You can only reap what was sown beforehand.

The world has been holding its breath for weeks. And Adidas' misstep has made it clear how quickly companies can shatter their (brand) china. Many experts are certain that nothing will remain the same after the coronavirus crisis. Others, however, point out how quickly brands can (supposedly) return to business as usual.

You can now follow Michael Brandtner from Ries Consulting, who explains how all gross missteps are quickly forgotten and how companies are called upon to fire from all cylinders, especially in times of crisis (HORIZONT, 21.04.20) - and lean back.

Or you can allow yourself to be influenced by the suggestions for "marketing in times of coronavirus" - even if it can make you sick. As always, the focus here is on making a ruckus and the question arises as to whether we can follow these "experts" - especially in exceptional times - or whether their incessant recommendations are perhaps driven less by expertise than by their own business interests.

And of course we also have to come to terms with the fact - whether appropriate or not - that "purpose", even "marketing purpose"(?), attitude and sustainability are now increasingly being brought into play from every conceivable angle. I often doubt that people understand what this is all about.

I think it would be more appropriate to take inspiration from entrepreneur Giorgio Armani. In an interview with the FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE SONNTAGSZEITUNG newspaper on 19.04.20, he takes the beneficial view that the future should focus more on people and less on mere profit. In his opinion, the current experience teaches us something very important: to save money, to do better with less and to focus on products that are worth it. When it comes to sustainability, he calls for a review of priorities. Attention to the environment must take center stage because, after all, we only have one planet!

Armani recommends that the fashion world slows down and realigns itself. This is advice that responsible companies in all sectors should follow.

Unpleasant times call for unpleasant decisions.

In the past, my calls for brand responsibility in top management, for changed responsibilities and structures in brand management in order to meet the challenges, were often dismissed as unwieldy and complicated. In reality, however, companies had little desire to question established corporate processes. The effort was simply too great for them; after all, the business was even running without a brand.

But does "business as usual" really make sense?

Keep drumming up "Here I am, buy me"? Or should it be less promotional and more emotional, above all conveying reliability and authenticity, as Barbara Evans from Mediaplus recommends in HORIZONT, 27.04.20? A recommendation that really doesn't provide any new insights. But a rethink requires questioning the well-trodden paths.

So how should we deal with the new situation? If you take up or at least rethink the call for a new direction and want to live up to your brand responsibility as a company leader, I recommend taking a look at two articles on the topics of structure and strategy:

The Difference between Marketing and Brand Management.

The excerpt from Hayley Campbell's update for frontify is, like all such definitions, more than banal, but makes it clear where the problem lies in many companies.

"For many, the line between brand management and marketing can be a little fuzzy. After all, both play an integral role in the development of a brand.

But there is a distinct difference between the two. While brand management is responsible for creating the brand itself, marketing handles the individual campaigns that promote the brand and generate engagement.

Your brand is what customers perceive your business to be. It's the sum total of hundreds of interactions, both digital and human. It's not your logo. It's not your color scheme. It's not your products or services.

Your brand is the overall impression you leave with people, whether they're your customers or not. It's how they think about you. It's how they talk about you. It's what they associate you with. It's the feeling they have when they come into contact with your business online, over the phone, or in person.

Brand management is exactly what it sounds like: it's the ongoing work you do to maintain a consistent brand identity. It ensures that all content, communication, products, events, sub-brands, and stylistic elements are aligned with your desired branding.

Said a different way, brand management functions as the blueprint for building strong brand equity. It provides the departments and teams across your organization with the research, guidelines, and strategies to effectively build rapport with customers. Done properly, it ensures that everything from digital collateral to physical products and human interactions are on-brand.

If brand management is the blueprint (i.e., the guidelines for maintaining your brand and correcting any faux pas), marketing is where that plan is put into action.

Because brand management plays such a critical role in the development and maintenance of a brand, it's important not to blend it with your marketing work.rather, allow your brand management work to happen separately. Doing so, will not only enable your marketing team to create more impactful campaigns, but will also allow departments across your organization to innovate and branch into new territory without losing your brand image."

Start with WHY.

According to Simon Sinek ("Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action" ), the key to success is not WHAT or HOW, but WHY. His assumption is based on the fact that inspiration carries more weight than manipulation when it comes to influencing human behavior.

"Sinek says people are inspired by a sense of purpose (or "Why"), and that this should come first when communicating, before "How" and "What". Sinek calls this triad the golden circle, a diagram of a bullseye with "Why" in the innermost circle (representing people's motives or purposes), surrounded by a ring labeled "How" (representing people's processes or methods), enclosed in a ring labeled "What" (representing results or outcomes). He goes on to speculate about the biological factors behind this structure, such as the limbic system. (Wikipedia)


(Excerpts from Simon Sinek, "Frag immer erst: Warum", Redline Verlag:)

The WHY arises when you look back.

The WHY is not found by looking at the goal and developing a strategy on how to get there. It is not the result of market research, not the result of interviews with customers or employees. You find it by looking in the opposite direction to the one you are looking in. The WHY is a discovery, not an invention. When we know WHY, success comes naturally.

Manipulation vs. loyalty.

In Sinek's opinion, manipulation is widespread and successful in marketing and sales. You just have to know that manipulation only leads to transactions, not loyalty. Loyalty, however, is the basis for sustainable success. However, most companies are only concerned with WHAT - not WHY. Loyalty will hardly be achieved with WHAT or HOW.

Innovation comes about when you push yourself to the limit.

Steve Jobs did not develop the iPod, iTunes or the iPhone himself. Others in the company did. Jobs gave them a filter, a context, a higher goal, the WHY, to give innovations a framework. APPLE employees look for ways to fulfill the purpose in as many areas as possible. And it works.

Inspiration.

Charisma inspires. According to the Golden Circle model, there is a leader at the top of the company who represents the WHY. If a company lacks a Steve Jobs who constantly inspires, the WHY becomes difficult. If there are also no people in organizations who bring the vision to life, who create an infrastructure of systems and processes - the HOW - then the result is inefficiency at best - and failure at worst.

Sinek explains the effectiveness of his philosophy using the example of APPLE, among others. The company enjoys widespread recognition, everyone knows the products and they are technologically comparable with others. Nevertheless, its long-term success is atypical. But being one of the most innovative companies in the world for years, achieving a cult status among its followers, underlines the fact that people don't buy WHAT companies do, but WHY they do it. The ability to produce highly innovative products so consistently and secure the loyalty of their following has deeper roots than WHAT. The WHY of APPLE inspires.

As a rule, concrete characteristics and advantages are used as arguments for why the company, the product or the idea is better than others. Companies sell what they do. But we buy why they do it. If a company does not have a clear answer to the question WHY, then it is impossible to perceive anything other than what the company does. In these cases, manipulations that rely on mere novelty (not to be confused with innovation), discounts, features, service or quality are the exclusive source of differentiation.

Topics such as vision, mission, positioning, attitude, purpose and sustainability are presented in a completely different light according to Sinek's model. The roles of brand leadership and brand management regain the importance that seems to have been lost in the exclusive sales hustle and bustle.

A reorientation raises the question of whether the attention economy, which relies mainly on social media (mostly ridiculous, childish), on advertising or "sales promotion" (often with loud and shrill gags), on influencers (as supposed "brand ambassadors") according to the motto "the main thing is that sales are right" can still be right? Doesn't it make more sense in this day and age to think about serious, reputable, trust-building approaches that aim to build reputation and loyalty in the long term? Inspiration, an appropriate strategy and organizational structure would be a prerequisite.

One remark:

I was delighted to accompany FALKE's brand development for fourteen years from 1975. It was a very special time, during which I was able to gain valuable experience and get to know different roles in brand management. How the brand was managed by different people - once with more marketing than brand, then with more brand without marketing. But in particular the role of the visionary Klaus Gerwin, who together with FRANZ-PETER FALKE and with the unreserved trust of the entrepreneurial families set the decisive direction for the brand. A role that is rarely found in today's brand world, but is more urgently needed than ever before. During these years, I became more than aware of why you can only reap what you have sown.