個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?
沒有人會請一個自家房屋倒塌的建築師，也沒有人會請一個自家管道破裂的管道工。那麼爲什麼有人會請一個毀了自己個人品牌的品牌專家呢？
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.
廣告公司盛世長城(Saatchi & Saatchi)主席、盛世長城母公司陽獅集團(Publicis)“首席教練”凱文•羅伯茨(Kevin Roberts)就遇到了這種困難。羅伯茨於上週三宣佈辭職，因爲他有關廣告界女性的言論激怒了陽獅首席執行官莫里斯•雷維(Maurice Lévy)，讓同事憤怒，並讓客戶想要炒掉他的公司。
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.
羅伯茨正在發現他寫的關於廣告和品牌塑造的書上沒有的東西，包括剛出版的《64招：如何領導瘋狂的世界》(64 Shots: Leadership in a Crazy World)。企業名譽是有彈性的：當企業的形象受損時，更換管理層或戰略往往會恢復名譽。但個人名譽很脆弱：一旦出現問題就可能是致命的。
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”.
他爲何這麼做是個謎。廣告和營銷界的性別多樣化是個敏感話題，這並非什麼祕密。與羅伯茨這樣66歲的男性相比，女性進入陽獅集團這樣的廣告公司董事會的機會小得多。你最好是在這個話題旁邊掛一塊“謹言慎行”的警示牌，再掛一塊“別讓莫里斯難堪”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.
雷維本人在今年5月也有失誤，當時競爭對手WPP旗下廣告公司智威湯遜(J Walter Thompson)的首席執行官在被指發表種族主義和性別歧視言論後辭職，雷維對此的評價輕描淡寫。陽獅高管委員會中的4名成員中有3名是男性，包括羅伯茨，同時其執行委員會由18名男性和兩名女性組成。
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，羅伯茨在接受Business Insider採訪時觸碰了這個話題。他對性別平等的討論不屑一顧，認爲“一切都已結束”，他說許多女性不想被提拔，因爲“她們的抱負不是縱向抱負”，並表示主張性別權利的前廣告公司高管辛迪•蓋洛普(Cindy Gallop)有“自身的問題”。
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.”
他並不蠢，那麼他爲何如此荒謬、狂妄和令人討厭呢？從《64招》和《至愛品牌》(Lovemarks)都可以發現原因，後者是羅伯茨在2004年所著的一份充斥着“挑釁性觀點”的宣言。他在《64招》中狂妄地宣稱：“我瘋了。你們應該也瘋狂起來。我是規則的連環破壞者。我破壞得越多，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.
在一個以吸引眼球和廣告語爲基礎的行業裏，羅伯茨是一個自封的破壞者。從他對蓋洛普的貶損可以看出職業上的嫉妒——後者是真正的破壞者，她針對色情作品的流行以及它對自己性生活的影響做了一次Ted演講。她還在宣傳性別歧視的可恥方面做了大量有價值的工作。
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.
反駁女性受到歧視的觀點可能很瘋狂，但羅伯茨在這裏用了一種方法。它源於當前最流行的營銷理念，那就是“免費媒體”。它是指品牌通過客戶的關注和在Facebook和Twitter等社交媒體平臺上表達忠誠而贏得的曝光度，與廣告業的“付費媒體”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.
“免費媒體”的最佳模式是自發（或者在某機構的鼓勵下看起來像是自發）表達對某品牌的忠誠。公司爲了讓消費者認爲它們的廣告有趣或吸引人，從而使廣告“像病毒般擴散”，不惜花費重金。羅伯茨在彭博電視(Bloomberg Television)上表示：“改變對話的人是‘我們人民’，我們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.
“免費媒體”的次佳模式是贏得關注，即便你說的話很無恥。唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)極爲擅長藉助電視和社交媒體將個人挑釁和企業品牌推廣融合在一起，並將這種模式擴大至美國總統大選中。羅伯茨在談到這位共和黨總統候選人時表示：“他獲得了4億美元的‘免費媒體’，因爲他的話很刺激、很挑釁，即使有些極端。”
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.
羅伯茨認爲，公司必須讓營銷更猛烈、更勁爆和不可預測，從而適應一個充斥着易變性(volatility)、不確定性(uncertainty)、複雜性(complexity)和模糊性(ambiguity)的“VUCA” 世界。它們不能再依賴受到嚴格監控的、向被動受衆發佈的付費廣告。
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.
或許如此，但公司有“保險閥”：如果一次品牌推廣活動搞砸了，可以放棄它。如果公司偏離軌道，可以改變營銷策略，調整高管和運營，繼續銷售產品。麥當勞(McDonald’s)的漢堡依然是受人信賴的漢堡，無論它的廣告看起來多麼美味或是不好吃。
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.
個人品牌有所不同。如果你“喜歡把事情搞砸”——就像蓋洛普在其Twitter上的個人簡介中承諾的那樣——當挑釁出紕漏時，你就逃不掉。你沒有可依賴的產品，也沒有可以解僱的高管。個人品牌與個人名譽密不可分。
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.
挑釁性的品牌塑造有些像俄羅斯輪盤賭。人們爲了在電視上露臉或者爭取會議上的發言機會，而總是忍不住發表攻擊性和浮誇性言辭。但如果你持續扣動憤怒的扳機，在某一刻就可能“兵敗如山倒”，就像羅伯茨在道歉聲明中哀嘆的那樣。
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.
這一警告不僅適用於作秀者，而且還適用於所有打造個人品牌來爲事業增色的人。名聲有用，但壞名聲沒用。
