Key findings from a survey on consumers, and how the use of digital media has affected shopping habits by Yahoo & Universal McCann -
What we fear most among other things is abandonment. Of being forsaken and not being loved. Which explains why a lot of us enjoy receiving gifts. Because getting something means we are cared for, maybe even loved.
Giving can be an act of love. It can be otherwise too. When we give out of love we know its the act that counts. Ditto for the receiver. What get's given doesn't matter to one who gets. Its the act of love that holds centerstage. The joy that follows the act is a shared one that envelops the giver and the receiver.
The giving act sans love, has what is 'given' taking center-stage. Its the 'thing' in question that's of utmost importance. The giver chooses with care knowing he can't afford to go wrong with what's being given. The receiver measures the act on the monetary value of the gift. The steeper the cost, the greater the pleasure derived.
The noble giver is one who gives, and asks nothing in return. The greatest is one who gives his life to those who don't deserve. Now that's the supreme act of love. That which only God can. And he did.
Amen to that.
'It’s entirely proper, and refreshingly unusual, for a filmmaker to try to use the majesty of cinema to make us feel the majesty of God. Though The Tree of Life is often vague to the point where different viewers may come away with very different ideas about what it all means, Malick has created a mesmerizing work centered on a deep wellspring of respect for the omnipotent.'
- John Boot, 'Terence Malick's Mystical Tree of Life'.
If you bring a current professor of an IIT, an alumnus, and a current PhD student at an IIT to a TV show and ask them what they think of Jairam Ramesh's remark, guess what the response would be? Thankfully you don't need to either teach, or have graduated from either of these institutions to know the answer to that.
Guess what, Jairam is right. Neither of these institutions have anything to show when it comes to research. Oh sure, this lack of world-class research may be true to other teaching-learning institutions too, but guess what, if there were institutions that could have produced research, it had to be the IITs and IIMs.
Why?
Simple. There are no others institutions in India where faculty enjoy as much job-security or are given as much time so they can engage in research. The truth is, the IITs and the IIMs are great examples of institutions (just like Indian business firms) that have thrived under a scenario of artificial scarcity, and have had the good fortune of being protected from world class competition from the outside. It is therefore only pertinent that we own to what the reality is when it comes these institutions.
That we haven't been doing it is no reason why Jairam shouldn't say it.
Honestly, I'd never heard of Rebecca Black. Until I stumbled on her song 'Friday' on Youtube. I thought the song was nice with a catchy beat. A tune that could grow on you, I felt. And then I did a search on the singer and guess what I found? Other than the fact that she was a 13 year old, that 'Friday' was being branded as the 'worst ever' song, and that Katy Perry had mocked the song by singing it out of tune at a Melbourne concert.
Well what can I say, welcome to the stupidity of crowds (read, herd mentality). In marketing parlance that means the influence of 'reference groups'. Tell you what, after reading the news stories, I started to admit maybe the song was annoying. The thought was planted in my mind via all that I read. If the world had an opinion, guess I must play along is what my subconscious mind told me. But thankfully I stopped before all the opinion got to dictating mine. As I heard the song again, I thought it had a groove to it that was easy and nice.
Reference groups go a long way in influencing our decisions as consumers. If the crowd's dying to buy Prada and only a few can afford it, guess the brand must be god's gift to mankind is what we think. Never mind that most designer brands look like something you can buy off any local shelf. A brand can be said to have 'made it' if it can get the crowd's approval. Engineering that, for marketers is as important as being a great product and a superior value proposition.
As for 'Friday', I may listen to it again. Oh, eat your heart out Katy Perry, Friday's YouTube numbers stand at 146,713,714. And I can't think of anything dumber than wanting to be with Russell Brand!
There's a difference between defaming a brand and decimating it. Defaming is done on purpose, is spiteful and is engineered via bad publicity. Media houses do it, often at times, sparsely at other times to get at someone who isn't liked. The often-time act is well illustrated by how the liberal media went after a personal hero of mine, George Bush. They couldn't say one good thing about him, though they sung and continue to sing praises to his successor. Note, this despite the fact that Bush's successor continued almost all of the former President's policies.
The act of decimation is a masterful one. It involves destructing a brand by breaking it down piece by piece. The brand that's currently going down is Brand Osama. And the perpetrator behind the act is the American Intelligence agency. Killing Osama wasn't and isn't as important as decimating his image. The latter is what buries a brand forver by forcing it either out of memory, or ensuring if recalled, its one lousy remembrance.
How did the Americans do it? They dumped Osama's body at sea. Sure, no country wanted to do a burial, but dumping it at sea brought with it an image of 'casual' handling. Though important, the burial built images of indifference. What happened next? Osama videos were released that presented him as an old man, wrapped and huddling on the floor. What was worse? The videos show Osama watching his own made-up persona on screen. What did these videos do? They compellingly presented the real Osama contrasted from the made-up one, the images reinforcing to us he was mere mortal. That everything else was bogus made-up stuff.
Currently another brand act is on too. Brand Obama. He's constructing an image on a fallen terrorist by taking credit for the fall. Will it work? Can't say, though I don't think so. Because I believe such a tactical construct far from building an identity for Obama will only strengthen the image of his predecessor.
You see, Bush deserves credit. For his guts and his conviction. A li'l over half of America knows that. Its left for the rest now to admit and admire. I sure hope that happens.
'Kumar and Puranam make a case for academic management research as the hallmark of superior management schools. They vouch for theoretical practice, dismissing the popular notion that it is of scant applicability to “real life”. They offer three reasons why such research constitutes the “backbone” that “supports the pedagogical mission”. The first is the introduction into the real world of concepts such as ‘core competence' that strategists and financiers cannot do without today; alternatively, such scholarship debunks the corporate world's “best practices”, for instance, by showing poor returns for investors from acquisitions. The second is the value it contributes to teaching consulting and “writing for practitioners”. And the third, the value it adds to the institution's efforts at attracting the best faculty.'
Point taken, Prof. Kumar and Puranam.
But then there's another point that's not being considered. What about asking the question on the emphasis of R&D in businesses in India? What kind of budgets do you think firms in India dedicate to R&D, so they can pilot innovation within, both incremental and radical? My bet is not much. Which brings me to another point. Again a point I guess the good professors missed. The reasons behind the lack of research.
Let me illustrate. Suppose I were to do research to uncover what's behind the dismal motivational and commitment levels among employees in firms in India. Now this is research in the area of Organisational Behaviour and Human Resource Management. Logic says Indian firms should be bending over backwards to get the results of such research. So they can engage with their human capital better. But I bet they aren't, and won't. Why? Simple. Most HR departments in Indian firms are rag-tag outfits performing personnel functions. Most aren't even staffed well. Again, you may ask why? Know economics? Know the concept of demand and supply? Know what happens in economies where labour is in huge supply? Especially the kind of labour that possesses skill-sets that are easily replaceable and trainable? Well, the sad reality is such economies have firms that are bound to cock a snook at OB&HR research. So you see if firms don't really wanna know what it is that can help them engage with their employees better, what's the point in my research? Plus who's interested in either supporting or funding it?
Business School research can't exist in a realm of isolation. As much as research needs to provide for actionable business information, it must be supported by businesses themselves. For now, believe me, that's a distant and a pipe dream. Let's face it. India's the back-end to the world and its business firms are striving hard at lowering costs. Plus if its domestic mass consumers that businesses in India are dying to cater to, cost cutting remains the golden mantra. Now such a climate is not conducive to any research. Because research if supported will mean additional expenditure businesses in India must bear. Not many are willing. Not many are willing to believe research will help lower operational costs.
The outcome to that is as plain as the morning sun. Not much research will be done, and not much research will be desired.
Wish the professors knew that.
Posts
All Comments
