In Kafka’s Metamorphosis, a man wakes up one morning and discovers that he has become a bug. What if your brand woke up one morning and discovered it had become a human? And let’s say the human came to your house and knocked on the door. Who would you meet? What kind of person does your brand look like?
I was recently involved in a project where we created some boards of photos of different people, and brought them out to the streets of our little town. We asked people: If such-and-such brand came to life, who would the brand most look like?

The results were surprisingly consistent. Starbucks was compared to a woman best described as a soccer mom. Google was a hip and young Asian guy. And BP was a grumpy middle-aged businessman. This last was, perhaps, a loaded question given that this was months after the oil spill; it’s possible that if we had shown an illustration of Beelzebub, people would have chosen that image instead.
What this simple exercise illustrates is that people project personalities onto brands. Freud was very into the idea of projection – we project onto others what we’re not allowed to feel, or are ashamed to feel. Jung took it further with his concept of archetypes. My hunch is that the complex sensory machines that are humans need to project, simplify, and think in terms of archetypes in order to make sense of the complexities of modern life.
Brand types
I’m thinking there are three different types of brands:
- The brand that we sort of take for granted. We don’t swoon when we see the logo but we trust it. If it were a person, we’d say hello, and perhaps go for a beer at the local bar. I go to my local grocery store every week and like it well enough. But if a competitor opened up down the street, I’d have no hesitation in trying it out.
- The sort of brand that we really, really like. We would like to have dinner with this brand, even go on a date. I feel this way about my Marvis Toothpaste and my Happy Socks. I’ll go out of my way to buy it.
- The sort of brand that we’d bring home to meet our parents. We want to marry this brand. Harley Davidson, Apple, and even Crayola Crayons. People get tattoos of these brands’ logos inked onto their bodies.
As a brand steward, you have to ask yourself: If my brand came to life, who would it be? Who would I like it to be? This is an important question to be asking yourself. Brands are not humans. But people do project human qualities onto brands. And brands have real humans to help them speak and to act on their behalf.
Speaking through social media
There may be no place more important to the development of your brand voice than social media. August Wilson, the playwright, was once asked how he made his characters speak with such strong voices, and he said, “I don’t make them speak; I let them speak.”
It’s more important than ever for brand managers to identify the passion points behind their brand. A perfect example is Nike on its Facebook page; not one post is self-promotional. Instead, each and every post speaks to the passion behind the company.
One might argue that Nike has an incredible marketing budget so it could afford to talk from its passion points; a company that makes dish soap, on the other hand, would have to be more overtly promotional.
That argument just doesn’t hold. Martha Stewart’s magazine and television show, for example, proved that people could be very passionate about homemaking, something one might consider just as mundane as soap.
Every decent book on marketing, business and strategy talks about differentiation. What better way is there to differentiate your brand than letting it come to life and be a voice for the issues that matter to your customers?


Lovely post! The human need to associate feelings with objects is an time-worn tradition. Much like a favorite doll/toy from childhood, why should objects of the digital world be any different? Again, great post. Keep it up.
I’m wondering if this association of feelings with brands has led us to feel better when we buy things (when we are depressed).
Thanks for the comment!
- Joey
I absolutely agree with you on that.
Many companies grab of us while we’re young (deliberately — products aimed at children or inadvertently — products aimed at our parents that we also used as part of the family) as brand loyalty is usually seeded at a young age. How many brands do you use simply because it is either from, or a reminder of, your childhood or a particular memory?
Often children lack vocabulary to express what they think. They rely more on feelings/sensory details to make sense of the world around them, and I think we carry these non-verbal thumbprints of communication into adulthood.
The human mind’s ability to associate feeling with product is a VERY powerful thing
So, April, if I’m reading you correctly – it might be that we form our strongest brand associations as children? And to Joey Tanny’s comment – that there are those comfort purchases. My guess is that there is a whole range of emotions around comfort and safety – and we can tap into those. Then, there are a whole range of emotions around other big senses – like andrenaline rushes. You both have my brain churning.
Ric, it is well documented that children show preference to brands at an early age. A quick Google search yields tons of info from psychologists, marketers and studies. Here’s a good quote from a marketer in an article featured in the Princeton Review (Link: http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=45&articleid=206§ionid=1350) that is a good summation of my point
“Developing brand loyalty among children has become axiomatic among marketers in recent years, a strategy central to the principle of “cradle-to-grave marketing.” As marketing expert James U. McNeal explains, “Children begin developing brand preferences and store preferences in early childhood, even before they enter school. And not just for child-oriented products, but also for such adult-oriented things such as gasoline, radios, and soaps.” McNeal speculates that this tendency is strongly rooted in children’s developmental need to belong (affiliation) and have order in their increasingly complex lives.46″
Children as consumers is a double-edged sword. A very sharp one. On one hand, children are a viable audience for marketing. On the other … they are children, after all.
I do think we are also heavily influenced not only by the instinctive need of safety and comfort like you mentioned earlier, but by what we experience personally, and what we project onto others, like Joey mentioned in his article. But I don’t agree with the statement that “we project onto others what we’re not allowed to feel, or are ashamed to feel.” It misses at least another option that is a slight twist on Joey’s main idea: we project onto others/things what WE WANT them to feel or be for our own personal gain.
For example, a woman in a sour relationship who won’t end it because she wants to believe, projects HER feelings/ideals, of a loving partner onto her cheating spouse, thereby keeping the relationship “intact”. Or keeping in line with branding, a product (that perhaps gained loyalty in childhood) you purchased that really isn’t that great — you know it’s not that great, but it IS super cool — so you buy it anyway with some vague notion that the company is going to make it better … eventually. A lot of tech products could be substituted in the latter example
I think this option fits into Joey’s and your point quite well: we project personalities onto brands — or any other object/person, for that matter — for our own comfort (and sometimes discomfort) and understanding.
It’s so important to find the stories behind the brand, and creating personas is a great way to bring the brand to life. That’s pretty much EXACTLY how I would envision BP as a human. A grump!
Jon Thomas
@Story_Jon
@Storyworldwide
Ric points out that the oil spill probably had a pretty strong effect on BP’s image. This adds a degree of complexity to telling the story when the story itself can be difficult to control. Out of curiosity, how would you characterize Exxon? or Shell? Although Exxon also contributed it’s own natural disaster, the degree that it is a grumpy old man today is much less than BP; time is telling a new story?
Thanks for the comment.
- Joey
Thanks, Jon – and to Joey’s question – yes; wonder how people would ‘see’ the other big oil companies. That would make for an interesting study. In fact; our study was pretty small – I’d love to take it out and poll hundreds/thousands – and wonder what patterns might emerge, especially as different brands are compared.
It would great to see a survey to that extent, where several companies in similar industries are measured and related to ad campaigns and circumstance. It would play a vital role in areas such as crisis management and how to capitalize on quality/product perceptions while formulating brand campaigns.
I think the fact that oil is a very lucrative industry adds to the “old white” persona, and thus public hatred. We hate everything that is successful (See: Yankees, Lakers), especially when gas prices keep climbing during a recession. The spill obviously had a huge effect on brand characterization, but it wasn’t anything drastically different before. It wasn’t a hip teen on top of new trends morphing into a grumpy old man. Same man, now just a little more complacent. Though brand personas/perspectives can be changed over time. (See: Michael Vick brand). There is always hope.
Ric, Your post is crystal clear and really zeroes in on an aspect of social media that I think many companies are struggling with. You are absolutely right that we, conciously or unconsciously, put brands into certain categories, and I love that you use the word archetypes to connect this to how we “humanize” brands. This is a great way to break things down so companies can start making sense of how to translate things into a social media context. Brands already have personalities of their own before the real humans even get to the table.
Look forward to more great info on branding and social media. Your friend from the #usguys twitter stream,
Jackie
In jest I would ask to elaborate on the correlation between relationship phases and the types of brands. Is there a one night stand brand? A brand that appeared to be one way on the surface, but after a short amount of time… was completely different than your initial impression? The “Fatal Attraction” brand (the one that wouldn’t let go… not necessarily rabbit-in-the-pot crazy)?
Then again – maybe there’s some truth to that within this post. If my approach is considered inappropriate – my apologies. That’s not my intent.
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment of letting your brand speak. It’s a fascinating concept. Too often I would imagine the way that idea is brought to fruition is in trying too hard to be different… when I perceive that you need to take the standard message and deliver it uniquely and creatively. That’s when your brand speaks for itself, and not in line with the others.
Great post. Thanks for sharing.
God; not inappropriate at all! We’ve GOT to think through these things; and if you’re hitting on something, then I’m all game. My feeble mind, though, can’t think of how a brand could be THAT crazy – and if it was, what would it mean. I have felt let-down by a brand – say Google, that espouses “do no evil’, than makes interface changes that seem to benefit Google as opposed to it’s users. But to your point; I guess a brand could start of being in your life only in a small way, then work itself into your everyday. Maybe Apple has done that for me, a bit.
Thanks for the comment, Sumner!
A brand where the product meets the image expectations, there can be unshaken loyalty. Think Google and privacy, Nike and child labor (maybe just a rumor), McDonalds and Fast Food Nation (+), these are all issues that because of the image we have, the cognitive dissonance created by the perceived brand personality and the reality of company, we will ignore it, because we “love them”. So one night stands will happen all the time, but when we wake up in the morning and roll over to see X in our bed, we might just kick them out. The real relationships happen when we go out on dates, and build up a gradual familiarity. When was the last time you met someone who told you what their personality was and you believed it? It has to be earned.
PS. This might not apply when working to the downside (see: BP).
I really liked this post.
I like the idea of a company becoming like nike. Being able to post passions and what you are interested in. It makes you feel the company isn’t about money but it has real people that support real things. When people see our brand I want them to see that rather than a money machine
Andrew
Your comment has me thinking… thank you, Andrew!
When I started a web company 14 years ago, someone asked me, “why are you in business”. And I thought to myself, “that’s a dumb question, why to make money, of course”. Over the years, I realized that the world didn’t care if I made money. The world cared if I provided something meaningful. Now, I totally see money as one of many measures of how well we do something that’s meaningful.
Maybe that’s kind of scary – for me anyway. When I was a kid I like things that have to do with knights, chivalry, coat of arms. But as I grew older, I felt they were perhaps too nerdy, so I subdued such things. However I got the coat of arms thing back out of the bag when I designed my logo. Now you got me wondering what sort of image that projects? Was I correct in thinking that that sort of thing is a little nerdy? On the other hand, maybe it’s just better to embrace who I am and not try to be someone else.
I’m a little biased ’cause I proudly wear my “Nerd” label
No, I don’t think it’s nerdy to use a coat of arms as long as it is designed well and fits with the image that you want to project of your company. One question to ask, though: Is your image personal (you are your company) or corporate (you and a partner(s) with a multitude of employees)? Both can give different vibes.
Overall I say be You–but within reason, of course. I think only Lady GaGa is able to get away with being extreme. Not being You get’s old pretty darn quickly (and believe me, I know. I’m working on that for 2011
), because it sucks–self-imposed or otherwise–to wear another’s “skin”.
If you do take up the challenge of being You, let me know how it goes. I’d love to hear of your progress.
Otherwise … good luck.
April
Hi Mike, April,
I agree with April, you need to be yourself, otherwise the dissonance between the perception you are trying to create by your branding and the reality of it will come out. The fact that you are a small business/sole proprietor makes you the brand, so run with it.
Another thing to consider; do you want your brand to stick out? Is your product/service creative, innovative, original? Or would you prefer running with the pack (which is not a bad thing)? Your branding should reflect that…as well as what your target market needs to see/hear.
I’m getting carried away…
Thanks for the comments!
- Joey
Woot woot! RT @Sparksheet What Kind of Person is Your Brand? @RicDragon http://ow.ly/3pIDP #usGuys
First blog post of mine on @Sparksheet What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3pIDP from #brandsconf
RT @RicDragon: First blog post of mine on @Sparksheet What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3pIDP from #brandsconf
What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://dlvr.it/BSL9z
@RicDragon — Just read this ( http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl ) post over on @Sparksheet ! Love it — it's very true. Great job.
RT @RicDragon: First blog post of mine on @Sparksheet What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3pIDP from #brandsconf
What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3pIDP via @Sparksheet by @ricdragon #brandsconf
RT @RicDragon: Woot woot! RT @Sparksheet What Kind of Person is Your Brand? @RicDragon http://ow.ly/3pIDP #usGuys
@RicDragon Just read this article where they gave you a nice shout out http://sparksheet.com/what-kind-of-person-is-your-brand/
RT @RicDragon: Woot woot! RT @Sparksheet What Kind of Person is Your Brand? @RicDragon http://ow.ly/3pIDP #usGuys
Great insights! RT @Sparksheet: And a great one! RT @ricdragon: What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3pIDP #brandsconf
Great points! RT @Sparksheet – What Kind of Person is Your Brand? – http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl
RT @sparksheet: What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://bit.ly/efWixQ
Hmm…I always saw Starbucks as a hipster. RT @Sparksheet Starbucks a soccer mom… What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3qf9x
RT @sparksheet: Starbucks a soccer mom. Google a hip & young Asian guy. What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3qf9x
RT @sparksheet: What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://bit.ly/efWixQ
What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl RT @Sparksheet
What Kind of Person is Your Brand? – http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl // via @Sparksheet
What Kind of Person is Your Brand – http://bit.ly/hsJGd3
What Kind of Person is Your Brand – http://bit.ly/hsJGd3
@Sparksheet asks: What kind of person is your brand? http://is.gd/iRMfX
RT @sparksheet: What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://bit.ly/efWixQ
RT @Sparksheet: Thanks all you wonderful people for the RT's: What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl by @RicDragon
<–sucks at promoting own stuff; so here goes nothing: please read http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl
Would love #usguys feedBACK
RT @RicDragon: <–sucks at promoting own stuff; so here goes nothing: please read http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl
Would love #usguys feedBACK
Great post; great perspective. RT @RicDragon: sucks at promoting; so here goes nothing: please read http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl #usguys
Thankyou #humbled RT @sumnermusolf Great post; great perspective. suck at promoting; so here goes http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl #usguys
@RicDragon "What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://bit.ly/hdCN4S <Very insightful post.
"What type of person is your brand" by @RicDragon http://bit.ly/idzaOn via @sumnermusolf <Nice take on biz personalities.
Stellar post Ric. RT @fredmcclimans "What type of person is your brand" by @RicDragon http://bit.ly/idzaOn via @sumnermusolf
Great read on the personality of a brand. RT @RicDragon: http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl
RT @fredmcclimans: "What type of person is your brand" by @RicDragon http://bit.ly/idzaOn via @sumnermusolf <Nice take on biz personalities.
Which a little person is your mark?: O.K., also Marken sind nicht wirklich menschlich. Aber Leute projektieren P… http://bit.ly/hfTMhd
Which a little person is your mark?: O.K., also Marken sind nicht wirklich menschlich. Aber Leute projektieren P… http://bit.ly/hK15Q7
RT @Sparksheet: Great conversation going on @RicDragon What Kind of Person is Your Brand? http://ow.ly/3sAHe
What kind of person is your brand? http://fb.me/yXudKQJr
No place more important to develop your brand voice than in social media. What Kind of Person is Your Brand? – http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl
RT @Sparksheet – What Kind of Person is Your Brand? – Or what story r u telling? http://tinyurl.com/2dudbyl
What Kind of Person is Your Brand? | Sparksheet: http://bit.ly/ijeSF6
RT @storytellin: What Kind of Person is Your Brand? | Sparksheet: http://bit.ly/ijeSF6
[...] I described in my blog post on Sparksheet, “What Kind of Person is Your Brand?”, people do project persona onto your brand. Determine what voice you want your brand to [...]
[...] do project human qualities onto brands,” Ric Dragon, CEO and co-founder of DragonSearch, professes. “There may be no place more important to the development of your brand voice than social [...]