Online Personal Branding: Processes, Challenges, and Implications

Lauren I. Labrecque,
a
Ereni Markos
b
& George R. Milne
c,

,1
a
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA
b
Quinnipiac University, Hamden, CT, USA
c
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
Available online 3 December 2010
Abstract
This research examines how people manage online personal brands in a Web 2.0 context. Using a novel mixed-method approach and
consenting participants, the authors generated digital brand audits of 12 people and asked undergraduate students and a human resources
professional to judge their profiles (made anonymous), both qualitatively and quantitatively. After comparing these evaluations with participants'
own judgments of their online profiles, the authors conducted long interviews to understand how people manage online profiles and feel about
others' judgment of the content they post. According to these results, people engage in personal branding, though their efforts are often
misdirected or insufficient. They consider personal online branding challenging, especially, during life changes or when managing multiple
audiences.
2010 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Personal branding; Social media; Web 2.0
Information found online provides a digital footprint that
implicitly brands people (Lampel and Bhalla 2007; Madden et
al. 2007). Some information is out of the person's control (e.g.,
what others write about him or her), but much of it is
purposefully crafted and posted. The business world is
beginning to recognize the importance of controlling personal
brands and offering strategic advice about how to project a
desired personal brand identity through the use of different
social media (e.g., Safko and Brake 2009; Schwabel 2009).
New applications enable people to manage their personal brand,
fine-tune their profiles, and share their ideas through blogs,
micro posts, and online discussions. Yet in rapidly changing
online environments, many people remain neither aware of the
scope of information available online nor fully cognizant of the
long-run impact it may have on their reputations (Solove 2007).
Extant literature examines how companies can use the
Internet to build their brands (Holland and Baker 2001;
Thorbjrnsen et al. 2002); other research notes consumer
motivations for using the Internet (Ambady, Hallahan, and
Rosenthal 1996; Cotte et al. 2006; Miceli et al., 2007; Schau and
Gilly 2003). Yet the phenomenon of branding online has not
been examined from a personal perspective, despite its growing
importance. We address this research gap by investigating the
following questions:
1. What is the process that people use, explicitly or implicitly,
to brand themselves digitally?
2. What are the challenges that people face in attempting to
create a personal brand, especially when considering market
feedback?
This investigation also considers personal branding deci-
sions online in light of their accompanying image concerns. We
determine how people react to judgments of their online
identities, which they have crafted to reach their personal
branding goals through specific actions and information
disclosure choices. Unlike previous studies of online expression
on personal Web sites (e.g., Schau and Gilly 2003; Turkle 1995;
Wynn and Katz 1997), we observe both the user (person posting
content) and the viewer (person evaluating the information)
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
www.elsevier.com/locate/intmar

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: llabrecque@niu.edu (L.I. Labrecque),
ereni.markos@quinnipiac.edu (E. Markos), milne@mktg.umass.edu
(G.R. Milne).
1
The authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally.
1094-9968/$ - see front matter 2010 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.09.002
sides of a dyad in a Web 2.0 setting. Furthermore, we examine
not just judgments but also present these evaluations to the
users, creating a feedback loop in order to assess the
effectiveness of their personal branding strategies. In doing
so, we extend the research on self-expression on the Web and
research into how people judge the effectiveness of their public
impressions and the effects of these assessments on their
subsequent behavior (see DePaulo et al. 1987).
We begin by providing a theoretical and contextual
background for this study, including motivations for creating
an online presence, the Web 2.0 environment, and the role of
personal branding. After we outline our methodology, we
discuss the results within the structure of a branding framework
and conclude with limitations and further research directions.
Theoretical and Contextual Background
Motivations for Creating an Online Presence
Pioneering research on Internet use suggests that online
experiences such as chatting, gaming, and engaging in virtual
worlds allow people free and open ways to explore parts of the
self that are difficult or nearly impossible to explore in face-to-
face communications. Digital spaces allow increased open
communication through anonymity and the eradication of real
world boundaries, such as appearance (e.g., race, gender),
physical ability, and socioeconomic status, which may inhibit
identity (Turkle 1995; Wynn and Katz 1997). This space provides
a platform for identity construction where different facets of the
self, or multiple selves, may be explored and expressedas users
become engaged, these identities may become just as real and
important as the roles played in the physical world (Nguyen and
Alexander 1996; Turkle 1995; Wynn and Katz 1997).
As technological advances fueled Internet growth, the
personal Web site emerged as an important platform for self-
expression and self-presentation, as well as a means to learn
more about people (Vazire and Gosling 2004). Self-presenta-
tion, a way for an individual to convey information to others
(Goffman 1959), is the mechanism that allows a person to create
and maintain her brand identity. This social performance can be
compared to a theatre where within each scene of life, the
central actor chooses the appropriate wardrobe, props, and
backdrops to project a desired identity to an audience through
complex self-negotiations, making adjustments in an effort to
maintain a consistent identity (Goffman 1959). Elements within
personal Web pages and social networking profiles such as
personal information, photographs, design, and layout choices
are akin to the wardrobe and props of the theatrical metaphor.
Consumers use brands, institutions, and other commercial
enterprises as vehicles to establish and communicate aspects of
their identity to others through these online visual collages
(Schau and Gilly 2003, p. 386). Oftentimes social motives are
the impetus for their creation, as people use sites as a
communication tool to reach friends and strangers alike
(Schau and Gilly 2003), thus satisfying needs for affiliation
and social connectedness (Zinkhan et al. 1999).
However, social goals are not the only major reasons for
building personal Web sites-for some, the primary motivation is
not centered on being seen by others, but for self-realization
(Hemetsberger 2005). Other non-social motives include
satisfying a need for power through skill development and
mastery of technology and environment (Zinkhan et al. 1999),
and as a stimulating way to pass time and provide entertainment
(Papacharissi 2002; Zinkhan et al. 1999). Still, others are driven
by advocacy and create spaces centered on information
regarding a favorite band, activity, or social cause, as opposed
to oneself (Schau and Gilly 2003).
Web 2.0
Sophisticated technology, Web 2.0 applications, and accessible
personal information offer new challenges for controlling online
personal presence. Compared with the Web 1.0 environment,
Internet usage has grown increasingly complex; instead of just
posting content about themselves users also access third-party sites
such as Facebook as platforms for social networking and digital
branding. People are no longer in complete control of content,
because parts of profiles can be exposed to known friends, as well
as members of the general public, which gives others the power to
add content, often without the profile owner's explicit permission.
When the information appears online, it becomes both permanent
and widely accessible, such that the ownership of online
information is ambiguous and difficult to control (Stelter 2009).
Moreover, norms for posting information and interacting on the
Web are changing, causing conflict across users' different roles
(Kang 2010). New tools and norms add to the complexity of the
environment and concerns regarding personal information (Peltier,
Milne, and Phelps 2009; Phelps, D'Souza, and Nowak 2001).
Despite these concerns, the creation of online personal Web
sites and social media profiles have flourished as the Web 2.0
environment offers tools that simplify these processes and
encourages user generated content. No longer does a person
need to be familiar with complex coding languages or other
technicalities to build Web sites, because virtually anyone can
upload text, pictures, and video instantly to a site from a
personal computer or mobile phone. With technological barriers
crumbling and its increasing ubiquity, the Web has become the
perfect platform for personal branding.
The Role of Personal Branding
The concept of personal branding, first popularized by Tom
Peters (1997) in his article The Brand Called You, has
become increasingly important in the digital age. Once
considered a tactic only for celebrities (Rein, Kotler, and
Shields 2006) and leaders in business and politics, online tools
have allowed personal branding to become an important
marketing task for everyday people (Shepherd 2005). The
premise for personal branding is that everyone has the power to
be their own brand and a person's main job is to be their own
marketer (Peters 1997). This is surrounded by the fear that if
you do not manage your own brand, the power is given to
someone else and chances are that their brand description
38 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
won't be what you have in mind (Kaputa 2005, p. 8). The
concept of personal branding shares roots with personal selling
since oftentimes certain personality traits lead to sales success.
Yet, in personal branding, there is no employer attachment, but
rather an individual is selling herself rather than a company
related brand (Shepherd 2005). In the age of Web 2.0, self-
branding tactics involve creating and maintaining social and
networking profiles, personal Web sites, and blogs, as well as
using search engine optimization techniques to encourage
access to one's information.
Similar to product branding, personal branding entails
capturing and promoting an individual's strengths and unique-
ness to a target audience (Kaputa 2005; Schwabel 2009;
Shepherd 2005). While gaining employment is oftentimes a
goal of personal branding, it is not exclusive; people self-brand
for many social reasons including dating, establishing friend-
ships, or simply for self-expression (Shepherd 2005). Many
personal brand advocates see the process as akin to product
branding (Kaputa 2005; Schwabel 2009), which begins by
defining a brand identity and then actively communicating it to
the marketplace through brand positioning. However, personal
branding entails some unique challenges, which mainly stem
from complexities inherent in the online environment.
One key difference lies in the challenge of segmentation for
personal branding. While the digital age promotes the freedom to
explore multiple selves (Turkle 1995), advocates of personal
branding recommend that a personal branding message be clear
and consistent, creating an air of authenticity. Consequently,
difficulties may arise if a person wishes to create multiple brands
for different audiences. Furthermore, it becomes essential to suppress
stories that dilute the branding message in order to avoid branding
failures (Shepherd 2005). Failures may also become clear during a
first face-to-face meeting if a person does not match the other's
expectations (Frost et al. 2008).
Method
A fully integrated mixed methods research strategy and an
interpretive orientation (Bahl and Milne 2006) was used to
inductively investigate participants' online and branding behaviors
in depth. A mixed method design was employed that combined the
following: (1) creating digital brand audits of 12 participants; (2)
surveying of college students to quantitatively and qualitatively
evaluate the digital brand audits; (3) obtaining qualitative written
assessment of digital audit profiles by an HR professional; (4)
conducting in-depth interviews with 12 participants to learn about
their online and personal branding behavior, their reactions to their
brand audits and judgments by others, and any subsequent changes
in their behavior. Prior to the first stage, we obtained written
permission from participants to conduct the research. Details on the
multiple stages are provided next.
Participants
The purposive sample of 12 participants reflects gender and
age (1825 and 2640 years) criteria. These young adults are
likely to be undergoing lifestyle and career transitions, and we
aimed for an equal representation of men and women. In
conducting the research, we limited our sample to 12, since we
ascertained that more participants would add marginal
explanation. First we tapped our social networks to find people
who would trust us to investigate their digital profiles. We
screened the uniqueness of their names, to ensure our online
searches would produce relevant information. Specifically,
using whitepages.com, we identified the number of persons
with the same name. None of the participants had a name that
they shared with more than 12 people in the United States
(sample average=1.67). Participants received a $20 Amazon
gift certificate for their participation. We present the summary
profiles of the six men and six women who participated in
Table 1.
Conducting Digital Brand Audits
With the information provided by each participant (name,
physical address, and e-mail addresses), two authors (with
extensive online experience) conducted online searches via four
search engines: Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft Live, and Dogpile (a
meta-search engine that compiles results from other search
engines). We also searched MySpace and Facebook pages. If a
social networking site profile was not open, we obtained
permission to access the participants' pages; at the time of the
study, many avenues offered unauthorized or reluctant access to
social network profiles, including third-party applications, friend
of a friend tools, or employers finding ways to gain access. To
further refine our online searches, we used information obtained
from our initial searches, including screen names, affiliations,
activities, and other identifying characteristics.
With this information, we generated a digital brand audit for
each participant. For the cover page, we codified summary
information from the search, including the number of search
results, Facebook and MySpace activity (e.g., number of
friends, posts, pictures), and whether the person owned his or
her domain name or participated in a personal blog. A multi-
page, sanitized profile for each respondent (see Fig. 1 for an
example page) preserved their anonymity with black bars to
cover eyes in photos, names, e-mail addresses, addresses, and
any other personal identifying information. The interior pages
included screen shots from the Web search and representative
Facebook pages. For sites that encompassed multiple pages, we
selected screenshots of the first few pages to create a
representation of the site; for a dense site like Facebook, we
included shots from each of the separate sections (e.g., photos,
wall comments, information page). The number of pages
generated for each informant varied according to the amount
and variety of information in his or her digital brand audit,
ranging from 8 to 16 pages.
Evaluation of Digital Brand Audits
Prior to the interviews, we asked participants to complete a
survey containing 49 items taken from the Big Five Personality
Trait Taxonomy (i.e., openness to experience, conscientious-
ness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism; Digman
39 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
1990; Oliver, Naumann, and Soto 2008; Srivastava 2010) based
on their online personality. We selected undergraduate students
to evaluate the brand audits because they are heavy users of
social media and the Internet. We provided the evaluators with
both oral and written instructions and then passed out 23
profiles for them to evaluate with a survey. Groups of 2530
undergraduate students evaluated 23 participant profiles by
writing down their first impressions of the participant and then
assessing them on the Big Five Personality traits. A post survey
debriefing indicated the task was very engaging and under-
standable. Following the student evaluations, we asked a human
resources (HR) professional at the university to evaluate the
same participant brand audits by providing her first impression
comments. This provided a workplace judgment. For each
participant, we calculated mean ratings of their online
personality, according to the student ratings. For the qualitative
comments, we asked two independent coders (blind to the
study's purpose) to evaluate the open-ended comments on a
scale from 3=positive to 2=neutral to 1=negative. Finally, we
summed the scores created by the two coders and ordered the
comments from 6 (both positive) to 2 (both negative).
Participant Reactions
In the next stage, we conducted long interviews using a semi-
structured question protocol with each participant (McCraken
1988). We began by asking them to openly describe their online
experience, online motivations, and their online branding
strategy, if any. Following this general discussion (which lasted
anywhere from 10 to 30 min), we gave each participant a copy
of the digital brand audit provided to the evaluators, allotting as
much time as they wanted to look over the material. As they
leafed through the packet, participants were encouraged to
discuss what they saw and their motivations for posting the
material. Once they had finished going through the packet and
openly discussing the content of their profiles, they received
summaries of the written comments by the evaluators.
Participants were asked to discuss their reactions to these
comments, comparing their intentions with evaluator judg-
ments; this served as comparison between their brand identity
(what they wished to portray) with their brand image (audience
view) and allowed participants to openly discuss branding
strategy successes and failures. Lastly, after discussing their
reactions to these comments, we presented the participants with
a chart that compared their self-rated online personality
(completed before the interview) with the aggregate judgments
of the student evaluators. The complete interview process thus
lasted from 45 to 90 min. Approximately 2 months after the
interviews, we contacted the 12 participants via e-mail and in
person to discuss any changes they made to their online profiles
and behavior since the interviews. We also had them react to the
accuracy of our interpretations of the data from the interview.
Analysis Procedures
The survey data scales were examined for reliability and
analyzed by calculating descriptive statistics. t-Tests were also
conducted to test for gender differences among the evaluators as
well as age and gender differences among the participants. The
qualitative data were audio recorded and transcribed. They were
listened to and reviewed by multiple researchers. We conducted
both an emic analysis for each participant and an etic analysis to
compare findings across participants. The data were coded by
all three authors and analyzed using standard qualitative
procedures (Seidman 1991; Taylor and Bogdan 1984) and
matrices (Miles and Huberman 1994) were used to assess data
Table 1
Profile of participants.
Pseudonym/
coding
Gender Age Marital
status
Occupation No. of search
results
Profile pages
created
No. of FB
friends
a
Wall post
status
No. of photos
on FB
No. of tagged
photos on FB
No. of web sites
(blogs)
Bobby Male 18 Single College Student 17 8 129 L 13 12
Alex Male 22 Single Dental Student 189 9 487 M 88 125
Brian Male 25 Single Graphic
Designer
125 19 912 H 2086 1076 2 (2)
Maxwell Male 27 Single Engineering
Ph.D. Student
42 10 173 L 77 90
Milo Male 27 Divorced IT Manager 15 16 25 L 116 13 1 (1)
Chris Male 40 Married Pharmaceutical
Consultant
328 11 37 L 18 18
Gina Female 22 Single Fundraiser 11 9 649 WH 31 31
Pamela Female 25 Single Fashion
Designer
35 11 419 WH 190 0
Diana Female 25 Single Model 807 12 497 M 69 86
Clementine Female 27 Single Engineering
Ph.D. Student
46 12 273 M 242 125
Charlotte Female 28 Divorced Professional
Organizer/Artist
8 9 37 L 29 18 1
Coco Female 37 Divorced Photographer/
Teacher
27 15 44 L 22 50 2
a
Light or less than 200, M=201499 or moderate, H=more than 500, or heavy, and WH indicates wall hidden.
40 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
across participants. The results were compared to the literature
in an iterative fashion to arrive at new insights (e.g. Belk,
Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989).
Results
We organize our findings into two sections. First, we report the
descriptive results pertaining to our 12 participants, including a
profile of the participants (see Table 1) and their self-stated online
brand identities. We also present the statistics and examples of
profile judgments by both social and professional evaluators (see
Table 2) and the survey results regarding the average ratings of the
12 participants' self-rated online personality (see Table 3).
Second, we outline the findings from our in-depth interviews
within the structure of a traditional branding framework.
Participants' Brand Audit Profiles
The descriptives in Table 1 indicate a wide range of search
engine results (8807 hits) and social networks activity (25912
Facebook friends). All 12 participants had Facebook profiles,
but only 3 (Brian, Milo, and Pamela) had active MySpace pages.
On Facebook, half of them had few wall (communication) posts
(b200), whereas the other half had a high level (201500). The
Fig. 1. Example of sanititized profile page.
41 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
number of user-submitted photos ranged from 13 to 2086, and
tagged photos ranged from 0 to 1076. In addition to social
networking profiles, 4 participants had personal Web sites, and 2
contributed to blogs.
The qualitative judgments from both social and professional
evaluators indicate a wide range of percentages of favorable
comments, from 17.2% to 83.3%. For some participants, such
as Chris (male, 40), evaluations by the two audiences coincided.
Table 2
Profile judgments.
Participant % Very favorable
comments
Example of social judgment comments HR professional comments
Brian 66.7% This guy is into being his own person, whether it
be through the things he says or the clothing he
wears, which it seems [like] he is going to school
to learn how to design t-shirts and other apparel.
He does not seem to care what other people think
of him.
Artistic, creative... Photos are sophomoric, pornographic and
sarcastic. Funny but mean at the same time.If I were
seeking creative, plugged in people, I would certainly consider him for
design jobs. As a professional person in a mainstream company I
would be concerned about his hip/hop references that are not
politically correct.
Alex 26.9% Alpha male type. Popular with the ladies. Likes
to party. Has terrible taste in movies if he
actually bought National Treasure 2 on Blue ray.
Can be stereotyped as a Meathead.
Initial thoughts: shallow, not very smart, it is all about the party, the
girls and acting coolSeems one dimensional without many other
interests.Concern about the police at parties. Makes me wonder if
he has been arrested or had issues with the police. Not very
impressed.
Bobby 62.9% Younger male, 18, just got Facebook. High
frequency of wall activity=very active on the
site. Into his girlfriend, seems a little whipped.
Likes cars.
Married but interested in women for networking. What would his
wife say if she knew this? If still in college (class of 2012), is he
wanting to be unmarried college student having fun with the other
sex?
Milo 17.2% Obviously this guy is a geek, and even said it
himself. That, combined with him only having 25
friends led me to believe that he does not get out
much. It does not seem like a mean person, just
very independent. He does seem a little bit
artsy/imaginative/creative.
Very interesting person. I would like to meet him, although I feel I
would have a tough time relating. Good valuesimpression based
on his quotes about becoming a person of value and the other being
a vegetarian. Has self-knowledge and comfortable sharing his
storySelf-proclaimed GEEK, expect him to be smart and
articulate.
Chris 83.3% Introverted, Interested in quality not quantity,
very smart, happy, good career, uses FB to keep
in touch with close friends, less for networking.
Smart, professional, intellectual. Ambitious. Get a sense of a smart,
bright person who enjoys his work and has fun social life.
Maxwell 73.1% He seems like an average guy. He is really into
engineering and academia, as well as traveling
and politics He has got a lot of different pictures
of friends, and he has got a lot of different interests.
Rugged, individualist. Smart, well read, intellectual and interesting.
May be snooty, although I tend to doubt it. ..I would consider him
well adjusted, hard working, smart and aware of what is happening
around him in the world. Engaged and focused.
Pamela 72.4% She is all about making these profound
statements and drumming to her own beat. As a
person I think she is an artsy urbanite who
likes to express herself through Facebook as well
as other things.
Very interesting young designer. Able to synthesize cultural
influences and apparel well. Keen observer of others. Last two pages
are somewhat disjointreferences and graffiti weird. Not sure
where this comes fromor the super poke dialogue.
Gina 77.7% Highly educated and interested in literature and
culture. Sociable, seems to have many friends.
Physically attractive, athletic, inspired by
spirituality, art, and music. Driven, independent,
out-going.
Difficult to understand this personnot much to work with. Her
favorite quotes assume she wants other to think she is not like others
from another world. .Is she showing us her body. Not her face?
To me it is like many photos young women put uptheir bodies.
Diana 57.1% Seems like she enjoys going out with friends,
partying and having a good time. She takes
modeling pretty seriously, and her friends know
about it and she posts pictures online.
One-dimensional. Nothing really about her from heronly
comments from others. She is obviously interested and enjoys being
recognized and being on stage. She likes being looked at and being
recognized
Clementine 75.0% This person is really smart. This person is
also very worldly. She seems to be very outgoing but
she also likes to express her sadness. She also
seems likes she likes to joke around.
Well educated, smart and engaged in her professional life
(appearances at conferences, etc.) I do not see a lot of her own
commentshard to determine the type of person she is.
Coco 83.3% It seems like she does not have a lot of friends but
she has more closer friends. She likes elegant
things and pays attention to details. She is relaxed
most of the time and spends time observing
things around her.
Artistic, fun loving. Enjoys spending time with friends.
Entrepreneurial, free spirit. Rather than show who you are
through your own words, you will show me what is important to you
through your photos.
Charlotte 50.0% It was really tough to get a read on this person.
She seems to have a love for art and animals.
Also, she does not show a lot of care for things
such as letting her cat sit on her laptop and not
staying in touch with home to get messages.
She does not have a lot of friends.
Artistic, images indicate interest in culture references. Sexual
overtones in thissome photos suggestive as well as a post, I'm
feeling horny. Her mother has posted a message hereappears to
be a very open person.
42 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
But in other instances, such as for Bobby (male, 18), the
evaluations differed, likely because the HR professional did not
understand Facebook social norms and found the material posted
unprofessional and inappropriate. Sample quotes from judges in
both audiences are presented in Table 2.
In our analysis of the survey data the five-personality trait
coefficient alphas ranged from .77 to .92. Overall, we note that
there are no differences for the five personality traits based on
the gender of the judges (pN.05). However, there were
differences in personality traits among the participants based
on age and gender. Older (ages 2640) participants, compared
to younger (ages 1825) participants, were judged to be more
open to experience (pb.01) and conscientious (pb.01).
Younger participants were seen as more extraverted than
older participants (pb.01). In terms of gender, female
participants were judged to be more open to experience (p b
.01) and more agreeable (pb.01) than male participants.
Table 3 contains the comparison of participants' online
personality perceptions with student judgments. We tested the
self-evaluations to determine if they fell within the 95%
confidence intervals surrounding the judgment sample. For
example, the mean for Brian's (male, 25) open to experiences
rating was 3.63 (five-point Likert scale), which was statistically
significantly lower than the student sample's mean judgment of
4.33 (standard deviation=.37). Overall, most self-evaluations
differed statistically from the judgment samples (51/60 total),
mostly due to the strong tendency in the self-ratings to rate
higher on extraversion (8/12 participants) and lower on
neuroticism (10/12 participants) compared with the students'
judgments. Therefore, self-judgments appear inaccurate and
subject to particular biases, which contrasts with the accuracy
of identifying others' true selves through Internet chatting
(Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons 2002) and personal Web
sites in a Web 1.0 context (Vazire and Gosling 2004). These
differences may be likely reflective of how outside influences
in a social media platform (e.g., the ability of friends to post
information like comments and photos) can alter intended
branding messages.
Table 3
Comparison of participants' online self-judgment and social judgments.
Participant rating Openness to experiences Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism
Brian judgment 4.33 (.37) 3.03 (.56) 4.50 (.40) 3.32 (.60) 2.87 (.66)
Brian self 3.63 3.38 4.75 3.63, ns 1.50
Alex judgment 2.50 (.62) 2.60 (.54) 4.30 (.45) 2.78 (.71) 3.08 (.52)
Alex self 3.63 3.38 4.25, ns 3.88 2.00
Bobby judgment 3.00 (.52) 3.36 (.62) 2.88 (.78) 3.43 (.46) 2.98 (.54)
Bobby self 4.38 4.00 4.88 4.50 1.50
Pamela judgment 4.28 (.42) 3.46 (.49) 3.61 (.74) 3.78 (.46) 2.79 (.47)
Pamela self 4.00 2.88 4.13 3.25 2.13
Gina judgment 3.88 (.45) 3.45 (.62) 3.67 (.76) 3.91 (.50) 2.81 (.69)
Gina self 3.88, ns 3.63, ns 3.75, ns 2.88 1.50
Diana judgment 2.83 (.47) 3.30 (.46) 4.19 (.43) 3.13 (.59) 2.94 (.54)
Diana self 3.88 2.5 3.75 4.00 2.00
Milo judgment 3.87 (.60) 3.23 (.56) 2.64 (.70) 3.21 (.62) 3.03 (.54)
Milo self 4.50 3.25, ns 4.75 3.75 2.50
Chris judgment 3.71 (.63) 4.05 (.42) 3.13 (.78) 3.55 (.77) 2.85 (.43)
Chris self 3.88, ns 3.63 2.75, ns 2.88 3.13
Maxwell judgment 3.81 (.62) 3.84 (.46) 3.40 (.47) 3.29 (.66) 2.78 (.57)
Maxwell self 4.38 1.88 3.75 3.38, ns 3.38
Clementine judgment 3.57 (.60) 3.32 (.54) 3.39 (.71) 3.42 (.47) 3.31 (.43)
Clementine self 3.13 4.00 3.88 2.88 2.50
Coco judgment 4.04 (.69) 3.28 (.59) 3.23 (.74) 3.64 (.61) 2.57 (.52)
Coco self 5.00 4.25 3.75 5.00 1.50
Charlotte judgment 4.03 (.63) 2.85 (.59) 3.13 (.90) 3.63 (.51) 2.83 (.60)
Charlotte self 4.50 3.63 4.25 4.75 2.00
Total
a
Self NJudgment 7 6 8 6 2
Self =Judgment 2 2 3 2 0
Self bJudgment 3 4 1 4 10
Young (1825)
a
Self NJudgment 3 3 4 3 0
Self =Judgment 1 1 2 1 0
Self bJudgment 1 2 1 2 6
Old (2640)
a
Self NJudgment 4 3 4 3 2
Self =Judgment 1 1 1 1 0
Self bJudgment 2 2 0 2 4
Notes: standard deviations appear in parentheses.
a
Number of times participants' self-ratings were greater than, equal to, or less than student judgments.
43 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
Challenges in Managing an Online Personal Brand
In presenting our qualitative results, we expand upon our
findings within the structure of a conventional branding model,
which involves developing a brand identity, using this informa-
tion to position the brand, and then assessing the brand image
(Aaker 1996). Following traditional branding practices, brand
identity is defined as how the marketer wants the brand to be
perceived; brand positioning as the part of the brand identity to be
actively communicated to the audience; and brand image as how
the brand is perceived by the marketplace. This process reflects a
dynamic environment where future efforts depend on prior
marketplace assessments of the brand's image.
Brand Identity
In an online context, personal brand identity relies on self-
presentation as identities are created in computer-mediated
environments using social networking profiles, blogs, and
personal Web pages. In our data, most participants had a
branding strategy (though not always an effective one) to
manage their online information and were conscious of their
online efforts, especially through Facebook and other social
networks. Participants could name a brand that best represents
their online persona. Some, such as Brian (male, 25) and Milo
(male, 27), were quick to name existing brands, whereas others
took time to think of a fictitious brand or slogan to fit their
identity. Thus, self-branding is evident and important for some
but not for all. Brands acted as metaphors for the image the
participants wanted to portray and often conveyed what they
showed or the demographic to which they were trying to appeal.
Alex (male, 22) identified his brand as Diesel Jeans; he is
someone who likes to go out and is into the club scene. Milo
(male, 27) said his brand was Google, reflecting his IT
background and ability to access information. Others saw
themselves as a fashion brand such as The Gap (Gina, female,
22), an automobile such as Toyota Corolla (Diana, female, 26),
or a lifestyle magazines like Dwell (Coco, female, 37), such that
the personality of the metaphorical brand reflected the image
they were trying to convey online. Overall, these participants
embraced the concept of self-branding.
Many participants admitted to using personal Web and social
networking sites actively as tools to construct their personal
brand identity. Brian (male, 25) described his use of multiple
profiles and sites to construct his personal brand, which he
regards as tools to position himself:
It's just a matter of, lack of better terms; it's like making a
commercial for your product. If you are selling toothpaste,
it's toothpaste at the end of the day but you want it to be a
fun toothpaste that everyone wants to brush. It's just a
presentation, you know.
Other participants, like Bobby (male, 18), conveyed that they
purposely construct their online identity to parallel their offline
one: I try to portray the same image with everyone. I don't want
to seem two-sided or two-faced. I'm the same way at work, I
act the same way. Creating a brand identity that either parallels
or differentiates fromthe offline self seems to be an online norm.
Chris (male, 40) noted, It's kind of an outlet for people, that
even if they aren't who they really are. They can project
somebody it's a myth or a parallel personality of them.
All 12 participants agreed that they intentionally crafted their
online profiles through information management to maintain
their brand identity. Although users were the proprietors of their
profiles, they realized that others contributed to the creation of
their identity through content they provided in the form of
comments and photo tagging.
Brand Positioning
Brand positioning refers to the active communication of
one's brand identity to a specific target market. Individuals use
brand positioning to highlight their positive attributes that are of
value to their target audience while at the same time
differentiating themselves from other individuals in the
marketplace. For personal online branding, brand positioning
occurs through impression management. In an online context,
this is done by maintaining a consistent image through choices
to reveal pieces of personal information through blogs and
disclosure on sites such as social networks. A key challenge for
our participants was deciding what information to post online,
after filtering out information that was not aligned with their
branding strategy. In addition to demographic information,
profiles included information, such as lists of favorite books,
music, quotes, and movies, as well as photos. Sites such as
Facebook permit abundant third party plug-ins that enable users
to disclose increased information, beyond the standard elements
of an average profile. Users choose which parts of their profiles
they will populate and who may have access to this information.
Similar to actors on Goffman's (1959) stage, the participants
chose their props (pictures, applications) and dress (informa-
tion) to create meaning through self-presentation to others.
Participants realized this process and even discussed how
their intentional choice to not disclose certain types of
information was part of their brand identity strategy. Both
Pamela (female, 25) and Gina (female, 22) chose not to display
their Facebook wall (a feed that displays users submitted status
updates and friends' comments), reasoning that It creates
mystery, makes people [ask] why don't you have a wall
(Pamela). Pamela also regarded Facebook as a function of its
information content: What am I feeding them? Its a machine,
you feed it. People can't make assumptions of you unless you
are providing them certain information. This statement under-
lies the essence of personal branding; people make disclosure
decisions that are mostly reflective of their intended messages.
However, as our interviews reveal, messages, hence branding
efforts also can be misconstrued.
The permanency and widespread availability of messages are a
particular cause for alarm, as reflected in participants' responses.
For example, Maxwell (male, 27) described the importance of
careful brand positioning: When someone's missing the point,
that's what's frustrating because people's opinions are formed and
it's like, well, it's tough to change, first impressions are powerful.
44 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
Some participants considered the key to a successful
branding strategy to be authentic, such that it captured a slice
of the real self. They expressed caution about manipulating the
online audience into thinking they were someone other than
what they appeared in real life. Furthermore, they criticized
others whom they considered inauthentic for trying too hard to
portray an online brand identity far removed from their real one.
For example, there was a disdain for people who put up many
obviously posed pictures:
It's a fake reality; you want to make people perceive you a
certain way. You'll even see that people are sitting in
particular angles. Some people you see never really change
their angle. They're always like their left cheek or their right
cheek or blurry or far awayIt's too fake. (Coco, female, 37).
Similarly, Charlotte (female, 28) felt disregard toward people
who present themselves in an obviously fake manner:
There are some people who I am definitely like who wrote
your profile for you? (laughs) because I start talking to
them and I'm like, this is not how you represented yourself,
you're a completely different person They're probably
trying to make themselves appear more interesting and
therefore be more likely to have people that they find
interesting or attractive talk to them but they don't see it is
really sort of self-defeating because then I'm like I really
don't want to talk to you.
Brand Image Assessment
Brand image depends on information posted by the focal
person, information posted by others, and the marketplace
reaction to the presented information, which generally is based
on visible behavior, nonverbal behavior, and other observable
cues (Ambady, Hallahan, and Rosenthal 1996). Participants used
their own experience and feedback (comparing their self-stated
branding goals with those from the written assessments and
personality judgments) to determine whether they had achieved
their branding goals. The mismatches between their self-stated
goals and judgments by others represent branding failures. We
categorize these as either Insufficient Branding or Misdirected
Branding and present related findings in the following sections.
Many participants found the brand image assessment exercise
enlightening. As Gina (female, 22) noted, Seeing yourself from
somebody else's eyes, it's allowing you to see what other people
think of you, especially people that have no idea about the person
that you are. However, Pamela (female, 25) described the
feedback in terms of multiple audiences online. Similar to many
others, she acknowledged that the Internet allows her the freedom
to portray an online brand identity, but she considers difficulties
involved in managing brand perceptions for the vast number of
potential viewers. As she noted during her interview:
It was very interesting. It has made me more conscientious, yeah
because I always knowall these things, but reading the feedback
fromother people and just like, having validation good or bad of
your online self, it's just interesting. It just makes you that much
more aware that in society there is more than one person and the
Internet person is more than one person.
For others, the feedback was upsetting and prompted them to
make changes, because they realized that their actions could result
in unfavorable judgments. Alex (male, 22), a dental school student,
revealed:
I definitely want to change some of that stuff, the more recent
stuff because I'm going to school and new friends will see this
stuff, maybe I should add that I went to the Habitat for
HumanityYeah, I was shocked. The police thing was awful. If
I had a Blackberry I would take it down now. Some I control and
some I can't.
Although assessing their brand image through this feedback
mechanism was new to most of our respondents, Charlotte
(female, 28) indicated that she already monitors her profiles and
gathers feedback. The Internet medium has allowed her to be
more open, which encouraged others to be more open in their
judgments and feedback to her. She viewed this exchange as a
powerful tool, not only in terms of crafting her online brand
identity but also as a means to gain insight into her psyche:
I've actually sort of uncovered more about myself from the
people who have found me because like Yeah, it's just the
things that you're oblivious to. And this sort of medium has
allowed that come out because people tend to be more free
because you aren't talking face to face, I mean howdo you tell
someone I admire you so much. You don't do that in person.
Brian (male, 25) echoed these remarks when describing the
active monitoring of his profiles. He manages multiple brand
identities, targeted at different audiences, and devotes consid-
erable time to personal branding and image assessment. He was
not surprised by the results of the profile judgments, because:
I think they are great, it's a very good cross of, nobody is
really wrong, these are all things that I've known, none of
this is surprisingThat is why I spend time to get to know
what people think of me. It's not enough to change my life.
But it keeps you in check.
Insufficient Branding
Information disclosure choices that resulted in insufficient
branding appeared to be largely a function of the participant's age
and desired use for the social community. Most of the 12
participants were older than the students who were evaluating
their profiles (see Table 1). The students were critical of the
participants' lack of friends and low number of wall posts; these
evaluators drew implications and attributions from observing the
number of friends listed. For example, in evaluating Milo's (male,
27) profile, one student wrote, Obviously this guy is a geek, and
even said it himself. That combined with him only having 25
friends led me to believe that he doesn't get out much. In reaction
to these judgments, many participants emphasized that they were
social in the offline world. Several also indicated they were going
to take corrective steps to alter their profiles to correct for this
45 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
insufficient branding: Yeah, I don't want to seem like a loser.
That I don't socialize, because I do. Well, I have to post more
social pics, so I'll be like everyone else now (Bobby, male, 18).
The pressure to conform is thus strong, even for the older
participants. Coco (female, 37) believed that though she was
actively involved with Facebook, it was something she was forced
to keep up with:
I may be against [it], even though I am not against personal
relations, I believe people need to be social, but I'magainst these
types of things, but I also have to be realistic and realize that the
world is going into that and so I need to keep in touch with it.
For some, insufficient branding occurred not because of a
lack of content but because they failed to emphasize their
desired message, which led to a mismatch between brand
identity and image. As Maxwell (male, 27) contended:
I don't like when people say average though, let me say that.
I actually want to make seem like I'm not average. That
actually gets me upset. That's probably the one thing that, I
think I said that early on. I said I wanted to make it seem
like I'm not typical, like I don't do typical things, which is
probably like some of the reasons why I do have some
music stuff there because most people won't have like, so,
so I don't know why they think I'm average.
Maxwell (male, 27) was following a specific branding
approach and thought that his minimal, yet highly selective
disclosure choices accurately portrayed his identity. His contrived
branding effort failed, which resulted in intense frustration:
I would think it's more frustrating than anything else because
on the balance, well at least, even people who view me
favorably, I don't think they get the point of what I was trying
to do. They look at like, oh, he's good smart guy and he likes to
do this, but that's not what I'm trying, that's not the point.
The key finding is that participants confront a tension to use
platforms to promote their personal brands and keep in touch
with others, but also minimize the potential violations that can
dilute or tarnish their brand. When asked why she chose to
display her home address, Coco (female, 37) noted the tension
she faces between promoting her brand identity as a
professional photographer and the need to safeguard her
personal safety. If she does not disclose personal information
such as her home address (which is also her business address)
she may suffer insufficient branding because potential clients
could question her legitimacy. She states:
People want to knowwhere you are, where you live, they want
to see that you're a legitimate photographer that you're not just
coming out of a shack somewhereso it gives people more
trust, they trust you more if they know more about you.
Misdirected Branding
After learning what others thought of their branding efforts,
most participants decided to make changes, often to correct
misdirected branding. Most of the misdirected comments
centered on actions by others who posted content inconsistent
with their brand identity, which could result in serious
consequences if seen by the wrong target audiences. As noted
by Pamela (female, 25):
I didn't want something on my wall that maybe, one of my
friends thought as funny basically, I didn't want to have to
take responsibility of [what] someone else is saying on my
page. And you do ultimately do take responsibility on
what's on your page.
Misunderstandings often involved the language used and
message conveyed. Bobby (male, 18) chose to display
married as his relationship status (to indicate he was in an
exclusive relationship) and reacted negatively to the judgments
of many college students, who considered him dominated by his
girlfriend. The HR professional thought he might be cheating on
his wife. Bobby believed everyone would understand he was
joking when he listed married as his status, but he became
upset when this playful signal was misinterpreted negatively.
The greatest misdirected branding occurred when wall posts
or pictures could be seen by professional audiences that could
negatively impact future careers. For example, Bobby (male,
18) had not regulated what he disclosed on his Facebook site but
said he was going to remove sensitive items that might be seen
by prospective employers. Chris (male, 40) nicely summed up
the potential harms of a social networking site infrastructure that
allows others to make changes to his profile:
I mean your resume, you take time and effort to put together
a resume that speaks to your accomplishments, your skills,
your know experience, expertise in different things and the
fact that two years ago you got drunk at a party and
somebody took a picture of you that should be a deciding
factor in whether you are hired or not.
Other participants also noted this challenge, echoing similar
concerns, especially the younger participants who were embark-
ing on their professional careers. Some participants were aware of
these misdirected branding follies but simply had not considered
the professional ramifications of content that had been posting
many years prior. This point underscores the importance of
assessing brand image, especially when embarking on new life
paths. These real concerns have serious consequences for
participants like Alex (male, 22), who declared:
If there is a picture of me drinking I'll take it out yeah but
looking at this it brings up a good point to ah, to take that stuff
off, I'll probably go home and delete it oh yeah! That's bad
you kind of just look at it like, a picture of me and a girl,
drinking that's bad. I'mnot drinking out of a McDonald's cup
here, yeah, I'll definitely go home and take these pictures off
and dumb wall comments I'm trying to be a doctor, and I
don't want to see that. For all I know some patient, will write
[his name] in Google, and this will pop up.
Later in the interview, Alex (male, 22) also reacted negatively to
the HR professional's disapproving comments about the t-shirt he
was wearing in a photo. He told us that the identity he was trying to
46 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
portray was centered on his professionalismand good guy image.
He had forgotten out-of-date parts of his profiles and had not
checked for consistent messages, which meant he neglected to
realize that he was wearing a t-shirt with an inappropriate message.
As he continued to view his profile, he recognized:
No, this is bad. My no Bitch t-shirt in this picture doesn't
help. I'm going to untag everything I wouldn't want those
I'm interviewing for, or down the road my patients, seeing
this stuff.
As his experience illustrates, people often do not consider
how others will interpret and judge them on the basis of small or
even forgotten pieces of information. Life events, such as career
changes, may prompt users to reevaluate their brands; in this
case, Alex had forgotten that potential harmful photos from his
past were still available online but wanted to fix them before he
became a practicing dentist.
The issue of pictures and other information being posted
without a person's consent was another key cause for concern.
The profile of Clementine (female, 26) included a photograph of
her with a professional male colleague at a conference. The
caption included her name and implied she had been drinking
heavily. It also hinted that she was inappropriately involved
with a married man. Therefore, just one photo had the potential
to tarnish her brand identity as a smart and professional graduate
student. She also felt a loss of control, because this photo was
posted without her consent, and she did not know how long the
photo had been available online, nor could she directly remove
her name from the image. This concern was shared by Gina
(female, 22):
It's just that things can be perceived very different from
what they are and I just don't want to be you know, the
center of attention and being judged that is not coming out
of my mouth directly. A picture says a thousand words and
the wrong wordsthey aren't coming out of my mouth so I
don't want people to judge me off a picture.
Moreover, pictures posted by others could clash with a user's
brand identity intentions; Brian's (male, 25) preferred brand
identity was not congruent with someone in a happy
relationship:
So she posted all our pics up and I'm fine, means she is
happy with the relationship. But I'm a little more selective
about that. Sometimes. I don't need everyone to know who
I'm dating, this is an online thing and you never know who
will stumble upon it.
Because information can be taken out of context, mis-
construed, or misinterpreted, brand image judgments may lead
to optimum, insufficient, or misdirected branding, depending on
whether the identity and image perfectly balance. Similar to
online dating (Frost et al. 2008), insufficient branding may have
negative repercussions for personal branding efforts through
faulty impression management, where poor disclosure decisions
can harm a personal brand image. Branding literature
recommends remedial actions in all these cases: reinforcement
for optimal branding, augmentation for insufficient branding,
and deleting or diffusing for misdirected branding.
Optimizing Branding
In the last stage of research, we conducted follow-up
interviews regarding any adjustments the participants took to
achieve the optimum branding strategies. Milo (male, 27)
indicated that his strategy for segregating his multiple brand
identities had become less effective due to new site technolo-
gies, like Facebook's friend suggestion feature. Facebook
suggested he add some of his work friends to his non-work
profile, but Milo made it clear that he wanted to maintain two
identities, targeted at separate audiences. His two identitiesa
professional IT manager versus an avid partier hired on nights
and weekends to perform laser and lighting showsdo not mix,
and if one were exposed to the other audience, Milo believed his
brand identities and reputation would be in jeopardy. Since this
tool was likely suggesting his other profile to coworkers, he
informed us:
I'm beginning to re-think using Facebook. It's kind of
creepy that Facebook knows so much about me and because
of this it's probably opening up holes where others can see
my profile. The last thing I want is for people I don't want
finding me to find me because Facebook has added this
feature. If something better comes along, I'll probably start
using it.
Milo was not the only participant in our sample who
described the importance of a strategy for segregating multiple
audiences. Despite their desire to self-brand, new features added
layers of difficulty, resulting in user frustration. Such frustra-
tions may build until users decide finally to switch platforms
and find another that offers better tools and features in support
of their goals.
Other changes included removing offensively tagged
pictures, removing pictures they originally posted, taking
down undesirable wall posts, or, in some cases, removing the
wall altogether. Notable changes marked the Facebook profiles
of Coco, Bobby, and Alex. For example, Coco (female, 37)
recently had been married and had a child. She noted in our
follow-up conversation that she did not intend to post any
photos of her newborn child on her Facebook page, even as she
experienced pressures to do so from her Facebook friends who
live overseas. At the end of the interview, Coco said she
remained undecided and perhaps would post one or two pictures
to appease her friends. Bobby (male, 18) added new photo-
graphs to his profile, as he indicated he would, to depict himself
in more social settings (e.g., drinking at a party). He also
changed his status from married to single and reduced the
number of pictures of his girlfriend. He disclosed that for a short
time, when not in this relationship, he removed his couple
photographs and opted for more party-going images. Once
back in the relationship though, he again removed the party
pictures and uploaded his couple pictures. Bobby's behavior
epitomizes the challenges people face in different life stages,
when their personal brand identity changes and they must adjust
47 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
their brand positioning to suit that new identity or audience.
These shifts, just a couple of months after the initial interviews,
suggest the optimization process is quite fluid and must be
reconsidered frequently.
Discussion
The evidence herein supports the idea that people both
explicitly and implicitly brand themselves using content they
place online. In some situations, the branding efforts are
underdeveloped, whereas in others they seem misdirected. Our
research reveals that social network profile pages are the
primary mechanism that people use for self-branding. Profes-
sional information displayed in the profile, in terms of education
and work experiences, is important, as are pictorial accounts of
their social life and the public conversations posted.
In developing their brands, some of our participants aimed to
be authentic and criticized others whom they believed were not.
They expressed caution in response to shallow attempts to
manipulate them with ingenuous content, such as staged photos
or biased text. Such findings parallel recent work that reveals
that realistic (opposed to overly idealistic) identity representa-
tions are common practice for social networking site users
(Back et al. 2010). Some participants even discussed their
withdrawal from social networks because of their dissatisfaction
with the way others portray themselves. Gina (female, 22), who
primarily used Facebook for networking and finding lost
friends, began enforcing tighter privacy settings and reduced her
usage, because of the way people portray themselves, it's
become very cheap. Our findings thus relate to the concept of
authentic branding, which pertains to both traditional (Holt
2004) and personal (Kaputa 2005) branding. In both cases,
authenticity enhances message receptivity and relationship
quality. Being seen as inauthentic may be a direct result of
failed segmentation, as different brand identities clash and
create a mixed message. Those trying to segment multiple
audiences need to take extra caution as the risks for inauthentic
representation increase.
Although people have some control over the brand they
portray, their personal brand is also shaped by those with whom
they associate (i.e., friends and friends' friends) and the
comments and pictures they post. Yet, friends may fail to
distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate information
sharing. The display of some information may make persons
vulnerable to brand dilution or evoke negative repercussions,
including professional, financial, and physical harms. This is
likely the reason for many branding failures and may explain
why oftentimes our evaluators' judgments did not match our
participants' intended brand identity. While past research
suggests that people can make accurate judgments of others
based on personal Web sites (Vazire and Gosling 2004), this
research finds that these outside influences likely altered
participants' intended branding messages.
The tensions that arose are due to relationship imbalances.
The participants seemed either too cautious or not judicious
enough with their information disclosure choices. Some had
experienced violations resulting from misdirected branding and
therefore took evasive action and changed their brand
positioning strategy. Conservative online behavior also left
some participants under-branded and misunderstood. With
user-generated content, there is always the potential for risk.
A pervasive theme in our interviews revealed how branding
strategies evolve. Designations of appropriate material changed
over time, usually due to natural lifestyle progressions, such as a
shift in employment or family status. Managingmultiple identities
and audiences thus is an ongoing process, and our participants
found it particularly difficult to brand both their personal life and
their work life accurately. These fragmented identities are
reflective of Turkle's (1995) and Boyd's (2008a) findings that
consumers adopt various personas in online environments.
Evidence also suggests that people try to separate their worlds,
because employers consider it appropriate to investigate employ-
ees' participation in social networks (LaVallee 2009). As Boyd
(2008a,b) notes, social networks eliminate distance, including
that which once separated professional and social domains. While
many may attempt to devise strategies to separate their identities,
the rising need for authenticity requires people to rethink such
strategies. Indeed, many new tools being developed on the Web
are geared toward linking identities rather than keeping them
separate. Applications such as HootSuite and Open Social help
people link all their social accounts, such that they can post a
status change simultaneously on multiple sites. These tools may
make branding easier, but they also increase the potential for
misdirected branding.
Conclusions
This research offers key insights into the phenomenon of
online personal branding. While social networking platforms
such as Facebook and MySpace provide value to members,
users may become displeased if actions and terms that can harm
their branding strategies, such as changes in content control and
new features, are enforced by the company. In this case, the
value becomes threatened, and users may migrate to new sites
that offer mechanisms more synergistic with their branding
efforts. Such exoduses from one social networking site to
another reveal historical trends, from Friendster to Live Journal
to MySpace to Facebook, as users show no reserve about
leaving a site that no longer suits their needs (Sutter 2009).
Brands that have created profiles and invested in a site also face
substantial losses in the event of member migration to a
competing company. If the host site and other vested parties
hope to avoid such devastating consequences, they must
understand and react to user motivations and concerns.
Our investigation highlights how individuals self-brand
through the use of social media and the issues they face during
this process. More specifically, our research puts forth the
following points. First, branding is inevitable when participat-
ing in an online environment. While the majority of participants
were cognizant that they were self-branding, we find that people
do not always realize the potential negative outcomes that may
result from their actions. When dealing with multiple brand
identities (and diverse audiences), users often become frustrated
if they lack the devices to portray their message accurately to
48 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
their target audiences. Moreover, we find that self-branding
practices require feedback mechanisms to succeed and be
meaningful.
Second, we find a substantial dialectic pressure between self-
branding and information control. Online personal branding
requires information be available to others; by the very nature of
the online world, this availability puts people at risk in terms of
misdirected and insufficient branding. Our evidence suggests
that misdirected branding has greater implications for profes-
sional status, whereas insufficient branding is more critical for
social status. In some cases, branding also is affected by third-
party content, which requires vigilance by the user.
Finally, managing multiple online personas is increasingly
difficult, and separating social and professional worlds appears
nearly impossible without the proper mechanisms for control.
The drive to develop an authentic online brand may require an
approach to transmit a single perspective that can transcend
professional versus social distinctions.
Limitations and Further Research
Our participants reported on their activities during a brief
moment of time. In this fast moving digital environment new
technologies such as mobile applications and Twitter have
become more widely available for personal branding purposes
since we conducted our study. Due to our participants' usage,
this research is mainly focused on Facebook profiles, the tool
used by all 12 participants and the largest social networking
application at that time. In addition, the age of the participants in
our purposive sample varied only slightly; most were in their
20s, with only two individuals over the age of 35 years. This
younger sample may not represent the branding issues faced by
older participants. Similarly, the social judgments by the
undergraduate student population reflected particular behavior-
al norms, on which they based their assessments. Other
populations of judges likely would produce different reactions.
However, because the informants and judges were relatively
close in age, we attain a realistic social comparison, and by
using 2530 student evaluators per profile, we obtained a
substantive and non-idiosyncratic perspective.
Although we mention that some people have a need to
segregate multiple audiences and highlight the hardships they
face, the paper leaves unanswered the question of whether this
separation is truly possible. By allowing all the information
about our participants to be seen by the evaluators, the design of
our study almost certainly created branding failures for many.
However this design allowed us to explore peoples' reactions to
potential branding failures, discuss possible implications, and
reinforce the importance of segmentation strategies and tools.
We chose participants with unique names for this research,
however additional challenges are presented for those with
more common names. People with unique names should be
vigilant in monitoring their online brands because they can
easily be found via a simple search. As Maxwell (male, 27)
noted, My name is fairly not common, so it's easy to find
something. But I imagine if I was someone with a common
name you wouldn't bother because there's no way to like, it's
too time consuming to find yourself. Despite this, people with
common names should also closely track their personal brand as
well as information about others with the same name since there
is a chance of being mistaken for someone else. Evaluations of a
blog post, social networking profile, or news story of a mistaken
person with the same name may have detrimental effects on a
branding strategy. People with common names may want to
clearly differentiate themselves from others to avoid confusion.
Differences in personal brand management between people with
common versus unique names may be an area of future
research.
Additional research should include more heterogeneous
evaluators and extend the framework to various cohorts and
cultures. The Internet is a global medium, so understanding how
cultural factors influence personal brand actions could offer
insights for companies operating internationally. Moreover, our
findings suggest that personal branding efforts vary according
to a person's life phase, which suggests that a longitudinal
perspective would be helpful. Finally, ongoing research should
examine how evolving applications like Twitter, with its quick
impressions and few data points, influence perceptions and
personal branding efforts.
References
Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Ambady, Nalini, Mark Hallahan, and Robert Rosenthal (1996), On Judging
and Being Judged Accurately in Zero-Acquaintance Situations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 3, 51829.
Back, Mitja D., Juliane M. Stopfer, Simine Vazire, Sam Gaddis, Stefan C.
Schmukle, Boris Egloff, and Samuel D. Gosling (2010), Facebook Profiles
Reflect Actual Personality, Not Self-Idealization, Psychological Science,
21, 3, 3724.
Bahl, Shalini and George R. Milne (2006), Mixed Methods in Interpretive
Research: An Application to the Study of the Self Concept, in Handbook of
Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing, Russell W. Belk, editor.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 198218.
Bargh, John A., Katlyen Y.A. McKenna, and Grainne M. Fitzsimons (2002),
Can You See the Real Me? Activation and Expression of the True Self on
the Internet, Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1, 3348.
Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry Jr. (1989), The
Sacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,
Journal of Consumer Research, 15, September, 13967.
Boyd, Danah (2008a), None of This Is Real, in Structures of Participation in
Digital Cultures, Joe Karaganis, editor. New York: Social Science Research
Council, 13257.
(2008b), Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck, Convergence: The Interna-
tional Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14, 1, 1320.
Cotte, June, Tilottama G. Chowdhury, S. Ratneshwar, and Lisa M. Ricci (2006),
Pleasure or Utility? Time Planning Style and Web Usage Behaviors,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20, 1, 4557.
DePaulo, Bella M., David A. Kenny, Claudia W. Hoover, William Webb, and
Peter V. Oliver (1987), Accuracy of Person Perception: Do People Know
What Kinds of Impressions They Convey?, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 30315.
Digman, John M. (1990), Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor
Model, Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 41740.
Frost, Jeana H., Zoe Chance, Michael I. Norton, and Dan Ariely (2008), People
Are Experience Goods: Improving Online Dating with Virtual Dates,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22, 1, 5161.
Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York,
NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday.
49 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750
Hemetsberger, Andrea (2005), Creative Cyborgs: How Consumers Use the
Internet For Self-Realization, in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume
32, Geeta Mennon, Akshay R. Rao, editors. Duluth, MN: Association for
Consumer Research, 65360.
Holland, Jonna and Stacey Menzel Baker (2001), Customer Participation in
Creating Site Brand Loyalty, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 4,
3445.
Holt, Douglas (2004), How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of Cultural
Branding. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kang, C. (2010), Is Internet Privacy Dead? No, Just More Complicated:
Researchers. (available at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/
03/is_internet_privacy_dead_no_ju.ht [Accessed March 16, 2010]).
Kaputa, Catherine (2005), UR a Brand! How Smart People Brand Themselves
for Business Success. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Lampel, Joseph and Ajay Bhalla (2007), The Role of Status Seeking in Online
Communities: Giving the Gift of Experience, Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 12, 2.
LaVallee, Andrew (2009), Bosses and Workers Disagree on Social Network
Privacy.. available at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/05/19/bosses-and
workers-disagree on-social network privacy/ [Accessed March 3, 2010]).
Madden, Mary, Susannah Fox, Aaron Smith, and Jessica Vitak (2007), Digital
Footprints: Online Identity Management and Search in the Age of
Transparency. Pew Internet and American Life Project. available at www.
pewinternet.org [Accessed March 19, 2010]).
McCraken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Miceli, Gaetano Nino, Francesco Ricotta, and Michele Costabile (2007),
Customizing Customization: A Conceptual Framework for Interactive
Personalization, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 2, 625.
Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman (1994), Qualitative Data
Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nguyen, Dan Thu and Jon Alexander (1996), The Coming of Cyberspacetime
and the End of the Polity, in Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real
Histories, Living Bodies, Rob Shields, editor. London: Sage, 99124.
Oliver, John, Laura Naumann, and Chris Soto (2008), Paradigm Shift to the
Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy, in The Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research, 3rd edition, O.P. John, R.W. Robins, L.A. Pervin,
editors. New York: The Guilford Press, 11459.
Papacharissi, Zizi (2002), The Self Online: The Utility of Personal Home
Pages, Journal of Broad- Casting & Electronic Media, 46, 3, 34668.
Peltier, James W., George R. Milne, and Joseph E. Phelps (2009), Information
Privacy Research: Framework for Integrating Multiple Publics, Information
Channels, and Responses, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 2,
191205.
Peters, Tom (1997), The Brand Called You, Fast Company, 10, August, 83.
Phelps, Joseph E., Giles D'Souza, and Glen J. Nowak (2001), Antecedents and
Consequences of Consumer Privacy Concerns: An Empirical Investigation,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 4, 217.
Rein, Irving J., Phillip Kotler, and Ben Shields (2006), The Elusive Sports Fan,
Reinventing Sports in a Crowded Marketplace. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Safko, Lon and David K. Brake (2009), The Social Media Bible: Tactics, Tools,
and Strategies for Business Success. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Schau, Hope J. and Mary C. Gilly (2003), We Are What We Post? Self-
Presentation in Personal Web Space, Journal of Consumer Research, 30,
December, 385404.
Schwabel, Dan (2009), Me 2.0: A Powerful Way to Achieve Brand Success. New
York: Kaplan Publishers.
Seidman, I.E. (1991), Working with and Sharing InterviewMaterial, Interviewing
as Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shepherd, Ifan D.H. (2005), From Cattle and Coke to Charlie: Meeting the
Challenge of Self Marketing and Personal Branding, Journal of Marketing
Management, 21, 589606.
Solove, Daniel J. (2007), The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy
on the Internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Srivastava, Sanjay (2010), Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors.. available at
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.html [Accessed March 16, 2010]).
Stelter, Brian (2009), Facebook's Users Ask Who Owns Information.. available
at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.
html [Accessed September 9, 2009]).
Sutter, John D. (2009), Can Once-Cool MySpace Stage a Comeback? (available
at http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/09/myspace.comeback/index.html
[Accessed September 9, 2009]).
Taylor, Steven J. and Robert Bogdan (1984), Working with Data, Introduction to
Qualitative Research Methods. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
Thorbjrnsen, Helge, Magne Supphellen, Herbjrn Nysveen, and Per Egil
(2002), Building Brand Relationships Online: A Comparison of Two
Interactive Applications, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16, 3, 1734.
Turkle, Sherry (1995), Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet.
New York: Touchtone.
Vazire, Simine and Samuel D. Gosling (2004), e-Perceptions: Personality
Impressions Based on Personal Websites, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 12332.
Wynn, Eleanor and James E. Katz (1997), Hyperbole over Cyberspace: Self-
Presentation and Social Boundaries in Internet Home Pages and Discourse,
Information Society, 13, 4, 297327.
Zinkhan, George M., Margy Conchar, Ajay Gupta, and Gary Geissler (1999),
Motivations Underlying the Creation of Personal Web Pages: An
Exploratory Study, in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 26, Eric
J. Arnould, Linda M. Scott, editors. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 6974.
50 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 3750