Usually, when I deal with matters of Brand equity, it is with regard to large companies or corporations that have substantial value, to be sure, but no real face attached. But are circumstances altered when an individual is the Brand?

I was given an opportunity to contemplate this question further when I read about Oprah Winfrey’s departure from CBS and her popular talk show to begin her own TV network, OWN, planned for launch in January 2011.

Viewership for her talk show was approximately 7million- a large audience especially now and the largest for this type of programming. But this was down from 14 million in 1998, illustrating the migration of network television audience overall to cable and Internet. Knowing only that Ms. Winfrey plans on airing a mix of original and acquired programs, specials, and movies dedicated to ‘living your best life’, I can say with certainty that no matter what the specifics, she will need to aggressively employ her other channels in order to build her brand in this new arena. The online channel in particular will vital in reaching both her existing audience as well as new viewers.

She is keeping the message consistent, which is hugely important, so as not to alienate the existing audience, and prevent Brand dilution. And her forays into other media, both through O magazine and Oprah.com have been successful. She could leverage these avenues to create new demand for her network (and incentive for advertisers) by cross marketing products, programming content and themes, and contests/special promotions. Her entire offering should act as one organism, allowing TV and magazine content and follow-up to be viewed online.

Internet marketing should play an important role in ensuring that the Customer Journey, or interaction with the Oprah brand is consistent and seamless. If a user searches for subject matter related to OWN TV, media (either free or Paid) should link them to the website, or deep-link them to the specific content online. Martha Stewart has employed a similar strategy with her magazine, television program, and website, for example, allowing readers to follow up on magazine articles online. Yes, Oprah should connect with her users through social media outlets but the real reach and frequency will occur online through Search, Content and Display media.

If she fails to engage new viewers online, she may find herself struggling to find advertisers; with a loyal audience of at most 7 million, she can’t afford NOT to combine her available resources.

With regard to the strategy above, there is no difference between the individual and the corporate Brand. Brands need to evolve and adapt to survive and Oprah has shown herself to be capable of both. This may just be the next step in her brand evolution, assuming she can truly leverage Internet potential through existing and new channels.

In response to the purported shift in advertising dollars from traditional to online for 2009, and for the foreseeable future, I would suggest that we keep some necessary perspective on the subject.

First, we can agree this is happening due to the following suppositions, which I would argue are not entirely correct: Marketing dollars are shifting online because of the perception that it requires less to get more – Less money, more reach, less time, more response. Furthermore, it’s more quantifiable (in terms of direct-tracked sales) so there’s more justification for spend. Lastly, all the key growth markets seem to be online: Search, Social Media, and even online TV and video, so the advertising pursues the eyeballs.

But I would caution against jumping ship too quickly, or too completely, from the traditional channel, of under-valuing offline efforts in favor of a pure online-focus.

To start with, I don’t believe that online media can create sufficient brand demand, which is a enormously important factor in maintaining and growing sales and a healthy customer base. To some extent, the online channel will always be dependant on offline media, or mediums, for this reason. In 2000, I started marketing what are now very well known Internet-based travel and insurance companies online when they were brand new, and now I see their offline TV ads frequently. Why? Because you can’t sustain or grow brand purely online.

I also believe that some of the justification behind moving media spend online is flawed, or based on faulty attribution of sales. The industry as a whole is not yet looking at holistic on-and-offline marketing efforts, so the effects of on-to-offline, and vice-versa, are not being accurately reflected. This makes it difficult to judge the true value of either media channel. Furthermore, every client is different, so it’s a double mistake to look at poorly grouped, generalized data points.

Finally, when considering the key growth markets, I would argue that Social Media is not a mechanism of advertising per se – it is a social networking tool. It should therefore not be quantified in the same way as other media because it is not a media, but a medium, nor should the same expectations be attached. It is not a direct sales tool; at the very most I see it being used for brand building, loyalty purposes and engagement.

In spite of the bold-face headlines screaming abut the decay of traditional advertising in favor of online media, there are nuances involved in this shift which are dangerous to ignore. I am fortunate to be involved in the discussion, but I fear that the necessary changes in perspective will be slow to occur.