top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 8:58:38 am

Being Liked Is Not Branding

AI Generated Image Think of someone specific you met in the last six months who seemed genuinely interested in connecting further. The conversation was warm. There was energy in it. They said all the right things — let us stay in touch, I would love to explore this further, I will reach out next week. And then they did not. Not because they were rude or dismissive. Not because something went wrong. But because by the time next week arrived, you had simply faded. This is one of the most...

Being Liked Is Not Branding

AI Generated Image Think of someone specific you met in the last six months who seemed genuinely interested in connecting further. The conversation was warm. There was energy in it. They said all the right things — let us stay in touch, I would love to explore this further, I will reach out next week. And then they did not. Not because they were rude or dismissive. Not because something went wrong. But because by the time next week arrived, you had simply faded. This is one of the most quietly expensive things that happens to accomplished founders — and almost none of them know it is happening. Being liked is not the same as being remembered. Being remembered is not the same as being recalled at the right moment. And being recalled at the right moment is the only version of any of this that actually creates business. The gap between a pleasant first impression and a phone call that begins with "I immediately thought of you" is not filled by warmth or competence or even a genuinely great conversation. It is filled by a personal brand strong enough to occupy a specific, distinct place in someone's mind long after the meeting has ended. Here is what most founders are not told. When someone leaves a conversation thinking "what a lovely person" they have given you a compliment. When they leave thinking "she is exactly the person I would call if I ever needed to solve this specific problem for someone I care about" they have given you a business. The difference between those two outcomes is not how much they liked you. It is how clearly they understood what you stand for and who you are for. Most accomplished founders are genuinely likeable. Many are impressive. Very few are specific enough to be recalled at the moment an opportunity arises. They exist in the minds of their network as pleasant, capable, talented — and entirely interchangeable with the other pleasant, capable, talented people those same contacts met last month. That interchangeability is costing you more than you realise. Every time someone in your network encounters an opportunity that should be yours and instead recommends someone else — not because they like that person more, but because that person's name surfaced first and most clearly — your brand has failed at its most fundamental job. The founders who get called first are not always the most qualified. They are the most memorable. Not memorable in the sense of flashy or loud or relentlessly present online. Memorable in the sense that when a specific need arises, a specific face and a specific name and a specific value proposition surface together, clearly and immediately, without the contact having to work to reconstruct who you are and what you do. That kind of memorability is not an accident of personality. It is the result of a personal brand built with enough clarity, consistency and intention that it leaves a distinct impression rather than a pleasant but general one. It is the difference between being someone people enjoyed meeting and being someone people think of when it counts. Think about your own network right now. When an opportunity arises that is perfect for you — do the right people think of you immediately? Or do they think of you eventually, after they have already recommended someone else, and feel a pang of recognition that they should have called you first? If it is the second — your brand is not broken. It is just not specific enough yet. And that is entirely fixable. I work with founders on exactly this — building a personal brand clear and consistent enough that the right people think of them first, not eventually. If you are ready to stop being the person people liked and start being the person they call, book your consultation call with me on this link: https://www.calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founder-brand-audit — Divyaa Advaani, Personal Branding Strategist (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Convenient Outrage

Correspondent
3 hours ago
2 min read

There is something almost Shakespearean about Elon Musk’s indignation when the world refuses to bend to his will. The richest man in the world, accustomed to treating governments as inconveniences and public discourse as his personal broadcasting channel, has discovered the virtues of sovereign prerogative.


Musk’s complaint that Starlink is licensed in more than 165 countries and has spent five years complying with every requirement of the Indian government, yet remains without a licence, is a grand tutorial in selective outrage. His insinuation that Mukesh Ambani is the real boss of India smacks of theatrical petulance.


The question here is why should India compromise its security requirements simply because the applicant happens to be the world’s most conspicuous billionaire?


The fact is even OneWeb and Jio Satellite Communications are awaiting outstanding regulatory steps. The government has plainly said the process is being applied uniformly. In fact, Starlink has received an initial licence, but is awaiting further approvals, including security clearance, before launching commercial services in India.


The security question goes far beyond the familiar contest between foreign technology and domestic business. It concerns the extraordinary power that a private individual can exercise over communications infrastructure on which governments, armed forces and entire populations may come to depend.


A Reuters investigation in July last year had reported that Musk had ordered Starlink coverage switched off in parts of the country during a Ukrainian counteroffensive in September 2022. The resulting disruption had affected military communications and operations.


Imagine the strategic implications for India. In a military confrontation with China, particularly along the sensitive frontier in Ladakh, communications are integral to command, coordination and operational resilience. Would India want critical military communications to depend on a network whose availability could be affected by decisions made by a private individual outside its jurisdiction?


National security cannot rest on the assumption that a powerful businessman will always make decisions in accordance with another country’s strategic interests.


Access to technology must be accompanied by enforceable safeguards, credible contingency arrangements and clear limits on foreign control over critical communications.


The hypocrisy becomes more conspicuous when one considers Musk’s own commercial interests. Chinese electric-vehicle maker BYD sells cars across numerous international markets but faces formidable barriers in the United States, where Tesla is a major domestic competitor.


Washington has imposed substantial restrictions and tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, invoking concerns about industrial competition, security and dependence on Chinese supply chains. Does Musk denounce every American restriction on Chinese technology as an assault on free enterprise?


National sovereignty cannot be invoked as a sacred right in Washington and dismissed as protectionism in New Delhi. It is time Musk realizes that the free market is not a royal court, and its most successful tycoon is not entitled to dictate terms to every sovereign state.

Comments

bottom of page