Brands in the pillory

Column We are increasingly looking
brands, because they are increasingly becoming political actors.
The business of business is business."
But in the neoliberal America of George W. Bush, of all places, the
Contemporary brand icons in the dock: Google, Yahoo,
Microsoft and Cisco are accused of conducting business.
Business in China - as instruments of the Beijing dictatorship.

Let's ignore for a moment the duplicity and hypocrisy in
of the debate, two interesting questions remain. Firstly, why
global brands should take responsibility for the political consequences
of their actions? And secondly, why are we increasingly looking
on brands when it comes to solving political tasks?

The basic answer to both questions is: Because we recognize,
that brands are increasingly becoming central political players.
This is not (only) about the long-known realization that
companies the course of political discussions and the content
influence political decisions (from regulated lobbying to
corruption through to the denounced "real" social
center of power). The point is that brands influence our behavior very concretely.
influence.

Google is massively changing our information behavior. Microsoft our
everyday working life. And brands such as Coca-Cola or McDonalds do not change
not only our eating and drinking habits, but also our
physical mass. The political influence of brands is not based on the political
to be able to issue directives. Brands characterize as
Identification offers to increasingly disoriented consumers
their behavior far beyond the banal act of buying and consuming.
You find exciting what Google finds exciting and what is in the
hierarchization of the information on offer. It
tastes good, what McDonalds defines as tasting good and includes in its
offer takes over. Professionalism is defined as
communication behavior as Microsoft envisions it and as it is
reflected in the form and content of the e-mail system. From the "secret
seducers" of the 50s and 60s (according to the criticism at the time of
"advertising") have now become central instances of socialization.
This is how the results of professional branding must be seen.

It is obvious that this powerful social position
also provokes political resistance. Cautious questions about the
Control mechanisms of this power characterize the parliamentary
Discussion about the social responsibility of brands. The attacks
militant opponents of globalization are the most obvious expression of
of a more aggressive resistance, the manifesto of which Naomi Klein
wrote the book "No Logo".

The increase in the political significance and power of brands points to the
creeping loss of importance and confidence in the political
Institutions. Brands seem to be trusting more and more people there
where otherwise they have long been aware of the failure of political institutions.
go out. In China, Google is probably trusted to be more steadfast and
influence than most Western governments. Not quite
incomprehensible when you think about how credible (under
other) the US government against the dictatorship in
Beijing as a rule.

Jürgen Häusler is CEO of the Interbrand, Zintzmeier and Lux Group in Zurich and an honorary professor at the University of Leipzig.