Oh thank goodness sanity! Personal branding makes me want to lash out, especially at those people who say you need to be careful about what you post on line because you need to develop a positive online prescence for future employers. By conciously branding yourself don't you anyway dilute the honesty and integrity that is suppoused to be seen as a part of every successful brand?

I guess my understanding about what "branding" means is less negative--I thought it was a good thing to "brand" my blog--to make it a place with a (generally) consistent focus, where people looking for reviews of a particular genre could reliably find them. My thought was that if I had a focus, my reviews would perhaps be more likely to be read by the people interested in that kind of book.

I think I am conflating "focus" and "distinct identity" with "branding." I am not coca cola, nor was meant to be, but I did want to make my blog something with a clear and easily remembered point to it.

in some ways branding means being the first to get your message heard over the others. if one brand excels in a particular way at getting its message out there then the only way to truly match it is become competitive with that brand.

but its not very genteel for publishers to say to their stable of writers "we want you out there doing what john green does" because that would smack of unoriginality. instead what happens is that publishers go for writers who produce high-concept ideas that will do the work for both sides. say classics infused with zombies, or a series about a boy wizard. yes, it's a crapshoot, but when it works the concept becomes the brand, the brand defines the author.

jon scieszka is a name that conjures up silliness and all things traditionally boy. even before guys read or his ambassadorship, his name was pretty much a guarantee of a certain level of goofy, fun content. that's his brand, and he would have to work pretty hard now to write a serious middle grade book with a female main character because he would be fighting the expectations his brand has created. i don't think he set out to be "that boy book guy" that he is now, and that's really the point of personal branding: it's built and developed over time.

sadly, publishers no longer have the time or resources to help writers build their brands. marketing is yet another element of getting published (along with proofreading and editing skills, oh, and paying your own way on book tours) that now falls entirely on the author.

Your comment function HATES me. Not only does it think I've commented when I haven't so won't let me comment, what I wrote disappears.

Sigh.

My contribution: let's back up from the words branding & marketing because we are using them, I believe, in different ways and we have different subjective reactions to those words. Which means we think we are talking about the same thing but aren't.

What happened to the author (be more like MoJo) is wrong. No argument. It's also true that I don't think an author can sit back, get a book published, and think their job is done. As a lawyer, I learned part of my job for practicing law was client recruitment and retention; librarians learn their job includes advocy & funding. For authors, marketing & promoting their books and themselves is part of it.

Next part.

When it comes to authors, no doubt, it is tricky. And be like x is wrong.

For bloggers, I say I'm "being professional" with my online life, including what I focus on, how I conduct myself, etc. What I see Charlotte saying. She or others call it (branding / marketing / etc.) So for this, we have to put aside our reactions and focus on the action and true definitions. Some people don't like "professional" being used for a blog, for example! Am I aware I have an online presence? yes. Am I aware that impacts my professional life -- career, writing, presentations? Yes. Do I blog and conduct myself accordingly? Yes. I don't think any of that is wrong.

I pretty much agree with Liz. The words "branding" and "marketing" are getting thrown around and muddied.

When you publish a blog, you are contributing to the public perception of yourself. Even if you talk about a wide variety of things, you have a unique voice. I do think it's important to be aware of the way a blog might influence others' perception of you. I don't think you should manipulate that or be dishonest; most of the people who have gotten success from the perception others have of them tend to be very genuine and are just being themselves, as far as I can tell.

Should you have to brand yourself? No. Should you be conscious that anything you put on your blog could be read by anybody at any time? Absolutely. I think this is where the flexibility of the terminology hurts the conversation.

I wonder where the word "famous" fits into the discussion, in the sense that first you become famous, then you monetize that fame. Maureen Johnson is famous, so is John Green (in our pond-- we aren't talking Paris Hilton here). It sounds as if the person at the panel snatching for the microphone was telling people how to get famous, and Johnson is saying that wasn't her goal. That she did each individual thing because she thought it was worth doing and the result has been a certain notoriety in the blogging and YA book world. The notoriety is an anticipated result, but not the goal. Is Maureen just saying that fame for fame's sake is kind of gross?

It sounds as if what Charlotte and Liz want to do is build a good reputation. I would think that is as important on the web as it is in person and not the same thing as trying to be famous.

Maybe people use the word "brand" because it is too embarrassing to say, "I want to be famous!"

I don't know what is wrong with my comment function. It is getting all wiggy lately. So frustrating!

I do agree that the word use is getting muddied - I have always thought it odd to use management terms for blogging where traditionally marketing and brand were associated with a product and now they are being transferred to a person and their ideas. For a writer with published books i get that the product is there but still...MOJO has a point. How do you brand an author when the whole idea is to try and write whatever kind of book you want to write?

And the biggest weirdness is copycat branding on the part of publishers.

Reputation is fine but again...I don't think that is what branding means. Any company wants a good reputation - any person wants a good reputation but consider Hemingway vs Coca Cola for example. All Coke wants is to always taste like Coke but Hemingway could be many things (including womanizer and heavy drinker and wild man) and it didn't affect his reputation as a writer. It's a lot broader for people.

My big point though is that bloggers and publishers seem to be in love with some terms lately, and yet we don't know what they mean or how they work on the internet.

This is what I wrote at my blog - linking back to you and Maureen for real discussion:

I'll say that there are aspects of branding that are easy and helpful. My blog name, commenting name, and Twitter name are all MotherReader. No one has to think too hard about who I am in any of those places. But where I start to push back - or at least would ask us all to step back and think - is when I see that it is to publishers advantage that we be nicely, neatly branded. It certainly makes it easier for them to promote authors and to evaluate bloggers. And I'm not saying that it's an absolute wrong. But is it good for the bloggers?

I also have to say that we're all using the same words with different meanings. And I'd also argue that a publisher telling a writer to be "like" someone else is totally a different conversation - that's a publisher being clueless. Or put another way, would we disagree with a publisher saying "you can help your sales and career if you can connect to people, and a good example of someone who does that well is Maureen Johnson."? I would agree with that totally.

As for blogger branding... again, doesn't this only matter for a blogger who cares? If you don't want anything from publishers, why would a book blogger worry? If you do want ARCs... you do have to answer the "what's in it for them?" question, since publishing is a business. If you simply want "respect" then the branding doesn't matter at all.

Sigh. Look what you've done, Colleen. I'm gonna have to blog about this, too.

More than anything Greg (and I totally feel your pain on this!) is that the whole mess has become, well, a MESS. I'd love to ignore the branding bits and I pretty much do except it is cropping up in panel discussions, etc with bloggers (see the recent Book Blogger Convention where there was a panel called "Marketing"). I feel pushed a bit as if to have a blog is to own a brand is to market a product (which is apparently whatever I'm posting about and also myself because I post). I disagree with that because I do market something in "real life". And honestly if I was marketing myself via this blog I'd be a lot more consistent in what I post about subject-wise and a lot more dedicated to seeking readers.

As to the publishing issue, which I agree is way bigger, it's still sticky even if you remove the brand bit from the author comparison. What if your books just don't lend themselves to that much social media work? Or if you can't do the amount of social media that MOJO does? Is a standard for "proper" author behavior being set that is unreasonably high?

Things to think about..........

I'd point out, Colleen, that you're feeling the "push" to brand because you do want to stand out, to be read, to be seen. But I think you're mistaking it to mean something very laser-like in focus. Instead, I'd argue that your "brand" is well established - thoughtful writing, sometimes about books and sometimes not, and clearly stated and supported opinions. But "brand" has taken on so much more meaning, and issues have bled together. You're feeling pressure to market your blog? Where does that pressure come from? Because others are getting more eyeballs? Others are getting more ARCs? If you don't care about those things, there's no pressure, is there? I'm a tad confused.

I'm also not sure what books wouldn't lend themselves to social media work. Again, there's SELLING and then there's connecting. I'm in the latter camp. No question time is an issue, but I don't think publishers are yet gonna get rid of authors cuz they don't have the time to do social media. I hope not. But hey, authors should do everything they can to help their career, shouldn't they? I don't think that, by itself, is an unreasonable expectation.

Oy - you're making me think! ha!

1. I think what I mean by "pushing" is that it seems the the lit blogosphere itself is moving away from just saying what you want to say on books or whatever and into this more corporate/mgmt mindset of market/brand/establish/etc. You're 100% right in that I can just be whoever the hell I want to be and let it go at that. I'm sure part of my problem here is that I see a trend and don't want to partake in it and don't appreciate how it seems to be sweeping so many others along. I don't worry about ARCs, etc because Bookslut and Booklist keep me completely separate from all that worry (and I get too many as you know). What I worry about is that as publishing labors to understand the blogosphere it will shift and start demand a higher level of marketing from everyone. Will there be readership standards issued? Minimum avg number of comments? Req number of followers or technorati scores? I don't know. If all that happens I can still happily write whatever the heck I want and say "screw you" to the publishers but what bugs me is that being good at marketing doesn't mean you're all that good at writing. We've seen that in packaged books (alloy etc.)

2. As for writers/books that might not lend themselves heavily to social media well that comes to audience. You have to have an audience that is into social media and there are a lot of folks (over 50 say) who aren't into it and that's a big chunk of the book buying population. I doubt anyone would tell the next Tom Clancy that he needs to be on twitter like MOJO. Also, I was thinking about writers who don't have that kind of time (like my friend who has a fulltime job.) Writers have long talked about the difficulty of writing the next book while marketing the current release and this adds a burden. If you aren't considered a success unless you have thousands of followers, a regular blog, active fb page, etc well then how the heck can you be expected to write the next book? I see social media requirements as a burden in that respect and not a one size fits all strategy.

I guess the bottom line in ALL of this (HA) is that if someone can excel at marketing their blog, book, etc and be rewarded then go them. I don't want to see it force the rest of us to have to embrace the same strategies or perform at the same standards. And that's the shift I'm starting to see and worry about.

I think we're going to half agree, half disagree here.

I read this as about two different issues: one, authors being told to do some artificial marketing (be MOJO). Two, commercialization of bloggers.

As for commercialization, when does professionalism become commercialization? Is it the person whose prep for blogging is blog design, buying URL, creating review/send me ARC policies and no reviews or interviews?

I'm glad you have alternate places to voice your professional self & to have access to ARCS.

I don't, for the most part. I can pay to go to ALA/BEA (which I do, and I am involved in YALSA, but that's another post). My place to have a voice is my blog; my way of contacts for ARCs is my blog. Personally, I call realizing that "being professional."

And now there is a third thing ... about the relationship with publishers. Frankly, if it gets to a place with publishers saying "jump" and bloggers saying "how high" readers will be lost and will go to those bloggers who don't do that. So I understand being thoughtful about that, but a, I don't think publishers are evil, and b, I don't think enough bloggers will so engage in such a way to create a blogosphere that is "just" free advertising for publishers.

So far as authors are concerned, we're certainly being encouraged to craft a persona of sorts--doing so effectively can have real-world benefits, doing so haphazardly or offensively or not at all can have real-world penalties.

Our publishers are our business partners, and they have expectations of us in the same way that we have expectations of them.

That said, I suspect we're all over-thinking it. My perspective may be impacted by having been one of the first authors on the Web and because my e-newsletter of interviews, links, and what not preceded blogging and "branding," but...

I'm upbeat online in large part because I'm upbeat in person. My posts tend to have a journalistic tone because I've been writing in news rooms since I was a teenager and, before that, served as editor of my junior high and high school newspapers.

And while I don't wax on about my politics or academic bent, it would likely be of no surprise to my blog readers that my family is ethnically diverse, that I'm the co-founder of a feminist law journal, and that I teach at the Vermont College of Fine Arts MFA program.

I love books, I love kids, and I love the people who put them together. I enjoy participating in the conversation of books, and that's pretty much it.

Colleen - if publishers start dictating what bloggers do and don't do, those bloggers/blogs will be less relevant to their readers. Publishers won't stand to gain longterm. Bloggers don't have to listen - that's the whole point! There's a chance to become a trusted source, and that's what's important.

Cynthia's probably right in that we're overthinking to some extent. I also think we're letting terms be redefined. I blogged about it over at thehappyaccident.net today to try and reframe the conversation a little. Always curious about your take....

Gregory K.

I think that what I am afraid of is this: Given the choice between something valuable and something well marketed, people seem to go for well-marketed every time. If the blogosphere becomes more and more commercialized, people like Colleen who have found communities and have a position of respect in those found communities, may lose them. I'm pessimistic that anything can be done to prevent this. I'll have to hold on to the idea that the smaller community that is left will be enough, because after all, it will be the most-like minded members of this community who stick around.

As far as authors go. I don't know if there are books that don't fit well with social media, but man there are authors who don't fit well with it. Once again, one's facility for marketing isn't predictive of your skill as writer, so it's too bad that the marketingest writers will be the ones supported whether they are also the best writers or not. This bums me out as a reader as I tend to really like the work by the least well socialized authors out there.

I have to say, I think the discussion in the comments is WAY better than the post itself! ha!

You are right - overthinking is pretty common when something becomes the focus of a post and I'm sure there is some of that going on here. The only time it is not overthinking however is when you are sitting in the room with your publisher who tells you that you need to do something like someone else in order to be a success. Then it becomes a really big deal. Your book is coming out, you have a job, you have a blog, you have a life. You thought you had done what you needed to do.

And now they say, quite blithely, "go be like this other person, could ya please?" What do you say then? Because if it's "no" I have to wonder if your book will get the attention it needs (and trust me - that is a real possibility in the case I'm referring to).

I guess what really bugs me is that this is an author who is already blogging and has been for years but is now told her blog is not enough, or not exactly what they need, or not going to work for them. (It's not pink and sparkly enough? Who knows.) So it's not enough to blog anymore, guys - you have to do it like MOJO (or Green or Gaiman or etc.)

And as to blogs becoming less relevant to readers if publishers dictate what they do...well, I'd like to believe that except I've see just how popular you can be giving canned reviews when you've got giveaways attached to them. You know who I'm talking about (ha!). I DON'T think publishers are evil, but I do think they have a lot invested in getting the response they want/need out of a reviewer/blogger. I look at how cozy the relationship already is between pubs and bloggers (in my case, your case, everyone's case) and it makes me wonder just how it was between print reviewers and pubs in the past. And we don't have the insulating power of a newspaper editor, etc. to say "no".

All things to think about - heading over to your post now, Greg!

Chiming in late to the conversation here, and with an alternate viewpoint. I think there is pressure to blog falls on a very narrow segment of the author community. The vast majority of actively blogging authors write YA and because those readers are heavy users of social networks, it does make sense to reach that reader on line.

From my friends who write picture books, non-fiction, short stories, MG, poetry and chapter books I hear very little about pressure from publishers to blog.

Beyond having a website my publisher has never stated any expectation that I spend my time marketing on line. They are pleased to hear about my marketing efforts whether they are school visits or blog interviews or professional conferences. The only guidance I've gotten from them is to try what ever I'm comfortable with and stick with what works best for me and my writing schedule.

My editor is much more blunt-- I have the best marketing department in the business. You have your next novel. Make it the best book you've ever written and leave the selling to me. He's a bit of a dinosaur, but he's a very successful dinosaur. :-)

Colleen, I'm not sure if high-attraction is necessarily the same as "popular." Me, I'm not a giveaway person. As for blogs that do so? I like when its transparent (is it the blogger's own copies being held out for a prize? or a publisher sponsored & supplied copy). And while its not for me, I see the role it has in promoting a book. While I don't think bloggers should see themselves as "partners" with publishers in book promotion, I think we all benefit from promoting books. One way of promotion of "books" or "reading" (rather than an individual book or publisher) is by me writing reviews or other posts of bookish interest. For others, its getting word out about books. With the internet, the reader is no longer limited to learning about books based on what their local library or bookstore has -- in other words, dependent on choices someone els has made. That can be where giveaways are a good promotion; yes, for the blogger, and yes, for the publisher, but also a way for the end reader to find out about different books that otherwise they would not have found out about.

So, for me? No giveaways, neither as having it or entering. But for others? Yes. If that became the only type of book blog would I have an issue? Yes; but I don't think that is going to happen. If someone tried to create a rule or definition of what a "good" book blogger was and said "contests", I'd be arguing with them no end.

I do think transparency is important, tho, to know whose giveaway it really is, the bloggers or the publishers.

Of course there has always been varying relationships between publishers and book people! Publisher previews & librarian dinners etc predates book bloggers by a long shot. People run in the same groups, so reviewers were perhaps other authors (or want to be authors). I think the Guardian? Or someplace wrote about this a few years back, the "illusion" that there ever was a Wall between the two. Ethics, yes; total divide, no.

"Canned" reviews is then another issue. Call me Pollyanna, but again, ultimately I believe in quality and honesty triumphing. Bit hard to get into in comments, because each of these things is about different audiences, different readers, different bloggers, and different publisher/blogger relationshiops.

I think Roseanne has an interesting point that the branding seems more focused on YA authors than anyone else which I think is true and likely due to what pubs think of their audience (that they are online more, etc.) However - it will hurt a YA author just as much as anyone if they are pushed into a corner by a brand...if you are pink and sparkly in the beginning then you will always have to remain so and if that's not what you want to write then it's a real limiter. (I also see a lot more social media from SFF authors of all ages as opposed to, say, mystery authors.)

Interesting though, to think about.

I am just more of a cynic than you Liz! (Can you believe it??? HA!) I remain concerned by what I see as divisions online in the lit blogosphere. It's not genre divisions at all but rather the ways at which you approach blogging - one side saying comments are essential and proof of readership while other side not even allowing comments. It's that whole "I'm just a blogger" vs "I'm a reviewer" divide. Remember that? (Sigh) Now it's almost like one side markets their blog while another lets their writing (and appearing on other sites, or on panels, etc) be their marketing.

It's all very interesting to me, this discussion, and I love how much everyone else is chiming in!

I've always wondered how so many bloggers can afford to do a giveaway almost every week. The shipping cost, (the boxes, postage etc) must add up.

A lack of comments doesn't mean lack of readership. Some blogs just attract lurkers

Doret, the last I looked at other people's giveaways, was before the FTC changed rules. And then, it wasn't very clear (to me, at least) when or if publishers supplied the ocpies or publishers did the shipping.

So you mention my concern at the time -- Blogger X's contests are run via publisher and cost little. Blogger Y, to stay competitive, does the same amount, but at their own cost. New Blogger thinks they have to spend a lot of money to be a blogger and run contents, thinking everyone is like Blogger Y.

I assume, with the FTC changes, that bloggers now clearly spell out source of copy and who does shipping/packing. But I have no idea.

Oh! and Colleen, if it helps, I see blogs as being, in a way, like magazines. I can read and enjoy both VANITY FAIR and PEOPLE; but I wouldn't want a world that was just one or the other.

You know, I've never seen someone state that a giveaway is coming direct from the publisher. It would have to be that way - like Doret says the shipping costs would add up - but I'm looking over some blogs right now and I don't see it. Maybe they have some blanket statement buried in the "ABOUT" page somewhere? It's an interesting question though - who pays for this stuff?

Oh and Liz - I'm trying very hard to be the SMITHSONIAN of the lit blog world. I love that magazine!

I usually (if not always) state if a contest is sponsored by a publisher. This is because a publisher often has restrictions about where they will send, and if I sponsor myself, I make the contest international.

This is stated in my contest policy (linked in my sidebar) as well.

When the Class of 2K9 did the end of the year giveaways of all 22 books, we payed for the books ourselves. We partnered with bookstores who had been very good to us in our debut year, Andersons in Chicago and Powells in Portland.

I made the arrangements at Powells and they were super to work with. Since the books were going to libraries, they let us have a teacher discount. They did all the ordering and shipping.

I think most blogging authors pay for their own giveaways buying the book and shipping it. Yes, it's expensive. Start up businesses are cash hungry and writing is no exception.

Oh, Lord. And though I run a boutique marketing company I'd have no idea how to brand myself, especially since I don't want to keep repeating myself. Especially since I want to keep testing myself, trying to be something different than I last was.

Colleen,
I completely hear your frustration with the edicts of "be a brand!" but I think if we re-conceptualize 'brand' as something that exists anyway - by virtue of our writing things under our names - then maybe that can take the pressure off of "creating" a brand. I've been thinking a lot about writers whose work covers a broad spectrum of age categories and genres (I'm thinking of M.T. Anderson, and Jacqueline Woodson) and yet, by virtue of the overall quality of their work, and some consistency in themes explored, I think each of those authors has a "brand" - though I wonder if they've ever consciously pursued 'creating' a brand. They just write their amazing books, and the overall power of their work defines their 'brand.'
Perhaps it's a game of semantics, but I think there's no reason to STRESS out about a brand - because really, at the end of the day - YOU are your own brand. And like you say, you can't be anyone else!
Thanks for having this discussion,
Namaste and a Hug,
Lee

Maybe it is a "cart/horse" thing. I'm puzzled by the notion of developing a brand before your work establishes you as one. And maybe that is what really frustrates me. Now you can't just blog about books or even be writer - you have to be thinking about building your brand all the time.

Meh. I'd rather spend those extra brain cells on reading a good book! ha!

I really liked Maureen Johnson's post on branding, and it's great to hear your response, Colleen, let alone all these comments.

I think we should revisit the idea of "voice," acknowledging that an author should have a voice on the page of a given book as well as--if he/she is a blogger--on the blog. But that voice is important because it speaks certain things and reaches certain people who choose to listen, not because of a marketing department's mandates.

Blogging feels like running a magazine at times, yes, but it can also feel like a conversation, as evidenced here. Frankly, one reason I blog is because I long for more intelligent conversations about children's books in my life.