个人品牌比你想象的脆弱

No one employs an architect whose house falls down, or a plumber whose own pipes burst. So why would anyone hire a branding guru who ruins his personal brand?

没有人会请一个自家房屋倒塌的建筑师，也没有人会请一个自家管道破裂的管道工。那么为什么有人会请一个毁了自己个人品牌的品牌专家呢？

This difficulty confronts Kevin Roberts, chairman of the advertising agency Saatchi & Saatchi and “head coach” of its parent group Publicis. Mr Roberts resigned on Wednesday after provoking Maurice Lévy, Publicis chief executive, with remarks about women in advertising, angering colleagues and giving clients an incentive to fire his agency.

广告公司盛世长城(Saatchi & Saatchi)主席、盛世长城母公司阳狮集团(Publicis)“首席教练”凯文•罗伯茨(Kevin Roberts)就遇到了这种困难。罗伯茨于上周三宣布辞职，因为他有关广告界女性的言论激怒了阳狮首席执行官莫里斯•雷维(Maurice Lévy)，让同事愤怒，并让客户想要炒掉他的公司。

Mr Roberts is discovering something not taught in his books on advertising and branding, including the newly published 64 Shots: Leadership in a Crazy World. Corporate names are resilient: when their images get damaged, a change of management or strategy will often revive their fortunes. But personal reputations are fragile: mess with them and it can be fatal.

罗伯茨正在发现他写的关于广告和品牌塑造的书上没有的东西，包括刚出版的《64招：如何领导疯狂的世界》(64 Shots: Leadership in a Crazy World)。企业名誉是有弹性的：当企业的形象受损时，更换管理层或战略往往会恢复名誉。但个人名誉很脆弱：一旦出现问题就可能是致命的。

The mystery is why he did it. It is not a secret that gender diversity in advertising and marketing is a sensitive topic. Women are far less likely than 66-year-old men such aslike Mr Roberts to sit on the boards of advertising groups such as Publicis. You might as well hang a warning notice reading “Tread carefully” by the subject and another saying, “Don’t embarrass Maurice”.

他为何这么做是个谜。广告和营销界的性别多样化是个敏感话题，这并非什么秘密。与罗伯茨这样66岁的男性相比，女性进入阳狮集团这样的广告公司董事会的机会小得多。你最好是在这个话题旁边挂一块“谨言慎行”的警示牌，再挂一块“别让莫里斯难堪”的牌子。

Mr Lévy himself made a mis-step in May when he downplayed the resignation of the head of the ad agency J. Walter Thompson (owned by rival WPP) after the latter was accused of making racist and sexist remarks. Three of the four members of Publicis’ senior management board are male, including Mr Roberts, while its executive committee comprises 18 men and two women.

雷维本人在今年5月也有失误，当时竞争对手WPP旗下广告公司智威汤逊(J Walter Thompson)的首席执行官在被指发表种族主义和性别歧视言论后辞职，雷维对此的评价轻描淡写。阳狮高管委员会中的4名成员中有3名是男性，包括罗伯茨，同时其执行委员会由18名男性和两名女性组成。

Yet Mr Roberts marched into this territory in an interview with Business Insider. He dismissed the debate on gender parity as “all over”, claimed that many women did not want to be promoted because “their ambition is not a vertical ambition”, and said Cindy Gallop, a former ad executive who campaigns on gender issues had “problems that are of her own making”.

然而，罗伯茨在接受Business Insider采访时触碰了这个话题。他对性别平等的讨论不屑一顾，认为“一切都已结束”，他说许多女性不想被提拔，因为“她们的抱负不是纵向抱负”，并表示主张性别权利的前广告公司高管辛迪•盖洛普(Cindy Gallop)有“自身的问题”。

He is not stupid, so why was he so foolish, patronising and unpleasant? The clue lies in both 64 Shots and Lovemarks, the manifesto full of “provocative ideas” he wrote in 2004. “I am crazy. You should be too,” he declares in 64 Shots, delcaring with hubris, “I’m a serial rule-breaker. The more I’ve infringed, the more success I’ve had.”

他并不蠢，那么他为何如此荒谬、狂妄和令人讨厌呢？从《64招》和《至爱品牌》(Lovemarks)都可以发现原因，后者是罗伯茨在2004年所著的一份充斥着“挑衅性观点”的宣言。他在《64招》中狂妄地宣称：“我疯了。你们应该也疯狂起来。我是规则的连环破坏者。我破坏得越多，我就越成功。”

Mr Roberts is a self-styled provocateur in an industry built on attention-grabbing and slogans. There was a hint of professional jealousy in his denigration of Ms Gallop, an all-out provocateur who devoted a Ted conference talk to the prevalence of pornography and its effect on her sex life. She has also done much valuable work in making gender discrimination shameful.

在一个以吸引眼球和广告语为基础的行业里，罗伯茨是一个自封的破坏者。从他对盖洛普的贬损可以看出职业上的嫉妒——后者是真正的破坏者，她针对色情作品的流行以及它对自己性生活的影响做了一次Ted演讲。她还在宣传性别歧视的可耻方面做了大量有价值的工作。

Dismissing the notion that women are treated unequally may be madness but there is method in it. It stems from the most popular current idea in marketing, that of “earned media”. This is the publicity that brands gain from consumers noticing them and expressing loyalty on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, as opposed to the “paid media” of advertising.

反驳女性受到歧视的观点可能很疯狂，但罗伯茨在这里用了一种方法。它源于当前最流行的营销理念，那就是“免费媒体”。它是指品牌通过客户的关注和在Facebook和Twitter等社交媒体平台上表达忠诚而赢得的曝光度，与广告业的“付费媒体”相反。

The best form of “earned media” are spontaneous (or encouraged by an agency to appear spontaneous) expressions of loyalty to a brand. Companies invest heavily to get campaigns to “go viral” as users deem them funny or striking. “The people who change the dialogue are ‘we the people’, how we receive and share the message,” Mr Roberts said on Bloomberg Television.

“免费媒体”的最佳模式是自发（或者在某机构的鼓励下看起来像是自发）表达对某品牌的忠诚。公司为了让消费者认为它们的广告有趣或吸引人，从而使广告“像病毒般扩散”，不惜花费重金。罗伯茨在彭博电视(Bloomberg Television)上表示：“改变对话的人是‘我们人民’，我们如何接收和共享信息。”

The second best is being noticed, even if what you say is outrageous. Donald Trump is an arch exponent of fusing personal provocation to corporate branding on television and social media, and has extended it to the US presidential election. “He got $400m of earned media because what he was saying was stimulating, provocative, even if somewhat extreme,” Mr Roberts noted of the Republican candidate.

“免费媒体”的次佳模式是赢得关注，即便你说的话很无耻。唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)极为擅长借助电视和社交媒体将个人挑衅和企业品牌推广融合在一起，并将这种模式扩大至美国总统大选中。罗伯茨在谈到这位共和党总统候选人时表示：“他获得了4亿美元的‘免费媒体’，因为他的话很刺激、很挑衅，即使有些极端。”

Mr Roberts believes that companies must adapt to a “Vuca” world full of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, by making their marketing fiercer, stronger and less predictable. They can no longer rely on tightly supervised paid advertising campaigns delivered to a passive audience.

罗伯茨认为，公司必须让营销更猛烈、更劲爆和不可预测，从而适应一个充斥着易变性(volatility)、不确定性(uncertainty)、复杂性(complexity)和模糊性(ambiguity)的“VUCA” 世界。它们不能再依赖受到严格监控的、向被动受众发布的付费广告。

That might be, but companies have safety valves: if a brand campaign goes awry, it can be ditched. If the company strays, it can change its marketing, senior executives and operations, and keep selling products. McDonald’s hamburgers remain their reliable selves, however tasteful or tasteless its ads.

或许如此，但公司有“保险阀”：如果一次品牌推广活动搞砸了，可以放弃它。如果公司偏离轨道，可以改变营销策略，调整高管和运营，继续销售产品。麦当劳(McDonald’s)的汉堡依然是受人信赖的汉堡，无论它的广告看起来多么美味或是不好吃。

Personal brands are different. If you “like to blow shit up”, as Ms Gallop promises on her Twitter profile, there is no escape if a provocation goes wrong. You have no product to fall back on, or executive to fire. An individual brand is indivisible from a personal reputation.

个人品牌有所不同。如果你“喜欢把事情搞砸”——就像盖洛普在其Twitter上的个人简介中承诺的那样——当挑衅出纰漏时，你就逃不掉。你没有可依赖的产品，也没有可以解雇的高管。个人品牌与个人名誉密不可分。

Provocative brand building is like Russian roulette. There is always a temptation to be offensive and flamboyant in order to gain an appearance on television, or a slot at a conference. But if you carry on pulling the outrage trigger, at some point you are likely to “fail exceptionally fast”, as Mr Roberts lamented in his apology.

挑衅性的品牌塑造有些像俄罗斯轮盘赌。人们为了在电视上露脸或者争取会议上的发言机会，而总是忍不住发表攻击性和浮夸性言辞。但如果你持续扣动愤怒的扳机，在某一刻就可能“兵败如山倒”，就像罗伯茨在道歉声明中哀叹的那样。

The warning applies not only to performers but to everyone who builds a personal brand to embellish a career. Fame is useful; infamy is not.

这一警告不仅适用于作秀者，而且还适用于所有打造个人品牌来为事业增色的人。名声有用，但坏名声没用。