Hanhart Co-CEO Felix Wallner Presents One Of Germany's Highest-Flying Brands

So this is very interesting.

I think the co-CEO concept is very difficult to get right because in watchmaking in general, a lot of the people have been in the industry long enough to become a CEO also have something of an ego attached to them and their careers.

But you two don't seem to have that at all.

And being from different backgrounds, having different foundational outlooks, must be very enriching for the brand because you're able to bounce ideas back and forth.

It seems though, and I would guess that this is probably the case, correct me if I'm wrong, that over the past decade plus of working together, there's been a lot more crossover occurring.

You know, you have fallen down the rabbit hole of watches.

You are now a passionate watch guy.

Simon, from a watchmaking background, trained in business, and now probably has like a little bit more of an understanding of your original mindset.

And so you're almost like now one super person in two bodies, like doing this job simultaneously.

We're trying to do our best,

but you're 100% right.

It's more overlapping than ever.

And it is, well, very... interesting to have both approaches you know I always when I talk to the watchmakers I always tell them yeah I'm here for the stupid questions I'm here the one asking things that they might not have heard before this usually as well opens the minds for additional ideas so yeah like you say I think it adds value and at the same time One thing that you mentioned at the beginning, there are often brands that are really connected to persons.

So there are lots of brands out there where you immediately have a person in mind that is leading the brand.

From the beginning on, we said that we want the brand to be the star.

We don't need us to be the star of the show.

I think that is something that is crucially important especially if you're not a really big brand because I think as well that for some brands in the past you've seen that when this leading figure went out of the company the brand was hurting as well.

Simon and I always had the take that we want even if something happens to us, even if we There is someone going a different direction.

We want the brand still to work as it worked before with us on

board.

It is a very humble and long-term strategy because you're laying the foundations for a future without either one of you.

Effectively, you're ensuring that the brand is in a healthy enough state to survive without the cult of personality that a lot of brands rely upon.

The cult of personality can be useful in watchmaking, but it's very risky as well, of course, because a lot of your brand cachet is tied up in the performance and popularity of a single individual.

And while that can be very useful to drive sales in the early days, a slight misstep by that person can completely tank the whole operation.

So I find that also maybe indicative of your initial mindset, which I get the impression has changed quite a lot.

So this is very interesting.

I think the co-CEO concept is very difficult to get right because in watchmaking in general, a lot of the people have been in the industry long enough to become a CEO also have something of an ego attached to them and their careers.

But you two don't seem to have that at all.

And being from different backgrounds, having different foundational outlooks, must be very enriching for the brand because you're able to bounce ideas back and forth.

It seems though, and I would guess that this is probably the case, correct me if I'm wrong, that over the past decade plus of working together, there's been a lot more crossover occurring.

You know, you have fallen down the rabbit hole of watches.

You are now a passionate watch guy.

Simon, from a watchmaking background, trained in business, and now probably has like a little bit more of an understanding of your original mindset.

And so you're almost like now one super person in two bodies, like doing this job simultaneously.

We're trying to do our best,

but you're 100% right.

It's more overlapping than ever.

And it is, well, very... interesting to have both approaches you know I always when I talk to the watchmakers I always tell them yeah I'm here for the stupid questions I'm here the one asking things that they might not have heard before this usually as well opens the minds for additional ideas so yeah like you say I think it adds value and at the same time One thing that you mentioned at the beginning, there are often brands that are really connected to persons.

So there are lots of brands out there where you immediately have a person in mind that is leading the brand.

From the beginning on, we said that we want the brand to be the star.

We don't need us to be the star of the show.

I think that is something that is crucially important especially if you're not a really big brand because I think as well that for some brands in the past you've seen that when this leading figure went out of the company the brand was hurting as well.

Simon and I always had the take that we want even if something happens to us, even if we There is someone going a different direction.

We want the brand still to work as it worked before with us on

board.

It is a very humble and long-term strategy because you're laying the foundations for a future without either one of you.

Effectively, you're ensuring that the brand is in a healthy enough state to survive without the cult of personality that a lot of brands rely upon.

The cult of personality can be useful in watchmaking, but it's very risky as well, of course, because a lot of your brand cachet is tied up in the performance and popularity of a single individual.

And while that can be very useful to drive sales in the early days, a slight misstep by that person can completely tank the whole operation.

So I find that also maybe indicative of your initial mindset, which I get the impression has changed quite a lot.