What do Steve Jobs, the visionary CEO of Apple, and Oprah Winfrey, the lovable force behind Harpo Inc., have in common? They are both leaders that personify their brands—and do it so aptly that they’ve elevated their brands to near cult status.

Although many companies have strong leaders at the helm, very few have leaders who embody the brand. Those leaders who do are precious assets, and provide a great opportunity for bringing a company’s brand to life.

What typifies one of these rare “brand leaders”? Although there is no set formula, there are several telltale signs that a CEO/president personifies a brand: He or she is an extremely dynamic, articulate public speaker and typically has a compelling public persona. A natural synergy exists between their personal voice and the company’s marketing voice, and, even more fundamentally, between their personality and the company’s personality. He or she is seen as the heart and soul of the company, regularly makes a measurable impact on the business and commands credibility among industry insiders, often because of “coming up through the ranks.” In the best cases, this person is widely viewed as an industry innovator and visionary.

If your company’s CEO/president meets these criteria, you are well positioned to develop a “personified brand,” or a brand strongly linked to its high-profile leader. Brands that highlight this connection benefit in important areas: When a leader stands so prominently behind a brand, it gives the brand instant credibility; because of their public stature, brand leaders are newsworthy almost by nature, which in turn keeps the brand fresh and interesting; and, finally, a brand connected to an individual, as opposed to a more abstracted corporation, is more likely to establish a personal connection with end-users.

Although there are powerful benefits associated with a personified brand, companies should proceed with caution. First and foremost, the connection needs to be authentic. Pushing a CEO into the limelight that does not fully embody the brand and what it stands for can create confusion around the brand’s core message. Moreover, it is important that brand leaders are not overexposed and are presented in a true-to-life context. For example, although memorable, Chrysler’s recent “Dr. Z” ads were received with mixed reviews. Many consumers wondered if the caricaturized Dr. Z could really be the CEO of one of the world’s major automakers.

Which leads us to a critical question: How can organizations credibly leverage the power of their brand leader? Companies should start by adopting strategies that make the most of their CEO/president’s existing brand-building activities. For example, they should make every effort to document speaking engagements and use the Web or other dynamic outreach vehicles to publicize them. Ideally, this type of digital media will then be archived so interested parties can view a “best of” the brand leader’s public appearances at any time. To the extent possible, companies should also develop regular outreach mechanisms for their brand leader, so the public knows when and where they can tune in to see them—for example, Steve Jobs’ highly anticipated keynote at Mac World and Oprah’s cover photo and introductory letter, which set the tone for each edition of O magazine.

Other effective and increasingly utilized communication channels include e-newsletters and, to a lesser extent, blogs. Both provide a great opportunity for brand leaders to communicate more directly with target audiences and are relatively cost-effective. In some cases, consumers are also encouraged to e-mail a company’s leader directly with questions or concerns. A few CEOs, such as Mark Cuban of the Dallas Mavericks, are rumored to spend as many as three hours a day personally responding to customer e-mails. This speaks volumes about their involvement in the business and commitment to end-users. Of course, brand leaders who blog or correspond directly with end-users may suffer from overexposure, so the pros and cons of each approach should be weighed carefully.

To optimize the impact of a personified brand, companies should weave their brand leader into marketing communications, for example, using personal photographs and quotes to enhance materials. But ideally this is just the beginning. Companies should make every effort to ensure that the essence of their personified leader remains an integral part of all aspects of the brand. In the best cases, this happens organically, but clever marketing can help reinforce the connection in people’s minds. For example, Charles Schwab’s “Ask Chuck” campaign reminded investors that Charles Schwab’s commitment to the needs of personal investors is the driving force behind the company and its services. In addition, materials tied to the leader should have a strong visuality and voice, immediately cuing recipients that “this communication is coming directly from the top—and the heart—of the company.”

In my opinion, Bob Taylor of Taylor Guitars (a long-time client) is the quintessential brand leader. Bob started making guitars in high school, and at 19 he and two co-workers bought out a small guitar shop, renamed Taylor Guitars in 1983. From the beginning, Taylor has been the company’s chief visionary, evangelist and technical whiz kid. We immediately understood that bottling his enthusiasm and know-how was the key to driving the success of the Taylor Guitar brand.

Whether its Taylor, Jobs or Oprah, the most successful personified brands integrate their leaders so deeply into marketing communications that the overall effect is seamless: Consumers can hardly distinguish between the brand leader and the brand itself. Although this level of integration is extremely unique, putting a human face on your brand will go a long way towards deepening its relationship with consumers, a particularly valuable advantage in a brand-saturated marketplace.

Scott Mires is founding partner of MiresBall, a San Diego-based independent design firm. He can be reached at scott@miresball.com.

Despite increased spending on marketing activities and more frequent attempts at brand revitalization, many companies perceive that their brand marketing efforts aren't fully connecting with consumers, according to the “State of the Brand Survey,” released last month. The survey was conducted by MiresBall, a leading brand design firm, in conjunction with Luth Research and AMA. It gathered insights from marketing executives at companies such as UPS, Visa, and Intel. The survey polled more than 100 marketers, with 73% at the director-level or higher.

In 2006, companies’ spending on marketing activities reached 11% of their annual revenue, compared to 9% in 2004 (as reported in a Blackfriars Communications study). In addition, 83% of companies surveyed had revitalized their brand within the past five years and 57% had done so in the past two years. According to the study, a strong correlation exists between brand revitalization and brand success. Brands revitalized within the past five years are most likely to succeed.

Overall, companies are highly committed to their brands, says Rachel Thomas, marketing director/brand strategist for MiresBall. However, in many cases, although “brand commitment and activity are high, brand creativity appears to be lagging behind,” she says. Specifically, brands would benefit from more out-of-the-box thinking in two critical areas: brand positioning and marketing outreach.

Although marketers can identify the potential in channels such as word of mouth and customer interaction, they have been slow to break away from traditional marketing channels, the study found. According to the study, niche forms of brand advertising, such as word of mouth, Web and interactive, and customer service interaction, are the most effective vehicles for communicating brands. However, companies devoted much of their marketing dollars to mainstays such as broadcast advertising (24%), print advertising (15%), and direct mail (12%). Meanwhile, they devoted 14% of their marketing budgets to Web and interactive efforts.

This may be partially due to a reluctance to move away from proven communication channels, particularly in a period of rapid change, Thomas says. In addition, marketers may find it difficult to implement more progressive strategies from a practical standpoint. For example, it is difficult to apply a budget line item to word-of-mouth outreach.

Some leading brands have managed to capture the best of both worlds, suggests Thomas. “They are still relying on traditional advertising methods, but doing so in a way that creates buzz and enables customer interaction,” she explains. For instance, Dove's “Campaign for Real Beauty” combined traditional TV and print advertising with a highly interactive Web feature and a touring photo exhibit. The final result was a more exciting, authentic experience with the Dove brand.

The complete “State of the Brand Report,” is available at: http://www.miresball.com/Think/Survey.

If some of this year's Super Bowl commercials look a bit, well, amateurish, there's good reason.

A handful of companies have turned to average Joes and Janes to create ads to air Sunday afternoon during the NFL's championship game—a dicey proposition with CBS charging $2.6 million for a 30-second spot, or $86,667 a second.

Most advertisers are still relying on high-priced ad agencies to produce commercials for the year's most-watched sporting event. But PepsiCo's Frito-Lay unit and General Motors are among those betting that ads created or inspired by everyday people will resonate with consumers and pull them to Web sites promoting contests and products.

“It can be very risky to turn over control of your advertising to consumers because it's very hard to do good advertising,” said Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management in Evanston, Ill. “It's very tough to produce something that delivers a message, is well-branded and likeable all at the same time.”

There's no bigger stage for advertisers than the Super Bowl, which this year features the Indianapolis Colts and the Chicago Bears. Last year's game drew 90.1 million U.S. viewers – more than double the 37.4 million who watched the season opener of “American Idol” this month.

In past years, the TV commercials have generated nearly as much hype and attention as the Super Bowl itself. Who could forget a battered Mean Joe Greene getting a Coke from a young fan, Apple's masterful reworking of “1984” or Larry Bird and Michael Jordan playing an ever-improbable game of horse for a Big Mac that ends with a shot from the top of the Sears Tower?

The decision by some companies to let amateurs pitch their products fuses two media trends that give everyday people a chance at stardom: “reality TV” programs such as “American Idol” and Web sites, such as YouTube, where users post video clips.

“This is an example of blurring advertising and experience,” said Rachel Thomas, marketing director and brand strategist for MiresBall, a San Diego-based brand design firm.

When that happens, average people become marketing allies of companies, often unintentionally, she said. “Savvy marketers are looking for ways to allow the individual to play a role in marketing their brand.”

The Internet is fueling the trend with sites filled with user-generated content that includes videos, photos, audio files, news and Web logs, or blogs.

Advertisers are trying to find ways to make their brands and products a part of that information exchange. A majority of marketers surveyed recently by MiresBall identified word of mouth, customer interactivity and the Web as the most effective ways to communicate their brand.

One example of the marriage of marketing and high-tech consumer interaction is Apple's Mac-versus-PC advertising campaign, which has been parodied in homemade videos posted on YouTube.

Super Bowl advertisers are trying to make the same kind of connection.

“We literally said we're going to give the people the power. We're going to put consumers in the driver's seat,” said Jason McDonnell, director of marketing for Doritos, the Frito-Lay brand that launched a Super Bowl advertising competition last fall.

More than 1,000 people submitted 30-second commercials between October and December. The company picked five finalists and then asked people to vote online for their favorite. The winner will run unedited in the first quarter.

Others are taking a more cautious approach.

General Motors and the NFL hired ad agencies to turn winning ideas from amateurs into polished commercials. GM received more than 800 entries from college students, and the NFL listened to pitches from 1,700 people who attended four events at pro football stadiums around the country.

The NFL winner, former marketing firm sales director Gino Bona from Portsmouth, N.H., pitched an ad featuring depressed NFL fans mourning the end of the football season. Scenes for the commercial were shot last week at a Van Nuys car wash and at other locations in the Los Angeles area, NFL spokesman Matt Hill said.

The NFL spot will air during the commercial break at the two-minute warning near the end of the game. The ad produced from the winning GM entry will be aired Friday during a 9 p.m. special on CBS reviewing the best Super Bowl commercials of all time.

Snickers maker Masterfoods will debut an ad for the candy bar during the the first half of the Super Bowl and ask viewers to go online to vote for one of three alternate endings to air later in February.

Several hundred people entered Bayer's contest to update the classic “plop, plop, fizz, fizz” jingle for Alka-Seltzer, including Greg McKinney, a bass guitar player and music minister at St. Stephen's Cathedral Church of God in Christ in San Diego's Valencia Park neighborhood.

McKinney, 44, who has played and produced music professionally for years, heard about the contest from a fellow musician. “I thought, this might be a good opportunity,” he said recently.

McKinney didn't want his entry to sound too much like the old Alka-Seltzer jingle – which hasn't appeared on TV for 26 years – and he didn't want it to sound like a song heard on the radio.

“Because most of the Super Bowl (audience) is young male, I kind of wanted to do something that was dance-oriented and party-oriented,” he said. “Something youthful. Kind of Justin Timberlakeish.”

McKinney, whose parents Bishop George D. McKinney and the late Jean McKinney founded St. Stephen's, used music production equipment to create the jingle by layering prerecorded tracks. “I started with drum sounds to set the mood. Then I added the base and synthesizer sounds,” he said.

He recorded the vocals last, using his voice rather than hiring a studio singer. “I'm not my favorite vocalist, but I can get the job done,” he said.

The end product, a 30-second, hypnotic techno-dance tune, took McKinney about six hours to make.

The first people to hear the entry were his three sons, all musicians ranging in age from 17 to 20.

“They liked it a lot,” McKinney said. “They were like, 'That's tight, Dad.' ”

McKinney didn't win the competition, but his entry is featured on the Alka-Seltzer contest Web site (www.plopplopfizzfizz.com).

Consumers can expect more homemade commercials from advertisers in the coming months, said George Belch, a marketing and advertising professor at San Diego State University.

“If there's one thing you can say about marketers and advertisers, it's that they are imitators,” he said. “If (amateur ads) resonate with consumers, you could see a lot of this for a while.”

Calkins, the Northwestern professor, said the Super Bowl contests are part of a larger movement by companies to let customers play a more direct role in shaping their marketing strategies.

But he doesn't expect novices to completely replace Madison Avenue, noting that many of this year's Super Bowl ad contestants have advertising and marketing backgrounds.

“They're not people in the back yard pulling out a camera and shooting a Doritos commercial,” Calkins said. “That's not who really wins these contests.”

Building Cingular into a major cellphone player took five years and billions of dollars in advertising.

But that didn’t stop it from ditching its hip brand and taking the stodgy AT&T name after a string of mind-boggling mergers reunited Ma Bell with Baby Bells SBC and BellSouth.

The dramatic about-face underscores how eager - some might say desperate - marketers are to reinvent their brands no matter how costly, complicated or confusing for the average consumer.

A new report claims that almost 40 percent of marketers believe their brand would benefit from a “full brand repositioning” - a complete overhaul of their image, in other words.

More than 80 percent of those surveyed had undergone some sort of brand “revitalization” - tweaking their logo for instance - in the last five years, according to the report by MiresBall and Luth Research.

“Overall the amount of thought, energy and money going into keeping a brand fresh and vital is high,” said Rachel Thomas, marketing director and brand strategist for MiresBall.

AT&T isn’t the only company getting a facelift.

In September, Federated finished converting hundreds of regional stores into Macy’s under a plan to create a national department store chain.

And after a year of internal angst, Citigroup’s board decided just this month to shed its red umbrella logo and shorten its name to Citi.

A brand is supposed to be shorthand for consumers: the most effective communicate quickly what a company stands for and help simplify the decision-making process when customers are confronted with more than one choice.

Brands have become even more important in an era of advertising clutter and rising competition, putting more pressure on companies to freshen their image and stay relevant.

“We did a tremendous amount of research,” said Wendy Clark, senior vice president of advertising for AT&T. “We didn’t enter the decision lightly. It was a huge one for us.”

Cingular spent an estimated $1.32 billion buying ads in 2005, according to ad tracker TNS Media Intelligence, and probably a similar amount last year with the cellphone marketing wars in full swing.

The decision to adopt the AT&T name across the merged company, including SBC and Cingular, also came down to cost.

Almost 20 percent of the operating expense savings from the merger come from marketing one brand rather than multiple companies, Clark said.

Want to make sure your brand is still viable? Then rip it up and start over every three to five years.

And that doesn’t mean overhauling the packaging.

That’s the key the finding of a new survey sponsored by the American Marketing Association, and independent firms Luth Research and MiresBall. The trio’s State of the Brand Report found that brands which were refurbished within that time period scored highest on its success index.

According to the survey, almost two-thirds of the 100-plus marketers polled online in the latter half of 2006—the majority of which were director level or above—believed their brand would benefit from a revitalization. Thirty-eight percent said they would like to fully reposition their brand; 57% of brands have been revitalized during the past two years and 83% during the past five.

The efforts appear to be paying off: Brands that were refurbished during the past three to five years scored the highest on the survey’s success index, which is based on market share, the ability to derive premium pricing and internal brand perception. Marketers surveyed said the challenges facing their brands motivated them to change things up. The top driver was strong competition, according to 59% of respondents.

Thirty-six percent of those surveyed cited changing customer demographics/psychographics, pricing pressure and lack of brand awareness as their motivation.

Surprisingly, despite all the revitalization efforts under way, marketers anticipate very little change in their brand’s positioning over the next five years.

“Brands seem to be clustering around premium, value and innovation. Brand positioning by definition should be differentiated,” said Rachel Thomas, marketing director at design firm MiresBall in San Diego. “They’re spending a lot of time and money keeping their brands fresh, but they’re not making a whole lot of moves when it comes to positioning.”

As for marketing tactics, Web and interactive initiatives were deemed the most valuable for brand communication behind only word-of-mouth. Still, despite ranking 13th in terms of importance, broadcast advertising ranked No. 1 in terms of spend, largely because it’s considered one of the best media for driving awareness.

A third of respondents said driving such awareness was their primary goal. Another third said their priority was to create brand preference, while creating loyalty (24%) and understanding (11%) rounded out the mix.

Though the study didn’t cite any brands by name, recent refreshes by AT&T and Citibank (which is changing its name to Citi and considering ditching its red umbrella brand icon) underscore the trend. AT&T rebranded itself last year with a new logo and tag to battle rivals Verizon and Comcast.

When it comes to wireless, landlines, cable, DSL and other services, “customers have articulated that they want to do business with one company, not a patchwork of providers,” said Wendy Clark, svp-advertising at AT&T, San Antonio, Texas.

Pepsi, meanwhile, is working with the Arnell Group, New York on refocusing itself around the concept of “sustainable discovery.” For starters, the brand’s bottles, cans and cups will have 35 new looks each, including Web addresses for exclusive online content, games and contests. The repositioning will also include a new tagline, likely: “Feel the Pepsi.”

James Miller, director of brand Pepsi in the U.S., said brand revitalization is “increasingly important these days, especially among youth-related, “badge” brands. What we found is young people are embracing change and constantly exploring for the next big thing. We need to deliver that on an ongoing basis.”

Martyn Tipping, co-founder of TippingSprung consultancy in New York, said such periodic changes are the best way for marketers to avoid obsolescence: “You don’t want to get to a stage of the cycle where you say, ‘Yikes we need an overhaul.’”

Scott Mires and John Ball are the partners/creative directors of MiresBall, one of the largest independent brand design firms in Southern California. With 50 years of combined experience developing brand communications, Mires and Ball have guided the firm to become a trusted partner of market leaders including Black & Decker, Qualcomm, Shure, Starbucks, Taylor Guitars and Wal-Mart. The culmination of many years of planning and hard work, in 2006 MiresBall reached an apex in its 25-year history. As Ball explains it, “We have elevated our game in every area of the business.” Last year was marked by a number of global brand revitalizations—each rich with complexity and challenge. Fortunately, Mires and Ball have assembled the perfect team for high-stakes projects: Talented, hardworking, ego-free individuals who easily toggle between independent thinking and intense collaboration. With “Plan A” fully realized, Mires and Ball are now focused on the second chapter in the evolution of MiresBall. The big question: What’s their next professional challenge?

Where do you turn for inspiration?
A student of pop culture, Mires hits the magazine section of his local bookstore to uncover an image or an idea that inspires him. Between bookstore excursions, Mires reads an eclectic assortment of magazines, from staples like BusinessWeek and Fast Company to personal favorites Rolling Stone and Surfer’s Journal. Ball is known for “turning back to the problem.” By breaking an assignment down into its purest form, he finds that the solution often ends up being relatively clear and straightforward, much like the best solutions in life.

What talents do you wish you possessed?
The consummate jazz fan, with a collection that includes more than 2,000 CDs, Ball would love to be reincarnated as a jazz drummer. Mires has always wanted to be a talented illustrator or photographer. As he explains it, “Visuals are such an important part of what MiresBall does. I help shape great imagery as a creative director, but I would love to play a hands-on role in the artistic process.” For now, he is resigned to doodling.

When you have a deadline, do you start right away, wait until the last minutes, or switch back and forth among projects?
Yes, yes and yes, depending on how busy the firm is and how quickly the solution starts to present itself. In general, both creative directors confess to passively or actively working most waking hours—whether it is laboring through a problem mentally or pulling the team together for an impromptu brainstorming session. However, their work styles are very different: Mires has a more intuitive, iterative approach, while Ball tends to be more linear. Although their process can be widely different, their solutions have a remarkable consistency to them, perhaps because both creative directors abide by the same fundamental rules: Simplify. Always be authentic. And listen, really listen, to your clients.

What project in your portfolio are you most proud of? Why?
After a whirlwind 2006, two highpoints come to mind: First, they love beating out big competitors. Not only is it great for team morale; the end-result is typically a large, juicy project. Second, they enjoy projects that have a significant impact on a client’s bottom line—for example, Qualcomm is backing a brand developed by MiresBall with a $1 billion investment. Stressful? Yes. But also very professionally and personally rewarding.