Will streaming every moment of my online day negatively impact my personal brand?
My experiment into the effects of live footage on personal branding.
This all started as a joke. Then the joke got serious. Folks on Brazen Careerist were talking about 'showing the best possible' personal brand on social media. I postulated that too much deviation from ones' real self would have negative effects somewhere down the line.
The questions is: How real is too real? Since a personal brand is about your professional self, I can automatically assume that a look into personal parts of my life is too much. What I cooked for dinner and what movie I'm watching are not professional activities...so, what is?
Since I do a lot of consulting work online from my home office, that would be the best place to be transparent about my professional self. The most transparent medium I can think of is live video. So, with the help of Twitcam, I will be broadcasting every moment of my professional day. Note: My feed is video only. Some of the conversations I have while working are privileged information, and I don't want to violate any NDA's.
Every time I start the feed, my Twitter followers will be notified. My Twitcam feed can also be viewed through my blog homepage. I'll be putting up a poll to see what viewers think about the feeds' effect on my personal brand.
So, leave me a comment. What do you think? Does my live-stream detract or add to my personal brand? Would you be more or less likely to hire me after viewing my feed?
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Research. Show all posts
8.30.2009
8.17.2009
Faux Online Experts
Blogging Should Require a License
The information age is thriving, but are we really learning anything of value?
I am not an expert. To be an expert, I figure one has to be immersed in a field for many years. While I may not have decades of work experience, I am schooled enough to easily determine whether a resource is credible.
The blog post titled "17 Strategies to Killer Ads" has been RT'd as an authority enough to grab my attention, and when I read it I threw up a little. Poor grammar and spelling aside, what are these gentlemen talking about?
Here's an excerpt:
"In the Advertising world, the creative process look like this: Strategy > Concept/Idea > Campaign & Tagline > Executions. You can see, the Strategy is in the most beginning of an entire idea and it is an approach, based on market research and insights, as to how a product or service will be positioned/repositioned. After reading The Advertising Concept Book by Pete Barry, we have an overall look at 17 different strategy for killer ads."
First off, the creative process as proposed by Roger von Oech (which is used by many Fortune 100 companies) looks nothing like what Harman and Penter (the minds behind 17 Strategies) outlined. Creative process; within the advertising industry, is the procedure used to find unique ideas or re-imagine old concepts. According to Oech, it consists of Research (Explorers)> Visualization (Artists)> Evaluation (Judges)> Presentation (Warriors).
Secondly, strategy is a plan-of-attack. This list doesn't show strategy, it shows the attention getting device/style. It shows HOW the message can be presented to pique interest and capture attention. Simply choosing one of these examples is not strategy and if the wrong device is selected the ad will fall flat with the target audience.
Finally, I feel obligated to caution fellow advertising professionals from distributing poor information. I saw this article (and others that are just as questionable) pop up on the feeds of some very sharp minds and that tells me that either:
A. People are not really reading these articles before forwarding them.
-or-
B. People are not fact-checking these articles for credibility.
In summation, as a basis for this post I used one hard-cover book and two online dictionaries to verify my conclusions before rebuking the authors of "17 Strategies to Killer Ads." Merriam-Webster, MAANZ Glossary and the textbook "Contemporary Advertising" by Willaim F. Arens are legitimate and credible sources. While I am only joking about blog licenses, I do feel that writers need to have more than one source when 'blogging to instruct' and making information up is not a good way to establish your expertise.
The information age is thriving, but are we really learning anything of value?
I am not an expert. To be an expert, I figure one has to be immersed in a field for many years. While I may not have decades of work experience, I am schooled enough to easily determine whether a resource is credible.
The blog post titled "17 Strategies to Killer Ads" has been RT'd as an authority enough to grab my attention, and when I read it I threw up a little. Poor grammar and spelling aside, what are these gentlemen talking about?
Here's an excerpt:
"In the Advertising world, the creative process look like this: Strategy > Concept/Idea > Campaign & Tagline > Executions. You can see, the Strategy is in the most beginning of an entire idea and it is an approach, based on market research and insights, as to how a product or service will be positioned/repositioned. After reading The Advertising Concept Book by Pete Barry, we have an overall look at 17 different strategy for killer ads."
First off, the creative process as proposed by Roger von Oech (which is used by many Fortune 100 companies) looks nothing like what Harman and Penter (the minds behind 17 Strategies) outlined. Creative process; within the advertising industry, is the procedure used to find unique ideas or re-imagine old concepts. According to Oech, it consists of Research (Explorers)> Visualization (Artists)> Evaluation (Judges)> Presentation (Warriors).
Secondly, strategy is a plan-of-attack. This list doesn't show strategy, it shows the attention getting device/style. It shows HOW the message can be presented to pique interest and capture attention. Simply choosing one of these examples is not strategy and if the wrong device is selected the ad will fall flat with the target audience.
Finally, I feel obligated to caution fellow advertising professionals from distributing poor information. I saw this article (and others that are just as questionable) pop up on the feeds of some very sharp minds and that tells me that either:
A. People are not really reading these articles before forwarding them.
-or-
B. People are not fact-checking these articles for credibility.
In summation, as a basis for this post I used one hard-cover book and two online dictionaries to verify my conclusions before rebuking the authors of "17 Strategies to Killer Ads." Merriam-Webster, MAANZ Glossary and the textbook "Contemporary Advertising" by Willaim F. Arens are legitimate and credible sources. While I am only joking about blog licenses, I do feel that writers need to have more than one source when 'blogging to instruct' and making information up is not a good way to establish your expertise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)