'I have seen many such items in almost all budgets—they have ranged from ‘agarbattis’ to ‘bindis’ to vests, and God knows what else, over the years. And I wonder why? Why do we have these strange items in the budget? Are they really worth it? And what about that whole notion of a simple tax regime that is moving towards uniformity of rates? Look at the range of items which are being exempted from indirect taxes in this Budget—cold storages, transporting cereals and pulses (but not fruits and vegetables), corrugated boxes, latex rubber thread. And the list goes on.
The whole point of tax reforms is that we must stop fine-tuning taxes. And we in the past have seen the benefits that come with simplicity. But somehow, India’s most important annual economic event is full of subtext that is either nonsensical, or a farce, or both. And it is not just this Budget. Pick up any one over the last two decades, and you will see the same story.'
- Laveesh Bhandari, 'Enjoy the nice, safe Budget'.
Saturday 27 February 2010
The Indian Budget Story
Friday 26 February 2010
We've met the enemy and he is us
Its isn't easy keeping up with a three year old. More so because where everything around becomes material to be explored for him, I seek the familiar to ease into. For example, when I seek my favourite couch to sink into after work, he's almost finished dialling every possible number on planet Earth using his mom's mobile phone. But then its interesting how his sweet antics play a major role in keeping what's in my head young ands sprightly. Right now Alphy's unsuccessfully trying to fry something in the kitchen, 'cos Jaden's insisting he does it, his way!
Like I said, it isn't easy taking to everything Jaden does. At times it starts to overwhelm and irritate. And at such times we tell ourselves it isn't Jaden we need to control, instead its our own emotions. In trying to keep him and his naturally curious urges in check we may make things easier for ourselves, but we grossly mess up on providing him a nurturing environment. In raising Jaden up, we know our biggest challenge will lie not as much in the way we keep him in check, but in how we manage our own emotions when we confront his actions.
Now its exactly this sort of situation that crops up when marketers design and deliver product or service solutions to consumers. This endeavour that marketers undertake won't be all hunky dory. Consumers are bound to get on their nerves. At such times it would be pertinent to remember that consumers must be treated as 'uncontrollables'. The marketer instead should turn the spotlight on the system that's supposed to deliver solutions to consumers and see whether it can be bettered. Demanding consumers are opportunities for betterment of our systems. Now I can tell you, this act of business introspection isn't easy. Its far easier to retort back and put the demanding consumer in his place. That would be such a pity and it would signify a lost opportunity of betterment.
Right now Alphy's on the verge of going crazy trying to get Jaden out of the kitchen. Before everything goes up in flames, I guess I should intervene.
Wish me luck.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday 25 February 2010
The flaw in listening to your best customers
'For a marketer, its the ones who line up for the brand that matter most. May their breed increase, as their support, is what the marketer prays. The ones who stay with the brand do so as a result of positive attitudes built within them. And then there's the enemy camp that consists of people who harbour a negative attitude towards the brand. Its best the marketer leaves them alone as changing attitudes is a difficult proposition.'
That's from my post of yesterday; Note a certain contradiction to what I proposed;
At the core of the research summarized in The Innovator’s Dilemma is the notion that companies intent on listening to their best customers frequently miss opportunities to create new growth businesses. There is tremendous value in listening to demanding customers. Feedback from demanding customers helps to map out a trajectory that allows companies to continue to charge premium prices, earn attractive margins, and beat market competitors. However, established firms’ proclivity for responding to the needs of their best customers makes it difficult to seethe future impact of disruptions on their core businesses.
Companies that focus only on their best customers end up producing products and services that are too good for more mainstream customers. This overshooting creates opportunities for disruptors armed with simple, inexpensive business models. Responding to the disruptor in the lower tiers of the market never looks as attractive as serving higher-end customers, so profit-maximizing companies flee upmarket. In industry after industry, this pattern has resulted in market leaders eventually getting “pinned” to the high end of their industry and missing the growth created by disruption. Furthermore, a singular focus on demanding customers leads companies to miss growth opportunities that originate in the lower rungs of their market or in seemingly fringe markets of “non-consumers.”
A marketer’s guide to Behavioral Economics
Marketers have been applying behavioral economics—often unknowingly—for years. A more systematic approach can unlock significant value.
Read Ned Walch's article on how Behavioural Economics can be used in a systematic manner here.
Wednesday 24 February 2010
Thomas Bruso and Consumer Categories
'Does Thomas Bruso deserve to be lionized? Or is he just a crazy old coot? And what, if anything, does this video say about generational and racial conflicts in America? (In my opinion, the only real hero in the video is “Black female passenger #1″ [see transcript below], who is just about the only person who tried to intervene and stop the violence.)
I get the feeing that, basically, people just like to see an authentic fight, unedited, and all the analysis is just justification for our bloodlust. Perhaps, in the long run, this video’s only lasting impact will be to introduce the word “ambulamps” to the English language.'
That's Zombie's concluding take on the bus brawl antihero Thomas Bruso story. I think its a telling conclusion.
My take? I think people can be slotted into three categories, actually two. The ones who want to see and enjoy a fight at another's expense and the ones who want to stop it. Of course, the latter's a minority. The ones who want to see the fight soon line up to support either of the parties engaged, thus get categorised into two. So old man Bruso gets his supporters and the guy who got whupped gets his. Deep down that's what all of us in the majority do. Line up on either sides. A few among us play neutral.
Our response to brands almost works out the same. We are with it, against it, or play neutral and have no opinion. The numbers may either be stacked equally or unequally across the three categories. For a marketer, its the ones who line up for the brand that matter most. May their breed increase, as their support, is what the marketer prays. The ones who stay with the brand do so as a result of positive attitudes built within them. And then there's the enemy camp that consists of people who harbour a negative attitude towards the brand. Its best the marketer leaves them alone as changing attitudes is a difficult proposition. Instead the ones he should focus on are neutral consumers who can be persuaded. To form the right attitudes and join the camp of the faithful.
Bruso is currently a hero for many and a racist for many others. Either way it doesn't matter, for in this show, the only one who needs to be applauded is the one who tried to stop the fight. From the video it seems to be just one lady.
What can I say, at least one than none?
Tuesday 23 February 2010
A time to keep and a time to throw
Nowadays I seem to be running into things. At home, I mean. At first I thought it must be me. On checking, I find its the 'things', not me. I mean, over time we seem to have too many 'things' that have piled up at home. After all, most things are durables and so have to get in my way. Its a few things that are perishable and consumable. Now of the things we have, what we regularly use is anybody's guess. Yet, we still seem to have all of them, and we persist in keeping them.
The solution to my stumbling around is simple. Identify things we don't use or use sparingly, and give or throw them away. I know, easier said than done. Its downright difficult to let things go. Its far easier to buy and keep them. Letting go requires that we not be insecure about the 'lack' of things. But then, most of us are. We tend to think that giving something up isn't a good idea as we may have use of whatever it is we are disposing off, some time in the future. Never mind the fact that this 'use' in the future never ever comes to fruition. And so we end up being saddled with unused stuff.
Being able to give up is a sign of security. Insecurity, on the other hand, translates into a need to possess, and not give away.
As in life, in business too, the time for giving up surely arrives. In the consumer world that means businesses giving up on brands that are either not relevant to consumers or are beyond repair. Over time, consumer tastes evolve. A brand that's worked with a yesteryear consumer may no longer carry the same aura for the successor who follows. That means for a business its time to shed the brand. Or maybe relaunch it a completely with new identity. That's if its feasible. Holding on to brands that have lost their relevance and keeping them as a part of the brand portfolio only means its the start to a firm's stumbles.
Now as for me, I guess its time to take stock. Of what's in use and what isn't. Then it would be a time to throw or give away.
Wish me luck.
Sphere: Related ContentGenderless emotion with nationality?
'So what happened to us good Indians, who judged obscenities as moral slips of the tongue? When Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker’s book The Stuff of Thought argued that swearing was an emotional trigger for the brain and often used to arouse equally negative responses in others, we nodded reluctantly. But when Messrs Vishal Bhardwaj and Anurag Kashyap, professors-in-vogue of profane linguistics, peppered their scripts in Ishqiya, Omkara, Dev D and Gulaal with fiery obscenities rolling off the tongues of even their female characters, Pinker started making sense. Emotion has no gender, but it has a nationality. The answer also lies in a dialogue in Karan Johar’s My Name is Khan, when two young TV interns find themselves jostled in a crowd impatient to see the American president. The boy curses in Hindi, and the girl smiles and comments, “Hindustani gaali ke jaisi koi gaali nahin hoti! (There is nothing like swearing in Hindustani).” Say ‘fuck’ and you’ll feel brighter, stronger, faster. But say it in Hindi, or in your mother tongue and you will fly. That’s catharsis!'
- Shefalee Vasudev, 'The Blue Thesaurus'.
Monday 22 February 2010
When tranquil turns terror & Why
Anita and friends take a weekend trip to Vythiri. I play a part in recommending the place. They come back exhilarated. Anita tells me how breathtakingly beautiful the place turned out to be. I should know, years ago I lived there for some time. Anita also tells me how touched she was by the people she and her friends encountered. The people at the Resort they stayed were extremely helpful and also forthcoming to every request or query of theirs. Never did they once complain at being bombarded with questions. The guide who took them around too cared for their welfare. He accompanied them on their treks and so on. But at the end of it all, Anita said she was glad to be back in the city of Bangalore. She needed the bustle of city, a far cry from the tranquility of Vythiri, to stay sane.
Interesting.
As grown adults we have gotten used to a certain way of living. A getaway from that, though surely welcome, must last only a certain time. Afterwards we want to be back to what's 'normal'. What's familiar. If we prolong the tranquil unfamiliar, it starts to jar. The tranquil turns into terror and we yearn to go back.
Brands too either recreate the 'familiar' or construct the 'unfamiliar'. The former's what we take to, as part of our 'normal' lives, the latter's what helps us live the 'fantasy getaway'. An Indian, used to noisy buzzing streets takes wholeheartedly to Big Bazaar's 'organised chaos' driven retail atmospherics. The store turns out be an extension of what he encounters in his everyday life, and so it turns into 'familiar' territory. The same Indian at times needs a getaway. It may come in the form of a modern multiplex screening Bollywood fare. For the Indian, reaching and sitting through this nincompoopish fare becomes an 'out of the normal' weekend engagement. His whole family gets into the best of clothes, troop to the mall with the multiplex, order popcorn, and sink into cushioned seats to watch farcical fantasy playing out on the screen. The getaway is complete.
As consumers we tend to take to the familiar more often than the unfamiliar. The former works because its normal, the latter because we need our doses of fantasy. For Anita, Vythiri was the must visit fantasy that could be tolerated for the weekend. Weekdays will see her craving the familiar. A familiar called Bangalore.
Interesting.
Sunday 21 February 2010
Indian Identity
'Is there such a thing as an Indian identity?
Do we really need one?
Who is an authentic Indian and who isn't?
Is India Indian?
Does it matter?
Whether or not there has ever been a single civilization that could call itself 'Indian Civilization', whether or not India was, is, or ever will become a cohesive cultural entity, depends on whether you dwell on the differences or the similarities in the cultures of the people who have inhabited the subcontinent for centuries. India, as a modern nation state, was marked out with precise geographical boundaries, in their precise geographical way, by a British Act of Parliament in 1899. Our country, as we know it, was forged on the anvil of the British Empire for the entirely unsentimental reasons of commerce and administration. But even as she was born, she began her struggle against her creators. So is India Indian? It's a tough question. Let's just say that we're an ancient people learning to live in a recent nation.
What is true is that India is an artificial State - a State that was created by a government, not a people. A State created from the top down, not the bottom up. The majority of India's citizens will not (to this day) be able to identify her boundaries on a map, or say which language is spoken where or which god is worshipped in what region. Most are too poor and too uneducated to have even an elementary idea of the extent and complexity of their own country. The impoverished, illiterate agrarian majority have no stake in the State. And indeed, why should they, how can they, when they don't even know what the State is? To them, India is, at best, a noisy slogan that comes around during the elections. Or a montage of people on Government TV programmes wearing regional costumes and saying Mera Bharat Mahan.'
- Arundhati Roy, 'The end of Imagination'.
Rebuilding Tiger & Toyota
'As the Irish political commentator and cultural critic Fintan O'Toole has pointed out: "Celebrity culture thrives on two qualities. One is a false intimacy -- the belief that a famous person is known to us in the way our friends, family and neighbors might be. The other is blankness -- the celebrity is a screen onto which we can project whatever feelings, thoughts or desires we choose at any given time."
What marketing people like to call "brand loyalty" is the consumer economy's equivalent of the cultural of celebrity. We'd all like to think our material purchases are supremely rational, but the truth is our deep-seated preferences for certain brands are based on considerations beyond the physically qualitative.
Woods' celebrity is based not only on the perfection of his swing, but also on the idea that his modest origins and mixed racial heritage democratized and integrated a sport that hadn't fully shaken the shadows of its historic elitism and exclusionism. To many, Woods -- like President Obama -- stands for the emerging reality of a post-racial America.'
- Tim Rutten, 'Tiger and Toyota: rebuilding the brands'.
Saturday 20 February 2010
Why grudge wealth?
NATO troops have once again taken casualties fighting the Taliban. Our prayers are with the troops. Our admiration too. I don't think there's another country as gutsy and noble as the United States of America. I don't care what certain people think, to me the Americans epitomise nobility. No one's done more for freedom and liberty than the Americans. That too by paying a heavy price. The life of its citizens. Of course there will be the liberals and socialists who think America is the greedy Yankee panting for a world order dominated by their likes. I couldn't disagree more. Me thinks the liberals and socialists neither have the gumption for a fight nor have what's called moral courage.
Just like the Americans, private businesses too are derided. As scamsters getting fat on their ill gotten wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the odd rotten apple, private businesses are wealth creators. So are they solution providers. It isn't easy doing what they do because it calls for heavy doses of courage to take business risks. There's never a guarantee that such risks will pay off. Yet private citizens around the world take that plunge so they can create create consumer solutions and in the process create wealth.
So what if they turn fat on their riches? They deserve it. Period. Just like the Americans deserve to enjoy prosperity and liberty. After all, both parties paid the necessary price to have what they have.
Therefore, why grudge it?
Friday 19 February 2010
Tiger, Tiger, wailing right!
I must say I am impressed. By the style, setting, content and delivery. Tiger's pulled it off pretty well. He had to. I'm sure networks around the world carried his apology live. Imagine if he had come across as a schmuck?
An apology in principle is a good idea. Yet know that it has all the possibility of making things worse. That's if it isn't carried off well. If an apology is messed up, the aftermath would be far lousier than before it was mouthed.
Tiger got all things right with his apology. Brands can learn from him (as much as not learn too), or at least from his apology. Great brands are ones that can get their 4Ps right. In substance, that is the product, they have to be better than competitors, in setting, they have to merchandised well and be available, in style and delivery they must be positioned to perfection. Of course all of that must come at a price that drives value.
Tiger's apology is a good one, but I wonder if its complete? What about the women he had affairs with? Don't they too deserve a mention in the apology? Or dare I say, an apology?
Thursday 18 February 2010
The Deep Thinks of Deepak Chopra
'Note once again, Deepak’s ability to see inside souls. And whereas in Palin he finds only deceit and a certain coquettish seductiveness (the wanton!), in Obama he discovers the noble qualities of a true prince. Back to fairy tale land. And now he reveals where he has been taking us all along: Obama and his sage advisors:
‘…are playing the role of adults trying to call forth the adult in all of us. ‘
So you see, what we are living through now is not a time of political and economic crisis but rather a grand spiritual quest, in which the immature, childish American people will be saved by their wise leader who shall bring them not simply to better times but also, at last, to adulthood. All they have to do is listen, and obey this wise man who has come to lead us out of darkness. Don’t question, because he’s right. Don’t doubt, because he’s braver and more noble than you are. Don’t fight, because you’re being manipulated. Obey your elders. Obey your betters. And then you will be grown up. Just like Deepak and the Philosopher King.
Yes, my friends, this is what Deepak Chopra passes off as wisdom and truth! And yet still he makes millions!
Snake oil, anyone?'
- Daniel Kalder, 'Trashing Conservatives: The Deep Thinks of Deepak Chopra'.
For Sade, its back to the top
I've been in love with Sade's voice since I can remember. 'Smooth Operator' left me with goose bumps. So did 'Your Love is King' and 'Sweetest Taboo'. The next one that hit home was 'By Your Side'. Since then I've been waiting. And now she's stormed back. With an album that's gone straight to the top of the U.S. album charts. It has also made its way up to No1 in Canada, France and Switzerland and No4 in the UK chart.
Sade, I believe has got one of the most unique voices in the music world. She sounds like smoke on water. And that's perfect foil to the mystery she is. Having exhibited a disdain for fame she went into a hiatus for ten long years. That normally should have erased her off her listeners' memory, yet it did just the opposite. Her comeback took her back to the top. Goes to show how much people, like me, were waiting for another listen to her voice.
Returns aren't easy. For artists as for brands. If an artist or a brand can make a comeback, that's admirable. But what if its a comeback and then a zoom to the top? Salute it! For what you witness is the result of cult like adoration. The making of a legend.
Welcome back, Sade. You were missed.
Wednesday 17 February 2010
What's right isn't necessarily fair
The other day walking down a street, I am startled by a tow truck that whizzes past, swerves, and stops beside the road. Out jump two ruffian looking characters who run to a mo'bike parked on the pavement, lift it and tow it away. The owner who spots the bike being taken away runs helplessly behind the tow truck to try and salvage it, but without success.
The scene I described plays out on Indian roads all too often. Tow trucks towing away vehicles with owners running behind. Now I am all for people parking at the right spots. But there's more to the story than the traffic police doing its job towing away vehicles. The story must also include those that aren't towed away because they belong to privileged folks. Take for instance this real estate firm that has its offices close to where we stay. They park all their office vehicles on the pavement. I've never seen those vehicles being towed away. Guess their privileged position as a business firm allows them such outrageous privileges. Towing away a wrongly parked vehicle is the right thing to do. But it isn't fair when its done only to the common man who isn't privileged as the firm I was talking about. That's what gets my goat.
John Stacey Adam's Equity theory asserts that employees seek to maintain equity between the inputs that they bring to a job and the outcomes that they receive from it against the perceived inputs and outcomes of others (Adams, 1965). The belief is that people value fair treatment which causes them to be motivated to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their co-workers and the organization.
That means equity is not just about what I receive vis-a-vis what I put in. Its also about how that compares with what my coworker gets. Towing is right, but turns fair only when there aren't differential treatments meted out, depending on the who the transgressor is.
Just as there are equity perceptions, there are value perceptions too. Consumers perceive value not just in terms of what's delivered by a brand to them, vis-a-vis what's promised. They also compare this equation with a similar one, as delivered by another brand. That is, I say a brand's delivered value when I know its given me what it promised, plus its delivered greater value as compared to what another brand of its kind did or could have.
Its important such relative comparisons be understood by social administrators as by marketers. Because scoring on either of the comparisons is what makes them successful with citizens and consumers.
Tuesday 16 February 2010
Every Skeptic's a Believer
'I don't believe in superstars, Organic food and foreign cars.
I don't believe the price of gold; The certainty of growing old.
That right is right and left is wrong, That north and south can't get along.
That east is east and west is west. And being first is always best.
But I believe in love. I believe in babies.
I believe in Mom and Dad.
And I believe in you.'
I agree with Joseph Bast. The Cilmategate saga ain't over until apologies are offered to skeptics who were once derided for calling a junk science into question. Thinking about the ridicule skeptics had to suffer in the past only makes me angry.
Its also makes me thoughtful. About the act of skepticism.
I am a skeptic in many ways. I am skeptical about Global Warming , as I am about Evolution, Government and Do-gooders. In probing deep into my skepticism, I uncover the fact that, as much a skeptic I am, so am I a believer. I believe climate changes are natural. I believe we were created by a God. And I believe private parties are darn good when it comes to running enterprises, not government. The latter means that I believe, for example, the IIMs are really about gross underutilisation of resources, paid for by the average citizen. Therefore there's no merit in glorifying them. I believe private education is the way to go.
Let me reiterate what I mentioned earlier in passing. As much a skeptic I am, so am I a believer. Consumers are skeptics too, when faced with products that bandy about claims. This is but natural on the part of the consumer as he doesn't expect the marketer to come clean with whatever is the 'truth'. He expects the marketer to tom-tom whatever suits the brand in making a sale. Now I am not suggesting the marketer lies. All I am saying is, product claims are met with skepticism.
Now should such doses of skepticism marketers encounter, be a cause for worry? Nah. Because, remember the other face of a skeptic is one of belief. Every marketer gets an opportunity to turn a skeptical consumer into a believer. It happens when the consumer is persuaded into a first buy. Post buy, if the product in question delivers on value promised, guess what we have on our hands?
A believer!
Amen to that!
Monday 15 February 2010
The Fable of Market Meritocracy
Shikha's article, 'The Fable of Market Meritocracy' is a must read and runs counter to what I proposed in my post, 'The paradox of our times' (I will still put in a counter-word later).
'In a functioning market, Hayek insisted, financial compensation depends not on someone's innate gifts or moral character. Nor even on the originality or technological brilliance of their products. Nor, for that matter, on the effort that goes into producing them. The sole and only issue is a product's value to others. Compare an innovation as incredibly mundane as a new plastic lid for paint cans with a whiz-bang, new computer chip. The painter could become just as rich as the computer whiz so long as the savings from spills that the lid offers are as great as the productivity gains from the chip. It matters not a whit that the lid maker is a drunk, wife-beating, out-of-work painter who stumbled upon this idea through pure serendipity when he tripped over a can of paint. Or that the computer whiz is a morally stellar Ph.D. who spent years perfecting his chip.
The idea that there is no god (or some secular version of him) meting out cosmic justice through the market's invisible hand is unsettling, even to market advocates, but it shouldn't be. It opens up the possibility of a defense of markets that is, as it were, more marketable.
Few would dispute that markets are fairer than the aristocratic order they replaced where privilege was a birthright, not something to be earned. But the view that the super-gifted or the super-smart deserve the biggest rewards doesn't seem a whole lot fairer given that these traits are arguably inherited, too. This conception, in fact, forces those who are less successful to internalize their failure—accept their second-class status as preordained—breeding alienation and resentment. Hard work or some quality of character would offer a more palatable basis for building a case for markets, except that all the lowlifes who routinely make it rich in markets offer too much evidence to the contrary.'
Read the complete article here.
Sunday 14 February 2010
Thought for the Day
'I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.' (W Minzer)
Sphere: Related ContentSaturday 13 February 2010
Socialism & Stuff
'Fact is, because socialism is a lie, people have to keep pushing the lie. When someone says, “Hey, my brother is a socialist,” they never follow it with, “you know, that ideology based on envy that’s responsible for the deaths of millions.” No instead it’s, “He sells Che shirts out of hemp, when he isn’t recycling sex toys for the homeless. God he’s so caring.”
Fact is, socialism is the easiest thing you can romanticize, because it’s a big fat exaggeration of “sharing.” As kids, we were always told to share, because sharing is good. If you had twenty Playboys under your bed, surely you could hand one off to Billy, who has none. Socialism has always piggybacked on this notion: that it’s just not right for you to have so much, when others have so little. Never mind that you’ve earned what you’ve got, while the others sit around watching Judge Judy in their underpants (sorry Bill). Socialism is government forcing you to share your stuff with jerks.
So the only way to teach American adults that socialism is evil, is to get them when they’re young. The next time your son mows the lawn, instead of paying him directly – tell him you’re going to “spread it around,” to quote our President. Yep, even though you did all the work, Tommy, there are kids down the block who deserve that money just as much.
Now, if your kid finds this idea appealing, you have full permission to send him to Venezuela. He can mow for Hugo!'
- Greg Gutfeld, 'Socialism and Stuff'.
Greed is Good
Its this sort of stuff that gets my goat. Tell you what, the sheer idiocy of it all is what will keep us as a country away from progress.
I mean, the allegation of greed. I say, what's wrong with greed?
The sports news anchor on TV (CNN-IBN) had this question to Sunil Gavaskar while talking about Ravindra Jadeja's IPL ban. He said something to the effect of greed playing a part in Jadeja's 'misdemeanours'. Jadeja scouted with other IPL teams for more money (not allowed according to IPL rules) leaving his home team miffed. They file a complaint, and he's banned for a year. Now, I am all for people following rules. But I ain't an idiot and so can spot the sheer idiocy in the TV man's question. According to him greed isn't what should drive players, its love for the game, or whatever (at least that's what I construed).
What humbug!
Greed's at the heart of everything that's an exchange, financial or otherwise. No one does it for sainthood. Lalit Modi didn't have our entertainment desires at heart when he and his cohorts came up with IPL. Of course, in effect its entertained all those who watch this boring game and in doing so earned money for the people involved. Nothing wrong with that. But if anyone's about to believe that at the heart of IPL lies an innocent desire to have us entertained without a pie being made, I'd recommend you have your head examined.
Jadeja's done what comes naturally to any marketer. Garner maximum returns for whatever is being sold. Brands that are able to do so, are ones that deliver on superior value to consumers. If Ravindra Jadeja's game deserves more money, then he must be allowed to reap those better spoils.
Now IPL's rules may not allow for the same, but the answer to that is not banning Jadeja. Instead its in changing the rules of a sports format that's been built solely on its ability to make money, in plenty.
If sports can make money, why can't men who play it?
The Paradox of our times
O' Reilly's note on his special Valentine goes beyond what's said to explain attitudes prevalent. Though the note's restricted to a li'l girl and what she does, it can safely be extrapolated to understand existing attitudes among the young.
'But the tech revolution has also made it easier for Madeline to escape from reality. The machines allow her to avoid thinking about problems and solutions. With a flick of a finger, Madeline can enter a fantasy world where she doesn't have to think about bad things or work out complicated situations. She can play emotional hide-and-not-seek all day long.'
In many ways the need to 'avoid thinking about problems and solutions' manifests itself in a desire for a Messiah. Someone who can fix everything without anyone having to move a muscle. That desire is why Obama won. No kidding, that's why. Remember the lady saying Obama is going to pay for my gas and mortgage!?
The sad part about waiting for the messiah is, there isn't one coming. If one does appear on the horizon, get ready for a huckster who's going to take you for a ride.
The paradox of our times is the coexistence of cognitive engagement that can be mapped on either extremes of a continuum. One end that signifies acute activity and the other, zilch. People on the acute end are the ones slaving over solutions of tomorrow. In arenas from the political to social to business. In them lies our hope for a better future. In the consumer world, unfortunately that means solutions that will make the rest of us lazier.
The choice for every person is stark. To either take the problem-solution conundrum head on, or to wait and be a passive recipient to solutions that others design. As a professor, I prefer my classroom be filled with the former. Now that may turn it into one that's a beehive of synthesis that can't at times be controlled, but hell, that's exactly what I want!
Honest!
Friday 12 February 2010
In Individualism lies our hope
An interesting class discussion on the need to be connected with everyone in an institution, had me countering it with my personal philosophy. To me, connecting is as important as not being connected. Staying with people is as important as shunning them.
In short, the balance between individualism and collectivism needs to be managed, and managed well.
Collectivists have for long mocked individualists as being selfish beings. Perceptually that's an allegation that can stick. Michael C Keehn puts a note out for individualists that I think sums up what its about and what priceless outcomes it has for humanity.
'Within the individualist philosophy lies a hope for the future. It surmises that philosophically man is incomplete but that he can improve. That a better future is possible as not only mankind’s expanse of knowledge widens, but also as we, as individuals, evolve in thought and manner to higher understandings. It harnesses man’s innate individuality as a driving force not only for individual growth, but also as a source of uniqueness for truly new thought and ideas while desire becomes the motivational force for societal growth. The progress of society is dependant on a diverse spectrum of new ideas and points of view and the ambition to see them realized. Diversity of thought and desire are not only wanted but needed.
The collectivist Utopia however takes a radically different approach. It sees human desire in a far dimmer light, and essentially personal desires are either animalistic in nature or a result of pride, arrogance, or greed. This demonization of desire places human uniqueness at odds with society. For once all animal requirements are met by food, water, clothing and adequate shelter, and fear from want eliminated by assurances of future yield, human’s should then have no other desire other than service to the society which provides for them. Other desires, personal interests and the like, are again pride, arrogance, greed. This system of collectivism not only wants but requires homogenization of thought. Dissent from the collective harms it and can destroy it. So in both philosophical model and in practical application we see the totalitarian hallmark as collectivism evolves mechanisms to homogenize thought and silence dissent.'
Read Michael's complete note here.
The Insatiable Need
'In a free-market system, products and services evolve to serve wants and needs. Some people, like farmers, target needs -- they know that though the need is limited and can be satisfied, people will always get hungry. In this case, demand, while finite, is assured. Other providers focus on wants, and many great entrepreneurs have discovered that the well of wants is far deeper than the well of needs, with one exception. These providers find our desires and produce things to fill them. In this market, products and services will emerge with features we desire balanced against the price we are willing to pay to fill that want.
Health care is unique in that it is an insatiable need of humans. Our most basic instinct is that of survival, and all of us are benefited to that end by health care. The paradox occurs because we all must in fact die at some point. At that point, the health care that would have saved us is either unobtainable for cost reasons or not yet invented. And so our most basic need is unmet at some point in our lives, and though we want to continue to live, we die. While this is not news to anyone, the human desire to live a longer, healthier life is the market-driver in a free health care system.'
- Michael Charles Keehn, 'The Insatiable Need'.
The Lone Warrior has Sena eating dust
I am delighted. Shah Rukh's movie has opened to full houses.
The story of Shah Rukh versus the Sena is the oft repeated David versus Goliath story. Though this time its with a difference, at least in terms of the desired outcome. David had to prevail so democracy could stay intact, despite dents. And that's the way its played out, at least on the first day.
The Sena has miscalculated, big time. Today was supposed to be a 'comeback' day for them. Instead its turned into one that'll be remembered for how a lone warrior made a Sena bite the dust. For some time to come, Sena's defeat will be remembered, and that won't flattering to say the least. After all, its such issues that's bread and butter to them.
The lesson they can learn?
In politics, as in business, as in life, one must pick one's battles with care. Taking on a lone warrior in full public eye isn't recommended, for two reasons. One, public sympathy rides with the loner, and two, should you lose, it'll will remembered for the times to come.
In business too, upstart loner brands dot the business landscape. Established biggies mustn't take them lightly. Neither should they take them head on. A carefully crafted strategy that shuts them out without any ensuing publicity is the way to go. That may mean introducing your own brand without much fanfare into the consumer space the upstart occupies, and so on. The Sena strategy that tried to ride on public sympathy by evoking an emotive issue, boomeranged. Sympathy wasn't forthcoming. What's worse, it went to the lone warrior. The Media too joined in to spread the story bringing even more support for Shah Rukh. Now, I for one am not surprised when such strategies are chosen by political parties, as its natural that they pick brawn over brain. So the dumbest ideas get put into action, with disastrous results.
I am no fan of Bollywood movies. Nor do I particularly like Shah Rukh on screen. But tell you what, I am proud of the man. For having stayed steadfast. For enduring as a lone warrior and taking on the Sena. For that, his movie deserves a watch.
And I will oblige.
Thursday 11 February 2010
GM food isn't okay, starving is.
The Bt Brinjal controversy is symptomatic of Socialist behaviour. That genetically modified food isn't okay, but starving to death is.
Talking to my brother Thomas who lives in the US the other day, I was reminded of what it means to have in plenty. Visit a grocery store in the US., and you'll encounter food varieties that you can't even dream of, in India. At unbelievably low prices. Of course, they aren't all GM food varieties. But its pertinent to note that according to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization.
In India, the government’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which cleared Bt Brinjal for commercial release said it will reduce the farmers’ dependence on pesticides and enable higher yields. Again, proceeding with caution is fine. But socialists and environmentalists going rabid with allegations of US pressure isn't. In fact, its such regressive acts that promises a ride back into the stone age.
Consumers have a right to know if a food variety is a genetically modified one when placed at a grocery store shelf. Then, they have the right based on what they know, whether to buy the product or not. Socialists and environmentalists have no right to decide what gets on to that shelf. Because all rights belong to the consumer.
Principal among them is the right to buy or not to. Bt Brinjal's fate must be left to that consumer right. Not to rabid environmentalists.
For more information on genetically modified food, read this paper titled 'Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?' by Deborah B Whitman.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday 10 February 2010
Wearing Cuba means Walking Cuba
There's something ethereal about wearing 'Cuba'. Suddenly its the streets of Havana, smoke filled and lit by the groovin', more than the lights. The bars are packed to hilt and dreamy women seem to glide by. The feeling's beyond magical.
How did I get there?
Before I explain, I gotta tell you about the power of brands to take you places. Brands bring with them an ability to prompt you to conjure up the unreal. They can transform your reality into fantasy. And consumers are more than willing partners to brands as the drudgery they face in everyday life begs an injection of fantasy. Brands that operate in a zone of the unreal do the conjuring act as there's nothing else that consumers can call for, while making judgements. For instance, what should I be judging the lip paint on? Its colour and tone or its ability to turn me into a diva?
Cuba's a perfume. The moment I wear it, I am traipsing the streets of Havana. Its smoke filled bars I see. Its music I hear and angels I witness. Now, that makes 'Cuba' more than a perfume. It makes it sheer magic! And I am hypnotised.
Reality check? I've run out of Cuba. Currently its me rummaging Alphy's closet to get me a perfume. I find Elizabeth Taylor's 'White Diamonds' tucked away at a corner. I sneak a squeeze.
Problem is, where do I go? :)
Tuesday 9 February 2010
Apology's just a good start
Akio Toyoda's note of apology featured in the Washington Post aims to achieve two things. It puts the company's response out there for everyone to take in, and also acts as a PR response to the negative publicity caused by the recall.
Akio's response has been quick and measured, and in so much, perfect. Yet what still remains to be seen is how it plays out. That is, how Toyota's cars in the future are going to be. Will they be blemish free? If yes, Toyota's would have dug itself out. Also note, GM and Ford are only getting better with their brands.
For the moment, I suspect sales will take a beating. Though in the long run, Toyota's bound to be back.
For now, its wait and watch.
Three Years & Counting
Its now three years since I started on this Blog. I wouldn't have known if Prof. Asha hadn't pointed it out. Thank you to her.
Its mostly been fun writing. Its been fun knowing that everything that happens can be material for my blog.
Thank you to all who've visited. Hope I can keep at it.
Have at it
'Afterwards I gave my son a huge hug; he had performed well all day. He fell into my arms in tears. To his young (and competitive) mind the difference between his team taking first and finishing in second place was the missed element in his routine.
My heart broke for my son. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last. I have three sons and have wiped many tears over the years – some of them my own. Disappointment is part of life and salving the wounds of disappointment is part of a parents’ job description. Call it the bittersweet experience of parenthood; bitter because the tears we kiss away are always salty; sweet because these moments flavor our lives forever; they remain with us as parents and are part of the glue of trust that bonds our children to us.
I held my son as tightly as I could. I kissed his face and wiped away his tears. I whispered to him over and over again how proud I was of him–how proud his mother was of him. It had been a long weekend; he was emotionally and physically tired. I wanted to hold him up. I thought that if I held him tightly enough he might understand how deeply and utterly in love with him I am and that would make everything better.
I was recently asked to contribute some thoughts to a book aimed at young women aspiring to have it all: career, family and marriage. “What would you tell your daughters?” was how it was put to me. As it happens I don’t have any daughters; I have 3 sons and what I tell them is the same thing I would tell them if they were girls; it is the same thing I learned last week. Professional success is important; it can do wonders for our self-esteem to say nothing of our bank accounts. It provides us with status, luxury and comfort. None of these are bad things. However, at the end of the day life is about relationships. Never miss the opportunity to wipe away your child’s tears, or hug them in celebration. If you miss the opportunity to laugh with your best girlfriend until your sides hurt; make love to your spouse late into the night, sip tea with your grandmother; listen to your fathers old stories or any number of other wonderful moments because you are chasing professional success you will have missed a great deal. More importantly you will have missed the point. At the end of our journey on this side of the darkness neither our children nor anyone else will care about our degrees, awards or how much money we saved the company. Everyone will, however, remember the warmth of our hugs, the tenderness of our kiss and the spirit of our laughter.
Have at it.'
- Joseph C Phillips, 'Don’t Miss the Point and Don’t Miss Out'.
Sphere: Related ContentWhy Private isn't Palatable
I think the prospect of personal gain is a more powerful driver of co-operation than the idea of the general good... Exchange, though motivated by self-regard, spreads benefit far and fast across the planet...
Despite the fact that self regard 's our best chance at fair exchanges, it isn't easy convincing the average citizenry. Especially in countries trying to shrug off their socialist past. Take India for example. It isn't easy convincing people that their best bet for quality education is if private parties deliver it at a price of their choosing in exchange for a quality commensurate to that price. This is so, as when it comes education, its difficult to convince a citizenry used to governmentalised education that private parties can do it even better. Again, education as a service when tied to the prospect of profit making, renders it unpalatable. Its as if, how can education be sold at profits? Shouldn't it be given out of the goodness of a party's heart?
The unequivocal answer to goodness driving education is, its a pipe dream. To understand this better, look at the state of healthcare. That people today are convinced about healthcare doing better in private hands is because they've been able to see outcomes in a manner that's stark and clear. I can't believe anyone goes to a government hospital thinking the quality of health care is top notch. They do so solely due to the fact that its affordable, which in turn is thanks to subsidies. Now I am not saying that private healthcare providers aren't fallible. Of course, they mess up too, but to a far lesser degree. And so the average citizen who can afford healthcare in India prefers a private provider, because he knows his chances of getting cured are far higher.
Now such an apparent comparison of outcomes isn't possible when it comes to education. At least not to the extent of healthcare. Most 'top' educational institutions, especially in business are government run. Note, they've been around for years selling their services at subsidised rates. It is but natural they would be preferred. Private providers are recent. This is the transition period for business education, in India. Quality business providers will have to sell their education services at premium rates because the quality they deliver rakes in costs. For a while this may mean that its out of reach for the common man. But over time prices will rationalise, and a range of education services at different prices will be offered. The waiting won't be easy for buyers and so in the meanwhile private players will bear the brunt of the learner's angst.
But just like the way it is in other industries (when was the last time you trusted a consumer good that came out of a government factory?), private players will prevail. Because like Dr. Eamonn Butler said, 'The prospect of personal gain is a more powerful driver of co-operation than the idea of the general good.'
Sphere: Related ContentMonday 8 February 2010
Why we 'really' do what we do
'Third, while we share many of the same ideals, I think the prospect of personal gain is a more powerful driver of co-operation than the idea of the general good. In exchange, both sides benefit – or they would not do it. We only gain personally if we can make someone else better off too. Exchange, though motivated by self-regard, spreads benefit far and fast across the planet. It encourages people to build up and look after their productive resources, allowing goods and services to be produced ever more cost-effectively. It works, even despite the best efforts of politicians to divert it for their own ends. Plumbers get up at three in the morning to fix people's blocked drains because they get a direct personal benefit from doing it. Would they get up at three out of the goodness of their hearts?'
- Dr. Eamonn Butler, 'Capitalism or Socialism?'
Easy on the senses gets the Masses
Some time ago Anita said something remarkable. That in Delhi the most people read is Chetan Bhagat. Surprisingly, the last time I was at Delhi airport, the guy next to me was buried deep in a book. Needless to say, it confirmed what Anita had said.
There must be something about Chetan Bhagat (his site calls him the paperback king of India) that makes the masses want to read him. I guess Chetan is to Books in India, what McDonald's is to Fast food. Easy read. Not taxing at all. Truth is, you don't need a PhD to finish the book.
Easy on the senses is what the gets the masses. The moronic song and dance routine gets crowds. Heavy story line and its a trickle. If its masses brands target, sophistication can best be abandoned. Ditto for anything serious. Nice and easy is the way to go.
Personally, I can't get to reading Chetan Bhagat. Too easy, I guess. If its relaxing I want from a book, I still pick Sherlock and his ways. Last night, right before bed, I reread how Black Peter got speared by a harpoon, for the umpteenth time.
And then it was peaceful sleep.
Says something about me?
Sunday 7 February 2010
The Idiocy in Local Food
'Let’s get real, people: Globalization is the best thing that ever happened to mankind. Most of the edibles you enjoy on a daily basis come from thousands of miles away, grown in climates where you wouldn’t want to live: Coffee, sugar, chocolate, wheat, rice, cinnamon, vanilla — the list is endless. Civilizations have risen and fallen in pursuit of new foods. The Romans conquered North Africa to get access to its wheat fields; the Arabs invented international capitalism by gaining control of the spice trade; the French and the English colonized half the globe to bring home sugar and tea. The story of the last 4,000 years is the story of our quest for exotic foods.
And here comes the locavore movement to say, in essence, Let’s go back to neolithic times when we only ate what grew in the immediate vicinity. I say: Screw that. We worked hard as a species to gain access to every imaginable kind of food that this planet can grow. I’m not about to give it all up now just so I can feel a little more smug.'
- Zombie, 'The Elitism and Racism of “Local Food” and the Edible Schoolyard'.
Hari Sadu - Redux falls to Weber Curse
Its done damage earlier. Its done it again. Its the Weber curse.
First, the law. 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.
Naukri.com had a brilliant commercial in Hari Sadu, Round I. Real funny stuff. Then they bring version II. Its falls flat. Hari Sadu, redux isn't funny. Worse, I couldn't even figure what the commercial was about till a magazine article explained it to me. For Redux to have worked, Hari Sadu and the story line had to be funnier. It wasn't. My bet is, give it a few days, the plug will be pulled on the commercial.
Let me now venture a guess on why Hari Sadu redux, or for that matter most reduxes fail. Creative ideas flower out of a process. Wallas' creative process, for example, consists of four stages, namely, Preparation, Incubation, Illumination and Verification. My guess is, when the agency working for Naukri started on an idea for their client, they started with a clean slate. They must have gone through the kind of stages Wallas' talks about to arrive at Hari Sadu and the story line. But the next time around when asked, the agency didn't have a clean slate to start with. They must have been briefed to build on Hari Sadu and ensure the communique centers on 'jobs being back'. With such a 'restricted' backdrop, creativity suffers. In fact the mind starts to turn more rational. Moving away from a zone of creativity, the mind now wanders a structured plane, thus losing out on an ability to be original. The result, is out there for all to see.
Hari Sadu, Round I made us laugh. Hari Sadu redux has us scratching our heads.
Saturday 6 February 2010
One's Staple is another's Scarcity
I noticed families of construction workers, living close to where we stay, slaving at a fire in the process of cooking. It was meat they were smoking. And my instant thought was, what an irony! The very same smoked preparations appear on snobby restaurant menus as delicacies at premium prices.
Its easy to see why.
It isn't easy for the rich to come by what's staple for the poor. The scarcity thus felt poses an opportunity that's been cashed in. The food's smoked delicately, garnished finely and served. A hefty bill follows.
One man's staple is another's scarcity. Therein lies an opportunity. The dirt and squalor of an Asian street is saleable to the westerner, who drops in to experience it, hoping nirvana is tucked away at some cubbyhole corner. The contrast is Asians gleeing in delight at walking down a neatly tiled street in some European country. The Westerner strips down on beaches to burn his bleached skin. He calls it a tan. The Indian on the other hand covers up in layers so he can climb the hills and take in the chill.
We desire what's scarce. As consumers too, we do exactly the same. For brands to rake in desire, scarcity becomes a must. If that scarcity's real, the job's easy. If it isn't, it becomes quite a task to keep the brand scarce.
Either way, the key remember, is in keeping consumers away from laying theirs hands easy, on what you sell.
Thursday 4 February 2010
What binds Shah Rukh & Gao Zhisheng
The story of Gao Zhisheng and Shah Rukh don't have much in common. Yet there's a similar streak that binds them together. Their stories talk about societies that can't guarantee freedom to its citizens. And such societies won't ever lead the world. Socially or business wise.
Business brands that rule are born out of acts of innovation. Such innovations flourish in societies that allow for varied and dissenting expressions. Its no wonder why the West has a stranglehold on innovation across business sectors. America, I believe, has nothing to worry from the 'rise' of China and India. For that 'rise' is essentially about consumers hungry for products and services. And if you were to closely watch consumption in these societies, you'd see western brands gaining in strength, day by day.
Shah Rukh must be accorded the freedom to have his movies screened.
Gao Zhisheng must be freed.
To know how you can put in your support to either, visit here and here.
Sphere: Related ContentThe Apparent & The Hidden
All of us move up levels on the Maslowian hierarchy. Which means our needs change and therefore the factors that motivate change accordingly. For example, when you sought your first job it was about working for a branded company that paid well. Pay was important. But years later, pay isn't as important as position. Its designations that now matter. On the hierarchy, from a lower 'security level' you've moved to 'esteem'.
Now when the move on the hierarchy plays out in front of you, its fascinating to watch it unfold. More so if its a li'l child in question. I am talking my three year old son, Jaden. Earlier his obstinacy centered around him wanting something as a response to a physiological need. Chocolates when he was hungry, though we disapproved. But now, its more than just a physiological response. This morning he insisted on having the complete pack of Ginger biscuits. He refused to share one with Alphy. He very well knew he wouldn't be able to finish the pack, yet wanted the whole of it. It wasn't so much satiating hunger he was insisting on, it was more a show of will that he wanted us to recognise and respect. Meaning, he wanted the power to dictate terms. Its more ego than anything else.
We know at such times our response has to be thoughtful. Deny, and we dent his identity, acquiesce and we may be setting ourselves up for more unreasonable obstinacy in the future. What did we do? We let him have the whole pack with the condition that once he's finished, if there would be biscuits left, they'd go to mom.
Its interesting how most motives have within them an element of our desire to dictate identities. On the surface responses may seem as reactions to apparent needs, but they aren't. Its important for us to gauge the needs that fall in the territory of esteem. This understanding is imperative to marketers too. Consumer don't buy purely on functional considerations, there's almost always a hidden psychological motive that comes along. Brands that are able to connect are ones that can uncover hidden motives. The Soft Drink isn't just about thirst, its about personality. The Denim trousers aren't about clothes, but attitudes. And so on.
Brands that score are brands that uncover. The apparent and the hidden.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday 1 February 2010
Reference prices did Newsday in
A redesign and relaunch that costs four millions dollars for sales of $9000.
Shocking?
You bet. The brand in question is the Newsday website that went for paid subscription to their content and ended up having 35 people sign on in three months. The Dolans who bought the New Island daily and relaunched its website wouldn't have done so if they had an inkling of the concept of 'reference prices'.
Consumer use reference prices as basis for comparison. That is, they compare the asking price with what they have as a reference price. Now the reference price could either be internal or external. Internal reference prices are drawn from memory for comparisons, whereas external prices are ones taken off competing brands. What's the reference price when it comes to new content online? Zilch. Surfers currently pay zilch for news content. If that were so, why should they be paying for such content just because its on a redesigned news site? They won't and they didn't. That's why Newsday.com is in trouble.
To get consumers to pay, Newsday will have to have content that is differentiated and worthy of payment. That is difficult to come by when the same news content hits news sites around the world and is available for free. Sure, Newsday.com can come up with news analysis, but hey, even that's available for free elsewhere.
I am not too sure if anything can save Newsday except maybe all news sites turning into pay sites. That, at least for now isn't going to happen and even if it were, I am sure someone who has access to the very same news will then propagate it free of cost.
Shall I say R.I.P., Newsday.com?
What's it with Tim Tebow Ad?
'The real problem with the Tim Tebow ad has nothing to do with football, nothing to do with the legalities of abortion on demand and nothing to do with all the people now living, walking, talking breathing.
It has everything to do with the value of each and every human being, the unknown possibilities of every conceived child and the profound weight of the decision that mothers and fathers made when they chose to conceive.
In the end, abortion proponents are forced to focus only on the mother’s financial, physical and emotional well-being. If they, even for one minute, stop to consider the non-choice of another human being (not to mention fathers), all their arguments to women suddenly fall on deaf ears.
Tim Tebow, with quite astounding football prowess, is one child who was allowed to live. And grow and prosper. And succeed. To the delight of his parents and his family, friends and football fans.
Since 1973, 51 million Americans just like him were not given this privilege. They were killed by abortionists before they had the chance to show what they could be.
And that is a message that the abortion lobby cannot dare let come to light.
Therein lies the problem with the Tebow ad.'
- Kyle Ann Shriver, 'Former Fetuses Unite: So What, Really, Is the Problem with the Tim Tebow Ad?'
Posts
