When the founder becomes bigger than the brand

Can a founder become a bigger brand than the company he or she creates? And if that happens, is it a blessing or a potential corporate nightmare?

Consider Apple and Steve Jobs.

Apple is undoubtedly one of the world's most valuable brands. But there was a time when Steve Jobs himself was arguably more powerful as a brand than Apple. His black turtleneck, his product presentations, his almost obsessive pursuit of perfection and his famous reality distortion field became as much a part of Apple's identity as its products.

People didn't just buy Apple. They bought into the Jobs philosophy.

Something similar is happening with Nvidia and Jensen Huang. Nvidia is at the centre of the artificial intelligence revolution, but Huang has increasingly become the human face of that revolution. His trademark leather jacket, his keynote performances and his ability to explain complex technology with extraordinary conviction have made him a global personality.

In some ways, Jensen Huang has become Nvidia's most recognisable brand ambassador. Perhaps even more than the company itself.

This phenomenon is not entirely new. Richard Branson and Virgin, Elon Musk and Tesla, Mark Zuckerberg and Meta, are all examples of founders whose personalities have become deeply intertwined with their corporate identities.

But there is an interesting brand-management question here.

What happens when the founder becomes more important than the company brand?

In conventional brand-building, a company invests years in creating a brand promise. It builds trust through products, service, consistency, advertising and customer experience. The brand eventually becomes an independent asset, capable of surviving changes in management and leadership.

But when the founder becomes the brand, something quite different happens. The company begins to borrow its personality, credibility and even its emotional appeal from an individual.

The benefits are enormous.

A founder can humanise a corporation. He or she can give it a face, a philosophy and a compelling narrative. Investors feel they understand the company's vision. Employees feel they are part of a mission. Consumers develop an emotional connection that conventional advertising might take decades to establish.

But there is a flip side.

When the founder's reputation is damaged, the company's reputation can suffer almost immediately. The two brands become so intertwined that it is difficult to separate one from the other.

A controversy involving the founder is no longer just a personal controversy. It becomes a corporate crisis.

This is particularly dangerous because corporate brands are built on institutional trust, while personal brands are built on individual behaviour. The latter is inherently more unpredictable.

Elon Musk provides an interesting illustration. His extraordinary personal visibility has helped shape the public perception of Tesla. But his public statements and controversies have also made the Tesla brand vulnerable to opinions about him, sometimes quite independently of the quality of its products.

The larger question is whether companies should deliberately allow their founders to become bigger than the brands they create.

From a brand-management perspective, I would argue that they shouldn't.

A founder's personality can be a tremendous brand multiplier, but it should never become the brand's only source of credibility. Companies need to build institutional identities that can stand independently of their founders.

Apple, for instance, has demonstrated that the company can survive the loss of Steve Jobs. Its brand has an identity that extends beyond the man who created much of its mythology.

That is perhaps the ultimate test of a great corporate brand: whether it can retain its value when its founder is no longer around.

There is a difference between a founder building a great company and a founder becoming the company.

The first creates an institution. The second creates a dependency.

And in the world of branding, dependency can be a very expensive proposition.

A founder may build the brand. But the brand must eventually learn to live without the founder.