The concept of branding (ii)

If you haven't read the concept of branding. kindly read up before getting back to read this, so you don't start feeling lost in this a article.

In this part, we are to get knowing in concise brevity, what is the difference between;
  1. Personal Branding
  2. Corporate Branding
Simply put, it is the same as the difference between I and WE.
Overtime, even before time started getting timed, people have consciously and unconsciously rose to prominence by the effect of effective personal branding and also selling via corporate branding, but no, I'm not about to start talking history of Michael Jordan or Bill Gates now, but they are clear-cut examples of the different forms of branding, why? see for yourself below.

The Expatiation.

1.) Personal BrandingUsing Michael Jordan as a case study, here we see a determined individual creating a brand out of himself that out-rightly identifies with his person, simply through the direct show of his ability right in our face (just in case you do not know, Michael J. is a renowned retired basketball player). He branded himself a skillful, unparalleled by many, ace basketball player! (Not a company) if he did that intentionally or not, I can't say, but he did it anyway and my best guess is it was not unintentional.

Personal branding is that case whereby the value perceived from the 'brand' can directly without any break be linked to a person, in the case of Mr. Jordan, we see that though he may own a corporate brand, the name Michael Jordan has been branded personal, a trademark that can't really be corporate, though it can be incorporated into fostering the build of a corporate branding, as we see 'NIKE' doing, as they made a good boost in their shoe sales by branding a variety of shoes they make on the Michael Jordan personal brand, in this case, a personal brand blends into a corporate brand to achieve a mutual purpose that does not have one of the two seeming off when reviewed.

They (NIKE) were selling shoes, already snagging deals with athletes too, and it doesn't seem off as good shoes has always been considered essential parts of virtually every form of athlete's' kit. Hence it was only proper seeing them partner with a basketball player other than a programmer and a popular one for that matter, whose reach is influential enough to boost sales greatly.

But this doesn't change the fact that Mr. Jordan is personally branded, and with NIKE, he's just selling a corporate brand, not being a corporate brand!
In a shell, what this all essentially translates too is; a name that has been personally branded don't easily make get to switch to corporate, would still be of value but won't maintain much relevance like it did when the person is no longer actively performing. It can not stand the test of time like a corporate brand (you will understand better below), and a couple of other cons, but at start off, it tends to yield more returns on investment than a corporate brand, but not on the long run.

2.) Corporate Branding: Yes, we are using old man Billy as our case study here but it isn't really about him but the brand: MICROSOFT. Make mention of Bill Gates and 1st thing that comes into people's head is: "WORLD'S RICHEST" before they'd think/say, co-founder of Microsoft. Being a world richest is kind of a brand, but not one he has put efforts into directly, one could even say with all of his philanthrophic acts he's even trying not to be, but he has become a name to reckon with because of a corporate brand he co-built, he sold an idea into reality and consequently into people's daily activities, it was well accepted as the idea offered values that all found pleasant and in turn, the idea he sold sold him, and he got real sold out and ironically yet has not stopped selling.

The case of Bill Gate coming into limelight via his corporate brand is that of a corporate brand selling a personality, and even branding the person's identity with a/some values, (a reverse of the Jordan and NIKE thing) and in this case, MICROSOFT sold Mr. Bill as a computer programmer, world richest, philanthropist and few others. Thing with Corporate branding is, it is everything vice-versa of personal branding. Doesn't pay off big at the start off as much as it does on the long run, it can run for eons long after the founder or founders are gone, so long the management doesn't crumble, and more.

A corporate brand like a personal brand provides value, but usually to a larger audience, and can't have it's existence traced directly to just an individual, though an individual may be a keynote. It is a brand that's built on one person's or a group's organization of people with like minds into achieving a vision.

Corporate or Personal, which is better? by default I may have been tempted to say whichever rocks your boat. But as Sir Neil Patel has sensibly said in one of his videos, if only he knew earlier, all of his brands would have been corporate. (Because, come to think of it, who wants to do short-term when you can do long-term?)

Just in case you need another example, Beta Yarn is corporate brand, Cirphrank is a personal brand. And there you have it blessed people enjoying May, like it? share it! you have something to say? the comment form awaits, did I miss something or made a mistake, comment it let's see, it's been an awesome night with y'all, do have and amazing night!


I know I'm supposed to write something absolute here bla bla bla, but I'm busy designing, all I want to say his, let's grow together, like couples with genuine love or something.... I don't know...

No comments:

Post a Comment

Kindly drop your view on this.