THE TRUE BRAND
I agree with both the original post and the comments made by dpnoble (on the comments page).
I think the question really comes down to this, “what is exactly is meant by a brand (as dpnoble said), what does it represent, and how is it expressed?”
Is a brand an expression of the inherent nature of the formulating individual (or individuals in the case of a company or corporation) and does the individual who created the brand adapt that brand over time to changes in their own nature and personality and achievements (in which case to me that is a perfect Brand or Marque for that individual), or does the brand-creator seek to create a static, unchanging, unadaptable, unreal, or “fixed brand or image” to which they seek to conform themselves for the sake of the brand no matter what they are really like?
If a brand is a Flexible Mark that expresses both individuality and flexibility over time (as well as makes a statement about certain unchanging things, such as ethics and morals and character, etc.) and that establishes a natural association between the brand itself and the actual individual who created the brand then I think branding (in that sense) is both perfectly logical, and entirely valid and profitable.
If branding is merely the fixing of a stale and static image or artificial set of characteristics to which the individual attempts to conform or comport themselves, then branding is to me a very big mistake and likely to be highly ineffective as either a business or a personal tool. The brand will eventually become transparent and noticeable for it’s overt hypocrisy rather than for its integrity and truth. What you really want is a True Brand that is not separate or divorced form whom it truly represents.
The Man should be the Brand, the brand should not be the man…
Wyrdwend 