Which US state does Kevin Roberts hail from?
I was over at Kevin Roberts’ blog today—no, not where you’d expect someone like me to be. I was interested to note his huge use of American spellings in, for example, his post about the Eurostar. He begins (note even the U.S.):
Traveling by air in Europe is not quite as bad as the domestic pain involved in U.S. air travel, but it’s up there. That’s why over recent years, the Eurostar has become a Lovemark to me. The last time I had meetings in London, I traveled from Paris and back on the Eurostar, returning the same day. It’s two-and-a-half hours each way and you get to leave from the center of Paris and arrive in the center of London.
All well and good. I don’t have a problem with American English on American blogs, or even those who opt to use it over British English.
Just that Kevin does make a big deal down here about his Kiwiness, and he is English by birth. He even talks about the All Blacks on his blog. In neither country do people like American English. We just think it’s a bit odd, just as an American would get puzzled by our weird-ass spellings for manœuvre.
When it comes to a personal brand, even the way you spell needs to be consistent.
Unless he gives a different image for the American market?
In which case, I would advise against it, as citoyens du monde. We need to have one personal brand worldwide.
The reality is, probably, that the blog is written by an American colleague, in which case it really isn’t a personal blog, is it?
My Groups
-
France Updated: 1 minute ago
-
News of the World Updated: 13 minutes ago
-
Social Justice Updated: 13 minutes ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Whilst it is true that Kevin proudly declares his NZ allegiance and sentiment, and also suggests the same re his British heritage, Kevin has always struck me as being a truly global citizen, having, for example, close friendships with people in a number of European countries.
I'm a freelance writer and researcher and I have found myself, more and more, moving across spelling boundaries. In academic work I am a stickler for consistency however I'm not sure commercial, and certainly on-line blogs, always require the same. I'm certainly not convinced changes in spelling approach defeat a personal brand - or indeed that Kevin necessarily strikes out to develop a personal brand. I've always, as suggested, seen Kevin as a global citizen with particular cultural loves. Further, Kevin would be writing to people in various nations all the time thus a mixed behavioural response is perhaps to be expected. His blog is visited by people across the globe. If anything, he is serving that international presence - though I suspect this issue may not have struck him consciously. Who knows?
Your suggestion that his blog is written by an American colleague? Have you considered posing this to Kevin directly? For my part, I know he reads each and every response on his blog. I have seen certain sentiments expressed on his blog transferred to other media outlets (or vice versa) e.g. television and newsprint - and there is tremendous consistency between these. I am sure when he is interviewed on a news show he is not a glove puppet with another hand up his shirt talking for him :) I have also seen him alter small expressions and issues over time on his blog; perhaps at times in response to what we his blogging audience have to say. Certainly many topics come from the heart and if you looked from the very first blog topic and worked your way through (as I have), you would see that.
Why not join us on the blog and offer your thoughts and analysis on the topics?
Best,
Susan
Susan, I’m flattered you joined Vox to fire this comment my way, whether you speak for Kevin or not.
Kevin and I communicate off-blog every now and then. He knows where and how to reach me and we maintain a healthy respect for one another. We have spoken on the phone. I took the opportunity to poke a bit of fun his way. In the past, he has taken it in the spirit in which it was intended.
But I have trouble following your arguments. I am as much a global citizen, so how does having close friendships with people in Europe distinguish him from, say, me? Or any of the people at our CEO level? Besides, I already addressed your point about this in the original post, in my second-to-last paragraph. Citoyens du monde should have a singular brand everywhere.
And don’t we all write for an international audience given our chief executive roles, or have our blogs frequented by people from everywhere? I do not see how this distinguishes Kevin, or me, or anyone else like us, for that matter.
I disagree that adopting another country’s spelling conventions do not detract from a personal brand. I disagree that Kevin has not gone out to develop a personal brand: the blog does bear his name, after all. Someone has gone to a lot of effort to customize it. He (or someone) signs his posts. Whether he likes it or not, it is perceived as part of his brand: brands are, at the end of the day, determined not by the originator. The originator, corporation or organization behind the brand is at best a steward that engages an audience and tries to manage perceptions the best one can. This is fundamental in branding—as is the lesson of consistency at every contact point with an audience member, which his blog seems to miss, at least for me.
If one is serving a global audience, one would not adopt American English—a form of English that even the United Nations does not prefer. It is, after all, American English: a form that by its definition is used in one nation. I don’t notice it being adopted by British Commonwealth countries, including India, with the exception of outsourced workers serving US clients. Canada, with its proximity to the US, may be another exception. But American English is in the minority.
Soon after this post, one of his people contacted me, without a comment addressing the points, but pointing out that the wrong photo was used. Kevin could have contacted me, but he didn’t. It points to the idea that this is a managed blog. I am not saying it is—but they sure made it tempting to think that.
In such a context, consistency between what Kevin says on TV and what he may blog is no surprise. Any good brand management team will be able to create this.
I welcome his comments here, or, indeed through our usual channels. I see no reason whatsoever these points need to be raised on his blog—after all, they would be considered off-topic for his posts. I have no desire to spam him. You found me. So can he.
I do have a simple question: how do you know that the modifications you write of are done by him, too?
The fact is: I personally do not know who writes Kevin’s blog. To be perfectly honest, I do not really care. He and I have never talked about it. I repeat that it is highly unusual for any Englishman or New Zealander to adopt American spellings for precisely the reasons you say one should. If he says he wrote it, I will believe him. I will still say it is weird. I also say it is out of character because the Kevin Roberts I know typically writes in longhand, with a pen.
If he didn’t write it, then the ghost writer shows a general ignorance of the parochialism (the) Englishmen (that I know) and most New Zealanders have toward spelling conventions. Maybe it was an American transcriber of one of Kevin’s many handwritten notes. But that person has missed this opportunity to brand Kevin properly. And that is ironical.
At the end of the day, I believe that as Kevin’s colleague, I am more than qualified to make my observations. I believe them to be fair, partly in jest (as CollegeJay found), and certainly not harsh when you consider how some of his ideas have been panned.
If you are interested in branding, I invite you to visit my work blog, at which there are plenty of posts on the topic, as well as links to colleagues whose work is, admittedly and with respect, more cutting-edge than what I have seen from Kevin of late. The man is inspiring in person, but for blog-reading, I greatly prefer other destinations.
PS.: Vox seems to remove my paragraphing these days. It used to allow nice indents. Someone has tampered with the way these posts work.
Do I think Kevin would be fazed by the critique? Not at all. This would be a mild critique compared to what one faces both in academe and in the world of business. From my observation, Kevin would take the critique on board in his usual manner - optimistically and with interest. Whether he materially would respond would depend on time and so on.
As I said, I was not speaking for him nor in defence of him; I was simply offering a different perspective to the issues. That is why people develop blogs isn't it? To garner an array of opinions? For what it's worth, I don't agree with everything on Kevin's blog but I stick it out, state how I feel and am prepared to receive alternative commentary in situ. I do not go away and discuss my adversarial sentiments elsewhere. I am often prepared to be a sole dissenting voice and am totally ok with that.
I presume you refer to Kevin as your "colleague" in the sense of both being CEO's? In my country one would not say that. "Peer" yes but colleague no and only peer if you were on the same strata level. Here "colleague" refers to someone in your own business or an associated company. So, even on this topic there is more than one potential interpretation of the term.
I was merely a visitor who happened, as stated, to come across your blog by complete happenschance. Came, saw, discussed. Thanks for the opportunity.
I do have doubts on whether Kevin has written his blog himself. But it certainly was not an observation made out of spite. I believe he could do a better job at self-branding. And I stand by my comments.
I have considered your perspective and as stated, I disagree with most of your points.
Kevin and I are in the same business. He and I are both CEOs. He and I are both branding authors. He and I are public speakers who are often called to speak on branding. He and I are known for this topic globally and comment in different media about the topic. We have both been asked to write for a series of branding books. I think that more than qualifies my use of the term colleague.
He may have more Google references than me, but if you go round branding circles, you may find people who believe I was being very generous in considering his work at the same level as mine. That is not my judgement, otherwise I would never have visited his blog in the first place.
I consider that you have made an error is taking my discussion and responding to it like I have offered assertions. I've not done that. I've offered potentials, not solid viewpoints. I have no idea what Kevin's take on these issues are so how could I claim his intentions or mindset? You clearly believe you have higher expertise than Kevin as your last post suggestions and as I quote hereunder.
I find your point that to serve a global audience that one naturally uses American English highly problematic - and perhaps a quasi traditional view - but that is a different discussion and you already indicated you feel time has been wasted talking about spelling. An interesting comment given you started the topic yourself. That said, let me just say that I do understand claims that stem from a business perspective; however you would realise, I am sure, that not everyone believes business should have the last say on cultural matters. France certainly would disagree with you.
All I have presented to you is a different perspective which you have rejected. Your choice and that is fine. I have no idea who you are and what work you do or your field. I simply came across your blog, saw the topic and elected to respond.
I would have not done what you have. I agree that raising it on Kevin's blog would have not been in keeping with the spirit of said blog community (so I will retract earlier suggestions along those lines) however, I would have raised it with Kevin personally. I dunno, I'm old fashioned in that kind of way. I'd rather have taken it to the person than aired doubts about the person's capability in a public forum - particularly when I claim ongoing personal interaction with that person as you have done vis say phone calls.
As suggested earlier, you clearly see yourself at a higher level than Kevin by the comment "his work at the same level as mine". As I also said in a prior post, I doubt Kevin would be overly concerned about all this and I am sure he would consider the salient issues. However, public critiques are what they are.
Enjoy life at the top.
You wrote: ‘I consider that you have made an error is taking my discussion and responding to it like I have offered assertions.’ I may say the same of your responses.
I did not say what you claim I stated: ‘You clearly believe you have higher expertise than Kevin as your last post suggestions’. I actually said that I did not agree with that belief. You have quoted me out of context.
I felt time was being wasted in that our most recent comments added little to the original discussion. For a small matter, both you and I could have been more economical.
At no time did I state that business would have the last say on cultural matters and have never believed that. Indeed, the use of British spellings is a cultural argument. This again takes us further away by introducing a contention that I never made and time is being wasted here, too. I do not try to add things to what you write.
Maybe you are right that one should raise these things with the subject. I often do. But I do not believe that when it is written partly in jest that this is necessary. And if Kevin would not be too concerned as you say (and he wouldn’t), then that lessens the need for me to run any crticism by him. (He has never minded in the past.)
Oh, I also broadcast an item on Tony Blair recently on al-Jazeera. Naturally, you will find I have erred greatly as I failed to contact Mr Blair prior to the broadcast.
"I was being very generous in considering his work at the same level as mine."
I have read that paragraph several times and it is worded ingeniously or, if I was being generous, I would say ambiguously. That may not have been deliberate and I am not saying it is, however I contend ambiguity exists in the phrasing. Perhaps from your place of intent you cannot see it. All this said, I am glad to know now that you do not hold yourself to have a higher - or even lower - skill level than Kevin. I dare say as we all do, you would hold specialist knowledge he does not and vice versa. Certainly he has a wealth of life/professional knowledge that serves him well. Anyway, as we both know at this point, Kevin has responded to the matter you raised in your initial post. He's clarified who creates the blog posts on KRConnect and who does the actual word processing.
I say we do a scene from the "Scottish Play" and boil them in oil!
To end Jack, I offered an opinion at the outset that you didn't agree with. To recap, I expressed that Kevin, as a citizen of the world, talking about global topics and drawing in material from various sources and countries, AND having a global audience reading..really wasn't doing himself any disservice by publishing in a sometimes 'mixed spelling mode'. I am one of the most regular participants on Connect and I couldn't care less about the spelling. I'm interested in debating the heart of the topics and to have my 'isms' challenged and to be taken to places I've not had an opportunity to go to before. That's where I am at with the blog. It's you who chooses to focus on spelling and whether Kevin, and/or his staff, are doing a grand job in "branding" Kevin Roberts. I questioned whether he was actually doing that. You felt he is.
I have observed conversations elsewhere between you and other colleagues that claim KRConnect commenced at your urging - or the urging of two of you. Some disappointment that a grand (my term) public debate as to the worth et al of Lovemarks did not emerge as an opportunity for a few people to unpack and defeat it as a proposition. Lots of repeats that Lovemarks is marketing marketing. Suggestions of rival positions. Some tall poppy cutting, some acerbic comments and some well reasoned devil's advocacy. Probably what one would expect.
Dissembling is very yesterday I think. I'm wary of players who sit straddling fences, murmuring at windmills until they choose where they really are. I'm not terribly good at politics I must admit, but I have a reasonable instinct. I recommend that you choose the right battle dress for each occasion Jack and wear it with passion and pride.
KRConnect did not commence at my urging: I don’t recall having had this conversation with colleagues. Memory may serve me incorrectly. However, I didn’t know of Kevin’s blog till earlier this year. On reflection, it would have been nice to see it up and running at the time of his first book.
My feeling (as I wrote in a review for ProDesign many years ago) was that he could have gone a lot further than repackaging existing theories, especially given his position, and Lovemarks missed a great deal of the more recent marketing practices (e.g. greater customer engagement). For a much-vaunted book on branding, it addressed few of the problems that earlier works such as No Logo and Branded highlighted. I believe they needed a proper response. When writing Beyond Branding earlier in the decade, I made sure that we gave readers a proper consideration of modern branding viewpoints, even if our work was less known and, in my opinion, more disjointed. I do not compare the two works—they are aimed at different audiences—but as a branding author Kevin made a considerable omission.
Lovemarks was not without merit, however, as I also noted at the time.
I took issue with several of the Saatchi & Saatchi clients mentioned because they did not fulfil the promise that Kevin advanced, from my point of view—more so in his second book, which, when discussing it with a mutual acquaintance Brian Sweeney years ago, was meant to acknowledge the conversations (positive and negative) that emerged in the first’s wake. I felt it did not.
Other than the comments on the second book, the above has remained my unwavering stance on the entire Lovemarks “movement” since 2004. I can assure you my stance on Lovemarks is neither political nor tall-poppy-cutting, and I can say the same of the original post on this page.