has been there and done that.”

But while Mason’s personal brand ended up being too juvenile and irreverent during his rise and reign at the top of the company, those same attributes appear to have served him well during his abrupt fall.

In what is probably the second most famous resignation announcement in history (the first being Greg Smith’s infamous flame-out op-ed about the “toxic and destructive” Goldman Sachs in The New York Times last year), Mason was refreshingly candid about the reason he was leaving. He began his final memo to employees like this:

“After four and a half intense and wonderful years as CEO of Groupon, I’ve decided that I’d like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding—I was fired today. If you’re wondering why … you haven’t been paying attention. From controversial metrics in our S1 to our material weakness to two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that’s hovering around one quarter of our listing price, the events of the last year and a half speak for themselves. As CEO, I am accountable.”

He did well to accept responsibility so candidly, and he was widely praised for being so direct about the “spending more time with my family” euphemism that no one believes anyway. And now that failure is in some ways seen as a badge of honor in Silicon Valley—better to fail than to play it too safe and not take any risks—he was wise to be honest later in the letter that he did fail.

I’m less convinced, though, about his choice of metaphor when he sought to reassure Groupon employees who might have been concerned about whether Mason would be OK. He wrote, “ If Groupon was Battletoads, it would be like I made it all the way to the Terra Tubes without dying on my first ever play through.”

An early-’90s video game? Probably not what you want to align your brand with in 2013.