Marketing trend 2026: back to the Biedermeier era?
While the world is changing at ever-shorter intervals, the public discourse on marketing seems surprisingly unaffected by this. This is reminiscent of an era that emerged precisely from such a tension.
The discrepancy is obvious - and it is not new. While the world is changing at ever shorter intervals, geopolitical, economic and infrastructural upheavals are intensifying and overlapping. Developments in Ukraine, the situation in Venezuela, events like the one in Crans-Montana or large-scale power outages with a systemic background are no longer isolated incidents. They are an expression of a reality in which uncertainty, dependencies and cascading effects are becoming the new normal.
And yet the public marketing discourse seems surprisingly unaffected by this. Digital media is dominated by personal retrospectives, individual horizons of experience, operational optimization topics or the next wave of trends - currently preferably under the label "AI". Much of this is not wrong. But much of it is remarkably small compared to the real issues facing companies, markets and societies.
This discrepancy is not a mood phenomenon or a ritual at the beginning of the year. It is structural. And - with all due caution when making historical comparisons - it is reminiscent of an era that arose from precisely this kind of tension: the Biedermeier period.
The retreat into the manageable
The historical Biedermeier period emerged at a time of political repression, insecurity and a lack of room for maneuver. Public debate was risky, systemic change hardly possible. The reaction was not rebellion, but a retreat: into the private sphere, into the domestic, into the creative. Order, diligence and aesthetics replaced political debate. Not out of indifference - but out of self-protection.
"It's not the withdrawal that's the problem - it's the presumed lack of alternatives."
Something similar can be observed in marketing today. The historical comparison with the Biedermeier era is not for the sake of nostalgia, but for the sake of classification. The Biedermeier era was less an idyllic period than a social coping strategy. In an environment of political repression, restricted freedom of expression and a lack of creative space, the creation of meaning shifted to the private sphere. The public sphere was not abolished, but circumvented. Shaping took place - but quietly, indirectly and deliberately limited. Crucially, this retreat was not an expression of passivity, but a form of self-stabilization under uncertainty. Order, clarity and personal systems of meaning replaced open political debate, because this was associated with high risks.
If you apply this logic to today's marketing discourse, the parallel becomes tangible. Even today, it is not so much a lack of will or a lack of relevance that keeps strategic issues out of the public eye, but the perception that complexity, ambivalence and long-term uncertainty are difficult to communicate publicly - and can be reputationally risky. The retreat into the operational, personal and tool-based is therefore less a deficit than an adaptation to an overly complex environment. This is precisely why it is worthwhile not judging this retreat prematurely, but rather reading it as a symptom: as an indication that the established forms of public communication for strategic debate have reached their limits.
"The public marketing discourse is in a digital Biedermeier."
In the face of a world that has become difficult to explain, almost impossible to predict and strategically highly complex, public discourse is narrowing down to topics that appear controllable: - one's own profile,
- your own career,
- operational levers,
- clearly identifiable tools and frameworks.
The big picture is hidden in order to keep things manageable. You could criticize this polemically. It makes more sense to first understand this dynamic.
The current discourse avoids strategic depth where uncertainty, ambivalence and long-term consequences are difficult to communicate. Instead, a form of self-assurance dominates: personal, operational, trendy. The problem is not the existence of this content - it has its place. It only becomes problematic when it gives the impression that the essentials have already been negotiated. Because while attribution, efficiency and tools are discussed publicly, companies are dealing with completely different issues internally:
- How resilient are our business models?
- How are demand, trust and expectations changing?
- What dependencies have we underestimated?
- Which investments still make sense and which are risky?
This opens up a gap between public discourse and internal reality that is not without consequences for a professional self-image of marketing. This shift has consequences that go beyond individual communication decisions. If strategic issues are negotiated almost exclusively internally, while public communication remains operational, a structural asymmetry arises: marketing appears to the outside world as a discipline of optimization, while internally it is increasingly concerned with questions of orientation, prioritization and risk assessment.
This discrepancy is not without consequences. It shapes expectations - among managers, junior staff and, not least, other corporate functions. Where marketing is primarily talked about publicly in terms of tools, efficiency and best practices, it is also read internally in the same way: as an executive, not a creative function. In the long term, this threatens to narrow its self-image. Not because marketing becomes less strategically relevant, but because its strategic work remains invisible. The public debate will then provide hardly any clues as to what role marketing can - and should - actually play in a world characterized by uncertainty. The result is a silent disconnect: between what marketing actually does and what it is perceived to do. Between strategic relevance and public connectivity. This gap is not spectacular, but it is effective - and it explains why the impression arises that marketing is withdrawing from the big issues of the present, although this is precisely where it is needed internally.
This retreat is necessary
It would be too easy to dismiss this development as despondency or ignorance. There are good reasons why strategic discussions are rarely held in public:
- Strategic work is relevant to competition: Those who work seriously on future issues do not share their findings lightly.
- Attention is distributed asymmetrically: Visibility rarely arises where complexity and uncertainty dominate.
- Digital media are not a neutral space for discourse: they reward simplification, personalization and speed - not ambivalence and a long-term approach.
The fact that many marketeers focus on what is presentable, explainable and connectable is therefore not an individual failure. It is a systemic consequence of the framework conditions.
From a historical perspective, the Biedermeier period was not only an era of narrowing. It was also a time in which new forms of culture, art and exchange emerged - beyond the big political stage. Applied to marketing, this means that it is not about discrediting personal issues, operational excellence or new technologies. It is about expanding public discourse, not replacing it. Marketing can be more than self-presentation, optimization and trend adaptation. It can - and should - take on a more guiding role again.
Invitation instead of conclusion
The comparison with the Biedermeier period is not a cultural-critical swan song. It is an indication that retreat and design do not have to be contradictory. Marketing is particularly effective when it provides orientation - not just attention. Even today, more is possible than the current debate suggests.
Concrete
Marketing can do more
1
Public: Make discrepancies visible, do not simulate solutions
Not every strategic question needs an answer in the feed. But many deserve to be named. Areas of tension, conflicting goals and uncertainties are not a sign of weakness - they are an expression of reality. Marketing can act as a translator here: between the world situation and market logic, between complexity and the ability to make decisions.
2
Personal: Creating spaces for real exchange
The relevant discussions will not disappear - they will just take place somewhere else. In small rounds, in protected formats, in direct conversation. Consciously cultivating and initiating these spaces is not a nostalgic gesture, but a strategic necessity.
3
Digital: From shop window to transition
There is no alternative to digital media, especially social media. Their role must be redefined. Less as a stage, more as a catalyst. Less closure, more invitation. Less self-assurance, more context.
gfm trend conference
On March 11, 2026, the Gesellschaft für Marketing, gfm, invites you to the trend conference "The New Marketing Playbook - Which disciplines are relevant in marketing and how can a CMO be successful?" at the Aura Eventsaal in Zurich. Take this opportunity to get to know leading minds and real practical cases.
