Brand Over?
For over 50 years, the brand has been considered a key to differentiation, strategic management, and identity formation for companies in management literature. Countless chairs, books, and consultants propagate its importance, yet in corporate reality—especially in the German-speaking world—the understanding of branding as a true leadership concept has hardly taken hold. In many organizations, brand work remains a marginal topic, often reduced to design, advertising, or communication.
Why does practice struggle so much with the concept of "brand"?
One reason likely lies in its complex nature, which produces different understandings: originally a boundary or ownership mark, it later became a legal trademark, then a central marketing term associated with concepts as diverse as logo, identity, associations, communication, or corporate value. The result: confusion. Executives who talk about budgets, machinery, and processes often have only vague ideas about the “brand.” Without a common understanding, it is difficult to establish a brand as a binding management system.
The confusion intensifies as soon as the terms “brand” and “strategy” are brought together. Every strategy begins with a target vision:
Even for the central guiding framework required for this, “brand” is only one of many factors: additionally, “guiding principles” are defined, visions or missions are formulated, and a USP or a purpose is sought. What really counts now?
Many so-called brand definitions do not deserve the name. They consist of wishful thinking, empty buzzwords, or interchangeable industry phrases. They lack substance, clarity, and relevance. As a result, they cannot become determinants of thought and behavior. A good brand idea must create a real connection to utility and success, touch emotions, and be communicable in everyday life. Only then can it provide orientation—both internally and externally.
Companies with an attractive brand concept often fail during implementation.
While processes such as budget planning or quality control are strictly formalized, brand management is often regarded as a “soft topic.” There is a lack of governance: Who bears responsibility? How is progress measured? Which escalation mechanisms take effect in case of deviations? Without clear structures, brand work remains non-binding. Interdisciplinary teams come into conflict with line organizations, and day-to-day business dominates. Consequently, brand strategies are often reduced to cosmetic touch-ups by the advertising department. The effect on actual business fails to materialize.
In summary, what remains is a vague term, arbitrary processes, much half-knowledge, disappointed expectations, and modest results. It is not surprising that “brand” only leads a shadow existence.
Even in times of shrinking attention spans and loyalties, people have needs and longings. Belonging and meaning are just as relevant today as they were in the past. Especially in phases of uncertainty, trust is the most important capital of all. Brand reputation can also be understood as the market’s trust in a specific promise of utility and quality.
The "brand" virtually presents itself as the common thread of corporate development and management:
From the participatory development of a clear guiding idea to binding governance and concrete implementation steps. Every decision, from product development to personnel policy, should be measured against the future vision of the brand. Only when the brand actually becomes the guiding framework for strategic decisions can it unfold its full impact.
Branding seems simple and yet it is demanding. Strong brands thrive on clear value propositions, internal and external credibility, and consistency in all activities. The brand is the strongest driver of trust, value creation, and future viability. After a half-century lead time, the point has finally come to understand the brand for what it can be: the unifying, meaningful leadership principle of modern companies.
