Key insights from Daniel Priestley

There is a lot of discussion about personal branding these days, but your book and method­ology predate the term and its spread on the Internet. How did you under­stand and write about these concepts before they became mainstream? Did people already know what branding was about back then, or were you pioneers in the field?

I wrote the book in 2009 and it was published in 2010, long before anyone was seriously discussing personal branding. I’ve noticed that US presi­dential elections are often a signal of upcoming marketing trends, much like Formula 1 provides a preview of future car technologies. For example, Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats in the 1930s marked the rise of national radio over print media. In 1963, JFK’s televised debate with Nixon under­scored the impor­tance of television.

In 2008, Obama’s social media campaign was crucial to his election victory and marked a social media revolution in marketing. This realization led me to do an in-depth study of how to use social media effec­tively. I started giving talks, workshops and writing articles on how to position yourself as a key influ­encer, empha­sizing personal branding over corporate or product brands. The book’s opening line under­scores this idea: In every industry, important figures stand out who achieve more and have a greater impact. Therefore, I advocated for personal branding as a crucial marketing strategy.

Do you think that many influ­encers today, despite their large following and recog­nition, lack the necessary skills and substance beyond their public persona to truly be considered key people of influence?

The difference is being an influ­encer and being a key person of influence. Influ­encers often have large followings based on their looks or lifestyle, but lack strong business acumen or impact beyond their online presence. They may find it difficult to convert their popularity into meaningful business ventures or market influence. On the other hand, a key influ­ential person uses his or her personal brand to build businesses, attract talent, forge partner­ships, and mobilize resources effec­tively. People like Tim Cook and Ryan Reynolds illus­trate how one can rise from celebrity status to influ­ential figures with signif­icant business empires. This highlights the impor­tance of building a strong personal brand that is anchored in company leadership and impact.

Do you believe the principles of personal branding and devel­oping a key influ­ential person should extend beyond CEOs and entre­pre­neurs and apply to everyone within a company? Should individuals in every position strive to cultivate their personal brand for future oppor­tu­nities and career advancement?

It’s beneficial to gain a little brand equity, but not everyone needs to have a personal brand. Take my co-founder of Score App, Steve, for example. Steve excels at devel­oping technology, leading talented teams and solving complex problems behind the scenes. His focus on these tasks is crucial to the success of our company. While I take care of other aspects such as public engage­ments and partner­ships, our collab­o­ration works smoothly as we complement each other’s strengths without any overlap. This synergy contributes directly to the overall value of the company. If you are lucky enough to work with someone who has a strong personal brand, it can signif­i­cantly increase business, especially if you own shares in the company.

I recently heard you mention on the podcast that an influ­ential key person shouldn’t be running your company. I also recently heard someone say that a good CEO doesn’t do any work, which is related. When you gain real influence, do you think the ultimate goal is to delegate all opera­tional tasks and focus solely on promoting, networking and repre­senting the company?

Absolutely. I believe that the true value of a great CEO lies in their ability to attract talented people, foster team alignment, effec­tively promote the company, open doors of oppor­tunity and generate demand. In business, the biggest challenge is creating demand. Every company operates at the interface of supply and demand. For example, airlines focus heavily on the supply side, ensuring aircraft are safe and flights are on time. However, companies like Rolex excel at gener­ating demand by strate­gi­cally targeting elite athletes and events to increase brand awareness.

In today’s market, it is far more difficult to create demand than to produce goods. In the indus­trial age, just producing a product guaranteed sales. Today, with thousands of options available on platforms like Amazon, the real challenge lies in marketing and selling products effec­tively. Many entre­pre­neurs make the mistake of focusing exclu­sively on the opera­tional aspects they enjoy, such as coaching or organizing health retreats, without having a solid plan for attracting clients or staffing their programs. This emphasis on the demand side is critical because companies rarely fail because they cannot produce — they fail because they have diffi­culty selling effec­tively.

How do you effec­tively generate demand and establish sales channels in today’s world where there seems to be no new products to develop?

It’s about a personal brand and building a relationship with the market. For example, when I launch a new piece of software, a few thousand people attend the launch event just because it’s my product. However, if someone without a personal brand launches the same product, very few people will show up. Conversely, if someone with a bigger brand brings it to market, they will likely see even better results.

What unbranded, low-cost lead gener­ation methods can work effec­tively for a new business without a personal brand figurehead in today’s oversat­u­rated market?

There’s not much out there. For most marketing campaigns, without a personal brand, there will be a signif­icant increase in cost per lead. It doesn’t have to be a well-known person­ality, just the founder speaking in front of the camera can make a big difference. Based on my experience running about $100,000 worth of ads per month, I’ve seen that ads featuring the founder’s face signif­i­cantly reduce the cost per click. A founder speaking directly to the camera can generate leads for £4 to £5, while ads featuring the company’s brand can cost three times as much.

I’ve read that it’s almost impos­sible to be profitable on the front end with Facebook or Google ads unless you have signif­icant back-end sales or high customer lifetime value. Do you agree with that?

Absolutely. Companies are ecosystems and overly simplistic approaches no longer work. Running ads and gener­ating leads for a single product alone will not be profitable. You need a whole ecosystem. Take Gordon Ramsay for example — he has books, television shows, restau­rants and retail products, creating an extensive network. Likewise, I have eight different businesses ranging from software and services to education and training. It is the integration of all these elements that makes the entire system work.

Do these eight companies support each other and have related relation­ships?

Exactly. At the heart of all our business is the idea of ​​devel­oping entre­pre­neurs who stand out, grow and make a positive impact. Every­thing we do is guided by this theme and works seamlessly together.

In a small business, I recommend four types of products: a free gift, a low-cost product for potential customers to test you, your core product or service, and a product for customers that provides ongoing value.

When I acquire companies, I often buy companies with a strong core product but weaknesses in other areas. We then develop a gift or product for prospects, such as a book or intro­ductory workshop, and create additional content such as online master­classes, YouTube videos and podcasts. Finally, we are intro­ducing a conti­nuity subscription product on the backend.

This strategy has allowed me to grow multiple companies’ revenue from around $500,000 to $1.5-$2 million within the first year by building a compre­hensive product ecosystem.

Do you think the world will become even louder than it is now, or do you think some of that noise might eventually disappear?

The noise level in our world will only increase, especially as AI now generates large amounts of content. Social media acts like a megaphone for everyone, and when you add AI to the mix, it becomes an automatic noise amplifier. Even influ­encers and speakers benefit from AI by speeding up script writing, video production, editing, and overall content creation. For those who haven’t started yet, you may already be too far behind to catch up. They may need to align themselves with estab­lished brands, join successful entre­pre­neurial teams, or integrate their company into a larger group to compete. Others can either use AI and personal branding to stay compet­itive or risk falling behind in running their business. For those who already have a brand, there is an oppor­tunity to scale it quickly, poten­tially reaching millions in just a year or two.

If you’ve both bought and started companies, do you lean towards one or the other? Would you recommend that someone who hasn’t ventured in both direc­tions take a particular path?

Of course, I really enjoy acquiring companies. Buying a business is great because it takes about the same effort to go from zero to half a million as it does to go from half a million to two million. Apply the same energy and effort again and you will experience exponential growth. Another thing I love is bringing a new perspective to a business. When you are intensely committed day after day, you can lose sight of your potential. It’s like owning a watch for years — you no longer notice its details. But with a fresh look, I see untapped potential, intel­lectual property that can be trans­lated into software or technology. Ultimately, my passion lies in building technology companies, partic­u­larly AI-powered SaaS products. Software allows you to build something once and sell it repeatedly, scaling globally at a fraction of the cost of tradi­tional businesses.

I recently heard you on your podcast talking about how excited you are about SaaS companies. Given this interest, do you typically divide your invest­ments into 20 parts of 12.5k each? Additionally, do you rely on a recurring investor base for different projects or do you use your status as a key influ­ential person to attract investment for each new project?

Both. I have around 40 investors who are successful entre­pre­neurs and have extensive resources and post-exit experience. They usually invest in my projects quickly. When I’m ready to launch something new, I host an investor Zoom call to speed up the process. Although I already know who is likely to invest, I invite about 80 to 100 people to the call to create excitement and interest. During the call, I ask partic­i­pants to fill out a stock appli­cation and indicate their investment amount, which is typically between $20,000 and $50,000.

Ultimately, however, I limit each investor to $12,500. This approach deviates from the norm where most investors seek larger sums from fewer investors. Instead, I prefer more angel investors, ideally 20 to 30, as each has unique connec­tions and support. Some potential investors express surprise at the limited investment amount and initially want to bring in more. Still, it rarely causes anyone to back down; Rather, it creates a sense of urgency among investors looking to secure their place.

As someone with children and experience in education, what do you think about the current education system and how it could be improved? In your opinion, what are three or four key skills or topics that you think parents should focus on and teach their children from a young age?

Let’s go back about three or four centuries and think about the age of agriculture, when skilled labor was not a priority — having people to do basic tasks was enough. Then came the Indus­trial Age, where capital and skilled labor became crucial, leading to the rise of systems such as capitalism and labor creation. Schools were designed to produce the necessary workers for factories, with an emphasis on basic skills such as reading, writing, and arith­metic.

As we moved into the late 2000s, most educa­tional pathways led to employment oppor­tu­nities. Degrees in various fields such as history or geography could get you positions in banking or agencies and show how much the system has evolved. However, with the advent of digital technologies and AI, the need for large-scale capital and labor has drasti­cally decreased.

Today, even small teams can manage global opera­tions, and tradi­tional profes­sionals are in less demand. This shift under­scores the appre­ci­ation of entre­pre­neurial skills – the ability to seize oppor­tu­nities and bring ideas to market. Unfor­tu­nately, our school system is not adapted to promote these entre­pre­neurial skills. Disruptive behavior tends to be punished, which is often celebrated in business circles.

Looking back to its begin­nings in the early 19th century, the school system was essen­tially designed to prepare people for factory work — a paradigm that no longer aligns with our current economic landscape. There is no longer any social guarantee that tradi­tional schooling will ensure a fulfilling career path. Whether they choose tradi­tional schooling or homeschooling, under­standing this context can help parents navigate their children’s education.

While schools provide essential social inter­ac­tions and teamwork oppor­tu­nities through music, sports, and inter­per­sonal relation­ships, the emphasis has shifted from purely compe­tency-based education. Tasks like computer programming that were once highly valued are now being automated by advanced AI systems like ChatGPT.

Working-class skills such as plumbing and construction will remain essential in the future, but the most valuable skills will increas­ingly be those related to entre­pre­neurship – seizing oppor­tu­nities, mobilizing resources and navigating a dynamic business landscape.