I am glad India won. But even gladder the way the match was won. No one walked out of the game a demi-god. Meaning post match, no one did the swagger walk or talk. Fact is, no one could, the way the match was won. The existing god Sachin scratched around with immense luck to get the runs he got. Yuvraj, prone to the swagger did the duck walk, though he compensated with the ball. Zaheer couldn't spit fire as he was swatted around the park. The list goes on.
I am hundred percent with Mukul Kesavan when he describes Dhoni as the guy who's level headed and worth emulating. Win or lose he's got the guts and the grace to take it in his stride. But not so, many others in the team, and of course not the jingoistic fans. Its them this match has silenced. They've thankfully lost out on an opportunity to go Pak-bashing. After all, the Pakistanis did play well, and gracefully.
Not going overboard with either extreme exhilaration or grief doesn't come easy to many. Thank God it does to Dhoni. And so most often we witness a mature reaction from Captain Cool. This no matter what the result. Dhoni's balanced attitude is something we all can learn from. As much in life, as when we turn consumers. Products after all are just inanimate entities. They help us live our lives better. No more, no less. Yet products end up meaning more. We even let them make us who we aspire to be. The insistence that we have them and can't do without them is dangerous territory. For such obstinacy ensures they become our source of joy or sorrow.
Pity. For a game's just a game, no matter what. Just as materiel possessions are just materials.
Though I know, easier said than done!
Thursday 31 March 2011
Why this win's different
Tuesday 29 March 2011
Why Cricket's personal
Nothing in India gets as personal as cricket. This despite the match being played by eleven players in a team. God forbid, the Indian team loses to Pakistan tomorrow. If they do, logically it should be taken as the team having lost. But it won't. Instead half of India will internalize the loss and take it as a personal one. This will then be followed by a plethora of emotions being expressed including anger, disgust, and of course deep sorrow.
I wonder why? Why would Indians take the loss if it were to happen, personally?
The answer's simple. Tomorrow's match will be played as much in Mohali, as in Indian living rooms. There will be people in Indian homes swaying, screaming and doling out advice as if they were part and parcel of the match being played. One half of India will be watching (read, playing) the match in an extremely animated fashion. So should it be a surprise if they take the outcome personally?
Its things we internalize that become part of us. Part of our lives. Cricket in India runs on such lines. Its embedded into the Indian psyche. As they say, its almost religion. Now the marketing lesson in it is, cricket's become what brands want to be. Brands want consumers to make them part of their lives. Part of their identity. Iconic brands are those that have achieved what's cricket's done. They have wormed their way into consumer lives. So much that consumers draw part of their identity from them. Of course, this doesn't come easy. In fact it materializes only if consumers are willing to connect with brands at a psychological level.
The way cricket has. In India.
Monday 28 March 2011
Preserving us by defending others
I guess the obedience experiments are well known. But I wonder if anyone's studied the reactions of the 'obedient' when they are posed with evidence that lays bare an untruth they took to?
Let me explain. And let me also caution this is conjecture territory. Jaden's pretty hung up on keeping his class teacher happy. In fact he takes care he matches up to her expectation. Every evening he's pumped up on doing his home play 'cos he's eager to present it to his teacher the next day. Now I think that's nice. But then there's a slight hitch. One day he comes home and matches the word Y to a picture of a Yacht, and then says 'Y for Ship'. I correct him and say 'Y for Yacht'. He isn't pleased. He insists, 'Y for Ship'. I ask why? Exasperated, he retorts, 'cos teacher says so!' Now I am not so sure how I can get him to have a change of heart. He's intent on sticking to what his teacher told him, plus I can spy disappointment on his face when he struggles with the thought of his teacher having messed up on the word-match.
Obedience is exacted easy if we perceive the other party to be in authority. But I guess the story doesn't end there. I think we'd go out of our way to defend the 'authority' we bowed to, should their wisdom be called into question. In fact we may probably shut our ears to any information that runs contrary to what we took to, as part of our obedience. Now consumers too at times behave similarly when they operate in obedience territory. For example, a few years ago as part of her dissertation, one of my students found that people who scurry to spiritual gurus take to obeying their diktats without any questions. They refuse to heed any information that runs contrary to what they've been made to believe. So much so, they even get violent when any suggestion is made regarding their irrational obedience. Its almost as if they'd do anything to protect the authority they put their faith on.
On the surface though it seems people are trying to 'protect' the authority they subscribed to, I believe needing to obey and then defending obedience is more about our need to protect ourselves from being proven irrational. We aren't so much nurturing the party in authority. Instead we are cocooning us so we aren't disappointed in our own selves. Its I believe an act of self-preservation.
Of course, that's hardly surprising.
Are people corrupt?
'Let me end with my little submission on why the politician blames the ' people' and calls them corrupt. In essence, he does so because when you call people corrupt, you garner greater legitimacy to remain corrupt. It gives you a license to do what you are doing so well -- making money. The argument would go: when the basic block of our democracy is corrupt how could you possibly single me out, the politician, for all the disenchantment and degradation? It is like some newspapers saying that the readers want titillation on frontpages and that's the reason why we dumb down. All this could only be a clever bid for an exoneration and general amnesty. A bid to bypass the moral posts that exist. People can never so easily be quantified.'
- Sugata Srinivasraju, 'People are corrupt.'
Sunday 27 March 2011
Breeding Socialism means breeding free-loaders
I'd say round up the anarchist-thugs who rioted in London and ship them to Cuba or Venezuela where government runs all 'programs'. After all, isn't that the kind of place they want to be?
Protesting against government public spending cuts isn't about protecting government programs from closure. Its more about ensuring tax money is wasted on freeloaders who make merry working in such programs. Programs that we know from experience benefit no one except the ones working in them.
Socialism promises you an equitable society but does exactly the opposite. In the socialist world (the kind India was in the past and is still is in many ways) people working in private businesses slave at their jobs with zero security while government funded institutions use the private citizen's tax money to breed freeloaders who enjoy total job security with zero accountability. Imagine that. They (government workers) make hay on a sun that blooms on our (read, workers in private firms) sweaty backs!
Its high time England did something about government freeloaders. If that means they have to bear the brunt of such thuggish attacks, so be it. Like I said, round 'em and ship 'em. To Cuba. Or Venezuela.
Saturday 26 March 2011
My lights stay on!
Funny, they tell me its earth day. A year's passed? Well, that was quick!
Anyway, a year passed has made no marked difference. Like I mentioned last year, I still won't switch anything off (Abhishek can, and so can this year's proponent, Vidya Balan). In fact I am still taking faithfully to Kenneth Green's advice on consuming more on Earth Day.
Oh, and did you know like all other green hypocrites, Thomas and Ann Friedman, according to the Washingtonian own "a palatial 11,400-square-foot (1,060 m2) house, currently valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club? Wonder what sized carbon footprint comes out of a house that big?
Plus did you know, as Kathy Shaidle suggests, that maybe “long-time Earth Day advocate Ira Einhorn took the whole “recycling” thing a little too far when he ‘composted’ his girlfriend’s remains in a trunk in his closet…”?
Not funny anymore?
Friday 25 March 2011
When insanity is better
Though I think 'living in denial' isn't at all helpful, at times I believe its a lifesaver. I mean, suppose you did admit to what you were denying all along, and then can't do a thing about it, how does it help? In fact such helpless admittance will only frustrate you even more.
But then the only problem I see is if you could truly do something about what you're enduring, but choose not to, denial is serving no purpose. In fact, I recommend admit, get frustrated and then maybe, just maybe you'll do something about it.
Consumers too come close to practicing 'denial'. The act's referred to as reducing cognitive dissonance. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that consumers are prone to trying to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. For example, a car that promises great mileage and doesn't deliver may not be ranted against. Instead the buyer-driver when asked may point to his indisciplined driving as the reason behind the lack of mileage.
Denial and reduction of dissonance is good as long as it helps keep ourselves sane. But if it turns into habit and makes cowards of us, I'd say insanity is better.
The Origins of Postmodernitis
'To summarize. Master narratives by which we seek to elucidate the history of man and civilization are spurious and must be jettisoned in favor of the parochial and insular. There is, so to speak, no Church, only an indefinite number of discrete parishes, all different from one another and all equally warranted. Additionally, the belief in the lingua franca of truth must be set aside and replaced by a multitude of humble vernaculars. As Adorno suggests, the picture of “a chair in oblique perspective” is just as valuable as, or even more valuable than, “a picture of the Battle of Leipzig.” And from these two maxims follows the travesty of the doctrine of cultural relativism (aka multiculturalism).
We may notice a peculiar paradox simmering in this therapeutic thought-world, a dialectic of sameness and difference that does not conclude in the harmony it envisions. All cultures are essentially the same in that each strives to find its optimal adaptation to the challenges of existence. They are animated by the same impulse to meet the probationary trials posed by time and nature. Yet every culture is different from every other insofar as it arrives at its own distinctive, licit response to these challenges. As German sociologist Jürgen Habermas puts it in The Theory of Communicative Action, all cultures “share certain formal properties”; where they differ is in experiential substance. Consequently, we are all brothers and sisters who should live in amity with one another by not interfering in the practices that have been adopted under unique and intransitive circumstances. The fact that our brothers and sisters may have other ideas about concord, tolerance and mutual understanding, about master narratives and truth claims, does not impact the postmodern sensibility in the slightest. It’s all good.
It is evident what this means for the once-cherished and increasingly threatened values that are intrinsic to the Judeo-Christian armature of Western civilization. The idea of universal rights and common ethical principles has gone by the board; they are re-interpreted as merely demotic convictions of no ecumenical merit whatsoever. What we call “freedom” (of conscience, of speech, of assembly, of religion) has no plenary application. The same goes for gender equality, the rule of law, habeas corpus, or traditional matrimony as pertaining to one man and one woman, which are portrayed as sub-cultural attitudes or culture-specific assumptions that do not apply to all human beings. It is this relativistic sentiment that informed President Obama’s Cairo speech. Alluding to the muddy concept of the “will of the people,” Obama deposed that “Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.” Barack Obama is America’s first postmodern president.
There is nothing permanent about our culture, lectures philosopher Richard Rorty in his major work, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity; instead it is subject to constant re-invention, the critique of old stabilities, the striving for fresh tropes and the disenchantment of the past. We should try “to get to the point,” he urges, “where we no longer worship anything…where we treat everything—our language, our conscience, our community—as a product of time and chance.” This is the philosophical re-statement of Milan Kundera’s best-selling novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, which depicts a condition of transience and uncertainty we must learn to bear bravely and with spirited exuberance. Everything is in play, everything is up for grabs. We live in a world without reliable truths or transcendent possibilities, without epiphanies, without absolute values, without teleology and without durable meanings. Our allegiance is not to a culture, nation or civilization; it is to the macrocosm of the plural. Or so we have been instructed.
As a result, we in the West, battered by our ideological elites into a coma of abeyance, have no right, for example, to denounce or legislate against stoning, limb amputation for certain offenses, female genital mutilation, sartorial confinement, wife-beating, polygamy, honor killing and other such practices prevalent in the Islamic world. These are culture-specific behaviors that should be respected or tolerated as expressions of a different approach to the problems of social life. If Boas’ Kwakiutls engage in the mass destruction of personal property in the potlatch ceremony as an act of grandiose self-glorification, who are we to find such manifestations childish? If Geertz’s Balinese revel in bloody cockfights, what right do we have to recoil? If Malinowski’s Trobriand Islanders were adepts at homicidal magic, who among us will cast the first aspersion? After all, they have come to customary arrangements that work for them and minister to their needs.
These tenets are chiefly associated with the political left for whom Western culture is just as exceptional, or rather, unexceptional as that of a jungle tribe in the fastnesses of Borneo. There are no barbarians, only different forms of civilized man. Cannibalism, gender apartheid, endemic cruelty, sorcery as opposed to medicine, institutional violence, internecine slaughter, theocratic despotism…are perfectly fine as characteristics of “offshore” independent societies. We are not to intrude with such parochial notions as our having been endowed by our Creator with a number of unalienable Rights, among which are “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” as per the American Declaration of Independence. The concept of the sanctity of the individual and the pushback against the dispensations of arbitrary authority are exclusively Western developments deriving from the Magna Carta, the British empirical philosophers and the European Enlightenment, and fostered mainly in what is known as the Anglosphere. The authority of the Collective, aka the “will of the people,” wherever else it may spring up is to be accepted as no less legitimate, a precipitate of a different nexus of social, political and cultural contingencies...
The issue comes down to this. What started out as a methodological discipline in the field of anthropology has mutated into an intellectual sickness that regards our own culture, with its hard-earned principles of individual dignity, freedom under the law and standards of conduct to which all are expected to adhere, as nothing more than a provisional adaptation, a cultural singularity whose dissemination must be prevented and renounced. To insist upon the universality of such ideas is condemned as a form of racist bigotry. I suspect that Franz Boas would have been appalled could he have foreseen the way in which his analytic procedures have deteriorated into the melancholy spectacle of cultural degradation from which we suffer today.'
- David Solway, 'The Origins of Postmodernitis: Cultural relativity: How did we get from there to here?'
The hope in Cognition
Having said what I said in my previous post I must add there's also a cognitive act that precedes exhibited behaviour. This is in addition to the influence 'previous learning' has on what we do. I mean, behaviour isn't always influenced or dictated by what we draw from memory.
For example, a disastrous previous date may still see me risk another. This is because despite the lousy memory from my previous date I do some thinking and conclude one's too less an encounter to make a judgment about what may happen on future dates.
Now this is welcome news to marketers. This means as a customer I may still buy the Cheetos snack for Jaden. Because when I think about it, I know one unpalatable pack may just be an aberration. The next one I buy will turn out fine.
Or at least that's the hope.
Wednesday 23 March 2011
What cuts both ways!
What we remember is because we draw it from long term memory. Why what gets into long term memory is because we encode stimuli material thus retaining it. Its either a conscious act or an unconscious one.
As human beings, the problem with long term memory is, the material retained starts to turn into a prism through which we see and make sense of what we encounter in the world. For example, an unforgettable disastrous date ensures we harbour an abnormal distaste for the opposite gender. Every time the prospect of a date comes up, memories of the disastrous one floods in and forces out any further attempts at the twosome act. Now this is long term memory working against us. The opposite could happen too. Remembering a motorbike accident means you may take to helmets. And that ensures you are safer every time you hit the roads.
Drawing from long term memory helps brands too. It helps to the extent brands become part of a consumer's consideration set when a purchase is considered. Being in the long term memory increases the chances the brand is bought. Though note, it isn't a guarantee. Long term memory can be hazardous to brands too. for example, the last time we got the Cheetos snack for Jaden, we found the contents to be less than palatable. Now I am not sure if the incident will leave us in a hurry. And so every time Jaden makes an appeal for Cheetos we are prone to not considering a purchase. Like I said, blame it on our long term memory.
Long term memory is a double edged sword. It can prompt us or hinder us. Long term memory cuts both ways for brands too. It either aids a brand buy or ensures the brand is consigned to a bin that holds what's termed the 'inept' set.
Monday 21 March 2011
Oh, we object? But, who's listening?
What is personal can happen at the level of a group. Vice-versa too. In fact, what happens at a personal level is why it happens to a group. Again, vice-versa too. Meaning if men seek esteem, collectively, groups do it too. At a greater aggregate level, you can say nations do it too.
Nations seek to display their importance through symbolic acts. Its a national display of ego. And as a trickle-down, it helps feed the psyche of its people. For example, yesterday broadcast news channels feverishly screamed via 'breaking news' that India has 'regretted the air strikes by US-led coalition and called upon all parties to abjure use of force and resolve their differences through peaceful means.'
Wow. Admirable, I guess.
But then, who's cares? The last I heard, no one heeds us. Now if our response is strategic, I hope to God Gadhafi doesn't fall. Because if he does and the rebels take over, we're in big soup. At least with the Libyans. Me thinks at such times, its better to stay mum than mouth opinions. That way, no one knows who's side we are on.
In the consumer world too, groups play out their need for esteem. A group of girls telling you they shop for skin-stuff at BodyShop means they are stating their group status as much as telling you what they buy. And if a girl in the group can't keep up, my guess is, she's booted out. Keeping the non-conformist means downgrading group status.
Esteem means as much to us, as to nations. So we and nations play out our exaggerated grandiosity by sporting brands and making statements. Wonder where it 'really' gets us both? Plus does someone actually care?
Saturday 19 March 2011
Why I switched After-shaves
I switch after-shave lotions. Its Park Avenue to Axe. Frankly I don't care about either. Then why the switch?
Its got to do with the the 'mouth' of either bottles. The former has one that's too broad and so every time I try and pour out a bit, its as if the floodgates have opened. The lotion spills out. Axe on the other hand has a narrower opening and a stopper and so I can dispense the amount I want without any excess or spillage.
I even think Park Avenue's trying to be smart. By ensuring I dispense more every time I use it they think they'll get me to buy more often. Now I don't know if this is by design, and if it is, that's downright dumb. Outsmarting me or any other consumer isn't the way to go. Because it sure gets me peeved. Enough to make me switch.
Solving consumer problems is part of crafting great solutions. Trying to be one-up on consumers means you're digging a grave for your brand. Now you may score with a sale the first time, but then on the hole only gets deeper.
Beware.
What's common to a Phone & Roast Chicken
Pop psychology means you get to hear ludicrous stuff. Like for example, if its couples not being able to get along we hear exhortations to open up greater channels of communication. Meaning they've got to talk to each other, more.
Really? That will help?
Me thinks increased bouts of silence is what could help. Why? Well, if there's something that's most misunderstood, its conversations. I mean, are we really smart when it comes to talking? Do we talk knowing well there's so much a probability we will be misunderstood? Especially if its spousal talk. For example, I may say I wanna help with the roast chicken. And my wife responds, 'you don't like my cooking?' C'mon, it was talk aimed at genuine help, and look where it got me!
Communicating ain't easy. It requires that we be highly perceptive when it comes to the other person's psyche. Understanding and empathising is what puts us in a league where we end up acing our talk.
Its the same with marketers. Day in, day out , I come across Marketing communiques where I can't figure what the brand's trying to say. Or I misunderstand what the brand's telling. To arrest such problems, brand communication must be designed from the perspective of the consumer-recipient. It must talk a language that's understood by target consumers. Too often the arrogant 'creative' guys are talking creative gibberish (read, advertisements and commercials) consumers can't decipher. The result? A brand identity gone horribly wrong!
Now it doesn't matter if its roast chicken, or a mobile phone, communicating either isn't easy. The ones who can do it well are the ones who can step out their own hoighty-toighty shoes, and slip into the ones listeners wear.
Oh, and last night we had roast chicken. And a conversation. Both were perfect!
Tuesday 15 March 2011
Senseless behaviour & its consequence
Can it get any more senseless?
Baby Hadas who is all of three months old, her brothers Elad and Yoav (3 & 11 years old) along with their parents, Udi and Ruth Fogel are stabbed to death by those who are supposedly fighting Israel's 'unlawful' occupation. Also, how do Gaza residents respond to this brutality? They celebrate with sweets!
What's equally pathetic is how the liberal media has chosen to report this unimaginable brutality. The likes of NY Times ran the story without the names of the dead. Plus they wrung hands on how Israel's response of more settlements will impact the peace process.
Freedom by the blood of an infant is in fact a cursed journey into barbarity. For such freedom doesn't set anyone free. Instead it imprisons the human mind and bars it from knowing what freedom truly means.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Consumers & Social Media
'Unlike traditional media that is used to broadcast one-way messages, social media turns the traffic discomfortingly two-way. Traditional recipients of marketing and other content now turn into content creators and propagators.'
That's from my article on Social media featured in the Hindu Business Line. Read the rest of the piece here.
Its admiration and prayers for Japan
I've always admired the Japanese. And that feeling grows. Amidst the destruction, Japan's still holding it together as a nation of people who care for each other. Reports on no looting post the devastation is pointer to the nation's admirable character.
Note what Ed writes, 'And solidarity seems especially strong in Japan itself. Perhaps even more impressive than Japan’s technological power is its social strength, with supermarkets cutting prices and vending machine owners giving out free drinks as people work together to survive. Most noticeably of all, there has been no looting.'
Or Kay, 'This writer asked why there was no looting -- perhaps it was a rhetorical question. My father worked for a Japanese bank for many years and I spent several summers working there as well as a college student. Banking didn't take for me as a professional career choice, perhaps much to my father's dismay, but I learned a great deal in the process.
The employees who had come over from Japan displayed humility, quiet dignity and a determination to honor their families by doing a good job. That one word, honor, seems to dictate the behavior of the Japanese culture. They value the young, the old, their educational achievement, career goals and family. Not that there aren't a few bad apples in the bunch, but crime statistics tell a pretty accurate tale. In Japan, it would be a stain not only on the reputation of an individual who decided to loot, but a shame that the whole family would have to bear.'
Though the images beamed into our homes are limited, the grief we get to see is dignified. There's even determination that seeps through from the collective grief we witness. There's no screaming or bawling. Only a quiet acceptance of what's happened. Maybe its the culture. The Japanese seem to accept this tragedy and know the need of the hour is to care for the living, and how they'll build their lives.
Japan stands testimony to what a nation's character must be like. There's so much other nations can learn. For the moment though, its about how others can help. Its also time for prayers.
On a personal note, praying for Japan. And taking pride in its character.
Monday 14 March 2011
Our Jekyll n' Hyde lives
At times I am confused about myself. I wonder about the choices I make. Is it because of the way I am, or has it got to do with who I want to be? I mean, consider my choice of wear if I were to go to the mall or even elsewhere. Never mind the occasion, demins and Ts work for me. Plus no sneakers ever. Only sandals. Alphy's torn her hair out seeing me in this attire, more so because occasions don't seem to change me or my wear. And she thinks that's mighty rude.
Again, is my choice because of me or is it about who I wanna be? My guess, its the former. I couldn't care less to be prim n' proper. That's the way I am. Denim n' T is me! Now that's not to say I don't make choices that turn me into what's apt for a certain occasion. Like do the deadpan act with the 'right' wear so people think am dumb. Its interesting for me to see, sometimes its me, other times its the 'made-up' me.
The lesson?
Its important we recognise we live Jekyll n' Hyde lives. Certain times we live us because that's the way we are. Other times we do the monkey act to appear the way we need to. My bet is, the more conspicuous the context, the greater the monkey act. Outdoors, we play to galleries. At home, our 'real' selves emerge. Marketers trying to build brands need to know its the 'outdoors' where they stand a better chance. Brands click when consumers try and be what they desire they be. Its the 'contrived' act so they can live what they play out in their heads. Living that fantasy requires consumers sport brands. After all, being suave means, its a certain wear, a certain car, a certain place as hangout, and of course a certain act. Indoors, brands don't mean much, because consumers lapse back into what's real. Their boring boorish selves, I guess.
Me, I try and keep it real both ways. or at least that's what I tell myself. Yeah, you may be right. It could be me deluding myself. Plus if you're right, yeah pity, I couldn't agree more.
Friday 11 March 2011
Our pleasure in our pain
Its funny at times help's exactly what we DON'T want! Help only brings with it grief. Take our god-beliefs for example. Despite most gods having told us to junk practices that are, or border on being self-flagellatory, we don't seem to heed such 'helpful' advice. We still go through with our versions of self-flagellation. We climb hills, stay hungry, sport facial hair, and so on.
Why?
I believe that's the way we come to terms with what otherwise becomes too easy, and therefore in our eyes, not too valuable. After all, how can salvation come easy? There has to be something to pay! So we make sacrifices that's all too personal. We feed our psyches with the absurd so they stay sane.
Now you may be prompted to think this isn't the case when it comes to consumption. That any 'lack of help' will only dissuade us from consuming. Sure, that may be so in most purchase categories. But know that in others the lesser the 'ease', the keener the desire to consume, and greater the satisfaction. Like when you buy something that's exclusive and rare. Its better if the store isn't easily accessible. Its better if the product isn't easy in its use. Its better if the product requires that you change, than having it be what you want it to be!
Take the Enfield Bullet for example. The damn thing is a pain getting to, and then afterwards an even bigger pain riding. Funny thing is, ask the Bullet lovers what they feel and they'd the same thing that's said about a Harley. 'We'd rather push a Bullet than ride a Bajaj!'
Funny!
Sphere: Related ContentThursday 10 March 2011
Lies, damned lies, and ...
Note what Rana has to say about the usage of statistics in response to my post on Research;
"Researchers" believe that their credibility goes up if they use statistics. Unfortunately, this is quite true if you wanted to publish in Journals (including American). So, what's the easiest way out? Cite some published paper and use sample size, sampling and even justifiable ratios of your choice to get your work published.
This is a quote from a book "Fooled by Randomness" by NN Taleb that comes to my mind,"It is a mistake to use statistics without logic, but the reverse does not hold: It is not a mistake to use logic without statistics". I am sure one would enjoy the book. In the book he has shown how flawed logic leads to wrong conclusions, something that you talked about.
The 'Change' sequence
At a personal level, going through 'change' will see you traversing four stages. I hope I don't sound like the new age gurus who mouth inanities and use it to take others to the cleaners. Anyway, here goes.
Stage one's 'realization', followed by 'affliction', 'rehabilitation' and finally 're-incarnation'. That means change requires that you first realise you need it. This will then be followed by a state of struggle and anguish. If you get through it hopefully with help, you'll start the healing process which is your rehabilitation. Finally you emerge, reborn as a new person.
If you are wondering what this has to do with consumers and their behaviour be rest assured this is what happens to us as consumers too. Look at what liberalisation brought with it, in India. New products and services and of course, new attitudes that forced a change to the way we live. Many, especially the pre-liberalised generation couldn't handle the change. Though realisation dawned, they couldn't get on and are still stuck at the affliction stage trying to fight what's become inevitable. Their only hope lies in adapting to new technologies and attitudes. And if they can do that, they can start rehabilitating to a changed world and emerge anew.
I know, easier said than done.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday 9 March 2011
Is it me or is it just lousy research?
I know as an academic I have to research and publish. But I can't help but saying there's loads of research out there that's pure bunkum. Of course, it isn't research that's the problem, it's people who do it.
Like for example this latest one which says parents with kids are probably delusional. Because they tend to fool themselves into believing that having kids is more rewarding than it actually is. Then there's research that shows its the stage of the parents' life that dictates their state of happiness.
Whatever, I have a question. How do we know for sure childless couples are happier? I mean when you say parents would have been happier if they were childless its similar to saying childless couples are better off the way they are vis-a-vis if they had kids. Remember happiness is being measured on a relative scale. So the comparisons can be threefold. Childless couples versus parents. Or parents vis-a-vis if they were childless. Or again, childless couples vs. if they had children. Now please tell me how childless couples are supposed to know if they would have been happier if they had kids? They don't have kids, so its logical to conclude they can't fathom what their state of happiness would have been if they were in charge of a litter whose origins they are responsible for?
Its like the vegan-non vegan debate. I am a proud meat man. And when I tell vegans they should try meat they tell me they like their veggies better. Really!? What a joke! How could they know? They haven't sinned with flesh. So how do they know grass is better?
I admit, this research is about parents hyping their state of happiness. But then I believe research must try and be as 'comprehensive' as possible. Meaning the perspective mustn't be uni-dimensional. One thing I agree. Minimising Cognitive Dissonance comes naturally to us. And that shows in the way we as parents and even as consumers play up what we receive as benefits. So if you ask me about the time I spent with my darlin' Brooklyn last evening, maybe I'd say I was playing up the joy I felt.
Or maybe I wasn't. Maybe that's exactly the way it was. And maybe I'd say, to hell with your research. I genuinely know I am happier now, than when Brooklyn wasn't there!
Yeah, maybe I'd just say that!
Tuesday 8 March 2011
This One's For The Girls
'Ah, Marcotte! Where were you when I began marching for civil rights for African-Americans in the early 1960s and tutoring black children in Harlem? It's not your fault, but you weren't even born yet. Have you read any of my books? If you have, you cannot call me a "racist." Read 'em. Go on, I dare you. Read all or any of my articles about what life is like for women in the Middle East and in central Asia, read my studies about honor killings and about the work I've been doing on behalf of girls and women who have applied for asylum in the United States and who are in flight from being honor murdered.
These girls and women are not white women. They are all women of color. Do you believe that men of color have the right to treat "their" women barbarically? And that we are obliged to collaborate in sexism in order to be on the right side of racism?...
But here's the point: Your refusal to tell the truth does, potentially, make you a racist. As a feminist, I have one universal standard of human rights for all people, everywhere. While I might favor multi-cultural diversity, I am not a multi-cultural relativist. By your politically correct statements of "anti-racism" (made on poor Lara Logan's back) you are actually holding Arab and Muslim countries to much lower ethical standards. You are condemning their inhabitants, both male and female, to continued Islamist and Islamic barbarism, which includes slavery, racism, and both religious and gender apartheid.
Lara Logan is a naked-faced infidel. Her brutalization was in part caused by the hate propaganda that has inundated Egyptian, Arab, and Muslim life for many decades. We continue that brutalization by minimizing it or by blaming the victim. We are all Lara Logan. You too, Marcotte.'
- Phyllis Chesler, 'We are all Lara Logan.'
Celeberating a woman of substance, Phyllis Chesler.
On a personal note, celeberating an angel, Alphy.
Happy International Women's Day.
Monday 7 March 2011
Troublesome Threesome
Think about it. Has you service experience been marred or enhanced by other recipients of that same service? My bet's a yes. I mean the last time you felt your flight was a nightmare had nothing to do with the airline, and everything to do with the boor who sat next to you. Who slurped his drink and monopolised the armrest. Bet it was few hours of pure terror despite zero turbulence in flight. Now the opposite could also be true. Your last time at the cafe' gave you a high. Not for the overpriced cappuccino but for the cutie at the next table who took an interest in you! You even got her number!
Service experiences aren't limited to what happens in terms of delivery and receipt, between a provider and the consumer. There's a third participant who has as much a stake in what gets tagged as 'consumer experience'. Other consumers. For they can dictate what gets 'experienced'. I may not curse the airline I flew, but I could be miffed at my flight because of the nitwit who sat next to me. And I may even blame the airline for putting me to such torture, though they don't have a direct hand in it.
It becomes important for marketers at times to shield the consumer from other consumers who may mar a service experience. This may not be easy but marketers can at least put safeguards in place. Like say, 'please keep you mobile phones on silent mode' in a theatre. I know it can't completely solve a probable problem. But its worth a try.
I know, boors will be boors!
Tuesday 1 March 2011
Do fish notice its wet?
'If you asked the fishes to describe what its like to live at the bottom of sea, they would probably neglect to mention that its extremely wet. Sometimes the most important features of our environment escape our attention simply because they are ubiquitous. Our mental environment is much the same. Some theories are so universal, so taken for granted, that we fail to notice they are even theories.'
- Joseph Heath & Andrew Potter, 'Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture'.
Sphere: Related Content
Posts
