Is Anna a media creation? Is Coca Cola about advertising?
Asking if Anna is a media creation is like asking if Coca Cola owes everything to advertising. Of course, no point thrashing this out with media fat cats of yore running down Anna on TV in the name of parliamentary supremacy, because they are products of a system thus far that's ensured their place in the sun. So these TV commentators won't be the first ones complaining about the 'system'. Plus they don't have a clue on what marketing is, and how it plays out.
Media and messages on it can only engineer for a brand, recognition and recall. Anything beyond mustn't be attributed to the either the media or messages running on it. Instead the 'blame' should squarely be put at the doorstep of the consumer, who if he buys the brand, indicates he's bought into the marketer's value proposition (read, brand) at least the first time around.
Ditto for Anna.
The 'buy-in' into Anna is a result of people identifying with a cause they believe can probably help them ease what is otherwise a miserable life, caused much by government and the zero accountability system its fashioned for itself, and not the people. Its quite amusing to hear political commentators sing paeans to parliamentary debate of the past. Really, the debates were of superlative quality? Fat good it did to us citizens, other than illustrate some politicians as being good at public speaking!
People and consumers buy into something only if they believe the value proposition being presented is perceived as a solution to their needs. Sure, the medium and the message matter to the point of 'presenting' the value proposition to its target constituents. Beyond that, its zilch contribution by either the media, or the message.
Anna today stands as a 'perceived' solution. Probably, he isn't. But I surely wanna buy in. Simply because the alternative to Anna's bill is status quo that's ruined us citizens for decades. Though I am a firm believer in eliminating regulation and allowing for the free markets to do its job, I know its a regulatory climate we have to live with in India. If so, a legislation that can hold regulators accountable is welcome.
In fact, more than welcome.
Media and messages on it can only engineer for a brand, recognition and recall. Anything beyond mustn't be attributed to the either the media or messages running on it. Instead the 'blame' should squarely be put at the doorstep of the consumer, who if he buys the brand, indicates he's bought into the marketer's value proposition (read, brand) at least the first time around.
Ditto for Anna.
The 'buy-in' into Anna is a result of people identifying with a cause they believe can probably help them ease what is otherwise a miserable life, caused much by government and the zero accountability system its fashioned for itself, and not the people. Its quite amusing to hear political commentators sing paeans to parliamentary debate of the past. Really, the debates were of superlative quality? Fat good it did to us citizens, other than illustrate some politicians as being good at public speaking!
People and consumers buy into something only if they believe the value proposition being presented is perceived as a solution to their needs. Sure, the medium and the message matter to the point of 'presenting' the value proposition to its target constituents. Beyond that, its zilch contribution by either the media, or the message.
Anna today stands as a 'perceived' solution. Probably, he isn't. But I surely wanna buy in. Simply because the alternative to Anna's bill is status quo that's ruined us citizens for decades. Though I am a firm believer in eliminating regulation and allowing for the free markets to do its job, I know its a regulatory climate we have to live with in India. If so, a legislation that can hold regulators accountable is welcome.
In fact, more than welcome.
Comments