The Company Page

Just like on other social networks, you can create a company page on LinkedIn. This is often the first step for a company that wants to become active on LinkedIn. The company page is particularly important because it is required for the company logo to appear on employees’ personal profiles and for running ads or posting job listings on LinkedIn.

And you can post updates using the company’s account. But this is precisely the aspect that many companies tend to overestimate. After all, people simply prefer to connect with other people rather than with companies. Just think about how many people you’re connected with on LinkedIn and how many companies. Another good example is that we hear «Elon Musk tweeted…» much more often than «Tesla tweeted…» (even though he’s on Twitter and not on LinkedIn—but the principle is the same). The same was true for Donald Trump versus The White House. The solution here is «corporate influencers.» On top of that, companies often post boring ads that are of little interest to users, and from LinkedIn’s perspective, companies should please pay for advertising—after all, they have advertising budgets.

The Ideal Company Profile

When creating a company profile, care should be taken to ensure that users immediately understand what kind of company it is and what it offers. You often see very generic profiles with promises like «first-class quality,» «service,» and «innovation,» which apply to almost all companies. For the info box, people often just «copy and paste» from the website, and these texts frequently begin with “… was founded in 1984 …,” which, while not entirely unimportant, pales in comparison to learning “what does the company do?” and “how can I contact it if needed?” Meaningless landscape images used as background images also do nothing to set the company apart. A more appropriate choice here would be a photo that’s representative of the company or its headquarters.

Corporate Influencer

As mentioned above, corporate pages tend to be overrated, and focusing on the personal profiles of employees as «corporate influencers» makes much more sense and feels more authentic. The personal profiles of a company’s most well-known employees—often the CEO or other C-suite executives—are particularly well-suited for this purpose, as they have the largest networks and thus the greatest reach. But in principle, any employee can become a voice for the company in this way. More and more companies are launching corporate influencer programs for this purpose, in which employees who are interested in becoming corporate influencers can volunteer; they are then trained accordingly and can receive support from the marketing department, such as for photos or videos. However, companies must understand that this is then also part of the job description and must allow employees the necessary work time for it.

Personal Profile

Your personal LinkedIn profile is essentially your own «digital business card.» Furthermore, it’s often the first result that appears in Google search when someone looks up your name. That’s why it should be well-maintained and complete. Just as with a company profile, using landscape photos as your background image isn’t a good idea—instead, a photo of you in a typical work situation would be ideal. The same goes for your profile tagline—your job title, which appears directly below your photo—it should make it immediately clear what you do. General descriptions like «Founder & CEO of [Name of an Unknown Company]» are meaningless. Clear positioning is key here to ensure you’re found by potential clients or employers. The info box provides 2,000 characters to describe «who you are, what you do, and how you can be reached.» You can also include files such as PDFs or links to websites, interviews, and the like in your profile, or even highlight them in the prominent «In Focus» section.

Recruiting & Employer Branding

With well over 20 million job postings, LinkedIn is one of the largest job portals in the world. In addition to job listings aimed at active job seekers, LinkedIn can also be used to directly reach out to passive job seekers. To this end, LinkedIn provides tools such as «LinkedIn Recruiter,» which allows users to search the LinkedIn database—including all personal profiles—for suitable candidates and then actively contact them, even if they aren’t connected. LinkedIn is also playing an increasingly important role in employer branding. Companies can position themselves as attractive employers through their company posts or, once again, through corporate influencers—for example, by having employees provide insights into their day-to-day work or behind-the-scenes glimpses.

Conclusion

LinkedIn offers a wide range of opportunities for businesses. Whether it’s for acquiring new customers («social selling»), hiring new employees («social recruiting» or «employer branding»), or as a channel for keeping existing contacts and followers informed about the latest news. LinkedIn is undoubtedly the No. 1 social network for businesses when it comes to reaching users at work, while other social networks like Instagram or TikTok reach users in their free time.

* SWA members get more of Daniel Hünebeck in the form of webinars and expert articles in the internal area.

The process that awakened the "agency of my life" (as I call the home of the legendary Leo Burnett, because that's where I celebrated my greatest international successes and - more importantly! - found my creative home) awakened worldwide, began with a question: "How do you measure, assess, purposefully discuss the quality of creative work - from Adelaide to Lima, from Toronto to Oslo?" I first asked myself this question in April 1986, when, freshly arrived in Chicago from Frankfurt, I took over the creative leadership of Leo Burnett, first the international part, later the entire agency. Part of my job was that, as Chief Creative Officer, I had the final decision on what to recommend to our clients. So it happened that before a client presentation of a new campaign, I asked a creative director responsible for an account what he thought of the work so overall - how he judged it. He said, "Great!" I replied, "What's great?" To which he replied, "I mean: It's very good, Michael!" "From my understanding," I noted, "great and very good are two different qualities." The debate went back and forth a bit more, and because I really, really liked the work, felt it was independent and bold, I ended the discussion with, "I think it's brilliant!"

Although I had been shown a brilliant campaign that day, I went home in the evening with a headache. We couldn't discuss the quality of our work like that! We needed a clear consensus for our company about the quality of our work, clearly articulated goals, what was good - and what was not. We needed to learn to be purposeful in our analysis - and "bold." And so we set out to articulate qualities, to define a standard that worked for us with a global perspective and neutrality in terms of culture, industry and execution. That in itself was a bold undertaking, because the fact that such qualities had not existed before suggested how difficult they would be to define. As you know, what comes easily has usually already been done by someone.

"Best in the world, bar none"

At the top of our scale, we placed a maxim that agency founder Leo Burnett had left behind: "World leader, without exception." In keeping with the company logo (a hand reaching for the stars), that was "10," the "top shot," yes: perfection. We then agreed on nine other parameters, dedicated in sections to what was desirable, what was to be avoided, and the execution of each. A brand achieves long-term ownership when it defines a new standard in a category with its product or service: That is, when it totally fills a niche or implements market leader ambitions (the "most masculine" cigarette for Marlboro or the "greatest" self-confidence for Always). On our scale, this strategic criterion became the "8".

We certainly haven't forgotten the "9", but I had to anticipate the "8" - because the "9" represents its implementation. Here, too, setting a new standard in communications that gives a product or service a distinctive long-term language, tone, culture and leadership, creating a leading brand (maybe even an icon?!). Think "Marlboro Country" or "#Like A Girl" for Always.

What do we want - and what not?

Just as important as defining what we wanted to achieve, became what we wanted to avoid (and which is still the scourge of advertising today): Clichés, the norm of things, the tyranny of mediocrity. Whether advertising cars, cosmetics, cleaning products: differences are usually very marginal. Why is that? What is known tests well - what is unknown polarizes (also negatively). That's how you eliminate risks. But we preferred to eliminate mediocrity. So we made clichés our "4".

Even worse: uncompetitive advertising (our "3"), which competitors can buy our guts for; unclear content, unclear design, time-stealing annoyance, which drags the product and brand into the abyss (our "2"), and finally: frightening, repulsive advertising. Cases for the advertising council, inhumane. One of our network agencies actually published something like this once, the "New York Times" publicly put us in our place for it (and rightly so!), and we had the bar for our "1".

Push the "up", avoid the "down"

Now we have defined which qualities we want to strive for and which we want to avoid. What do we have to do to push the "up" and not give the "down" a chance? First, we need to develop strategies that are capable of setting new standards. In other words, they must be innovative, i.e., they must bring about a conversion from previous behavior to new behavior: a "5" on the scale. Second, ideas that implement innovative strategies must have freshness: on the scale the "6". Third, the fresh ideas must be produced so excellently that the idea becomes visible, moves, provokes thought. This is an area where good ideas are very often lost due to weak production. After this realization, we wrote ourselves a sentence about creation: "Once an idea is sold, the work begins" - on the scale the "7". The discussion about the quality of our work could begin, adding one more crucial point to Leo's "Best in the world, bar none": Inspiration. Because if our work doesn't inspire people, it's worthless.

Intermediate space and "7+" line

After a few years, I had the impression that there was still too little movement. In our network of about ninety agencies, four or five were creatively strong, the rest fell short. We acted "bold" again and made a thick line between the "7" and the "8": The respective agency bonus was linked in part to how many "7+" projects a site implemented per fiscal year. For the vote, we put the national work up for discussion internationally on a quarterly basis. The effect: There was much more exchange, business was buzzing, customer satisfaction increased, good minds flocked to us, and 27 of our agencies were named "Agency of the Year" (in some cases several times) over the next five years. The U.S. "Advertising Age" gave us "Global Agency of the Year" and the "Gunn Report" listed us as the most awarded agency in the world. "7+" is still practiced today, by the way, in a wide variety of adapted forms, by agencies or clients like Heineken.

* Michael Conrad was born in Leipzig in 1944; fled to the West with his mother in 1952. After an apprenticeship as an industrial clerk and various jobs, the autodidact joined Young & Rubicam, later Ogilvy Mather, in 1968. In 1972, he was involved in the founding of TBWA in Frankfurt; this was followed in 1975 by the founding of Lürzer, Conrad. In 1980, he merged with Leo Burnett, where he rose to the position of global Chief Creative Officer. Michael Conrad is married, has three children and has lived in Zurich since 2000. He is co-founder of an Executive MBA for creative leaders at the Berlin School of Creative Leadership.

m&k: Sir Martin Sorrell, it seems we’ve made a habit of talking to each other whenever there’s political and economic turmoil in the United Kingdom. The last time we spoke was shortly before Brexit, and then … shortly after that (Click here for the interview). The situation doesn't look particularly stable right now, does it?

Sir Martin Sorrell: As a businessman, I look at the events of the past few weeks and, quite frankly, wonder if those in charge could have handled things any worse. Think of the enormous uncertainty created by the—now defunct—Truss government when it attempted to introduce a mini-budget without consulting the Office for Budget Responsibility or the Treasury. Nor did they coordinate with the Bank of England, which has been trying to curb inflation … while the Truss government’s mini-budget would have fueled inflation! We had to watch as plans were forced through with all possible might—plans that would have caused enormous harm to the country. It would be tempting to describe Liz Truss’s behavior as stupid, but it is exactly the opposite: it is intellectual arrogance on the part of people who may be intelligent but are not wise.

It’s interesting to hear this criticism from you—because, as a major business owner, you could certainly have benefited from parts of Truss’s plans.

You recently wrote an op-ed for *The Times* in which you warned that «the economy itself could go on strike.» What did you mean by that?

I meant exactly what I said: No new companies will flood into the market; established companies won't dare to spend money until we're in a situation where there's at least a little more stability. We’ll see how the dynamics change in the coming weeks and whether that will be a change for the better or for the worse. Ultimately, what’s happening now is a delayed consequence of the Brexit decision, a delayed consequence of the COVID stimulus, and … the failed attempt to mitigate the consequences of mistakes made quite some time ago. I’m not a member of the Conservative Party, but when Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak debated the leadership of their party a few months ago, I listened closely to what they had to say. And in my opinion, Sunak had the better ideas. He didn’t disagree with Truss regarding the need for a growth strategy for the United Kingdom—and I don’t disagree either. But here, too, timing is everything! You can’t develop a macroeconomic growth strategy by cutting taxes before you’ve established a solid foundation for public finances. I’m speaking here with someone from Switzerland: You understand the need for financial stability very well. The Conservatives like to point to Margaret Thatcher—«She cut taxes, too!»—yes, she did, but only after she had put her public finances in order.

As a «Remainer,» you advocated for the United Kingdom to remain part of the EU. After the Brexit vote, however, you called for a plan to rebuild the economy under the new conditions—for example, through free-trade zones, like a «Singapore on steroids.» Do you see any positive developments in this direction?

We are nowhere near where we should be as a country. Of course, we were thrown off track by COVID, just like everyone else. But that is no excuse for the poor implementation of the political and economic consequences of Brexit. I recently watched a documentary produced by the *Financial Times* that shows how small and medium-sized businesses are trying to overcome the bureaucratic hurdles imposed on them… which are now a prerequisite for continuing to do business with partners within the European Union. Many of these companies are either forced to open separate branches in the EU to get things under control, or they have to cease operations. It broke my heart to see that; they’re essentially being forced out of business. The phrase «Singapore on steroids» was a bit polemical, I’d say in hindsight—but whatever «all of that» might have become: we missed our chance. And no one can tell me that decision-makers in London didn’t have enough time to adapt: The people made their decision six years ago in a referendum—you know my position on the referendum—and in those six years, not only have we made no progress whatsoever, but we’re in a much worse state than before. GDP is falling, and we’re losing influence in the global political arena. Shall I go on?

That would certainly be interesting—but you’re currently in South Korea and it’s already late where you are, so let’s move on to your own projects: S4Capital has grown impressively despite the pandemic and the war. Nevertheless, Moody’s warned in mid-October that you might face some challenges in the near future. What is the «status quo»?

There are certainly some challenges, but business continues to go well. And you’ll see that when we announce our third-quarter results. I can already tell you that July and August, in particular, were very good months for us. There are two things that give me hope despite the difficult global environment we’re all facing: First, we’re in a good position because we’re part of the digital economy—and that will continue to thrive despite everything that’s happening. Furthermore, we’ll grow more than twice as fast as our eight largest competitors: they’re all projecting growth rates of ten or eleven percent, while we’re at around twenty-five percent. The second point that makes me quite optimistic is that demand for digital transformation—which makes up a smaller part of our business… but also encompasses the areas of content, data analytics, and digital media—will only increase. As pressure mounts, decision-makers feel an incentive to make changes that are long overdue. And we’ll be there to support them and help them implement those changes. It’s strange, isn’t it? Whenever things are calm, the prevailing mindset is «don’t fix what isn’t broken.» It always takes some kind of external force to trigger change.

However, regarding Moody’s comments: Do you think your very ambitious M&A strategy might have been a bit «too much, too fast»?

No, I don’t think so. What I can say, however, is that we’ll be focusing even more on organic growth—growth driven by our own efforts—in the near future. That doesn’t mean mergers and acquisitions are off the table. Not at all! But we’re now thinking even more intensively about how we can make the most of the potential we already have—with the outstanding companies and people in our international portfolio. I’ve also already stated publicly that we need to be more selective when hiring employees, because we don’t want to understaff our growing business, nor do we want to hire employees solely based on expected growth. The latter point is particularly important when you need to keep an eye on costs. It’s primarily about balance, and we’re now balancing out S4Capital.

When we first talked about your company a few years ago, you mentioned a strategy called «Twenty Squared,» which means you want to acquire twenty «Whopper customers,» each of whom generates at least twenty million in revenue for you. How far along are you with this project?

We now have eight «Whopper» clients. Five more companies are on the verge of becoming «Whoppers.» And we’ve identified fourteen companies that are likely to reach that level within the next three years. So we could soon cross the «twenty squared» threshold, which—alongside our work on mergers, acquisitions, and organic growth—is another key factor in the development of our business. I have to say, I’m quite confident and happy in this area.

In a recent interview, you accused many of your creative colleagues in the advertising industry of still seeing the world through «rose-colored glasses.» The era of «Mad Men» is over; anyone who still fears data—and believes it threatens creativity—is mistaken. Could you elaborate on that for us?

Data provides the insights that make it possible to conceive, produce, and distribute better creative work. My favorite example is based on an insight we gained in the area of social media: On average, women view a post on Facebook or Instagram for 1.7 seconds. Based on this, we created a two-second ad for a L’Oréal product in Italy that became a huge success: Within just a few weeks, the product reached a leading position in its market segment. The traditionalists in our industry claim: «Data is destructive; you need intuition. Trust your gut!» Intuition is all well and good—but it doesn’t rule out information! This isn’t even a particularly innovative discussion: As a junior, David Ogilvy worked for some time at Gallup, which is still a major polling firm today. So he understood the importance of data; he said that marketing must be measurable—and was a staunch advocate of direct-response marketing! The great Ogilvy himself! He once said: «Direct response was my first great love. Later, it became my secret weapon.»

It just occurred to me that I never asked you for your definition of great creativity.

I’m inclined to agree with Dave. «Creative work is work that sells»—that’s Ogilvy in its purest form. It’s our job to sell things. I spoke with a client today who’s concerned about the lack of emotional connection between his customers and his brand. During our meeting, he kept mentioning Apple and Nike and asked, «How can we become like them?» But it’s not as if these brands were perfect from the start… They identified what sells, built on that, and then did more and more of what worked for them. Voilà.

What advice do you have for executives who want to spend their advertising budget as wisely as possible—and with the best possible ROI?

I have no doubt that digital advertising will continue to expand its dominance. As I said: In times of pressure, two things happen. First, digitalization intensifies. And second, it doesn’t «just» intensify—people begin to truly appreciate the opportunities it offers! Advertising, as we offer it, reduces costs while increasing efficiency—so, given the current economic situation, there can be no other trend. According to my forecast, next year will unfold much like 2020, albeit for different reasons. Then it won’t be the pandemic driving the change, but inflation, recession… and shortages, at least in certain areas. I’ve witnessed many crises over the course of my career, and if there’s one thing I can tell you today, it’s this: In many ways, they’ve always presented historic opportunities as well.

m&kMartina Hingis, tennis has accompanied you from an early age - there is a rumor that you were already leaning on a racket when you couldn't even walk properly. Is that true?

Martina Hingis Yes, probably so (laughs). I can't remember the very early years, of course, but I grew up on the tennis court: my mother was a professional player in Czechoslovakia and I was always there at practice. There are photos of me between the rackets and balls, on the edge of the court, with my toys. So I think the rumor is true.

What is your first conscious, own tennis memory?

My mother and I came to Switzerland from Czechoslovakia in 1988. Because I wanted to play as many tennis tournaments as possible, but there was no children's category here at that time, I was already on the court as a young girl with Swiss housewives (laughs) - ambitious amateur players, so to speak. They often said, "How cute!" or, "You're hardly visible behind the net!" and wanted to play me. But they quickly stopped when they realized that I always win.

From this, I take away two life lessons: that you'd better be prepared for more than you might actually expect - and that you have not only a Plan A, but also a Plan B and a Plan C.

American track and field athlete Ed Moses once told me how he remained the undefeated world champion in the 400-meter hurdles for nine years, nine months, and nine days: he always trained, he said, for the 800-meter run! (laughs) Ed said, "You know, Martina, if I can do the 800 meters - then the 400 meters are a piece of cake!" And on the second point: Yes, I always had a Plan B or Plan C in addition to my Plan A. It was very important to my mother in training that I have a broad tactical and technical base. I often miss that a bit in current women's tennis - my generation put more emphasis on strategic skills and a broad technical repertoire. A big match is often also a feeling-out, a waiting game: You're facing one of the Williams sisters and have to catch the moment when she shows a weakness; have to be precise where she allows herself an inaccuracy; have to have an idea that she doesn't have.

Was it always clear to you that you wanted to be a professional tennis player? Or were there other career aspirations as well?

Because I was able to experience success so early, that - took on a life of its own. I won my first Swiss championships at the age of twelve, as well as the youth tournaments in Paris and Wimbledon. A steep, rapid ascent. And then I wanted more.

And you got more: In 1996, you became the youngest Grand Slam winner in the history of tennis when - just fifteen years and nine months old - you won the women's doubles at Wimbledon with Helena Suková. Didn't you feel incredible pressure in the context of such world tournaments?

No - that was actually the beauty of it! When I was young, I didn't deal with the pressure at all, for two reasons: One, I was lucky enough to have beaten most of my opponents in the big tournaments before elsewhere. So I thought, for example: Why shouldn't I beat them here in Miami, I already won against them in Hamburg!? And I was convinced that I had time: If I didn't win this or that tournament, then I could come back a year later and try again. That was my mindset.

I think that fits in perfectly with the motto of the event at which you will be the star guest in November - DirectDay is running under the title "Bold is Gold! And this is how you describe your career: You were ambitious, but you also had fun and believed in yourself very strongly.

Yes, I have always been able to rely on my game. Even in situations where I was behind or under stress, I knew that I could master the next shot and that I would deliver my performance. Self-doubt was not a problem I suffered from - especially in my "first career". Sure, nobody wins every game, always has a good day. But I acted at every moment with the conviction that I can - will - make the next point.

How do you protect the self-confidence you describe if you do suffer a defeat - perhaps in a match or tournament that was very important to you?

It has always helped me - and I think this can be applied to many areas of life - to analyze afterwards what didn't work or what external factors played into the result. If I lose to one of the Williams sisters, who are on the other side of the net with all their muscles and enormous size, then I know: I have to train my condition and my strength even better to compensate for the physical differences next time. And sometimes you just have to accept that everything is "too much": I once ran out of breath at the Australian Open when the outside temperature was fifty degrees, okay, that's ... to put it casually ... crappy, but then you have to tick that off.

As a very young player, you said earlier, things "took on a life of their own". Later in your career, however, you had to make very conscious, courageous decisions: The comebacks in 2006 and 2013 were conscious steps that were not without risk for your reputation and your "legacy" ...

When I made my first comeback in 2006, I asked myself, "If I don't try it again now, might I blame myself for the rest of my life?" So I did. But of course I was more afraid of failing now than before - after all, I didn't want to embarrass myself. Nobody forced me to return to the pitch after my first retirement in 2003. I knew that if I did that, people would understand that I wanted to do it myself. And then I have to deliver. Fortunately, I managed to do that (laughs). I had great matches, great tournament wins, before injury problems came up again in 2007. And the second comeback in 2013 ... to be honest, that wasn't planned at all! I actually only wanted to coach. But then first Daniela Hantuchová asked if I wanted to return to the WTA Tour with her in Carlsbad - and then I won the Sony Open tournament in doubles with Sabine Lisicki. We can't go into detail here now because the history of the matches that followed would take up too much space - but in January 2016, for the first time in almost sixteen years, I had the No. 1 position in the WTA doubles world rankings again, together with Sania Mirza. A nice encore for the second, totally unplanned comeback, right? (laughs)

Another learning for me: It can be worthwhile to surprise yourself sometimes.

That's just it. Sometimes there are situations, turning points in life, at which many things are decided - and whose significance you could not have foreseen. You simply have to dare.

How important were your competitors for you, actually? David Coulthard, who appeared on DirectDay two years ago, once told me that dueling with Michael Schumacher made him a better race car driver. Did you have rivals who improved your game?

I'm the same age as Venus Williams and a year older than Serena Williams. I was better as a junior and at a much higher level, but then they both caught up - and when we met, those were matches where I took a lot away for myself. The first US Open match against Venus - I admit that honestly - was probably also the first time I didn't sleep that well before a match (laughs). But I won. You don't lose to your peers, I thought to myself at the time.

So sporting excellence pushes and reinforces each other?

It's not really fun to play regularly against people like that, because it takes an insane amount of energy. But they were certainly the best matches I played back then. The effect you're talking about has also been seen in men's tennis in recent years: Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been working off each other - and whenever one was better, the others trained to catch up. And the matches became more and more incredible.

Roger Federer has just retired, Nadal and Djokovic are flirting with a similar move for 2023 or 2024, according to the relevant media. If you yourself were part of a "tennis generation", as you were, is it strange to see such a generation retire?

I don't want to sound arrogant at all, but women's tennis in the peak years of my career, that was a really great time, a great generation of players. Venus and Serena, who represented the USA. Mary Pierce from France. Conchita Martínez from Spain. I could list several more people now. What I want to say is: all of them brought their fans, their special style, were ... unique. And when that ends, it is of course associated with a certain melancholy.

How did you experience the transformation from top-level sport back to a "normal" everyday life?

Oh, I think - every person who has done a job that was important to them, whether as a manager, a lawyer or even as a tennis player, feels a break after their career ends. Then you have to find something new that fulfills you. In my case, it's certainly my family: I have a little daughter who is the most important thing in the world to me. The best gift tennis has given me is the time I can now spend with her. And I regularly go to my mom's tennis gym and teach the kids there. We currently have a 14-year-old player with us who is the world number one in her age group and whose progress I have been watching for five years. It's a different feeling of happiness than when I played myself, but it's also wonderful.

If one day your daughter expressed the desire to become a professional tennis player ... would you support that?

Yes well, if it were her wish, then I would support that for sure. But I would also do that for all the other wishes and plans she has. Maybe we should give her a little more time to decide, she's only three and a half years old (laughs).

You appear incredibly likeable and down-to-earth. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize something and thus introduce my last question: You are one of the most successful tennis players in the history of your sport. You have achieved everything that can be achieved in your discipline. What advice would you give to people who, like you, have big dreams and want to realize them?

You just have to live out your passions and then consistently pursue the goal or plans you have. It's very easy to say, but we all know how life plays out sometimes. How you can lose sight of goals or get off track. That you sacrifice dreams because reality seems to throw a wrench in your plans. But I say: You have to hold on to your dreams, with all your might. And you have to create an environment that supports you: a family, friends who accompany you for part of the way. And, perhaps finally, it helps to be realistic. I wanted to win the cantonal championships in Switzerland, then the national championships ... That was my first goal. Wimbledon came later.

Direct Day 2022: The interview with Martina Hingis took place during the run-up to Direct Day 2022. There, on November 15, she will talk about the highlights of her career, in keeping with the motto "Bold is Gold". Every year, Post Advertising organizes this leading event for the dialog marketing industry; this time, for the first time, at the Kongresshaus Zurich. Secure yourself now last remaining tickets. 

Martina Hingis (born September 30, 1980) is a former Swiss tennis player. Born in Czechoslovakia as the child of two tennis professionals, she came into contact with the sport at an early age - and after her mother moved to Switzerland with her in 1988, quickly celebrated cantonal and national success. A spectacular rise to the global tennis Olympus followed, which only ended in 2017 after several comebacks. Martina Hingis now works as a junior coach and is the happy mother of a three-and-a-half-year-old daughter.

Hingis won 38 titles at WTA tournaments in singles and 42 in doubles. She also won five Grand Slam titles in singles - the Australian Open three times and Wimbledon and the US Open once each - as well as thirteen Grand Slam titles in doubles and seven in mixed. In 1998, she managed to win all Grand Slam tournaments in the same year with different partners. Between 1997 and 2001, she spent 209 weeks at the top of the world rankings. She is the youngest player ever to top the singles rankings. At 16 years and three months, she was also the youngest winner in the 20th century of a Grand Slam tournament in singles. After retiring at the age of just 22, she decided to make a comeback in 2006, which took her once again to No. 6 in the world rankings. On November 1, 2007, she said goodbye to professional sports for a second time. She returned to the WTA Tour again in 2013, this time only for the doubles competition. Hingis is one of seven players who have topped the world rankings in both singles and doubles. Only she, Martina Navratilova and Arantxa Sánchez Vicario even managed to do so at the same time.

Journalists, the German satirist Karl Kraus once said, are those people who always want to have known everything beforehand afterwards. There is no doubt that his accusation cannot be entirely dismissed; especially when journalists act not only as reporters but also as critics. Then one can always counter them: "If you really could have done it better, why didn't you do it yourself?"

Well, perhaps because many of us (the author of this article explicitly includes himself here) are more suited to theory than to practice. But perhaps also because for every "level" there must be a "meta-level"; for every product there must be an independent evaluation - this constitutes the essence of public debates, no matter whether they are in business or politics and no matter what the topic. It takes some to "do" and others to analyze the result.

If you follow this premise and apply it to the Swiss marketing and communications industry, then DirectDay 2022 really won't come a day too soon: Its motto "Bold is Gold" is almost like Jakob Bosshart's famous "crying in the wilderness," opposing a dictate of mediocrity and risk aversion that has become established in our country's communications industry. This, at least, would be the analysis from my ivory tower of business journalism that can be listened to (or against which, as I said at the outset, Karl Kraus may be cited). The reasons for my observations are manifold, they can hardly be held against a single individual personally, and one could write a book (or at least an HSG master's thesis) about how the industry has maneuvered itself into a conformism from which it now hardly seems able to pull itself out. But that would be too little help at a time when rising inflation and recession demand quick action. Instead of over-analyzing the status quo, the stakeholders must take the reins quickly and "boldly" - because it would be madness not to take any risks now.

"Risk Awareness, Reversed"

As "Advertiser of the Year" David Schärer suggests in the interview on the left, this will first require a total reversal of risk awareness among all those involved in the industry's processes. Marketing and communications executives, who manage budgets (and, admittedly, often have a hard time doing so: According to the Harvard Business Review, around eighty percent of American CEOs feel a "latent" or "acute" distrust of their CMOs - figures that are likely to be similar in Switzerland), must finally abandon the principle of "Don't fix what isn't broken". Mediocre marketing that relies on supposed "security" does not preserve the status quo, but endangers it in the medium and long term. The idea that "another year of candy bars on a white background" would be enough to keep sales at Valora kiosks constant may seem tempting. But what if, in said year, a competitor emerges to blanket the whole of Switzerland with a guerrilla campaign and really ruin their carefully cultivated "share of wallet"? I have a suspicion where the (already suspicious, see above!) CEOs would look for "pawns". So the new watchword, especially in difficult times, is: Risky is not to do something extraordinary; risky is to do nothing at all.

Posture is "bold" - or arbitrary

Let's go one step further: Does your company claim to represent an attitude? Does it write the equality of all employees, regardless of their origin or sexuality, on the rainbow flags hoisted in front of its Zurich headquarters during Pride Month? And is this then used for proper self-promotion? As much as this action is to be welcomed in principle, it is not an attitude, it is cheap symbolic politics. The few die-hards who are still bothered by such communication measures in Switzerland are not relevant. Marketing based on attitude only becomes credible if there are people who are made angry by it. Yes, angry! When the same flags are also hoisted in front of offices in Moscow, the United Arab Emirates or African capitals where "homosexual propaganda" is subject to draconian penalties. Or when supporters of Donald Trump burn their sneakers because Nike testimonial Colin Kaepernick openly protests against the ex-president's xenophobic policies, yet continues to support "his" brand. The success that Nike's attitude campaign around Kaepernick had afterwards was celebrated by award juries and trade journalists worldwide - and many marketers probably felt a certain envy of never having triggered such an impact themselves. But, as I said, impact comes through attitude, and attitude is "bold" - or arbitrary, and therefore redundant.

The economy of attention

Those who have no use for attitude-based advertising can also approach the significance of expressive communication that is clearly differentiated from the mass of advertising messages via pure statistics: The most conservative (!) estimates assume that people in German-speaking countries are confronted with 300 to 500 advertising messages per day; other studies assume 3,000 to 10,000 such messages per day. The truth will lie somewhere in the middle - but combined with the flood of information that pours in on us via our cell phones, our laptops and print media, that is - to put it casually - simply a whole lot of input. And here it comes, the moment of truth for all marketing and communications managers: Would you yourself notice what you commissioned from your agency and what is now circulating in Switzerland or internationally among "only" 300 or even up to 10,000 other messages? If you can answer this with a spontaneous, convinced "Yes!", then congratulations are in order. Anyone who hesitates has actually already answered the question with a "No." And that's why events like DirectDay, which take "Bold is Gold" as their theme and hopefully inspire a few hundred people (multiplied by this magazine, at most a few thousand) to pause for a moment, are so important. This industry can't keep doing what it's doing. No one is asking you, dear readers, to perform miraculous deeds. Just a little bit more courage.

How much courage does it take today to act "boldly"?

In a completely fragmented media world, where we are exposed to information content equivalent to several daily newspapers per day, messages have to be assertive - otherwise they get lost. This is so obvious that I always argue for a reversal of "risk thinking" in the industry: the question "What if we attract negative attention?" is readily asked. But it would be much more important to be concerned about not attracting attention at all.

To do this, you have to get the decision-makers in the companies out of their comfort zone. How difficult is that?

Attention costs a lot of money, and I see it as one of our most important tasks to manage the resources of our clients responsibly. So we have to get them out of the comfort zone of mediocrity - and say clearly: those who are remembered are the nonconformists. To do this, we put together a coherent and "bulletproof" argumentation as a team. And in pitches, I like to describe the impact of a campaign "from the end": What media potential do I see in a bold, polarizing proposal? What headlines can we generate? That helps enormously.

Even in the world of global industrial companies—which is typically characterized by relative stability—there are always events that make the hearts of brand experts and trade journalists beat faster, so to speak. This happens, for example, when a powerful corporation announces the spin-off of a highly successful business unit and reveals not only its independent initial public offering but also a complete rebranding of that unit.

The participants face a variety of challenges

This is exactly what happened last summer at the technology giant ABB, which announced in July: «We are spinning off the turbocharger division »ABB Turbo Systems« from our portfolio—and taking the business public under the name »Accelleron.’” No sooner said than done: The spin-off was a complete financial success; both leading economists and the entire analyst community were more than satisfied with the move. This is because, on the one hand, it allows ABB to focus on its core business of electrification and automation, while at the same time giving the new spin-off the opportunity to expand its position as a market leader in the field of heavy-duty turbochargers and to increasingly prioritize sustainability. In addition to the legal, organizational, and procedural aspects, the genesis of the Accelleron brand—as indicated at the outset—also has a highly intriguing background from a brand strategy perspective. And those entrusted with the “birth of the brand” were confronted with a multitude of challenges that are otherwise extremely rare in day-to-day management.

Tradition at Home and Abroad

To understand how a new brand is created from an existing business unit—and why this process requires a cautious approach—it is necessary to first look back at the past. Unlike with a startup, where brand creation essentially begins «on a blank canvas,» business units such as «ABB Turbo Systems» bring their own history with them. Both customers and employees identify with a brand and its tradition; they have built trust and, not least, have grown accustomed to the values the brand stands for. «The turbocharging business has been an integral part of ABB for decades. It was hard to imagine one existing without the other,» explains Dr. Alexander Haldemann, Chairman of the global branding agency MetaDesign. MetaDesign had won the bid for the turbocharger mandate, and according to Haldemann, one thing was immediately clear: «The separation from the parent company will be a very special challenge. This is especially true for the many employees who identified one hundred percent with ABB. From the very beginning, you have to address this kind of »trust vacuum’ with the vision of a strong, self-assured, and forward-looking new brand.”

Magdalena Okopska, who experienced the rebranding virtually «up close,» shares a similar view: Her business card changed overnight from «Head of Marketing Communication, ABB Turbocharging Division» to «VP of Communications, Accelleron.» Although she is an extremely experienced communications expert, she says she had «never experienced a process like this in her career.» Okopska highlights two specific aspects in particular: working with a small group of stakeholders—and the speed of the process. «It would certainly have been very motivating for the loyal and proud employees to involve them in the brand creation process and, for example, conduct a survey among them.» But there wasn’t enough time for that, so MetaDesign, ABB, and what would later become the Accelleron leadership team made a bold choice: «We decided against involving a large number of people—and that allowed us to move forward fairly quickly.»

Few Decision-Makers: Pros and Cons

The benefit of this decision was something that Alexander Haldemann, looking back, describes as a «significant achievement that wasn’t visible to the outside world»: «Together with the leadership teams at Accelleron and ABB, we developed the new brand within a very tight timeframe through a robust process,» he says. He was impressed by how the top management of both companies embraced the new initiative—because, as communications manager Okopska had already hinted, brand creation is usually fairly uncharted territory, even for long-time executives. The «downside» of a branding process explicitly not designed for broad participation: Some of the more tradition-conscious members of the workforce initially had trouble warming up to the new brand: «Mechanical engineering could be described as a rather conservative industry; which means bold colors and shapes take a little time to be accepted. The colleagues who found the change from ABB to Accelleron very drastic have already told me that they still need to get used to the long name or the new colors,» admits Magdalena Okopska. In contrast, feedback from external stakeholders—such as customers—has been consistently «very positive»: «We stand out enormously from the competition in our industry and come across as refreshing,» says the Accelleron manager happily.

«Contemporary Design» with lasting quality

The result—as the visuals in this article show—is a modern design in keeping with the spirit of the times and a brand name that simultaneously lays the foundation for a brand identity that will remain appealing for years or even decades to come. Once again, MetaDesign Chairman Haldemann: «The name, the visual identity—these must »hold up« globally and over decades for a new brand, while still being »state-of-the-art« at the moment of launch.» According to Haldemann, the “birth” of a brand like Accelleron therefore always brings with it enormous opportunities, but also significant risks: “Every decision made in this context has an impact. It can turn out to be the best or worst communication decision the company in question will ever make in the foreseeable future.”

That’s exactly why the challenge of «launching a brand» is so much fun. From her «insider’s perspective,» Magdalena Okopska says: «We just celebrated the brand at a major event and felt how the sense of belonging continues to spread. We want to preserve that—and build on it.»

«Even in B2B companies, brands are discussed in very emotional terms.»

Nicolas Ziegler: From the very beginning, we kept in mind what the brand needed to achieve and developed a robust approach based on that. In the case of Accelleron, the challenge was to develop a completely independent brand capable of respectfully reflecting on its historical achievements in partnership with ABB and, previously, BBC, while simultaneously introducing new, value-adding themes in target markets. Not an easy balance to strike.

Which challenges did you consider the most complex before the project began—and which challenges surprised you «along the way»?

It’s always fascinating to see just how emotionally charged the topic of branding is, even within B2B companies. But that’s precisely why it’s all the more important to involve the key decision-makers during the conceptual phase, so that everyone shares the same understanding of the task at hand. After all, it’s about much more than just a logo and corporate identity. When it comes to developing a—new—brand for an industry leader, project management is of central importance, as it’s essential to keep the wide variety of work areas—and ultimately the budget—under control.

What should the new brand focus on in particular; what should it convey?

As an independent company, Accelleron also targets a different market than ABB from a technological standpoint. In addition to the name and traditional brand design elements, it is the brand experience that sets it apart. This is where Accelleron leverages its partnership with Sauber: The combination of joint technical development work with Sauber Technologies and brand activation with the Alfa Romeo F1 Team Orlen is simply brilliant.

m&k: Kurt Andersen, on your website you describe yourself as a writer, but one could argue that you’re also something of a «historian-psychoanalyst» of the United States—and on top of that, you’ve produced one of the world’s most successful radio shows for two decades. How would you describe yourself?

Kurt Andersen: (laughs) For the sake of simplicity, I refer to myself as a writer. That’s the profession I’ve always listed on my passport, even during the years when I didn’t have much time to write.

If you say you’re primarily a writer, then—at least from my perspective—there are two main areas of your work: your novels on the one hand, and your nonfiction books on the other. «Evil Geniuses» traces the influence of radical conservatives on the U.S. economy, media, legal system, and politics; and «Fantasyland» describes—and I quote—«how America has gone off the rails.» What motivated you to explore these topics?

«Fantasyland» came first; the book was published in 2017. There were aspects of American culture that, in my view, had somehow always been «there»—traces of anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism, and, of course, religious zeal—all subsumed under the maxim that everyone should «find their own truth» … And then, in 2012 or 2013, I asked myself: How could all of this have come to «replace» empirical thinking in large parts of the U.S.? I simply didn’t understand it, and there was hardly any literature on the subject. So in 2014, I started taking notes and began writing *Fantasyland*. Note: This was at a time when Donald Trump was merely a TV personality, not someone who played any role in the political landscape. And just as I was about to finish the book, he had become the Republican presidential candidate! I said to my wife at the time: «I wouldn’t necessarily call that a lucky coincidence for our country, but it could be good for the book!» (laughs) Because Trump embodied so much of what I’m trying to say in *Fantasyland*. Originally, it wasn’t about him, and yet—in the end, it was about him, too.

A few years later, you published *Evil Geniuses*, a reconstruction of a decades-long conspiracy through which radical conservatives in the U.S. sought to «regain power» following the hippie movement of the 1960s; both in terms of realpolitik and public discourse. *Fantasyland* describes how the groundwork was laid for these «evil geniuses» … and Trump is the latest offshoot of their efforts. It seems a circle has come full circle in your body of work.

If you had to describe that company in just a few sentences …?

Well, that's exactly why I write these big, thick books—so I don't have to summarize my thoughts in a few words. (laughs) But—I’ll give it a try. «Fantasyland» refers to phenomena that probably can’t be changed. They define who and what many of us Americans are. You can try to slow down the pernicious influence of genuine American superstition; you can try to mitigate its perverse influence here and there, but you can’t get rid of it once and for all. The economic mess we’ve maneuvered ourselves into through the conservative promotion of an uncontrolled, unbridled capitalist market could, however, theoretically be reversed. I am an optimist, not because it’s an American cliché, but simply because that’s just the way I am … So what follows is my optimistic assessment: Our country is very fragile, and its unity has long been held together by notions of exceptionalism, an «American Dream,» and a healthy dose of naivety. To a certain extent, these ideas—and that naivety—transcended class, education, and location, weaving us together. But now, these very forces have deepened the divides between urban and rural areas, Republicans and Democrats, and the educated and the less educated. That is why, in 20, 30, or 40 years, we may witness our country breaking up into several states—hopefully with little violence. What we are today, even though we have managed to avoid falling into the abyss a few times, has become uncontrollable.

Let’s talk a little longer about «deepening divides.» These exist in Europe as well, and they’re usually exacerbated by opinion leaders in politics or the media who use populism to push their agenda. As an expert in storytelling and social analysis, I ask you: What makes populist narratives so powerful?

In the United States, we have observed—especially in recent years—that the right-wing elite is increasingly willing—to the point of the grotesque!—to resort to falsehoods, disinformation, and false claims. But the roots of right-wing populism run much deeper than Trump, deeper than his «fake news» and «election fraud» lies: They have their origins in a context where techniques such as extreme simplification or deliberate manipulation first became widely accepted and then an indispensable part of right-wing politics. The Democratic leadership in this country has always shied away from this—not because it isn’t willing to engage in tough political debates… but because it still wants to talk about real politics! (laughs) «Let’s talk about wage subsidies»—that’s one of those phrases the Democrats use all the time, even though many of them probably don’t even know exactly what that actually means. It’s kind of sweet, but also tragic. Especially when the opponent is a Republican who, time and time again, takes great pleasure in wielding the populism club.

I asked both President Obama’s former communications director and former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt—both of whom are on the left of the political spectrum—whether there could be such a thing as «good populism» to counter right-wing populism. What do you think?

I think we’ve already seen something like this in practice—and large segments of the Democratic establishment have rejected it: I’m referring to Bernie Sanders« campaigns, whose narrative some people didn’t share because they considered it too extreme; but many others simply felt a vague »aversion to plain language« toward Bernie and weren’t willing to reflect on that feeling within themselves. What I’m trying to say is this: The political left already has strong voices of »populism for the greater good,« but—as in Bernie’s case—it tends to quickly discredit them as »vulgar common folk.” Which, in turn, is tragic because the Republicans—for reasons that would spark an entirely different discussion—have almost completely succumbed to the very worst of their paranoid, quasi-pathological ideas. And it’s hard to counter that when you come across using gentle words and complex terminology.

Keyword «Public Image»: How much show business is part of the political arena?

Donald Trump is a great actor. He brings humor and charisma, seriousness, hatred, and fear to the stage—and he knows how to command nearly every room he enters. A bit like the Ukrainian president, who used to be a professional actor and comedian; except that Zelenskyy is now using his talents to sustain the resistance in his country. That’s noble. Of course, you see where I’m going with this: politics always needs a little showmanship. For example, I was quite sad when former Democratic Senator Al Franken had to resign—which should not be misinterpreted as an apologetic comment on the reasons for his resignation. I just would have liked to see him run against Trump in 2020. Because Al Franken is a smart, serious man; but he’s also gifted with a postmodern flair for performance that he acquired during his years in television.

We could talk about politics for a long time, but since you mentioned show business and Al Franken’s years on television, I’d like to draw a connection to your «years on the radio»: Until 2020, you produced and hosted a show called «Studio 360»; a weekly mix of interviews and podcast-style stories that won a Peabody Award, among other accolades. The goal of the show was, as you yourself put it, «to use art and culture as a lens through which to understand the world.» Why did you choose this particular «lens»?

I have always believed—and still do—not only that art and culture are a wonderful lens through which to view the world, but also that it is important to appreciate them «in and of themselves,» since they make life more worth living for so many people. I was tired of news coverage that merely reported: «Oh, he or she directed this new movie, and he or she plays the lead role in it, blah, blah, blah…» (laughs) I wanted to know how a new movie, a new play, or a new album fits into a broader canon—and what answers to broader social questions might be hidden within them. With «Studio 360,» we wanted to integrate the experience of artistic insight into people’s daily lives, rather than presenting it as a phenomenon that can only be experienced in the religious silence of a museum. We said, «Let’s just have conversations that aren’t full of pretentious jargon and aren’t inaccessible to people who don’t have a college degree.» And that’s exactly what we did.

Have you had a personal, transformative experience with art or culture that inspired you to pursue a career in this field?

Oh, I had so many. (laughs) Over the years, there have been works of fiction, nonfiction, music, or visual art that have repeatedly given me the feeling that they allow me to understand people who are completely different from myself. Those were the true «cultural revelations.» Perhaps on a slightly smaller scale, but still great: the time when I discovered Nirvana or Brian Eno and realized that their music was damn good. Or when, as a teenager, I watched Stanley Kubrick’s «2001: A Space Odyssey» as a teenager and felt like I could completely immerse myself in the world of cinema. By the way, there’s one great thing about getting older: when you discover new artists later in life, you’re all the more surprised—and that makes it even more fun.

The stories you told on your radio show are, as I said, brilliantly complex—yet kept simple, so to speak. There’s a one-hour episode on *Moby-Dick* in which Melville’s plot is woven together with the novel’s cultural and historical implications as effortlessly as it is sensitively. But: The Moby Dick episode is, well, long. And although podcasts have experienced a boom among a certain audience, the up-and-coming Generation Z seems to prefer consuming stories in two-second TikTok videos. Is your style of storytelling dying out?

That's a good question. And of course it's worrisome … but you know, you don't want to be «that guy.». (laughs) There are enough things in the world to worry about; so you don’t want to be that old curmudgeon who complains that life isn’t what it used to be and that kids no longer have morals, manners, or a decent attention span. Still, we have to come up with new ways to tell stories. Steven Soderbergh contacted me after reading *Evil Geniuses*, which he really liked, and we brainstormed ideas about what we could do with it. So we took a look at TikTok. Could we do something in one minute? Or in three minutes? We came to two conclusions: First, it’s very likely that someone out there can tell stories about political change, civic engagement, or the threats to democracy within that time frame. And second: Steven and I can’t do it! (laughs) Or at least not yet. We’ll see.

Working so closely with the «zeitgeist»—analyzing, interpreting, and writing about culture and society… Do you ever feel exhausted by it? Does it wear you out?

Yes, I often feel mentally exhausted, so I go for long walks in the woods or meditate. That doesn't mean I stop thinking—but it helps keep me from going crazy. (laughs) At the same time, with all the things I’ve done simultaneously over long periods of my career—with all the balls I’ve had to keep in the air—I’ve always felt very privileged to be able to do what I do. And that I’ve always had the opportunity to work within permeable walls. I’ve been taking notes for a book, and that led me to a question I tried to answer on a radio show, or about which I interviewed someone for a magazine. If I had to find a metaphor for it, I’d describe my life and my work as a garden of cross-pollination. A garden in which small, untrodden paths are constantly emerging between the plants and trees. I don’t have the time to tend to everything that grows in this garden—not anymore, I’m afraid—or to explore every path, but sometimes I bend down and pick something from one of the beds; and then I see what I can do with it.

You go into the woods to find peace—but, especially in times like these: Where do you turn to find hope?

There’s a nice saying: «All clichés are true.» So—as clichéd as it may sound—I’m turning to the younger generation. My daughters, who can be quite pessimistic at times themselves, give me hope. Because young people will certainly help us get out of the mess we’ve made—and rebuild the world. Or… you know, we recently moved into a new apartment in New York City. There’s a small Montessori school there, about 100 meters down the street. Hearing a group of children romp, play, giggle, and sing during their recess for an hour every day—that eases the horror of reading the morning paper. And, once again: I seek and find hope in works of art—they don’t even have to be incredibly sophisticated. The other day I tweeted that I never particularly liked the «Star Wars» movies and wasn’t interested in the spin-off TV series either. But then I stumbled upon the miniseries «Andor,» written and directed by Tony Gilroy, and thought: «Wow! Wow! Even the industrialized Disney culture factory can still produce something interesting and good.» I mean: That doesn’t give me any hope for the future of the world in the broader sense. But the fact that an old franchise can still be revived and even get better as a result; and that I still have the ability to be moved by it… That gives me courage. Oh, and: Patagonia! The guy who gave his company away. You’d better not count on billionaires to save us, but that really impressed me.

Donor Journey Instead of Customer Journey

If you want to raise donations, you have to be creative. That’s because nonprofit organizations (NPOs) face similar challenges to businesses trying to sell something: They need to stand out—and win over potential buyers, or in this case, donors. The donor journey—that is, the path from initial awareness to the actual donation—isn’t all that different from the classic customer journey that a customer goes through before deciding on a product. The most important touchpoint here is a well-known medium: the personalized donation letter. A September 2022 survey by Zewo (the certification body for nonprofit organizations that collect donations in Switzerland) shows that, despite ongoing digitalization, donation letters remain the most important way for nonprofits to raise funds from the general public. Seventy-seven percent of organizations consider direct mail to be (very) important, ranking it ahead of memberships, patronage programs, and donation options on their own websites. After all, direct mail actually reaches people—in the truest sense of the word.

The latest advertising impact study by intervista, «Knowing What Resonates,» underscores once again just how popular this form of advertising is among the Swiss: 32 percent enjoy looking at addressed direct mail; no other medium achieves a higher score. Mailings also score the highest in terms of advertising recall and trigger the most purchase impulses. «Physical mailings have a unique quality: They can appeal to multiple senses—including touch and smell,» explains Roberto Abate, Head of Sales for NPOs/Memberships & Major Accounts at Swiss Post. «That’s why they’re particularly effective at generating attention, evoking emotions, and prompting action. If NPOs combine this characteristic with careful target audience selection, a consistent personalized approach to recipients, clear calls to action, and choose the right timing for a mailing, they can achieve a high volume of donations.»

Stand out, especially at Christmas

The right time: For many nonprofits, that’s the upcoming Christmas season—because, as is well known, people are most willing to donate around this emotional celebration of love. Many organizations want to take advantage of this; potential donors« mailboxes are full in December. Does it even make sense to advertise then? »As an NPO, it wouldn’t be wise to leave this market to others and forego fundraising efforts like mailings. It would never occur to a major retailer to stop running ads during the Christmas season just because the competition is fiercest then,« explains Roberto Abate. As with all advertisers, the rule is: stand out—but not at any cost. »Capture the target audience’s attention in an authentic, compelling, and to-the-point way. A good image paired with a catchy slogan on the envelope overcomes the biggest hurdle: Will the envelope be opened or thrown away?” says Friederike Hofmann, managing director of the fundraising agency Grün Alpha.

NPOs face similar challenges to those of companies that want to sell something.

Standing out while remaining credible—for NPOs, advertising is often a fine line to walk. The big challenge: «Advertising investments absolutely must pay off. Otherwise, NPOs face accusations that they’re misusing funds. So the most important challenge is to choose the most efficient measures with the best cost-benefit ratio. That’s why so many NPOs rely on physical mailings that prompt action,» says Abate. But there’s another challenge organizations must address today: Target audiences are changing; younger people are getting older and evolving into new donor groups. And they aren’t so easy to convince these days. «Donors today are very well-informed. They want to know what impact their money is having and what values the organization stands for,» says Gaby Füchslin, Managing Director and Partner at Spinas Civil Voices. The agency specializes in advertising and fundraising for civil society causes and runs campaigns for clients such as Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, and the WWF—and knows what it takes for direct mail to be successful: «NPOs need to use their advertising to offer an experience; the »tear-jerker’ approach no longer works, because what we see in the media every day is bad enough. A positive approach works better—that is, showing donors: You are part of the solution.”

Social media and email are becoming more important

However, a single touchpoint is no longer enough. The donor journey spans multiple media, and other channels can effectively complement successful direct mail campaigns. «If I’ve seen an ad, a poster, or even a social media post from an organization—or, ideally, if I’ve been exposed to all three—the letter on my kitchen table has a better chance of being opened,» says Hofmann. In addition, digital media play a greater role among younger generations. They are also becoming more important for NPOs, as the Zewo study shows: According to the study, half of all aid organizations already rely on social media and email for fundraising appeals. And social media is an especially important channel when it comes to the organizations’ marketing and advertising. However, Friederike Hofmann notes that the direct fundraising results achieved through these channels tend to be rather modest.

«NPOs must pay particular attention to the efficiency of their marketing.»

m&k: Daniel Schönmann, targeted direct mail is the advertising channel that Swiss people prefer to watch. But media consumption is becoming increasingly digital—how do these two trends fit together?

Paper prices are higher than ever—are print mailings still worth it?

Yes. Response rates are significantly higher for physical mailings than for digital campaigns. That’s also why many successful companies rely on physical direct mail—usually in combination with other media. Leading the way are NPOs and retailers, because they must pay particular attention to the efficiency of their marketing. For physical mailings to be a worthwhile investment, they must meet a few requirements: The target audiences must be carefully selected, the offer must be presented at the right time and in the right place, and the rules of dialogue marketing must be followed.

What role does programmatic printing play for NPOs as well?

Automated physical mailings are both intelligent and data-driven, as well as emotional and tangible. They combine the advantages of the digital and analog worlds. This makes it even easier and more successful to analyze customer data, optimize campaigns accordingly, and deliver messages in a data-driven, cross-media manner. Today, physical mailings can be coordinated and orchestrated on the dashboard just like digital mailings. With just a few clicks, they can be automatically controlled, personalized, and directly integrated into the donor journey. Nonprofits can even implement small print runs this way.

Lilian Räber: Peter Beck, what does Edi have to do with EDI?

What have been the milestones in the award's development to date?

The concept for the first Edi. was: a full day dedicated to advertising and commissioned films. The event began at 11:00 a.m. with an exhibition, interactive stations, screenings of the shortlisted films, and a symposium on broadband Internet. The panel featured an illustrious group of specialists. Another key aspect from the very beginning was finding new venues for the awards ceremony, which consistently provided highlights. The second edition took place at the newly renovated «Lakeside» on the Zürichhorn. Then, in 2002, it was the tram depot in Oerlikon. The second major highlight, however, was Edi. 03, back at the «Schiffbau.» For the first time, it featured the setup still used today: a foyer, a large hall, and fantastic projections. After that, it was clear: this is the standard. At our 20th-anniversary celebration, we were even honored by Federal Councilor Alain Berset, who delivered a brilliant speech. That’s why, for several years now, we’ve been using the slogan «The best Edi. ever!» every year.

And what about the milestones in the strategic area?

Today, the Edi. provides a valuable platform for discussion about commissioned and advertising films in Switzerland. Every year, clients, agencies, and filmmakers view a selection of advertising and commissioned films chosen by juries—films they would otherwise rarely have the opportunity to see on such a scale. Over the years, the Edi. has thus gradually contributed to a massive increase in the quality and public perception of commissioned films in Switzerland.

What role does the Federal Council's signature play in this context?

That’s a unique selling point—anyone can organize a competition, but not everyone can award the State Prize. That’s important to the participants. Even the advertising agencies proudly say, “It’s official—the Federal Council has signed off on it.”.

Today's regulations are very sophisticated. How did they come about?

Judging is not an exact science. Whether a film fulfills its purpose is a different question from whether it moves me or whether it has artistic merit. You have to find a way to do justice to as many aspects as possible. In the end, it’s always a subjective assessment by the jury, on a specific day, at a specific time. The rules attempt to reflect this.

In this sense, the regulations serve as a kind of mirror reflecting the industry's development.

Even more than the rules, it’s the categories. These are constantly changing. It used to be simple: if you aired your film on TV, it was a TV commercial; if you screened it in theaters, it was a theatrical commercial; if you released it on DVD, it was corporate. Today, all these new formats—like prerolls, postrolls, online videos, social media, and so on—have been added to the mix. Things are becoming more fragmented.

Why do we need categories at all?

So that a perfectly made but somewhat boring training film doesn’t have to be compared to a catchy commercial. After all, you don’t compare the long jump to the hammer throw or ice skating. The goal is to create a level playing field.

Are there prizes in every category?

In a race, there’s always a winner, even if that winner happens to be weaker than the previous year’s winner. Every year, a judgment is made as to who performs best in that year’s competition, in that category. And they receive a prize. This poses a problem for those who want to apply a higher, purely fictional artistic standard. This has led to discussions time and again.

You're stepping down as editor now. What advice would you give to your successor?

There are an incredible number of competitions today. That’s why organizers must always think strategically and consider what the Edi. might become in the future. Perhaps at some point it will need to be completely overhauled. We need to think about how it could be different. But one thing is certain: we still need this showcase for high-quality commissioned and promotional films.

Edi. is the official quality award for commissioned productions of advertising, industrial, and corporate films. The competition is held under the patronage of the Federal Department of Home Affairs and is being organized by the Swissfilm Association for the 23rd time this year. Through the Edi., the Federal Department of Home Affairs and the industry association Swissfilm Association raise awareness of Swiss commissioned filmmaking by honoring outstanding Swiss productions. The award stands for high quality in filmmaking. The submitted productions are evaluated by independent juries in each category. The jury teams consist of experts from the fields of filmmaking, commissioning clients, and the advertising industry. They honor outstanding works from the current year with an Edi. and a certificate of recognition signed by the Federal Council.

Fifteen films received awards at Edi.22 (Werbewoche.ch reported).

Where can creativity make the biggest difference?

At Acne, we firmly believe that creativity is the best answer to most of the world's problems. For us, creativity means inspiring, transformative ideas that are rooted in culture and have an impact on society. Most of the really big changes in our history have been driven by such ideas. And then we use technology, business modeling, experience design, data and insights as enablers to bring those ideas to life in smart, pragmatic and effective ways.

Where does your passion for creativity come from? Why are you in this industry?

I was born and raised on a lake in the northeast of Poland. Nature with its endless diversity has always fascinated me and serves as inspiration for many ideas. I've learned that you have to give some space to boredom and living in the moment to boost your creativity. Looking back over the last two decades of my career, I have always continued to practice this ritual. I also firmly believe that creativity needs a diversity of perspectives and ways of thinking to thrive. At Deloitte, we have access to such diversity. At the same time, of course, we must constantly prove internally that our creative output and ideas generate real value. This challenge drives us and enhances the quality of our work.

And do you know the cultural peculiarities of the Swiss?

Although Acne originates from Sweden, local talent is at the forefront in all our locations. We combine the best of two worlds: the breadth and power of a global creative network and the knowledge and empathy for the specifics of the Swiss market. These peculiarities are what attracted me personally as a creative. When I think of Switzerland, I see beauty, structure, design, nature and, on the other hand, openness to innovation and advanced technological possibilities. I believe it is a country that preserves its own tradition and culture and at the same time is extremely diverse - both are extremely important for creativity. And of course, Switzerland is a country with an incredible concentration of some of the most exciting brands in the world to work for as a creative.

Is it different as a creative to be part of a big company?

Above all, it's enriching. Being part of a global professional services organization has the advantage that we work with people with incredibly large and diverse expertise - from technology nerds to finance experts to management consultants. At the same time, Acne has the freedom within Deloitte to operate flexibly and independently almost like a start-up within a strong global network.

How do you plan to expand the Zurich office?

We are in growth mode with a strong creative team that we want to expand further. We are also massively expanding our network of partners and alliances. We are also leveraging the power of the Acne family and working very closely with other offices, for example Stockholm or London for branding and advertising, Milan where we have strong expertise in the luxury industry, or Hamburg for pioneering technologies like NFTs and the Metaverse. We can also build on a strong Content Factory, which I originally helped to develop in Poland - over 200 people providing content creation, adaptation, management and performance.

What does the future hold?

I'm cautious about making specific predictions - but my basic attitude in life is always optimistic. If you ask me about Acne's ambitions for the next few years- it's to continue to solve complex business, social and environmental challenges with creativity.

Collaboration with independent sales partners—hereinafter referred to as franchisees, licensees, agents, or exclusive distributors—often resembles a personal relationship. It requires ongoing investment and constructive communication. What matters here is not only what expectations (qualitative, financial, and operational) the franchisor has of its partners, but also how the sales partners’ expectations are met so that they are able and willing to contribute to the system’s success.

Communication is not a one-way street

In public debate, it is often suggested that the system providers dictate to their «subordinate» sales partners, down to the last detail, how they are to run their businesses. Communication is said to be top-down. Ideally, distribution partners should simply follow the proven business model without setting their own expectations or coming up with their own ideas. Approaching the development of a distribution system with independent partners with this mindset is certainly not effective. After all, it must not be forgotten that sales partners are also independent entrepreneurs and have already made an important business decision by joining a sales system. They are investing in a system they believe in and through which they hope to achieve success. You must communicate with them as equals and not just talk at them; otherwise, the communication degenerates into mere chatter.

Communication Reveals Expectations

Expectations at the start of a partnership are generally high on both sides and are often met. The franchisor invests in its sales partners by transferring know-how and provides them with a ready-made business model. The franchisee makes financial investments (entry fees, infrastructure, employees, etc.) and enables the franchisor to earn a return on its investment. So, after the «honeymoon» period, both sides are happy for the time being. The question is, for how long? The longer a partnership lasts, the more knowledge and experience the partner acquires on their own. They may begin to feel that they no longer need the franchisor at all. If the franchisor does not communicate continuously with its franchisees and demonstrate the benefits they derive from the system, the franchisee may begin to actively consider leaving the system. And this is precisely the moment franchisors must not miss. It’s important to remember that sales partners are customers too and should be treated and nurtured as such.

It is therefore essential to understand the language of the distributors and to invest in communication with them. This is because sales representatives often feel left on their own because they no longer hear from the system provider (except for the invoice they receive periodically). This can lead them to forget that they are actually part of a system that is greater than the sum of its parts.

When a crisis strikes

However, communication also becomes important when a relationship hits a rough patch. While legal issues can quickly «poison» cooperation within a sales system, depending on the situation, it may be essential to address legal aspects directly or to view the communication through a legal lens. In any case, as soon as communication takes place in the context of a dispute, the system provider should seek legal advice. This is because communication that has not been reviewed by legal counsel can quickly be interpreted against the system provider in the event of a dispute.

Swiss Distribution is convinced that if system providers take these points into account, their system will be more successful and the reputation of such distribution systems with independent partners will improve. For this reason, the members of Swiss Distribution commit to adhering to the association’s own Code of Conduct. For example, they commit to providing their system partners (such as franchisees) with appropriate, ongoing commercial and/or technical support throughout the entire duration of the partnership. This is because the quality of how a company presents itself and the services it provides to customers and sales partners are key priorities that Swiss Distribution champions. The association is the quality organization in the field of integrated distribution systems.

1. Proactive and planned communication («duty to provide information»);
2. Regular and scheduled meetings with sales partners (e.g., franchisee advisory board, agent conference);
3. Annual (satisfaction) survey of sales partners;
4. On-site visits and meetings with sales partners;
5. Monitor changes in the distribution partner and, if necessary, interpret them as warning signs;
6. Take critical feedback about the system from our partners seriously;
7. Treat salespeople like customers—listen to them!

Melanie Käser is the managing director of Swiss Distribution. Professionally, she works as an attorney and advises companies on conceptual and legal challenges related to their distribution systems.