You Brand

There are thousands of languages spoken on our planet. Estimates range from 5.000 to 10.000 living languages and there are many dead ones as well.

In my opinion, there is one language missing and that's the one that everybody speaks and understands. Unfortunately that language does not exist.

In 1887, Ludwig Zamenhof invented Esperanto, a constructed language designed for international communication. Zamenhof hoped that Esperanto would have the added benefit of promoting the peaceful coexistence of different people and cultures. According to educators, Esperanto can be learned in 1/4 to 1/20 the amount of time needed for other languages. Still it never got off the ground. There are only about 1.000 native speakers worldwide, the most famous one probably being the businessman George Soros.

In today's globalized world, communication is more important than ever. To date, I have been able to visit many countries and meet many people. With some of them I could communicate directly, either in their native language or in mine or in a third one we both understood. At times communication was only possible with an interpreter and sometimes I had to rely on hand gestures and facial expressions. The direct verbal communication is by far the most rewarding experience, as the relationship is more personal. It has more meaning and openness.

I definitely support Zamenhof's argument that a common language can promote peaceful coexistence of different people and cultures. 'Speaking the same language' not only means communicating in the same language. Figuratively it also means sharing values and ideas. And that is exactly what we need to solve the global problems we're facing.

Choosing an existing language used by a relative minority of the world population as their native language won't work. Selecting a few 'official' languages, like the United Nations did, hasn't and won't work either. We need a language with equal requirements and benefits for everybody. This could be Esperanto or a new language. The latter would incidentally be a fantastic global crowdsourcing project. This global language would of course not aim to replace existing native languages. It would be taught as the second language worldwide.

Just think about the benefits, if we or the next generation could communicate globally in one language. Imagine sharing values globally to make this planet a better place for all of its inhabitants.

Do you speak my language?

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

In 1439 Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, which revolutionized the 'making' of books and the dissemination of knowledge. Before Gutenberg and his invention, knowledge was generally a monopoly of the Catholic Church. Books were handwritten and copied by hand by monks in Catholic Monasteries. Gutenberg's technology was instrumental in breaking up that monopoly.

But what about content, i.e. new ideas, that would change the world? This is where Luther comes in.

Martin Luther initiated the Protestant revolution, when he published his 95 theses in 1517. Thanks to Gutenberg's printing press his theses were quickly printed, copied and distributed throughout Germany and Europe. Luther's excommunication by the pope in 1521 could not stop the movement. The 95 theses and Luther's translation of the Bible into German not only had an incredible impact on German culture, the development of a 'new' church effectively broke the monopoly of the Catholic Church.

Gutenberg's invention allowed Luther's vision to develop into an international movement very quickly. Could Luther have succeeded without Gutenberg? What would have happened, if the Catholic Church would have taken over Gutenberg's invention?

We need great thinkers and their visions to light the fire and we need technologies to spread that fire. That was true yesterday, it is true today and it will be true tomorrow.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

Ask any passionate coffee drinker, a true afficionado, about instant coffee and you will know what  I mean. Sure, there are many instances where instant is perfect. Usually when we want something out of the way: administrative tasks and practical tools for example.

But what about those 'things' that have an emotional value attached to them?

I am an afficionado of red wine and 2005 was a superior vintage year for Bordeaux wines. That obviously doesn't mean that we can drink the wine in the same year. We need patience, because a great wine needs many more years of maturing naturally until it reaches its pinnacle.

Do you remember your first love? Remember the excitement, the anxiety before the first date? Your were nervous, couldn't think straight, felt sleepless, kept looking at your watch and in the mirror, your heart was pounding and heaven knows what else. But wasn't it fantastic?

This pleasant anticipation is an integral part of the overall experience as it adds to the overall value. It makes us feel great.

We live in an age where thanks to technology, everything seems to be accelerating. Tomorrow today is yesterday. The concept of instant gratification is a necessity to keep that system running. If we're instantly gratified today, we're in the market for the next instant gratification tomorrow. After a while, nothing is special anymore due to the monotonous repetition. We turn into automated, addicted consumers. You just got your 10th smart phone? So what!

We have to wake up and decelerate from time to time, we need to give more time to this supposedly unproductive thing called true enjoyment. We have to rediscover the sense of well-being derived from pleasant anticipation.

Think about your first date

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

I can't help but often being disappointed when hearing the endless discussions and debates on electric cars and their current stage of development.

Most know that sooner or later there will be no fossil fuels left, but many prefer to suppress that fact. Instead current high price of an electric automobile, low ranges between charges, long charging times, non-comprehensive availability of plug-in stations are subject to criticism. Manufacturers ask for government grants for R&D and government rebates for future customer purchases.

Does anybody remember Dr. Karl Benz?

In 1886 he built the first car – the Benz Motorwagen – with a combustion engine. The car had 0,8 hp and reached a top speed of 18 km/h. When he initially applied for a patent, the public laughed at the "carriage without horses". The price of the Benz Motorwagen was 3.000,- Marks, equivalent to about 30.000,- EURO in today's purchasing power.

Benz was not deterred by the criticism, didn't wait for horses to disappear and developed the Benz Motorwagen further without government grants. Not only that, his wife's dowry was used for the financing!

In 1888 Bertha Benz, Karl's wife, took the Benz Motorwagen for a 106 km test drive on 'public roads' from Mannheim to Pforzheim. By the way, she chose not to inform her husband.

Bertha Benz was not deterred by the facts that there were no roads made for cars, no gas stations and no auto shops. Accompanied by her sons, she 'just did it'. Her sons had to push the car over steep hills, because of the low performance. They had to stop at pharmacies, because that was the only place where petroleum ether, which the car ran on, was sold in bottles. Is something went wrong on the trip, they had to fix it themselves.

We all know how the story continues.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

The other day, I read an article about horse whispering and the absolutely necessity to gain the trust and respect of horses in equine psychology. This is obviously not only true for horses. Trust and respect are extremely important for human beings as well.

Just compile a list with your relatives, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, doctors, lawyers, bankers and other people you do business with. Then cancel those you don't really trust and respect. If you're like me, the list just shrunk considerably.

Now compile a list with the names of the brands whose products and/or services you use. Again, cancel those you don't really trust and respect. How long is your list now?

Why do we use products and/or services, even though we neither trust nor respect them?

• Don't we care enough?
• Are we too lazy to look for alternatives?
• Are we prisoners of our habits?
• Are we lulled by the marketing?

Each time we use a product and/or service, we implicitly endorse the brand behind it. As long as we keep on doing that, the brands have no major incentive to change their offer. Instead of literally giving our trust and respect away, we should force brands to work hard to earn it. We do have the power to turn brands into 'customer whisperers'.

Keeping a list and continuously reviewing it helps.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

A recent conversation on Twitter got me thinking about the concept of failure. It didn't take long and I was back in college. Well, at least mentally. I remembered all those, at times painful, exams with the resulting grades: A's, B's, C's and the occasional D's and F's.

Getting an 'A' was fantastic, 'B' meant good, 'C' stood for average, 'D' meant bad and the 'F' stood for failure and meant that I had really flunked that exam. It didn't mean that I knew nothing, it just meant that I didn't know enough. All correct, i.e. 100% was the ultimate goal and the way there was divided into different zones: 0 – 60% = F, – 69% = D, – 79% = C, – 89% = B, -100% = A. This system worked, because beginning and end were clearly defined, there were no unknowns. At least not for those grading

This grading system therefore does not encourage us to develop something new, as that would mean including unknowns! I studied economics. College and grad school taught me the existing principles and theories and made sure that I understood them. Developing new theories was not part of the curriculum.

What does this have to do with Columbus?

When Columbus set sail in Spain in 1492, his destination was India. He never reached India, but 'discovered' America instead. In theory he should have gotten an 'F' from Queen Isabella, because he clearly didn't reach the predefined goal.

But Queen Isabella didn't flunk Columbus, because she quickly realized that he had 'discovered' a new continent, which at the end proved to be more valuable for the Spanish Empire than another sailing route to India. And that most certainly did not deserve an 'F'.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

'Made in Germany' is a merchandise mark indicating that a product has been manufactured in Germany and over the years it has – in all modesty – become quite famous. It was originally introduced in Great Britain back in 1887 to label products from Germany, which at that time were considered to be inferior to British products. All things change and after a while 'Made in Germany' became a very valuable label, indicating superior quality, reliability and engineering.

Is this label still appropriate in a globalized economy?

Germany, as many other industrial nations, increasingly relies on the import of raw materials. Parts and components are also imported, because it's cheaper to produce them abroad due to lower labor costs. The national labor force includes more and more workers with a migrant background. Not only that, management positions are increasingly staffed with qualified professionals from overseas. Machinery, computers, office technology etc. are often imported. Big corporations have R&D and Design offices as well as manufacturing facilities across the globe. Last but not least, they work with international agency networks.

So what's left? The geographical location of the corporate HQ?

Does it still make sense for a brand to borrow perceived values of nation states to market their products? Brands with complex products need to address this issue, not just in Germany. Take a look at Apple. On their products it says 'Designed by Apple in California'. If I'm not mistaken, the Apple chief designer is British.

Time for new thinking.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

Imagine a football match with only one accepted rule: Goals count! Everything else is variable, basically decided by the strongest team:

• Size of the playing field: variable
• Goal or side lines: for what
• Penalty and/or goal area: for what
• Size of football: variable
• Size of goal: variable
• Location of goal:variable
• Number of players in starting line up: variable
• Number of substitutes during game:variable
• Playing time: variable
• No difference between outfield players and goalkeepers
• Players could kick or throw the ball
• Foul: what's that?
• Referee: what's that?

The ball is always in play, anything goes and the game is over, once one team maximizes its number of goals and the other team gives up.

Undesirable to say the least and that is why football, like any other sport, needs meaningful and accepted rules as well as referees to enforce these rules.

The same applies to business, especially on a global scale. It is not only about profit goals, but like in sports, business needs additional rules, standards and sanctions. The referee in this case can only be politics, i.e. governments. The problem is that business is more and more of a global game, but there is no global government or other institution with the authority to enforce the rules and impose the sanctions on a global scale. Looking back at the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, we must realize that besides the mistakes made by BP, politics failed and is failing. Not only that, the free market economy also failed.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

The attributes we use to refer to others are important, because they define our relationship with them.

When brands talk about consumers, they mean individuals that use products and/or services. A customer is an actual or future buyer of these products and/or services. The implicit meaning is that the customer wants something that the brand has, i.e. the customer wants the brand's product more than the brand wants the customer's money. That is the wrong attitude.

In today's world, customers are more than anonymous, voiceless paying subjects, they are brand ambassadors, brand designers, consultants, colleagues and partners. They can help you make better products, they can enhance your brand image and they can help you find new…..partners. And they can also do the opposite. They have effectively become co-owners!

I often hear brands saying 'the customer is king'. Unfortunately most brands still mean it in the way that Cardinal Richelieu most probably defined Louis XIII: a manipulated puppet.

Politics realized a while ago that democracy is the better form of government. It's about time brands became more 'democratic' as well. Including all co-owners in the architecture of value creation will ensure a better product and an enhanced experience for everybody involved.

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

Stellen sie sich folgende Situation vor:

Sie gehen in ein Lokal, zum Beispiel ein Steakhaus, weil sie Appetit auf ein richtig großes Steak haben – 300 Gramm dürfen es schon sein, schön rosa gebraten. Weil das Steak aber so üppig ist, verzichten sie ausdrücklich auf alle Beilagen. Der Kellner nimmt ihre Bestellung wunschgemäß entgegen.

Nach einigen Minuten kommt er zurück, allerdings nicht mit dem von ihnen bestellten Steak. Statt einem rosa gebratenen 300 Gramm Steak bekommen sie ein kleines 150 Gramm Steak 'gut durch'. Dazu noch eine kleine Portion rote Beete, die sie nicht bestellt hatten, weil sie dagegen allergisch sind. Des weiteren eine mittelgroße Portion Gurkensalat, den sie zwar grundsätzlich mögen, aber ebenfalls nicht bestellt hatten. Gleichzeitig erklärt ihnen der Kellner, dass sie das so nicht nur akzeptieren, sondern auch essen und vor allen Dingen auch bezahlen müssen.

Was würden sie tun? Würden sie der Aufforderung des Kellners Folge leisten? Mit Sicherheit nicht. Sie würden entweder den Geschäftsführer verlangen und auf ihrer ursprünglichen Bestellung bestehen, oder aber das Lokal umgehend verlassen – verbunden mit der festen Absicht, es nie wieder zu betreten. Auf jeden Fall würden sie ihren Freunden und Bekannten von einem Besuch abraten und vielleicht sogar eine Verbraucherschutzzentrale informieren. Als moderner Mensch stehen ihnen ebenfalls Bewertungsportale zur Verfügung, die sie nutzen können, um ihre Erfahrungen einer breiten Öffentlichkeit mitzuteilen.

Jetzt stellen sie sich folgende Situation vor:

Sie gehen in ein Wahllokal, um zu wählen. Sie entscheiden sich für eine Partei ihres Vertrauens und geben ihre Bestellung, bzw. ihren ausgefüllten Wahlzettel ab. Statt ein paar Minuten müssen sie sich bis zur ersten Hochrechnung um 18:00 gedulden und stellen fest, dass es für ihre Wahl nicht gereicht hat. Die Partei ihres Vertrauens hat die absolute Mehrheit verpasst, sie werden also kein 'großes Steak' bekommen. Nach langwierigen Verhandlungen, an denen sie aber nicht mehr direkt beteiligt sind, wird über ihr neues 'Menü' inklusive 'Beilagen' entschieden. Im Gegensatz zum Restaurant müssen sie dieses 'Menü' akzeptieren, verdauen und vor allen Dingen auch bezahlen. Das könnte ein Grund sein, warum immer weniger Menschen ins Wahllokal gehen.

In einem demokratischen Mehrparteiensystem wird es für einzelne Parteien immer unwahrscheinlicher, die absolute Mehrheit zu erreichen. Das große Steak ist also keine realistische Option, ohne Beilagen bzw. Koalitionen geht es nicht. Pikanterweise führt das dazu, dass der Einfluss der Wählerin bzw. des Wählers abnimmt, da sie bzw. er bei den Koalitionsverhandlungen nicht mehr direkt beteiligt sind. Das bestehende System von Erst- und Zweitstimme wird den Anforderungen nicht gerecht.

Warum haben die Wählerin und der Wähler nicht die Möglichkeit sich für einzelne Parteien oder Koalitionen zu entscheiden? Wie in einem Steakhouse, wo sie über Größe des Steaks und Beilagen ebenfalls selbst entscheiden können. Hierüber nachzudenken lohnt sich.

Und darum sollten Politiker häufiger ins Lokal gehen. Guten Appetit.

Posted via email from Warum