Watching the buffoonery of the house antitrust panel inquiry felt more like watching a burlesque show than a legitimate investigation that would discover anything enlightening or hold any companies accountable for their actions. Of course Amazon, Google, Facebook and Apple stifle competition. Of course they all have a monopoly in their respective fields, and of course, like all capitalists, they dominate the competition by buying them or somehow eliminating them. But here’s the kicker – they all became successful and built their monopolies by creating something that added value to the consumer experience. They became successful mostly because of this reason and not because they set out to dominate an industry by being the biggest (like so many misguided startups who raised money just for the sake of becoming big). They are successful because of the services and products that resonated with consumers. Capitalism at its best.
Each of the four leaders of their respective companies evoked a different reaction in me, which ultimately reaffirmed my feeling and belief of their respective brands. It highlighted for me the power of brand identity and how a company is deeply intertwined with the brand persona of the leadership.
The question is – which is more powerful in defining the brand – the person or the company?
If you watch the documentary on Jeff Bezos (“Amazon Empire – The Rise and Reign of Jeff Bezos”) you’ll see how he has made a remarkable personal transformation from a geeky wannabe businessman to a 10,000-pound gorilla who seems to be trying to channel James Bond. The success of the brand has helped define the leader.
Tim Cook is consistent much like Apple has become. Steady and reliable, but not creative. The excitement of the brand stalled since the passing of Steve Jobs. I no longer expect anything awesome, exciting and risky from them. The Apple brand is holding onto the legacy of the original visionary under the steady guidance of its current leadership. The brand has changed since the loss of Jobs and Tim Cook is holding the baton.
Mark Zuckerberg needs no introduction. He stumbled upon his fortune based on a program “Facemash” that would rate people on whether they were hot or not. Seriously. He (Zuckerberg) / It (Facebook) still seems to have no guiding principle or integrity no matter how hard he/it masquerades as something else. The brand will still engage with the highest bidder who clicks report on how popular he/it is. Not so popular with Millennials and Generation X who seem to have more integrity and social conscience than most. The brand and the person are synergistic.
If you asked 100 people who the CEO of Alphabet Inc. is, most of them wouldn’t know how to spell Sundar Pichai’s name or pick him out of a line up – or that Google is the subsidiary of his company. Much like Google, he is faceless and has no real known personality traits other than the fact that he earned his degree at the Indian Institute of Technology in Metallurgical Engineering. A go-to reliable source that we trust and use. The brand is one of the same.
All companies start with a vision. This vision is implemented and carried forward by its founder and leader who is ultimately the most powerful brand ambassador. His or her actions and words will help define the company brand and direction. When there is a change in leadership, something changes. Either the brand conforms to the new leader, or the leader evolves with the brand of the company.
Let’s do this.
-Shaun