The Hope for next Year

Globally, its been the year of the marketer. Its been a year where perceptions have dictated realities. Thankfully, as we end the year, the 'real' reality is breaking through and so I end it with a sigh of relief.

Barack Obama became president purely on perceptions. Built by marketing magic. As a product he was carefully crafted, and then positioned as a saviour. An adoring liberal populace lapped him up, lock, stock, and barrel. Global Warming is the other fraud that's been perpetrated successfully around the globe. Led by the liberal Mr. Warmist, Al Gore. The marketing juggernaut that took this canard around the world's been so potent, it almost had everyone fall for it, even buy into it .

The concept of Universal health care (or Universal anything) comes next in the line of fraudulent propaganda. The Barackian world that's built on universal happiness is one that's, unlike Global Warming, beginning its journey. Add to it the belief that, inherently there isn't any evil and so there are no rogue states or rogues, you have another of the flawed Barackian world view.

But as I mentioned earlier, thankfully the world's seeing what's a myth and what's real. Barack's popularity has taken a nose dive. Climategate is out there for everyone to see, thanks to the hacker. Universal Healthcare is being doubted. And Iran has just witnessed a full scale rebellion from the opposition ranks.

So, though we end the year as one of frauds, we begin the next with a hope that world citizenry will wake up to what's real and what's mere propaganda. I for one would be happy waking up tomorrow to a world that sees Obama for who he really is, Global Warming for what it really is, and Universal healthcare for what it entails.

That's a year I welcome.

Happy New Year, folks!

Sphere: Related Content

Know One, you've known All

'I know what I want, but I won’t tell you. I listen to my parents and then try and do my own thing. I think God is great but Google is greater. My friends are everything. Hanging out with them is therapy . It’s prayer for our teenage souls. I get about 4000 rupees per month as pocket money. But that’s not enough. My curfew at home is 10.30 pm. I could do with some more time. I don’t lie to my parents. But I just hide the truth. My studies and career are important to me. I hate it when teachers don’t give me full marks even though all my answers are right. They are so idealistic, just like my parents. If I get pissed off with my friends or parents, I just give them the silent treatment. It’s better than going on a hunger strike. (That’s what my parents do!) I love my music, it is oxygen. I carry it everywhere I go. I also like my parents music. I love old hindi music. Of course I think about issues like the environment, recession and 26/11. But I don’t know what to do. What should I do? I wish my little sister would be more responsible . Why should I have to clean her mess. May be I am selfish. But what the heck, I can’t keep waiting for the things I want. Any way the world is going to end in 2012.'

That's Josy Paul describing eighteen year olds, marketers are trying to get to, in India. In fact the characterisation forms part of a story in the ET on the children of liberalised India. Eighteen year olds who were born the year India opened its economy up. The story says that these eighteen year olds have marketers befuddled, especially when they try and decipher their psyches.

I beg to differ.

In fact nothing can be easier than knowing ther mindsets and what they want. Simply because the variables that would otherwise have slotted them into different categories, as in the past, have been wiped clean. And you can pin that on the phenomenon of 'Americanisation' of India. That is, it wouldn't matter which Metro city in India you go to, eighteen year olds are doing the same thing. Sporting sneakers, glugging cokes, squeezing into denims, lounging on sofas sipping Cappuccinos, hanging out at multiplexes and sweating it out at window shopping. The outdoor Westernised image is almost complete. You can even extend that to indoors. They are watching American format Indian sitcoms or reality shows, tuning into music that's got an international feel, and logging on to social networking sites swapping mindless information about themselves with other eighteen year olds.

And so for the marketer, the 'one size fits all' theme works fine with them. Now this is unlike what was applicable to the previous generation. Cultural variables ensured they were never alike. And so product formats had to be altered to appeal to a specific regional psyche. That isn't as I mentioned, required for the current eighteen year olds. Cultural variables have faded into oblivion. What remains is the exhibition of standardised behaviour that gets repeated across geographical divides.

Josy and the rest of marketers should be thanking their stars that the cultural divide is easing up, for this generation. It only makes their jobs easier. Because knowing one kid, means you know them all.

How much more lucky can a marketer get?

Sphere: Related Content

Weber teaches me a lesson

Alphy thinks I am a master at the stove. She relishes the dishes I make. The other day it was my deft hands working on a roast dish that turned out near perfect. But then I let it get to me. I make it again the next day, and though Alphy likes it, she isn't as impressed as the day before. I am chastened and I've learnt my lesson.

Weber taught me the lesson. Let me now share it with you.

Weber's Law states that the ratio of the increment threshold to the background intensity is a constant. So when you are in a noisy environment you must shout to be heard while a whisper works in a quiet room. And when you measure increment thresholds on various intensity backgrounds, the thresholds increase in proportion to the background.

The Roast on the first day set a threshold to Alphy's taste buds. Which was pretty high, I must say. After all, don't I have magic on my hands? The sad part is, that was the reason to my downfall. For the next day's roast to garner praise it had to raise its taste level beyond the just noticeable difference as relevant to the taste threshold set. I guess the second day's roast couldn't do that. And therefore the praise dried up.

The lesson I've learnt is, to keep the praise pipeline running, I got to either, a) not repeat a dish after a high taste threshold's been set or, b) burn the dish the first time around.

The latter's a dangerous road to take, the former sounds sensible. What I'll do, I guess is any body's guess. Or is it?

Sphere: Related Content

Why Worldspace is exiting the World

WorldSpace radio is shutting down. I am not surprised. I had predicted this some time ago. Now that the service is folding up, its time to analyse what went wrong, why the business model didn't work.

The reasons are straightforward. If the mass listener was the apparent target segment, the value proposition just didn't cut ice with him. Because he doesn't want to pay (he has access to free FM) and the justification of variety for the price charged isn't agreeable to him. 'Variety at a price' contravenes the 80-20 principle. 80 percent of listeners tune into 20 percent of music going around. Its the same old movie music that they want, and listen to. Not classical, not jazz. Not instrumental. FM gave listeners exactly that, sans a price.

Now if the niche listener is target segment, the business model isn't financially viable. Inflows from subscriptions isn't be enough to keep operations afloat. Which means other streams of revenue have to be explored. Radio advertising perhaps. but then again, its a Catch 22. Advertisers will come only if there are enough listeners. Listeners will come only if the service is free. 'Free' requires the business model be supported by advertising revenues and not subscriptions.

The larger lesson in the Worldspace story is one of business models. That you can't have consumer align themselves to the way you do business. Instead its your business model that must align itself to what consumers need. And also, that the model you pursue must supersede competing models that aim at creating and delivering value to your set of consumers.

Sphere: Related Content

Sin Taxes shield the Sinner

Its often that I hear people berate products and services for the state they find themselves in. Obesity, for example is blamed on junk food. Never on the fact that people who gorge on it aren't responsible enough to stop. Its always something other than the person in question that's at fault. And so what's the solution society comes up with? Tax Fast food. Such taxes are what's known as Sin tax.

Taiwan's now leading the way in imposing sin taxes. Its planning the world's first tax on junk food in a bid to encourage the public to eat healthily and cut obesity rates. The Bureau of Health Promotion is drafting a bill to levy the special tax on food deemed unhealthy, such as sugary drinks, candy, cakes, fast food and alcohol. Revenue from the tax would finance groups promoting health awareness or subsidise the island's cash-strapped national health insurance programme.

In other words, tax the producer to protect the junkie. Note the product in question is perfectly legal. So how stupid can that be? To stop such foolish initiatives one must understand why products are always blamed, never people.

The fight against flab is a universal one. In fact the motivation to be 'slim' on the part of an individual requires us to understand what's set as goals by that individual. The hierarchy of goals dictate that people have, as apparent to them, a subordinate and a focal goal. The subordinate goal would be to exercise enough, so as to achieve the focal goal, which is to get to a slim figure. What may not be apparent is the superordinate goal, which is to find greater acceptance amongst peer circles, or to appear desirable, by being slim. What may happen is, the person in question may not be disciplined enough to dedicate time for exercise. This in turn will keep him in the flabby state without progress. That means a probable social ostracisation that he faces, continues. The subsequent result is a bout of depression that that will then translate into the employment of a defence mechanism. Called 'Projection'. This sees the individual redefine the depressing situation by projecting blame for his own failure and inabilities on to the most convenient scapegoat available. Fast Food.

Thus, the defence mechanism of projection practiced on a large scale turns into legislation. The Sin tax.

Sin taxes are a reflection of society's inability to accord blame where it should be. The pity is, such societies walk down a road that leads to irresponsible behaviour being practiced on a large scale. By its citizenry.

'Do the crime, don't do the time, 'cos your aren't responsible!'

Now that's what should be truly depressing.

Sphere: Related Content

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Social Justice

'This country was founded and then fostered by people who valued liberty highly: immigrant generations and their immediate children. As time has passed, Americans have become more removed from that overwhelming concern. The majority of earlier generations (or their parents) had direct personal experience of what lack of liberty felt like, and therefore were willing to defend liberty at almost any cost.

Perhaps too many Americans today have grown accustomed to the blessings of liberty, and do not feel it to be threatened. Perhaps there is no way to transmit that original fierce love of liberty to succeeding generations who have not personally felt the pain of its absence. Such Americans appear very susceptible to the idea that a vast country such as ours has the moral responsibility to guarantee health care to all its citizens as an additional inalienable right — whether they can pay or not, whether the country as a whole can afford it or not, whether it will cause substandard care for the majority or not, and whether it will end our ability to make our own medical decisions or not — and that only government is equipped to do this, even if it means taking from each according to his ability, and giving to each according to his needs, and even if the entire endeavor is impossible to carry off.

Have Americans decided that liberty is passé, and that equality and fraternity — or the pretense of both — are far more important? To paraphrase Churchill’s famous statement about Munich, in which he is purported to have said that “the government had to choose between war and shame. They chose shame. They will get war, too.”

Our government has had to choose between liberty and social justice. They chose social justice. They will get neither.'

- Neo-Neocon, 'Give Me Liberty or Give Me Social Justice'.

Sphere: Related Content

Missing You

Sphere: Related Content

Be Afraid. Very Afraid!

Its isn't as much the act as its aftermath. Being on a plane that has a passenger trying to blow it up is downright scary. But then the scare's limited to who's on board. The aftermath on the other hand sends shivers down all probable fliers of the future. They will have their hearts in their mouth when they fly. Because the memory of an attempted blow-up will be fresh in their minds. In behavioural terms this is called the Recency effect.

My gut tells me, post this attempted blow-up incident, airline traffic's bound to suffer. Anxiety levels amongst fliers will surely be high.

Another fall out to this incident will on the Obama image. Already portrayed as weak on terror, this incident will only go to further that image. After all, the great O has on cards such asinine acts such as the close of Gitmo and the circus trial of terrorists in New York. Add to that the appeasement of rogue states, and the O weakling image is complete.

But what should be truly frightening is the fact that for O, it isn't just an image. Its what he really is!

Therefore be afraid. Very afraid!

Sphere: Related Content

Merry Christmas!

Sphere: Related Content

Once Upon A Christmas

Sphere: Related Content

Jesus the Socialist

'Jesus of Nazareth was not a symbol. Neither was He just a good teacher as some who do not fully accept His teachings about Himself like to claim. As Paul the Apostle put it, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners -- of whom I am the worst." (1Timothy 1:15)

The call of Scripture is to do for other people, as we would like to have done unto us, but that call is personal, not corporate. That's because only people can be compassionate. A government check too often brings dependence and a sense of entitlement. A personal touch builds relationships horizontally with others and vertically with God. ...

Anyone young enough to have living grandparents or great-grandparents should take a few minutes this Christmas to ask them what life was like when they were growing up. How many presents did they receive? Unless they came from wealthy families, they didn't get much by today's standards and they were probably more satisfied than we who have more than we need.

That's the thing about stuff: we know it doesn't satisfy, but we gorge ourselves on it anyway hoping the marketers are right and somehow it will bring satisfaction.

What those "wise men" brought were symbols -- gold, frankincense and myrrh. What they symbolized was the grandeur of the baby who would become a man and who, in the words of John the Baptist, would "take away the sins of the world." (John 1:29)'

- Cal Thomas, 'Jesus the Socialist'.

Sphere: Related Content

Soul Brands

Watching the movie 'Miracles' for maybe the third or fourth time, I realise how I never tire of seeing such movies over and over again. In fact, the other day I watched 'The Count of Monte Cristo' again. I've done this in the past with movies like 'Remember the Titans' and 'Shawshank Redemption'. I realise I do this because these movies connect at an emotional level. Maybe 'emotional' is not the right word. Such movies connect at a 'soul' level. The triumph of the Human Spirit that comes through such movies connects at a 'soul' level.

I wonder if brands can ever do that? Surely brands can and do evoke emotions, but can they connect at a 'soul' level? Such connects are ones that 'move' you. Takes you back to the entity in question over and over again.

Soul Brands are those that connect at a deep level. They sear into our psyches. My gut tells me if this were possible it would be more for service brands than product ones. After all, its what people do that moves us. And service is about doing. In all the movies I mentioned, the protagonist/s act in manners that move us. We rejoice with them in their triumphs. Such joint celebration is what's the hallmark of a 'soul connection'.

Probably the genesis to a 'Soul Brand'. That's if brands can.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Consumer-Driven Healthcare Beats Socialized Healthcare

Sphere: Related Content

'Please do not sell'

'And yet who can deny that while our media has much to be proud of, there is increasing public disenchantment, not just with its slant, shrillness, sermonising and sensationalism, but with its core value, namely integrity. It is hardly a secret that the media is capable of misjudgement and laziness. However, what the aam aadmi seldom doubts is the “news” it transmits. That trust, alas, is breaking down.

I am not referring to the blurring of news and opinion, which itself violates the time-honoured principle: News is sacred, comment is free. However, even when news and comment are mixed up, it is possible for the alert consumer to separate the two. At any rate, even in the most advanced of democracies, the media does carry ideological/party bias, which is reflected not in the editorial pages, but in the news columns. That practice, however deplorable, a free press can live with. ...

I am not unmindful of the difficult times the media industry is going through. The market is too crowded, the advertising cake is too small, the economy is too sluggish. We are all furiously engaged in finding new and innovative ways to augment our dwindling revenues. Outlook (like others) is neck-deep in this skirmish. As you may have noticed, the Outlook ‘Spotlight’ feature is sponsored, the client has almost full editorial control. The only redeeming aspect is that the reader can easily spot it, since it is clearly marked on the page. News for sale is not. The purpose here is to pass off sponsored news as professional news.'

- Vinod Mehta, 'Please do not sell'.

Sphere: Related Content

Judge not. Possible?

The other day a discussion on TV about prying into celebrity private lives had Gul Panag defend Tiger Woods and the scrutiny he was facing in the media. Her take started with a treatise on the game of golf, about how many people didn't really understand the game, and the finesse required to play it. Tiger, according to her, is the greatest golfer ever and her admiration she said stemmed from his play. About Tiger being judged, she said it wasn't anyone's business.

I am amused.

Really, Gul, the fact that people rarely understand Golf elevates it to the status of fine art? Tell you what, it requires the masses not to engage, to elevate anything to a status of high rank. Don't you agree?

I am irritated too.

At the condescending nature of the discourse. We need the hoighty-toighty's of the world to remind us our lack of class. Because, guess what, we don't play golf. Or maybe because we've never nibbled on a canape'. Or nursed a glass of sour tasting vintage wine. Or sat through a bout of shrilly yet depressing stage play. That makes us mere mortals, doesn't it.

Dare I say, sensible perhaps?

The scene reminds me of the liberal-conservative divide. Conservatives have to take to bumpkins like Sarah and George. Liberals, ah, of fine class, take to Obama. For you see, George and Sarah are the winking, hunting types. Obama, on the other hand, is a fine gentlemen given to gasbag sermonising that liberals sing paeans about.

Oh, I missed the judgement part. Judgements, members of the jury, are but natural. For our senses constantly takE in stimuli, coherently interpreting them based on our personal faculties, thus forming perceptions. Otherwise termed judgements. This is, as I said, but natural. Its impossible to stop being judgemental. Sure, we may or may not verbalise it. For that's our choice, but we still engage in judgements. When people judge the sexcapades of Tiger, they are but reacting to what's being presented as stimuli to their senses, by the media worldwide. Should they resist the temptation to judge? I don't know. Frankly, I don't care.

As consumers we make judgments all the time. About products and services. Based on what we receive as stimuli from the marketer. The judgements that fleetingly stay in our short term memory to be soon lost can be termed mere 'perceptions'. The ones that reach the long term memory turn into 'attitudes'. Note, 'attitudes' based on 'judgements' can either make or break a brand.

As far as Tiger goes, let me assure Gul there's nothing much to worry about. For these are perceptual judgements that won't reach long term memory. As for tomorrow, its going to be another celebrity doing another dumb thing. It is but natural to them. The media will surely splash it on its pages. Tiger will then be forgotten. And you can rest in peace.

Sphere: Related Content

Who wants to save the planet?

TERI honcho Rajendra Pachauri was on NDTV a few minutes ago. On being asked about the Telegraph article that featured him without the best of characterisation, Pachauri feigned righteous indignation. He threatened action against the publication. On being asked whether he was contemplating legal action, Pachauri hesitated for a moment and said he wasn't committing to anything, but would surely respond to the paper's characterisation.

Pachauri going after the Telegraph? That'll be the day. Most do-gooders in the world, who do greater good for themselves than the ones they profess to care about, shy away from any action that puts them in the 'wrong' kind of spotlight (read, investigations into their activities). Any legal action they threaten to take risks them having to lay bare what they do. Its wishful thinking that the Al Gore warmist types would want that.

Transparency is not easy for the ones who claim they care more for something other than themselves. Because they really don't. You gotta be an airheaded liberal to believe Al Gore wants to save the planet.

Brands too, that profess to care about you, lie. They don't. In fact, I'd say they don't have to. All they have to do is solve a consumer need better than their competitors and trade that solution for the consumer's money. Such trade is fair. Solutions for the consumer, at a price.

The right to the price brands seek is their's. The right to purchase, or not to, is the consumer's. A world that works on this principle is the world we must seek. Not one filled with do gooders who seem to suggest they are doing what they do out of the goodness of their heart.

Fat chance.

Sphere: Related Content

'Courage under Fire' holds; there's proof!

I predicted it.

'But Berlusconi needn't fret. This is only natural considering there are many in Italy who detest him. Despite the scorn heaped by his opponents, the bloody attack and its aftermath of exhibition of 'courage' will only cement Berlusconi's popularity with his supporters. They will see him as a 'courage under fire' kinda hero.'

Now its happened.

Reuters reports on Berlusconi's popularity rise, post attack. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's approval rating has risen back above 50 percent after an attack against him sparked a wave of sympathy even among opposition voters, an opinion poll showed on Sunday.

Brands, note the lesson in the Berlusconi attack story. The 'Courage under Fire' image story.

NB. - There's now a charge that the whole thing was faked. Read the conspiracy theory here.

Sphere: Related Content

Wish your customer your competitor

Was out of Bangalore and at a different city last weekend. I thought the trip had many pluses. I experienced a different cultural fare, took in new sights and sounds, and most importantly ways of consumption. I went to a cinema to catch the late local fare. Sadly the movie turned out to be dubbed South Indian kitsch with lots of drama. Needless to say, it was numbskullish. The saviour was the audience. Its fun to be at a run down cinema where's there's lots of hooting. The same can be said for the mites in my seat.

Hours of fidgeting. Brilliant experience.

But the biggest plus was the fact that the trip got me to appreciate Bangalore, more. The next time, there's load-shedding at the most inconvenient of times (which was early this morning) at BTM, where I live, I may not complain as much. After all there are cities in India where electricity is like the Haley's comet.

Brands should, if I may say, at times wish their customers went to their competitors. That's is if they know they are far superior in value-delivery vis-a-vis their competitors. For the customer's experience with the competitor will only make them appreciate you more. Even to the extent they come back to you and stay put, with you. In fact, its best way to seal loyalty.

I should know.

I don't think, at least for now, I wanna live anywhere in India, except Bangalore.

Sphere: Related Content

The dilemmas we face

The most profoundest of dilemmas that we face in life are the simplest. Yet, if you carefully pick them apart, you would find how 'weighty' such 'simple' dilemmas are. Like last evening at the Patna airport I was unlucky enough to be in the midst of a face-off between the airport (if you can call it that) authorities and the CISF security personnel. The airport personnel waved me in to the security check, but the CISF guys needed a break and so wanted me to go back. As I stood there mulling about this stand-off, I had good mind of giving both the parties a piece of my mind. I wanted to tell them how I didn't care what either party wanted, and that all I was looking to was to plonk my behind on to a chair so I could take some rest. It didn't matter if it was the waiting lounge (if you can call it that) or the check-in lounge. I also wanted to remind them that weren't doing me, the customer a favour, and that their blessed paychecks they get to do what they do, came out of my taxes.

But I remained mum. Because I knew any sort of protest may have these government officials go beyond the call of duty to make my flying experience miserable. Like for example, they could rummage through my bag till kingdom come, during the security check, looking for non-existent aviation wrecking material. I'd already had the experience of these guys confiscating most of my toiletries when I flew in to Patna. So, like I said, I stayed shut. Thankfully, I had a decent flight.

Brings me to the profound dilemma I was talking about. The one, King Solomon talked about. 'There is a time for everything; a season for every activity under heaven'. Lori Hoeck says it best about the 'time' dilemma, and so you can read her take on it here. The particular one I faced, is described in Ecclesiastes; 'a time to keep silence, and a time to speak'.

I picked the former. I was right in doing so. Yet such acts aren't easy. Especially if they take a toll on your esteem. Mine didn't take a hit, because I'd like to believe I am okay without any 'recognition'. I mean, my esteem's okay most of the times when I have to smoke the peace-pipe, even when I think I don't have to.

Business, as in life, too throws up such scenarios. The difference is, if the roles are reversed, I mean, if someone else is at the receiving end, I feel the ones with the power to intervene, must do so to prevent esteem-kills. Let me illustrate. I remember this time, working at the Taj managing a Midnight-snack session at my restaurant. Two louts walk in a little after midnight, drunk, swearing at everyone in sight. I wonder why they aren't in the first place stopped at the gate. In the restaurant they proceed to insult every steward in sight, ordering them to get food and more drink. The stewards come to me, telling me it wouldn't easy for them to serve such drunk guests. I agree. I tell them not to extend any service. After a bout of intense swearing and threatening, they leave, going to the lobby and reporting me to the manager on duty. The MoD then comes to the restaurant and asks me extend service to the louts in question. My reply remains the same. No service. To cut a long story short, I get reported, faced the management next day, who cajole me to think about my decision. To keep the ignoramuses happy, I say, I will, though in my mind I am convinced I was right.

At times, I witness guests being extremely rude. And I mean 'extremely'. Their rudeness, tolerated by a business house takes a toll on the service personnel's esteem. I believe at such times the right thing to do is to kick such louts out. It only affirms to the service staff that firm cares about them. That bolsters their motivation to serve other customers better. Bowing to 'customer pressure' and taking what's being dished out isn't easy. It may be easy for people up the hierarchy. Not so for people lower. Because its the ones lower down that face the music. The higher-ups can, of course, post-incident sermonise.

In closing let me restate the dilemma I was talking about. 'A time to keep silence, and a time to speak.' At the security gate, it was a time to keep silence. At the restaurant, it was a time to speak and kick the louts out.

Wisdom is knowing what, when, and not mixing the two up.

Sphere: Related Content

The Copenhagen Buffoonery

'But boy! Was this crass, or what? The apocalyptic document revealing that even if the Western leaders hand over all the climate Danegeld demanded of them, appropriately at the venue of Copenhagen, the earth will still fry on a 3C temperature rise is the latest transparent scare tactic to extort more cash from taxpayers. The danger of this ploy, of course, is that people might say “If we are going to be chargrilled anyway, what is the point of handing over billions – better to get some serious conspicuous consumption in before the ski slopes turn into saunas.”...

This week has been truly historic. It has marked the beginning of the landslide that is collapsing the whole AGW imposture. The pseudo-science of global warming is a global laughing stock and Copenhagen is a farce. In the warmist camp the Main Man is a railway engineer with huge investments in the carbon industry. That says it all. The world’s boiler being heroically damped down by the Fat Controller. Al Gore, occupant of the only private house that can be seen from space, so huge is its energy consumption, wanted to charge punters $1,200 to be photographed with him at Copenhagen. There is a man who is really worried about the planet’s future.

If there were not $45trillion of Western citizens’ money at stake, this would be the funniest moment in world history. What a bunch of buffoons. Not since Neville Chamberlain tugged a Claridge’s luncheon bill from his pocket and flourished it on the steps of the aircraft that brought him back from Munich has a worthless scrap of paper been so audaciously hyped. There was one good moment at Copenhagen, though: some seriously professional truncheon work by Danish Plod on the smellies. Otherwise, this event is strictly for Hans Christian Andersen.'

- Gerald Warner, 'Copenhagen climate summit: 'most important paper in the world' is a glorified UN press release'.

Sphere: Related Content

The call to Liberty

At a time when a state government in India is mulling 'forcing' voters into polling booths, I recommend people listen to what Congressional candidate Lieutenant Colonel Allen West has to say.

Listen up! (Video above)

Sphere: Related Content

Bajaj Scooter, an icon? Me, the Pope?

I am not too sure how serious Rahul Bajaj is when he says he is not fully convinced of his company's decision to phase out scooters. I guess he is just being politically correct. After all, he is supposed to sound sad, isn't he? Rajiv Bajaj, on the other hand says what makes perfect sense, that he cares less for emotion and more for logic as the scooter business isn't profitable anymore. Elsewhere I hear the decision of exiting Bajaj scooters being portrayed as the end of an iconic brand.

Iconic brand? Did I hear right?

Far from being an iconic brand, Bajaj scooters represents what was consumer choice in socialist India. In the socialist state that was India, consumers had no choice but to buy the 'only' brand on show. Thus engineering its iconic status, thanks to the 'one' choice exercised.

Rahul's right. Logic's what's required. A logic that centers around the only entity that matters. The customer.

Sphere: Related Content

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY

Read it here.

Sphere: Related Content

'Courage under Fire' a must for Brands

Its a pity that Silvio Berlusconi had to have his teeth broken, nose fractured, and lip bloodied. Yet in many ways, Berlusconi should be thanking the mentally deranged guy who did this to him. Because it gave him an opportunity to show the tough guy he was, despite cowardly attacks. In fact, it seems after the attack Berlusconi tried to climb on to his car to show he was all right, before being driven away.

Smart.

Post attack, within hours, some 20,000 people had signed up to Facebook groups lauding Mr Tartaglia, the attacker as a hero. But Berlusconi needn't fret. This is only natural considering there are many in Italy who detest him. Despite the scorn heaped by his opponents, the bloody attack and its aftermath of exhibition of 'courage' will only cement Berlusconi's popularity with his supporters. They will see him as a 'courage under fire' kinda hero.

Brands too fall prey to 'attacks'. From opponents or even plain loonies who just can't stand the brand. We know of loonies like the PETA attacking KFC, Greenpeace taking on Apple, and so on. At such times, its wise to respond either by ignoring the loony in question or by shrugging off the 'hit' and exhibiting studied defiance. Note, any response to attacks must be dignified and elegant, not reek of amateurish retaliation. That is, it mustn't be an eye for an eye.

Consumers like people are enamored by courage and grace under fire. That requires that at certain times, people and brands respond. Measuredly and with dignity. That may mean standing up and showing your supporters you're okay, or releasing a statement via the media, that as much as you are hurt by the attack, you aren't fazed. That you would continue to strive at giving your customers even better value for their money.

Sphere: Related Content

The need to 'Score', the need to 'Scorn'

'Tiger is a star, a sexy pretty-boy, a famous athlete, the biggest name in golf. He can get girls in any city, any port, any hour of the day or night. He did not want an extra-marital affair. He wanted multiple affairs, multiple one night stands, multiple, ongoing sex contacts to juggle. He wanted non-committed sex with a series of women (eleven so far and counting), whom he had no intention of marrying.

To Tiger, sex is a sport, like golf, a form of entertainment, another way of scoring. He is no different than all the other alpha-male rock stars, actors, politicians and businessmen...

But aren’t these adult sexual matters private? Why pry? Why does the media go after these private matters and, in so doing, destroy lives?

Because we, the people, just love to read about powerful people’s sex lives. We like to see someone ruined, brought low. There, but for the grace of God, go I; or, he deserves it, who does he think he is? How dare he mess with our illusions?

We, the people, want to know if one of our ostensible heroes is not as wholesome as he pretends to be; we want to know when they are low and crafty dogs.'

- Phyllis Chesler, 'Tiger’s Sex Score'.

Sphere: Related Content

All of You

Sphere: Related Content

Why Gore's rabble rousing works, and doesn't

In the past I've talked about why scare tactics (read, fear appeal) may or may not work, when used by marketers. Let me now restate the 'Protection Motivation Model' to explain why Al Gore and his cohorts get away with fibbing. The interpretation of the model will also help explain why Al Gore's god to liberals and charlatan to conservatives.

One approach to the curvilinear explanation of fear is the Protection Motivation Model. According to this theory, four cognitive appraisal processes mediate the individual's response to the threat: appraising (1) the information available regarding the severity of the perceived threat, (2) the perceived probability that the threat will occur, (3) the perceived ability of a coping behaviour to remove the threat, (4) the individual's perceived ability to carry out the coping behaviour.

Now consider the canard of Climate change. Rabble rousing that Gore and his cohorts whip up surely hits home for some (read, liberals). The 'severity of threat' perceived by liberals rocket. Let me illustrate both the rabble rousing and the severity perception.

Rabble Rousing, Exhibit 1, Architect - Al Gore:

When John Dickerson asked Al why the Copenhagen Climate Summit matters, this was the response;

'We face the gravest threat that civilization has ever confronted. It’s global in nature and requires a global solution. Increased CO2 emissions anywhere, whether from China or the United States or from one of the countries that is burning its forests like Brazil or Indonesia from wherever the emissions come, they have the same effect: They trap much more heat from the sun, melt the ice, raise the sea level, cause stronger storms, floods, drought, bigger fires, generate millions of climate refugees, destabilize political systems, threaten the growing of food crops and cause a number of other catastrophic consequences which, taken together, threaten the basis for the future of human civilization on the Earth.'

Rabble Rousing, Exhibit 2, Architect - Diane Francis (who thinks its isn't climate change, its population, in Financial Post);

'For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.'

Severity Perception, Exhibit 1, Architect - Thomas Friedman (NY Times)

'When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about...

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.'

Now that the liberals have played out the first two parts of the model, that is, provided shrilly information about the 'threat' and shown that there's a perceived probability the threat would play out, what remains is the 'response'.

'Follower' liberals believe there's coping behavior that can remove this threat. Which reads something like this; Pay more taxes to government (call it carbon tax), enforce usage of products and services that's labelled 'green' (never mind that its the Al Gore types pocketing the moolah), elevate the likes of Streisand and Sarandon to dictating business and social policies...; the list seems frighteningly endless.

Liberals again believe the perceived ability in carrying out this 'coping behaviour' is strengthened if we fall, blinkers on, rank and file, behind the likes of Gore. Oh, and yes, their saviour Barack Obama.

Now that we know why liberals are freaked out at Climate change, why is that conservatives don't seem to be concerned? The answer's simple. They know Al Gore and his cohorts are fibbing. That Climate Science is Junk Science. That the charge man can control weather is hogwash.

Let me now illustrate what's 'sensible' response to the canard of 'climate change'. Response of people on whom Gore's marketing campaign's (read, fear appeal) had no effect.

The Unaffected, Exhibit 1, Architect - Roger Kimball (Pajamas Media)

'Nice work if you can get it, Al! And as for the scientific consensus, what is it? Al Gore pretends that he speaks for such a consensus. In fact, though, the consensus is more and more that evidence for anthropogenic global warming is not just overstated: it is essentially non-existent.

Ideologues like Al Gore have hopped onto the Climate Change bandwagon — formerly known as the global warming bandwagon — partly for reasons of self-aggrandizement (”The world is just about to end: only I can save it!”), partly in order to foster an atmosphere of emergency which can be used to rationalize political activism. It’s a mug’s game, but unfortunately, we are the mugs being suckered.'

The Unaffected, Exhibit 2, Architect - Gary Sutton (Forbes)

'Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes...

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we'd forestall the next ice age?

I can ask "outrageous" questions like that because I'm not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.'

The real fear coming out of Climate change shouldn't be about what will happen to the planet. Instead it should be about what will happen to us if we let the likes of Gore dictate policies. For if we let him get away with it, what we fritter away wouldn't the future of our planet, but ours. Our freedom and our liberty to choose what is rightfully ours.

The uniquely individual 'pursuit of happiness'.

Sphere: Related Content

The phenomenon of Brand Rejection

A discussion with Jati at the Univ. of Toulouse1 about Brand Rejection got me thinking. Current literature of the subject is pretty sketchy, though there's been research conducted. I have in past commented on 'Brand Avoidance'. Let me now turn to Brand Rejection.

Rejection can either be a pre-purchase or a post-purchase act. The difference between the two is critical in managing fallouts that come from rejection.

Pre-purchase rejections are driven by 'states of mind' (read, consumer psychological set) that form negative judgements about brands. That is, the consumer isn't favourably disposed to the brand in question even before he buys it. Again, this kind of rejection can either be a fallout of pre-purchase analysis of the 'known' set, or it can even be the brand being rejected summarily, sans any evaluation. Let me illustrate. Consumers, on evaluating brands in the known set, categorise some as being 'inept'. The inept set gets rejected. A contrast to this is the other possibility where a brand though known, doesn't find place in the set to be evaluated, because the consumer engages in 'summary rejection' driven by a psyche that isn't disposed favourably towards it. For example, the 'country of origin' can be a reason why the brand is rejected. Even before rational analysis. Such rejection can turn into a mass act, termed 'boycott'. 'Perceived associations' can at other times be the cause for rejections. Take the case of the clothing brand Hoelzer Reich, that has come under fire for using Nazi-esque imagery in their clothing. This resulted in their use being banned at the World Extreme Cage fighting sport. Nazi associations are frowned upon. Even a semblance of such association can prove fatal. Tommy Hilfiger knows what its like to be at the end of a rumor where he featured as having made racist remarks on Oprah. None of it was true. Yet the 'stain' wouldn't go away.

Post purchase rejections are based on consumption evaluations. Lousy value delivery can get the brand to be banished, even forever, from a consumer's consideration set. Like for me, Trackon courier is as good as dead. Once bitten twice shy, as they say.

Eliminating pre-purchase rejection requires a change to be effected in consumer psyches. Communication becomes the key in such scenarios. The audience in question has to be persuaded via communiques, to change their mindset. The chances of it happening are strengthened if the brand in question can use neutral sources (read, PR) to mouth the persuasive message. Post-purchase consumption based judgements (read, rejection) can only be changed by better value delivery. Communiques are of no help. Also, the 'once bitter, twice shy' consumer may be unwilling to take a chance, again. Which means, the lure to get the consumer to try has to exceedingly strong. Promos may be required to initiate a 'second try'.

As much as brands need to know reasons why they are preferred, they also need to decipher why they aren't. That is, if they aren't. And when they try and decipher that, the start would be taking cognizance of the fact that rejection could have been either a pre- or a post-purchase act.

Knowing that becomes imperative in knowing what to do. To change it.

Note: Read a paper of whether Brand Rejections exist, here.

Sphere: Related Content

Tiger, Tiger, Going down!

For brand, image is everything. More so if the brand doesn't have any 'tangible' characteristics on which consumers can evaluate them. Like say, how can a Pepsi or a Coke be evaluated on objective terms? Most 'buys ins' to such brands are based on psychological evaluations, on how the brand can maybe aid the consumer 'project' or 'live' a certain identity. When Pepsi runs 'My Can' commercials it tries to appeal to youth living lives on their 'own' terms.

So if image is everything, is it surprising that brands are now abandoning the Tiger Woods bandwagon? After all, his image rubs off on the brand. And so if his image is taking a nosedive, brands don't want to go down with him.

Despite what Gatorade says, that's exactly why they have dropped Tiger. Also note, according to data from Nielsen Co., advertisements featuring Tiger Woods have disappeared from prime-time broadcast television and many cable channels following reports of his extramarital affairs. The last prime-time ad featuring the 33-year-old golfer was a 30-second Gillette Co. spot on Nov. 29. Woods also was absent from ads on a number of weekend sports programs, including NFL games.

Rats abandoning ship? I don't think so. Its brands doing whatever, to matter to consumers. And that's all that counts.

Sphere: Related Content

The New Female Consumer: The Rise of the Real Mom

Read the Adage white paper on 'The New Female Consumer: The Rise of the Real Mom' here.

Sphere: Related Content

Consumer Learning to be wary of

There's only so much we can do in influencing Jaden, as he grows up. I mean in trying to instill what we believe is polite behaviour. For example, we try and prevent any kind of whining, telling him there are things he can have and things he can't. And then out of the blue, once a while, he comes home and tries tantrums to get something he wants. At first we would be surprised at his changed tantrum strategy. Because it is out of the ordinary for him. Then we realise, he's picked the behaviour from elsewhere. Watching some other kid use the tactic on his parents. And so he learns from observing such behavior (learned termed, vicarious learning) and then tries it home.

Our task now gets harder in trying to undo what's been instilled 'from the outside'.

Consumers too get material to learn from, about brands, from two sources. One's the firm's marketing efforts and the other's the socio-cultural environment. What remains within the firm's control is its own marketing efforts, which it uses to build right perceptions and attitudes towards its brands. But then, out of the blue comes along reference groups that reek the socio-cultural environment, exhibiting behaviour that is lapped up by the consumer. Leading to consumers learning something drastically different (hopefully not) about the brand from what the firm tried to cultivate. Such learning that may run at cross-purposes from the firm's efforts can be devastating to a brand. It now becomes important for the brand to undo such 'externalised learning' to reinforce what its being saying all along with its own marketing efforts. Else, the brand may even have to take the road of no-return.

Its for this reason that PR and Publicity becomes critical for any brand. Note, advertising can only do that much. For brands to cement learning in the minds of consumers, they have to use neutral sources in the socio-cultural environment to 'seal' the message.

As for us, we can only hope Jaden picks up what's polite behaviour through vicarious learning. For we will only be able to 'undo' till a certain time, a certain age. But again, we are comforted by the fact that a healthy, inclusive, tolerant and faith-filled environment at home should be the best defence to influences from the 'outside'.

Sphere: Related Content

Real Men

'Real men need to fight the cultural scourge of swing fashion trends. Real men are not trendy. They’re classic. No one wants to see lithe and androgynous men. And no one wants to see a man’s chest hair, either.

More important than the silly trends and those that hawk them is the underlying cultural acknowledgment. There is no dressing up capitulating, weak behavior. Pictures of President Obama catching a football or lining up a putt with Tiger Woods or shooting a basketball with his campaign logo on it will not make up for the fact that his actions are weak and scraping. While there is no question that President Bush burnished his image with cowboy boots and brush clearing, it would have rung hollow had he not had the gumption to back up the image. President Obama’s problem is that the image and the action don’t match.

Real men demonstrate manliness — not from superficial photo ops. So men, either you got it or you don’t. Showing heavage will display nothing but insecurity or a strange disconnect from what normal women find appealing. Leave fashion trends behind. Embrace the kind of masculinity that is self-evident: decisive, common-sense action. It’s not something one wears. It just is.'

- Melissa Clouthier, C’mon Guys! Please Don’t Show Us Your ‘Heavage’.

Sphere: Related Content

The Climate-Change Travesty

'Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic manmade warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future...

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.'

- George Will, 'The Climate-Change Travesty'.

Sphere: Related Content

The Copenhagen Circus

'According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.'

The only true saviour of the world is commerce. The hard of work of mortals (read, value creation) that ends up as goods and services that are then traded. For money that comes from earnings of another who's toiled in a similar value creating activity.

This is what's fair and noble.

Not the 'Save the World' hypocrisy of Al Gore types whose only desire is to fill their own pockets skimming off the scam they have engineered called Climate Change & Global Warming.

Sphere: Related Content

Spirituality ISN'T me!

'Says Sri Latha, from Oneness University, “Spirituality means coming in touch with your inner truth, becoming conscious of what you truly are. Spiritual intelligence leads to emotional intelligence, which makes you a happier person.” She recommends, “We tend to block and escape emotional disturbances. Pay attention to your discomfort, probe deeper and change your own perception of the world around you.” As spirituality doubles up as pop psychology, in an “I, me, myself” world, we seem to have evolved to seeking a higher self. Says Los Angeles-based yoga guru Bikram Choudhury, “Yes, I’m the most important person for myself. If I die tomorrow, everything ceases to matter. Self-realisation is God-realisation. Spirituality is about creating a road between your mind and your own atma or soul. Spiritualism is all about learning to connect with your own spirit.” '

I am amused at the kind of hogwash that gets passed off as spirituality. I am even more amused that there can be takers for this kind of bunkum. Recommendations to get 'self-centered' is an act of selfishness, than selflessness. It only makes the spirituality-seeker even more blind to what's 'reality'. In fact the kind of 'introspection' these pop-gurus recommend can't and won't work. Simply because any act of 'looking inwards' has to be a post mortem analysis of a context or a situation.

My analysis of me has to be one where I try and decipher my own behaviour, in order to get to the bottom of what could have caused it. And my behaviour would have been exhibited during what I call a 'situation' which then becomes the 'context' for analysis. Of course, it may not always be possible for me to engage in this analysis on my own. That's when I should get into what's called therapy.

The pop guru's call to sit cross legged and zero in on your 'core being' is nothing but a whole lot of wasted time.

Business introspection too is situational. Contextual. Post mortem analysis is a must to better value delivery to consumers . To carry out such an act, the relevant business context is sequenced and studied. To see what went right or wrong. To know if a firm is part of a chain of activities that creates 'best' value for consumers. The introspection called for requires that the activities that make the chain be benchmarked against 'best-in-class' practices. A comparison to a best-in-class practice can point out what's being done right or wrong. The focus for the firm in question then becomes matching and bettering best-in-class practices.

Pop spirituality is the refuge of people who can't honestly introspect their own behaviour. Its a convenient way of bypassing what otherwise becomes the most trying of engagements. Coming face to face with one's own frailty. In the business world too, many firms put off such introspection, choosing instead to live the illusion of grandeur.

For firms, as for people, such illusions go bust. Sooner, if not later.

Sphere: Related Content

Does cultured mean civilised?

'Indians have culture but not civilization. Culture is how we entertain ourselves; civilization is how we entertain others. Culture is our attitude to beauty and ugliness, to power, to religion, and to family. It shows in our music, in what makes us laugh. Civilization is our attitude to mankind. It’s defined as social development of an advanced stage, but civilization never actually arrives; it is only reached for. It assumes there is high purpose to life, to wealth, to culture. It believes that man will exhibit the signs of his evolution. He will improve upon man. For this he must build—but what?...

Indians should buy their books from Landmark, their phones from Tata Indicom, their television sets and washing machines from Croma; and they should stay at the Taj. They should drink Tetley tea and Himalayan mineral water. They should watch TV on TataSky and get themselves insured with Tata AIG. Why?

Last year, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust gave away Rs201 crore. Sir Ratan Tata Trust gave away Rs153 crore. This is not CSR (corporate social responsibility) or other corporate varnish: It’s pure philanthropy. Witness its quality: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Tata Energy Research Institute (Teri), Indian Institute of Science, National Centre for the Performing Arts. That is civilization...

The Tatas set up Teri, India’s first green industry initiative, in 1974.

Under R.K. Pachauri, in 2003, the name Tata was neatly excised from Teri and replaced with the word “The”. Now, Teri’s magazine and website are testament to the greatness of Pachauri, who will show up to collect any award you give him, including GQ Man of the Year. But that is our culture...'

- Aakar Patel, 'Parsis have civilization; other Indians don’t.'

Sphere: Related Content

Everyday Miracles

Sphere: Related Content

The Junk Science of Climate Change

To all the believers in the Junk Science of Climate change; a visit to Climate-Gate is a must.

Also read, 'Fast facts about Climategate' here.

Sphere: Related Content

Contrived Reality

'The ‘Bruce’ David Brooks celebrates is not just the self-effacing voice of our musical traditions. After all, in the rock pantheon he is ‘the Boss.’ Rather, the concerts are fully dramatized and choreographed presentations of Springsteen as the everyman oracle of this mythology, bourn on Wagnerian walls of sound. Metcalf observes, the persona is constructed, “a majestic American simpleton with a generic heartland twang,” a much refined invention, all “po-faced mythic resonance that now accompanies Bruce’s every move.”

The fanciful working class authenticity is key, the basis of the Boss’ claim on what Brooks sees as immense moral authority. Brooks quotes Landau, that there is “not a lot of irony” in Bruce’s work, which, if you have any critical distance from the fabricated character, attendant mythology, and anthemic music, is dead wrong, Otherwise, you are Metcalf’s “rock and roll naïf,” and Landau is a circus huckster.

Springsteen is not alone in constructing a persona, with its own mythology, claiming an imagined authenticity. Many among the cast of characters of the 60’s counterculture, including rock stars, were in fact middle class kids who remade their own histories and identities, which is okay so long as 40 years after Woodstock and Altamont you mention to your impressionable 15-year old kid, this is show business, these are not the real gods, this is not your real history.

But this is not likely among the blue-state elites. Rather, it is likely that Brooks’ daughter will, at an elite university, be taught a map of reality rather close to the Boss’ faux Americana. This is only too cruel, as it is also likely that today’s 15-year-olds will be asked to be stoical, to pay for all the mischief, all the self-serving boomer schemes, financial and otherwise.'

- Edward Azlant, 'David Brooks' Sentimental Education: Bruce Springsteen'.

Sphere: Related Content

Anxious consumers buy

It was a 'horrible' news report that sent my anxiety levels sky high. A story on a tragic LPG cylinder leak that culminated in an explosion took the life of a li'l boy and had his parents badly burnt.

At home, our immediate reaction was to take a look at our own LPG cylinder usage. We replaced the old tubes used on the cylinder and the one at the stove, and changed our earlier practices of usage. We now ensure the stop-levers in and out of the house (connecting to the stove and cylinder) are shut when the stove's not in use. Plus, more importantly, we shut the valve on the cylinder, again when not in use.

Its interesting to note that anxiety levels rocket when consumers are exposed to contexts they can relate to, more so when it involves a product/brand they own or use. For example, if there's a media report on a brand of car that one owns, its more probable the owner reads it as compared to a non-owner. If one travels everyday to work, an accident on the road you travel on becomes important enough for you to seek more details. An LPG cylinder explosion, and we check our own usage practices and effect necessary changes.

Heightened levels of anxiety among consumers pose what can be termed as a 'ripe' opportunity. For a sale or an up-sale. Here's how. A death or disease in the family may remind you of your own mortality. Should you be approached by a Life Insurance agent around this time (hopefully after the mourning's over), the chances you pick a policy is extremely high. Read a story on a car crash caused by worn out tyres, chances you think about replacing your car's tyres is pretty high. Should a dealer get in touch at such times, you'd me more than willing to go with his recommendation of a brand of tyres.

Now I know it isn't easy to know when consumers are being subject to heightened levels of anxiety, at least on an individual basis. But its possible to generalise that anxiety should there be a mass communique (read, media report) that you believe can spread that anxiety around. In such cases, capitalise and communicate your brand as a solution. The chances of a sale will surely be high.

Read the report on how two Indian brands tapped into flu anxiety with immunity claims in their communiques.

Sphere: Related Content

What's common to IIMs & Tiger Woods?

Lousy PR.

It didn't matter that one's a set of top ranking B-Schools in India and the other's the top ranked golfer in the world. Both reacted to crisis in a downright amateurish manner.

The 'crashed' servers at CAT exam are being attributed to virus attacks. A claim that's being pooh-poohed by industry experts. In fact, cyber experts say pinning the blame on a virus attack may have worsened things for applicants. Cyber experts opined that the official explanation of a virus would open the doors for students to question the exams and approach courts to have it cancelled. In addition, the Press Conference addressed by the IIM-A director too was nothing to write about. Lame answers delivered in a fashion I call, amateurishly defiant.

Tiger Woods too reacted no better. He's clammed up fuelling even greater speculation. The Drudge Report had his crash as headlines for two days running. Allegations of an affair surface. And now it seems two women have lined up, and are set to go public with claims that they had affairs with him. Tabloids on both sides of the Atlantic desperately seek New York nightclub hostess, Rachel Uchitel, as she's supposed to be the 'woman in question'. The whole drama swirls amidst Tiger Woods' silence. More so I'd say, due to his 'silence'.

Publicised crisis requires that brands handle them deftly. Deftly means, one, react as quickly as possible. Delays paint the party in question as guilty or as trying to cover up. Two, Respond. Its a must to, unless its felt 'silence' is better; that staying mum will ensure the story 'dies'. And when responses are given, its imperative that they are well thought out, and choreographed to perfection. Send in the most convincing, credible people with strong communication skills. Not amateurs with degrees.

Note what Larry Kudlow writes in his 'open' letter to Woods; 'But in your case, if there is no alcohol, drugs, or infidelity, and if there is a better-sounding, truthful explanation of your events, you’ve gotta get out there and say it. As you know, your clean, serious, sober, near-perfect, golden-boy bloom is already off the rose. And if you insist on stonewalling, from now on it’s damage limitation. And that will be no fun at all. Your bottom will be lower than anything you ever imagined.

Fans love the way you play, and so do I. Sunday afternoons are a treat watching you. But you’re in a heap of trouble right now. Stonewalling, whether in business or politics, seldom pays.

C’mon Tiger. Be a mench. Fess up and clear the air. If you do it soon, you will be forgiven, and this too will pass.'

Now, that's great advice, but I can't help but add mine. To the IIMs; get yourselves a PR agency. Pronto. To Tiger, if your PR agent advised you to stay mum, fire the guy/agency and get a more sensible one. Pronto again.

Sphere: Related Content

Consumer Anxiety is as much, post purchase

I remember placement time when I was at the verge of graduation. The year was 1993. I recall the anxiety that went all around before 'placement', as much as after placement. That is, we were anxious before the placement process started, and once we were selected, we still talked about how it would be with the company we were about to join.

The point to note here, is the post-placement psyche. It didn't matter we were placed. It was now about the choice we made of the company that would be our future workplace. Was it the right one, we wondered? More so, for students who weren't joining Day Zero recruiters. The reinforcement that they sought revolved around speaking about the company they were about to join, with whoever cared to listen. And in that conversation the selected student would try and point out how fortunate he was to be able to work for the particular company.

In Behavioural terms, such an 'act' is termed 'rationalisation'. And it isn't limited to colleges and students.

Marketers ought to recognise that consumer anxiety isn't restricted to a pre-purchase scenario. Post purchase too, anxiety levels rise. About whether the choice made was the right one. Especially if the product in question is a high-involvement one with considerable purchase risk. Consumers react to this anxiety by engaging in four kinds of responses. One, they rationalise the decision as a wise one. They talk about it, the way it happens after placements. Two, they may seek advertisements that support their choice and avoid those of competitor brands. Three, they may attempt to persuade friends or people they know to buy the same brand, and thus confirm their choice. And, four, they may turn to other satisfied owners for reassurance.

The lesson in here for marketers is one of post purchase communiques. As much as brands use pre-purchase communiques to pilot buys, post purchase ones too are needed to reduce welling up anxiety. In a corporate recruitment scenario, this post purchase communique could be a mail sent to the recruited students stating how pleased the company is to have them and how much they look forward to the students joining and building a successful career with them.

Sphere: Related Content

The delusion in 'Buy Nothing Day'

'Without the West’s ‘irresponsible’ consumption habits, developing countries would be a lot worse off. Without the soulless global corporations sucking at the pool of cheap labour, many ‘exploited’ workers would have no job at all. Workers wages help them to feed and clothe their family, and boost the income of those around them. Also, those in developing countries acquire new skills and technology that can be used to aid development. The success of the Tiger Economies show that working with a Western economic system is better than rallying against it.

Moving towards a culture of Buying Nothing will also do zilch to address climate change. Consumption leads to the creation of wealth; and increasing wealth is exactly what is needed to deal with the issue. Buying Something leads to the creation of new, better, cheaper and cleaner products. Created wealth is invested in things such as green technology and research into geo-engineering projects. Without an economic system that relies on consumption, we would be sitting in the dark and cold, paying penance for our forefather’s environmental ignorance.

Encouraging a decline in consumption is deluded, dangerous and thankfully impossible. The promise of rediscovering the true you from a day of suppressed spending is utterly daft; our economic system has evolved because it is best at serving our needs and desires. AdBusters claim that if you persist in your sacrifice of shopping “you will transcend – perhaps reaching the kind of epiphany that can change the world.” However, all that would be transcended would be all sense of reason. The rejection of a consumption-based economy would change the world, but for the worse.'

- Charlotte Bowyer, 'Buy Nothing Day' (Adam Smith Institute Blog)

Sphere: Related Content

The Loo's a pointer to the Kitchen

I shudder going to cloakrooms (read, loo) at most restaurants. Because what I see may put me off. Not just would it kill my appetite, it would even get me off that restaurant. I leave, possibly never to return.

Why? Because I make judgements about cleanliness of the kitchen based on what I see in the loo. Again, why? Isn't in unfair to judge a kitchen I don't see, based on a loo I see? Shouldn't an evaluation of the serving area (diner) be the base to my judgement? That is, if the restaurant serving and seating area's clean, surely the kitchen must be?

The answer to that is comparable to what's said about character. 'Character is what you do when no one's looking'. Similarly cleanliness is about keeping clean, those areas that may not be termed a 'primary' contact point. The serving area in a restaurant is the primary point of contact. Its but natural that the staff keep it clean. The loo is only an 'allied' area. The staff may not be find it as necessary to keep it clean. But how wrong they are. If the loo were to be clean, in all probability, I for one will take the kitchen, which is an 'invisible' area as clean. The same inferences however cannot drawn from the cleanliness of the serving area.

Too many times, firms focus on what's a 'front-end', assuming that's what drives judgements. But customers are clever. They may be on the lookout for a glimpse of what's a 'back-end' in your business. Their perceptions on quality is more driven by how the back-end performs rather than the classic front-end.

Tell you what, wanna know if a restaurant's clean? Check the glasses on the table, the sauce bottles and the cruet set. If they are, chances are you're sitting in a clean area. Now check the loos. If clean, relax, enjoy your meal. If your 'checks' on the table and in the loo don't leave you satisfied, I'd say, scoot.

Or stay, suffer the consequences.

Sphere: Related Content