Whatever 'it' is it matters

You won't find many photographs of me. 
 

The few in existence sport beards, specs and blacked-out teeth courtesy of my friend Mr Bic, or measles and white eye shadow courtesy of his friend Ms Tippex. I don't photograph well. I am better in the flesh. "It doesn't do you justice." "You're much better than your photo." It was ever thus. So I avoid having my photograph taken at all costs. Of course it can work the other way around. The balloon-dog in a suit you were sitting across from on the tube this morning may be one of the lucky sods who turn into a Brilliantined Rank starlet c.1950 when in front of the camera.

Appearance matters. Perception matters.
 

Those of us who work in communications talk to our clients and each other about 'look and feel'. We set great store in it, forming likes and dislikes because of it. Research studies have shown that we respond more favourably to 'classically' attractive (symmetrical) faces. They are perceived as being more intelligent, kind, trustworthy, and healthy – they're even more likely to be paid more. We tend to imbue the 'attractive' with sensibilities and attributes they may not necessarily have. Those of you who are parents and footing the bill for your progeny's Heat or Now habit will certainly know this and will be used to reminding them that beauty is skin deep as a preface to "Get on with your homework."

Our personal brands are a minestrone of the tangible: sounds, smells, textures, attitudes, behaviours and reputations. And the intangible, the indefinable which defines us and draws others to us – charisma and presence. The 'feel' bit of us and it's this bit that matters.

How many times have your perceptions about someone been blown into a cocked hat on meeting them? Or have you ever experienced the sheer disbelief when having met the possessor of a gilt-edged CV it transpires that they have the presence of an empty Dairylea wrapper? Or found yourself offering a job to someone who you considered to be a B candidate because he or she lit up the room and was someone that people would want to spend time with?

Some professions and vocations are particularly harsh since by nature one is on continuous public display. So if you don't fit the 'classical' ideal and you don't 'come across', you're stuffed. Any facial irregularity or identifying feature is a gift to cartoonists and sketch writers. Their skill lies in using an exaggerated truth to encapsulate and often subvert an individual's personal brand. Thus John Major's perceived uprightness and limpness becomes his Y-front underpants worn on the outside of his trousers. While Tony Blair's wide smile becomes the Cheshire cat: always pleased with himself and ever so slightly sinister. Funny? Yes. But also worrying for the people and parties concerned, because if people say (or draw) something often enough it tends to be perceived as the truth.

Take Ed Miliband. The bloke is getting it from all sides at the moment. His undoubted intelligence has been subverted and is portrayed as geeky and spoddy – like Jerry Lewis in the Nutty Professor – he is hapless, a social misfit. His large unblinking eyes are portrayed not as a sign of focus, but as wide-eyed terror and gormlessness. He is Wallace. So maligned is he that certain sections of the press reported that Aardman expressed concern that Ed was 'tainting' the Wallace and Gromit brand. But it turns out that they actually think that it's a cracking wheeze.

Of course Gordon Brown had pretty much the same treatment, he is portrayed as a cold, authoritarian and damaged man. Although those who actually met him found that they came away with a very different view. Alan Bennett summed it up nicely in a press interview he gave some years ago. He said that he liked Gordon and thought that he was probably a nice man but his problem was that "He couldn't put it in the shop window like you’re supposed to." Sage. So where the tangible seemingly isn't enough, the indefinable becomes very important indeed.

I've met Ed Miliband and I was surprised, because even though I understand the machinations of the political press and the media at large, having heard it for so long I had started to believe it. But I can tell you that he is a very charismatic man. He has presence. But unfortunately this brand asset can only be experienced; it can't be printed, posted or broadcast, so perception remains the reality. But for how long?