Is this still necessary? I’m asked this question regularly when I talk about events like the «OMR 5050 Female Leaders Brunch» or my involvement with «Ivy – Female Collective»—in other words, whenever the topic is women-only initiatives.

Is this still necessary? The short answer is: yes. Isabelle Gardt provided the long answer in her opening keynote at this year’s «OMR 5050 Stage,» Alexandra Zykunov provides it in her book *We’ve All Had Equal Rights for a Long Time Now*, and Celia Parbey adds the aspect of intersectionality to it through her journalistic work for *Rosamag*. For that—thank you from the bottom of my heart.

The fact that I regularly hear the question, «Is this still necessary?» shows me that there are still too many people who aren’t sufficiently informed. Even though the relevant facts exist and have been compiled and made available—not just by Isabelle, Alexandra, and Celia. But taking the time to look into them requires personal initiative. And that means extra effort.

«At some point, I was offered a seat; only to realize that I didn't like many of the tables at all.»

Anyone who has read carefully will have noticed that I did not attribute ignorance about the effects of patriarchal structures on women’s lives and professional success exclusively to men. That was intentional. Because even though women tend to be better informed about their situation, they are often unaware of the complexity and the system that causes their disadvantage. Instead, we perceive the oppressive feeling of unfair treatment as a personal experience. And we swallow it because we know: women who complain are considered difficult. And difficult women are rarely offered a «seat at the table.».

For me, too, the infamous «seat at the table» was my stated goal for a long time. The vision: «playing with the big boys.» To be part of the conversation where the important decisions are made, and then use my own influence to make the world a little better and our society a bit more equitable. The journey was tough and fraught with prejudice, misogyny, and racism, but eventually I was offered seats at the tables where I’d so longed to sit—only to realize that I didn’t like it at many of those tables at all. There are hardly any women and even fewer «girls» girls«*, because women are rarely invited in the first place. And for the »chosen few,” it often seems easiest to conform to the male norm; to shed traits considered signs of weakness—and perhaps even skip the colorful French gel nails.

The problem with this option: I love my nails; I’m so proud of them that I get teary-eyed when my coworkers go above and beyond, and I’m just as proud that I can’t keep my mouth shut when someone uses discriminatory language. So why should I compromise—especially when there are so many women who feel the same way I do? That’s exactly why I’ve made it my mission to build new tables—tables where female strength is celebrated and a culture is fostered that values empathy as a central element. I’d like to share my thoughts on this here more often. Ladies, gents, and non-binary friends—I proudly present: herTable. The idea: opinion pieces about being a «girl’s girl,» about “girl talk” as a subculture, and about empathy as a superpower. Pieces about what happens when women connect and support one another—and about the women who do exactly that. But herTable is meant to be more than just a space for words. I see it rather as a concept, a movement, and a home for all those who want to strengthen female community and solidarity and, in doing so, move our society forward. Who’s in?

---

Aissu Diallo is Executive Director of Digital Excellence at the Düsseldorf-based creative agency Butter. Previously, she held leadership roles at other agencies, worked in management consulting, and served on the client side. In addition to her professional work, she serves as Chairwoman of the GWA Young Board, supporting the next generation in the communications industry, and is Community Lead at the «Ivy Female Collective,» a boutique network for women.

* «Girl’s girls» is the TikTok term for women who support other women, open doors for them, and mention their names in spaces where they aren’t present—in other words, the opposite of «Pick-Me-Girls.» We’ll get to Diallo’s writings on this topic later on.

 

This article first appeared in the m&k print edition 11-12/2024.

m&k: Jeffrey Goldberg, did Donald Trump's election victory come as a surprise to you?

Jeffrey Goldberg: I was surprised in 2016—and then I resolved that this must never happen to me again; that I should never again mentally rule out the possibility of his victory. So the short answer to your question is: No, I wasn’t surprised! But we’ve learned some… surprising… things about the people of the United States. For example, that questions regarding the president’s commitment to the Constitution, the insurrection of January 6, 2021, and, more generally, the conduct of our nation’s highest office are, for many citizens, rather… abstract in nature. The Trump campaign has sensed this for months, downplayed these issues, and demonized the media outlets that reported on them anyway. Yet so much of what Trump has done or instigated is unforgivable. There should be no normalization of what he committed during his first term.

 

Why does this—apparently—not sink in for so many Americans?

Millions of people—and this fact is understandable in itself—tended to vote in the interest of their individual economic interests. The price of eggs, butter, and so on plays a greater role in political decisions than some observers and analysts would like to admit. A president—whether male or female—must deliver two things to be re-elected: peace and prosperity. And the «Biden-Harris economy» never fully recovered from the chaotic withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and had to contend with various other crises… in the end, people lacked the conviction that things would be «better» under Kamala Harris.

«While large segments of the party's grassroots base want to discuss »cultural issues,' they have thereby harmed the party as a whole."

 

Was Kamala Harris’s campaign—which unfolded over an extremely short period of three months—doomed to face further problems from the outset?

Yes, I think so. On the one hand, the Democrats didn’t choose their candidate democratically. Instead, Joe Biden initially simply insisted on running again. Then he maneuvered himself into a crisis—and voilà, his vice president took over. One might speculate that there might have been stronger candidates to run against Trump, but that will remain a mystery forever because open primaries were impossible, partly for the time-related reasons you mentioned. Please don’t get me wrong: This wasn’t so much Harris’s fault as it was Biden’s, because he clung so stubbornly to his position—and it was also the fault of his party, which allowed the whole situation to drag on into the summer. On the other hand, there are the ‘cultural issues« that give many people a stomachache, however significant they may be in some cases.

 

For example …?

When people in rural, more conservative parts of the U.S. hear slogans like «Defund the Police» or «Globalize the Intifada» … when they follow discussions about which locker rooms trans girls should use for school sports … it triggers a sense of aversion in them. I’m just observing this; I’m not passing judgment. While large segments of the Democratic base want to debate these «cultural issues,» they have ultimately harmed the party as a whole.

 

In past interviews on American politics, I’ve gathered a wide range of perspectives: Sir Angus Deaton said you can’t argue based on data and higher wages «on paper» when so many Americans feel disadvantaged. Jennifer Palmieri spoke about her time as head of the Clinton campaign; she said that women in the U.S. still have to run for office «with one hand tied behind their backs.» Finally, Kurt Andersen argued that the country’s current state is the result of beliefs cultivated over centuries—exceptionalism, conservatism, and racism. How do you view the United States?

We live amid a diversity that is unprecedented—and that a single commentator like me could never fully describe. More than 330 million people of every race, religion, and belief come together in our nation’s melting pot—that’s more diversity than in all of Europe combined! The heart of the United States beats more to the right than to the left; the dividing lines now run more along gender lines than along cultural group lines. Note: One of the most valuable insights Trump’s team gained is that «successful immigrants» no longer identify with the refugees who currently wish to come to the U.S. There’s this… liberal idea; this desire that the majority of third- or fourth-generation Americans of Mexican descent feel empathy for those coming from Mexico today. But that’s wrong. On the contrary: the border guards, the customs officers, the police officers in the South… these are, more often than not, «Hispanics» who identify more strongly with the U.S. than with the homeland of their grandparents or great-grandparents. And Donald Trump scores well with them. But—I don’t want to digress. If I had to give the shortest possible answer to your question, I would say: The United States of America is an experiment of epic proportions, with an uncertain outcome. The first and only attempt in history to establish and consolidate a multicultural and multiethnic democracy.

«We live in the midst of a diversity that is unprecedented.»

 

An experiment that may fail—or succeed.

Yes. Think back, for example, to when Obama won the election in 2008. I remember it vividly—half a million people watched live as he and his beautiful family stepped out from behind a curtain in a Chicago park. People of color. And we thought—I thought: «We’ve finally done it!» But somewhere, there were also people sitting in front of the TV, whispering to one another: «Not so fast…!» Eight years of Obama were then followed by—Donald Trump! One could argue that the latter wouldn’t have been «possible» at all without the former. Amid the tides of history, we seek the core of our identity—and once again: Either we succeed in synthesizing cultures, faiths, and ethnicities, or we don’t. Things look bleak right now, but the pendulum swings back and forth. What will happen in a few years? We don’t know.

 

Well, if Donald Trump implements the much-discussed «Agenda 2025,» then one can at least speculate about what might happen in a few years. The U.S. could then … become the most powerful autocracy on Earth. Or do you think the «checks and balances» in your Constitution will hold?

I don’t know. It’s hard to assess the situation objectively while it’s unfolding. We have the most powerful military in the world, and I would prefer it if someone other than Donald Trump—with his beliefs, impulses, and intellectual abilities—were the «Commander-in-Chief.» Does he have people around him this time who can cushion his worst outbursts and redirect his most destructive orders? I’d like to hope so… but: In 2016, he was an «outsider» in Washington, surrounded by a resilient political establishment. Chaos reigned because he and his team didn’t understand many of the processes. And in the end, thanks to that very chaos and confusion, we made it through his first term in office quite well. I assume he won’t want to repeat the «mistakes of the past»; that he has prepared himself better to be able to «govern effectively.» And that might also have foreign policy consequences—for example, regarding the U.S. withdrawal from NATO. Then Europe would be left to face a revisionist Russia on its own. And then the world would truly be a different place. He simply does not share some of the principles that have shaped and underpinned our foreign policy over the past decades! If you’re in Ukraine, Taiwan, or Israel right now, all you can really do is… keep your fingers crossed that things won’t turn out as bad as they could. The same goes if you’re in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, or Latvia. You’re calling me right now from neutral Switzerland…

 

… where we are surrounded by NATO countries. What is bad for the alliance tends to be bad for us as well.

That may be true, but I still admire countries like Switzerland for taking responsibility for themselves. The mindset that underpins the resilience of such countries could now spread throughout Europe—because of and through Donald Trump, who does have a point when he calls for greater participation in NATO spending; but who seems willing to make that point by turning his back on the alliance. Please, let me repeat: These are mere hypotheses. We will soon have the dubious privilege of testing their validity in real time.

«Trump is a vindictive man who has declared the free press to be Public Enemy Number One.»

Donald Trump recently spoke about you on social media. He called *The Atlantic*—if I recall correctly—«a failing magazine run by a guy named Goldberg.» How did that make you feel? And what are your concerns for the industry—for the free press?

Again: I don’t know. Trump is a vindictive man who has declared the free press to be Public Enemy Number One. That’s one side of the coin. On the other side, we have the Constitution, which enshrines the right to free speech and a free press … Personally, I doubt that even someone like Donald Trump can just undo or rewrite that after 250 years (laughs). Much of what he’s threatening «us» with may be—and remain—mere rhetoric. But of course, he could try to make it harder for publishers to do business in America. Defamation laws could be tightened to the point of absurdity so that it’s easier to sue the media …

 

And that tweet I just mentioned… did you take it personally?

Oh, it’s ridiculous that he calls us a «failing magazine.» Partly because of the critical work we’ve done in recent years in the context of his actions and statements, we have more subscribers than ever before. We’re profitable. And, you know… in a twisted way, that’s proof of the perverse symbiosis between Trump and the mainstream press. The more he attacks us, the more readers we get. Of course, our joy over the increased circulation is tempered by the fact that this symbiosis will eventually become highly toxic—and terribly dangerous.

 

Are critical journalists in the U.S. the resistance fighters of our time?

I don’t really buy into these «hero» narratives. Resistance… no, we just have to keep reporting the facts, whether Trump and his people like it or not. My motto is: “Tell the truth, and you can’t go wrong.” Even in an unprecedented situation like the one we’re currently finding ourselves in.

 

You just mentioned NATO and Europe. Even with President Trump in office, there are still staunch transatlanticists in American politics, aren't there?

Yes. If Trump had appointed Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo to his administration, I could affirm that even more emphatically … but there are still many Republican senators and members of Congress who believe in internationalism. Who are convinced that America should play a strong role in the world. Even Trump … you know: Just because you’re not interested in the world doesn’t mean the world isn’t interested in you. There are international crises whose shockwaves are felt even on our side of the Atlantic—and no U.S. president can escape them. That’s simply a fact.

 

A fascinating picture: a Trump administration that the «world is accommodating in many different ways»—whether the president wants it or not.

The point is this: Our economy depends on both global trade and the global security situation. Trump and his team will want to avoid jeopardizing the economy at all costs. I don’t expect them to make major investments in the public good either, but their isolationist dreams will quickly collide with a complex reality. But whether that will lead him to defend Taiwan—or even a country like Germany—in the event of an attack… If I had to draw a conclusion—without having a crystal ball to look into the future—it would be this: There are strong tendencies toward a kind of isolationism, supported by large segments of the U.S. population. And there are strong tendencies toward international cooperation, supported by large segments of the political elite on both sides of the spectrum. We must wait and see—and be patient while we wait.

---

Jeffrey Goldberg He was a correspondent for *The Atlantic* and a staff writer for *The New Yorker* before becoming editor-in-chief of *The Atlantic* in 2016. In addition to his work as a journalist, Goldberg is an acclaimed author: His book *Prisoners: A Story of Friendship and Terror* was named «Book of the Year» in the United States in the year of its publication. For his reporting on Islamic terrorism, Goldberg received the «National Magazine Award for Reporting» in 2003 and the «Daniel Pearl Prize» in 2005. He also received the «Overseas Press Club Award» for human rights reporting and the «Abraham Cahan Prize in Journalism.».

 

Susanne Preiss, visionary founder and experienced consultant, has made it her mission to support modern organizations and leaders in harnessing the principles of nature for sustainable and resilient growth. Her concept of the regenerative mindset brings a new perspective to the business world and shows how companies can benefit from the natural cycle of regeneration. "A restorative, regenerative system becomes healthier, more vibrant and more stable from year to year," explains Susanne Preiss, who promotes a change in mindset in her coaching sessions and workshops: Away from traditional, draining structures towards regenerative systems that focus on the resilience and well-being of employees.

"Preiss builds a bridge between the natural and entrepreneurial worlds."

Her approach is based on a profound personal experience. After a successful start in the consulting industry with long working hours and high demands on performance, Susanne Preiss suffered a burnout. This period made her rethink her approach and realize that success can also be achieved in other ways. "It's not just about giving your best, but also about staying healthy and using your energy wisely," she emphasizes. Her travels and professional stations in South America and Asia led her to the realization that performance and personal health must go hand in hand.

Organizations are living ecosystems

"The regenerative organization - or the regenerative team - is THE future," she emphasizes. Preiss shows managers how they can achieve more through a balanced system. Her model is based on the idea that organizations should be treated like living ecosystems: "It is the conviction that the basis for a good product or success lies in the quality of the relationships between employees and their energy levels." The entrepreneur is convinced that genuine and sustainable growth is only possible in such an environment that takes people as a whole into account.

A vivid example of Susanne Preiss' regenerative mindset is the "Gut Haidehof" farm in Wedel, which she and her husband run. Here they have established a model of regenerative agriculture that revitalizes the soil from the ground up and promotes biodiversity. "Depleted, stressed soil is susceptible to pests and diseases," she explains, "and it's the same with companies." The farm demonstrates how depleted soil can be made fertile and resilient again through targeted measures. These principles can be transferred to the corporate world and make Susanne Preiss' approach tangible. The regeneration of soil serves here as a metaphor for strengthening and revitalizing exhausted teams and structures.

Quality of the relationship is key

In her coaching sessions and seminars, Susanne Preiss teaches managers how they can improve not only their own performance but also that of their teams through self-reflection and stress management. "There is nothing more complex than the relationship from person to person". She is convinced that the success of teams is based on the quality of their relationships. She therefore helps managers to invest in themselves so that they can lead authentically and empathetically. "In my coaching sessions or workshops, managers first get to know themselves better and then their employees. They lead more empathetically, they learn to make employees take responsibility for themselves and thus relieve themselves," she says, describing her approach.

An important element of her work is understanding the impact of stress on leadership culture. "Stress is contagious and toxic," she says, explaining that stress in managers not only affects their own performance, but also has a negative impact on the entire team. The aim of her work is therefore to enable managers to develop a healthy approach to stress and thus create a stable foundation for their team.

"Doing Things like Nature"

A core component of Preiss' concept is "deep3 - The Regenerative Framework", which she developed together with her colleague Christine Ziegelmayer. "This framework offers comprehensive training for entrepreneurs, managers and HR professionals to integrate the regenerative mindset into companies," she explains. Both on the farm and in online formats, the framework teaches the basics of a regenerative mindset in a practical way and shows how companies can be strengthened from within.

The motto "Doing Things like Nature" runs through all her activities. In her workshops, Preiss illustrates how natural principles such as diversity and regeneration can be transferred to corporate management. In doing so, she emphasizes the importance of an integrative approach that takes into account both the individual needs of employees and the long-term goals of the organization.

Bridge between nature and business

In addition to her work as a consultant, Suanne Preiss also works as a stress management coach and has recognized the relevance of the regenerative mindset in the education sector. "People want transparency about why they should do something," she explains and promotes the joint development of attractive goals and visions in her programs. Young employees in particular are looking for balance and a sense of purpose in their work, which makes her regenerative mindset a modern and sustainable approach.

With empathy, respect and a deep understanding of the forces of nature, Preiss creates a bridge between the natural and the entrepreneurial world.

---

This article first appeared in the m&k print edition 11-12/2024.

In recent weeks, major companies have been scaling back their climate goals one after another. In Switzerland, for example, the retailer Migros announced that it no longer wanted to be the most sustainable retailer at any cost. Porsche, for its part, revised its ambitious goal of having 80 percent of its cars roll off the assembly line as fully electric models by 2030. And last year, more ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) funds were closed than opened. Sustainability seems to be almost a thing of the past!

So what happened here? If you take a closer look at the various cases, you can identify the culprit(s) quite quickly: the consumers, because demand lags behind the numbers, and customers don’t seem willing to pay the often-common price premium (or accept the lost return) for sustainable products.

People are «climate-weary»

After all, it’s not just companies that are «climate-fatigued»—customers are, too. For a long time, it was expected that green products would quickly break out of their niche and win over customers’ hearts. However, this green aspiration no longer matches reality: For example, the Federal Environment Agency has calculated that the market share of green products within the overall category recently stood at only 13.9 percent. Of course, one could argue that this figure spans various categories and is therefore only of limited significance; nevertheless, there is no denying that green products remain a niche offering.

A trend that will soon be replaced?

If it weren't for our planetary boundaries, one could certainly interpret this to mean: Sustainable products have not caught on; there simply wasn't enough demand for them, and as a result, they are disappearing from the market again.

However, I would view it more as a sad setback: Companies were grappling with other problems, such as supply chain bottlenecks, rising raw material prices, and rising key interest rates. Customers, for their part, saw their purchasing power threatened by inflation—the prospect of social decline loomed dangerously close. All in all, it’s quite understandable that sustainability has taken a back seat in this context.

However, we must not forget that there are more and more people who are familiar with sustainable concepts such as the circular economy. Sustainability is being incorporated into the curriculum at all business schools. That’s why I’m quite hopeful that sustainability will experience a «resurgence.» Nevertheless, this approach to sustainability must be much more pragmatic and must not get lost in pipe dreams like «people will pay more for sustainable products.».

---

Prof. Dr. Johanna Gollnhofer is an associate professor of marketing and one of the co-directors of the Institute for Marketing and Customer Insight at the University of St. Gallen (IMC-HSG). In our magazine, she writes monthly about exciting, sensational, or curious marketing studies from around the world. This month’s article is based on this survey.

 

This column first appeared in the 10/2024 print edition of m&k.

For Adrian Hässig, everything went like clockwork. As a serial entrepreneur, he managed several companies until one day he found himself in a tricky situation. He had been planning well in advance to take over the reins at one of the companies. The organizational aspects had been carefully arranged down to the last detail—and yet, the handover failed. At a loss, Hässig sought out a coach to figure out what had gone wrong. Through the coaching, he realized that the outgoing CEO wasn’t yet emotionally ready to let go of his own company. It was a major «aha» moment, and the business leader decided to become a coach himself. Today, the experienced business manager knows: “In addition to all the tax, legal, and business management aspects that play a role in companies, the human factor is the decisive one.”

«The »aha moment' was a big one, and the company leader decided to become a coach himself."

Hässig has continued to further his education in this field and has turned his expertise into a second source of income: Since 2020, he has served as president of the Swiss Coaching Association (SCA). The coaches and corporate mentors who are members of the Bern-based professional association help others advance their careers. Other goals include learning better time management or strengthening one’s own resilience, explains the SCA president: «In today’s working world, with its »New Work« models such as working from home and flexible hours, this is a major issue.» Many feel overwhelmed by the need to be constantly available within their own four walls, especially when there are children at home who have their own needs. “Over time, this can lead to feeling overwhelmed and exhausted,” says Hässig. However, when it comes to such burnout symptoms, it’s a tricky question. Is a coach the right person to turn to? Or is it better to see a psychotherapist?

A tricky question

A tricky question that André Kellner is often faced with. As a licensed psychologist and business coach, Kellner—who runs a private practice in Munich—is well-versed in both professional fields. «My clinical training and experience in treating trauma and stress-related disorders, as well as burnout, enable me to provide people with very targeted advice on maintaining their health and preventing these issues,» he says. He explains that there are people who come into coaching seemingly healthy, looking to clarify their life goals. «But then, sometimes as early as the first session, it becomes clear that behind their desire for direction lies a genuine crisis that amounts to an illness.» The problems sometimes stem from childhood and then cause increasing difficulties over the course of one’s professional life. «Some people are able to compensate for these personal difficulties relatively well in their day-to-day work, but at some point, the psychological strain becomes too great,» Kellner observes. «By then, it’s often too late for coaching.» Good counselors refer clients to psychotherapists in such situations. That’s what he does himself—though in such cases, he doesn’t conduct the therapy himself.

Help? The sooner, the better

Whether therapy or coaching is effective naturally varies from person to person. As a general rule, people suffering from burnout tend to wear themselves down by focusing too much on performance. By working with their chosen counselor, they learn to set better boundaries, recognize their own needs, and communicate more effectively. «The sooner you seek help, the better,» says Kellner.

«The lines between »still healthy' and 'already sick' are often blurred."

The line between «still healthy» and «already sick» is often blurred. This is also the observation of Barbara Haid, president of the Austrian Federal Association for Psychotherapy (ÖBVP) in Vienna. If there is persistent emotional exhaustion that leads to a decline in performance, she sees this as a high risk for depression. «In this situation, people often can no longer perceive their own feelings or those of others,» explains the ÖBVP president. «There are also links between burnout and cardiovascular disease, as well as, prospectively, with diabetes.» In addition, Haid recommends psychotherapy if someone no longer has sufficient self-control.

Coaching carries fewer «stigmas»

The problem: «Many employees are reluctant to seek psychotherapeutic help because they don’t want their employer to find out and possibly be viewed as unstable,» says André Kellner. Furthermore, anyone who has sought psychotherapy or is currently in treatment often has difficulty obtaining private health or supplemental insurance, as insurers classify them as high-risk patients. For this reason, some people who do not have significant mental health issues prefer to opt for coaching instead. But among the many executive coaches, mental coaches, and career counselors, who is the right fit?

Caution: Not a protected professional title

Because «coach» is not a regulated profession and training standards vary, Kellner recommends that those seeking advice turn to professional associations that list counselors. «These professionals generally have solid qualifications.» What he finds completely unacceptable, however, are sensationalist promises of a cure, such as «Become a new you in eight weeks for 8,000 euros.» After all, there is no guarantee of a cure, according to the therapist and counselor. «You can offer hope, but you can’t promise a cure.» Caution is especially warranted when prices are inflated. In Germany and Austria, an hour of coaching typically costs between 120 and 200 euros for private clients. When the employer pays, prices are usually higher. In Switzerland, a similar price range applies in francs. Many consultants typically offer package deals at a reduced fixed price once the goals and duration of the coaching have been determined. For Kellner, a therapy or coaching plan that offers transparency to the patient or client is a must. «It’s more satisfying for both sides when goals are set and therapy or coaching isn’t done aimlessly.»

«You can give hope, but you can't promise a cure.»

Prospective clients should also keep in mind that good coaches don’t offer solutions. Cornelia von Schaabner, who advises executives as an executive and life coach, is convinced that her clients themselves know the best answer to their problems. «Through my conversational approach, I help bring them to light,» she says, explaining her method. Of course, this works all the better when there’s good chemistry between them. Whether that’s the case can be determined during an initial, no-obligation consultation. During this introductory meeting, von Schaabner also determines whether those seeking advice are actually in the right place with her or, if she recognizes signs of a pathological condition, whether she should refer them to a therapist. The counselor values openness and transparency, which ultimately benefit everyone: «The more clearly clients can articulate their concerns, the easier it is for the coach to provide competent guidance.»

---

INTERVIEW

«Establishing Clear Guidelines»

Who is the right person for the job? Kristina Moog, owner of Moog Unternehmenskultur in Gauting near Munich, explains what to look for when choosing the right coach.

m&k: With so many options available, how do I find the right coach for me?

Kristina Moog: The term “coach” is still unprotected, and as a result, there are now a great many good—and, unfortunately, many less well-trained—self-proclaimed coaches on the market who assist their clients with professional, personal, and health-related issues. A reputable coach always offers prospective clients the opportunity for a no-obligation initial consultation to determine whether they are truly compatible—both in terms of content and on a personal level. A trusting working relationship is essential for clients to open up and engage in the coaching process.

 

How can we evaluate consultants' skills in more detail?

When getting to know coaches, ask them about their professional experience related to the desired topic. It’s also important to understand the mindset with which coaches work: Do they present themselves as a consulting coach or more as a coaching consultant? Or as a process facilitator who asks questions? What appeals to me most here? It’s also desirable for coaches to establish clear guidelines regarding the number of sessions, the fee, and documentation.

 

What kinds of issues do people come to you with?

People come to my health practice who, for example, have realized that—due to a fast-paced daily life filled with complex challenges—they want to expand and develop their self-care strategies. They’re looking for new ways to balance family, work, and their relationship with themselves without burning out physically and emotionally. This is often not so easy, as it also involves letting go of cherished beliefs and habits and finding new ways to strengthen inner emotional balance and resilience—that is, psychological resilience.

At first glance, redesigning a Coca-Cola can or a Nescafé container might seem like a fairly straightforward task. But Tim Owen, Global Head of Planning at the branding and design agency Turner Duckworth, explains: «A brand, a product, always embodies—at least to some extent—a memory.» Every curve, every color, and every letter on a package serves as a guardian of collective memories that connect generations and evoke emotions. The Nescafé container is linked to the smell of grandparents’ kitchens; a can of Miller Lite—a beer popular especially in the U.S.—brings to mind a summer evening with friends.

When such products and brands need a «refresh,» designers face a complex challenge: They must respect consumers« memories while ensuring that products remain attractive and relevant to them—because the world doesn’t stand still; Trends change, and with them, the design language at the point of sale. Tim Owen and his colleagues at »TD” in London, San Francisco, and New York City have been walking this tightrope for decades—and are now planning to expand their portfolio in German-speaking countries.

The Balancing Act

The need for their expertise is obvious: creating designs for everyday products is a delicate balancing act; it’s not something «anyone can do»—certainly not on the client side and with the in-house resources that companies typically have available. «You have to make sure that products have their own … form,» Owen emphasizes. He explains that consumers in stores like to navigate using visual cues rather than reading every single label. Figurative, graphic elements usually work better in retail than text-based designs.

«A product or a brand always evokes—at least to some extent—a memory.»

Matt Lurcock, Creative Director, adds: «It helps in many ways to place the object that dominates people’s memories at the heart of the brand.» This approach allows designers to create a brand world that feels both fresh and deeply familiar. Just as the opening image of this text shows: even if you smash a Coca-Cola bottle into a thousand pieces, the product’s imprint—the brand’s shadow—remains.

The «Platonic Ideal»

In fact, Coca-Cola is likely one of the brands where Turner Duckworth has come closest to what the team refers to as the «Platonic ideal» of a product. The Greek philosopher Plato, on whose teachings the concept is based, believed that in a world of ideas beyond our own, a perfect model of every single object and every living being on Earth exists … and the closer we come to this model through art, literature, or thought, the closer we come to perfection. Georgina Leigh-Pemberton, Managing Director at Turner Duckworth, recalls situations in which she presented a new piece of work to clients or test audiences—and they said, «That’s exactly how it should look.» As Leigh-Pemberton reveals with a smile, this is «an almost magical moment» every single time.

In short: What matters most to consumers is retained; the rest is modified—drawing on experience, expertise, and perhaps a certain degree of artistic intuition.

The Invisible Art

Because, yes, what Turner Duckworth does is art—an art that, despite the «magical moment» described by Georgina Leigh-Pemberton, all too often goes completely unnoticed in everyday life. A product redesign—the result of years of research, countless rounds of revisions, and meticulous attention to detail—can elicit rather matter-of-fact reactions outside of client meetings and focus groups: «What exactly did you change?» —that’s a question Tim Owen is asked every now and then by friends when he shows them what he’s currently working on. «Besides, there’s sometimes a… pretty big gap between statements like ‚Well, that’s… good‘ and the enormous amount of work it took to elicit that very simple reaction to a supposedly simple object.»

«What matters most to consumers will be retained; the rest will be modified (…).»

Doesn’t that frustrate the creatives at Turner Duckworth? Perhaps, one might think, when it comes to awards: juries generally prefer dramatic changes or entirely new brands over the nuanced evolution of established icons. But, as Matt Lurcock points out: «Launching a new brand is one thing. But people—the juries—all too often forget how much harder it is, by comparison, to take a mega-brand and its products even a few millimeters into the future.»

Cultural Influence

What’s more: Although the product categories in which the agency primarily operates are referred to in industry jargon—not very charmingly—as «low interest» or «low involvement,» the brands Turner Duckworth works with have a disproportionately large influence on our daily lives and broader culture. Georgina Leigh-Pemberton says, «What we design—and I don’t mean to sound presumptuous—is everywhere.» From the cereal box on the breakfast table to the beer can at a social gathering—in practically every conceivable situation in life, we’re confronted with the «art of the little things.».

The Global Challenge

And this applies not only to the Western Hemisphere, but globally. Many products transcend language barriers and national borders; they are known and loved almost everywhere (take Coca-Cola as an example once again: Cuba and North Korea are the only countries where the soft drink cannot be legally produced or sold—even in Iran, there’s a bottling plant operating under an official license). This adds another layer of complexity for designers. Tim Owen says: «To elaborate on what I said earlier about form: We’re not only dealing with customers who don’t like to read labels, but also with people all over the world who speak different languages, have different educational backgrounds, hold different worldviews, have different ideals, and draw on different points of reference…»

«It's not just about selling. It's about the visual and tactile foundation of our environment.»

The solution? Focus on brand culture rather than local cultures. For Jim Beam, for example, this meant emphasizing universal symbols of warmth, hospitality, and craftsmanship that resonate across borders. The result is a design that feels authentically American—yet is globally appealing.

Another example, which was already mentioned at the beginning of the text: Miller Lite. By taking elements of a popular 1975 can design and subtly modernizing them, Turner Duckworth created a look that felt both fresh and deeply familiar. The result? In just a few months, Miller Lite jumped from being the third-largest beer brand to the second-largest on the U.S. market, without any additional advertising support.

The Future of Everyday Design

As the consumer landscape evolves—with the rise of e-commerce and changing consumer behavior—the principles of effective brand design remain rooted in human psychology: Products that are unmistakable—because they have made their form their own—are not easily forgotten; and whatever is «top of mind» when you walk into a store ends up in your shopping cart. But the «art of the little things» is not just about selling. It’s about helping to shape the visual and tactile foundation of our environment—about preserving memories while simultaneously making new experiences possible. All of this is embodied in objects that we usually take for granted.

• Agency Name: Fynest Agency
• Establishment date: January 1, 2022
• Founders: Bernd Trummer, Prof. Dr. Uwe Seebacher. Current agency heads: Claudia Gabler, Prof. Dr. Uwe Seebacher, Bernd Trummer (in alphabetical order)
• Number of employees: 37
• Current customers: BioLife, NBN Austria, Minimal Fashion, BVIK, Predictores.ai, AQPS Institute, IFSMA, TBI International, the Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, and other global B2B and B2C players
• Agency addresses: We operate in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, and India

Which campaign from the past twelve months are you particularly proud of?

Minimal Fashion, Predictores.ai, and the masterclass hosted by the German Federal Association for Industrial Communication (BVIK):

• E-commerce example: Thanks to CRO, Minimal-Fashion.eu scaled its revenue to 100k EUR within 6 weeks with a total advertising budget of EUR 1,000.
• Example: AI/PI: Predictores.ai creates economic value through predictive intelligence (PI) by using data-driven predictions and analyses across the entire value chain. We’ve already implemented over 50 (!) MVPs for various industries—from manufacturing to financial services—and regularly win major contracts. Hot stuff!
• Example: Continuing Education—Together with BVIK and IFSMA, we have developed a unique continuing education program that combines practical knowledge with scientific insights. The new masterclass on marketing communications and sales automation in the B2B sector begins on September 24, 2024, and offers ten practical modules and coaching sessions led by international experts.

 

The most important campaign in agency history to date - and why?

TBI International – with revenue growth from 30 million U.S. dollars to 100 million U.S. dollars in just six months.

 

The most offbeat place your creatives retreat to be creative?

We’re at our most creative wherever our teams are, because we feel at home within and alongside our teams—all over the world.

What do you do when you have thought blocks?

We don't dwell on mental blocks. We put our heads together and just get to work. Creativity and motivation come from taking action.

 

What is your agency philosophy?

Likes don't pay the bills—sales do!

 

Why should talented people definitely come to work for you?

Because we are the agency of the future and live by the motto: «If we take good care of our people, they take good care of our clients.»

 

How long do employees stay with you on average?

Since the agency was founded, there have been no departures—only new hires.

 

How old is your youngest employee, and how old is your oldest?

22 years and 53 years.

How high are the wages you pay compared to the industry average?

Base salaries are in line with industry standards, but we’re generous with bonuses and performance-based incentives. Our team is the key to our success. We certainly don’t throw money around. We don’t have company cars for executives or any other «agency nonsense.» We’re not exactly “small but fine”—or rather, “Fynest”—and we know that integrity and transparency, as well as continuous improvement, are key factors in our success.

 

What is the ratio between the best and the worst paid employee?

Top executives earn or pay themselves the least and reward their employees more than they reward themselves.

 

Pay transparency: Do employees know among themselves who earns how much?

Yes.

 

How much overtime do you work on average per week?

None.

 

What benefits do you offer to compensate your employees for this overtime?

Our team members love their all-inclusive contracts, flexible hours, working from home, performance bonuses, and vacation—and depending on the situation, there’s a nice surprise in store.

 

How long do you get maternity leave and how long paternity leave?

In accordance with legal requirements, since we are subject to the collective bargaining agreement.

 

What are your home office regulations?

Most flexible.

 

What is the current quota of women?

70 percent.

 

Do you employ interns?

Yes.

 

Do you organize team events?

Yes, all the time!

 

Do you have an agency dog or other mascot?

Not yet—but we're looking forward to some great ideas!

 

Where do you drink your after-work beer?

Wherever it fits—we love FüBi everywhere!

---

With this format, we offer a glimpse behind the scenes at agencies.

»You either love her or hate her—but you won’t forget her." That was the conclusion reached by advertising icon Sir John Hegarty regarding the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games last July 2024. On LinkedIn, he described the show—which some interpreted as a parody of the Last Supper and others as a feast of the Greek gods—as a masterpiece of communication: because it was controversial and sparked debate. Some celebrated the ceremony as an expression of an open society, while others saw it as the decay of traditional values or even—as has often been claimed—the downfall of the West.

«To put it neutrally: Advertising that people talk about has succeeded in getting noticed.»

A change of scene: When Burger King announced to the world that the company would be producing fast food without preservatives in the future, it promoted the now-infamous «Moldy Whopper»: Posters featured photos that certainly had a certain aesthetic appeal—though the subject was a disgusting, moldy burger. Here, too, the advertising industry, the media, and the public were divided. Some considered the images authentic because they effectively «took the idea of eliminating preservatives to its logical conclusion.» Others found them repulsive and misguided, arguing that they would ruin one’s appetite.

Even Switzerland, a country not exactly known for its provocative advertising, has had its share of polarizing campaigns: In the early 2000s, watchmaker IWC launched its slogan, «IWC. Since 1868. And as long as there are men.» With its self-deprecating positioning as a watch exclusively for men—one that excluded women—the multi-year campaign drew laughter but also sparked a storm of outrage. A complaint alleging discrimination was even filed with the Fair Trading Commission—a body that oversees commercial communications—but the complaint (and the appeal) were both rejected.

Relevance Through Controversy

So how should we evaluate controversial, polarizing advertising? Where are the risks—and where are the opportunities? First, it’s important to note, without passing judgment, that advertising people are talking about has managed to stand out. Most ads don’t stand out because they’re too mundane. The common thread among provocative ads is that they elicit a range of opinions, both positive and negative. That’s what makes the whole thing a controversy in the first place.

«The blacker the humor, the redder the faces of those who wallow in shock and outrage.»

In the parable “The Blind Men and the Elephant,” five wise men, all of whom are blind, stand around an elephant—and must describe it by touch. Each touches and describes only one part of the elephant and believes that his understanding is the absolute truth. This metaphor can also be applied to provocation. The perception of advertising is subjective. People perceive it differently and hold differing opinions about it. A controversy isn’t about determining what is right or wrong. The point is that, through the controversy created, the brand becomes a topic of conversation and thus establishes its relevance. A discussion in which there is unanimity and no clash of differing opinions is uninteresting and does not generate any publicity.

Companies often fear that advertising will make them «stand out in a negative way»—whether that means facing a barrage of criticism on social media or critical media coverage. What’s often overlooked is the fact that negative voices aren’t decisive—any more than positive voices are. What matters is that opposing viewpoints exist, so that a discourse can take place in the first place. When a brand’s advertising is in the media spotlight, it is accorded a certain level of prominence and importance. This publicity builds trust in a brand.

When we launched our agency, PAM Advertising, in 2018 and didn’t yet have a client base, our most important form of advertising was initially self-promotion through our website. The first sentence on our website reads: «To get this out of the way right away: We’re probably not the right agency for you.» This is followed by a list of several reasons—phrased ironically (yet meant seriously!)—why you shouldn’t call us. The response was just as you’d expect. The trade press covered this extensively when we launched our agency, and to this day, our website primarily elicits two types of reactions: Some find us entertaining and to the point; others find us stupid and arrogant. Our advertising campaigns have since become the go-to reference for new inquiries, but our website continues to round out the overall picture, as it offers insight into our understanding and approach to advertising.

Black humor, red faces

In the context of advertising, the fact that people are talking about the brand is much more important than what they’re saying about it. The latter is beyond one’s control; one can only influence it to a limited extent. Driven by the misconception that one must compulsively make positive statements—rather than statements that «stick»—the result is often banal, spiritless, and sometimes even moronic. In my opinion, however, this very type of advertising is an insult to intelligence, because it communicates with people as if they were sitting in a circle of kindergarteners. Indirectly, it denies the general public the ability to handle provocation.

Added to this is the aspect of the “culture of outrage,” in which sensitivities and feelings become the linchpin—especially in advertising that uses humor. The darker the humor, the redder the faces of those who wallow in shock and outrage. It is common knowledge that dramatization and entertainment are elements of advertising. This makes serious demands stemming from outrage over advertising seem all the more grotesque. Often, the reasoning behind the claim that humorous advertising is the work of the devil is far from convincing. After all, no one has ever died from a punchline.

Ultimately, the willingness to ruffle feathers with advertising in the public sphere is a matter of the character of the key decision-makers and a question of corporate culture. If maintaining «peace, joy, and pancakes» is a priority internally, companies will back down under pressure from «the» public. Statements are issued that are just as trivial as the artificial uproar itself. «It is not our intention to hurt anyone with this campaign» is a cliché that comes up all too often.

There are two problems with this. First, the company gives the public the impression that it has made a mistake, which is often not the case. And second, hurt feelings do not constitute a legal basis from which claims can be derived.

Countering Intelligently

When faced with baseless accusations, one can calmly point out the obvious: namely, that people are not a homogeneous group and therefore have different views on advertising. When a poster by the e-commerce retailer Digitec (operating in Germany and Switzerland) featuring the customer review «son of a bitch mouse» caused a stir, it made headlines. Digitec responded in a level-headed and composed manner, stating that those in charge were well aware that their campaigns would not appeal to everyone and that they would continue to use provocative and humorous themes in their advertising.

Freedom of speech has a big sister: the freedom to remain silent. It’s also wise to exercise that freedom. In school, we’re taught that there are no stupid questions. Later on, we realize that there very well are stupid questions—especially when they’re based on far-fetched conclusions. So why even address them? Just stay silent. Or you can take the situation a step further by stepping into the ring of absurd accusations with a fighting spirit and publicly and sharply dismantling the intellectually bankrupt allegations. Which, of course, some then perceive as provocative in a negative sense, while others find it entertaining. The German writer Kerstin Hensel said that people simply have to put up with humor sometimes and that certain segments of society have become more sensitive to a particular kind of humor or satire. This impression arises especially when hot-headed, loud voices—particularly on social media—are considered representative. At the same time, I think the general public can certainly tolerate provocation and uncomfortable topics and brushes them off with a relaxed shrug. Precisely because, in the end, we agree that we don’t always agree.

---

* The British-Swiss advertising executive Parvez Sheik Fareed is a co-owner and creative director at PAM Advertising. The agency is known for advertising campaigns that get people talking.

This article first appeared in the 10/2024 print issue of m&k.

Biggie, formerly Gamned, is now established as a leading media and marketing agency in a dynamic market environment. The group offers comprehensive services in the areas of media activation, strategic consulting, and creative marketing. Under the leadership of Silvana Imperiali, Managing Director for the DACH region, Biggie pursues a clear vision: to transform the marketing landscape and support clients throughout their entire customer journey. «We’re not just a media agency—we’re a true partner to our clients,» explains Imperiali.

Biggie has harnessed digital progress and is driving technological transformation through the use of artificial intelligence. «For us, AI is a transformative force that opens up enormous opportunities for the future of marketing,» Imperiali emphasizes. Using AI-driven strategies, Biggie develops customized campaigns tailored to the individual behavior patterns and interests of its target audiences. This strategy enables the agency to deliver relevant and targeted content that maximizes user engagement.

In an increasingly fragmented media landscape, Biggie relies on a «content-first» approach. High-quality, relevant content is at the heart of every strategy to communicate brand messages effectively and sustainably. «High-quality content is the foundation of every successful media strategy,» says Imperiali. Biggie consistently pursues this approach, as the agency recognizes the growing importance of targeted content in a digitally driven world.

«The agency is committed to a sustainable and forward-looking marketing strategy.»

Biggie evolved from the Gamned brand and was officially rebranded in 2024. «It was a natural step to further develop the brand and reposition ourselves as Biggie,» explains Imperiali, who has been with the company since 2018. With the rebranding, Biggie is strengthening its international presence and unifying all its locations under a single brand. This realignment enables the company to better meet the growing demands of the market and further strengthen customer loyalty.

Focus on Data Protection and CSR

Biggie addresses current trends such as the growing need for data protection in the «post-cookie world.» As tracking cookies become less and less important, the company is focusing on innovative solutions for measuring customer engagement in a way that complies with data protection regulations. Another key focus is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which is increasingly becoming an integral part of the company’s strategy. «For us, CSR is more than just a trend; it’s an integral part of our corporate philosophy,» emphasizes Imperiali. Biggie is committed to social responsibility and actively contributes to societal development through various initiatives.

«Feedback from the industry confirms the success of Biggie's approach. The agency keeps a low profile, but the results speak for themselves.«

In recent years, Biggie has expanded its presence and tapped into new markets. One example is the establishment of a tech hub in the Czech Republic, which strengthens the agency’s technological expertise and drives innovation. «Our goal was to bring together the best talent in the industry and develop innovative solutions that give our clients a competitive advantage,» Imperiali says proudly. The tech hub enables Biggie to remain a technology leader and develop customized solutions that meet the high standards of today’s media industry.

The Vision: Marketing of the Future

Feedback from the industry attests to the success of Biggie’s approach. The agency operates «low-key,» yet the results speak for themselves. Clients appreciate not only the tailored campaigns and innovative approach, but also the close, personal support. The agency sees itself not merely as a service provider, but as a partner that supports and guides clients through every phase of their marketing strategy.

Biggie has a clear vision for the future of marketing: technology and social awareness should go hand in hand to successfully meet the challenges of an ever-changing media landscape. The agency is committed to a sustainable and forward-looking marketing strategy that combines technological progress with responsible practices. This positions Biggie perfectly to remain a leader in the future and to blaze new trails in marketing.

---

Research: Key Trends

1. Attention

New methods for measuring consumer engagement in an era when traditional tracking cookies are becoming less relevant.

2. Individuality

take individual behaviors and interests into account, rather than relying on general marketing strategies for specific age groups.

3. Content First

Content quality and relevance are taking center stage in media strategies. Trend: High-quality content that is relevant to the target audience.

4. AI

AI is seen as a transformative force that offers both enormous opportunities and challenges.

5. CSR

CSR is increasingly recognized as an essential component of corporate strategies. According to Biggie, these trends point to a future in which technological progress and social awareness go hand in hand.

---

This article first appeared in the m&k print edition 11-12/2024.

m&k: Nicholas Lemann, you’ve had a remarkable career—not only as a journalist and author, but also as a professor and dean at Columbia University, one of the world’s most prestigious institutions for studying journalism. Did you ever think you’d be able to move so freely between theory and practice?

Nicholas Lemann: No, none of that was planned (laughs). Or—it was… and it wasn’t planned; in equal measure. In hindsight, it all looks like a strategy, a common thread. From the late 1970s through the mid-1980s, I worked at a magazine called *Texas Monthly* and also began teaching as an adjunct professor at the University of Texas. I really enjoyed that. When we moved to New York City in the late 1980s, I didn’t want to give up teaching entirely—so I took a temporary position at Columbia. In 2002, Lee Bollinger became president there. He is a lawyer and constitutional law scholar—but with a keen interest in journalism, which may be due to his upbringing: His father was the publisher of several local newspapers. Bollinger announced that his top priority would be the Columbia School of Journalism. To flesh out his plans, he convened a working group of about twenty people, of which I was a member—and toward the end of the year, he asked me to take on the position of dean. That was, of course, a great honor, but I was unsure at first… after all, I was still writing for *The New Yorker* and had settled quite comfortably into my «hybrid career.».

 

Why did you end up accepting the offer from Columbia after all?

Well—in March 2003, just as the U.S. was about to invade Iraq, there was a strange unanimity in the American media. No matter where you looked—publications and TV stations on the left, right, and center of the political spectrum—all joined in a chorus of jingoistic patriotism that struck me as highly suspicious. Then, when a friend invited me to a seminar on conflict research—where there were scholars who had studied the aftermath of the Balkan wars in the former Yugoslavia—I had an epiphany: «Here are experts,» I told myself, «whose critical voices would be of enormous importance for the present.» But no journalist seemed to know that these people were meeting in New York City at that very moment—or even that they existed at all. That’s why I went to Columbia—to show that there are vast resources journalists can tap into—if they’re properly trained and shown where to look.

 

You were already concerned about the quality of journalism more than twenty years ago. What is the situation like today—in the age of «fake news» and polarization?

I’d say that I’m even more concerned about journalism today than I was back then. But I doubt that social phenomena like the polarization you mentioned are our biggest problem. As I said, I became dean because I feared «groupthink» in the mainstream press—my fear was, in fact, of the exact opposite of polarization. For example, I strengthened my faculty’s collaboration with the social sciences to promote critical perspectives. No, what still gives me more headaches than social polarization is the internet—both in terms of content and economically.

 

I would ask you to elaborate on that right away, but first, allow me to ask a quick follow-up question about «ideal journalism»—that is, journalism that is as critical and as neutral as possible: Is that what students learn when they enroll at the Columbia Journalism School?

Ideal journalism… probably doesn’t even exist outside of theory; it’s likely nothing more than a lofty goal. What makes an outstanding journalist? Perhaps a complex life story marked by upheavals? Maybe a year in prison?! Not that I could speak to the latter from personal experience (laughs). In any case, you’ll need to bring that mindset and perspective with you; we’ll teach you the rest—how a newsroom works, how to structure an interview. Those are the basics. I find it more exciting what we try to accomplish afterward in our master’s program: More than 1,000 graduates have now completed this program, and the vast majority of them had already worked as journalists before enrolling. It’s intended as a kind of… continuing education; it addresses the «big questions»: How do you recognize your own biases and prevent them from influencing an article? How do you gather data that conveys a comprehensive picture of the situation—and not just data that confirms your own thesis? How do you get to the heart of a topic, how do you understand it fully? We observe a certain… «aversion to substance» in American journalism, and we want to prevent that among our graduates. So, to summarize: As a journalist, you need education, life experience, and character—and you must have the greatness to transcend all of that. Then you’ll be quite close to an «ideal.».

«The offer from Columbia was a great honor—but at first, I wasn't sure.»

 

Has the curriculum at the Columbia Journalism School changed since social media became popular—and many people’s attention spans have grown shorter?

Indirectly. As attention and advertising shift to the digital sphere, media companies have to adapt their business models—which rarely goes smoothly. They have fewer resources today to send their staff to us for a year so they can become better journalists; we can feel that. But our principles—what we consider to be sound journalism—don’t change just because TikTok or X are gaining more and more users.

 

The question remains, however: Is there still a place in our world for substantial, expensive, research- and data-driven «long-form» journalism?

Did it ever really exist? «Long-form» journalism has never been self-sustaining, not even at *The New York Times*, which is considered a standard-bearer for investigative reporting—stories that sometimes take years to prepare. Such efforts must—and always have had to—be cross-subsidized. And they certainly don’t reach all readers. But—their relevance to society and to democracy is undeniable. And that’s why I—and that’s why most of the young colleagues we teach at Columbia—want to practice this form of journalism. Or write books, like our «Columbia Global Reports» … they’re more or less a nonprofit, but it’s important that they exist.

«The jingoistic enthusiasm leading up to the start of the Iraq War—in virtually all media outlets—made me very suspicious.»

 

Cross-subsidization is a specific issue—not only in the U.S., but also here in Europe. In your writings, you repeatedly address the «decline of local media,» which is particularly severe in the United States. Don’t they also need external support?

As part of «Press Forward,» the MacArthur Foundation has allocated one billion dollars to support local journalism in the U.S. The «Press Forward» project, an NGO, raises funds to pay reporters in remote areas of the country. So there is an awareness of just how precarious the situation is in many places. But—this brings us back to the internet and why it gives me a headache in more ways than one.

 

Yes, please, let's talk about it.

The big problem facing all media—and I’m deliberately generalizing here—is that people are largely unwilling to pay for information. It wasn’t such a big deal in the past because advertisers covered the costs. However, since advertisers have been directing most of their budgets to Google, Facebook, and other platforms…

«I would say that I'm even more concerned about journalism today than I was twenty years ago.»

 

… the source of revenue from advertising is also drying up. Reputable (local) media outlets are dying out, and the influence of fake news and populism is growing … I suppose that’s another reason why the internet is at the center of your thinking?

Yes. That said, we shouldn’t oversimplify things here: «Less serious journalism directly results in increased consumption of populist messages; and vice versa»—I consider that a rather contrived idea. I find myself wondering three things: Is it really that important to people whether they’re receiving fact-based or manipulated messages? For many, I’d say, unfortunately not. Does consuming accurate information motivate people to behave differently in life, vote differently, or treat their fellow human beings better? Maybe, maybe not. Finally: How can we create an environment where fact-based news dominates? Frankly, the best way is the deliberate suppression of misinformation—and that immediately plunges you into a debate about freedom of speech and expression. Look back to the 1990s: Back then, most American cities had one daily newspaper, maybe two. There were three or four local TV stations, a few radio stations… but the main source of news was the daily newspaper. Whoever owned it held a quasi-oligarchic monopoly, including in terms of the profitability of the whole operation. The politicians who were supposed to regulate the media industry at the time were not at all happy about this. Access to information seemed severely limited—yet everyone was supposed to have the opportunity to stay informed about current events. When the internet was created, people thought it would allow us to share and access news in a much more transparent way. Now it’s clear: when you open up the «information space» like that, opinions circulate there more quickly than facts. So what then? Do you want to force people to prioritize this or that? How do you plan to do that? Especially since the initial goals were so noble… You know, I have a lot of relatives in Louisiana. They watch practically nothing but Fox News. Yet they know full well that all they’d have to do is open their laptop to read the *Washington Post*—but they don’t. They feel comfortable in their «Fox bubble»—no matter how many reputable media outlets exist as alternatives. This problem cannot be solved by journalistic quality alone.

«The big problem facing the media is people's reluctance to pay for information.»

 

Kersti Kaljulaid, the former president of Estonia, told me in early summer that her country is focusing on media literacy education—to explain to children as early as elementary school that there is a diversity of opinions and where they can find reliable information.

The term «media literacy» is, of course, also ubiquitous in U.S. discourse. Efforts are being made to improve media literacy through courses in high schools and colleges—and various campaigns are also raising awareness that anyone can easily use so-called fact-checkers to verify in real time whether, for example, lies are being told during a presidential debate. But then again, I find myself thinking of my family in Louisiana …

 

… who could also use the «Fact Checker» but doesn’t?

That’s right. In the debate over populism and fake news, we tend to assume that we all basically share the same value system—though some are «seduced» by populist propaganda. My cousins in Louisiana would tell you with complete conviction that millions of people are murdered in the U.S. every year: by that they mean embryos, because they are vehemently opposed to abortion. Sure, when a Facebook group, a podcast, or a Fox News host reports on the topic in a inflammatory way, it falls on fertile ground with my cousins—but still: that ground was already there before the media came along. And I’m not exactly sure how we’re supposed to deal with that fact.

«What we consider to be good journalism doesn't change just because TikTok or X have more users.»

 

I am by no means bothered by the diversity of values and opinions—and neither are you, as you explained in your introduction—but what bothers me most of all is that there doesn’t even seem to be such a thing as «true» or «false» anymore; that facts are now being pitted against «alternative facts.» On this basis, we’ll never be able to return to a reasonably civilized discourse, will we?

Let me put it this way: If you believe in the original Internet dream of absolute freedom of speech, you run into some fundamental problems with human nature. Not everyone wants the facts, or agrees that the other person should lay claim to them. Does that automatically make us—you, me, and people who think progressively and democratically—the guardians of the facts? Should we regulate the internet to turn it into an environment where free speech is significantly restricted? Who gives us that right? Reason? Please understand me correctly—I strongly support the idea that social media platforms should be required to censor certain content if it has the potential to harm people. But: Where does actual harm begin, and where is it «just» an opinion that we have to deal with? Who do we censor, and who don’t we?

 

Perhaps we could try to make progressive media a little … more emotional, without sacrificing the facts. That way, we could reach those who are drawn to Fox on an emotional level.

Look, unfortunately, that’s not so simple either. Compare Fox News with CNN: Both are companies that have to make money through journalism. The worldview they promote is biased; it’s commercially geared toward their viewers« preferences. We can’t expect a network like CNN to start explaining the world to Fox viewers out of the goodness of its heart and gently lift them out of their »bubble.” That’s outside the realm of possibility.

«Not everything can be solved through journalistic quality.»

 

But if every media organization has such a frame of reference—do the journalists who work there also adopt it? Is the kind of journalism you teach at Columbia impossible a priori?

(Laughs) My students regularly ask me whether their bosses would allow them to follow the principles I suggest. I usually respond rather laconically: «Just don’t tell your superiors—that’s all there is to it.» Of course, journalists will always have to adapt to some extent to the media outlet that employs them—but fundamental ethical standards should apply everywhere. When I find myself in a place where these standards aren’t being upheld—where they’re deliberately not being upheld!—I have to decide for myself whether I can stay there. The logical thing to do would be to quit.

 

To wrap up, let’s talk briefly about your students. What concerns and hopes do they have for the future of journalism?

Of course, their biggest concern is their job prospects—especially in the long term. The number of full-time newspaper journalists, for example, has declined by 50 percent since the turn of the millennium. Despite all their concerns, the people we teach at Columbia love their profession—they view the world with great interest and are ready to get involved and fight for the survival of their profession.

 

And what about you? What makes you pessimistic—and what makes you optimistic?

Well, I don’t have to worry about my personal future because I’m old (laughs). I’ve been practicing my profession for more than 50 years; I couldn’t care less about where I’ll be in 25 years. The future of journalism itself… you know, as dean, I always found it incredibly difficult to make predictions about this. The relevant discussions were never about real visions, but merely about new organizational structures and new business models. «How can the company remain profitable?» is—for me—not the core question I want to discuss when the future of journalism is being debated. In Europe, you’re privileged in many ways thanks to public broadcasting, and for the United States, I could imagine a «hybrid model»—similar to what we see with opera or public transit. Although companies are behind these systems—and people must pay to use the services—there are also government subsidies to keep prices reasonable and maintain the infrastructure. I would hope that, in the future, media companies will no longer have to rely exclusively on their own resources to fulfill their social mission—but that they also won’t have to become an extension of the government in doing so. I would love to see that happen in my lifetime.

---

Nicholas Berthelot Lemann is an American writer and scholar. He is the Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor of Journalism and Dean Emeritus of the School of Journalism at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism in New York City. He has been a staff writer for *The New Yorker* since 1999 and has published several bestsellers, most recently *Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream*, among others.

m&k: What would you most like to advertise?

Saskia von Moos: I prefer to promote a brand that I can help build and shape from the ground up. What appeals to me most is constantly adapting the marketing strategy and letting it grow in an agile way.

Florian Würgler: For brands that deliver on their promises and that I can stand behind 100 percent.

 

What definitely does not come to your office?

SVM: Everyone is welcome in our office, but only those who understand and embody our vision and act with an entrepreneurial spirit will join our team. We place a high value on a “we-together” spirit; personal interests and political games have no place here.

FW: Cilantro.

 

What do you think of influencer marketing?

SVM: Influencer marketing is generally an interesting option and can be very effective for certain industries, such as fashion. For El Tony Mate, however, I don’t see it as a strategic pillar. Our brand thrives more on authenticity and «real-life experiences» with direct contact, which is why we prefer other marketing approaches that better align with our vision and brand.

FW: Influencer marketing can be very effective because it allows for broad reach and targeted messaging. However, in most cases, it lacks credibility and authenticity.

 

(When) Do you fall for advertisements?

SVM: I call it «being consciously influenced.» I actually like it—sometimes you come across products or ideas that you might otherwise have overlooked. Okay, of course, there have been a few bad purchases here and there thanks to advertising.

FW: I keep falling for watch advertisements—not because of the time itself, but because of the feeling they convey: tradition, craftsmanship, and often an emotional connection, like that of a family heirloom. A watch is more than just an accessory; it tells a story.

 

A buzz word that gets on your nerves?

SVM: Innovation—especially when it is artificially pushed or forced rather than arising from the heart or a genuine «need.» Not everyone has to innovate all the time, day in and day out.

FW: Low-hanging fruit.

 

Which advertising medium do you find abhorrent?

SVM: An inauthentic and overly generic spokesperson who doesn't fit the brand.

FW: Pop-up ads—in most cases, they're just annoying and make me want to click away rather than look at them.

 

What do you still want to achieve at all costs?

SVM: Professionally, I would like to drive El Tony Mate’s expansion abroad. I’m excited about tapping into new markets, building something from the ground up in an entrepreneurial spirit, and establishing Intelligentfood internationally. I’m always mindful, however, that this is a long process and that there are no shortcuts to achieving this goal.

FW: CMO of the year (laughs).

 

Name a campaign that has caught your attention in a positive way recently—but one that you didn't create yourself

SVM: Nike creates really great, emotional campaigns that often resonate with me.

FW: Heinz's «Ketchup Fraud.».

 

What annoys you about the local advertising industry?

SVM: There’s often too much emphasis on theoretical approaches and strategies, and gut instinct is frequently overlooked. There’s sometimes a lack of authenticity and genuine creativity. Striking a balance between strategic planning and authentic, intuitive marketing would be ideal for developing truly compelling campaigns. While many talk about it, very few are actually able to put it into practice.

FW: The constant pressure to always chase the latest trends instead of developing genuine, timeless ideas.

 

When you have an idea, how do you know it's a good one?

SVM: I live and breathe our brands down to my fingertips. It often takes just a few seconds—a strong gut feeling that tells me the idea is authentic, coherent, and consistent with the brand identity.

FW: It's a combination of gut feeling and confirmation from the team.

 

Which advertising campaign from your childhood left a lasting impression on you?

SVM: Children's chocolate bar, with the boy on the wrapper. For some reason, it still evokes positive feelings in me to this day, along with a generous dose of nostalgia. I still eat it to this day.

FW: «Boom Chicka Wah Wah» by Axe.

 

What goes through your mind when you see a campaign penned by you on the street or on TV?

SVM: I’m very proud of my team. It’s a tangible result of our work and a moment when we can share a piece of our brand with the community. However, we don’t think in terms of traditional campaigns; instead, we often rely on creative approaches and experiences that stand out and leave a lasting impression.

FW: A mix of pride and wondering whether the passersby are just as excited as I am.

 

What is currently overestimated?

SVM: KPIs and viral marketing. Although quick wins and viral campaigns are tempting, long-term brand-building and sustainable loyalty are crucial for lasting success.

FW: «Purpose-driven marketing.» Many brands try to score points with social or environmental messages, but they don't come across as authentic. Only when a brand truly stands behind these values does the message come across as credible.

---

In the «13 Questions» format, respondents can choose 13 questions to answer from a list of 100. 

m&k: Stefan Vasic, when we interviewed you last time, we were in the middle of the Covid pandemic. On the surface, your entire industry came to a standstill - but in the background, you switched your entire marketing to customer service. Your people took care of canceled flights, unsettled travelers ... How do you think back to that time?

Stefan Vasic: Looking back, this was an extremely challenging and, in many respects, emotionally stressful time. As a globally operating airline, we were forced to constantly adapt our communication to the ever-changing conditions. As you will remember, during this phase our marketing was completely focused on providing information to our customers. Instead of large campaigns, social media activities and events, the focus was on dealing with the various requirements of health authorities around the world. Our primary goal was to ensure that our guests always received the information that was relevant to them and that they felt safe and in good hands on board our aircraft.

"The pandemic was an emotionally stressful time in many ways."

 

The relief when the pandemic subsided must have been huge.

Yes, of course. With the gradual return to normality, our core business was also able to come back into focus in marketing, which brought great joy to my employees. The emotional strain resulted in particular from the uncertainty as to how things would continue. Even though I personally didn't know exactly how the situation would develop, I always believed that things would continue. I tried to pass on this confidence and positive attitude to my team. After the initial downsizing of the marketing department, we gradually began to rebuild it in small steps. This process required a high level of motivation, leadership skills, clear communication and, last but not least, a lot of energy. Looking back, I would say that we have succeeded impressively in rebuilding the department, as we are performing better than ever in terms of both quality and quantity. I would like to thank my team and all my colleagues for this.

 

Andrea Bison, you were not yet the lead agency for Swiss at the time - i.e. during the pandemic - but how did you and Thjnk experience this extraordinary time?

Andrea Bison: It was particularly hard because we had mandates that were almost immediately reduced to zero. And that naturally raised the question: What does this mean for the people we have at the agency? We really wanted to keep them and lead the company through the fog because we value our employees so much - because we also know how much work goes into their recruitment and their training and development - and because we were sure that we wouldn't be able to simply "replace" them after X amount of time. We managed to do this, but - as for so many - it was anything but easy.

 

And yet you both took fresh impetus from the Covid pandemic: To put it bluntly, Swiss was in the mood for a new agency and Thjnk was ready?

SV: (laughs) It's not that easy to say! The desire for change, momentum, new dynamics ... that was definitely there, but it wasn't necessarily linked to a new agency. I really want to emphasize that here. The reason we went out to tender at the time was for very clear legal reasons, especially compliance reasons. We were obliged to start a regular tender process after an extension of the last contract period with Publicis; this began in the final third of the pandemic ... and lasted, yes, until the announcement. A pitch like this always involves an enormous amount of work, for both sides: It starts in writing, then we had meetings, then Thjnk - as well as other agencies - was given a "shoulder look". In the end, there were only two providers left in the running, and Thjnk was one of them. We realized that the timing was right, the content was right, the people were right - and the commercial aspect was also right. So we decided to go into the future with Thjnk.

AB: If I may interject here: As an agency, you are of course always happy when a "big brand" invites you to pitch. But you also have to check: Do we suit the brand, does the brand suit us? What is their idea of and openness towards creative communication? You really dig into it, develop ideas and - linked to this - emotions. That's why it's always so difficult when you lose a pitch ... because you've put so much of yourself, so much of your own strategic expertise and creativity into it. At Swiss, however, the process was transparent, respectful and based on partnership at eye level. Only the announcement of the win ... that could have gone more smoothly. (laughs)

"You really dig into it, develop ideas and - linked to that - emotions."

 

Now you have to explain that.

AB: Stefan was in Geneva on business, so we had to get his verdict via video call. At our agency, however, we couldn't get the sound to work. We saw that he was moving his lips and became very anxious. The sound only started when the words "... and that's why I'm sorry to tell you..." were spoken. Of course, the mood sank for a millisecond before Stefan added: "... that you'll have a lot more to do because of us."

SV: That was a bit mean of me, wasn't it? (laughs)

 

Then your cooperation began. Andrea, how do you as an agency approach a brand as rich in tradition as the Swiss flag carrier?

AB: The Swiss brand is an icon. Accompanying this next step in its further development is a great honor and at the same time a very demanding task, a significant challenge and a great responsibility. The shared vision was clear from the outset and was already evident when we got to know each other during the pitch process. We then embarked on an intensive collaboration. First we focused on the strategy, then on the conceptual development of the selected platform. It was particularly valuable to get to know the contact persons and managers in the team and to get to know the market managers in the key regions in order to be able to implement the campaign internationally.

 

What are the biggest challenges when working with such a legacy brand?

The biggest challenge in developing a new platform for such an established, iconic brand is to preserve enough of the brand while taking a new step far enough forward. We repeatedly developed concepts and discussed together whether we were in the right place in this area of tension. Essentially, however, it was all about the Unique Swiss Experience, which we wanted to focus on. We mainly experimented with possible design elements and a new look and feel.

 

Is there a kind of formula, a top tip, for navigating through the area of tension that you mentioned, which could also be applied to other brands?

There is probably no single tip or solution. In my opinion, it is a smart and sensitive mix of preserving elements that enable recognition and at the same time meeting the zeitgeist so that new target groups can identify with the brand, as well as a fresh, modern and unseen implementation that carries the brand into the new era.

 

Let's take a look at the results together: What were the strategic considerations behind the decision to choose the new claim "Swiss all the way"?

SV: In recent years, people have changed the way they look at many things in life. This affects areas such as work and leisure, nutrition, but also travel. More is expected. Not only on board, but also in everything before and after. "Swiss all the way" takes this development into account by extending our quality promise to the entire customer journey - from booking in the app to the warm welcome at check-in, from the Swiss Schöggeli, the extra mile of our cabin crews to the "Uf Wiederluege" at the destination - our guests can expect superior Swiss service quality at every point of the journey.

AB: The claim "Swiss all the way" also conveys that Swiss is the airline of Switzerland and that it absolutely embodies the country's values - without falling into national romanticism. From A to Z, from C for comfort to H for hospitality. "Swiss all the way" offers an emotional and sympathetic response to the needs of passengers, stands for a premium service promise and encompasses the entire customer journey. This claim can be understood all over the world.

"With our campaign, we want to remind people of the magic that flying still exudes."

 

The spelling of "Swiss all the way" on the visuals is special - the spaces between the words are deliberately kept wide, symbolizing for me as an outsider the path, the stations along which the "Swiss-ness" becomes tangible. But aren't you worried that you've built in a "reading brake"?

SV: No, quite the opposite! This is an "over-reading brake" and underpins our claim to do one or two things differently from our competitors.

 

The campaign relies heavily on emotional and cinematic imagery. Why is this aesthetic so important?

SV: With our campaign, we want to inspire people, remind them of the magic that flying still exudes and appeal to all those who know that good travel is not just defined by the number of films in the entertainment system or gold applications in the cabin interior. It is the countless little moments between crew and guests, the warmth, the feeling of being at home above the clouds - or in our lounges, for example. And that in all travel classes, from Swiss Economy to Swiss First.

 

And are you satisfied with the reactions so far?

AB: Very much so. I've been doing this job for a while (laughs), but it's always something special to see maxi posters with subjects you've co-created - at Zurich main station, for example. These moments are always an absolute highlight. And people also seem to like the campaign; we get a lot of positive feedback. I'm excited to see what we hear in the various national markets when we roll out "Swiss all the way" globally - because that will be our next step.