Drag My Brand to Hell: #InfluenceProject and the Last Kings of Scotland

Preface: I know its uncouth to ever sound detracting of a trend in social media because "people follow others who speak positively," however its that mentality which holds development back and limits growth. This approach flies in the face of the trusted, honest counsel that people rely upon to make tough decisions.

But this is Govloop afterall, not Fast Company, so like most posts this will just be an exploration of a sermon to the talented and wicked good looking choir. The subject we explore is not pandemic in our government community, but rest assured like radical ideology it always lingers on the fringes awaiting it turn.

And thus, I must admit given the current climate of artificial personal branding aggrandizement and its ill effects on legitimacy and authenticity, I thoughtfully prefer to drag my brand to Hell.

....

Since the dawn of the Social Media era we have suffered the machinations of the self-anointed gurus, experts, mavens and roustabouts - a class of self-promoters born in part through economically tough times - and partly through the example set of those who seemingly hustled their way to success during these tough times.

These alpha-personally branded "{Insert silly nouns} of Social Media, Facebook, Twitter etc," incidentally generally receive their grandiose if not delusional titles from antiquated newspaper staff eager to translate the importance of social media to a readership that was once largely ignorant to its influence.

"Never heard of Twitter, readers? Well this is the Rocky Balboa of Twitter, the Pied-Piper of Facebook, the Kirk Cameron of MySpace, and now you know how important this is."

Would they have bestowed such blessings on these personalities had they known they would ridden like a horse whipped into action until exhausted into grisly demise I know not..

Now Fast Company has rolled out the #InfluenceProject, what appears to be a promotional scheme that replaces analytics with grain alcohol alchemy in a grand effort to identify who is the "Most Influential Person Online." It goes without saying that none of the people generally considered to be truly influential are coming within WiFi's reach of this scheme, however as one would expect the title of "Most Influential Person Online" is personal brand accolade too tempting to pass up for the Idi Amin's of Social Media.

This misadventure is so blatant that one might expect this to be an elaborate episode of Dateline NBC on "To Catch an Online Predator" with the #InfluenceProject winner greeted by Chris Hansen upon receiving the big prize.

But what does this matter to us, to people in government, non-profits, the ones actually doing the work and not "thought-leading" as a primary occupation and title?

Still to this day I hear of departments, firms, and leaders who somehow get hoodwinked into devoting funds and resources to these scourges, especially on the state and local level. And I for one cannot abide by it, for every time one of these personal branding zealots sell their saccharine-laden wares to organizations - which ultimately backfire - it squanders much needed funds, detracts from the adoption of healthy practices, and in some cases, makes decision-makers gun shy about given new ideas another chance. I see it every day.

Therefor, I reject the concept of the contrived personal brand. I look for imperfections in glassware that are the mark of authenticity. And I when given the choice between valuing fabricated personas based on shallow thought leadership and goofy titles, and looking towards the fine souls with some grit beneath their fingernails, I will take the latter by the hand.

The #InfluenceProject is the swansong of the contrived personal brand, make no mistake. For once nonsense becomes quantified and 2+2= "Everything that's wrong with the movement," then even the pedestrian followers will notice that something is rotten in Denmark.

And then our efforts will be that much easier.