Credit crunch fallout

This week, the world as we know it changed forever. Well, at least for the foreseeable future. The inevitable fallout from the credit crunch happened. Shockingly, it was all concentrated into one brutal week. The bastions of unshakable establishment on Wall Street and in the City of London crumbled. Lehman, Merrill Lynch, AIG, HBOS. Bank failures, rescue takeovers, government bailouts all came thick and fast. Massive, intense, relentless.

And the markets roared into life yesterday and bounced - a hugely energetic bouncy bounce that reverberated around the world. Shanghai gained 9.5 per cent, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng 9.6 per cent, the FTSE 100 had its biggest daily gain in its 24-year history with 8.8 per cent and the S&P 500 closed up 4.0 per cent, having risen 4.3 per cent on Thursday. And the surges in London and the US were partially fuelled by a ban on short-selling announced on Thursday night.

With friends and clients describing their week as hellacious, many feel they have literally been to hell and back. Most feel that there is more to come. No one seems terribly sure about anything. The markets may be closed for the weekend, but the floors and desks and corridors are occupied as exposures are calculated and able minds grapple to find a way forward in unchartered terrain.

Sarah Palin

What a week for US politics! And the brands on display have made for fascinating viewing. First we had Michelle Obama with a heartfelt rendition of family values and the power of the American dream. Then came Hillary... dynamically rousing her supporters to vote for Democratic principles - and to get over the attachment to the person.

Then the nation collectively held its breath waiting to see if Bill would do the same. And he did - even describing himself as the warm-up for Barack's running mate Joseph Biden. Biden delivered his yin to Obama's yang - or is it the other way around? And the grand finale, Obama accepting his party's nomination in front of 38 million countrymen - fighting, fierce, up for it.

And just when we thought it was all over until next week when the Republicans will do the same, McCain stole the weekend media thunder and announced his running mate, Sarah. Sarah who? Who? Oh, Sarah Palin of course. Virtually unknown, a governor for less than two years, small town beauty queen, small town mayor - who has (now famously) said of the Vice Presidency role "...what is it exactly that a VP does every day?"

And so the rapid building of a brand is occurring as I write this and by next week, Sarah will be a household name. Fascinating. But not as fascinating as the impact that this has had on McCain's brand. We are now thinking of him as a maverick, a risk taker. If this is his way of showing that he is not George Bush, then he has certainly gone out on a limb to do so - far, far out.

Men in Tights

With the recent focus on men's tights (yes, tights, as in pantyhose) on almost every news channel here in the UK, the question of whether men should wear make-up has also raised it's head.

It seems that men's tights and make-up are in demand - thousands of pairs of soft, silky tights are sold in super-large sizes every month, and a major retailer here in the UK is about to launch a new range of make-up for men. Although one wonders how it will differ to women's make-up apart from the branding? Perhaps the heavily macho version won't include a waterproof mascara as men don't cry?

When it comes to tights, we can all see the benefit to the Queen's Guards - standing in the freezing cold for hours on end - guarding the bastions of the English monarchy against anarchists, terrorists and stalkers. Or perhaps men could wear them at home to stave off the recent energy price rises. Afterall, it seems that the average UK household may soon be paying 100 GBP per month for their energy bills.

All well and good, except for the very simple question - do women find men in tights, or those with a dash of eyeliner attractive? From my (un)scientific research conducted on a group of smart savvy women (my friends) the response has been overwhelmingly conclusive. No. Howls of laughter, loads of eeeuuuw's, noses crinkled in distaste. And the "I'd run a mile if he took his trousers off and then started peeling off a pair of 10 deniers." It's always useful to put things into context.

Online presence...

What is the point in being on a social or business networking site if you don't put a photograph of yourself on your page? We certainly remember the names of our close friends and those we do business with, however, most of us have hundreds if not thousands of 'contacts' that we have interacted with over the years and the chances of remembering everyone without a visual reminder is slim.

Furthermore, why do these faceless people feel that its ok to connect without any explanation of how you might know each other or why they would like to know you?

The most common explanation that I've heard is that people want to maintain some sort of anonymity or exclusivity and only connect to those who know them really well. A comedy of contradictions - if you only want those who you know to connect then why have an online presence?

And the most fascinating aspect of this is the negative first impression that we have of this faceless brigade. I am sure that I am not alone when I say that I am deeply suspicious of those who attempt to connect as friends or business contacts without a photograph to jog the memory or explanation - what's the point?

An online presence, which is what this boils down to, is a vital aspect of a personal brand. We live in a world where 'googling' others is considered normal - even potential employers check out their applicants online. Very simply, we need to ensure that every experience that others have of our brand is one that represents us effectively. Masked ball's aside, we wouldn't appear at a party or business event hiding our faces - why do this online unless you want to make others suspicious of your intentions?

What do people say about you?

So what do people say about you when you are not there? When we are actually present, we have the opportunity to influence people - perhaps to convince others that we are the right person for the opportunity, the role, the project, the deal. However, more often than not, most of the important decisions are made when we are not present - and this is where our personal brands need to stand up for us.

One way of becoming aware of how you are perceived is to observe how others introduce you. There are usually three elements to an introduction - your name, what you do, and then the interesting bit - some sort of comment about what you do or how you go about doing what you do - which demonstrates how you are perceived by the person introducing you.

The alarm bells should be ringing if you find that you are regularly introduced in a way that doesn't represent who you are and what you do. Worse, they should be clanging loudly if you find that the people introducing you are at a total loss as to what you do - filling in the gaps with inane comments like "he's a good egg". So... if you are a personal trainer trying to build your client base, something useful like "meet Michael, he's a personal trainer who'll get you looking like Adonis in no time" could be reduced to "meet Michael, he's wearing the coolest trainers here".

Powerful personal brands need to be four things – the first is compelling – or in other words - interesting, unique, memorable, different. The second is authentic – we need to be able to ‘show’ not ‘tell’ if we are to be believable. The third is consistent – without a consistency, we will not be trusted. And lastly, we need to be well known to our market or audience. There is little point in being incredibly good at what you do if no one knows about you.

Women in Business

I found Lina Saigol and Roula Khalaf's article in the FT yesterday titled "Women make gains in Arab boardrooms" particularly interesting bearing in mind that I spent three and a half years based in Dubai. From a survey into boards in the six-nation Gulf Co-operation Council, it seems that public companies listed in Oman and Kuwait have more women (2.7 per cent in Kuwait) on their boards than in Italy (2 per cent) and Japan (0.4 per cent).

However, these figures are not representative of the region as a whole where only 30 per cent of woman play a part in their economies versus 55 per cent worldwide. My personal experience of working in the middle east is that women are well respected in business and are a formidable force to be reckoned with. The UAE, in particular, is vitally aware of the impact of having 50 per cent of their 'local' workforce in play - and my impression is that women are encouraged to excel in the workplace.

From a personal branding perspective, I found that the women in business that I met are particularly aware of how they are perceived and the initial impressions that they make. Business is still primarily oiled by relationships and reputations in a far more obvious way than in the UK and USA where the fundamentals are often masked by big company brands. Not that personal brands are necessarily stronger in middle east - rather, they seem to take the lead. I think that we mistakenly rely too heavily on corporate brands in the west - often to the detriment of our careers, and ultimately, the detriment of the companies that we work for.

Style over substance?

I have been working with a client who is in banking over the last few months. With so much turmoil in the markets, she wanted to ensure that her company understood her value. As she should - banking has been hard-hit globally with job cuts reaching frightening proportions and everyone is feeling understandably vulnerable.

It is at times like these that our personal brands really do work hard for us, not only in obvious ways when we are present, but more importantly, behind the scenes where we have little direct influence or control.

We often hear cries of 'style over substance' when discussing making our brands known to our market or audience. This is such a misnomer. Being known for who you are, what you do, and how you do it better is, in most cases, all about subtlety rather than blatant self-promotion.

Job Cuts

This week I was invited to join a panel on BBC Radio Five Live to discuss when those in business, politics and sports should resign. With so much uncertainty in the markets and a frightening number of job cuts reported and predicted, the need for a strong personal brand couldn't be more stark.

And it seems fairly obvious that when people should go is a timing issue. Either an unanticipated disaster has occurred as in the case of Terminal 5, or we want to pre-empt a possible disaster as in the case of Mr Brown. And one can argue that Mr Walsh's management style prevented those who thought that a disaster might occur from raising the issue - and their heads did roll. And the latter, well, we are predicting a rather difficult coming week for the British Prime Minister.

Yet more often than not it is worth seeing a possible disaster through to completion for the greater good of the organisation. In the not too distant past, the constant change of leadership had deeply negative effect on the Conservative Party, leaving voters reluctant to commit.

And it is at times like this when that we see people's personal brands having a profound effect on their futures. We are prepared to weather the storm with those that we can connect to emotionally.

Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson seems to have positioned himself as the “love me or loathe me” candidate in his bid to win the London mayoral race. And while this is inspired marketing for a distinct consumer brand like marmite, it is inappropriate for someone who aspires to taking on the biggest directly elected job in British politics. There seems to be a key factor missing in what we are now referring to as ‘brand Borris’ - that of a statesmanlike quality.

It is clear that a change is needed, however, I believe that Boris is heading in the wrong direction. We learned earlier this week that his team’s strategy appears to be focused on keeping him on a very short leash to avoid blunders and controversy. However, the cornerstone of any personal brand is authenticity. By becoming bland and appearing to conform behind a well-managed mask, he leaves us very little to buy into and we are suspicious of this new Boris. He needs to work his brand to his advantage, not stem its very lifeblood. He won’t win on protest votes alone.

According to a Guardian / ICM poll, trust is going to be the determining factor in who wins this race. The poll reflects that 42% of those questioned believe that Boris is honest, versus 28% for Ken Livingston. So the issue is one of character, which is remarkably unsurprising. No one buys vanilla - people buy people and we like traits and quirks and beliefs – they demonstrate what people stand for and give us something to relate to.

I suggest that Boris considers what his target audience will be interested in ‘buying’ from someone in the role of Mayor of London. He needs to analyse each potential audience that will influence his success and list everything that will be deeply compelling to each. The result will be qualities, expertise and experience that he should then compare to his own. Anything that appears to be weak, missing, or overlooked should be explored and where possible, developed and incorporated into his brand.

The next stage is to communicate and demonstrate all of this through action in a way that will appeal to his target audience. And no, he cannot simply send the spin machine into overdrive or get another haircut… authenticity is vital if he is to be believed.

Naomi Campbell arrested at T5

Yesterday Naomi Campbell was escorted off a flight to Los Angeles at Heathrow's Terminal 5 and arrested for allegedly spitting at an officer after she was told that one of her checked-in bags had been mislaid.

Naomi, who was seated in first class, became abusive towards cabin crew after she was given the option of leaving the flight until her bag was found, or to continue on without it.

Now much has been said about the humiliating failings of Terminal 5, so I won't labour the point, however, spitting is another matter. It seems that Ms Campbell just can't help herself. Her public displays of aggression, rudeness and guttersnipe behaviour are only reinforcing a personal brand that has much to be desired. Do we care, is it really news, is there anything startling about this?

I think not - when it comes to her brand, Ms Campbell is proving to be horribly consistent. The question here is whether this unchecked ego will see any backlash from the audience that she needs to appeal to. I suggest that Naomi gives some thought to how those who might employ her, her friends and supporters, and the general public will react to this. Will they continue to forgive, or are they quite simply, over it?