1/3 There’s no advantage whatsoever to hiring marketers who have their own ‘Klout’ because personal branding is the opposite of corporate branding.
2/3 If I were looking for a marketer, I’d look for somebody who hasn’t bothered to create a personal brand
3/3 but instead took actions that won their (sic) previous employer a lot of ‘Klout.’
Damned if I can see the contradiction here, purportedly between corporate and personal branding: It seems obvious that you can (and will, willy-nilly) build your own personal brand precisely while you’re working intelligently and profitably for your company. Unless you prefer — or your company policy dictates and enforces — anonymity, which is pretty damned shortsighted of it, word of your accomplishments will inevitably “leak out” to interested parties. You will earn personal clout, which is helpful and important to both employee and employer, if not Klout, which of course is neither.
Content is King
Content is King and Sharing is Queen
Content is Not King
Content is King. Distribution is Queen
Content is no longer king
Content is king Context is Queen
Content is not King Connectivity is
Content is critical but relevance is king
The Biggest Myth in Blogging: Why Content is Not King
Thinking of getting a tattoo that says “content”
To which, throwing my own hat into this dubious and overexercised debate, I would respond: No, Content is Not King. Attention is King. In the end, it all comes back to what, as marketers, we all face: The Attention Economy, and how we can manage to wrangle that most increasingly precious of things, because it’s most increasingly scarce, your attention. Content, by the way, is (or should be!) one of the chief ways we gain your attention.
I must give props to very similar, perhaps identical, understandings of this matter. First, to Chris Brogan, who, back in the ancient days of 2009, blogged that “content is not king. You are.” And secondly to Augie Ray, who, more recently in 2013, blogged that “customer experience trumps content.” I think that to the extent there is any real disagreement between these differently-rendered diktats, it lies only in the unfortunate binary opposition between content and something else that both Chris and Augie at least implicitly adhere to. This is especially true of Augie’s otherwise excellent take. Consider this argument, for example: “Your friends may be funny, insightful or informative, but are they your friends because of what they say or because of who they are?” Gee, seems pretty obvious to me that this establishes a quite unnecessary and ultimately obfuscating opposition: Clearly, my friends are funny, insightful, or informative BECAUSE of “what they say” (among other things, of course); how else could I possibly know “who they are”? (And, yes, that indeed goes for “brand relationships,” too.) For me, in any case, and I suspect for Chris and Augie, as well, good (appropriate, relevant, truthful, helpful) content is part and parcel of any intelligent digital (or non-digital) marketing strategy fashioned for your unique needs, realities, and circumstances. So there needn’t be any implied or explicit either/or or yes/but opposition here.
The most important decision you make is to be in a good mood…
Guess I’m just in a real bad mood, then, because I find this bit of inspiration to be distinctly uninspiring and, uh, worthless. Oh, sure, it’s certainly better for you, and all around you, if/when you’re in a good mood. But telling people that this is a decision they can make is kind of silly and can only backfire when they find out, no, you really can’t talk yourself into a good mood when you’re in a bad mood or in some kind of mood that cannot be described so simplistically as either good or bad. It’s like telling someone to be happy when they’re really pretty sad, or don’t be nervous as they’re (nervously) taking the stage in front of a maybe-hostile audience. Better just attempt as best you can to take into account your mood — whatever that they may — at the time you’re making real decisions.