Why Every C-Suite Executive Must Cultivate a Personal Brand Presence Online

In a hyper-capitalist country like the United States, currency is culture. Economic status influences education, which itself often reinforces or cultivates taste and values. We live our lives socializing and residing and often working in a taste and values orbit in which, to the best of our ability, the things we like and remind us of ourselves are reinforced by the habitats we self-generate. And the more money you have, the greater this ability is, and the more likely you are able to dictate what the confines of this habitat look and feel and sound like -- and who can co-inhabit or share it with you.

So it’s no surprise that every time a CEO or some other C-suite executive or owner of a big-box store, fast-food chain, or sports team makes some kind of political endorsement or statement about social issues the public reacts with either a rallying cry of support or a fever-pitched hysteric to boycott the store, chain, or team -- the brand. When the latter happens, things can get so heated that opposition to the brand can take on a micro-culture of its own. While some consumers may have loved Goya or Home Depot or Starbucks before, when a high-level executive makes a political donation or endorsement they don’t like, these consumers become dismayed, disgusted and even devastated because this brand that they’ve supported for so long exists in a values habitat that is diametrically opposed to their own. And they want the world to shut that business down entirely for it.

But what if every C-suite executive -- the people who can make or break a brand with an off-the-cuff endorsement of a person or issue-- had a personal brand that was separate and distinct from the umbrella brand they either owned or operated at some capacity? If there were a separate place for someone like Mark Zuckerberg to be Mark Zuckerberg outside his outsize company. Would some of his business choices make Facebook subscribers who do or don’t agree with his personal values less or more likely to associate his brand with his company’s? To use a more anonymous example, would we be able to separate, as we try to do with the artist from his art, Brand X from the Chief Financial Operations executive of Company X who just happens to support, say, Black Lives Matter?

C-suite executive titles are, after all, ephemeral spaces. Holders come and go. They are seats. They can be replaced with the ease of perpetual sovereignty: the CEO is dead, long live the CEO. So isn’t it in the best interest of every company to distinguish their seatholders from the seats and the brand itself so that five years of a sexist executive don’t take an entire, say, film production business or brand down with him? What if every corporate juggernaut made a commitment to making sure their executives kept a blog or vlog, had a social media presence that was active, and put out regular newsletters? One wouldn’t have to necessarily know who they voted for or what their feelings are about mask-wearing or police brutality (unless they so chose to air these), but the purpose would be to detangle the executive’s humanity from the brand’s image. Because you shouldn’t have to agree with the CEO of Nabisco about the state of the world to enjoy an Oreo cookie. But if you buy a package of Oreos for your family every couple of weeks for years and maybe even generations, you should know who the CEO of Nabisco is that produces those cookies.

Personal branding for corporate executives can also raise their name-recognition and cultivate a broader influence for their own corporate-ladder climbing purposes as well as their pet projects and matters close to heart. If a CEO or CFO talks about their battle with breast cancer on their blog, podcast or IG account, adding that touch of humanity and vulnerability can add a lot of goodwill to their general persona, but also to the brand they represent. That’s because it goes both ways: to some degree, personal branding can either help or hurt the corporate umbrella the person represents, but it can also be a way of protecting the brand from being affected altogether. At the very least, it offers protection for both the brands with long shelf life and the humans who come and go. It is, so to speak, a way of separating the cookies from the cookie monster. In a world where C-suite personal branding becomes de rigueur, the next time someone at the head of a company decides to endorse a divisive president or political candidate, the public can shake their heads and think, I don’t need to love this person to love their product. This way, no one gets hurt, the brand gets to live another day, and our culture of currency -- love it or hate it -- gets its own built-in taste/value insurance policy. And what could be more capitalist than that?