Be the Brand. Tips from the (pseudo)master.

Note: This post was originally published August 25, 2008. But it’s so good I just had to reblog. Enjoy.

I’ve written other blogs on other topics before, but never with the sense of purpose I have today.

Not to say that I’ve never had a sense of purpose in the past.

But I feel singularly inspired to write this blog because its all about me.

‘Who am I?’ you ask.

Entrepreneur. Brand strategist. Technology evangelist. Marketing maverick. Biz dev specialist. Trend setter.

I’m the guy who tells you like it is, whether you want to hear it or not.

To put it simply, I’m that dude.

You know who ‘that dude’ is.

He’s the guy that everyone acknowledges (implicitly or explicitly) when he walks into the room.

The one that you’ll remember years after you’ve met him.

The one that everyone aspires to emulate.

The one with the aura, the gift, the presence.

He’s that dude.

We all have ‘that dude’ in us.

It’s that aspect of us that tells really funny jokes.

Or knows how to solve complex equations in our heads.

Or has ability to remain cool in the face of difficulty.

The ‘go-to’ guy when things really need to get done.

Being the brand is the act of cultivating the ‘that dude’ in all of us.

I want to demonstrate the power of my mantra, ‘Be the Brand,” using myself as a living case study.

I’m not particularly famous.

If you Google “Chukumba” you’ll see about 27,000 results.

Add the qualifier “Stephen” and that jumps to about 37,000.

Not bad, but nothing really if you consider the 37 million results generated by searching for the term ‘Oprah’ or the 40+ million generated by searching the term ‘Donald Trump.’

Oprah and Trump are classic examples of iconic figures with huge brand recognition.

When Oprah Winfrey started O Magazine, people said, “She’s so vain. Why does she need to be on the cover of every issue?”

I thought, ‘that’s brilliant!’

What better way to promote your brand than to put your face on everything you put into the stream of commerce?

Oprah didn’t become a billionaire by promoting other people (although she has made quite a few people rich from her promotional prowess).

She promoted herself.

Similarly, when Donald Trump started ‘The Apprentice’ people thought “Who does Donald Trump think he is?”

He’s practically bankrupt!

But Trump is a perfect example of the value of self-promotion.

Love him or hate him, you’ve got to deal with him because his face, his properties, and his brand are everywhere.

Despite his well publicized failures, you’ve got to concede his staying power and presence are indomitable.

There are countless others who fit the Oprah/Donald Trump mold, both famous and unknown.

I include myself in their ranks, and I am going to prove that anyone can be the brand, if they want to be.

Being the brand is a perspective that allows you to define yourself and your world-view in a way that sets you apart from the crowd, but without thrashing others in the process.

So stay tuned to see what I’ve got to say.

I’ve got a lot to say-I’m quite verbose.

Hopefully, you’ll come away with lots of good advice.

And at least it’ll make for some interesting reading!

Now go be the brand!

It’s a digital world. Why are you still analog?

We are a digital generation.

Our lives are inextricably intertwined to technology.

Wherever you look, there are signs of the digital era.

Think about the last major storm or natural disaster you heard about.

Mobile phones and Twitter were how most people first reported or got wind of them.

That’s powerful.

If you look at your own behavior, you’re checking your email, text messages or social media accounts on your phone.

These activities didn’t exist a decade ago.

There was no Facebook, YouTube or Twitter.

Smart phones were still several years away from being mainstream.

Or affordable.

But today, things have changed.

Smartphones, social media, texting, instant messaging, wifi.

We can’t imagine living without them.

See something interesting? What do you do?

Whip out your phone, take a snap or shoot a video and post.

Can’t remember the name of song on the radio? What do you do?

Dial up the Shazam app on your phone or Google the lyrics.

Need directions? What do you do?

Hit up MapQuest for turn-by-turn directions.

Why am I going into all this?

Because for all the advances that are taking place in technology, I still hear people say “why do I need this or that” and it drives me absolutely bonkers!

I was in Miami for a few days, and I came across (yet another) brand, a hotel, without a mobile website, app or any form of social media.

When I started talking about all the reasons why they should have any one (or all three) of these things, they pashawed me like I was talking gobbledygook.

They went on and on about how their demographic used computers.

Wouldn’t use mobile phones to make reservations.

Weren’t on Twitter or Facebook.

And have no need for an app.

Despite my eloquent arguments to the contrary, they gave no ground.

It was only when I showed them the mobile site of one of their competitors that the lightbulb went off, and they finally understood what I was talking about.

But it shouldn’t be this way!

How is the digital world growing, changing and advancing by leaps and bounds, but folks are missing it wholesale?

Sure, traditional ways of doing things still work.

Want to advertise a sale at your store? You could take an ad out in the paper.

Or place an ad online.

If anyone sees either, they’ll know that you’re having a sale.

The one who sees it in print will have to get in their car, drive to the store and then check out what’s for sale.

The one who sees it online can go right to your site and check out what you’ve got for sale, right then and there.

If they’re on a mobile device they can browse and buy on the go.

The difference between the two are night and day.

Know ye this: I’m on a mission.

To bring analog cave-dwellers to the digital light.

It’s going to be a long road.

But I’m ready for the challenge.

Analog heathen beware!

Is Google Glass the future of computing (or a passing fad)?

My colleagues and I are a bunch of (admitted) geeks.

Every day, we share links from Engadget, Gizmodo, TechCrunch and the like.

About interesting apps, techie news, digital trends or hot topics.

A few days ago, someone passed around a link to a promo video for Google Glass.

For the uninformed, Google Glass is Google’s foray into developing a wearable computer.

Unlike the alleged smart watch being developed by Apple, Google Glass is a frame you wear on your face, like a pair of glasses.

There are no lenses, per se.

Just a small rectangular surface, sitting an inch or so away from the eye, within which sits the Google Glass display.

Google Glass is very limited in its functionality.

From the video demonstration, Google Glass lets you record and playback video, video chat, get turn-by-turn directions, or send a message.

The What It Does part of the Google Glass site seems to suggest that it does a little more than this.

But not much more.

Since there is no keyboard, you’re limited to voice controlled functions.

Now, we can talk to our computers, Star Trek- like, and have them perform increasingly complex functions.

There is a little button on the side, presumably to allow the user to switch between functions.

But beyond that, it’s totally hands free.

When I first watched the video, it reminded me of a GoPro commercial.

It was all about the visuals.

But unlike GoPro, Google Glass allows you to do more than just record video.

You almost forget about the little screen in the top right corner, because your field of vision is right in front of you.

And that got me wondering…

When you’re wearing a pair of Google Glasses, are you always staring up and to the right?

Like you’re thinking about something?

“Do I look like a dork?” perhaps?

My curiosity got the best of me, and I signed up to try out the damn things.

But a happy black chick on the sign up page told me that the applications to try Google Glass were closed.

If you weren’t so cute, I’d be mad atcha.

I signed up anyway.

I doubt I’ll see a pair in the wild before they’re available for sale.

But one can always hope.

In any instance, it’s definitely got me intrigued.

What do you think?

Is Google Glass the way of the future?

YouTube, you’re bugging. No one is paying for your videos.

I’ve been hearing the most ludicrous rumors concerning YouTube.

Apparently, someone at Google thinks it would be a good idea to start charging folks to watch certain channels.

For a small fee, say $5, users would have access to “premium” content on YouTube.

Really?

So the site that has millions of free user-generated videos is now going to switch to a pay model?

Whatever!

You know I’m not trying to pay for YouTube.

Or any other social media service for that matter.

And it’s not like it’s Netflix (for which I have a subscription).

Where you can dial up the movie you want to watch.

And they’re movies – not videos.

But maybe that’s where they’re going next.

YouTube aspires to be the Netflix of videos?

But which videos?

Are labels going to start charging you to watch the music videos of their artists?

Bad idea.

Maybe I’m dense, but I can’t think of any scenario where folks would be willing to come off that cash for some video (when that same content was formerly free).

Sure, the freemium model dictates that you give something of value away initially to induce a later spend.

But YouTube has been free since the word go.

They blew past that incentive point – where if they flipped to a paid model folks would be willing to pay – a while ago.

Now it just looks like they’re trying to make money by any means necessary.

Or maybe they’re trying to provide incentives to content creators to partner with Google.

If you recall, a few years ago, Google flirted with this subscription video model.

They offered content creators the opportunity to set up premium channels, where they could charge users to watch their videos.

Needless to say, the idea didn’t take.

Why they’re resuscitation this obviously flawed strategy again now is beyond me.

Maybe they’re just gluttons for punishment.

Maybe it’s the 800 million YouTube searches that are performed daily.

Or the 4 billion hours that folks watch each month.

Maybe they’re trying to offer an alternative to the current ad-supported model.

Whatever the motivation, we’ll have to wait and see how folks respond.

Google hasn’t indicated when the first of the paid videos or channels will be available.

In fact, no one is quite sure of the exact pricing mechanism they intend to employ.

But I can tell you this: I won’t be paying a damn thing!

Who knows, maybe the second time’s a charm.

Google + Chelsea = Free Public Wifi

If you haven’t heard, Chelsea has free wifi!

That’s right FREE WIFI!

Thanks to Google and the Chelsea Improvement Company, residents of (and folks passing through) Chelsea will have the luxury of free public wifi.

Now you’ll be able to access the internet – outside – without having to pop into a store with a wifi signal.

Or suffering through spotty 3G or 4G LTE cellular service.

Folks, like Mayor Bloomberg, are all excited about the initiative, which was almost two years in the making.

And Google is footing a majority of the tab to set up and maintain the network.

But don’t get it twisted.

This is not an altogether altruistic move by any means.

Google has offices in Chelsea.

And free wifi in the 10 block radius outside of Google’s offices, ensures that Google employees can still be productive when they step outside to grab a Cappuccino from Starbucks.

Although if they’re getting Cappuccinos from Starbucks…they’ve got wifi…

Whatever!

And the PR bump won’t hurt.

But Google’s move does have a bunch of positive points, beyond the obvious.

It’s a model that, if successful, can be deployed to support other more needy neighborhoods.

I doubt too many in Chelsea have problems accessing the internet. 

The initiative is being touted as Manhattan’s first “hot” neighborhood.

It’s further evidence of New York City’s effort to brand itself as a haven for high tech and media companies.

New York is really trying to live up to the Silicon Alley moniker, and this helps legitimize the tag.

The wifi network only works outside, so if you’re in a building in Chelsea, you’re not going to be able to jump on.

But if you’re outside, look for the wifi network called CIC Free WiFi.

You don’t need a password, so if you’re ever in Chelsea, jump on.

Just remember though, it’s GOOGLE.

So if you use their network, expect that they’re going to:

1. Track your every move
2. Monitor the sites you visit
3. Mine your data
4. All of the above

I’m just saying.

Nothings free.

You know why Google lost billions? Mobile b*tches!

I’ve tried to start this post a few times now, trying to frame it appropriately, with very little success.

So I’m just going to ramble on, and hope you follow me.

Comprehension is so over-rated.

Anyway, here goes…

Early this morning, I read that Google’s stock took a nose dive in the wake of an unauthorized press release.

The press release, which was incomplete, was to have been issued after the trading day.

But a screw-up at the printer had this unauthorized, incomplete release go out, triggering a massive sell-off of Google’s stock.

Apparently, the release said that Google lost 20 percent of its profit from a year ago.

I’m no mathematician, but 20 percent seems like an awful steep dip for one of the world’s largest tech companies.

And traders agree, costing Google $24 billion in a matter of minutes.

It was so bad that Google had to suspend the trading of its stock, hoping the market would adjust – aka they stopped the bleeding.

The reason I’ve been having such issues writing this post was the reason many analysts attributed for Google’s losses.

Mobile.

Article after article specifically referenced the fact that the search giant’s bread and butter, advertising, has taken a massive hit, as advertisers shift their spending to mobile.

Now I’m no Nostradamus, but I’ve been extolling the virtue of mobile for years.

I didn’t predict the fall of Google, but I did say that advertisers were going to shift spending to mobile, as they started to understand the platform.

Fact: Mobile browsing has over taken desktop browsing.

Fact: Folks spend more time with their mobile devices than their computers.

Fact: Mobile is ubiquitous.

Fact: There are almost as many mobile devices in the world as people.

I just made that up.

But you understand my point.

Mobile is the future.

And advertisers have spoken…

Loud enough for Google – GOOGLE – to buckle.

Why do you think they’re tried to make a mobile phone?

Why did the just buy (the flailing) Motorola?

Why are they scrambling to acquire app-development start-ups?

Because Google needs some skin in the mobile game.

Unlike advertising with Google, which has been a staple for businesses for years, spending in mobile yields immediate results.

If I click on a link on my mobile device, it’s because I want to go to that destination.

I’m not hoping that what I find on the other side might be what I wanted.

The conversion rates are astronomically higher with mobile.

It’s a 1:1 proposition.

Meaning with mobile you reach your target directly, versus online advertising, where your impact (and efficacy) is much more diffuse.

I’ve been preaching from the mobile pulpit for years to no avail.

But with the fall of Google, maybe more folks will start to listen.

I’m no (insert name of established tech commentator or analyst here) but I know mobile bitches!

Blogging builds traffic. 30 days and the stats to prove it.

The numbers don’t lie!

Last month, a friend of mine who blogs, issued a 30-day blogging challenge.

She had fallen off her blog game, and resolved to write a new post every day, for 30 days.

She invited other bloggers to join her on her quest.

When I read her blog, I was inspired.

I too, had fallen off my blogging game.

In fact, I’m constantly falling off my game.

Even though I routinely counsel my clients on the importance of providing a regular and steady stream of content on their websites and social media profiles, I don’t really practice what I preach.

And since I don’t blog regularly, I can’t really speak to the issues involved in maintaining a regular output schedule.

Nor can I (genuinely) speak of the real impact that regular output has on a brand’s metrics.

Sure, I preach that the more you put out, the more of a footprint you create, the more pages of content BOTs can crawl to, the more relevant you become.

But for me, that’s all been theoretical.

I mean, I do blog.

This year marks the fourth anniversary of my blog.

Since I started blogging, I’ve posted over 250 times.

That’s an average of 60 posts a year.

Or a little over once a week.

But I really blog in fits and starts.

So I can’t say, honestly, what the impact of regular blogging actually is.

And because of this, I realized that I needed to take Aliya up on her challenge.

On August 31, Aliya completed her 30 day challenge.

Two days ago, I finished mine (I didn’t actually start when Aliya issued her call to action).

Looking back, I’m glad I did.

Because I now have empirical proof from the experience that reinforces the things I’ve been saying about the significance of blogging.

First, blogging creates traffic.

Period.

Since the start of the year, my traffic is consistently higher than it has ever been.

Last month, there were 3,638 view of my blog.

That’s my highest month of traffic ever.

My next highest month of traffic was in June 2010, when I hit 3,458 views.

Back, when in one day, I had 686 views.

The previous month (July), there were 2,712.

The month before that, 2,421.

Second, blogging increases your online presence.

Search engines, like Google love regularly updated content.

Every time you post a blog post you put your site/blog further up in the search results.

Google re-indexes your blog every time you update with new content, giving your site higher search ranking.

And if you’re using well written, relevant keywords, that only makes it even better.

During my month of blogging, I was getting hits for everything from futsal, Katy Perry, the iPhone, Nicki Minaj on down to SoundHound and Shazam.

Try it.

Google “Shazam vs SoundHound” or “Morgan Freeman is not dead” or “Chris Anokute” and invariably, my little blog is returned on the first page.

Third, regular blogging generates backlinks.

I can’t tell you how many times other folks linked to my site.

Whether it was because of the subject matter, the context, the images, tagging or the keywords, something about my content seemed to resonate with other bloggers.

As a result, I generated quite a few backlinks

Fourth, writing every day keeps you relevant.

Whether it’s politics, fashion, technology, music, entertainment, social issues, if you’re writing about topics of the day, contemporaneously as they happen, your voice, and your opinions will resonate will some audience somewhere.

If I could give bloggers one tip, it would be to write about what you love.

The biggest impediment that folks report for not writing every day (or regularly) is that they don’t know what to write about.

I write about whats going on – in my life, around me, in technology, social media, sports – whatever.

The second biggest blocker is time.

I’ve taken to getting it in whenever and wherever I can.

Sometimes, I blog on the train to work.

Other times, when I’m sitting on the ‘throne’ (some of my best work has been on the throne).

Point is, you need to make time for it.

Because one thing is for certain, blogging is an invaluable tool to generating traffic to (and awareness about) your site.

But don’t take my word for it.

Blog for yourself and see!

Ummm FBI…what are you doing with my UDID?

When I first heard about the recent hack of 12 million Apple device UDIDs, I wasn’t too concerned.

I caught a sound bite on Fox 5 News, on my way out the door, so the details were necessarily sketchy.

But hackers hack.

So what?

In my mind, the 12 million hacked UDIDs was a drop in the bucket relative to the total number of Apple devices out there.

I felt my nonchalant attitude was warranted.

But then I learned that these IDs had allegedly been lifted from a FBI laptop that hackers had somehow gained access to.

And then I started to be a little more concerned.

Why is the FBI just leaving laptops with sensitive information laying around?

And why the hell does an FBI laptop have 12 million UDIDs on it?

What legitimate purpose could the FBI possibly have for acquiring the UDIDs in the first place?

And then I learned that it wasn’t just random UDIDs.

The laptop allegedly also contained specific information about the users connected to those device IDs, including their names, email addresses and credit card information.

And now I’m concerned.

My colleagues, in the office, were following the story and passed around the link to the site where you could check to see if you were among the victims of this latest digital security breach.

We joked about how not being on the list didn’t mean that you were any more secure, than if you had been.

All jokes aside – I immediately checked to see if any of my devices were among those compromised.

Luckily they were not.

But despite my relief, I can’t help but be a tad ticked off.

The infamous hacks and blatant privacy policy violations of Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Chase, et al, can leave no doubt that ‘online security’ is a misnomer.

With this latest gaffe, we’ve learned that even the Feds are in on the chicanery.

And although both the FBI and Apple have denied that any such leak occurred, in light of the frequency with which hacks occur it’s hard to believe either of them.

It seems like every other day, we hear about some major leak of private or secure data.

And if it’s hackers, doing their thing, then so be it.

Hackers serve a legitimate role in keeping these corporations, who have a fiduciary duty to safeguard our information, on their collective j-o-b.

Without hackers exposing the flaws in corporate firewalls and security protocols, our shit would be a whole lot less secure than it is.

On an aside – I’m waiting for September 29th – the day after hackers have threatened to release Romney’s tax returns.

I digress.

This latest incident has exposed a reality that few of us really consider…

That online information is inherently insecure.

Each time you fill out an online form, use your credit card to make a purchase from your mobile phone, or create a digital profile on some site, you compromise your data.

And in this increasingly digital world we live in, this compromise is virtually inescapable.

Of course, most many some a few of us take steps to safeguard our information online.

We use services like 1password to avoid the trap of using common passwords for all of our online accounts.

We change our passwords frequently and don’t share them with anyone.

We do whatever we have to do to avoid having our private info floating around in cyberspace.

At the end of the day, I pray that these cats get their acts together.

And despite the denials, if this hack is real, then Apple and the FBI, you’ve got some splainin’ to do!

The Samsung Galaxy S III is no iPhone, but it isn’t (all that) bad.

I’m not the kind of person who stays blindly entrenched in a position just so I’ll never have to admit that I’m wrong.

So it is without reservation that I state that the Samsung Galaxy S III, which I just got the other day, isn’t that bad.

It’s no iPhone, to be clear, but it is a feature rich, fairly simple to use device.

I got the SIII from the job.

I wasn’t about to buy that ish with my own money.

And I’ve picked it up, here and there, over the past few days.

Although I’m no expert, by any means, I can share you with my initial pros and cons.

Pros

Massive Screen. The screen on this thing rivals the screens on a few net books I’ve seen. Makes for really good video viewing.

Fast. I can’t front, swiping between screens, calling up apps, navigating the web…everything feels so fast.

It’s a 4G phone so I’m not surprised, but damn!

It could just be that new toy joy I’m feeling.

Like after you wash your car.

Doesn’t it feel like its faster?

Is it just me?

Google power. One thing that the S III does, hands down better than any other smart phone I’ve used to date, is integrate seamlessly with Google.

Contacts? Sucked in no time flat.

Search? Right on the home screen.

Maps? Fuggedaboutit!

Cons

Flimsy. When I first took the S III out of the box, put the battery in and replaced the backplate, I felt like I was handling a toy, not a high end smart phone.

The phone is so diaphanous that I’m scared to put it down, or in my pocket, or let it frolic among the other kids on the playground.

If you’re going to rock the S III, might I suggest a case for it, lest it shatter like delicate glass.

Strange UI. Having been an iPhone user for the past five years, I’m just so used to the iOS user interface that anything else seems…foreign.

Trying to understand how to navigate the various screens, settings, and buttons makes me feel like I’m learning a new language.

I’ve seen other Android users baffled by the UI, so I know I’m not alone. There are so many different options that it’s easy to be flummoxed.

Small buttons. I’m not really checking for the Chiclet-sized keys on the S III’s keyboard.

The predictive word completion is nice, but not when you’re typing fast and are presented with options that are nothing close to your intended word.

I felt like a Neanderthal with this thing. I’ve been reduced to meticulously typing each letter to avoid striking the wrong key and sending long strings of garbled nonsense in texts or emails.

But like I said, I’ve only had the S III for a couple of days.

Today is the first day I really went in.

I suspect my attitude towards it will soften (or harden) after I’ve lived with it for a while.

So check back for an update!

Apple 1 (billion). Samsung 0.

Samsung is cute and all, but original…not so much.

Yesterday, it was announced that the jury in the Apple patent lawsuit against Samsung had returned a verdit in Apple’s favor on virtually every count of their complaint.

The jury determined that Samsung had, in fact, ripped off Apple’s designs for the popular iPhone and iPad devices.

Despite a spirited defense, and counter complaints against Apple, alleging that Apple had infringed upon several of Samsung’s patents, the jury soundly rejected Samsung’s arguments and found in Apple’s favor.

The jury found that several of Samsung’s products illegally used Apple’s patented “bounce-back” feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger.

In so finding, they awarded Apple $1.05 billion, about $1.5 shy of what Apple was suing for, but a marked more than Samsung expected to pay.

Apple’s lawyers, seeing blood with the jury verdict, are now asking the judge to levy treble damages (triple the amount of the actual damages awarded a prevailing plaintiff, leveled to punish the losing party for willful conduct).

Of course, lawyers for Samsung immediately filed an appeal, seeking to reverse the jury verdict and challenge the damages awarded.

It’s unlikely that they’ll be successful.

But the bigger issue are the implications for the rest of the mobile phone industry.

Samsung isn’t the only mobile phone maker to use Apple’s bounce-back or zoom features.

A full range of Android devices are likely going to be in Apple’s crosshairs soon enough.

Samsung was one of the first companies to leverage Google’s Android platform on it’s devices, but it is far from the only one.

Motorola, HTC, and LG are all handset makers utilizing the Android operating system in their phones, but Samsung was by far the leader, with over 20 million Android smart phones sold since their introduction in 2010.

The real impact of this verdit will be seen in the coming months, as manufacturers determine whether sticking with Android will expose them to the type of liability Samsung has been exposed to.

If anything, this verdict re-establishes Apple claim to innovation.