Dan LexöDan Lexö started to work as

Dan Lexö
Dan Lexö started to work as a chef in 1981 and is today seen as one of the best chefs in Sweden. He has been in five finals in ‘chef of the year’ (a Swedish competition that takes place every year) and in 1990 he became ‘meat chef of the year’. He has worked at many different places, starting at ‘Lasse Majas krog’ in Marstrand outside Gothenburg. Today he is one of the owners to ‘Team Lexö’ which owns eight different restaurants in Sweden – one in Hestra, one in Gothenburg and six in IdreFjäll. He is also in the board of Gothenburg’s Restaurant Association (Göteborgs Restaurangförening), writes in Göteborgsposten (a newspaper) and he is chef of Radio Match (a radio station) (D. Lexö, personal communication 2005-12-01).

Gustav Fridolin
Gustav Fridolin is also a member of the Green Party. He was a spokesperson for their youth organisation during the years 1999-2003 and since 2002, he is in the Swedish parliament. He entered the Swedish parliament as the youngest member of the parliament ever – only 19 years old. Gustav Fridolin has a deep interest in questions concerning Palestine, homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals (Fridolin, retrieved 2005-11-03).

Analysis


4 Analysis
In section four, we will include the empirical findings with the analysis since we believe that a separate empirical chapter would be repeated in the analyse part. In the text, a second level of analysis will be included. The chapter starts with brands in the Resource Based View followed by some general reflections on brand literature. Further on, the research model will be applied on the interview participants.


4.1 Brands in Resource Based View
Medcof (2000) and Barney (1991) talk about the Resource Based View and that a unique resource can create a sustainable competitive advantage. Johnson, Scholes & Whittington (2005) argues that a brand can be seen as a resource and Werner Runebjörk (2004) further argues that a personal brand as well can be seen as a resource. We argue that both a brand and a personal brand can be seen from a resource based view. A brand is an important resource both for a company and for a person in order to compete with others. A brand can make you or your company different and it can add value to the product that you are selling. For a brand to be able to create a sustainable competitive advantage (according to the resource based view) it should fulfil four characteristics. First of all it should be valuable. A brand certainly is valuable – which we think is proved by Interbrand’s yearly valuations - and we argue that this can be applied to people as well as to products. A personal brand can help you to distinguish yourself from others and other people will have a picture of who you are and what values you stand for. A brand do not have any substitutes since there are no unbranded articles on the market today (even salt and sugar have brands!). The same can also be applied to people. Every person has a brand but everyone does not seem to use its full capacity. There are no unbranded persons – just ‘less branded’. If a brand is possible to imitate or not depends on how you see it. There are a lot of copies and cheaper alternatives on the product market and people can imitate other people and look like them. However, brands are often legally protected and you cannot make an exact copy of a brand. Products are probably better protected than people in this question since you can unconsciously look like another person. Besides, as we all know, a copy of something rarely becomes as good as the original. A brand is not a rare resource in the case that almost every company and every person has a brand. But they are rare in the case that no one else can own and use exactly the same brand as you have.

We argue that a brand can create a sustainable competitive advantage according to the resource based view since brands are valuable, do not have any substitutes, they can be seen as rare and to some extent and they are impossible to imitate.


4.2 Reflections on Brand Literature
When we reflected over both traditional and personal branding literature, we realised that some concepts could be transferred into the personal branding area for example, image transfer and Uggla’s three functions about a brand. However, the models that we have examined about traditional brand development were not useful since personal branding is about deeper levels of personality and traditional brand development models do not consider this.

The three functions that Uggla (2001) says that a brand has for a company, it also has for a person. A personal brand can make you different from others (diversification) because of your values and beliefs. The mix of qualities that a person possesses will contribute to a

unique personality. Identification refers to create loyalty and within the personal branding area this is other people’s ability to identify themselves with you and your values. The last function that Uggla (2001) talks about is the homogenous message. We will refer to this as consistency in the messages you send.

We further argue that the three concepts brand identity, brand image and brand reputation (created for products) can be used when we talk about personal brands. Brand identity, brand image and brand reputation are three different ways that we can look at a brand. Brand identity that Aaker & Joachimsthaler (2000); Dowling (2001); Aaker (1996) and Apéria & Back (2004) talk about in the traditional branding literature refers to the way that you perceive yourself and how you want other people to see you within personal branding. The brand image (Aaker, 1996) and brand reputation (Dowling, 2001; Apéria & Back, 2004 and Riezebos, 2003) is on the other hand the way other people actually do see you. These three viewpoints are very important to be aware of when you develop your personal brand since it is to a large extent about how other people perceive you and your personal brand.

The concept ‘image transfer’ that Riezebos (2003) talks about was developed for products but it is also useful when talking about people and personal brands. In the branding literature, the concept has been further developed and is called celebrity endorsements. Image transfer or celebrity endorsements can be used to develop a personal brand if the image from a well-known person can be transferred to another person (many people become famous for being visible together with a famous person or just knowing the ‘right’ people). Celebrity endorsements are heavily used today in advertisements and in different commercials. People with strong personal brands are used to transfer their image onto a product or service.

We argue that image transfers are not the main tool to use when to develop a strong personal brand. First of all you need to be aware of your deeper values and what you stand for in order to be able to develop and sustain a strong personal brand. It is not enough to become known; instead you have to be known for something. We argue that the difference between a product brand and a personal brand is that persons act and think. Products cannot do this. A product brand can be perfectly created by humans, but a personal brand is who you are and a person can never be perfect. A sustainable personal brand is develop from the inside (your deeper personality) while a product brand is develop from the outside (features of the product).


4.3 Research Model
We argue that the models that exist within the area of personal branding are not sufficient to cover the complex process to develop a personal brand. Therefore, the research model that we have created will be applied on the interview participants Maria Wetterstrand, Shan Atci, Dan Lexö, David Lega and Gustav Fridolin and see if the model can be used or if it has to be rejected.

As said earlier, the research model starts at ‘you’. All our interview participants have been formed by their family, friends and their surroundings (their background).


4.3.1 Who are You?
In the research model, the first thing to do is to figure out who you are. We have created four different steps that can help you to figure this out.

• Values: The first step is to define your values. Maria Wetterstrand (personal communication, 2005-11-23) argues that her family is the most important area in her life right now because they give her personal satisfaction. She also values environmental issues and she tries to live after her values as much as it is possible. Maria Wetterstrand believes that people are equally worth, that everyone should get respect on the basis of their individuals and that everyone should be able to be whom they really are. Racism and prejudice are areas that upset her and make her angry (M. Wetterstrand, personal communication 2005-11-23).

Shan Atci’s values are basically ‘love’ and ‘respect’ but he also claims that his values lies within the suburb. Shan Atci further claims that areas that are important to him right now are his work as a comedian and his family. His work is important to him since it makes him feel good and happy about what he does and his family will always be there for him and support him (S. Atci, personal communication 2005-11-22).

Dan Lexö thinks it is important to spend time with friends. He also values perfection and that food is more than just food. Food is according to Dan Lexö one total experience (D. Lexö, personal communication 2005-12-01).

David Lega claims that areas like family, sports and work are all important to him. He believes that it is important to not focus on only one of these areas, instead it is important to develop as a person in all these areas. He further on argues that it is important to change and develop yourself so that you will not end up as a ‘former athlete’ or whatever it is that you used to be (D. Lega, personal communication
2005-12-04).