BLOG

15th October 2026

Brands Under Pressure

By Johannes Roth, CURTH+ROTH

An electronics store at Hamburg’s main station. A whole shelf of cordless vacuums. Thirteen brands: traditional German names, young manufacturers from China, and the store’s own private label. I try to see the shelf through the eyes of someone buying a cordless vacuum for the first time. The devices look alike: a slim stick, a display on the handle, a light on the nozzle. Which one do I pick?

You don’t buy a cordless vacuum every week, so your own experience doesn’t help much. What decides it, then? The price? The mid-priced model? The advice at the shelf? Or the name I already know?

The retailer decides one thing before any of that: who gets onto the shelf in the first place.

Research offers some clues. When faced with many similar options, people like to put off the decision. Or they reach for what they know. Brands lower perceived risk. They save search effort. But the brand isn’t the only shortcut. The middle price point, the position on the shelf, the advice: much of this lies with the retailer.

The shelf is only one arena. Today, brands are under pressure from several sides.

Five forces

Price. Temu, Shein and Action are setting new price anchors. Much of what they sell costs only a fraction of the usual price. According to a study by IW Consult for the German Retail Federation (HDE), German retail loses around €2.5 billion in revenue a year to Temu and Shein alone. That makes one question louder: what exactly am I paying more for?

Retail. Private labels have long since stopped being simple copies. Many are well made. According to YouGov, they now account for 47 percent of the German grocery market, up from 41 percent in 2021. In the electronics store, too, the private label is on the shelf. And the retailer decides what goes on that shelf. And where.

The copy. A new feature rarely stays exclusive for long. Competitors follow suit, often quickly and entirely legally. Counterfeiters go further: they copy a brand’s very form. According to the OECD and EUIPO, around 4.7 percent of all imports into the EU in 2021 were counterfeit. Yet neither copies the thing that matters most: the promise. Anyone who competes on features alone is running a race with no finish line. Innovation remains important. But it needs a brand to which it can be attributed.

The community. Today, meaning is also created online: in forums, on TikTok, in comment sections. Customers help interpret brands. That can be an opportunity. LEGO has let fans develop their own sets for years. But it can also work against the brand. Then the brand gets reinterpreted, often faster than it can respond.

Pressure from within. Raw materials are getting more expensive. Margins are shrinking. Those responsible for product management have to cut costs. Each individual decision can be well justified: a cheaper ingredient, a thinner material, slightly less content. Taken together, though, the brand can fade.

One example: in early 2025, Milka shrank many of its bars from 100 to 90 grams, while the packaging stayed almost the same. In the Hamburg Consumer Advice Centre’s vote for the “Rip-off Package of the Year,” two out of three votes went to the Alpine Milk bar, something that had never happened in twelve years. Cocoa had become significantly more expensive at the time. The cost pressure was real. But so was customers’ anger.

What’s new is the simultaneity

None of these forces is new on its own. Private labels have existed for decades. So have counterfeits. What’s new, in our view, is that everything is happening at once. And everything is moving faster.

One could conclude that the age of brands is over. We see it differently. It’s precisely under pressure that you see what holds a brand up. A strong brand is more than a logo on a product. It provides orientation. It creates meaning. And it keeps its promise. Over many years.

What this series is about

With this series, we want to show what makes brands strong. We’re not looking for a separate recipe for each force. We’re asking what fundamentally keeps brands strong.

Our anchor is the brand sociology of Hamburg’s Alexander Deichsel. Its central concept is self-similarity: a brand may change, but in doing so it must remain similar to itself.

Part 1: Changing without losing yourself. The overview. How does a brand stay recognisable when everything around it is in motion?

Part 2: Meaning. When do brands support our self-image? And why is meaning alone not enough? A response to interchangeability.

Part 3: Self-similarity in dialogue. How change succeeds. With LEGO, Patagonia, and the question of how much participation a brand can handle.

Part 4: When brands squander their trust. How it fails. With Afri-Cola, Bionade and Tropicana.

Excursus: Naming. What a name can do for a brand.

We work with cases. Cases don’t prove anything. They reveal patterns. In hindsight, a lot seems logical. That’s why opposing views get their say too.

Why this topic matters to us

In our work at CURTH+ROTH, we research what binds people to brands. Sometimes it’s something other than what companies assume. We share these insights in this series. We look forward to the conversation, and to being challenged, too.

13th October 2026

Technology Neutrality Is Not a License to Stand Still

“Technology neutrality” is the phrase of the moment. Germany and France want to further soften the EU’s 2035 phase-out of combustion engines. In return, European manufacturers would get preferential treatment in subsidies and public tenders. The SPD is pushing back. That’s where things stood as of October 8. But the underlying question goes further: Is this openness, or just clinging to the familiar?

Not a Ban, but a Price Tag
The EU rule is a fleet-wide target. Starting in 2035, the target is 0 g of CO2 per kilometer. Exceeding it costs €95 per gram per vehicle. In December 2025, the European Commission already proposed lowering the target to 90 percent. Germany and France want to go even further. So combustion cars will still be on the road after 2035. The real question is what they will cost.

The Market Won’t Wait
According to BNEF, China will reach around 64 percent of new car sales in 2026, counting EVs and plug-in hybrids together. Globally, the figure is about 27 percent. Those who scale early learn faster. Costs come down, software matures, partnerships grow. Autonomous driving offerings are also multiplying worldwide. Whether they will catch on remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the platforms of tomorrow are being built today.

The Objections Are Valid
The transition isn’t happening at the same pace everywhere. In the US, BNEF expects EV sales to drop 19 percent in 2026. Combustion vehicles are still funding the transformation today. Suppliers need time. Hydrogen could play a role for commercial vehicles. Switzerland is planning a network of fueling stations along its national highways for exactly that purpose. These arguments justify transition periods. They don’t justify standing still.

Winning on Paper, Losing in the Market
Christina Kunkel puts it perfectly in the Süddeutsche Zeitung: What if automakers keep building combustion cars that soon hardly anyone wants? Then they would have won on paper. But they could still lose in the market. Regulation can buy time. It can’t replace a strategy.

What Real Technology Neutrality Means
Technology neutrality means being open to the new. Not preserving the status quo. That’s why transitions need clear rules: firm deadlines, clear conditions for exemptions, regular reviews. Protecting the home market can create room to learn. But it has to come with commitments in return.

What This Means for Brands
Clear decisions create clear profiles. Trying to serve everything at once blurs your identity. Especially in times of upheaval, customers look for orientation. A strong positioning therefore requires a deep understanding of the people it’s meant to reach.

06th October 2026

Trust Is the Scarcest Currency

52 percent of Germans would consider buying a Chinese car. Hardly anyone actually does. Chinese brands hold a market share of 2.4 percent in Germany and 8.0 percent in Europe (Horváth study).

Openness is not trust. 29 percent of respondents generally do not trust Chinese brands. 44 percent are concerned about quality issues.

Trust is built through quality and personal experience. Consumers named both as the most important reasons as early as 2015.

Brands that are struggling today can be read the same way. Three patterns stand out.

All of them revolve around a credibility credit that is either being used up or newly taken out.

Group 1: When Corporate Logic Shapes the Profile
For some brands, platforms and portfolio decisions determine what the brand stands for. As a result, the profile weakens.

Lancia sold only 11,754 vehicles in 2025, down from 32,651 in 2024, a decline of 64 percent. There is just one model, the Ypsilon. It is considerably more expensive than its predecessor and sits within the group alongside the Peugeot 208 and Opel Corsa. Today, Fiat manages Lancia as a specialty brand.

Alfa Romeo confirmed its model strategy in May 2026. The Giulia and Stelvio will run through 2027. What their successors will look like remains open. "New interpretations" are under review.

Seat will be replaced as a car brand by Cupra by 2030. The Volkswagen Group considered it uneconomical to invest in both brands.

Infiniti withdrew from Western Europe in 2020. In Germany, it sold just 762 vehicles in 2018. Its best-selling model, the Q30, was based on the Mercedes A-Class platform.

Whether a lack of identity is the cause cannot be proven this way. Still, the pattern is striking. Where platforms and corporate logic define the profile, it becomes harder to say what makes the brand unique.

Group 2: The Purchased Credibility Credit
Anyone who buys an established brand acquires a credibility credit, but not trust. That credit includes awareness, heritage, and a dealer network. It is only redeemed through the product and through how the brand behaves after the acquisition.

Many well-known brands now have new owners. Volvo, Polestar, Lotus, and Lynk & Co belong to Geely. Smart is a joint venture between Mercedes-Benz and Geely. MG belongs to SAIC. Jaguar and Land Rover belong to Tata Motors.

Smart shows how blurry perception can be. The Horváth study lists Smart among the Chinese brands, with 52 percent awareness. In 2024, Smart's head of Europe said the brand is perceived as European. Both statements stand side by side. Which view prevails among customers remains open.

A 2026 HBR article describes how brands under owners from emerging markets often gain new momentum. The prerequisite is a restrained, long-term integration. However, the examples cited come from consumer goods, not the auto industry.

For car brands, the key question is therefore: Does the product still match the original promise after the change in ownership?

Group 3: When Visibility Fades
A brand no one thinks of has a hard time building trust. Several Japanese brands have only a small presence in Germany.

Honda reached 7,269 new registrations in 2025, up 1.4 percent. That corresponds to a market share of around 0.25 percent. Its dealer network is being reduced from 159 to 119 locations.

Nissan recorded 32,546 new registrations, 18.7 percent fewer than the previous year. Globally, the company is closing seven of its 17 plants. In Germany, it still aims to reach 50,000 vehicles by 2027.

Mitsubishi grew to 18,897 new registrations (+38.2 percent). Almost half of these were self-registrations: 49.8 percent, and over 80 percent in December. Nissan's rate was 43.5 percent.

Lexus presents a different picture. The brand clearly stands for reliability and hybrid powertrains. Even so, new registrations from January to August 2026 came to 2,305, 29.7 percent below the previous year.

Self-registrations and discounts can influence customers' perceptions of price and value. That is not proven here. Lexus also shows that a clear profile alone is not enough. Dealer network, price, and awareness have to be right as well.

The Common Denominator: A Promise That Holds
The three groups have different causes. Technology, markets, corporate structures, and timing each play a role. Still, a pattern is recognizable.

In Group 1, the brand promise has become blurred. In Group 2, it is borrowed and still has to be redeemed. In Group 3, too few people see it.

In every case, the same question arises: What promise can the brand credibly make, and how does it become tangible in customers' everyday lives?

This piece looks at established brands. New brands growing without a long tradition are a topic of their own.

What Positioning Can Achieve?

Solid positioning answers two questions. What does the brand stand for? And what is it allowed to promise?

Depth-psychological market research helps here because it explores the meanings and feelings people associate with a brand. These are often unconscious and difficult to capture with conventional surveys.

This yields concrete answers:

What does the brand mean to people who know it?
What expectations are tied to its origin and ownership?
How much credibility credit is left, and what is it enough for?
Which promises can the brand keep, and which can't it?

Research does not replace decisions. Nor can it prevent brands from running into trouble. The issues are too complex for that. Technology, price, distribution, and corporate strategy all play a part. Companies often have the knowledge, but don't always use it.

Research is effective when it feeds into decisions. It shows what a brand can carry. Then it becomes possible to choose a promise that fits the brand and that customers experience in their everyday lives.

How much credibility credit does your brand have, and what is it enough for? Let's talk about it. Send me a message or schedule a no-obligation conversation. We'll find out together.

NEWS

30th September 2026

Brand trust is the automotive industry's most important asset.

It can be won back.

When someone buys a car, they're buying a brand. They're buying a promise — of quality, safety, and reliability. Over decades, European manufacturers built this promise. Today it's being put to the test.

The diesel scandal left its mark. Not just on individual manufacturers. It changed the image of an entire industry. On top of that come numerous recalls. Each one may be well justified on its own. But together, they raise a question: does the brand keep what it promises?

Why brand trust matters now

Cars are becoming technically more and more alike. Electric drivetrains, software, driver-assistance systems: much of it has become interchangeable. New players are offering modern technology at attractive prices. In this environment, the brand becomes the strongest differentiator.

A strong brand provides orientation:

It reduces uncertainty in a major purchasing decision.
It justifies a higher price.
And it retains customers over the years.

All of this only works with trust. And what about outside Europe?

Luxury no longer comes only from Europe. Brands like Hongqi, Cadillac, or Genesis are appealing to buyers on other continents.

Why do they choose these brands? For status? Out of loyalty to their home country? Because of the price? Or out of trust?

The answers likely differ from market to market. That's exactly what can be investigated.

Five approaches to rebuilding brand trust

1. Sharpen the brand promise.
What does the brand stand for today? This question needs a clear answer. A credible promise is concrete. It fits the brand's origin and its future.

2. Bring promise and experience together.
Trust is built when advertising and reality match. Every figure on consumption, range, or emissions, for example, feeds into the brand. Realistic figures strengthen credibility.

3. Treat recalls as a brand moment.
A recall shows how a brand handles responsibility. Open communication and a smooth process have more impact than any campaign. That way, a critical moment can even strengthen trust.

4. Take a stance.
People expect more from brands than good products. They pay attention to values and actions. Transparent goals and visible progress make a brand approachable and credible.

5. Understand the customer's perspective.
Brand trust forms in people's minds. What do they associate with a brand today? Where are they uncertain? What would win them back? The answers often lie deeper than classic metrics can reach.

Our perspective from market research

Brand trust can be measured. And it can be strengthened in a targeted way. Through qualitative market research, we at CURTH+ROTH make visible which images and feelings a brand evokes. Through quantitative studies, we show which factors influence trust most strongly. This creates a clear, robust foundation for the next steps.

Europe's car brands have a strong history. They have expertise, experience, and appeal. Now it's about filling their promise with life again.

28th September 2026

How new car brands are truly earning trust today

Developing an electric car is easier to achieve today than ever before. Building a brand remains the bigger challenge.

Developing a new EV model is easier to achieve today than it was even ten years ago. Components and experts are available on the market. Development itself remains a major task, but it's a solvable one today, given capital and will.

A look at new car brands of recent years shows this. They come from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Vietnam, and of course China.

Many of these brands have since disappeared again. Usually due to financing problems or failed production. Those are the visible reasons.

But behind that often lies a deeper problem: a lack of trust. Investors who hesitate. Customers who wait. And trust, in the end, is a question of brand.

The real challenge, then, lies elsewhere. Not in building the car, but in building the brand. And in anchoring that brand in buyers' minds for the long term.

That means, above all, one thing: winning public trust. Important psychological foundations lie behind this.

That also includes a reliable service infrastructure. And early investment in the used-car market. Because no one wants to sink an investment of over 30,000 euros.

The first new brands failed at exactly this task. Sometimes on quality management, sometimes on brand management.

It's not enough to show a car once in a showroom or exhibit it at a trade fair. Trust doesn't form that way.

Developing a relevant, differentiated brand therefore also requires market research. And one that looks deeper than just likes and dislikes.

28th May 2026

Ferrari Luce – a ray of light from the future?

The Ferrari Luce is currently being reflexively rejected in many quarters. Too foreign. Too far from what's familiar. Not enough "Ferrari."

But that's often exactly the point with disruptive innovations.

The first public reaction to something new isn't always a good indicator of its later success. People initially judge along familiar patterns. Whatever violates these patterns creates irritation — and irritation is quickly voiced as rejection.

For market research, then, it's not just important that criticism is voiced. What matters is what kind of criticism we're looking at.

Is this a sign of a genuine product problem? Or just a break with visual habits? Is the design truly a mismatch for the brand? Or does it merely shift the boundaries of what has counted as on-brand so far?

This is exactly where the art of good market research shows itself: not just collecting answers, but asking the right questions.

Because early rejection doesn't automatically mean a product will fail in the long run. What matters is whether the brand is strong enough to withstand initial irritation — and whether the product convincingly meets the target group's relevant needs.

Innovative companies in particular don't need research that merely safeguards the status quo. They need research that helps identify which irritation is dangerous — and which is simply the price of genuine progress.

Or, fitting the name Luce: not everything that dazzles at first glance is a misstep. Sometimes it's a ray of light from the future.