Pre-Ramble:  Great.  Now, in addition to generating a constant stream of insightful and entertaining content for my website, winging it with witty banter on Twitter, and logging in with the latest professional brag-tag on Linked-In, I now have to present the perfect and enviable timeline of my life on the “new and improved” Facebook.

No pressure there. 

Let me tell you – this new form of electronic exposure is ten times worse than, say, the old scrapbooking days where simple snap-shots were magically spun into gold, … all tricked out with sticker themes, color schemes, matching boarders and plastic page protectors.  Gals used to pack all their photo gear, a hot-dish and a box of wine into rolling duffels and shuffle over to someone’s house once a month for “craft night.”  If you didn’t completely and creatively document entire decades of precious family memories over the course of the evening, it was fine. No one was checking your work.

I’m not making fun here – I was just never that organized or industrious to dominate in scrapbooking.  It’s no coincidence that my online photo file looks exactly like the hundreds of warped Kodak envelopes that are still stuffed into two ratty moving boxes in the back of our cedar closet. (I almost wish the moths would get in there and organize that mess for me.)  Thank goodness online photo filing systems provide a dated and alphabetized inventory list … If only I could remember when stuff happened and what cleverly mundane name I saved it under … ( … “that trip” … ).

Plaid skirt and knee sox.  The one thing I came to count on with the “old Facebook” was the very lack of choice that they have now “fixed.”  Like school uniforms, there was only one font, there was only one size and orientation for photos, and there were only a few simple maneuvers to master.  You typed in your quippy comment … attached a lame photo or two … and Bam.  Done.

But now — Shoot.  If I’m going to be anywhere near competitive in the realm of this ”new Facebook” forum,  I am seriously going to have to hire an in-house staff … agent, archivist, photo stylist and a couple of full-time tech support people.  I can see it now … my personal paparazzi standing by to capture every Timeline-worthy event.  Of course, there will have to be redo’s on suboptimal momentous occasions … “Oh honey, could we relight those candles? The ambient fill was all wrong … “ …. Or, “Could we re-release those doves? My lens cap was still on … ”

Back in the good old Facebook days (way last year), we used to be able to get by on our wits and a prayer.  Now the damn thing has news stories, moving parts and sound tracks.  What’s next? … “Click here for mood lighting and the scent of freshly baked bread?”

The Take-Away:  Now, instead of concealing the hapless disorder of my life from a few close family and friends (DON’T GO IN THAT CEDAR CLOSET!!!), … I am now obliged to fabricate my perfect life in a timely and orderly fashion, or risk being exposed to the ridicule of potentially millions of complete strangers. … Yipes.  I’m not ready for my close-up, Mr. Zuckerberg!

Post-Note:  It might just be a coincidence, but when you look for the correct spelling for Zuckerberg on Google, the first words to come up for longer than you’d expect are variations on the word “zucchini.”

Pre-Ramble:  Great. It’s Fashion Week.   Didn’t we just do this?  I assure you, I didn’t wear “dressy shorts” with patterned tights and stacked wedges last season, and I won’t wear them this season either — even if they come in that fancy new ”vivid sorbet yellow.”

Yes, this is a time to celebrate the Beautiful People, … in their Beautiful Clothes, with their Beautiful Sunglasses, tucked into their Beautiful Handbags, hanging on their Beautiful Shoulders, as they strut around on their freakishly long Beautiful Legs. It’s the long legs that really tick me off.

People with long legs look fabulous in everything.  And the rest of us look like trolls.  (That’s us, shown above.) People with long legs look good in vivid sorbet yellow dressy shorts. … Even if a short-legged person is wearing vivid sorbet dressy shorts with super-tall shoes, she really still looks like a troll, … on stilts.

Beautiful people are everywhere. Heck, even the the National Football League is getting into the act. Yesterday’s WSJ sports section ran a piece on the ranking of NFL teams according to cumulative scores around their “facial symmetry.”  (I LOVE the Wall Street Journal.) Apparently, research findings show that the degree to which the features on both sides of an individual’s face are symmetrical is a reliable indicator of human attraction. The “Pretty in Pigskin” rankings answer the question on everyone’s mind – ”Which NFL team is the handsomest?”

Turns out the most attractive group of players, with an average symmetry rating of 99.47 is the Buffalo Bills.  Clearly, beauty does not correlate with games won — the Bills had one of the worst records in the league (4-12 last season).  The least attractive team was the Kansas City Chiefs, who came in last with a symmetry rating of 94.6 (but won its division title and made it to the play-offs).  My hometown team, the Detroit Lions, came in at a respectable 98.1 (we won’t talk about their record … ), while the Minnesota Vikings ranked 30th out of 32 teams rated with a pitiful 96.4.

The Take-Away:  In all fairness, very few of us can carry off that shade of purple and nobody looks good in those stupid horn/braid hats.

Post-Note:  Speaking of beautiful people, is it just me, or did the GOP debates look like a homecoming court?  The only thing missing were boutonnieres and a tiara.

Pre-Ramble:  This year, Labor Day coincides with a persistently high unemployment rate … over 9% last time I checked … and an astounding 0% up-tick ( … no-tick?) in jobs created in the month of August.  This unfortunate and frustrating state of affairs will be the topic of President Obama’s upcoming talk on job creation and the languishing economy.

Cut to a recent article in the Atlantic written by Sara Horowitz (and tweeted by business and technology writer, Daniel Pink) — The Freelance Surge Is the Industrial Revolution of Our Time.  As a freelance writer, this title got my attention immediately.

Horowitz describes the “boom in independent work that is changing the way we think about jobs and careers.”  She talks about the Rise of the Creative Class and the Freelance Nation (the first is the title of a book by Richard Florida (2002) and the other should be the title of a book … well, it’s close to Free Agent Nation by the abovementioned Daniel Pink (2002) … ) and the fact that job titles and careers no longer fit into neat little categories – Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief.

Crazy quilt – Instead we are seeing a major transition in the workforce where individual workers wear many hats,  piecing together many different types of work and juggling vastly different areas of expertise. Presumably, they do this to make a living wage, maximize their given talents, and exercise a more flexible, balanced  kind of work-style/life-style.  Horowitz calls this transition “profound” and discusses the practical implications of a growing freelance workforce …

“This transition is nothing less than a revolution. We haven’t seen a shift in the workforce this significant in almost 100 years, when we transitioned from an agricultural to an industrial economy. Now, employees are leaving the traditional workplace and opting to piece together a professional life on their own.  As of 2005, one-third of our workforce participated in this “freelance economy.” Data show that number has  increased over the past six years … Entrepreneurial activity in 2009 was at its highest level in 14 years, online freelance job postings skyrocketed in 2010, and companies are increasingly out-sourcing work.”

Nice to know I’m not alone, but that’s about as far as the comfort zone goes.  While Horowitz works her way around the practical matters of policy and job security for independent workers, I find that my day-to-day experience as a freelance worker involves concerns at a more personal level.  As an individual with what I would characterize as a between-the-cracks, non-traditional skill set, I am constantly challenged with the identity issues associated with this “brave new world” of freelance.

I’m a creative thinker/co-creator with a left brain component that likes to corral complex concepts, relationships, processes and/or dynamics and boil them down into a tight, accessible one-page visual overview. I am the conceptual/project development equivalent of Google maps … the GPS … the little rippling wave of blue light that radiates out from the current location as seen in the context of the ultimate destination point …

My dream job is to trot my “curious outsider” perspective into corporate cubicles and corner offices and chat about what folks are working on.  I want to know what they are thinking about, the successes they’ve had, and the unique problems that they are grappling with.  Then I want to figure out new ways to address/clarify/articulate/develop those things with them.

So, what is this job called?  Where on the online job application do these descriptors go?  How will President Obama’s proposal for job creation accommodate me and the rest of the freelance workforce?

The Take-Away:  Freelance workers don’t just represent temporary patches on the fabric of the American workforce — If we play our cards right (and the stakes are pretty high here), the estimated 30% of the U. S. workforce are the very fibers of innovation and enterprise that must characterize a strong, competitive American workforce.  I hope that President Obama’s jobs plan includes a way to cobble all of the untapped expertise represented in misaligned, under-employed or unemployed workers into a nice tight weave that can drive and thrive in the marketplace of the future.  ( … which from where I’m sitting, is the marketplace of the NOW.)

Pre-Ramble: So, for the past couple of days I have been delivering my college sophomore daughter to New York City for a summer internship.

Phew!! …. I’d love to be blogging about how great New York is and all of the fun we’ve been having setting up shop in the sublet apartment, finding the nearest grocery store and practicing riding the subway, but all I can think about at the moment is, “Man, do my feet hurt … !”

Seriously, I was wearing what I thought were the most comfy, versatile, stylish, FLAT shoes on the planet (not them at right), but clearly, if the blistered pulp that is the bottoms of my feet are any indication,  I was sorely mistaken.

On the face of it, this painful condition could be considered a problem. However, as one who likes to walk on the sunny side of life, I prefer to see it as an opportunity — I am going to need to get myself a new pair of shoes!

Have we got a shoe for you! And, if a gal is in the market for some new shoes, the Big Apple is a great place to look. As home to Sex in the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, NYC has shoes of every imaginable shape, style and price point including strappy little beauties by designers Jimmy Choo, Christain Louboutin and Manolo Blahnik.

I’m sure these are lovely shoes, however, after my experience of the last two days, I’m going to need a pair that can stand up to some serious street walking. (Not THAT kind of street walking.)  I can’t be pounding the pavement and dodging cabs while teetering en pointe …

The Take-Away: Well, whatever I end up with, I assure you it won’t be the footwear we saw at the Alexander McQueen exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art this afternoon.  The brilliantly disturbed, now deceased designer came up with what he called the “armadillo shoe” (shown above) … A sculptural, but virtually unwearable contortion that makes the ends of his subjects legs (where  feet would normally go) look like elaborate, clunky, other-worldly hooves.

Alexander was a very creative guy, but “crippled Dasypodidae” isn’t quite the look I’m going for.  Do you have anything in a ”sensible, sturdy” size 8M?

Pre-Ramble:  I’ve been torn this last week or so between blogging about brand-identity/innovation/strategy-related topics and gushing over the upcoming royal wedding (T- minus 2 days!!!).  Well, thanks to one of my London readers (right there with a front row seat on all the action), I can do both! 

Mug shot – In my last post (April 24th), I told you all about the awesome royal mug I had ordered in commemoration of the Big Day (not it at right).  As you will recall, the piece (referred to on its website by the clunky term ”tankard”), sports a very elaborate design involving swoopy looping fonts and elegant botanically inspired patterns in dusty powder blue and gold leaf. Very formal and traditional, and perfectly reflecting the very formal and traditional vibe of the royal British monarchy.

Then, ZING!  This morning in my inbox is a note from the London reader along with a link to the website of Dhub, a design agency (based in London) which has taken a new tack on royal wedding commemorative collections design.  As detailed on their site, the Dhub designers wanted to create something more “significant and modern,” … presenting “designs that take into consideration the Facebook generation, popular culture and modern design … a brand that identifies with and is relevant to the 20th century … ”

“The Royal family has changed shape and form over the years and in 2011 they appear as a totally different force from the previous years of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth. The Royal family are now a global phenomenon, the press allow the public to see them in a more down to earth and human light, no longer will the Royal family be regarded as elite, they are representative of traditional British culture, but there lies the failing of the current design approach to the celebration of the Royal Wedding this year. The British culture is now about opportunity, energy, creativity, youth, style and perfection.”

One look at their crisp, engaging solutions (example shown above and on website) demonstrates that they have succeeded in a big way!  Each of the designs incorporates the royal couple’s initials (Kate’s is, of course, team favorite, a “K”!) and simple, iconic crown images rendered in combinations of Union Jack red, white and blue.  The results are just the right mix of traditional cues and “creative, youthful and vibrant” elements. 

Well done, chaps … and a timely find in light of growing sentiment that the youthful and vibrant young Prince William is potentially “in danger of over-shadowing his far less popular father, Prince Charles,” the next in line for the throne.  Anthony Faiola at the Washington Post describes the challenges ahead for the “idiosyncratic Prince Charles,” citing recent public opinion polls that reveal a popularity gap between father and son … 46% percent of respondents believe that Prince Charles should step aside. 

The Take-Away:  At this point, matters around succession to the crown are protected by law; nonetheless, the dichotomy represents an interesting dilemma for the royal “brand” and highlights the value of relevance in a constantly evolving world and marketplace.  “Brand William” would be nothing without the foundational heritage established by the kings and queens who have worn the crown before him, however, it is the British monarchy that will be irreparably diminished if they fail to embrace, in some meaningful way, this free pass into ”creative, youthful and vibrant” royal relevance for the 21st century.

Post-Note:  Thanks for the tip, London reader! (And if you happen to score a snappy photo of the royal K & W, feel free to send that over as well!!)

Pre-Ramble:  If you want to be a player in this age of long-tail specialization you’ve got to have a “focus” … “content area expertise” … an “identity” … You’ve got to be a “brand.” (And, if you’re Russell Brand, you get to be a Brand brand … ). 

These days, a unique, focused and snappy “presence” is what it takes to gain traction around your agenda. Brand-identity expert Alina Wheeler discusses the evolution of “the brand” in terms of competition for recognition on an individual level … 

“In the competition for recognition, … the battle for physical territory has evolved into the competition for share of mind, … every business [is concerned with] the brand imperative, and even individuals are challenged … to become walking brands.”

Face it, in today’s “velocity of life,” if you don’t have your “elevator speech” polished, practiced and poised, you can pretty much forget about being hired for work, or, at the very least, being memorable in any meaningful way. (Could there be anything more tragic than unrealized memorability?)

Luckily, there are lots of books and businesses out there to help you define yourself personally, professionally, visually, narratively, digitally, virtually …  Writer and business management guru Tom Peters leaves no exclamation point unused in his pointed, free-style, motivational   tome, “Brand You: Fifty Ways to Transform Yourself from an Employee into a Brand that Shouts Distinction, Commitment and Passion!”  Brace yourself for a barrage of pithy (if slightly dated) thought-bites on the new Brand You, like …

• Getting started now: Perform a Personal Brand Equity Evaluation. … And, create a Yellow Pages ad for … you. ( … a what?)
• We need a snapshot: What does Brand You “look” like? “Feel” like?
• The Brand You currency: WOW Projects!
• Commit yourself fully to The Project Life.
• “Inc.” yourself. Mindset: I AM A COMPANY.
• You ARE your Rolodex! … ( … your what?)

K.I. S. S. … Keep It Simple Stupid … Less is more … Others, like the brothers Heath, Chip and Dan, authors of “Made to Stick,” (2007) discuss the properties of memorable, marketable ideas that ”capture people’s attention … and hold it.”  Chip ’n’ Dan claim that the more simple and pared down a concept or idea, the easier it is to understand and remember. Their advice — pick ONE THING, and go with it!

Hmmm … Mother Nature bears this out – most critters have a designated skill-set. Take the honey bee for example, … There are distinctive yellow and black stripes and that whole buzzing thing, … but in terms of primary products and services, they’re all about nectar procurement and processing, with pollination as a by-product. That’s it. You don’t see honey bees diversifying into air travel, insurance, or the cornbread business.

But what about individuals with more than one strong skill-set?  How do multi-faceted folks pare down to their essence in order to generate buzz?  Take Leonardo Da Vinci for example …. Painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, scientist, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, writer … Here is a guy who is widely considered to be one of the most “diversely talented persons ever to have lived.”  Italian historian Giorgio Vasari gushes … 

 ”In the normal course of events many men and women are born with remarkable talents; but occasionally, in a way that transcends nature, a single person is marvellously endowed by Heaven with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill. Everyone acknowledged that this was true of Leonardo da Vinci, an artist of outstanding physical beauty, who displayed infinite grace in everything that he did and who cultivated his genius so brilliantly that all problems he studied he solved with ease.”

How does a transcendent “archetype of the Renaissance man” pick ONE THING, and go with it?

The Take-Away:  I think there’s value in crafting a simple, resonant brand-identity in today’s marketplace. I just hope that people like Leonardo break out every now and then to show us what else they’ve got.  

Post-Note:  I got to wondering about what Leonardo would do to promote his brand in the 21st Century?  … Go on Stephen Colbert to talk about hydrodynamics? … Chat with Piers Morgan on the scandal surrounding his uncompleted “Adoration of the Magi“? … Dish on Oprah about his BFF Machiavelli?  Surely he’d be a featured speaker at TED, … Would the “Mona Lisa” have a fan page?

Pre-Ramble:  I have always loved words and as a person who uses them on a regular basis, a recent conversation between University of Minnesota faculty member Anatoly Liberman and MPR’s Kerri Miller about stand-out words from 2010 caught my ear. 

Fulbright Scholar, McKnight Fellow, BBC commentator and all-around wordy guy, Anatoly did his best to deliver a rollicking good take on word origins and usage, while steadfastly maintaining the requisite prim and bookish demeanor. As expected, his vocabulary was rich with varietals and his delivery impeccable.  You could hear his pinky extended from the teacup through the radio.

Refudiate.  Apparently, the folks over at the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) annually scan the 2 billion plus words flying around in our collective lexicon to select new ones to add to the dictionary’s roster of over 600,000 entries. More than 2,000 new items were added or revised this year   including “vuvuzela” (that long, super-annoying plastic horn wielded by fans at soccer tournaments) and “staycation” (lame, money-saving holiday spent at home). 

But wait — there’s more!  Clearly, the OED has made a conscious attempt to be more trendy and relevant.  A peek at their website reveals several new online features including topical word references, historically significant words, and even the uber techy-geeky “word cloud” …

Each month we offer an example of a new feature of the OED Online in action … This month we consider the changing language of ‘youth’, celebrate words served up at the Mad Hatter’s tea party, remember John F. Kennedy’s speech fifty years on, and count the change from 1000 years of banking and finance …

… the Historical Thesaurus of the OED, which provides a fascinating insight into how English has been used in the past, … charting the development of English over 1000 years … discover synonyms for individual words in the OED (and then trace their development over time), and chart the linguistic progress of a chosen object, concept or emotion, …  January’s word cloud is made up of historical synonyms for youth—from ‘frumberdling’ (c.1000) to ‘studmuffin’ (1986).

The Take-Away:  Let’s face it, words can be a ton of fun. I’m telling you, there is nothing more entertaining than listening to Professor Liberman respond to a caller on the entomology of the ”slangy expression” “junk.”  (Also discussed at length by Ben Zimmer in the NYT Magazine’s On Language column.) 

Post-Note:  FYI – there is even an alternate hip meaning for the word “word” … in street vernacular it means something like, “I hear you” … “I get it” … “Yup” … “Yo” … “I concur with your assessment” … It’s kind of a short verbal thumbs-up or fist bump.

Pre-Ramble: So, I am currently working on a project with the University of Minnesota Extension – a branch of the U that “extends” its vast body of knowledge and resources into the local community – on messaging and communications materials about good health and nutrition for families and children.

Unless you’ve had your head in a cookie jar, you are probably aware of the national push in this direction as well, with Michelle Obama’s initiative to combat childhood obesity, “Let’s Move.”

 The Let’s Move! campaign, started by First Lady Michelle Obama, has an ambitious national goal of solving the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. Let’s Move! will combat the epidemic of childhood obesity through a comprehensive approach that will engage every sector impacting the health of children and will provide schools, families and communities simple tools to help kids be more active, eat better, and get healthy.”

Beyond baby fat – Recent statistics indicate that one-in-three children in the United States is obese and, “For the first time in 200 years, children are likely to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.”

• Childhood obesity accounts for $14 billion annually in direct health expenses, and that number is growing
• Excess weight in kids increases their risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, cancer and asthma
• Less than 33 percent of kids surveyed ate two or more servings of fruit per day
• Just 26 percent of those surveyed ate three or more vegetables in a day
• Kids spend an average of 5.5 hours per day engaged in media-driven sedentary activities (playing video games or watching TV)

Let’s face it – There are a lot of reasons why kids (and adults) are putting on more pounds than they might like: ”healthy” foods can cost more; they can be difficult to find in some communities; information and awareness about healthy foods and lifestyle may be lacking; busy parents and families may not have time to plan, shop and prepare healthy meals as often as they’d like; kids aren’t running around outside the way they used to; and, for whatever reason, parents aren’t insisting that kids turn off the TV and trot on outside as much as they might have in the past.

And actually, … healthy foods … the ones loaded with vitamins and minerals, can be kind of labor intensive. Until pre-washed, pre-chopped baby field greens and those freakishly rounded tiny carrots came onto the scene, eating veggies sure was a lot more work than popping open a bag of chips … Cutting, chopping, bowls, peels, seeds, water all over the place … Well, and, in the case of vegetables like cauliflower and broccoli, unless there is some steaming and dipping involved, they can come off as what has been described by the target population (kids and teens … and some adults) as “super yucky.”

Yes, this will not be easy — socioeconomics, lifestyle habits, parenting, marketing, accountability and convenience present a formidable set of factors. The fix for this complex, deeply ingrained issue must extend beyond catchy missives and green leafy photo ops.

The Take-Away:  The promising solutions here are as much about incentives (carrots) as they are about admonishment (sticks). The “Let’s Move” campaign is on the right track with its up-beat, multi-pronged approach. Let’s hope that this, and efforts like it, are able to bring together a fresh new combination of partners and ideas – and cook up a successful and healthy outcome for America’s kids.

(Corny ending.)

Pre-Ramble:  You can’t swing a bag of gold bullion around here without having some top-tier philanthropist knocking at the door and imploring you to give away half of your wealth. The July 5th cover of fortuitously named Fortune Magazine features the smiling faces of billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates along with a plug for the “$600 Billion Challenge.”

Brainchild of legendary Berkshire Hathaway money-magnet Buffett, the Challenge invites the nation’s billionaires “to pledge to give at least half of their net worth to charity, in their lifetimes or at death.”  Names like Eli Broad and David Rockefeller are on the ask list along with media moguls Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg and Oprah Winfrey. Between the assets of these folks plus the other 395+ super-rich Americans (a la Forbes 400) … we’ve got the potential for quite the pot of cash, … sums the likes of which would “change the face of philanthropy as we know it.”

Long and the short of it.  The thinking behind the scheme is laudable. Buffett explains that while he has not yet made a commitment of time, which he feels is ultimately far more valuable than money, his contribution of Berkshire Hathaway stock certificates “ … can command far-ranging resources [which can] benefit others who, through the luck of the draw, have received the short straws in life. “ 

The obvious thought here is, if you’ve got $1 billion, half-a-billion is probably going to be sufficient to pay the bills and have enough left over to have some fun. So, where exactly is the line between the fortunes conferred by long straws and the lot of the fortune-challenged short straws set?  Where is the tipping point between having enough to live on and experiencing a true sense of need? 

Mortgage payments …  From a personal standpoint, I guess I never really thought about my net worth in terms of “wealth.” Sure, I feel plenty fortunate, blessed even, with the rich and varied lifestyle that my money allows, but I never really considered it “drive-me-across-the-estate-to-the-polo-ponies” kind of wealth.  When I think of vast amounts of disposable wealth, I imagine those closets you’d see on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous … the ones with thousands of shoes all perfectly lined up on racks. My shoe inventory will fit at the foot of the bed with room to spare. I’m just sayin.

The challenge then, in the lifestyles of those of us who are not so rich and famous, is vastly more confounding — Just how much is enough?  How much of your “personal wealth” could you realistically consider parting with?  What amount of your earnings is really just gravy? For those of you on the less charitably-inclined end of the continuum, how little can you get away with giving away without looking or feeling cheap, greedy or heartless? 

The Take-Away: I don’t have an answer for any of those questions … and I don’t have $1 billion to test the theories. For what it’s worth, the prose of the philanthropic pledge itself offers Warren Buffett’s humble and generous rationale,

The reaction of my family and me to our extraordinary good fortune is not guilt, but rather gratitude. Were we to use more than 1% of my claim checks on ourselves, neither our happiness nor our well-being would be enhanced. In contrast, that remaining 99% can have a huge effect on the health and welfare of others. That reality sets an obvious course for me and my family: Keep all we can conceivably need and distribute the rest to society, for its needs. My pledge starts us down that course.”

Pre-Ramble: There is a lot of buzz and quite a few books out there that promote the value of “branding” yourself as a way to attract recognition and business. I just don’t know about that. As a dedicated “intuitive thinker” who delights in the pursuit of random stuff, the idea of nailing myself down to a single focus is more than a little scary.

Well, so, by ”branding,” of course, I don’t mean scorching your backside with a hot metal “K.” I mean representing yourself to others — who you are, what you do and what you are about in a specific and consistent way.  Beyond a title or symbol, a brand is a holistic summation of the character of a person or entity — its personality or reputation.

Brands of businesses are all around us … the bold FedEx letter forms, the Nike swoosh, the little blue Twitter bird, the Target … target, the Apple … apple … They all have a distinct look and feel … they all have a unique differentiated point of view.  Alina Wheeler discusses the many dimensions of “brand”  in Designing Brand Identity (2003) …

There is substantial evidence that companies whose employees understand and embrace the brand are more successful. What began as “corporate culture” under the auspices of human resources is fast becoming branding, and the marketing department runs the show; … each touchpoint is an opportunity to strengthen a brand and to communicate about its essence; … brand identity increases awareness and builds business.” 

I get it. I can see the value there. The more people recognize you/your brand for what you “do,” the more likely they are to seek you out when they need someone to do that for them (… or with them … to them … whatever).  I am so all over this in the business world. I believe that businesses who are able to articulate a clear consistent message about who they are and what they do are ideally positioned to attract meaningful (and prosperous) business opportunities. So, I guess it is no small stretch to apply this same principle to the individual.  At any given time, in any given place, you as an individual may be called upon to perform as the brand that you are.

I guess what that means is, that at any given moment ”you” are a potential business … or a potential business opportunity.  By establishing a consistent set of attributes, skill sets, a look and a feel for yourself, … you are constantly marketing yourself in the world marketplace. I guess that’s the big hairy deal about the “new social media” venues – Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter. In launching a Home Page, or a Profile, or even a blog (!), you are, for better or for worse, putting yourself out there as a brand. Yikes – no pressure there.

The dilemma I have is, if in order to successfully be “a brand,” you have to forsake the enticing array of random very-cool-stuff that lurks around so many corners, it that worth it?  Creativity and its kissin’ cousin, innovation, are made from the very stuff of random collisions/conjunctions of things and ideas. So, does a guy have to sacrifice the capacity to think big, out-there thoughts for the privilege of having a successful business or personal brand?  (How do the folks whose brand is that they Think Big Out-There Thoughts make that work?)

The Take-Away: Doomed.  If I need to be together enough to align my appearance, environment, family members, pets, possessions, activities, attitudes, disposition and every confounded twittering thought in my head with my designated “brand,” …

… JUST SHOOT ME NOW.