Social Selling – Cold Calling on the Internet

At its core, social selling is a sales method. The term itself suggests that it’s all about one thing: selling, selling, selling. In many ways, it’s the social media version of cold calling. And in the worst-case scenario, it even uses similar methods—just less creatively. This worst-case scenario plays out daily on platforms like LinkedIn and others. Often, the people reaching out get straight to the point. In their very first message, they ask if you want to buy a product or if you have time for a conversation to find out if there are any «common ground.».

One of the reasons social selling has become a phenomenon at all is that it’s harder to capture people’s attention and earn their trust online. Social selling is therefore intended to establish a trusting relationship between the seller and the buyer and to promote the sale. The problem is this: Social selling has nothing to do with trust, and the relationship ends once the sale is made.

Quality content and ambassadors

In contrast, effective product marketing has much more to do with successful communication than with simply promoting and selling products or services. The difference may seem marginal at first glance, but it is crucial. While social selling also uses social media channels to engage with customers, the key question is how.

While social selling involves distributing «content» to a relevant target audience, effective product marketing focuses on building a community and creating relevant and engaging content. This requires genuine communication aimed at building trust with the audience. Successful product marketing is based on visibility, storytelling with high-quality content, and ambassadors who communicate that content.

Storytelling to Build Trusting Relationships

Of course, professional platforms and your own network also serve useful purposes, such as finding potential customers. For this to work sustainably and over the long term, the focus should be on building a community, transparent communication, and, last but not least, trust. Only in a third or fourth step should the goal be to sell something. I personally follow this motto: I only buy when I trust.

m&k: Before you go to the New York Times you were working for the renowned Wall Street Journal active. For example, you headed the WSJ bureau in Beijing from 2005 to 2009. What was life like as a Western journalist in China?

Rebecca Blumenstein: Going to China was definitely one of the best decisions I've ever made. It was a big risk because in 2005 I didn't speak Mandarin, I had never been there and I had three young children. But I went at a time when the story of China's rise was becoming one of the biggest stories you could write about; when the world was realizing how the country was determined to transform everything. But unfortunately our time in China is unlikely to be repeated - so many Western journalists have now been expelled from the country ...

You experienced a policy of openness before the 2008 Olympic Games - and then the beginning of a "crackdown" ...

Before the 2008 Olympic Games, China wanted to prove to the world that it was capable of staging such a major event. In the run-up to the Games, in addition to a major agreement with the World Trade Organization, it also wanted to demonstrate a certain degree of media openness. Although the domestic press was persecuted and monitored and the foreign press had been monitored in China in the past, many of these restrictions were lifted. For example, we were relatively free in our reporting. And we wrote what we wanted to write about, even if the Chinese government was sometimes outraged. That's almost all a thing of the past now. To be honest, it's enormously sad when you consider how little access most of the Western press has to China. I very much hope that the US and Chinese governments can revive their relations, because it is essential for both countries to understand each other.

Do you think that the strategic goals of the Chinese are still underestimated - for example, because trade and the economy work quite well as it is?

Well, the Chinese are organized, determined, long-term planners and unwavering in their efforts to establish their country's global dominance. And recently they have become more and more aggressive in doing so. This is why we are currently experiencing an estrangement between the USA and China. The big question is whether this will continue. You know, what you have to bear in mind - and what sets China apart from almost every other country in the world - is the size of its population. And the fact that the Chinese market is something that no company can ignore. The Chinese influence on the global climate, the automotive industry, healthcare is huge ... and the list goes on and on.

"We certainly didn't choose the feud with Trump."

At the same time, many countries are dependent on Chinese suppliers to keep their own companies running.

I have long been of the opinion that we make it too easy for ourselves when we blame China for everything. Saying that the country is responsible for the pollution and all these dirty factories ... I very often hear the question: "Why can't they just be more like us?". And I think we need to stop and reflect on the fact that the Chinese make our phones and our clothes and so much of what we use in our everyday lives. I think that sometimes we belittle them by almost blaming them solely for the resulting pollution. As I said, I am convinced that the rise of China is the biggest story of our lifetime - and in the US, as in Europe, we must prepare to share the power and wealth we have long enjoyed. Every product, every sector of the economy will be completely transformed by China, which will lead the way in many ways.

"I went to China at a time when the story of the country's rise was becoming one of the biggest stories ..."

After you left China and returned to the USA, you held various high-ranking positions at the Wall Street Journal before she was appointed New York Times moved to. In February 2021, you were asked to take on an exclusively created position there - Deputy Editor in the Publisher's Office. Could you tell us what this position entails?

The publisher of the TimesA. G. Sulzberger, asked me if I would be open to such a task. He has to manage a company with around 5,000 employees and needs help to steer it. We meet at the Times The same questions as many other companies - such as: "What can we do to improve our internal culture?" or "How can we ensure that the Times is the place where everyone feels encouraged to do the best work of their career?"

What else do you do?

In addition to working on the answers to these questions, I support our publisher in expanding our internal and external public relations work: On the 15th floor of the Times-On the wall of the Publisher's Lunch building are pictures of heads of state from around the world who have attended Publisher's Lunches in recent years. After the pandemic, we very much hope to hold this event again and invite political and business leaders to talk to our reporters and editors. This exchange is very valuable and helps to ensure that we hear the most important opinions; that we keep an open mind.

Speaking of political leaders - in your first week at the TimesIn 2017, Donald Trump began referring to you and your colleagues as "enemies of the people". Can you remember how you felt at the time?

I can assure you that this is definitely a feud that the Times has never pushed. What began in 2017 was a time that reminded many people of the importance of the free press. It's something we had long taken for granted in America, and suddenly ...

Suddenly it must have felt like there was an attempt to restrict this freedom.

Yes, there were constant campaigns to discredit basic facts and the truth. That, by the way, is a pretty ugly legacy from that period that we have to continue to live with. There was a deliberate attempt to damage our credibility, to portray the Times and other media as "enemies of the people". This served and continues to serve to incite and incite. As our publisher A. G. Sulzberger repeatedly emphasizes, this is extremely dangerous. Work and life have become more dangerous for Times reporters, for reporters all over America, all over the world. For so long, the US was a beacon and a champion of freedom; it was the country that spurred other countries to live up to the ideals of a free press and the foundations of democracy. That the US has now become the instigator for the abandonment of those very principles has given many heads of state around the world a political blank check to crack down on journalism as well. So the Trump presidency has set a dynamic in motion that is ... very unfortunate, to say the least.

But did that also help you to revisit the values of the Times?

Well, we've just remained steadfast in what we've always done; which is to report on the world without fear or favor to anyone. In fact, if you like, we've redoubled our efforts; whether it's on politics or the Corona Tracker, for which we've just won a Public Service Award. Because we are the only company in the world that records every single Covid case.

Did you have the feeling that your readers backed you when you came under political pressure?

We have definitely felt the support of our readers through our subscriptions. The number of subscribers has risen steadily in recent years - since we introduced the paywall, the number of subscribers has grown to more than eight million. But, as I said, we are convinced that readers are not "just" interested in politics. In fact, our reporting on the coronavirus, our data, the vaccine tracker, our cooking app, our puzzles ... have fueled the increase in subscriptions. And we really, really appreciate the support of our readership. We need it. I think one of the things that makes me so optimistic about journalism itself right now is that the collapse of the notion of truth within social media has led many people to conclude that they get what they pay for. And that quality content is not free.

When a newspaper like the New York Times is attacked from one side of the political spectrum in particular, how difficult is it to maintain neutrality and "fight back" at the same time?

We certainly don't want to be the newspaper of one particular side. And I think that on many days we annoy the political left as much or more than the political right. Some of the harshest criticism we face comes from the political left and sometimes, frankly, that's when we especially know we've scored a hit (laughs). We need to understand, describe and, if necessary, criticize both sides.

There have been some intense discussions in Switzerland recently about the situation of women working in the media. As someone who has had an impressive career in the media, how would you assess this situation?I think it is constantly improving. But I know that there is still a lot to do. For example, it can be difficult for women to speak up in meetings. Some people think that Zoom meetings and remote working have made it easier ... I think it's even harder now! I always encourage women to speak up early in meetings, but many of them really struggle with this. I also think that many women, especially those who have children, give up on themselves to some extent and think that they can no longer make it at work. I was lucky enough to always be shown new opportunities in those moments of doubt. And I'm still working on returning the favor and encouraging women who find themselves in a similar situation. Sometimes it really depresses me when we have a vacancy for a foreign correspondent and not a single woman applies!

Do you think that the pandemic - and the fact that many companies are now working remotely - is opening up new opportunities for working mothers?

Yes, perhaps we are seeing some changes that will give women the flexibility they have been asking for. Two days in the office, three days working from home ... that's something that could really help women, because it makes it much easier to balance family and career. And the companies benefit from this very, very much: I used to work for an editor-in-chief who always said: "Mothers are deadline-focused people, they do what they're told!" (laughs)

"What can we do to improve our internal culture?"

Looking into the not-too-distant future, do you think populism has reached its peak - or is it just taking off?

Now, I'm not a political journalist. But I'm from a town in Michigan called Bay City. I wrote a story about the city in the run-up to the election: it's a place that was a Democratic stronghold but went to Donald Trump in 2016 and again in 2020, although Michigan was won - albeit narrowly - by the Democrats. So I guess the answer to your question is: we don't know what's going to happen, but we always have to be on the ground and do our best to understand what's happening. It is enormously unfortunate, for example, that the issue of vaccination has become partisan politics in the United States while the rest of the world is scrambling to get vaccine doses at all. I fear that partisanship will not go away.

What can journalists do to help with understanding?What we need to do as journalists is to try to get people out of their "information bubbles". Precisely because social media is in many ways incapable of correcting misinformation. We need to be able to provide people with facts - we need to be able to agree on at least that, a common factual basis. But at the same time, I firmly believe that it makes no sense to demonize people for their beliefs - even if you don't agree with them. For a newspaper like ours, there is generally nothing better than being on the ground and trying to see the world from a different perspective. Going back to your previous question: The midterm elections in the US will be interesting; no one knows how they will turn out, but there is a lot at stake. It's going to be an incredible story to cover.

«Why should I go to an office building five days a week, to my assigned desk, when creative collaboration works just as well from Mallorca?»

And that is precisely why the solution mentioned above is not so obvious after all. And it’s also the reason why Swiss agencies will continue to be able to operate globally in the future: if the need for coordination and explanation exceeds an agency’s actual workload, even hourly rates of 35 euros won’t be of much use at some point. A shared understanding of a company’s context—especially when it defines itself in part through its “Swissness”—is arguably one of the biggest drivers of efficiency.

Nevertheless, until Swiss agencies can become financially competitive with their international rivals for these reasons, there is a long, rocky road ahead. Very few companies are likely to take on that challenge. Instead, they tend to cut ties with agencies and shift their business to another, low-cost market.

Corona has to save the day once again

Let’s summarize: Swiss agencies are globally competitive because they benefit from high levels of effectiveness and efficiency thanks to long-standing relationships and an understanding of “Swissness.” For companies to come to this realization, it may take many years of navigating international paths that are fraught with barriers to understanding. Until, eventually, companies return to the safe harbor of Switzerland.

«How many employees dreamed, even before the pandemic, of never having to return from their vacation island after summer break?»

A realistic scenario? Rarely. But—as is to be expected—the COVID-19 crisis has turned things upside down here as well. To the advantage of Swiss agencies. We’ve consistently moved away from fixed locations and shifted our creative work to the digital space. And as we all know, there are no boundaries there. Work and leisure, remote work and staycations have blended into a vast pool of possibilities for where and how (and sometimes even when) we work. We’ve become digital nomads, setting up our home-office camps in the mountains, on beaches, and on vacation islands. What felt like a temporary break from familiar patterns over the past 1.5 years has become our daily reality. Why should I go to an office building five days a week, to my fixed workstation, when creative collaboration works just as well from Mallorca? And do I even need to go back, or should I just move my life to the vacation island for good?

The institutional answer to this specific question is: It depends. And this is precisely where the range of possibilities opens up—a range that will play a decisive role in shaping the competitiveness of Swiss agencies in the future.

From Nearshoring to Off-Screening

Can we harness the momentum of the crisis and build service models that can hold their own on the global stage? We believe so. Our proposal: Rethink nearshoring—that is, the relocation of work to nearby, lower-cost countries. From nearshoring to off-screening. This means combining offshoring—which, in theory, can take place anywhere in the world—with remote work on screen, thereby breaking down all boundaries.

Translated into a concrete proposition for the labor market, this means either establishing a global (or at least Europe-wide) recruitment process for individuals with expertise in the Swiss market. Remote work is the norm, and employment conditions are attractive both in terms of where employees live and in terms of the location of the Swiss employer. Or employers can work with their employees to find solutions for how remote work can be consistently planned and implemented. How many employees dreamed even before the pandemic of never having to return from their vacation island after summer break? Why should such ideas continue to be dismissed as mere daydreams when the last 1.5 years have proven exactly the opposite?

Of course, this is all a process. We won’t switch to «full-time off-screening» overnight. Nor will we be completely ready the day after tomorrow to ensure that such structures always run effectively and efficiently. But we’re learning as we go with every employee who tries out these possibilities. That goes for Jung von Matt, too.

The examples provided by Matthias Wobrock and Christian Koop in the interview show that, with courage, confidence, and the experience we’ve gained over the past few months, new avenues are opening up for us in terms of how we organize our work in the future. And this also means that Swiss agencies will become even more attractive for global leadership roles in the future.

Working and living in different places? No problem

People who speak «good German,» as they say, are held in high regard. Anyone who doesn’t speak English in international business comes across as «stupid.» In a personal relationship, «speechlessness» leads to a crisis, and in international politics, to conflicts. Language is the quintessential psychosocial organ of human beings. Nevertheless, we normally don’t think about this organ at all, just as we don’t usually think about our liver or our muscles. Only when things go wrong or when we want to make a change does that change. Suddenly, our organs—including our linguistic and non-linguistic abilities—become a topic of discussion: Do we even speak enough with one another, and in the right way? Do I always find the right words? Is my personal speaking style appropriate? Do I speak enough languages? Suddenly, we realize how important this «organ» is. But how does it work, and what does the term «social organ» actually mean?

The result of hard work

As we grow older, we usually forget or push aside the fact that our language skills are the result of years of hard work during the first two decades of our lives. For years, we learn our native language; for years, we learn one or even several foreign languages; and to top it all off, we spend years painstakingly learning their visual representations—that is, their writing systems—and how to put well-crafted sentences on paper; some people need decades to produce truly good texts in their native language. Throughout this process, the educational system rewards or punishes us through gains in social status or social decline, and we experience early dramas of success or failure within our circle of friends or within our families.

«Do we even talk to each other enough—and in the right way? Do I always find the right words?»

Later on, the stress of raising children is often forgotten. But there is one thing we should always keep in mind: Language is the cultural skill and social competence par excellence, and the time spent acquiring it is, for everyone, the crucial period of cultural fine-tuning—that is, of attuning oneself to societal language and social calibration. Our native language encompasses not only linguistic knowledge but also an understanding of the world within our cultural sphere. No one invents a language for themselves; real languages are conventional. We must always accept them as given and conform to them if we want to be «correct» in our expression. Our native language becomes second nature to us, as the saying goes, and we experience it as a kind of bodily organ.

Correct, incorrect, delusional views

What is an «organ»? The term comes from the Greek word *organon*, which can mean both a tool and an instrument or a bodily organ. In this sense, our native language is a mental organ of our self and its identity, but at the same time also a tool for communication. The aforementioned “tuning” premise—that is, the social attunement resulting from decades of language acquisition, with its dramas and successes, as well as from daily language use—leads people to a wide variety of conclusions regarding language: some correct, some incorrect, and some delusional.

«When languages are no longer viewed as tools, the ways of looking at them become difficult or even problematic.»

The «language-as-tool» hypothesis, which we all believe in, is correct and highly plausible, for with the help of language we can indeed communicate most effectively—and even more than that: achieve calculated effects of our actions, for example by having other people react to our speech time and again in the way we desire—in the sense of a concept of “informal linguistic compulsion.” Language, as Niklas Luhmann would have said, lies at the interface of human cognitive systems and can trigger connecting operations between people. We experience this every day through the exchange of texts (the concrete manifestations of applied language), and that is why we can realistically have a fundamental trust in language as an “organ” that mediates both personal and shared interests.

«As we grow older, we usually forget or push aside the fact that our language skills are the result of hard work.»

One of the major misconceptions about the functions of language, however, is the simple stimulus-response hypothesis. It assumes a command-like stimulus-response mechanism: one person says something, and the other reacts accordingly. If communication actually worked that way, we wouldn’t need rhetoric, the art of phrasing and argumentation, or the effort of crafting sophisticated texts. Such effort would then be completely unnecessary.

The imperative mood rarely works

In reality, however, communication based on what one might call «imperative speech» rarely works, and only under one very specific condition: All participants must be familiar with the respective ritual order and the agreed-upon “chain of command”; in which case a single command is indeed sufficient to trigger a response: for example, a teacher calling for order in a classroom, a brief announcement from a boss, a dirty talk during sex, or a march command in the military, to name just a few examples. Otherwise, however, linguistic influence in people’s everyday lives requires the elaborate art of phrasing mentioned above—which we cannot simply dismiss as trivial soft skills. They shape our lives; too much depends on them, and we must train and refine these skills throughout our lives because circumstances change every day and require new approaches to linguistic situations. So there are two aspects: the linguistic stimulus-response mechanism in ritualized, standard situations, and the sophisticated rhetoric of speech under changing, complex conditions.

A source of controversy?

Language use becomes socially controversial when individuals within the speech community feel attacked. These are situations or contexts that can escalate into criminal communication. I am referring to the stimulus-response mechanism involved in verbal abuse, insults, and stigmatization. Every language, as a system, has corresponding «registers»—as they are called in linguistics—specifically for such questionable purposes (which, however, do exist). Recently, for example, there has been an intensifying debate about words from the racist linguistic register. Internationally, the word «Neger»—which has had racist connotations from the very beginning—has become the focal point of the discussion. So far, this debate has unfolded on two levels: first, an ethically justified call to avoid vocabulary from this register (including the question of alternative terms: “person of color,” “Black person,” and so on…).

«The term »organ' (...) can refer to a tool, an instrument, or a bodily organ."

Second, launching campaigns to impose taboos that impose strict requirements of unutterability and, in the case mentioned, seek to allow only the euphemism «N*-word» (which would eventually have to be redacted as well, because everyone knows what it’s really meant to express). Structurally speaking, the taboo is a psychosocial, quasi-religious regulator of linguistic order—as examined by Sigmund Freud (think of religions in which, for example, one is not allowed to utter the name of God or the devil)—that insists on absolute and repressively enforced compliance. As we are currently seeing, this is even becoming a part of discourse in democratic societies, where people negotiate what can or cannot be said without reproach, and what should or should not be avoided linguistically («Indian» banned, «Indigenous» permitted …).

Language Policy and Emancipation

While discussions about the use of racist language focus on protecting the dignity and integrity of certain fellow citizens, other language policy campaigns serve democratic and emancipatory goals. For example, many activists believe that regulating language can advance gender equality. This concern is legitimate and entirely understandable. And from a rhetorical perspective, discussions about gender asterisks can undoubtedly stimulate awareness-raising processes in one direction or another. Here, too, it remains to be seen what will ultimately prevail. That is how it is with democratic debates on language regulation. When it comes to linguistic-theoretical justifications, however, caution is warranted. Due to a lack of understanding of the linguistic function of grammatical forms, a great deal of linguistic mysticism is being spread. The French «Mond» is not feminine, and the German «Mond» is not masculine in the sense of gender, even if such naive conclusions might seem possible. Projecting formal linguistic system facts onto real gender relations is pure misdirection. To avoid misunderstandings: I am speaking of languages as sign systems that their users never created, and not of the texts that some people cobble together using the language system.

Authoritarian Systems: Just Do It

Historically speaking, authoritarian regimes have usually taken the easy way out when it comes to language policy, often imposing rules without regard for principles of language use—and just as often without success. Against this backdrop, it is curious to note the identitarian legislative initiative that passed through France’s political bodies in 2013, which stigmatized English as a language and provided for imposing heavy fines on French newspapers if they used Anglicisms on their front pages. It was unmistakably the work of French language purists.

«Efforts to purify language elevate linguistic issues to the level of political discourse.»

In all these cases, we are dealing with efforts at “language purification” that have existed for centuries in countries such as France and Germany and that elevate language to the status of a topic of political discourse, mostly with dubious justifications that regularly boil down to mystical notions of substance and no longer allow one to think of language as a tool. However, when languages (and there are, after all, only individual languages, not “language” in and of itself) are no longer viewed as tools, the perspectives often become difficult or even problematic.

The organ as a «sacred cow»?

Then, language often becomes part of language policy, speculation and activism surrounding identity, and linguistic mysticism. Native languages are sometimes elevated to ideologically and speculatively charged concepts of being, with the underlying premises being purely a matter of faith. And our linguistic faculty is then viewed, in a highly exaggerated manner, as inviolable and as a kind of «sacred cow.» And here, too, I do not wish to leave any room for misunderstanding: Mother tongues do indeed form part of the identity of large social groups that we classify as regions, nations, or countries. The question is simply how far one should take this mysticism in the modern world when it comes to preserving them.

«Aren't language change, adaptations, and innovations absolutely necessary to keep language—this »tool'—functioning properly?"

Does it really make sense to demonize English (see the example of France mentioned above)? Aren’t language change, adaptations, borrowed words (which have always existed), and innovations absolutely necessary to keep language—as a «tool»—functional in ever-changing circumstances? These issues must be discussed regularly and repeatedly, because there can be no definitive answers here. Why? Because our languages are, on the one hand, something constant and deeply rooted in our lives, but at the same time, they are also something functional and subject to constant pressure to adapt. We must continue to talk about this and exchange views with a sense of proportion.

I can’t help but feel like I should be ashamed of working in advertising. Except, of course, when I’m sitting at the ADC Gala or similar «incestuous» events, where I’m «among my own kind.» Outside this bubble, the verbal and nonverbal reactions to my profession range from pitying head-shaking to perfectly feigned versions of «that’s interesting» and Mom’s «if it makes you happy.» In any case, I can hardly explain to my own family what I do all day long—and certainly not what I love so much about it.

Okay, okay: When it comes to TV commercials in which shampoos float among golden molecules—promising even shinier and silkier hair thanks to increasingly sophisticated chemical formulations— it’s not just Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jennifer Doudna who pales with envy—even the most die-hard advertiser cringes with secondhand embarrassment.

Advertising is almost like flirting

Advertising—you really have to let that word roll off your tongue. It’s so beautiful. Advertising something, courting someone. Almost like flirting; but would anyone ever think to be ashamed of flirting? We flirt like wingmen or wingwomen. On behalf of our clients, we promote products, attitudes, beliefs, and sometimes even people themselves. We promote getting involved in something, eating healthier, exercising more, and—in Cannes—constantly promoting saving the world. And yes, sometimes we also simply promote burgers, polyester pajamas, or a new car. Why not? First and foremost, however, we’re vying for people’s attention. This has to do with respect for the so-called “conscious consumer”; after all, believing that everyone is interested in what brands or their agencies want to sell them would be almost a bit arrogant.

We're not as bad as our reputation suggests

We can do things differently. We can develop genuine innovations for clients—services, apps, products, and much more. All of that is advertising, too. Or, as Lee Clow put it: «Everything a brand does is advertising.» Are we perhaps partly to blame for the sometimes lousy image of advertising and ad agencies? Yes, definitely—but not just because of floating bottles of shampoo, but also because we sometimes take ourselves far too seriously and, at the same time, not seriously enough. We hide our talents under a bushel. Yet we touch people’s lives, make them laugh, get them thinking, and even convince them to buy the next load of laundry detergent that’s been washing clothes whiter every year for 45 years. Brilliant.

Either way, the free-floating Silk Shine Shampoo, with its hyper-innovative formula for advertising—just the way I love it—has the opposite effect: It ensures that the industry shines less brightly than it could. I want to counteract that here with this little column and do a bit of advertising for the industry that’s supposedly been dead for 15 years.

m&k: Stefanie Heinzmann, you've been in show business for thirteen years. Is it a dog-eat-dog world or a haven of comfort?

Stefanie Heinzmann: Back when I was eighteen and won Stefan Raab’s talent show, I was completely overwhelmed. I was unstable, very emotional, and very sensitive—I didn’t trust the industry. But that just reflected the fact that I didn’t trust myself.

And today, after more than a decade on international stages and in TV productions?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what it means to be a public figure. How do I deal with it as a person? How do I deal with it as an artist? And by now, it doesn't feel like a dog-eat-dog world at all. I feel comfortable in my own skin. I'm not afraid anymore.

What's the deal with the fire? «Stefanie Heinzmann». Have you ever wanted a stage name—like Gentleman, DJ Bobo, or Rihanna—that would protect Stefanie's private life?

Setting boundaries is a big deal in my world. Now I can say, no, I’m glad my name is what it is. Because I’m not a good actress. I never have been. I can only work as a brand if I’m truly myself. I can’t do anything else. I don’t want to constantly have to think about how to cultivate my image, what’s part of the brand and what isn’t.

I'm sure you get a lot of requests to promote products. How do you choose which ones to promote?

In this age of social media, there are an incredible number of requests from random brands. Beauty products, clothes - They send a package and want you to post about it. So far, I've flatly refused.

Why?

I don’t want to sell anything to my fans who follow me on social media just because I’m getting paid for it. But I do get asked to enter into long-term partnerships. If it’s a brand I can truly stand behind, I discuss it with my team. Does it make sense? Does it fit with the Stefanie Heinzmann brand? Is this a product I’d want to lend my name to?

Have there been any wrong calls yet?

Sure, everyone makes mistakes. But I'm 32 now, and there are fans who look up to me—and I don't want to take advantage of that. It's important to me that I don't feed these young women and girls any bullshit.

Have you ever felt it was a burden to let your fans get so close to you?

Yes, I've experienced that feeling. At the beginning of my career, I was incredibly insecure and didn’t have much self-love to spare. At times, I almost felt like I was being made fun of, because I thought, “You can’t be serious—how can you possibly think I’m any good?” After all, I know the truth about myself: I’m not good. I was completely overwhelmed.

How did you get through that?

I've realized that my fans are just like me. And that we've actually been walking hand in hand through the years. And we support each other. I’ve made them feel like I’m there for them, and in return, they’ve shown me that I’m great. That’s a really beautiful development. And I think that now, at 32, I’m fully aware of what I can bring out in some people, what some people see in me, and what some people might even project onto me.

I get the feeling that you have found yourself, both outwardly and inwardly; you radiate a wonderful sense of calm.

(Laughs loudly) Thank you so much for your kind words. Yes, I’ve found a way to share my thoughts with the world—through my voice. I have something to say, and people are listening. That’s wonderful. And yes, the journey has been very exciting—from an 18-year-old girl lacking self-confidence to becoming an artist in my own right. A journey with many ups and downs, all of which were necessary. Full of emotions and plenty of drama. (laughs). And that’s exactly what I then channeled into songs like «Digging in the Dirt» or «In the End.» The lyrics were a very important outlet for me. And now I’ve found a sense of inner peace—a very comforting one—and I’m happy about everything that is. There’s room for everything. Every emotion. Especially in music.

«I make my living from live performances; I don't make any money from CD sales or streams.»

How do you write your songs?

I collect everything that’s on my mind. Then I go into the studio with a team—there are usually three of us: a producer, a topliner, and me. We talk, and I tell them what’s on my mind. The topliner takes notes on his laptop. And the producer might already have a bass in his hands and be grooving along. And I’ll say something like, “Hey, it’s gotta be up-tempo somehow—it’s gotta have a bassline.” And then a line comes, or a beat, or a guitar riff. We jam, and suddenly we have a song. It’s crazy. It’s magical.

Isn't it wonderful when you can touch other people's lives?

I have to be honest—when I get messages saying that I’ve comforted them, hugged them, or taken them by the hand through this song, that’s the greatest gift. I couldn’t be happier.

How did you experience the pandemic? When live performances were suddenly no longer possible?

I make my living from live performances. I don't make any money from CD sales or streaming. Still, I'm incredibly privileged, because even if I have nothing to do for a year, I won't go broke. I went into the studio so I'd be ready when things pick up again.

And your crew, including the band?

I couldn't really help, and that drove me crazy. I have over 30 people in my band and crew chat. It doesn't do them any good if I give an interview; it doesn't help them if I write the album. I mean, sure, of course it does, because we’re going on tour next year with the new songs. But at that moment, I couldn’t share the bread I’d earned.

They couldn't put her on short-time work either, could they?

That’s right, they don’t work for me. It’s hard to see that culture is suddenly considered non-essential and that people are supposed to do nothing but eat, sleep, and work. And at the same time, the rate of depression is skyrocketing. We’re not just entertainers. Music, theater, culture, art—that’s what it means to be human. That’s the soul. But the beautiful thing is, you simply can’t digitize emotions. You can put on a streaming concert, but it’s not the same as being together. And that’s what music does. You feel connected, and that’s what people need. We’re not meant to wander around this planet alone.

The resulting album is called «Labyrinth»—why?

«Labyrinth» is a song from the album and symbolizes life. We end up in dead ends, have to turn back, and constantly have to make decisions: do we go right or left? Decisions mean pressure. How do I behave in the labyrinth? Do I let myself be constantly pressured? Am I constantly afraid of what’s lurking around the next corner? Or do I choose to tell myself that this is a unique, one-of-a-kind adventure for me? It’s my labyrinth. There’s no other like it. Right or left? Who knows—we’ll see; I’ll let my gut decide. If I end up at a dead end, I can say, “I have to go back,” or I can say, “I’ll just wait here for now.”.

How do you see the next 13 years in this labyrinth of life?

I feel very comfortable in my own skin. But I know the next challenge is already waiting for me. And to be honest, I'm looking forward to it.

Most people are afraid of it.

I’ve reached a point where I feel, “Yes, life, show me everything.” On the day I die, I want to have experienced everything. I want to have felt everything, because then I will have truly seen life. I won’t go through the same dramas I did eight or thirteen years ago, because I’ve gained the tools and the perspective to pull myself out of tough situations.

How?

I’ve taken responsibility for my thoughts. I always have a choice in how I react to things. I’m really looking forward to the future myself. Sure, I can say that I’d like to become a mother, and I’d like to be successful. Of course, I want to fill concert halls and venues. But I don’t want to make my happiness dependent on that. That would be unfair to my own life—to my soul and to who I am. I simply exist, and I have a right to do so—no matter what I do or don’t do. We live in a meritocracy, and I don’t want to play by those rules. I believe I’m allowed to just be.

«I feel comfortable in my own skin. But I know the next challenge is already waiting for me. And I'm looking forward to it.»

You're in a relationship, but you keep it out of the public eye—why?

I hadn't had a real personal life in a long time. I didn't have any hobbies—nothing at all. Then, four or five years ago, I had a breakdown. I wanted to throw it all away. I’d once dreamed of having a family, and now I didn’t even have a life of my own anymore. And then I got into this relationship, and of course that changed a lot of things. My personal life feels like a truly precious diamond. I feel a sense of responsibility because it’s so incredibly important to me. My boyfriend simply doesn’t want to be in the public eye, and I respect that. He doesn’t want to be tied to my job. He wants to be with me as a person. That’s the greatest compliment anyone has ever given me.

As a woman, you navigate the music industry. How do you feel about issues related to equality and diversity?

I need to distinguish between these perspectives here. When I think about my band, I can say that there are probably fewer women playing bass, drums, or guitar.

«I'm at a point where I feel, »Yes, life, show me everything.' On the day I die, I want to have experienced it all."

Because there are fewer role models.

That's exactly the point. It's a fact that clearly takes time.

And what about the other perspective?

This is about the entertainment industry as a whole. When I’m serving on juries or working as a coach, or appearing on panel discussions or talk shows, I’m often the only woman there. Arguments that there aren’t that many female artists are nonsense. I’m surrounded by amazing women who stick together, support one another, and are there for each other.

What needs to be done?

We have to be loud—which is really tough at first. And everyone’s annoyed by the feminists. But this is what we have to do right now. We have to keep speaking out until we no longer have to talk about it. Until I no longer have to say: “Hello, I’m Stefanie Heinzmann, I’m white, I’m straight.”.