Online Personal Branding: Processes, Challenges, and Implications

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50www.elsevier.com/locate/intmar

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, USAb 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 andconsenting participants, the authors generated digital brand audits of 12 people and asked undergraduate students and a human resourcesprofessional 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 aboutothers' judgment of the content they post. According to these results, people engage in personal branding, though their efforts are oftenmisdirected or insufficient. They consider personal online branding challenging, especially, during life changes or when managing multipleaudiences.© 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 thatimplicitly brands people (Lampel and Bhalla 2007; Madden etal. 2007). Some information is out of the person's control (e.g.,what others write about him or her), but much of it ispurposefully crafted and posted. The business world isbeginning to recognize the importance of controlling personalbrands and offering strategic advice about how to project adesired personal brand identity through the use of differentsocial 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 changingonline environments, many people remain neither aware of thescope of information available online nor fully cognizant of thelong-run impact it may have on their reputations (Solove 2007).

Extant literature examines how companies can use theInternet to build their brands (Holland and Baker 2001;

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.I. Labrecque),

[email protected] (E. Markos), [email protected](G.R. Milne).1 The authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally.

1094-9968/$ - see front matter © 2010 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation,doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.09.002

Thorbjørnsen et al. 2002); other research notes consumermotivations for using the Internet (Ambady, Hallahan, andRosenthal 1996; Cotte et al. 2006; Miceli et al., 2007; Schau andGilly 2003). Yet the phenomenon of branding online has notbeen examined from a personal perspective, despite its growingimportance. We address this research gap by investigating thefollowing 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 tocreate a personal brand, especially when considering marketfeedback?

This investigation also considers personal branding deci-sions online in light of their accompanying image concerns. Wedetermine how people react to judgments of their onlineidentities, which they have crafted to reach their personalbranding goals through specific actions and informationdisclosure choices. Unlike previous studies of online expressionon personal Web sites (e.g., Schau and Gilly 2003; Turkle 1995;Wynn and Katz 1997), we observe both the user (person postingcontent) and the viewer (person evaluating the information)

Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

38 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

sides of a dyad in a Web 2.0 setting. Furthermore, we examinenot just judgments but also present these evaluations to theusers, creating a feedback loop in order to assess theeffectiveness of their personal branding strategies. In doingso, we extend the research on self-expression on the Web andresearch into how people judge the effectiveness of their publicimpressions and the effects of these assessments on theirsubsequent behavior (see DePaulo et al. 1987).

We begin by providing a theoretical and contextualbackground for this study, including motivations for creatingan online presence, the Web 2.0 environment, and the role ofpersonal branding. After we outline our methodology, wediscuss the results within the structure of a branding frameworkand conclude with limitations and further research directions.

Theoretical and Contextual Background

Motivations for Creating an Online Presence

Pioneering research on Internet use suggests that onlineexperiences such as chatting, gaming, and engaging in virtualworlds allow people free and open ways to explore parts of theself that are difficult or nearly impossible to explore in face-to-face communications. Digital spaces allow increased opencommunication through anonymity and the eradication of realworld boundaries, such as appearance (e.g., race, gender),physical ability, and socioeconomic status, which may inhibitidentity (Turkle 1995;Wynn andKatz 1997). This space providesa platform for identity construction where different facets of theself, or multiple selves, may be explored and expressed—as usersbecome engaged, these identities may become just as real andimportant as the roles played in the physical world (Nguyen andAlexander 1996; Turkle 1995; Wynn and Katz 1997).

As technological advances fueled Internet growth, thepersonal Web site emerged as an important platform for self-expression and self-presentation, as well as a means to learnmore 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 createand maintain her brand identity. This social performance can becompared to a theatre where within each scene of life, thecentral actor chooses the appropriate wardrobe, props, andbackdrops to project a desired identity to an audience throughcomplex self-negotiations, making adjustments in an effort tomaintain a consistent identity (Goffman 1959). Elements withinpersonal Web pages and social networking profiles such aspersonal information, photographs, design, and layout choicesare akin to the wardrobe and props of the theatrical metaphor.

Consumers use brands, institutions, and other commercialenterprises as vehicles to establish and communicate aspects oftheir identity to others through these online “visual collages”(Schau and Gilly 2003, p. 386). Oftentimes social motives arethe impetus for their creation, as people use sites as acommunication tool to reach friends and strangers alike(Schau and Gilly 2003), thus satisfying needs for affiliationand social connectedness (Zinkhan et al. 1999).

However, social goals are not the only major reasons forbuilding personal Web sites-for some, the primary motivation isnot centered on being seen by others, but for self-realization(Hemetsberger 2005). Other non-social motives includesatisfying a need for power through skill development andmastery 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 drivenby advocacy and create spaces centered on informationregarding a favorite band, activity, or social cause, as opposedto oneself (Schau and Gilly 2003).

Web 2.0

Sophisticated technology, Web 2.0 applications, and accessiblepersonal information offer new challenges for controlling onlinepersonal presence. Compared with the Web 1.0 environment,Internet usage has grown increasingly complex; instead of justposting content about themselves users also access third-party sitessuch as Facebook as platforms for social networking and digitalbranding. People are no longer in complete control of content,because parts of profiles can be exposed to known friends, as wellas members of the general public, which gives others the power toadd content, often without the profile owner's explicit permission.When the information appears online, it becomes both permanentand widely accessible, such that the ownership of onlineinformation is ambiguous and difficult to control (Stelter 2009).Moreover, norms for posting information and interacting on theWeb are changing, causing conflict across users' different roles(Kang 2010). New tools and norms add to the complexity of theenvironment and concerns regarding personal information (Peltier,Milne, and Phelps 2009; Phelps, D'Souza, and Nowak 2001).

Despite these concerns, the creation of online personal Websites and social media profiles have flourished as the Web 2.0environment offers tools that simplify these processes andencourages user generated content. No longer does a personneed to be familiar with complex coding languages or othertechnicalities to build Web sites, because virtually anyone canupload text, pictures, and video instantly to a site from apersonal computer or mobile phone. With technological barrierscrumbling and its increasing ubiquity, the Web has become theperfect platform for personal branding.

The Role of Personal Branding

The concept of personal branding, first popularized by TomPeters (1997) in his article “The Brand Called You,” hasbecome increasingly important in the digital age. Onceconsidered a tactic only for celebrities (Rein, Kotler, andShields 2006) and leaders in business and politics, online toolshave allowed personal branding to become an importantmarketing task for everyday people (Shepherd 2005). Thepremise for personal branding is that everyone has the power tobe their own brand and a person's main job is to be their ownmarketer (Peters 1997). This is surrounded by the fear that ifyou do not manage your own brand, the power is given tosomeone else and “chances are that their brand description

39L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

won't be what you have in mind” (Kaputa 2005, p. 8). Theconcept of personal branding shares roots with personal sellingsince oftentimes certain personality traits lead to sales success.Yet, in personal branding, there is no employer attachment, butrather an individual is selling herself rather than a companyrelated brand (Shepherd 2005). In the age of Web 2.0, self-branding tactics involve creating and maintaining social andnetworking profiles, personal Web sites, and blogs, as well asusing search engine optimization techniques to encourageaccess to one's information.

Similar to product branding, personal branding entailscapturing and promoting an individual's strengths and unique-ness to a target audience (Kaputa 2005; Schwabel 2009;Shepherd 2005). While gaining employment is oftentimes agoal of personal branding, it is not exclusive; people self-brandfor many social reasons including dating, establishing friend-ships, or simply for self-expression (Shepherd 2005). Manypersonal brand advocates see the process as akin to productbranding (Kaputa 2005; Schwabel 2009), which begins bydefining a brand identity and then actively communicating it tothe marketplace through brand positioning. However, personalbranding entails some unique challenges, which mainly stemfrom complexities inherent in the online environment.

One key difference lies in the challenge of segmentation forpersonal branding. While the digital age promotes the freedom toexplore multiple selves (Turkle 1995), advocates of personalbranding recommend that a personal branding message be clearand consistent, creating an air of authenticity. Consequently,difficulties may arise if a person wishes to create multiple brandsfor different audiences. Furthermore, it becomes essential to suppressstories that dilute the branding message in order to avoid brandingfailures (Shepherd 2005). Failures may also become clear during afirst face-to-face meeting if a person does not match the other'sexpectations (Frost et al. 2008).

Method

A fully integrated mixed methods research strategy and aninterpretive orientation (Bahl and Milne 2006) was used toinductively investigate participants' online and branding behaviorsin depth. A mixed method design was employed that combined thefollowing: (1) creating digital brand audits of 12 participants; (2)surveying of college students to quantitatively and qualitativelyevaluate the digital brand audits; (3) obtaining qualitative writtenassessment of digital audit profiles by an HR professional; (4)conducting in-depth interviews with 12 participants to learn abouttheir online and personal branding behavior, their reactions to theirbrand audits and judgments by others, and any subsequent changesin their behavior. Prior to the first stage, we obtained writtenpermission from participants to conduct the research. Details on themultiple stages are provided next.

Participants

The purposive sample of 12 participants reflects gender andage (18–25 and 26–40 years) criteria. These young adults arelikely to be undergoing lifestyle and career transitions, and we

aimed for an equal representation of men and women. Inconducting the research, we limited our sample to 12, since weascertained that more participants would add marginalexplanation. First we tapped our social networks to find peoplewho would trust us to investigate their digital profiles. Wescreened the uniqueness of their names, to ensure our onlinesearches would produce relevant information. Specifically,using whitepages.com, we identified the number of personswith the same name. None of the participants had a name thatthey shared with more than 12 people in the United States(sample average=1.67). Participants received a $20 Amazongift certificate for their participation. We present the summaryprofiles of the six men and six women who participated inTable 1.

Conducting Digital Brand Audits

With the information provided by each participant (name,physical address, and e-mail addresses), two authors (withextensive online experience) conducted online searches via foursearch engines: Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft Live, and Dogpile (ameta-search engine that compiles results from other searchengines). We also searched MySpace and Facebook pages. If asocial networking site profile was not open, we obtainedpermission to access the participants' pages; at the time of thestudy, many avenues offered unauthorized or reluctant access tosocial network profiles, including third-party applications, friendof a friend tools, or employers finding ways to gain access. Tofurther refine our online searches, we used information obtainedfrom our initial searches, including screen names, affiliations,activities, and other identifying characteristics.

With this information, we generated a digital brand audit foreach participant. For the cover page, we codified summaryinformation from the search, including the number of searchresults, Facebook and MySpace activity (e.g., number offriends, posts, pictures), and whether the person owned his orher domain name or participated in a personal blog. A multi-page, sanitized profile for each respondent (see Fig. 1 for anexample page) preserved their anonymity with black bars tocover eyes in photos, names, e-mail addresses, addresses, andany other personal identifying information. The interior pagesincluded screen shots from the Web search and representativeFacebook pages. For sites that encompassed multiple pages, weselected screenshots of the first few pages to create arepresentation of the site; for a dense site like Facebook, weincluded shots from each of the separate sections (e.g., photos,wall comments, information page). The number of pagesgenerated for each informant varied according to the amountand 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 asurvey containing 49 items taken from the Big Five PersonalityTrait Taxonomy (i.e., openness to experience, conscientious-ness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism; Digman

Table 1Profile of participants.

Pseudonym/coding

Gender Age Maritalstatus

Occupation No. of searchresults

Profile pagescreated

No. of FBfriends

aWall poststatus

No. of photoson FB

No. of taggedphotos 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

Designer125 19 912 H 2086 1076 2 (2)

Maxwell Male 27 Single EngineeringPh.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

Consultant328 11 37 L 18 18 –

Gina Female 22 Single Fundraiser 11 9 649 WH 31 31 –Pamela Female 25 Single Fashion

Designer35 11 419 WH 190 0 –

Diana Female 25 Single Model 807 12 497 M 69 86 –Clementine Female 27 Single Engineering

Ph.D. Student46 12 273 M 242 125 –

Charlotte Female 28 Divorced ProfessionalOrganizer/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=201–499 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) 37–50

1990; Oliver, Naumann, and Soto 2008; Srivastava 2010) basedon their online personality. We selected undergraduate studentsto evaluate the brand audits because they are heavy users ofsocial media and the Internet. We provided the evaluators withboth oral and written instructions and then passed out 2–3profiles for them to evaluate with a survey. Groups of 25–30undergraduate students evaluated 2–3 participant profiles bywriting down their first impressions of the participant and thenassessing them on the Big Five Personality traits. A post surveydebriefing indicated the task was very engaging and under-standable. Following the student evaluations, we asked a humanresources (HR) professional at the university to evaluate thesame participant brand audits by providing her first impressioncomments. This provided a workplace judgment. For eachparticipant, we calculated mean ratings of their onlinepersonality, according to the student ratings. For the qualitativecomments, we asked two independent coders (blind to thestudy's purpose) to evaluate the open-ended comments on ascale from 3=positive to 2=neutral to 1=negative. Finally, wesummed the scores created by the two coders and ordered thecomments 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 (McCraken1988). We began by asking them to openly describe their onlineexperience, online motivations, and their online brandingstrategy, if any. Following this general discussion (which lastedanywhere from 10 to 30 min), we gave each participant a copyof the digital brand audit provided to the evaluators, allotting asmuch time as they wanted to look over the material. As theyleafed through the packet, participants were encouraged to

discuss what they saw and their motivations for posting thematerial. Once they had finished going through the packet andopenly discussing the content of their profiles, they receivedsummaries of the written comments by the evaluators.Participants were asked to discuss their reactions to thesecomments, comparing their intentions with evaluator judg-ments; this served as comparison between their brand identity(what they wished to portray) with their brand image (audienceview) and allowed participants to openly discuss brandingstrategy successes and failures. Lastly, after discussing theirreactions to these comments, we presented the participants witha chart that compared their self-rated online personality(completed before the interview) with the aggregate judgmentsof the student evaluators. The complete interview process thuslasted from 45 to 90 min. Approximately 2 months after theinterviews, we contacted the 12 participants via e-mail and inperson to discuss any changes they made to their online profilesand behavior since the interviews. We also had them react to theaccuracy of our interpretations of the data from the interview.

Analysis Procedures

The survey data scales were examined for reliability andanalyzed by calculating descriptive statistics. t-Tests were alsoconducted to test for gender differences among the evaluators aswell as age and gender differences among the participants. Thequalitative data were audio recorded and transcribed. They werelistened to and reviewed by multiple researchers. We conductedboth an emic analysis for each participant and an etic analysis tocompare findings across participants. The data were coded byall three authors and analyzed using standard qualitativeprocedures (Seidman 1991; Taylor and Bogdan 1984) andmatrices (Miles and Huberman 1994) were used to assess data

Fig. 1. Example of sanititized profile page.

41L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

across participants. The results were compared to the literaturein an iterative fashion to arrive at new insights (e.g. Belk,Wallendorf, and Sherry 1989).

Results

Weorganize our findings into two sections. First, we report thedescriptive results pertaining to our 12 participants, including aprofile of the participants (see Table 1) and their self-stated onlinebrand identities. We also present the statistics and examples ofprofile judgments by both social and professional evaluators (seeTable 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 interviewswithin the structure of a traditional branding framework.

Participants' Brand Audit Profiles

The descriptives in Table 1 indicate a wide range of searchengine results (8–807 hits) and social networks activity (25–912Facebook 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 (201–500). The

Table 2Profile judgments.

Participant % Very favorablecomments

Example of social judgment comments HR professional comments

Brian 66.7% This guy is into being his own person, whether itbe through the things he says or the clothing hewears, which it seems [like] he is going to schoolto learn how to design t-shirts and other apparel.He does not seem to care what other people thinkof him.

Artistic, creative... Photos are sophomoric, pornographic andsarcastic. Funny but mean at the same time….If I wereseeking creative, “plugged in” people, I would certainly consider him fordesign jobs. As a professional person in a mainstream company Iwould be concerned about his hip/hop references that are notpolitically correct.

Alex 26.9% Alpha male type. Popular with the ladies. Likesto party. Has terrible taste in movies if heactually 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, thegirls and acting cool…Seems one dimensional without many otherinterests….Concern about the police at parties. Makes me wonder ifhe has been arrested or had issues with the police. Not veryimpressed.

Bobby 62.9% Younger male, 18, just got Facebook. Highfrequency of wall activity=very active on thesite. Into his girlfriend, seems a little whipped.Likes cars.

Married but interested in women for networking. What would hiswife say if she knew this? If still in college (class of 2012), is hewanting to be unmarried college student having fun with the othersex?

Milo 17.2% Obviously this guy is a geek, and even said ithimself. That, combined with him only having 25friends led me to believe that he does not get outmuch. It does not seem like a mean person, justvery independent. He does seem a little bitartsy/imaginative/creative.

Very interesting person. I would like to meet him, although I feel Iwould have a tough time relating. Good values—impression basedon his quotes about becoming a person of value and the other beinga vegetarian. Has self-knowledge and comfortable sharing hisstory…Self-proclaimed GEEK, expect him to be smart andarticulate.

Chris 83.3% Introverted, Interested in quality not quantity,very smart, happy, good career, uses FB to keepin 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 intoengineering and academia, as well as travelingand politics… He has got a lot of different picturesof 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 himwell adjusted, hard working, smart and aware of what is happeningaround him in the world. Engaged and focused.

Pamela 72.4% She is all about making these profoundstatements and drumming to her own beat. As aperson I think she is an “artsy urbanite” wholikes to express herself through Facebook as wellas other things.

Very interesting young designer. Able to synthesize culturalinfluences and apparel well. Keen observer of others. Last two pagesare somewhat disjoint—references and graffiti weird. Not surewhere this comes from—or the super poke dialogue.

Gina 77.7% Highly educated and interested in literature andculture. Sociable, seems to have many friends.Physically attractive, athletic, inspired byspirituality, art, and music. Driven, independent,out-going.

Difficult to understand this person—not much to work with. Herfavorite 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 up—their bodies.

Diana 57.1% Seems like she enjoys going out with friends,partying and having a good time. She takesmodeling pretty seriously, and her friends knowabout it and she posts pictures online.

One-dimensional. Nothing really about her from her…onlycomments from others. She is obviously interested and enjoys beingrecognized and being on stage. She likes being looked at and beingrecognized…

Clementine 75.0% This person is really smart. This person isalso very worldly. She seems to be very outgoing butshe also likes to express her sadness. She alsoseems 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 owncomments—hard to determine the type of person she is.

Coco 83.3% It seems like she does not have a lot of friends butshe has more closer friends. She likes elegantthings and pays attention to details. She is relaxedmost of the time and spends time observingthings around her.

Artistic, fun loving. Enjoys spending time with friends.Entrepreneurial, free spirit. … Rather than show who you arethrough your own words, you will show me what is important to youthrough 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 thingssuch as letting her cat sit on her laptop and notstaying in touch with home to get messages.She does not have a lot of friends.

Artistic, images indicate interest in culture references. Sexualovertones in this—some photos suggestive as well as a post, “I'mfeeling horny.” Her mother has posted a message here…appears tobe a very open person.

42 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

number of user-submitted photos ranged from 13 to 2086, andtagged photos ranged from 0 to 1076. In addition to socialnetworking profiles, 4 participants had personalWeb sites, and 2contributed to blogs.

The qualitative judgments from both social and professionalevaluators indicate a wide range of percentages of favorablecomments, from 17.2% to 83.3%. For some participants, suchas Chris (male, 40), evaluations by the two audiences coincided.

Table 3Comparison 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 1.50Alex 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 2.00Bobby 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 1.50Pamela 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 2.13Gina 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 1.50Diana 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 2.00Milo 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 2.50Chris 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 3.13Maxwell 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 3.38Clementine 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 2.50Coco 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 1.50Charlotte 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

SelfN Judgment 7 6 8 6 2Self=Judgment 2 2 3 2 0Selfb Judgment 3 4 1 4 10

Young (18–25) a

SelfN Judgment 3 3 4 3 0Self=Judgment 1 1 2 1 0Selfb Judgment 1 2 1 2 6

Old (26–40) a

SelfN Judgment 4 3 4 3 2Self=Judgment 1 1 1 1 0Selfb Judgment 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.

43L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

But in other instances, such as for Bobby (male, 18), theevaluations differed, likely because the HR professional did notunderstand Facebook social norms and found thematerial postedunprofessional and inappropriate. Sample quotes from judges inboth audiences are presented in Table 2.

In our analysis of the survey data the five-personality traitcoefficient alphas ranged from .77 to .92. Overall, we note thatthere are no differences for the five personality traits based onthe gender of the judges (pN .05). However, there weredifferences in personality traits among the participants basedon age and gender. Older (ages 26–40) participants, comparedto younger (ages 18–25) participants, were judged to be moreopen to experience (pb .01) and conscientious (pb .01).Younger participants were seen as more extraverted thanolder participants (pb .01). In terms of gender, femaleparticipants 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' onlinepersonality perceptions with student judgments. We tested the

self-evaluations to determine if they fell within the 95%confidence intervals surrounding the judgment sample. Forexample, the mean for Brian's (male, 25) open to experiencesrating was 3.63 (five-point Likert scale), which was statisticallysignificantly lower than the student sample's mean judgment of4.33 (standard deviation= .37). Overall, most self-evaluationsdiffered statistically from the judgment samples (51/60 total),mostly due to the strong tendency in the self-ratings to ratehigher on extraversion (8/12 participants) and lower onneuroticism (10/12 participants) compared with the students'judgments. Therefore, self-judgments appear inaccurate andsubject to particular biases, which contrasts with the accuracyof identifying others' true selves through Internet chatting(Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons 2002) and personal Websites in a Web 1.0 context (Vazire and Gosling 2004). Thesedifferences may be likely reflective of how outside influencesin a social media platform (e.g., the ability of friends to postinformation like comments and photos) can alter intendedbranding messages.

44 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

Challenges in Managing an Online Personal Brand

In presenting our qualitative results, we expand upon ourfindings 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, brandidentity is defined as how the marketer wants the brand to beperceived; brand positioning as the part of the brand identity to beactively communicated to the audience; and brand image as howthe brand is perceived by the marketplace. This process reflects adynamic environment where future efforts depend on priormarketplace 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-mediatedenvironments using social networking profiles, blogs, andpersonal Web pages. In our data, most participants had abranding strategy (though not always an effective one) tomanage their online information and were conscious of theironline efforts, especially through Facebook and other socialnetworks. Participants could name a brand that best representstheir online persona. Some, such as Brian (male, 25) and Milo(male, 27), were quick to name existing brands, whereas otherstook time to think of a fictitious brand or slogan to fit theiridentity. Thus, self-branding is evident and important for somebut not for all. Brands acted as metaphors for the image theparticipants wanted to portray and often conveyed what theyshowed or the demographic to which they were trying to appeal.Alex (male, 22) identified his brand as Diesel Jeans; he issomeone who likes to go out and is into the club scene. Milo(male, 27) said his brand was Google, reflecting his ITbackground and ability to access information. Others sawthemselves 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 thatthe personality of the metaphorical brand reflected the imagethey were trying to convey online. Overall, these participantsembraced the concept of self-branding.

Many participants admitted to using personal Web and socialnetworking sites actively as tools to construct their personalbrand identity. Brian (male, 25) described his use of multipleprofiles and sites to construct his personal brand, which heregards as tools to position himself:

It's just a matter of, lack of better terms; it's like making acommercial for your product. If you are selling toothpaste,it's toothpaste at the end of the day but you want it to be afun toothpaste that everyone wants to brush. It's just apresentation, you know.

Other participants, like Bobby (male, 18), conveyed that theypurposely construct their online identity to parallel their offlineone: “I try to portray the same image with everyone. I don't wantto seem two-sided or two-faced…. I'm the same way at work, Iact the same way.” Creating a brand identity that either parallels

or differentiates from the offline self seems to be an online norm.Chris (male, 40) noted, “It's kind of an outlet for people, thateven if they aren't who they really are. They can projectsomebody … it's a myth or a parallel personality of them.”

All 12 participants agreed that they intentionally crafted theironline profiles through information management to maintaintheir brand identity. Although users were the proprietors of theirprofiles, they realized that others contributed to the creation oftheir identity through content they provided in the form ofcomments and photo tagging.

Brand Positioning

Brand positioning refers to the active communication ofone's brand identity to a specific target market. Individuals usebrand positioning to highlight their positive attributes that are ofvalue to their target audience while at the same timedifferentiating themselves from other individuals in themarketplace. For personal online branding, brand positioningoccurs through impression management. In an online context,this is done by maintaining a consistent image through choicesto reveal pieces of personal information through blogs anddisclosure on sites such as social networks. A key challenge forour participants was deciding what information to post online,after filtering out information that was not aligned with theirbranding 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 asFacebook permit abundant third party plug-ins that enable usersto disclose increased information, beyond the standard elementsof an average profile. Users choose which parts of their profilesthey will populate and who may have access to this information.Similar to actors on Goffman's (1959) stage, the participantschose their props (pictures, applications) and dress (informa-tion) to create meaning through self-presentation to others.

Participants realized this process and even discussed howtheir intentional choice to not disclose certain types ofinformation was part of their brand identity strategy. BothPamela (female, 25) and Gina (female, 22) chose not to displaytheir Facebook wall (a feed that displays users’ submitted statusupdates and friends' comments), reasoning that “It createsmystery, makes people [ask] why don't you have a wall”(Pamela). Pamela also regarded Facebook as a function of itsinformation content: “What am I feeding them? Its a machine,you feed it. People can't make assumptions of you unless youare providing them certain information.” This statement under-lies the essence of personal branding; people make disclosuredecisions that are mostly reflective of their intended messages.However, as our interviews reveal, messages, hence brandingefforts also can be misconstrued.

The permanency and widespread availability of messages are aparticular cause for alarm, as reflected in participants' responses.For example, Maxwell (male, 27) described the importance ofcareful brand positioning: “When someone's missing the point,that's what's frustrating because people's opinions are formed andit's like, well, it's tough to change, first impressions are powerful.”

45L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

Some participants considered the key to a successfulbranding strategy to be authentic, such that it captured a sliceof the real self. They expressed caution about manipulating theonline audience into thinking they were someone other thanwhat they appeared in real life. Furthermore, they criticizedothers whom they considered inauthentic for trying too hard toportray an online brand identity far removed from their real one.For example, there was a disdain for people who put up manyobviously posed pictures:

It's a fake reality; you want to make people perceive you acertain way. You'll even see that people are sitting inparticular angles. Some people you see never really changetheir angle. They're always like their left cheek or their rightcheek or blurry or far away… It's too fake. (Coco, female, 37).

Similarly, Charlotte (female, 28) felt disregard toward peoplewho present themselves in an obviously fake manner:

There are some people who I am definitely like ‘who wroteyour profile for you?’ (laughs) because I start talking tothem and I'm like, this is not how you represented yourself,you're a completely different person… They're probablytrying to make themselves appear more interesting andtherefore be more likely to have people that they findinteresting or attractive talk to them but they don't see it isreally sort of self-defeating because then I'm like I reallydon't want to talk to you.

Brand Image Assessment

Brand image depends on information posted by the focalperson, information posted by others, and the marketplacereaction to the presented information, which generally is basedon visible behavior, nonverbal behavior, and other observablecues (Ambady, Hallahan, and Rosenthal 1996). Participants usedtheir own experience and feedback (comparing their self-statedbranding goals with those from the written assessments andpersonality judgments) to determine whether they had achievedtheir branding goals. The mismatches between their self-statedgoals and judgments by others represent branding failures. Wecategorize these as either “Insufficient Branding” or “MisdirectedBranding” and present related findings in the following sections.

Many participants found the brand image assessment exerciseenlightening. As Gina (female, 22) noted, “Seeing yourself fromsomebody else's eyes, it's allowing you to see what other peoplethink of you, especially people that have no idea about the personthat you are.” However, Pamela (female, 25) described thefeedback in terms of multiple audiences online. Similar to manyothers, she acknowledged that the Internet allows her the freedomto portray an online brand identity, but she considers difficultiesinvolved in managing brand perceptions for the vast number ofpotential viewers. As she noted during her interview:

It was very interesting. It hasmadememore conscientious, yeahbecause I always know all these things, but reading the feedbackfrom other people and just like, having validation good or bad ofyour online self, it's just interesting. It just makes you that much

more aware that in society there is more than one person and theInternet person is more than one person.

For others, the feedback was upsetting and prompted them tomake changes, because they realized that their actions could resultin unfavorable judgments. Alex (male, 22), a dental school student,revealed:

I definitely want to change some of that stuff, the more recentstuff because I'm going to school and new friends will see thisstuff, maybe I should add that I went to the Habitat forHumanity…Yeah, I was shocked. The police thingwas awful. IfI had aBlackberry Iwould take it down now. Some I control andsome I can't.

Although assessing their brand image through this feedbackmechanism was new to most of our respondents, Charlotte(female, 28) indicated that she already monitors her profiles andgathers feedback. The Internet medium has allowed her to bemore open, which encouraged others to be more open in theirjudgments and feedback to her. She viewed this exchange as apowerful tool, not only in terms of crafting her online brandidentity but also as a means to gain insight into her psyche:

I've actually sort of uncovered more about myself from thepeople who have found me because like… Yeah, it's just thethings that you're oblivious to. And this sort of medium hasallowed that come out because people tend to be more freebecause you aren't talking face to face, I mean how do you tellsomeone “I admire you somuch.”You don't do that in person.

Brian (male, 25) echoed these remarks when describing theactive monitoring of his profiles. He manages multiple brandidentities, targeted at different audiences, and devotes consid-erable time to personal branding and image assessment. He wasnot surprised by the results of the profile judgments, because:

I think they are great, it's a very good cross of, nobody isreally wrong, these are all things that I've known, none ofthis is surprising…That is why I spend time to get to knowwhat 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 insufficientbranding appeared to be largely a function of the participant's ageand desired use for the social community. Most of the 12participants were older than the students who were evaluatingtheir profiles (see Table 1). The students were critical of theparticipants' lack of friends and low number of wall posts; theseevaluators drew implications and attributions from observing thenumber of friends listed. For example, in evaluatingMilo's (male,27) profile, one student wrote, “Obviously this guy is a geek, andeven said it himself. That combined with him only having 25friends ledme to believe that he doesn't get out much.” In reactionto these judgments, many participants emphasized that they weresocial in the offline world. Several also indicated they were goingto take corrective steps to alter their profiles to correct for this

46 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

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 moresocial pics, so I'll be like everyone else now” (Bobby, male, 18).The pressure to conform is thus strong, even for the olderparticipants. Coco (female, 37) believed that though she wasactively involvedwith Facebook, it was something shewas forcedto keep up with:

I may be against [it], even though I am not against personalrelations, I believe people need to be social, but I'm against thesetypes of things, but I also have to be realistic and realize that theworld is going into that and so I need to keep in touch with it.

For some, insufficient branding occurred not because of alack of content but because they failed to emphasize theirdesired message, which led to a mismatch between brandidentity 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. Thatactually gets me upset. That's probably the one thing that, Ithink I said that early on. I said I wanted to make it seemlike I'm not typical, like I don't do typical things, which isprobably like some of the reasons why I do have somemusic 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 brandingapproach and thought that his minimal, yet highly selectivedisclosure choices accurately portrayed his identity. His contrivedbranding effort failed, which resulted in intense frustration:

I would think it's more frustrating than anything else becauseon the balance, well at least, even people who view mefavorably, I don't think they get the point of what I was tryingto do. They look at like, oh, he's good smart guy and he likes todo this, but that's not what I'm trying, that's not the point.

The key finding is that participants confront a tension to useplatforms to promote their personal brands and keep in touchwith others, but also minimize the potential violations that candilute or tarnish their brand. When asked why she chose todisplay her home address, Coco (female, 37) noted the tensionshe faces between promoting her brand identity as aprofessional photographer and the need to safeguard herpersonal safety. If she does not disclose personal informationsuch as her home address (which is also her business address)she may suffer insufficient branding because potential clientscould question her legitimacy. She states:

People want to knowwhere you are, where you live, they wantto see that you're a legitimate photographer that you're not justcoming out of a shack somewhere—so it gives people moretrust, 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 commentscentered on actions by others who posted content inconsistentwith their brand identity, which could result in seriousconsequences if seen by the wrong target audiences. As notedby Pamela (female, 25):

I didn't want something on my wall that maybe, one of myfriends thought as funny… basically, I didn't want to have totake responsibility of [what] someone else is saying on mypage. And you do ultimately do take responsibility onwhat's on your page.

Misunderstandings often involved the language used andmessage conveyed. Bobby (male, 18) chose to display“married” as his relationship status (to indicate he was in anexclusive relationship) and reacted negatively to the judgmentsof many college students, who considered him dominated by hisgirlfriend. The HR professional thought he might be cheating onhis wife. Bobby believed everyone would understand he wasjoking when he listed “married” as his status, but he becameupset when this playful signal was misinterpreted negatively.

The greatest misdirected branding occurred when wall postsor pictures could be seen by professional audiences that couldnegatively impact future careers. For example, Bobby (male,18) had not regulated what he disclosed on his Facebook site butsaid he was going to remove sensitive items that might be seenby prospective employers. Chris (male, 40) nicely summed upthe potential harms of a social networking site infrastructure thatallows others to make changes to his profile:

I mean your resume, you take time and effort to put togethera resume that speaks to your accomplishments, your skills,your know experience, expertise in different things and thefact that two years ago you got drunk at a party andsomebody took a picture of you that should be a decidingfactor in whether you are hired or not.

Other participants also noted this challenge, echoing similarconcerns, especially the younger participants who were embark-ing on their professional careers. Some participants were aware ofthese misdirected branding follies but simply had not consideredthe professional ramifications of content that had been postingmany years prior. This point underscores the importance ofassessing brand image, especially when embarking on new lifepaths. These real concerns have serious consequences forparticipants like Alex (male, 22), who declared:

If there is a picture of me drinking I'll take it out … yeah butlooking at this it brings up a good point to ah, to take that stuffoff, 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'm not drinking out of aMcDonald's cuphere, yeah, I'll definitely go home and take these pictures offand dumb wall comments… I'm trying to be a doctor, and Idon'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 tothe HR professional's disapproving comments about the t-shirt hewas wearing in a photo. He told us that the identity he was trying to

47L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

portraywas centered on his professionalism and “good guy” image.He had forgotten out-of-date parts of his profiles and had notchecked for consistent messages, which meant he neglected torealize 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'thelp. I'm going to untag everything… I wouldn't want thoseI'm interviewing for, or down the road my patients, seeingthis stuff.

As his experience illustrates, people often do not considerhow others will interpret and judge them on the basis of small oreven forgotten pieces of information. Life events, such as careerchanges, may prompt users to reevaluate their brands; in thiscase, Alex had forgotten that potential harmful photos from hispast were still available online but wanted to fix them before hebecame a practicing dentist.

The issue of pictures and other information being postedwithout a person's consent was another key cause for concern.The profile of Clementine (female, 26) included a photograph ofher with a professional male colleague at a conference. Thecaption included her name and implied she had been drinkingheavily. It also hinted that she was inappropriately involvedwith a married man. Therefore, just one photo had the potentialto tarnish her brand identity as a smart and professional graduatestudent. She also felt a loss of control, because this photo wasposted without her consent, and she did not know how long thephoto had been available online, nor could she directly removeher name from the image. This concern was shared by Gina(female, 22):

It's just that things can be perceived very different fromwhat they are and I just don't want to be you know, thecenter of attention and being judged that is not coming outof my mouth directly. A picture says a thousand words andthe wrong words—they aren't coming out of my mouth so Idon't want people to judge me off a picture.

Moreover, pictures posted by others could clash with a user'sbrand identity intentions; Brian's (male, 25) preferred brandidentity was not congruent with someone in a happyrelationship:

So she posted all our pics up and I'm fine, means she ishappy with the relationship. But I'm a little more selectiveabout that. Sometimes. I don't need everyone to know whoI'm dating, this is an online thing and you never know whowill stumble upon it.

Because information can be taken out of context, mis-construed, or misinterpreted, brand image judgments may leadto optimum, insufficient, or misdirected branding, depending onwhether the identity and image perfectly balance. Similar toonline dating (Frost et al. 2008), insufficient branding may havenegative repercussions for personal branding efforts throughfaulty impression management, where poor disclosure decisionscan harm a personal brand image. Branding literaturerecommends 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-upinterviews regarding any adjustments the participants took toachieve the optimum branding strategies. Milo (male, 27)indicated that his strategy for segregating his multiple brandidentities had become less effective due to new site technolo-gies, like Facebook's friend suggestion feature. Facebooksuggested he add some of his work friends to his non-workprofile, but Milo made it clear that he wanted to maintain twoidentities, targeted at separate audiences. His two identities—aprofessional IT manager versus an avid partier hired on nightsand weekends to perform laser and lighting shows—do not mix,and if one were exposed to the other audience, Milo believed hisbrand identities and reputation would be in jeopardy. Since thistool was likely suggesting his other profile to coworkers, heinformed us:

I'm beginning to re-think using Facebook. It's kind ofcreepy that Facebook knows so much about me and becauseof this it's probably opening up holes where others can seemy profile. The last thing I want is for people I don't wantfinding me to find me because Facebook has added thisfeature. If something better comes along, I'll probably startusing it.

Milo was not the only participant in our sample whodescribed the importance of a strategy for segregating multipleaudiences. Despite their desire to self-brand, new features addedlayers of difficulty, resulting in user frustration. Such frustra-tions may build until users decide finally to switch platformsand find another that offers better tools and features in supportof their goals.

Other changes included removing offensively taggedpictures, removing pictures they originally posted, takingdown undesirable wall posts, or, in some cases, removing thewall altogether. Notable changes marked the Facebook profilesof Coco, Bobby, and Alex. For example, Coco (female, 37)recently had been married and had a child. She noted in ourfollow-up conversation that she did not intend to post anyphotos of her newborn child on her Facebook page, even as sheexperienced pressures to do so from her Facebook friends wholive overseas. At the end of the interview, Coco said sheremained undecided and perhaps would post one or two picturesto appease her friends. Bobby (male, 18) added new photo-graphs to his profile, as he indicated he would, to depict himselfin more social settings (e.g., drinking at a party). He alsochanged his status from “married” to “single” and reduced thenumber of pictures of his girlfriend. He disclosed that for a shorttime, when not in this relationship, he removed his “couple”photographs and opted for more “party-going” images. Onceback in the relationship though, he again removed the partypictures and uploaded his couple pictures. Bobby's behaviorepitomizes the challenges people face in different life stages,when their personal brand identity changes and they must adjust

48 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

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 bereconsidered frequently.

Discussion

The evidence herein supports the idea that people bothexplicitly and implicitly brand themselves using content theyplace online. In some situations, the branding efforts areunderdeveloped, whereas in others they seem misdirected. Ourresearch reveals that social network profile pages are theprimary mechanism that people use for self-branding. Profes-sional information displayed in the profile, in terms of educationand work experiences, is important, as are pictorial accounts oftheir social life and the public conversations posted.

In developing their brands, some of our participants aimed tobe authentic and criticized others whom they believed were not.They expressed caution in response to shallow attempts tomanipulate them with ingenuous content, such as staged photosor biased text. Such findings parallel recent work that revealsthat realistic (opposed to overly idealistic) identity representa-tions are common practice for social networking site users(Back et al. 2010). Some participants even discussed theirwithdrawal from social networks because of their dissatisfactionwith the way others portray themselves. Gina (female, 22), whoprimarily used Facebook for networking and finding lostfriends, began enforcing tighter privacy settings and reduced herusage, because of “the way people portray themselves, it'sbecome very cheap.” Our findings thus relate to the concept ofauthentic branding, which pertains to both traditional (Holt2004) and personal (Kaputa 2005) branding. In both cases,authenticity enhances message receptivity and relationshipquality. Being seen as inauthentic may be a direct result offailed segmentation, as different brand identities clash andcreate a mixed message. Those trying to segment multipleaudiences need to take extra caution as the risks for inauthenticrepresentation increase.

Although people have some control over the brand theyportray, their personal brand is also shaped by those with whomthey associate (i.e., friends and friends' friends) and thecomments and pictures they post. Yet, friends may fail todistinguish between appropriate and inappropriate informationsharing. The display of some information may make personsvulnerable to brand dilution or evoke negative repercussions,including professional, financial, and physical harms. This islikely the reason for many branding failures and may explainwhy oftentimes our evaluators' judgments did not match ourparticipants' intended brand identity. While past researchsuggests that people can make accurate judgments of othersbased on personal Web sites (Vazire and Gosling 2004), thisresearch finds that these outside influences likely alteredparticipants' intended branding messages.

The tensions that arose are due to relationship imbalances.The participants seemed either too cautious or not judiciousenough with their information disclosure choices. Some hadexperienced violations resulting from misdirected branding and

therefore took evasive action and changed their brandpositioning strategy. Conservative online behavior also leftsome participants under-branded and misunderstood. Withuser-generated content, there is always the potential for risk.

A pervasive theme in our interviews revealed how brandingstrategies evolve. Designations of appropriate material changedover time, usually due to natural lifestyle progressions, such as ashift in employment or family status.Managingmultiple identitiesand audiences thus is an ongoing process, and our participantsfound it particularly difficult to brand both their personal life andtheir work life accurately. These fragmented identities arereflective of Turkle's (1995) and Boyd's (2008a) findings thatconsumers 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, includingthat which once separated professional and social domains.Whilemany may attempt to devise strategies to separate their identities,the rising need for authenticity requires people to rethink suchstrategies. Indeed, many new tools being developed on the Webare geared toward linking identities rather than keeping themseparate. Applications such as HootSuite and Open Social helppeople link all their social accounts, such that they can post astatus change simultaneously on multiple sites. These tools maymake branding easier, but they also increase the potential formisdirected branding.

Conclusions

This research offers key insights into the phenomenon ofonline personal branding. While social networking platformssuch as Facebook and MySpace provide value to members,users may become displeased if actions and terms that can harmtheir branding strategies, such as changes in content control andnew features, are enforced by the company. In this case, thevalue becomes threatened, and users may migrate to new sitesthat offer mechanisms more synergistic with their brandingefforts. Such exoduses from one social networking site toanother reveal historical trends, from Friendster to Live Journalto MySpace to Facebook, as users show no reserve aboutleaving a site that no longer suits their needs (Sutter 2009).Brands that have created profiles and invested in a site also facesubstantial losses in the event of member migration to acompeting company. If the host site and other vested partieshope to avoid such devastating consequences, they mustunderstand and react to user motivations and concerns.

Our investigation highlights how individuals self-brandthrough the use of social media and the issues they face duringthis process. More specifically, our research puts forth thefollowing points. First, branding is inevitable when participat-ing in an online environment. While the majority of participantswere cognizant that they were self-branding, we find that peopledo not always realize the potential negative outcomes that mayresult from their actions. When dealing with multiple brandidentities (and diverse audiences), users often become frustratedif they lack the devices to portray their message accurately to

49L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

their target audiences. Moreover, we find that self-brandingpractices require feedback mechanisms to succeed and bemeaningful.

Second, we find a substantial dialectic pressure between self-branding and information control. Online personal brandingrequires information be available to others; by the very nature ofthe online world, this availability puts people at risk in terms ofmisdirected and insufficient branding. Our evidence suggeststhat misdirected branding has greater implications for profes-sional status, whereas insufficient branding is more critical forsocial status. In some cases, branding also is affected by third-party content, which requires vigilance by the user.

Finally, managing multiple online personas is increasinglydifficult, and separating social and professional worlds appearsnearly impossible without the proper mechanisms for control.The drive to develop an authentic online brand may require anapproach to transmit a single perspective that can transcendprofessional versus social distinctions.

Limitations and Further Research

Our participants reported on their activities during a briefmoment of time. In this fast moving digital environment newtechnologies such as mobile applications and Twitter havebecome more widely available for personal branding purposessince we conducted our study. Due to our participants' usage,this research is mainly focused on Facebook profiles, the toolused by all 12 participants and the largest social networkingapplication at that time. In addition, the age of the participants inour purposive sample varied only slightly; most were in their20s, with only two individuals over the age of 35 years. Thisyounger sample may not represent the branding issues faced byolder participants. Similarly, the social judgments by theundergraduate student population reflected particular behavior-al norms, on which they based their assessments. Otherpopulations of judges likely would produce different reactions.However, because the informants and judges were relativelyclose in age, we attain a realistic social comparison, and byusing 25–30 student evaluators per profile, we obtained asubstantive and non-idiosyncratic perspective.

Although we mention that some people have a need tosegregate multiple audiences and highlight the hardships theyface, the paper leaves unanswered the question of whether thisseparation is truly possible. By allowing all the informationabout our participants to be seen by the evaluators, the design ofour study almost certainly created branding failures for many.However this design allowed us to explore peoples' reactions topotential branding failures, discuss possible implications, andreinforce the importance of segmentation strategies and tools.

We chose participants with unique names for this research,however additional challenges are presented for those withmore common names. People with unique names should bevigilant in monitoring their online brands because they caneasily be found via a simple search. As Maxwell (male, 27)noted, “My name is fairly not common, so it's easy to findsomething. But I imagine if I was someone with a commonname you wouldn't bother because there's no way to like, it's

too time consuming to find yourself.” Despite this, people withcommon names should also closely track their personal brand aswell as information about others with the same name since thereis a chance of being mistaken for someone else. Evaluations of ablog post, social networking profile, or news story of a mistakenperson with the same name may have detrimental effects on abranding strategy. People with common names may want toclearly differentiate themselves from others to avoid confusion.Differences in personal brand management between people withcommon versus unique names may be an area of futureresearch.

Additional research should include more heterogeneousevaluators and extend the framework to various cohorts andcultures. The Internet is a global medium, so understanding howcultural factors influence personal brand actions could offerinsights for companies operating internationally. Moreover, ourfindings suggest that personal branding efforts vary accordingto a person's life phase, which suggests that a longitudinalperspective would be helpful. Finally, ongoing research shouldexamine how evolving applications like Twitter, with its quickimpressions and few data points, influence perceptions andpersonal 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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69, 3, 518–29.

Back, Mitja D., Juliane M. Stopfer, Simine Vazire, Sam Gaddis, Stefan C.Schmukle, Boris Egloff, and Samuel D. Gosling (2010), “Facebook ProfilesReflect Actual Personality, Not Self-Idealization,” Psychological Science,21, 3, 372–4.

Bahl, Shalini and George R. Milne (2006), “Mixed Methods in InterpretiveResearch: An Application to the Study of the Self Concept,” in Handbook ofQualitative Research Methods in Marketing, Russell W. Belk, editor.Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 198–218.

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’ onthe Internet,” Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1, 33–48.

Belk, Russell W., Melanie Wallendorf, and John F. Sherry Jr. (1989), “TheSacred and the Profane in Consumer Behavior: Theodicy on the Odyssey,”Journal of Consumer Research, 15, September, 139–67.

Boyd, Danah (2008a), “None of This Is Real,” in Structures of Participation inDigital Cultures, Joe Karaganis, editor. New York: Social Science ResearchCouncil, 132–57.

——— (2008b), “Facebook's Privacy Trainwreck,” Convergence: The Interna-tional Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14, 1, 13–20.

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, 45–57.

DePaulo, Bella M., David A. Kenny, Claudia W. Hoover, William Webb, andPeter V. Oliver (1987), “Accuracy of Person Perception: Do People KnowWhat Kinds of Impressions They Convey?,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 52, 303–15.

Digman, John M. (1990), “Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-FactorModel,” Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–40.

Frost, Jeana H., Zoe Chance, Michael I. Norton, and Dan Ariely (2008), “PeopleAre Experience Goods: Improving Online Dating with Virtual Dates,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22, 1, 51–61.

Goffman, Erving (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York,NY: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

50 L.I. Labrecque et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 25 (2011) 37–50

Hemetsberger, Andrea (2005), “Creative Cyborgs: How Consumers Use theInternet For Self-Realization,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume32, Geeta Mennon, Akshay R. Rao, editors. Duluth, MN: Association forConsumer Research, 653–60.

Holland, Jonna and Stacey Menzel Baker (2001), “Customer Participation inCreating Site Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 4,34–45.

Holt, Douglas (2004), How Brands Become Icons: The Principles of CulturalBranding. 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 Themselvesfor Business Success. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Lampel, Joseph and Ajay Bhalla (2007), “The Role of Status Seeking in OnlineCommunities: Giving the Gift of Experience,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 2.

LaVallee, Andrew (2009), Bosses and Workers Disagree on Social NetworkPrivacy.. available at http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/05/19/bosses-andworkers-disagree on-social network privacy/ [Accessed March 3, 2010]).

Madden, Mary, Susannah Fox, Aaron Smith, and Jessica Vitak (2007), DigitalFootprints: Online Identity Management and Search in the Age ofTransparency. Pew Internet and American Life Project. available at www.pewinternet.org [Accessed March 19, 2010]).

McCraken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Miceli, Gaetano Nino, Francesco Ricotta, and Michele Costabile (2007),“Customizing Customization: A Conceptual Framework for InteractivePersonalization,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21, 2, 6–25.

Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman (1994), Qualitative DataAnalysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nguyen, Dan Thu and Jon Alexander (1996), “The Coming of Cyberspacetimeand the End of the Polity,” in Cultures of Internet: Virtual Spaces, RealHistories, Living Bodies, Rob Shields, editor. London: Sage, 99–124.

Oliver, John, Laura Naumann, and Chris Soto (2008), “Paradigm Shift to theIntegrative 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, 114–59.

Papacharissi, Zizi (2002), “The Self Online: The Utility of Personal HomePages,” Journal of Broad- Casting & Electronic Media, 46, 3, 346–68.

Peltier, James W., George R. Milne, and Joseph E. Phelps (2009), “InformationPrivacy Research: Framework for Integrating Multiple Publics, InformationChannels, and Responses,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 2,191–205.

Peters, Tom (1997), “The Brand Called You,” Fast Company, 10, August, 83.

Phelps, Joseph E., Giles D'Souza, and Glen J. Nowak (2001), “Antecedents andConsequences of Consumer Privacy Concerns: An Empirical Investigation,”Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15, 4, 2–17.

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, 385–404.

Schwabel, Dan (2009),Me 2.0: A Powerful Way to Achieve Brand Success. NewYork: Kaplan Publishers.

Seidman, I.E. (1991), “Workingwith and Sharing InterviewMaterial,” Interviewingas Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shepherd, Ifan D.H. (2005), “From Cattle and Coke to Charlie: Meeting theChallenge of Self Marketing and Personal Branding,” Journal of MarketingManagement, 21, 589–606.

Solove, Daniel J. (2007), The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacyon the Internet. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Srivastava, Sanjay (2010),Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors.. available athttp://www.uoregon.edu/~sanjay/bigfive.html [Accessed March 16, 2010]).

Stelter, Brian (2009), Facebook's Users Ask Who Owns Information.. availableat 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? (availableat 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 toQualitative Research Methods. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.

Thorbjørnsen, Helge, Magne Supphellen, Herbjørn Nysveen, and Per Egil(2002), “Building Brand Relationships Online: A Comparison of TwoInteractive Applications,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16, 3, 17–34.

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: PersonalityImpressions Based on Personal Websites,” Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 87, 123–32.

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, 297–327.

Zinkhan, George M., Margy Conchar, Ajay Gupta, and Gary Geissler (1999),“Motivations Underlying the Creation of Personal Web Pages: AnExploratory Study,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 26, EricJ. Arnould, Linda M. Scott, editors. Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch, 69–74.