Making brands - 6 questions for Jürgen Häusler.

Interview by Rolf-Günther Hobbeling, Chief Editor Springer Gabler, with Prof. Dr. Jürgen Häusler, Honorary Professor of Strategic Corporate Communications at the University of Leipzig and, until his retirement, first Chief Executive Officer and then Chairman at Interbrand Central and Eastern Europe. Jürgen Häusler has spent more than two decades advising companies and organizations worldwide on the development of brands.

1. why should a marketer take the time to read the book "What brands could achieve. A critique of branding - suggestions from the field." to read it? What is his/her benefit?

I don't have a suitable answer for anyone involved in the development and management of brands. Reading the book could be more specifically worthwhile for those who are enthusiastic about developing brands and are nevertheless of the opinion that the craft should be practiced in a more solid, reflective and self-critical way than is often - if not mostly - the case. This opens up opportunities for them to consider more differentiated answers, to no longer have to ignore irritating questions and to be able to articulate justified doubts. This could make it possible to enter a 'post-bullshit phase' of branding. Incidentally, the explanations could be interesting for people who come into contact with brands primarily as 'consumers' and are nevertheless interested in how they are 'made'.

2. you have developeda great "respect for the brand phenomenon"in your professional life. What is the reason for this?

In the far-reaching significance that brands have for the functioning of our modern societies. For critical contemporaries, the power of brands is very impressive and the practice of branding is therefore (actually) very exciting. And this brand power is frightening because, on the one hand, the personal and social interaction with brands usually remains very superficial and, on the other hand, the discipline and profession of branding mostly fails to live up to its social responsibility. It is therefore necessary for branding to be monitored more closely and for those responsible for marketing to come under public scrutiny or even end up in the dock, as was the case with the opioid crisis in the USA. Brands have the power to change the world - obviously not just for the better.

3. you cover a wide range in your book - from the very deep understanding of what a brand is (or is not) to the concrete process of how brands are made and the conditions for success. Do today's brand makers lack a fundamental understanding of brand making and a reflection on what they are doing?

Of course, I don't want to and can 't make a general judgment along the lines of your question. However, I have certainly experienced brand makers many times and continue to observe them from time to time who have an alarming and obvious lack of fundamental understanding of what they do. What is particularly astonishing - almost admirable - is the widespread ability in this industry to ignore and gloss over such shortcomings. Humorous and witty observers have aptly described this in other contexts as "incompetence compensation competence".

4. in your book, you use the perspective of 'results orientation' to compare the brand world with soccer - I quote: "Are these brand makers not aware that they should sell as much as possible and, if possible, more than the competition? Why do large parts of the industry neglect the actually necessary, causal connection between their actions and brand (mis)performance?" Do you see this as the main reason for the decline in the importance of marketing in companies?

It is part of the industry-specific habitus of branding to always celebrate successes. To exaggerate somewhat, failures are not even ignored. At the same time, the question of how exactly one's own actions are connected to possible successes is not pursued too intensively. Why is this behavior so widespread? The answer from psychologist and psychotherapist Alfred Adler would probably be: "superiority complex". The industry's mantra fits in with this: 'I have the solution. Who has a problem? I fully understand managers in companies and other organizations who are not impressed by this kind of behaviour.

5. you have experienced many times that it is "not possible to create seriously meaningful images for brands " ... i.e. "to actually tell meaningful stories for your brands. And once again, what remains are a lot of disoriented customers and unguided employees." Why do attempts to "tell meaningful stories for their brands" fail so often?

Because - if you are serious and interested in making a real impact - it is a very demanding and demanding business. The problem lies less in inventing the story. Although, of course, this also needs to be skillful (and not just intentional). The big challenge from the point of view of the ambitious brand maker is to turn the story into action within their own organization. How many advertising managers (including those with the title CMO) have this will to assert themselves and the corresponding implementation power in their organizations? Without this translation into real experiences, the greatest stories remain, at best, well-staged advertising messages. Without serious meaning, without fundamental significance. Not skillfully and usually not really wanted.

6 All in all, despite all the objections and doubts, you are a passionate advocate of the craft of branding. Where does this enthusiasm come from? What do you base this plea on?

Above all, the fact that I have repeatedly met great brand makers in my professional life. I've had the pleasure of working with them and arguing respectfully. Together, we succeeded time and again - usually against all odds - in creating something useful, genuine, meaningful and moving. Richard Sennet has created a scientific monument to these people as 'good craftsmen'. They believe in quality and act accordingly, reacting very irritably to bullshit. They practice solid branding and are aware of the importance of conceptual considerations, theoretical reflections and critical questions. And they remain authentic, free, ambitious and creative designers - insofar as this remains possible at all under the prevailing economic conditions. Such brand makers - and the prospect of what brands could achieve - certainly make the practice of brand making very attractive today and tomorrow.