Roland Dürre
Tuesday March 6th, 2012

brand eins in March

On my return from the short (three days) skiing vacation at GAP, I already find it sitting on my “to read“ stack – the March “brand eins“. And this time it has a highly erotic title page. I must admit that the lipstick has an erotic effect on me. Only on me?

And the title:
Deciding What Is Important.
It is about the
Main Focus Relevance”.
On reading the title, I am reminded of the interesting but still basically stupid question that is sometimes even asked during a job interview:

You have a long todo list. What will you do first – the important things or the urgent things?
The expected (and perhaps correct) answer is, as we all know:
“The important ones!”.
And the reason for this is that only important things can be really urgent.

When I hear relevance, the first thing that comes to mind is wikipedia. There you have relevance criteria (Relevanz-Kriterien), that determine which terms, facts, data, people, enterprises,… have enough relevance to be included in wikipedia. When I started my “carreer“ as a wikipedia writer, I tried a sort of self experiment (Selbstversuch): I wanted to enter myself.
🙂 And the next thing I knew was that I, as a person or entrepreneur, have not the slightest relevance.
Perhaps it would be different today for me as a blogger …

But let us be serious. For me, the question what is relevant or not is like a modern search for meaning …

And since I had a little time yesterday for really important things and brand eins is really relevant for me, I decided to do some browsing through brand eins.

Consequently, here I am, opening the magazine and reading the editorial by Frau Fischer:
Among people who make themselves important

Immediately, my pulse rate goes up. Yes, we will remain among those who make themselves important.
And then, here is the inside of the magazine … The good question:

Do enterprises hoard too much money?

Exciting. And there is more, such as:

Work without traffic jam • whose fault is the debt • main issues and asides • the man who advertises his life • empty calories • away with all the stuff • to have, but well …

An old acquaintance of ours, Gunter Dueck appears along with (the computer is not very original) the world of numbers. And as always, all is worth reading somehow. So, again, here is my recommendation: go and fetch the brand eins at the next news stand.

Indeed. Go and buy things at the news stand. Because I, being a MacbookAir and Kindle user, cancelled all newspaper and magazine subscriptions in paper form. With one exception. I am (naturally) talking about brand eins. After all, brand eins is the one paper that combines the attractiveness of magazines with a reasonable content.

And here I already hear some of my critical readers ask why I always sing the praises of brand eins.

Well, it is easy:

It happens quite frequently that I also browse through other magazines. Not only manager magazin and WirtschaftWoche, Brigitte and Bunte, Spiegel and Focus, but also Playboy or some Fitness-Magazines. Whatever you will find on the market. And then I always throw them away after a very short time. It is the “content“ that makes the difference.

The only thing where I sometimes remain (a little) longer is the Playboy humour page. Incidentally, it also no longer contains truly masculine jokes these days. Which brings us back to where this article started – erotic appeal.

(Translated by EG)

7 Kommentare zu “brand eins in March”

  1. Chris Wood (Monday March 5th, 2012)

    Perhaps I am unusual. I dislike lipstick, particularly because of the taste, and I dislike high heels because they make walking look ugly.

  2. rd (Tuesday March 6th, 2012)

    Du hast wieder nicht genau gelesen. Ich habe nicht ausgesagt, dass mich Lippenstift (sprich die crème-artige rote Substanz) auf den Lippen erotisiert.

    Nein, ich habe “Lippenstifte” geschrieben. Das sind die Objekte in den Handtaschen des weiblichen Geschlechts und etwas ganz anderes als “rote Farbe auf den Lippen”. Rote Lippen auf schönen Gesichtern dagegen machen mich sehr wohl an.

    Schuhe mit hohen Absätzen an sich machen mich übrigens nicht an, dafür aber Trägerinnen von solchen, sofern sie über die entsprechenden Beine verfügen.

    Das ganze schreibe ich aber nur, um Dir zu zeigen, wie diffizil der Umgang mit Sprache und Kommunikation ist. Deshalb muss man ganz genau und gründlich lesen!

  3. Chris Wood (Saturday March 10th, 2012)

    Again you have not read exactly what I wrote. My statement refered only to my dislikes. I wrote nothing about yours!

  4. rd (Sunday March 11th, 2012)


    Ich habe doch gar nicht über meine “dislikes” oder “likes” geschrieben? Sondern, dass ich das Titelbild einer Zeitung als erotisch empfinde.

    Und Du erwähnst völlig losgelöst vom Artikel Deine “dislikes”. Die aber nichts mit meinen Gedanken zu tun haben. So wie der obere Kommentar von Dir nichts mit dem Artikel zu tun hat.

    Das ist die Art, wie man sich beim “Assoziativen Cocktailgespräch” unterhält. Tut nicht weh, macht aber auch irgendwie keinen Sinn und enthält keinen Wert. Einfaches Cocktailgespräch. Moderner Spam.

    Kommentare sollten aber doch etwas mit den Aussagen des kommentierten Artikels zu tun haben. Dachte ich zumindest.

    Jetzt referiere ich Dein “statement” und schreibe:

    I “dislike””statements”, which start with the word “my”.

    Macht doch auch keinen Sinn?

  5. Chris Wood (Sunday March 11th, 2012)

    Roland, OK, I find it a bit restrictive, but in future will try to avoid comments that you could regard as free association. OK, I should not have referred to your dislikes, but I feared you would be insulted by “perversions”. I do not like to insult my friends. Have a good day.

  6. rd (Sunday March 11th, 2012)

    Hi Chris – I love “perversions” … One more missunderstanding … But I’m not at all insulted! I just want to train you on “dialectics” 🙂

  7. Chris Wood (Tuesday March 13th, 2012)

    Of course I recommend “New Scientist”. It covers sociological and philosophical aspects of natural science rather well, and is easy to read, at least for an English reader.

Kommentar verfassen