Today for a bit of relief, there is at long last another guest entry from my Facebook friend and master of the written word, Alexander Wallasch, about a particular sort of person who used to annoy in analogue and now annoys in digital: the silent man. For those who want to know more about Alex, there is more information at the end of the text.

Those who say little, drive lawnmowers (by Alexander Wallasch)

Much earlier, when the smart girls with centre partings still wore white knickers with red trim under their long skirts and smelt of patchouli, the world was still in order. So you can claim, and who would want to say anything else anyway in the face of such romantic descriptions of the world? But nevertheless that isn’t actually right. Because back then, being silent had all the power over the fluttering skirts. Why? It’s quite simple: because we boys didn’t have anything clever to say yet. Back then there were four categories: those who didn’t know any better and cheerfully babbled away. Those who knew, but couldn’t keep silent. Those who still had some hope and tried it over again. And those whose strategies consisted of holding their tongues. That made them into absolute rock kings. Mysterious. Deep. And consequently they got so close to that patchouli that made us dizzy from afar. Why couldn’t we just simply learn to keep our mouths shut? Why did we gabble away every given opportunity at every given opportunity? Back then it was the time of the Silent. We looked on at those who kept silent, as they kissed, and as they did all the other things which we could for our part have imagined with the most beautiful words, but never experienced ourselves.
But what has become of those silent types? I sometimes encountered them on the street later in life. One of them was driving the town lawnmower, an old car with a “Baby on Board” sticker, and was wearing a short checked shirt in summer and had colourful tattoos which looked like comical extensions of the short sleeves. And then I was silent. Smiling. I said nothing. Just nodded briefly, waited til a spluttering came from above the amusing skin-comic, and simply drove on. In the rearview mirror I could still see his open mouth, and, for the first time, also saw his bad teeth. Had that been the actual reason behind his silence, or did that come later? It doesn’t matter. I had grasped one thing: being silent doesn’t pay in the long term. Being silent has a bloody short half-life. And he who is silent for too long, gets bloody ugly tattoos.
Why am I telling you all this? Because I have realised that, even in the 21st century, there are still people who believe that being a patchouli rock-king is a lifetime position! In any case you could get that impression, if you had been on Facebook for a while, had settled in and then suddenly realised that even on there it can be bloody quiet, although you are sharing the same virtual space with several others. That’s annoying, because I crazily look around myself automatically and instinctively, in case one of those little knicker queens is there somewhere making all these men fall silent. Actually. One of them is always at it. And like iron filings to a magnetic plate the four categories align themselves here as well, like lemmings, following a law of physics: the majority are lawn-mower men. But of course there is no smell in the internet and the clouds of patchouli have no effect at all. Being silent here is simply being silent! Then, in their despair, the lawnmower boys post interminable lists of Youtube music videos. At first they reap a few “likes”, then nothing more, because what’s the point? Most people have enough boredom to download their own videos from Youtube.
The second  group of these “PS” lawnmower-men has a more aggressive roar: threads with increasing comment length just makes their silence ever louder. Of course, then the first one boils over. Then another, and then even more silent types break their silence. But: those who stay silent for so long don’t have a smooth voice – it’s too loud, too quiet, it squawks, whimpers or rattles after but a few syllables. Why? It’s quite simple: the truth about Facebook is this: Facebook is not a blog. No ifs or buts, every post and every comment is no less than a summons to a conversation. And Facebook friends are conversation partners. That is how they are chosen. Or rejected! So those who won’t speak and keep waiting longingly for the next cloud of patchouli sooner or later ends up just driving the lawnmower in Facebook as well. And inevitably drives vociferously into the next empty bulletin board. Facebook is text. Therefore Facebook is the world of the copywriters. And we are the copywriters. The kings of Facebook. Those who will get to look behind the red trim. Assuming the clouds of patchouli are thick enough.

(Alexander Wallasch, 46, is a German writer, journalist, columnist and copywriter at one of the north-German top agencies (which does not want to be named here). In his 2006 novel “Hotel Monopol” the Financial Times saw “an update of Charles Bukowski and Hubert Fichte”. In 2010, “German Son” (Deutscher Sohn, co-authored by Ingo Niermann)became the most discussed German novel of 2010. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Sunday edition wrote “The result is a strongly established prose, which rethinks the cosmopolitan inheritance from classicism. A crystal clear novel countering hystericism among the German suppressed : literature on patrol .”)

I don’t know how old Annabelle from New York is and I don’t know with whom she usually visits museums either. Nor do I know how many and which museums she has already visited in her life. But I do know that in February 2011, Annabelle from New York was at the Museum of Modern Art. And she left scathing criticism (found in one of my favourite blogs “Letters of Note” http://lettersofnote.com/): ”I did not see a dinosaur. You call yourself a museum!” Well, too bad for the MoMA. At least some painted dinosaurs would have had to be there in order to convince Annabelle that the MoMA is a bit of a museum. But just with modern art, the MoMA was violating one of Annabelle’s basic convictions: museum = dinosaurs. Or the other way around: Every museum with dinosaurs can be sure of Annabelle’s love. Just because they confirm what Annabelle believes in.

  This is exactly how most successful brands work: they are purchased because they meet, complement, emphasise and assist their buyers in their basic convictions, their passions, and their personalities. However, the basic prerequisite is that the brand makes the access to itself - and thereby the opportunity for me to realise that we match - as easy as possible. As clearly as in Annabelle’s head, museum stands for dinosaur (which she obviously loves), as much does a brand that wants me to be its ardent fan have to stand for something I love. BMW stands for driving pleasure, Volvo for security. I can decide what is more suitable for me.

  But how do brands achieve such uniqueness and why are there so few of them? The reason is often quite simple: just take a look at the last briefing you gave to your agency or received from your customer. You should especially do so if the resulting campaign did not have the desired success again; that is, the campaign did not contribute to the uniqueness of your brand. And now count the adjectives that describe the brand and were assigned to it. More than 5? More than 3? 2? At this point, you already have to see clearly that something is going wrong. Two adjectives contradict the logic of clearness and already lower the chances of unambiguous brand communication by 50%, mathematically speaking.

  Into the bargain, most of the adjectives end in –er: whiter, bigger, faster, and if nothing else is left – cheaper! The problem: using –er automatically makes the brand comparable, I am downright asking for a comparison. In that case, uniqueness only occurs if the brand makes laundry a whole lot whiter, seems a whole lot bigger, drives a whole lot faster or is a whole lot cheaper. And that has to be the perception of the customer and not the opinion of the marketing department. According to a study by the consultancy Bain&Co, 80% of CEOs are convinced that their brands deliver a unique experience. Only 8% of customers agree to this evaluation…

  I am sure that Annabelle has a favourite museum: the best dinosaur museum in Annabelle’s universe. Not comparable, but unique. It’s the benchmark every other museum – even the MoMA -  has to measure up to. The same is true for my MacBook, my Adidas running shoes or my Nutella – all three of them are unique to me, I don’t even take alternatives into consideration. Why? Because Nutella represents the yummiest bun of the week, the Saturday morning bun. Because I am convinced that Adidas shoes make me to deliver my best performance since I once scored 3 goals in one football game 30 years ago – in brand new Adidas football shoes. Because my MacBook has opened up a whole new world to me. Therefore, these brands stand for uniqueness, which, according to Grateful Dead – co-founder Jerry Garcia, was the goal of his band as well: “You do not merely want to be considered just the best of the best. You want to be considered the only ones who do what you do!”

“People increasingly see the world in terms of ‘real’ and ‘fake,’ and want to buy something real from someone genuine, not a fake from a phony. Now more than ever, the authentic is what consumers really want.” (from the book “Authenticity: What Consumers really want” by Gilmore/Pine). The list of such quotes from blogs, books and lectures is endless. Authenticity is in. It is the new favourite word of the brand-family, above all of the social media fans among them. And there is hardly a single agency briefing where it doesn’t rattle around under the theme brand attributes. The conclusion is clear to see with Google:

Authentisch – 3 million links
Authentic – 250 million hits
Markenauthentizität – 435 thousand links
Brand Authenticity – 12 million links
Social Media Authentizität – 270 thousand links
Social Media Authenticity – 6.9 million links

Admittedly: the Americans are, in the case of authenticity, superior to us Germans in terms of numbers. But we are in the process of catching up quickly. I certainly can’t hear that little word “authentic” anymore. For despite the fact that there are quite different things that can be read about the theme, it still seems these days, if you listen into a German brand-maker’s meeting room, that it is a theme which is, above all, used in abundance and not really thought about: “Our brands must by all means be (remain, become) authentic.”  Why? What does that mean for the brand behaviour? Who judges what “authentic” is? And according to what criteria? Most of these questions remain unanswered.

You can’t argue with authenticity. Quite the reverse: who wouldn’t want to embody the following definition of authenticity on Wikipedia: “when referring to people, authenticity means that the actions of a person are not determined through external influences, but are founded in the person themselves.” However: even in the personal brand of Lobenstein there’s a problem with authenticity. Of course I imagine that the true Lobenstein shines through in everything I do, say and write. But I have family, friends, clients, readers, followers. Not influenced by external influences? Get real! To top it all, according to Margaret King and Jamie O’Boyle from the Center for Cultural Studies & Analysis, people  invent and thereby define anew what is authentic for them at around 35-40 and again between 55-60. Even as a person it’s difficult enough to be sustainably authentic and remain so!

How much more difficult must the authenticity business be for brands? What distinguishes real authenticity from this engineered, marketing pseudo-authenticity, which even my youngest daughter with her 10 years can decode as being fake and not credible? In their study in 2000, the scientists Michael Kernis and Brian Goldman developed 4 criteria as benchmarks for true authenticity (see, among others, http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200804/dare-be-yourself)

1. Awareness: We have to know our strengths and weaknesses as well as our feelings and motives, so why we behave in this or that way. Only through this self-reflection are we in the position to consciously experience and influence our actions. From a brand perspective: self-reflection is not exactly an established talent among brands, blowing your own trumpet about your particular capabilities is. And you see that. Authenticity is something different.
2. Honesty: Those who want to be authentic have to look reality in the eyes and also accept uncomfortable repercussions – whether verbal or visual. From a brand perspective: the talent of dealing with uncomfortable repercussions can be seen every day on numerous social platforms. It is completely understandable. Community Management, eye to eye dialogue and in real-time? Rather not!
3. Consequence: those who have values should act according to them. The same goes for once-firm priorities or for the case that you incur disadvantages through acting this way. Hardly anything looks more dishonest and artificial then an opportunist. From a brand perspective: brand opportunism can be seen every day on supermarket shelves and display windows under the pretext of brand stretching or spreading. Stretched to the point of being unrecognisable in the constant hunt for the next, supposedly just-within-reach users: only a few brands still really stand for recognisable values and the resulting consequent actions.
4. Sincerity: Those who want to be truthful have to show the good grace to display their negative sides as well. From a brand perspective: most brands have no negative sides per se. At least, not officially. And they certainly won’t be a component of a discussion with a target audience. End marketing announcement.
   

Brands don’t have to be authentic in order to be successful. As even when it is apparently the dictate of the hour in the era of social media: it isn’t enough to want to be authentic and then to act as if you are. Either be really authentic, but then with all of the above consequences, or keep your hands off from the business of authenticity. Precisely in times in which brands can’t hide themselves or their actions from the watchful eyes of the net, target audiences decode staged marketing authenticity in record time and reject them. There are other paths into the hearts and minds of potential target audiences. Paths which many brands could tread much more credibly than if they keep running after the hype of genuineness. Paths which would spare all of us a pair of quite overrated links as potential results on Google.

There are people who don’t like me. Some make no secret of it. Others try to hide it, out of politeness or other motives. And they are, for the most part, exactly as obvious and readable as the first group. It’s not nice to be disliked. After all, man strives for love, friendship and recognition and not towards the opposite. So after every “disliking” incident I ask for the reason. Then when I know this I ask myself two questions: do you want to change what the other person doesn’t like about you? Can you change what the other person doesn’t like about you? Result: in some cases I want to change, but in most cases I can’t. Because that which doesn’t suit other people is often part of my personality and it has taken over 45 years of vibrant life to make it what it is. Namely not merely gratuitously malleable, stretchable, and changeable. My personality isn’t an arbitrary, negotiable quantity and is not willing to compromise. I like it like it is. Why? Because in my little real world there are enough wonderful people who give me plenty of love, friendship and recognition and in doing so take me and my personality as I am, with my faults, strengths and weaknesses. In this way I spare myself the large outlay of time and effort of constantly adapting myself to others. And I keep a reliable and predictable profile for my friends.

There are people who don’t like my digital self. They make no secret of it. They don’t like me on Facebook, don’t become followers on Twitter and don’t read my Blog. After a brief period they dislike me, stop the RSS feed, and cross me off the twitter list again. Or simply don’t read the next blogpost. But my digital self also doesn’t like being disliked. After all my digital self (especially my blog) is also a window on my convictions as a brand consultant, my professional basic convictions. My digital self defines, to a great extent, the vonlobenstein brand. Blog post too long? Theme boring? Reasoning incomprehensible? Too difficult? Was it detrimental? I also scrutinise my digital self constantly. And with exactly these two questions: do I want to deliver other content? Can I deliver other content? Result: I could, but I won’t. Because in my blog posts I write about my basic convictions. And just like my personality, they are not arbitrary negotiable quantities. They are the basis of the brand vonlobenstein. The same themes, but written in German? Obviously. Other themes, just to please, to get more readers? Certainly not. And certainly not when my brand is watered down by this and loses the clear profile that I want for it.
Every brand has potential fans that absolutely don’t want to like it. That’s not nice. After all, you could sell so much more if you were to become more liked. And because of this brands scrutinise themselves constantly through market research. What they often hear there sounds something like the letter to the band (and brand) Greenday, from a mother who had obviously become incensed about the album “Insomniac”, who doesn’t merely criticise but rather makes concrete suggestions for improvement (found again in one of my favourite blogs http://www.lettersofnote.com):

If it the customer had had their way, then Greenday would have only played “When I come around”, or at least songs which sound exactly the same, since 1996. And of course with good lyrics, and a positive vibe. They could have done that. And would in case of doubt not only made this mother and her 8 year old son happy, but made many more current non-buyers into eager customers. But Greenday just weren’t interested in that. Greenday were, back then, more of the opinion that their music and the band behaviour hidden within it is not a negotiable quantity. Here is the no-compromise response from Billie Joe Armstrong, lead singer of the band:

A clear edge: “I don’t write for parents. I don’t write for eight year old boys. I write for myself. It helps me to know you won’t be buying anymore of our records.” Clear edge in terms of brand business? Not really. For that you firstly have to be convinced that a long-term sustained brand profile creates loyal fans of the brand and therefore more loyal customers. And not to allow yourself to be hounded into arbitrary actions by day to day events. For that, secondly, you have to know what the brand that you are responsible for stands for, and what in this is not negotiable and doesn’t allow itself to be dissuaded by market research. For that, thirdly, you have to have the courage to not only not want everyone, but to clearly signal this to those whom you don’t want. Or to put it another way: you have to recognise that it is more strenuous in the long term to bend constantly to the point where the brand is not recognised, rather than remaining true to yourself and your convictions. Fake takes energy, real takes courage. A desire to be liked, in the short term, leads to success, but in the long term leads to the death of the brand.

The rationalism of Rene Descartes built on the assumption that knowledge only develops and is justifiable through rational thought. Everything is based on universal and rationally proven articles of faith, from which basic pattern  the answers to all further questions can be derived. All other sources of knowledge, such as sensory experience, religious revelations or transmissions do not lead to real knowledge. On the contrary: sensory perception is viewed in rationalism as a source of perception which is distinct from reason, which in every case produces undefined and uncertain results. So much for rationalism, which up until today has influenced essential parts of the emergence, editing and assimilation of knowledge.

Yet what is considered knowledge in the curricula of our schools and universities is in large parts rationally proven paper knowledge. And instantaneously obsolete in the moment when it is assimilated into the curriculum, overtaken by even more current, that is to say, the newest knowledge (according to TechCrunch, today we produce as much information and supposed knowledge in two days as the entirety of mankind produced up until 2003). And it gets worse: in part, we don’t know which knowledge is obsolete and which is worth knowing. Because we haven’t learnt to know.

The German word for knowledge, “Wissen”, comes from the Greek IDEIN and from the Latin VIDERE, which in both cases means TO SEE. The German words for idea and vision also come from these roots. Someone who has ideas and vision, who therefore still operates entirely in irrational, non-justifiable territory, has therefore, according to the original definition of knowledge, already intensively begun to know. But: for us, Descartes is still valid. Ideas? Vision? Not justifiable! Be realistic, stick to the facts and the justifiable. And thus rationally transmitted, familiar knowledge often prevents us from developing ideas and visions at all, by cluttering us up with its sheer mass. So that we often abandon knowledge at that exact point, where its actual power unfolds, in favour of knowledge which only actually takes time, energy and nerves.

The Jesuit and polymath Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680) chose a different way to Descartes. His adage of choice: In uno omnia (in one thing, everything). He studied maths, physics, chemistry, geography, geology, astronomy, biology, medicine, music, languages, philology and history. And in his own very individual way. So his book Magnes (1641), which apparently was to do with magnetism, also dealt with other forms of attraction such as gravity and love (quote: “everything is connected to each other with secret knots”). He developed plans for organs powered by water, climbed Vesuvius in order to study its eruptions, was the first to correctly suspect that plague was caused by microorganisms in the blood, and wrote about China with just as much enthusiasm as he did Egyptian hieroglyphs. And so in his time he became a “one man clearinghouse for intellectual themes”, as the Encyclopedia Britannica describes him.

According to the American historian Paula Findeln, Kircher was “the first scholar with a worldwide reputation”. His reached this significance with a twofold strategy: he took information from his own research and experiments and added information to it which he had collated from his correspondence with over 760 other scientists, physicists and, above all, his fellow Jesuits across the globe. Through this Athanasius Kircher’s knowledge was “from a modern perspective, a mixture of the results of genuine experiments, calculated relationship management, forward-looking intuition, pure speculation and impressive marketing”, as Wikipedia summarises it. For Kircher at any rate, knowledge regularly arose on the basis of intuition and seldom as a detailed knowledge which was carved in stone and proven for all time. So as a Jesuit, he naturally had to represent the Tychonic world model with the Earth at the centre, yet the Copernican model frequently appears in his works. Knowledge was potential, an idea, a comparison, a new approach. But consequently: his contemporary Descartes plainly considered Kircher to be “more of a charlatan than a scholar” who was “possessed of an abnormal faculty of imagination”.

An abnormal imagination? I follow some 200 blogs plus countless amounts of “knowledge” about all possible topics concerning marketing, communication and more every day on the social platforms I use. In doing so I experience these three things over and over again:

1. I will never know everything about a particular topic. Too much new knowledge is added to it daily. And I’m interested in too many topics. So I always take every decision and commit myself to every viewpoint on the basis of insufficient “knowledge”.
2. I can only rarely be certain that the knowledge that I take on in Descartes’ fashion is provable. My knowledge shapes itself in comparison to the various opinions and views of others. And always on a daily basis. New opinions change my view like the colour mosaic pieces in my childhood kaleidoscope, which changed every time I shook it.
3. The stacked up and retained “paper knowledge” always starts to totter especially violently when ideas and visions appeal not only to my rational understanding but also to my sensory imagination.
   

I would be happy to possess the “abnormal faculty of imagination” of Athanasius Kircher, in order to use it to evaluate the incoming knowledge and be able to formulate new insights from out of the crowd and complexity. In times of a surplus of information, and therefore potential knowledge, we need less skill to justify the “excess” rationally as well. Instead we need to establish many more “abnormal imagination” nexuses, in order to let in new experiences and insights on a daily basis and to recognise the value of ideas and visions. Knowledge as a beta-version, constantly subject to the reality test, always ready to correct itself through new insights and to be revised. We need more recognition that imagination is more important than knowledge. Or to put it another way: more Kircher, less Descartes!

For me, the worst possible outcome of a pitch is not losing. At least, not when the pitch team can claim that the power and force of their best idea was actually put into play optimally. The idea which the pitch team is convinced would help the client to reach the goal in their briefing as quickly, sustainably, and impressively as possible. Losing with such an idea means losing with heads held high. That isn’t nice – it’s regrettable for the business, but it is honourable.

For me, the worst possible outcome of a pitch is to win with an idea which has nothing to do with inner conviction and everything to do with pitch tactics. Following the motto: “For now let’s win it. Then we can implement the right ideas. A correctly thought-out idea in terms of business? Certainly. A feeling of victory? Not really. After all, in the near future you have to publically implement a lukewarm idea and publically endure the reaction. Honourable? Certainly not. Because experience shows that in the majority of all cases: what starts off as mediocre rarely becomes any better later. And every publicly visible part of the campaign therefore becomes a  sign of our lowered aspiration for ideas, which really help brands.

For me the best possible outcome of a pitch is winning with an idea which obliges the client to commit to it because it unsettles them in a positive sense, perturbs and challenges them. One of these ideas to which the first sentence of the Marketing representative’s reaction goes something like: “Gosh, we really hadn’t thought about that when we were writing the briefing. But the longer I think about it, the more I think it could really bring our brand forwards. Together we have to establish this here in-house. It won’t be easy, but we should try it.” One of these ideas which has the effect, during and after the presentation, which one of the world’s best creatives, Trevor Beattie, called for in an internal talk for TBWA/ :

Ideas which have the effect of a spider on your hand? This analogy has stayed with me for years and I think it hits the nail on the head. Because a spider on the hand is simultaneously shocking and fascinating. It creates fear, and gives you a rush of adrenaline. You waver between the reflex to shake it off, and the determination to be courageous, and prove it to yourself and others. Have I put enough spiders on clients’ hands in my advertising career? A clear no, and I greatly regret that fact. But a few days ago that time had come again. And I once again experienced how the feeling carries you through the next days (and hopefully months) when you have found a client who was waiting for this spider. And who doesn’t shake it off.

  Incidentally: in two weeks’ time the best creative ideas will be rewarded in countless categories at the Art Directors Club in Frankfurt. I’m curious to see how many spider-ideas will be among them . . .

At Apple it’s “Think different”. And Apple-Boss Steve Jobs says:  “Think different is what we are about. It touches the soul of this company”. At Adidas it’s “Impossible is nothing”. And Adidas chairman Erich Stamminger says: “It is our legacy, our mission and our challenge”. At Pedigree it’s “We love dogs”. And the Mars-CEO Paul Michaels says: “We express our love for dogs in everything we do. Not just in our products, but in our activities, beliefs and causes we support”. At Nissan it’s “Shift”. And Nissan-CEO Carlos Ghosn says: “Shift is who we are and how we work”. These are all visions of a company/of a brand.

Germanys Ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt once said the following about visions in politics: “Anyone who has visions should go to the eye doctor!” And yet Guido Westerwelle has just resigned as party chairman of Germanys Liberals as some do not attest him even a scrap of liberal vision anymore, and others give him maximum credit for having the wrong visions. The following quote comes from Victor Hugo: “Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” Angela Merkel had to experience precisely this a few weeks ago. The time for the vision of a nuclear-power-free society came in a tragic way in Fukushima. It was never Angela Merkel’s vision. Pretending otherwise all of a sudden in order to win a crucial election was seen as what it was: cheap political scheming. Over 10,000 previous absenters went to the polling stations for this idea. And put their cross next to the name which they thought would proceed with this idea with the most care. Next to Greens, who had already been representing this idea, or vision, for decades.

In politics, just as in the brand business, vision is thrown under the wheels of day-to-day business and its tactical requirements at precisely the moment when times become more difficult and more complex. Because then, it’s about the daily fight to reach quarterly goals/election goals and the decisions are mostly made from the textbook of pragmatism. But: after a while many people no longer know why they should in fact fight for the brand/party and why the fight is worth it. What is the great goal that they want to reach? What should the brand stand for among the electorate and the brand audience? At the end brands and parties then appear hyperactive from sheer desperation, but copiously aimless.

For this reason I still find brand visions the most important lubricant of every organisation and every brand. When clear, relevant and well-formulated, they ensure that you don’t lose the overview in the daily ins and outs of day-to-day business in all your pragmatic temptations. In the best cases they are announced and believed in by the brand chiefs themselves, they are benchmarks for the individual actions of every employee and they give the whole organisation/brand a clear direction and a goal which is attractive to everyone. Above all however they ensure a constantly clear and identifiable profile of a brand/organisation. A profile which you can identify with. Or even not. Just like in the 4 examples I mentioned at the start which have all already been valid for years.

In my experience vision is often the first victim in hard times when working with brands. Certainly I’ve frequently experienced how the way out of the hard times has only been possible through the resuscitation or re-development of a brand vision. And then that’s mostly hard work, as we know from our daily work at vonlobenstein ltd. Our vision is: “We give brands more value”. And the best advice for retaining the value of a brand is therefore: keep your vision alive. After all, Helmut Schmidt wasn’t always right . . .

When the internet is yet again broken in the Lobenstein household, or other digital hiccups happen, my friend and IT specialist Markus helps. I “liked” Markus and added him to my “community” because for a while he kept his horse in the stable next to my daughter’s. And because, when we were drinking a beer together in the riders’ bar, we discovered that we got on well. What I didn’t know back then was that Markus installs and repairs the software in large firms. What I didn’t know was that Markus knows the answers to every ridiculous computer question and is prepared to share them day and night, and does this with an astounding calm.

If the Lobenstein household needs a little maintenance (installing the shower, fixing broken locks etc) then Thomas helps us. We “liked” Thomas and added him to our “community” because he is our neighbour and his dog and ours enjoy playing with each other. And because we found out through this that he and his wife are extremely nice people. What I didn’t know was that Thomas works as a professional metalworker in a brewery, is an exceptionally gifted handyman and knows a solution to every problem around the house. Above all what I didn’t know is how willing he is to use this talent to help others out (without laughing over my own incapacity for DIY!).

If I find myself needing last-minute, but perfect charts in the firm’s CI for a presentation at vonlobenstein ltd, Ina helps. I “liked” Ina and added her to my “community” because she was working as a leader of new business in a firm which I bought up in the name of my ex-employer. And because every encounter with her simply made the day a bit brighter. What I didn’t know was that Ina is actually a skilled and extremely gifted, both as an art-director and as a creator of CI. Above all what I didn’t know was that in the meantime, in her role as a manager of her own advertising agency ( http://www.betriebskultur.de <http://www.betriebskultur.de> ), Ina chooses to watch over the vonlobenstein CI she developed with great dedication, rather than leave it to an artistically backward pupil such as  myself.

And that’s how our own personal “communities” spring up: we get to know people, get a first impression. That’s enough for an initial “I like” decision. Then we review them step by step, confirm them or revise them to a “dislike”. In time we learn ever more about our friends, their passions, their talents, their strengths, weaknesses and quirks. And they get to know us better too. In this way we find out together how we can mutually support one another with exactly these talents. And whether we do that willingly.
The three essential success factors in such a process also work (with a few minor adaptations) for the construction of brand communities which are laid out for the long term:

1. Evidence of willingness to be a community: “Hello, this is brand xy. We’re ready for a straight and honest dialogue. Get to know us. This is the first opportunity to show you that we really mean this and want to open up a dialogue with you”. In a personal scenario, the parties both edge towards one another, in brand business it is the brands which must undertake the significantly larger steps in the direction of their community.
2. Proof of ability to be a community: “Welcome back, new community member. Thank you for the regular criticism and your comments. This lets us constantly attune ourselves better to you and produce content which really helps you, gets you enthused or somehow involves you emotionally. After all, we want to keep you in our community long-term”. Here, in a personal scenario, both sides are also naturally required to demonstrate long-term “friendship capability”, and in contrast in the brand business, it is the brand which is above all required to do this.
3. Use of friendtelligence: “Hello, dear community member xy. You are, we’ve noticed, an especially active and influential member of our community. Can we give you additional information to make you into a special brand-messenger for our brand?” or “Hello community member zx, we’ve found out that you have talents which could improve our brands. Would you like to help us out?”
   

Whether in your personal life or in a brand-community – there are two things which must be observed: first comes the build-up, then the using. Friendships seldom begin in step one with the neighbour repairing the lock on your door. That comes under “services”. Friendship comes as a consequence of the fact that you know one another beforehand – and have come to be fond of one another. Those who want to stake their brands and their success on the instrument of digital communities should build them up before they need them.
And on the theme of friendtelligence, the old saying from David Ogilvy is twice as relevant: “Don´t count the people you can reach. Reach the people that count!” In the era of social networks that doesn’t mean knowing 1 million people so that you can find 100 real “friends” out of that. Rather, it means befriending the relevant 10 brand fans, who will convert 100 further friends to the brand through their conviction, who can then contribute 1000 more new brand friends to a brand community. Just like in real life. Thomas, for example, has a friend and bike-nerd, who is currently fixing up my racing bike for spring. But that’s another story . .

I like country music. My immediate social circle is not entirely overjoyed about this fact. “Can we listen to some normal music for once” is one of the more harmless remarks made about it. But whether at night in the car, whilst running in the mornings or at breakfast with the family on Sunday – I like country music. I like the simple lyrics, the sound of country guitars and the singing of the Dixie-Chicks. My taste in music is a non-negotiable part of me.

  I like the football team 1860 Munich. With that one sentence I commonly arouse sympathy, provoke laughter and land myself the according comments on the subject. Yes, they frequently lose, constantly scrape along the verge of bankruptcy, lose what little talent they have while they’re young and have, in the 35 years I’ve been a fan, cut a rather tragic figure. But every weekend my gaze falls first on the results of my Lions and it is only after that that I find out what has happened in the rest of the footballing world. My love of them is a non-negotiable part of me.

  It would be so easy. My eldest daughter Marie (tragically fan of Bayern Munich, the successful version of a Munich football team and arch-rivals of the Lions) recently said “For goodness sakes Dad, just become a Bayern fan too. Then you’d be able to celebrate championships and really get involved in the big matches in front of the television.” My response: “That’s true, but I’d feel like I’d betrayed myself!”

  20 years ago, one of my favourite authors, Ray Bradbury, was asked to describe a situation in which he met with opposition and how he had overcome it. This is his response:

(Image: RR Auction)

  “Be your own self. Love what you love!” Consistency in thought and in actions, the development and adherence to basic convictions even in the face of internal and external opposition, the defining of your own character is something I consider to be the most important lesson I want to teach my children. And it should also be taught to brands. Unfortunately most of them act according to the old adage of Germanys Ex-Chancellor Adenauer “the nonsense I said yesterday doesn’t concern me”.
It is so easy to distance yourself from basic convictions, to sacrifice that which you only yesterday had full faith in on the altar of brand opportunism: poor results in the “mafo” opinion polls, poor quarterly figures, new brand managers who subjugate the brand instead of allowing it to lead them – there are many supposedly good reasons.  Roughly as many as the number of stories about brands which have, due to giving up on their core values and convictions, become that which  Professor Blümlhuber from the university in Brussels once described in a lecture as “many brands are like doughnuts. Covered with a shiny glaze of fat outside and empty inside!” Everything seems to be negotiable....

  A year ago Pepsi announced their withdrawal from the competition for the most original Super Bowl advert. Instead they used the 20 million dollars saved through this to start the Pepsi-Refresh Project, a project which was concerned with supporting social institutions and initiatives (http://www.refresheverything.com). Brown pop as a do-gooder? This statement is debateable. But the fact is that this approach has generated a vast amount of PR and has become one of the most-quoted examples for best practice in handling social networks (for example, there hasn’t been a single one of my lectures in the last 12 months which hasn’t mentioned this case). The voting via Facebook and other platforms generated more votes than the last presidential election in the USA!
It’s also a fact that Pepsi have made good on their 20 million dollar promise and consequently have implemented their “Refresh” strategy. And furthermore, but by no means least, it is a fact that they thereby found a strategy which really differentiated them from their biggest rivals, Coke. And all of this from internal conviction: every statement made by Pepsi on the subject was permeated with the conviction that they were doing the right thing in a relevant way: We love what we love!

  But now the wake-up call. 12 months after the start of the campaign the unthinkable has happened: for the first time ever their rival Coke doesn’t only hold the top position among soft drinks. Diet Coke has also climbed past Pepsi.

   

And what now? A return to the old strategy was to be expected. True, that also hadn’t helped to overtake Coke. But it had put them consistently in second place. Also to be expected was the agency jumping ship. It was expected that brand managers would, in three months time, following an attention-garnering pitch, give the first interview in the press (the new agency could also throw in a few statements) and would rave about the new, finally correct campaign with utter conviction. To be expected, as the Refresh campaign has after all been running for a whole year now. You can expect more from that than suddenly having to come to terms with being in third place, surely? To be expected, as it’s simply easier to think about a new glaze for the sugar topping than to prevent the hole in the middle.

  And what is Pepsi doing? First, they have survived the mockery and scorn of the Blogger world and the press (“we told you so . . . ”). And then Joe Jacuzzi, Pepsi’s press spokesman went to the press stating that Pepsi Refresh is about a long-term strategy and this will be continuously developed further and the Refresh Project would be rolled out this very year in other countries. Marketing from a conviction in their own ideas, even when it doesn’t always go their way? That was unexpected. And whether Pepsi will go through with this even if they are still in third place come the end of 2011, is another marketing story. But for today that is a good signal. And worthy of imitation. Because even in these seemingly short-lived times of social media, a big idea counts more than anything else. You just have to stick with it long enough.

  I like Pepsi. I haven’t done for long. In fact, I’ve only begun to like it recently. Precisely, since the start of the Refresh project. Because I like the idea of the Pepsi brand which is manifested in the Refresh Project. I hope they stick with it. “Be yourself. Love what you love”. Meanwhile, I, in any case, drink Pepsi when I can!

The nuclear fuel rods in Japan had barely started to glow in when, here in Germany, Facebook and Twitter began to glow with messages of solidarity: the pages were called “a million voices for withdrawal from the nuclear program” or “get rid of nuclear power – Now!!!” Profile pictures were changed to “Nuclear Power – No Thank You” badges and even fairly passive consumers of the social networks moved vociferously into the battle for the most indignant, steeliest, most stirred-up and intelligent contribution via tweets and posts. Then the first petitions and then, shortly after, the first plans for candlelight vigils, human chains and demonstrations all over Germany. From many digital individual voices and initiatives, a movement grew which mutually spurred itself on, informed itself and encouraged common things. And finally began to organise itself on the street analogue to this in reality. The end is open, the start successful!

  Such dramatic events and their effects on all of our lives it would seem to preclude proceeding to the daily business of brand work. But it is exactly these brands which in future will receive more questions about the theme of movements in social networks, for example the question of how such movements originate in these networks, how you can and must deal with movements against you (see Nestle) and how you can kick off movements positively for a brand. You can find a few answers among the usual suspects (Harley Davidson etc.). There is an excellent book which provides a whole host of answers to this, which I can only entrust to every brand maker: “Brains on Fire – Igniting powerful, sustainable word of mouth movements”.
 

Let us assume, the briefing says, that in the US State of South Carolina, one of the traditional places of business of the American tobacco industry, it has to be ensured that people smoke less. Let us also assume that the use of mass media is ruled out from the outset for budgetary reasons. And let us assume, on top of all that, that a frontal assault on the local tobacco industry is prohibited due to its strong lobby in Congress. It doesn’t exactly sound as if success is a sure thing, does it? And yet, a movement of 13-17 year-olds have managed to bring about one of the largest reductions in the smoker rate in any American state, of 16.9%. Without mass media, without raising taxes. How? Read “Brains on Fire”! As a sort of teaser, here are two of the ten lessons which the agency Brains on Fire, the mastermind behind this (and many other) successful movements, has developed over the year and has described in the book written by their founders, not only vividly but above all in a way which makes it useable:

1. Movements have a strong, common identity

  The whole “Rage against Haze” idea is based on the willingness of 13-17 year-olds to campaign for an end to smoking in their communities. They don’t do this if you prescribe the “how” to them. They do it when you allow them plenty of freedom for their own initiatives. And when you provide them with the resources to get these initiatives on the street and at the same time enable them to feel like an important member of the “movement”. Here are a few ways of implementing this from the “Rage against the haze” arsenal:

(Welcome kit)

(Give away set)

(Logo)

2. Movements can be started online. They then become successful when they live offline.

  My personal favourite lesson. (Almost) everyone can create digital hype, at least, there are hoards of attempts to do so. But examples which really manage to build new relationships, which continue to live offline, between brand and audience out of online hype are still few and far between. Brains on Fire has demonstrated this with, of all people, their client Fiskar, a Finnish corporation which, among other things, produces craft scissors. Craft scissors? Yes, even these can stand in the centre of an extremely lively movement/community. You can look up the story of the Fiskateers, the voluntary ambassadors for the Fiskar brand, of their common passion for craft and their joy in communication, which is here as a short summary, among other things: http://www.fiskateers.com/blog/fiskateer-history/. At least as impressive as this is the success which Fiskar has achieved with their Fiskateer movement. Do you need another example? In the first 4 towns in which Fiskateers began, the sales figures doubled in comparison to the non-Fiskateer towns. And today the company estimates that the ROI on the capital deployed in order to keep the movement enthusiastic and running lies around 500%.

  Social media is no all-healing medicine. And certainly not suited to everyone. The same goes for movements. But they are an interesting option for the future. “Brains on Fire - Igniting powerful, sustainable word of mouth movements” demonstrates how you make this option into lived brand practice. And additionally, makes reading fun . . .