You Brand

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

According to Wikipedia, laziness is ‘a lack of desire to expend effort’. Through the ages it has been denigrated as something bad. In Christian faith, laziness or sloth, as it’s called there, is one of the seven sins.

Whilst we have many arguments against laziness, we work very hard to achieve it. But then we give it a different name: We call it leisure. When it comes to products, we enjoy ease of use, functionality, convenience. In other words, we have an intense desire to expend less effort when using these products.

The invention of the wheel, which dates back to the 4th millennium BC, made life easier for mankind, as less effort was needed to perform many tasks. The wheel ultimately led us to the automobile, which is full of small innovations triggered by laziness: automatic transmission, power steering, power windows, power seats, cigar lighter, cruise control, climate control, navigation system etc. All of these little helpers make driving an automobile more and more effortless.

So Lech Walesa was right when he said “I’m lazy. But it’s the lazy people who invented the wheel and the bicycle, because they didn’t like walking or carrying things.”

Laziness is an important trigger of innovation and being lazy is human. TGIF

Posted via email from Achim Muellers

We know the value of the expiration date from groceries and medicines, at least we think we do.The expiration date marks the last date, on which the consumption of perishable goods is safe. Considering that consumption after that day may be hazardous to our health, we tend to give it the attention that it deserves.

Over the years marketing has been very successful in convincing us that all products have an expiration date. Actually 'classical conditioning' is a better word than 'convincing'. More and more frequently, I wonder why the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov used dogs in his experiments.

In today's consumerist society, all products have to be perishable to ensure continued growth: shoes, smart phones, computers, cars, you name it. The shelf life is not determined by health considerations anymore, but by the purchasing prices. We can buy a smart phone more often than a car, hence the shelf life of the latter is longer.
 
Marketing makes us believe that consumption makes us feel good, thereby insinuating that it is good for our health as well. After all, it is difficult to argue that feeling good is detrimental to your health. Not only that, in a subtle way we are being conditioned to believe that using a product, which is beyond its shelf life, makes us outdated as well.

So we effectively behave like hamsters: The hamster runs in his exercising wheel and we consume in our consumption wheel. But the difference is that the hamster stops running when he is tired, whereas many of us will prefer to get into debt before stopping consumption.

Getting into debt ultimately means loosing our financial independence, our freedom. What's so healthy about that?

Posted via email from Achim Muellers