Buyer Behaviour

Sociopaths

2012-01-23T10:38:00.003+05:30

'Normalcy does not make for a good story; the psychopathology of everyday life does. Similarly, there are many who cannot live with the equilibrium of every day existence. For them, life needs a step function or two, a qualitative change from time to time. And unlike the sociopath, they are incapable of moving to the edge and testing the boundaries of what they can get away with while being oblivious to the consequences; they live vicariously through the destructive sociopath who can do all that. This is the attraction. The sociopath provides the soundtrack for other people’s existence. Whether through the vicarious experience of watching the sociopath push life to limits that they could not imagine or periodically going along for the ride with him at the wheel, those who tie themselves to sociopaths find the narrative of their own existence in the relationship...

There are those that believe that they can be in a relationship with a sociopath and stay in control. Even some therapists will tell you that if you are going to be in such a relationship and can’t break it, then you must become like the sociopath. You must have an agenda for the relationship that you manipulate to your ends. You must see the relationship as an exploitive relationship and become the exploiter.

There is a major flaw in such advice. The sociopath neither loses sight of his ultimate goal nor of his self-interest. Ordinary people do. They succumb to the bonds of friendship or intimacy. Ordinary people have feelings. Sociopaths don’t. Ordinary people establish feelings of altruism, which the sociopaths do not, and which he ultimately manipulates when others are least ready to resist.

Sociopaths tell you how they are going to destroy you. They tell you stories of the relationships they have left in wreckage. It’s just subtle. You have to listen. I would bet that if people listened carefully to even a great exploiter like Madoff, there were hints of what he was really about. The sociopath can’t resist bragging. It is, next to lying, intrinsic to his very existence.

The most difficult relationship to extricate oneself from with a sociopath is a sexual relationship, for the sociopath uses sex as the ultimate form of manipulation and control, but feels little to no emotion in the process.'

- Abraham H. Miller, 'The Sociopath We All Know and Sometimes Love.'

Calm in Chaos?

2012-01-23T09:13:00.003+05:30

I am glad Oprah was here. I have to thank her for making us feel good about the chaotic traffic in India. According to her it seems there's an underlying calm to everything that's witnessed in everyday India. Sadly, the heady feeling Oprah gave me went up in smoke as I travelled to work this morning. Maybe Oprah should travel back and forth from work everyday in India, and then wait and see if the 'calm' theory stays. My bet is, it won't.

Calm in chaos? You gotta be kidding me! Consider the statistics. According to the World Health Organisation's first ever Global Status Report on Road Safety (2010), road accidents have earned India a dubious distinction. With over 130,000 deaths annually, India has overtaken China and now has the worst road traffic accident rate worldwide.

But I guess Oprah will have none of the statistics. She will parrot what most other foreigners do about India. That's there's a spiritual calm to everything here. Now such 'blind' attitudes are easy to explain. Its akin to how consumers build zombie like attitudes towards premium lifestyle brands, never mind the products in question having zero differentiating features. The only feature that matters is the brand name. As for the differentials perceived, they live and last in consumer heads. Which is why consumers part with gobs of cash for labels.

Now I am not complaining. If perceptions can engineer and sustain premium sales, so be it. If perceptions can get Oprah to sing paeans to what is otherwise an unparalleled nightmare on Indian roads, probably I should sit back and let the heady feeling stay. And I mustn't worry too much about living such illusions long, for reality will hit.

Like it did this morning. On my way to work.

I'd Rather Go Blind

2012-01-21T15:03:00.001+05:30

Etta James.

Diva.

RIP.

3 point Someone

2012-01-09T15:46:00.005+05:30

When storywriter Chetan Bhagat tweets 'I have always believed that one can be good as well as enjoy the good life. So yes, got my own three-pointed star now!', he isn't crowing the purchase of a car, rather its him announcing his new-found status, proclaiming 'he's arrived'.

Has he?

Who cares.

But then his tweet is important for what it reveals. Something which most marketers miss seeing. That all buys at some level reek of needs that are psychogenic in nature. For Chetan, the 'three-pointed star' purchase was more an esteem buy than one aimed at fulfilling transportation needs. It wasn't functional value that was the pull, its what the car stood for that mattered.

The gravest mistake marketers make is in thinking that if consumers can't afford the price 'esteem' comes at, they don't harbour any. Take the Tata Nano for example. A superb functional value proposition from a car isn't all that middle/lower income consumers seek. They too (like Chetan) desire the 'status' a car can bring. A car brand that can't deliver 'status' may not sell, despite coming good on the 'value for money' proposition. Again, the challenge for the likes of Nano goes even further. Psychological value must come with minimal increase on the price tag.

As for Chetan, I'm glad he's got his pointed stars. He deserves every bit of it, for he's living testimony to what marketing can do, that talent can't.

Sell books.

Education, or something like it

2012-01-09T15:42:00.002+05:30

'All too often I see too many young people trying to get into my field when they lack not only the personal qualifications but the needed willingness to make an effort. The university education they have received gets in the way of their understanding reality just as the proliferation of jargon makes them incapable of writing clearly, or — indeed — of having anything useful to say. At one point, we took on ten interns after making it clear that hard work could lead to employment. Nine of them did almost nothing despite the opportunity offered.

Masses of people with degrees decide that they should be writers, policy analysts, and academics (especially the kind who indoctrinate rather than teach anything truthful) far more than the numbers ever conceivably needed to fill these professions. And you can imagine what the political worldview of 90 percent of them is. Those who don’t find jobs are bitter that the capitalist economy has “failed.” Those who do find jobs will spend their career telling this to their students.

The governing idea of all this nonsense: Everyone who wants some elite, non-economically productive job should get one. This of course is a worldview that fits their “class interest.” That’s followed by the idea that any society which doesn’t perform this task is “unfair.” Massive deficits follow.

And after that comes the idea that the job of government is to take money from those who do something useful in order to pay not to those who cannot earn a living because of intense poverty, disease or other affliction, but rather to those who don’t want to do so because they have been crippled by miseducation and excessively high education.'

- Barry Rubin, 'The Graduate: Why Should Everyone Else Pay for Other People’s Dumb (and Hedonistic) Career Choices.'

Government isn't the solution to poverty, its the problem

2012-01-04T20:16:00.004+05:30

The food bill in India isn't about how much its going to cost the Indian government. Its about how much money will be squandered in the name of feeding the poor. Years of socialist ramblings has ensured the authors and operators (read, intermediaries and some dealers of PDS outlets) of such schemes are the only ones who benefit. And yes, governments behind such hair-brained schemes mired in corruption too score brownie talking points.

Amidst all of this, the poor in Indian remain hopelessly poor!

Again, it isn't centralising or decentralising schemes of this kind. Its about fundamentally altering a mindset that believes Governments (whether Central or state) can alleviate poverty.

Governments can't!

Free Markets can!

To know better, watch the video above.

Cooing on a crimson tale

2012-01-04T19:31:00.003+05:30

Lady Gaga leaving blood in the tub of the suite she was staying at has more to do with branding, than anything else. Perish the thought of any satanic rituals. Plus don't take reports of Gaga going gaga over paranormal investigators too seriously.

It's all part of the branding/positioning game.

One half of Lady Gaga is music, the other's pure performance. In fact, if asked to pick, I'd take the latter as being key to the Gaga story. Tell you what, the Gaga stories are far more important than what's real. A buy-in into the Gaga music is a buy-in into the complete story. Now there's a lesson there for for all those who are trying to sell.

Stories elicit better responses from consumers. More so in certain product categories. Of course, a story on its own can't engineer a sale. But the story could be reason why the brand's remembered, plus is differentiated from competition. The Gaga songs ain't any different or better than the rest of the stuff that gets sung.

But then which other crooner you know coos a tune that's carried by a crimson tale?

The only 'requisite' is Liberty!

2011-12-31T14:21:00.005+05:30

'They are now paying for having built such an unrepresentative upper-crust leadership, deluded perhaps by the belief that this battle was theirs to win on Twitter, Facebook and television channels where their interlocutors were trumpeters or fellow travellers. They forgot that the battle for power and ideas is fought in a democracy’s parliament and within its institutions. They started to believe their own mythology of being apolitical. They did not realise that politics, in a democracy as diverse as ours, needs two essential pre-requisites: ideology and inclusiveness. Abhorrence of corruption is a universal virtue but not an ideology.'

Now that's the problem with a being a journalist in India (in this particular case it is Shekhar Gupta), more so if you belong to the gaggle of yesteryear journos who've been raised on what was socialist staple then, that government will engineer equitable prosperity. Tell you what, nothing of that sort happened for the last sixty years, and I bet it won't for the next sixty too, if we listen to the likes of Shekhar.

The 'battle for power and ideas' can't, and mustn't come out of political theatres. If they do, it means the ingenuity of private citizens has been consigned to dustbins. Plus, the ideas that do come out of political gatherings can't and won't benefit private tax paying citizens. It will only ensure the lot of the political class and bureaucracy is bettered. Worse, it will ensure the strangulation of 'private' ingenuity!

Note what Milton Friedman stated, 'The fundamental principal of the free society is voluntary cooperation. The economic market, buying and selling, is one example. But it's only one example. Voluntary cooperation is far broader than that. To take an example that at first sight seems about as far away as you can get, the language we speak; the words we use; the complex structure of our grammar; no government bureau designed that. It arose out of the voluntary interactions of people seeking to communicate with one another. Or consider some of the great scientific achievements of our time, the discoveries of an Einstein or Newton, the inventions of Thomas Alva Edison or an Alexander Graham Bell or even consider the great charitable activities of a Florence Nightingale or an Andrew Carnegie. These weren't done under orders from a government office. They were done by individuals deeply interested in what they were doing, pursing their own interests, and cooperating with one another.'

Based on the principles of free markets, looking after one's own interest is in fact most welcome. After all, the pursuit of self interest is what benefits society. It is self interest that turns the private citizen into a producer, or a participator in the business of production, so he can profit or earn wages. Again its self interest that makes consumers out of private citizens, so they can enjoy the fruits of their 'labour'. The two acts of production and consumption are the most legitimate acts that any society must foster and protect! For they are the only acts that matter!

Now when it comes to government and its regulatory diktats, self interest stands on shaky foundations, for such self interest plays out on taxpayer money. How moral or fair is that? In contrast, if private citizens were to use their money to pursue their own self-interest, who can fault that?

I hope and pray in the coming year, India riding on the wave Anna has started, realises liberty and its guarantee by government is the sole key to our betterment. I hope and pray we as nation understand the battle for power and ideas must play out in the market place sans regulation, among private citizens.

'Ideology' be damned, its done us no good, and won't! 'Inclusiveness' on its part is a mirage, played out the political class as a 'promise' that won't be fulfilled (at least not by them) for a zillion years to come!

Here's wishing us a better year ahead. Here's wishing we embrace liberty!

Deconstructing the State

2011-12-29T19:09:00.003+05:30

'The State is not a god. It is not a supreme or “higher” or wiser or beatific or somehow omniscient authority. It is not a hypostatic substance. It is not a thing. Indeed, it is nothing. It is, in fact, a figment of iconolatric homage, a subtle and insinuating illusion which derives its power from a combination of its coercive function and the mystique of psychological projection on the part of those it controls. It is what the Greeks called an eidolon, a phantom or apparition, an image like Euripides’ Helen who was fashioned from cloud-stuff while the real Helen spent the Trojan War in Egypt. A moment’s reflection makes this species of necromancy glaringly obvious. Yet we are ruled by specters and chimeras, of which the State is a paramount instance.

There is, indeed, something ludicrous in the elevation of the State, as if it were not only an Idol of the Theater, but a production in the Theater of the Absurd behind which a stubborn and prosaic — and occasionally tumultuous — reality willy-nilly persists. This is the fact, like the poet Rimbaud’s “waterfall [that] echoes behind the comic-opera huts” in Illuminations. Regrettably, its theatrical, or even farcical, nature does not prevent it from being treated with undue respect or errant veneration. Despite its figuring as idol or comedy, the apotheosis of the State is no whimsical or laughing matter, since it disables critics from articulating — without seeming like heretics bent on sacrilege — reasonable ways to reduce its size and influence...

As Hegel pointed out in his Critique of the German Constitution, the chief purpose of the so-called State is self-preservation, which amounts in practice to a clique of self-interested individuals — with some exceptions — who labor chiefly to secure the enjoyment of their perquisites. Far too many of us are prone to give the State absolute ascendancy. We concede it a primacy it does not merit rather than perceive it as only an assembly of people in whom we have put our temporary and often disappointed trust.

In short, a great number of us do not regard the State in the proper sense of a governing body of representative officials elected to serve the people and ensure public order, and who can be dismissed or voted out should they prove venal or incompetent. Too often we regard it as a material entity, an idol, instinct with lustral properties and quasi-magical attributes. The State acts. The State disposes. The State governs. The State knows best. Or so we think. But the State, as such, neither acts nor disposes nor governs nor knows anything at all. Treated as a unitary object, when it actually conceals a multiplicity of discrete subjects, the State is a fungible hallucination to which we have accorded our political obeisance.

And it is precisely this form of laic credulity and intellectual conceit which unscrupulous or parasitical elites rely upon to work their will on those they are determined to dominate.'

- David Solway, 'Deconstructing the State'.

The Proper Role of Government

2011-12-29T18:37:00.002+05:30

A Government of Laws, not of Men

2011-12-29T18:01:00.002+05:30

If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

- Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness.

The limits of Government

2011-12-29T17:53:00.003+05:30

'In mankind’s history, the understanding of the government’s proper function is a very recent achievement: it is only two hundred years old and it dates from the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. Not only did they identify the nature and the needs of a free society, but they devised the means to translate it into practice. A free society—like any other human product—cannot be achieved by random means, by mere wishing or by the leaders’ “good intentions.” A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free-a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny.

The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement. And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government.

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

Now consider the extent of the moral and political inversion in today’s prevalent view of government. Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

It has often been remarked that in spite of its material progress, mankind has not achieved any comparable degree of moral progress. That remark is usually followed by some pessimistic conclusion about human nature. It is true that the moral state of mankind is disgracefully low. But if one considers the monstrous moral inversions of the governments (made possible by the altruist-collectivist morality) under which mankind has had to live through most of its history, one begins to wonder how men have managed to preserve even a semblance of civilization, and what indestructible vestige of self-esteem has kept them walking upright on two feet.

One also begins to see more clearly the nature of the political principles that have to be accepted and advocated, as part of the battle for man’s intellectual Renaissance.'

- Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness.

Beware, its the lull!

2011-12-28T11:54:00.006+05:30

The talking heads on TV think the Anna movement is fizzling out. I'd recommend they be smarter than that.

The passing of the Lokpal bill in the Indian Parliament means zilch to people in India. It surely provided frenzied talking moments for TV heads yesterday, as it did for parliamentarians to put in a show on the floor. But when it comes to the tax paying citizens of this country, the bill means nada. What is bound to continue and frustrate people will be an entrenched bureaucracy and political class that can't, and won't do anything to better people's lives!

Guess what happens then?

The movement will be back. It will ride on the frustrations of taxpaying citizens to take center stage again. And all it will take for that to happen is time. Its the 'timing' that will be the key. The 'time' needed for now, is for the weather to change, the holiday season to get over, and of course for corruption to rear up again!

All of the above will happen. The talking heads better take note.

Ditto for marketers who think their place in sun will continue forever. Entrenched brands take note. There's danger from an upstart round the corner. And consumers like people, don't care much about who you are, or that they patronise you for now. In fact, consumers will drop you at the blink of an eye and switch to a competing brand, if they buy into the promise of a 'better' solution from a competitor.

For now, its a lull on the Lokpal front. But the storm's brewing.

Beware.

Is Anna a media creation? Is Coca Cola about advertising?

2011-12-27T11:18:00.005+05:30

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.

The Right to Rise

2011-12-19T11:57:00.002+05:30

'Think about it. We talk about the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assembly. The right to rise doesn't seem like something we should have to protect.

But we do. We have to make it easier for people to do the things that allow them to rise. We have to let them compete. We need to let people fight for business. We need to let people take risks. We need to let people fail. We need to let people suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And we need to let people enjoy the fruits of good decisions, even good luck.

That is what economic freedom looks like. Freedom to succeed as well as to fail, freedom to do something or nothing. People understand this. Freedom of speech, for example, means that we put up with a lot of verbal and visual garbage in order to make sure that individuals have the right to say what needs to be said, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular. We forgive the sacrifices of free speech because we value its blessings.

But when it comes to economic freedom, we are less forgiving of the cycles of growth and loss, of trial and error, and of failure and success that are part of the realities of the marketplace and life itself.

Increasingly, we have let our elected officials abridge our own economic freedoms through the annual passage of thousands of laws and their associated regulations. We see human tragedy and we demand a regulation to prevent it. We see a criminal fraud and we demand more laws. We see an industry dying and we demand it be saved. Each time, we demand "Do something . . . anything."...

Have we lost faith in the free-market system of entrepreneurial capitalism? Are we no longer willing to place our trust in the creative chaos unleashed by millions of people pursuing their own best economic interests?

The right to rise does not require a libertarian utopia to exist. Rather, it requires fewer, simpler and more outcome-oriented rules. Rules for which an honest cost-benefit analysis is done before their imposition. Rules that sunset so they can be eliminated or adjusted as conditions change. Rules that have disputes resolved faster and less expensively through arbitration than litigation...

We either can go down the road we are on, a road where the individual is allowed to succeed only so much before being punished with ruinous taxation, where commerce ignores government action at its own peril, and where the state decides how a massive share of the economy's resources should be spent.

Or we can return to the road we once knew and which has served us well: a road where individuals acting freely and with little restraint are able to pursue fortune and prosperity as they see fit, a road where the government's role is not to shape the marketplace but to help prepare its citizens to prosper from it.

In short, we must choose between the straight line promised by the statists and the jagged line of economic freedom. The straight line of gradual and controlled growth is what the statists promise but can never deliver. The jagged line offers no guarantees but has a powerful record of delivering the most prosperity and the most opportunity to the most people. We cannot possibly know in advance what freedom promises for 312 million individuals. But unless we are willing to explore the jagged line of freedom, we will be stuck with the straight line. And the straight line, it turns out, is a flat line.'

- Jeb Bush, 'Capitalism and the Right to Rise.'

The Moral Man & Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T20:12:00.009+05:30

Christopher Hitchens is dead.

RIP.

But wait a minute. That means dwindling opportunities to demonstrate the work of grace, the handiwork of God. Hitchens was a celebrity who through his vitriol put God on center stage. Such Hitchenesque hatred allowed the likes of Dinesh D'Souza (among others) to comprehensively prove the existence of a loving God (video above), whilst demonstrating how we've benefitted as a race via the Judeo-Christian principles.

Hitchens and his ilk need to be around for us to be reminded and proven to, of the grace of god. Its much like needing liberal socialists, so we never take the goodness of liberty and free markets for granted.

The work of grace and of free markets is pretty much the same. They liberate us. As people, and as consumers.

CH, you'll be missed. Now you know why.

Curtailing Consumer Liberty

2011-12-15T08:05:00.005+05:30

I have always bemoaned the lack of free market thought in India. Let me continue on that road. Its a pity that socialist ramblings guide policy decisions in India. Its one sure way of ensuring we remain a 'third world' country.

The latest in the line of lousy policy decisoins comes from a Planning Commission working group that's seeks to impose what could be a green cess of 3% of the annual insured value of all private vehicles and a steep urban transport tax to be collected at the time of purchase of private vehicles.

Welcome to what is the socialist liberal nightmare. One of the two key players to a country's prosperity, namely consumers (the other being producers) get penalised in such nightmares. Consumers are asked to pay more and more, so government can continue on with its hair brained schemes. Consider this. Should somebody like Mr. Sreedharan, the metro man who built a public transportation service be at the helm of a group that tries to curtail my use of my private vehicle? And again, if its private vehicles and their use that's being taxed, why not other products and services? Why shouldn't such planning groups recommend more taxes on everything we use? The way I see it, this global warming nonsense can be caused by every possible product and service we use, not just cars and mo'bikes!

Tell you what, the planning commission group can start leading the way through setting an example. Let them first give up their cars, their microwave ovens, refrigerators, mobile phones, washing machines, LCD TVs, iPads, laptops, and their like, to exhibit their commitment to saving the planet.

We'll then follow.

Better still, why don't we just ban cars and bikes, and go back to the bullocks and carts so we can keep everything 'green'! Or even better still, don't we just abandon our urban lives and retreat into caves!

Its time Sreedharan and his group took some lessons in free market economics. It wouldn't also hurt if they read up evidence that shows global warming is hoax that suits the Gores and railway engineers of the world. I know that's wishful thinking, but it could probably save us from hare brained ideas that seek to curtail consumer liberty. And liberty of that kind is what keeps a nation on a path to prosperity. 'Green cesses' do nothing other than fill government coffers, which in other words can be called hoarding money with zilch accountability.

Your guess is as good as mine on what happens to zero accountability money.

Hail the People, Hail Consumers!

2011-12-12T20:56:00.004+05:30

Make no mistake about it. The constant reference to parliamentary sovereignty by the political class in India isn't so we prevent a descent into anarchy, its so we stay the way we are, subject as people to the whims and fancies of parliamentarians.

Its important at this time to take a few lessons from the principles of freedom enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

(Quoting from 'The 5000 Year Leap: Principles of Freedom 101')

10th Principle: The God-given right to Govern is Vested in the Sovereign Authority of the Whole People

... (Madison) declared: The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the PEOPLE altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and ton have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. The must be told that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, wherever the derivative may be found, RESIDES IN THE PEOPLE ALONE. (Federalist Papers, No. 46, p. 294; emphasis added)

11th Principle: The Majority of the People may Alter or Abolish a Government Which has become Tyrannical.

...Virginia Declaration of Rights: The government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people.... And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, A MAJORITY of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefensible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal. (Annals of America, 2:432; emphasis added)

I agree our constitutional democracy has been designed differently from the US., but the principles of freedom and sovereignty of the 'whole people' is a universal.

Just like in the world of commerce.

It must not be government that decides who can sell, and who people can buy from. Its must be CONSUMERS! Its consumers who must decide that with the power of their purses. Its the money from their purses that must keep businesses alive. And if they choose not to patronise a particular seller, so be it! The seller must shut and go!

Why consumers will suffer in India

2011-12-09T20:49:00.003+05:30

As Calcutta and the rest of India grieves, TV channels tom-tom the same question all over again. Times Now asks, 'Is India a zero public safety nation?'

Now isn't that easily answered? But then it really doesn't matter because as a nation we still won't the take the road that leads to better products and services. When I say better, I also mean safer. For the moment, Mamtadi, anti-FDI crusader has gotten the hospital in question's license cancelled. I wonder what good is it to those who have lost loved ones?

The truth is, its the license raj that ensures consumers get the rotten end of the barrel. Licenses that are supposed to protect us consumers from unscrupulous service providers are the real reason why the latter thrive. Fixing a system that depends on regulations ensuring quality is easy. Bribe the regulator and you can get away with near murder. Which is why for ages past, and for ages to come, the Indian system was, and will be 'fixed'.

And guess who'll suffer? Consumers! Sometimes with the kind of disastrous consequences like the one we witnessed today at the AMRI hospital.

The answer to better quality products and services for consumers isn't greater regulation. As I said, regulators can be fixed. Its been happening for donkey's years in India. The only way out ironically is to eliminate regulation and bring in competition. That will have quality zoom, and consumers benefit. For god's sake, bring the MNCs in!

But then again, that's something Indians can't mouth or even understand. The socialist nonsense that passes off as government regulating because they 'care' for us, is not easy to shrug off. The latest example is one that's the handiwork of Mamtadi herself. After all, didn't she stand steadfast and save us from big bad Wal-Mart?

Though tragic, don't be surprised at what happened today. Regulation and government control can't save us consumers. Only competition in the market place can! It'll take a while before we Indians get around to understanding that. In the meanwhile brace yourself for more tragedies!

The only thing that can save us are prayers. Here's praying for all of us!

Hooray to the nation of shopkeepers!

2011-12-07T21:14:00.005+05:30

I am thrilled at the Finance Minister's assurance on our economy. He says the economy may be facing difficulties, “but that does not mean that we shall have to start eating lizard!”.

You bet.

I think it would do us Indians a world of good if we make the right comparisons, akin to the kind Pranab da is referring to. Thank god we have Bangladesh for a neighbour. As Mathew once said, 'A trip to Bangladesh is highly recommended. It will make you more appreciative of India.'

India remains a nation of shopkeepers. Three cheers to that!

The socialist nightmare plods on. Hooray! Let's stay poor!

Why do you wanna be someone else?

2011-12-07T15:58:00.003+05:30

Managing peer pressure isn't easy. But I bet you'll survive if you've cultivated a strong sense of self-worth much before you are subject to the pressures of a peer circle. And I bet again, this would have happened the right way if your parents built in you an understanding and acceptance of worth based on character, not pretenses.

Let me explain. If you probably are trying to match up to what the world wants you to be, that's because you don't value yourself on character. Instead you are in a mad rush to conform to the the 'shallow' ways of the world. And pray, what does the 'world' want of you? If you are college goer for example, and then 'cool' is what they're hammering you into becoming. Which probably explains why you've changed so much from who you were. Now your clothes are different, your hair's done differently, you talk funny, the list goes on.

Pity.

You're forcing change on yourself so you are accepted by your peers. Explains why you are so susceptible to the lure of brands. You need brands to make you what others want you to be. Which of course is good news to marketers. For they lie in wait round the corner with a promise of the 'social persona' you so badly seek.

Well, this time I ain't sayin' pity. In fact, hooray to brands for helping you 'fit' in.

Show me the way

2011-12-03T12:06:00.000+05:30

A boy and a girl

2011-12-03T10:11:00.003+05:30

I always thought Jaden was the cool customer. No overt displays of affection, no happy yells at seeing me back from work. Brooklyn, all of a year old seems markedly different. She's the one who runs up, and gets picked. She doesn't hold back on resting on my shoulder or sitting on my knee.

Tell you what, I was cautioned on this marked difference in behaviour. Its been fascinating to see it unfold. As a father I am called to alter the way I respond to Jaden and Brooklyn. As the years go by, I guess it'll get tougher, but I'd like to believe I will be up to it.

Fluid changes in response depending on who the consumer is, or what he's turned into, is what marketers are called to do. Simply because consumers aren't alike. Also because they're going to evolve and so won't be like the way they were earlier. Segmenting to a certain extent helps marketers fashion customised responses. But the future will belong to those than can micro-market. That is, customise to the farthest extent possible. Of course, it won't be easy. But it will have to be done.

Just like I will have to deal 'differently' with Jaden and Brooklyn.

Liberty & Free Society

2011-12-03T10:04:00.002+05:30

I am why businesses exist!

2011-12-02T21:43:00.005+05:30

As a consumer I need to be worried about the Kirana store down the road that would go out of business if FDI is allowed in multi-branded retail?

As a consumer I need to be worried about the trader who will be squeezed out of the retail chain if Wal- Mart came in ?

Why?

The way I see it, every trade and traders within exist because I decide to spend my money on products and services! By that count, shouldn't I be the one who's protected? Shouldn't I be given the freedom to buy from whoever and wherever? If Wal-Mart's where I wanna buy from, who should have a problem? After all, the last I heard, its my hard-earned money I am spending, am I not?

The Caveman & The Vampire

2011-12-02T09:47:00.005+05:30

Show me a girl who doesn't want to be swept off her feet, and I'll get you a mutt who can wink. Kinda explains why romancing vampires can be such a hit. Its the fantasy that's working. For all those women currently swooning over Edward, its their heads playing tricks on them. Its them living the fantasy romance in their heads.

Why?

Isn't that simple? How many women do you know who are being swept off their feet by their better halves? I know girls, its such a pity romance is dead and buried. That all you get is cavemen lookin' for meat.

Our fantasies are our escape from drudgery. And the only way we can live that fantasy is by turning consumers. Which is why we watch romancing vampires goggle-eyed on screen. Why we down good money on flashy gizmos that do nothing other than make us go yakety yak.

Thank heavens we live bored lives. Else marketers would be scraping the barrel. But for the moment its the marketers who are laughing their way to the bank. And women getting over a vampire-hangover are letting the reality of cavemen sink in.

Light bulb addiction

2011-11-30T22:25:00.001+05:30

'Or, just possibly, this urge to stockpile incandescents is the product of simmering outrage. For decades, I have written about America as the world’s beacon of freedom, which it has been. Yet here we are, wards of the nanny state, with politicians dictating that even that prime symbol of American ingenuity, Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb, shall be regulated into oblivion. All this has been ably exposed as an act of crony capitalism, designed to enrich manufacturers who prefer to sell pricier light bulbs that a lot of Americans, if free to choose, prefer not to buy. And the actual mechanics of this ban have been greatly blurred, Washington-style, by framing this fix not as an outright prohibition, but merely as a phase-out of light bulbs that do not meet standards set by Washington in the name of “energy efficiency.” First the 100-watt incandescents vanish from the shelves. Then the 75-watt, the 60-watt and 40-watt. It is, in its way, a bipartisan dimming of choice, tacked onto an energy bill signed into law in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and –despite an attempt at repeal this past July — upheld by Democrats in Congress under President Barack Obama.'

- Claudia Rossett, 'Confessions of a light buld addict.'

Surprised at Moral Policing?

2011-11-30T21:52:00.004+05:30

Surprised at Alka Pandeyji's moral policing act?

I am not.

After all Alkaji's antics must mirror what's socially sanctioned behaviour (read, slapping people around) in the badlands of UP. So I say let the freak show continue on. And let's enjoy the spectacle, though our stomachs may churn.

Even in purchase scenarios I am not surprised if I encounter behaviour that I consider rude. Hey, welcome to rude country where queuing may probably be quite the alien act. Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, maybe people do queue up. Yeah, I've been in quite a few polite queues here in Bangalore.

But then there's the odd uncivil act that always crops up. And I ain't surprised.

Don't be.

Nonsense makes sense

2011-11-29T22:38:00.012+05:30

Kolaveri di is an out and out case of stimulus response. Zero information processing, pure stimulus response.

Let me explain. As a stimulus Kolaveri di presents content that arrests our attention. Technically that means we select the stimuli because we hear and see something that is distinctly different. The lyrics, the tune, and the visuals that don't mean much are why it isn't ordinary. Surely, nonsense must stand out in sea of sense. Especially to a particular demographic that then takes to it lock stock and barrel. Add to this, the herd mentality kicking in. If Kolaveri di's cool, who am I to differ?

What follows our selection of this stimuli is an instantaneous act of organization and interpretation. Now this comes easy because it taxes none of the cognitive abilities. We aren't called to process any information, only respond to stimuli. And that's easy. After all, the lyrics mean nothing, the tune's arresting, and the scene compelling. Born out of impulse and instinct (which is why it is what it is), not careful design, Kolaveri di presents a body of work that connects at multiple levels.

But remember, Kolaveri di isn't a phenomenon. It's a fad that's having its time under the sun. What will soon follow will be wannabe Kolaveris trying to engineer what the original's pulled off. They will fail. By then, Kolaveri di will be dead.

But don't fret much, 'cos nonsense will again find its way in. For a certain demographic at times, nonsense is what will make complete sense.

P.S. - Why has the north of the Vindhyas taken to Kolaveri di? Simple. Taking to nonsense at times is a universal. Language's never a barrier.

Why this Kolaveri di? Here's why da!

2011-11-28T19:33:00.005+05:30

Why this Kolaveri di?

Simple, da! It fall over the tipping point, da! Because it fulfilling the three general principles, da!

One, da, Kolaveri getting the 'law of the few right'!

'The law of the few says that success of any kind of social epidemic is “…heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts.” These people are mavens – experts in a particular field, and connecters, known to and trusted by others, and who have wider connections to influential groups.'

Two, da, Kolaveri getting the 'stickiness factor' right!

'The second principle, the stickiness factor – is the message that makes an impact. Stickiness is more important than the medium. It can be an advertising device that forces people to read or listen to the ad’s message, and to actually absorb that message. It’s best done with a message that resonates with the reader, particularly in a way that offers a personal benefit. Or it could be a simple action or device that’s particularly user friendly.'

Three, da, Kolaveri lucky in getting the right 'context'!

'The third principle is context, the environment and circumstances that breed and foster an idea’s epidemic effect.'

Get it, da?
No, da?
Read 'Tipping Point', da!

The Retail 'nationalist' debate

2011-11-28T19:13:00.003+05:30

The discussion on Indian TV (CNN-IBN) tonight?

Is FDI in Retail anti-national?

Well, don't bother watching. I'll tell you what the answer is.

YES, it is anti-national, if 'national' represents certain politicians (read, the communists and the pseudo-nationalists), the kirana store guys, traders (read, retail middlemen), and current big format retail players who can't stomach competition.

NO, it isn't anti-national, if 'national' means consumers in India!

So I guess the question that must be debated on TV needs to be 'What is NATIONAL?'

Fulfilling the Female Ego

2011-11-27T09:50:00.002+05:30

'What makes Twilight “brain porn”? It fulfills the female ego in the same way pornography appeals to men.

Pornography exaggerates the most cathartic aspect of romantic encounters while dismissing real-life baggage. It elevates an irrational self-indulgence while ignoring any sense of responsibility, particularly to the other. For men, this translates to reckless sexual satisfaction. For women, it’s more complicated.

Sure, women like sex too. However, their enjoyment typically requires stimulation of the mind as much as the body. Women hope to be loved, desired above all others, and valued more than life itself. The Twilight Saga embodies this fantasy.

Pornography imagines that women exist for the sole purpose of satisfying men. The women in porn are not only willing, but eager. They are depicted as if satisfying a man is the means by which their own life is sustained. This is without the slightest pretense, explanation, or justification. The unconditional nature of the attraction is essential to the fantasy.

So it is in Twilight, only with the roles reversed. Edward Cullen and Jacob Black adore Bella, not due to any apparent merit, but simply because she is there. Indeed, they indulge her whims and endure her moods without conditions of any kind. Any objection they do offer is complimentary. I’ll only turn you into a vampire if you marry me. Every conflict between the three leads only serves to demonstrate how thoroughly both males are devoted to Bella.

The most objectionable example of this porn-like dynamic is the frequently shirtless Jacob. Watching his unrequited obsession with Bella play out on-screen evokes the same eye rolling disgust that women have endured for years while watching two-dimensional bimbos fawn over undeserving men. The relationship begins with him filling in for the absent Edward, serving as a platonic scratching post to tide Bella over until her main squeeze returns. From there, Jacob engages in progressively more demeaning exercises in fruitless devotion.

In the third entry of the series Jacob manages the lackluster achievement of badgering Bella into admitting some love for him, albeit not as much as she holds for Edward. Her ideal scenario is to be with Edward while having Jacob around to dote on her within the boundaries she sets. She treats Jacob like some kind of pervert for not being satisfied with this arrangement. In this way, the dynamic between Bella, Edward, and Jacob is not unlike that between a husband, wife, and mistress. Bella wants to marry Edward but have Jacob as a kept man. The only difference is that Jacob satisfies her emotionally rather than sexually.

Stephenie Meyer deserves a tip of the hat for a truly unique cultural achievement. She has managed to distill the essence of an addictive, illicit entertainment and bring it to a new audience without carrying over any of the taboo. It’s a masterful accomplishment. Men’s primal tastes are too brute to pull off such a trick.'

- Walter Hudson, 'Porn for Women: The Twilight Saga.'

Wal-Mart evil, or you stupid?

2011-11-26T12:24:00.003+05:30

John Stossel on Wal-Mart:

"They have taken the values, the morals, the ethics, fairness that are the fabric of our society and put them aside and . . . put their profits before their people," said Blank.

That's foolish economics, and not very good morality. He is as wrong as the tycoon Michael Douglas played in the movie "Wall Street," who said: "It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins. Somebody loses. Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred."

That's a myth. Businesses create wealth.

Take the simplest example. I buy a quart of milk. I hand the storekeeper money; she gives me the milk. We both benefit, because she wanted the money more than the milk, and I wanted the milk more than the money. This is why often both of us say "thank you." Because it's voluntary, business is win/win. A transaction won't happen unless both parties benefit. Each party ends up better off than he was before. And when you have millions of successful transactions, you end up very well off -- like the owners of Wal-Mart.

Their becoming rich doesn't mean there's less for the rest of us. Sam Walton's innovations created thousands of new jobs and allowed millions of Americans to save money.

In earlier eras, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt were depicted as evil. But the condemnation rarely came from consumers. It was competing businessmen who complained. And newspapers lapped it up, calling them "robber barons."

Vanderbilt got rich by making travel and shipping cheaper. Lots of people liked that.

No one was forced to buy the oil on which Rockefeller got rich. He had to persuade people by offering it to them for less. He offered it so cheaply that poorer people, who used to go to bed when it got dark, could now afford fuel for their lanterns.

These are "robber barons"?

"You could not find a more inaccurate term for these men than 'robber barons,'" said philosopher David Kelley. "They weren't barons. All of them started penniless. And they weren't robbers, because they didn't take it from anyone else."

Wal-Mart's critics act as if economic competition were a "zero-sum game" -- if one person gets richer, someone else must be getting poorer. If Wal-Mart's owners profit, we lose. But the reality is exactly what our ordinary language tells us: We make money. We produce wealth.

Wal-Mart created wealth. It started with just one discount store. Then, its owner, Sam Walton, invented new ways to streamline the supply chain, so he was able to sell things for less and still make a profit. By keeping prices low, Wal-Mart effectively gives everyone who shops there a raise, its own employees included.

Q & A

2011-11-26T11:16:00.004+05:30

Better late than never. So here's my answer to questions posed. Also thanks guys, for the Qs.

Rachana asks, 'Is it possible that the same theory of ideal self be true for the concern for some strands of grey hair?'

I don't think so. When one bothers about an uncontrollable (in this case its greying) I'd suspect it to be the prompting of the ideal social self. A focus on a controllable (the bulge) could probably be a push to get to ideal self. Though I must admit, burning fat to look good can also mean its the ideal social self that's the prompter.

Aritra asks, 'But don't you think the influence a parent has on his kid lasts only to a certain age? According to me, by the time a kid hits puberty, his locus of influence(for lack of a better term) shifts more to external sources and the decisions made are also based on these factors. Your views?'

Sure, influences change over time, but the one that leaves an everlasting effect (thus cementing our personality) is the parental one. Our parents are most probably the reason why we are who we are. Even if our circumstances change, our response is fashioned by what's been embedded far earlier (read via parental influence) within us.

Agreed, the reference groups we take to and get influenced by change over time. But do the groups that come later have as much an effect on us as our family? I doubt it.

Vineeth asks, 'Hypothetical question: If Jaden were to be in a similar spot of bother, would your advice be on similar lines? :)'

Absolutely. For now I'll make sure he's prepared. Meaning, there's martial arts on the list of things to learn for Jaden. Now please don't think I am advocating violence. But I sure am advocating a kick in the nuts to get the bully to back off. It's that or a lifetime of trying to get over lousy self esteem caused by bullying louts!

I've been thinkin' about you

2011-11-26T07:23:00.000+05:30

The contradictions we live

2011-11-25T22:23:00.002+05:30

Getting Jaden to wear what we thought was a lovely checked shirt with a hood wasn't easy. The more we tried, the more he balked. For some time we couldn't get it. Why would he not wear something that looked so good on him?

And then it dawned.

There wasn't any other kid the in the neighbourhood donning the shirt with the hood. Jaden, we guessed didn't want to be the first one. Getting him to wear would mean showing him people wearing shirts with hoods. We figured we could start that at home. So last Sunday, Brooklyn and I got into the act by wearing jackets with hoods. Voila, Jaden acquiesces. He wears, and even starts to like the shirt. In the process we learn a lesson that's relevant to the world of marketing.

As consumers we live out contradictory desires. Our craving for a distinct identity is tempered by our need to stay within norms that guarantee acceptance. Brands that seek our patronage need to know this. They must construct for us our desired selves whilst keeping it all within what is socially acceptable. The envelope must be pushed, but not too further away.

Getting this balance right won't be easy for brands. The ones that can will be the ones we'll buy.

We NEED Wal-Mart!

2011-11-25T21:45:00.005+05:30

So there's some people in India who think Wal-Mart shouldn't be allowed to set shop here. Pray why? Because it seems the farmers and the kirana people will go under.

Now lets for a moment think they'll go under, what's the remedy? Keep Wal-Mart out and have me, the consumer suffer higher prices! Well, pray why isn't that a concern of anyone? Oh, I get it, I am prosperous enough to not buckle under higher prices! But then think about it. Isn't everyone a consumer? Shouldn't our maid for example, have access to lower prices? If that access comes via FDI driven organised format retail, I say bring it on! Now if you think our maid can't access the superstore location, its good news for the kirana. It can stay and cater to her.

The truth is, the anti Wal-Mart tirade is familiar nonsense from bleeding heart liberals and political opportunists who don't care to understand the power of free markets. Ditto for socialists, communists, and environmentalists.

What a pity.

For those who want to flee economic ignorance and understand the value of free market competition, this article titled, 'Has Wal-Mart buried Mom and Pop?' is a must read.

Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

2011-11-15T20:54:00.005+05:30

This case of 'ragging' at the Sainik School in Jharkand is downright disgusting. Before we get to why some students resort to such disgusting behaviour, here's John Hawkins on how bullies need to be confronted.

John Hawkin's piece is a must read!

'You know why I was bullied? I was a quiet, meek, non-confrontational kid who liked to read and had zero interest in getting in fights. In other words, I was an easy mark. There was really nothing more to it than that. As I look back at it now, I can’t think of a single thing I ever did to merit being bullied. I didn’t mouth off, I didn’t pick on people, I didn’t want any conflict (as opposed to the present, where I’ve learned to revel in political warfare). This is one of the many reasons that to this day I roll my eyes when people say, “Why do they hate us?” I damn well know from personal experience that there are a lot of evil people who will try to hurt you for no other reason than because they think they can get away with it.

Let me also note that the tactics most people advocate to combat bullying are laughably ineffective. If you get bullied, go tell your teacher! Call a bullying hotline!

Yeah, right.

The reality is that if the teachers were really keeping a close eye on everything that’s going on around the school there wouldn’t be any bullying going on in the first place. The biggest reason bullies can exist is because teachers don’t pay attention to what’s happening most of the time.

Moreover, what does occur if you tell a teacher? The bully gets called into the principal’s office and he’s told not to bully you. Then you’re in exactly the same situation you were in before, but now the bully is really angry at you because you ratted him out. Now he’s really interested in getting a piece of you and there are dozens of little ways he can intimidate you. He can threaten you, he can pretend like he’s going to hit you, he can say mean things about you on Facebook, he can stare at you with a menacing glare — and keep in mind that this is someone you’re already afraid to deal with. What are you going to do? Go back to the principal and tell him the bully was looking at you funny? Give me a break. Additionally, you have to keep in mind that schools are extremely reluctant to expel students. So unless a bully goes completely over the top and brings a gun to school or knifes somebody, he’s probably not going to get kicked out. That means you’re going to see him almost every day, all year long.

So, what do you do? Call Lady Gaga? Lobby Harry Reid to make bullying illegal? No, of course not. There’s actually a time-tested, extremely effective way to deal with bullies that has worked for thousands of years.

It’s called punching them in the mouth.

It’s what I learned to do. I had to learn it because much to my dismay at the time, my father insisted on it. He took great pride in telling me a story about my brother who was pushed around by a bully at our local low-end country club. My father told my brother that the next time that bully started something, he had better hit him back. My brother was apparently more scared of my father than the bully because the next time my father took him to the country club and he ran into the bully, he fought back. My brother and the bully went at it man to man for a good five minutes. My father wouldn’t let anyone break them up. When it was over, the two of them went their separate ways and the bully never laid another hand on my brother.

Incidentally, that’s how it almost always worked with me, too. Inevitably, since bullies like to pick on people who are weaker than they are, they were always bigger than I was. So, when I fought back — and that happened several times over a two-year period — I won some and I lost some. But in every case, the bullying stopped right there.

There was one thug, for example, who picked on a lot of people. Most of the kids were a little afraid of him. We happened to both be at the Boys Club. (How much good would telling a teacher have done there?) He tried pushing me around. I decided I’d had enough and told him so. He ran at me to try to punch me and somehow or another, I bent down and actually managed to flip him over my back. He landed weirdly on the floor and didn’t get up for a few minutes. His arm was in a cast the next day. And that was the last time I ever had a problem with him.

Another time, there was a kid who was probably two years older than I was, 3-4 inches taller, and he outweighed me by 100 pounds. He had been picking on me. We were both on the basketball court at school. He walked up behind me and then out of the blue, he just put me into a headlock. The moment he let go, I turned around and slugged him in the face three times. He was so surprised and stunned by the punches, he didn’t even get off a single shot. Both of us were then sent to the principal’s office and we were both paddled (Again, this is what happens when the school gets involved. They didn’t see and hear every second of it; so the bully and the victim are treated as though they are equally at fault.) After that, bizarrely enough, that kid bent over backwards to be nice to me.

Eventually, I got to the point where I didn’t want to fight, but I didn’t walk away from any fights either. I can still remember a guy running his mouth to me. I responded, “F*** you, let’s fight!” He then said, “Uh, I was just kidding.” My response to that was to look him straight in the eye and say, “I wasn’t kidding at all.” He then found reason to make himself scarce. You want to talk about “building self-esteem”? Having a moment like that will do more to build a teenage boy’s self-esteem than any class he can ever take. Starting high school as a kid who’s bullied and ending it as someone that bullies are afraid to lay a hand on will change how you view yourself for the better, too.

Now, I’m not going to tell you that this is easy advice to give to a kid, especially one who’s intimidated, scared, and conflict-averse. What I will tell you is that it’s the right advice to give to kids, especially to kids who are being bullied.

There’s an old line from a Kenny Rogers song called “Coward of the County” and it goes, “Sometimes you gotta fight when you’re a man.” Some people will deny that, but it’s true, and no matter what they may tell you, boys who are being bullied know it’s true. That’s a big part of the reason that the bullying bothers them so much.

The good news for kids in that situation is that it doesn’t matter where you start; it matters where you finish. As timid as I was at the beginning of high school, by the time I was in college, I was taking Southern Long Fist Kung Fu and engaging in raucous sparring sessions. I came away from more than one of them with a black eye. Another time, my instructor kicked me in the chest so hard that the next day — and this is not an exaggeration — there was a bruise in the shape of his shoe imprinted on my body. Sound scary? I came to love it. There was just something exhilarating about taking a huge shot and continuing to move forward or delivering a crushing punch into another human being’s body. I got into it so much that to this day, I still have a heavy bag in my bedroom so I can get a little exercise driving it across the floor with punches, kicks, and knees.

Now, that doesn’t mean you should look for fights. To the contrary, you should avoid fighting if you can. You could get hurt, which is bad. You could hurt the other guy, which isn’t bad at all if he deserves it, but there could be legal ramifications. So, if possible, it’s always best to walk away from a fight. But, you should walk away with your pride intact. No one is allowed to put his hands on you. No one gets to threaten to beat you up. No one gets to physically abuse a friend, family member, or someone who’s under your protection. If you can dissuade people from doing that verbally, that’s for the best, but there is a time and a place to use violence against other human beings. That’s why, when kids are being bullied, you don’t tell them to call Lady Gaga; you tell them to use their fists.'

The 'Linger Effect' in Behaviour

2011-11-15T19:53:00.004+05:30

At times you wonder why someone seems so angry. After all there wasn't anything that could be termed a provocation. Then why the outburst? Well, such anger is easy to decipher if you can unearth what I call the 'linger effect'.

Its hard for us to let go, more so if we've been hurt. Most hurt never finds closure. Which means it lingers. The outcome to such a 'linger effect' is its exhibition in another form, namely anger. So when people seem to be angry without reason, what they are actually doing is making an effort at getting over a past hurt. The pity is, it leaves the recipient of such anger bewildered.

Service providers too at times are at the receiving end of unexplainable consumer anger. The answer to such behaviour of course, lies in the 'linger effect'. Agreed, that's no consolation to the poor marketer at the receiving end. Though knowing why people behave they way do, should be of some solace.

I guess.

Coming & Going

2011-11-10T20:21:00.004+05:30

Rajini on coming home:

'There is a sense among all of us displaced Indians, if you can call us that, that this is the best place for us to be in the world. The fact we have cultural ties adds to the idea that we can be more productive, and make more of a difference here.

Coming to live here is in some way attending to unfinished business. You can meet a person a few times, speak to them on the phone, or online, but only when you live with them do you really know them. My flirtation with India is now real. I'm about to make this place my home for the next few years. My dad left India in May 1966 and landed at Heathrow as a bright-eyed student. My mother followed a decade later. They both live in the UK, are integral members of the local community, and have raised three successful daughters.

Forty-five years on, and I'm doing the reverse. I share the same fears as my father did as he stepped off the plane with only £75 in his pocket, but just as he found new success and a home in England, I hope to in India.'

Sumedh on going away:

'Why do I feel better in the U.S.? Maybe it’s not because I’m at home here, but because I’m an alien. Perhaps three thousand years of history have made us Indians a little too familiar with one another for our own good. We’ve perfected Malcolm Gladwell’s “blink” — the reflexive, addictive and tragically accurate placement of other Indians into bullock carts, scooters, airplanes and who knows what else. These issues exist in all countries, but in India, I could see the bigotry in high fidelity and hear the stereotypes in surround-sound — partly because it is worse in India, mostly because I am Indian.

India’s wealth and lifestyle disparity is still impossibly great; I probably spent more on pizza than on my maid. She knew this too, because she was often the one who handed the pizza delivery guy his money. Everyone in India has to deal with this, but I coped in the worst possible way: by dehumanizing her and other people like her, ever so slightly, ever so subtly — chronic amoebiasis of the soul.

Though my return to India failed, I came back feeling more optimistic than ever about India’s long-term success. India is regaining her leadership position — the position she held ever since humans were civilized, a position she lost only because of a few uncivilized humans (at least give us back our Koh-i-noor!). I know India will rule the future. It’s just that I’ve realized — I’ve resigned myself to the fact — that I won’t be a part of that future.

I’m glad I went back to India, and I’m glad to be back in the U.S. Life has come full circle but the center has shifted. I didn’t go to India to find home, but I did find it; I now know where I belong. As Laozi might have said, sometimes the journey of a single step starts with a thousand miles in the opposite direction.'

Lapse and Lunacy

2011-11-10T14:25:00.004+05:30

Unlike what most believe, Rick Perry's 'brain freeze' moment doesn't have to numb his campiagn. Latest reports seem to suggest the Perry camp's getting its response to gaffe right. They have decided to 'embrace' the memory lapse moment and have dispatched an email to their supporters stating, "Write us to let us know what federal agency you would most like to forget. "Is it the EPA and its job-killing zealots? The NLRB and its czar-like dictates? The edu-crats at the Department of Education who aim to control your local curriculum?"

Plus they've encouraged supporters to add a $5 as donation with every suggestion!

I say, cheeky, and brilliant!

Gaffes are good if they can elicit empathy. Who amongst us hasn't had a memory lapse moment? In fact tell you what, at times my mind blanks up mid sentence while in a class! So I quite understand what happened to Rick. My guess is, so can you. Its up to the Perry camp to play this story right, and up to Perry to not do this often.

Its a thin line between lapse and lunacy.

Recovering from a lapse can be easy if you manage its aftermath well. Ditto when it comes to lapses whilst crafting value propositions for consumers. Breakdowns are to be expected. What's important is how the marketer salvages post lapse. Negative publicity, can for example be capitalised on if the brand spins and humanises the reported lapse, and then corrects it quickly.

The Perry campaign is far from dead. It can still bounce back with vigor. But it'll take more than just spin. Its time Perry delivers on substance.

Building Steve, Breaking Qaddafi

2011-11-04T10:13:00.004+05:30

Giving up the ghost with famous last words at times makes news. Especially if the people in question are newsmakers. Steve went with a few wows and Qaddafi tried 'don't shoot' to avoid kicking the bucket.

Now its important we know they went that way. More so for their intended audience. The 'wow' story tops up nicely the legend that Steve is. For those swooning, this story is only a reaffirmation to what they have always believed, that Steve is God. The Qaddafi story though similar, is quite a contrast. His pathetic plea firmly unseats him from the pedestal of a revolutionary. So all those who believe in the revolution can now know their leader is a miserable coward who pled for mercy, something he didn't ever consider during his tyranny.

Last words are important. They are stimuli that build perceptions. In the case of Steve, the legend must go on. The Steve stories I dismiss as near nonsense is lapped up by the Apple horde. Which is good, 'cause in the end its about the cash registers ringing. I surely don't have a problem with that. I also don't have a problem with last minute pleas if they can usher in people's rule.

Much of the Steve and Qaddafi story, I guess isn't true. But these stories are important, for they build brands, for the good and bad. Which is helpful. The good enables us to buy in, the bad aids rejection.

The Leftist tomorrow

2011-11-04T10:02:00.002+05:30

'Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful. The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other...

Why wait to see such results come home? Leftism is an ignoble creed on the surface of it. Its followers display their awareness of its shamefulness by projecting its evils onto their opposition. Leftists accuse conservatives of avarice, but which is greedier in a person: to seek to hold on to what is his own, or to seek, as the leftists do, to plunder what belongs to others? Leftists call conservatives racist and sexist, but who is it who wants race and gender enshrined in law? Who penalizes white or male babies for sins they never committed on the long-exploded theory that evil can undo evil?Leftists call conservatives hateful… I would answer “Read the papers!” but the papers lie because our journalists are leftists and they know down deep what they’re like, who they are. Compare instead the rhetoric and honesty — not of those selected by the media, or those quotes they’ve selected — but of those in equivalent positions at equivalent times. The gracious and open-hearted George W. Bush versus the divisive, self-serving, and dishonest Barack Obama, just to take one example.

Every one who sympathizes with the Occupy movement should take a good look at them — not as they will be in the paradise of their aspirations but as they truly are this minute. Look at them, and understand that that’s what tomorrow will look like if they have their way today.'

- Andrew Klavan, 'What Leftism Does to People.'

Happy Diwali

2011-10-26T18:38:00.002+05:30

Why we buy

2011-10-25T06:55:00.001+05:30

Jaden was pretty pleased about his birthday. The party had something to do with it. So did the gifts he got. Post the celebrations he did something that comes naturally to most of us. He took out one his toys, a remote controlled race car into the corridor to show it off to his friends.

The reaction to Jaden’s ‘display’ was understandable. Envious, the others boys responded. One such response by a kid was to counter with his own set of ‘new’ toys. Another was to try and crash Jaden’s car beyond repair so it could be immobilised.

Envy is a good and a bad thing. The good is what prompts us to strive for more so we can counter conspicuous displays that get bandied about in our face. The bad prompts us to go the destruction route. We try and covet what isn’t ours, or at least not allow for others to have what they have. The talkative amongst us take the ‘bitching’ ventilating route .

Now most of marketing taps into envy, I believe in a good way. Much of marketing as much as it presents to us value propositions that fulfil needs, also prompt us with promises of greater esteem. The latter taps into our sense of envy. On our part, we keep ourselves intact in our heads and manage envy by doing what marketers want us to do.

Buy.

5

2011-10-14T16:55:00.006+05:30

Happy Birthday, Jaden.

The Wall Street Mob

2011-10-08T19:46:00.002+05:30

'There is something ludicrous about a throng of ranting, raving, raging college kids slurping Starbucks and staring into iPhones while angrily protesting the very system that made it all possible in the first place. Even the mob's ability to turn out the mob is made possible by this system. It's like an infant indignantly lifting its head from the breast of its mother and saying, "You don't exist."

Well, Steve Jobs existed. As co-founder and CEO of Apple, he changed the world for the better. The Wall Street "occupiers" are exploiting the technology that he helped create.

What the Wall Street horde and Roseanne do not understand is that in America, people generally get rich by providing a product or service that people want. Sure, there are exceptions. Some get wealthy by promulgating vice instead of virtue -- witness the porn industry's parasitical attachment to Jobs' technology industry. Some are rich because they inherited the money -- witness the Kennedy family. By and large, however, "the rich" earn their riches through the consent of millions of citizens who voluntarily purchase products and services through their own free will. That is called the free market; it is the opposite of the command economy.

The failure of young people to know the difference is yet another failure of this nation's horrendous educational system, and especially our bankrupt universities -- bankrupt, that is, morally, albeit certainly not financially. The universities that have mis-educated the mob charge far higher fees than any Bank of America ATM. You want to see greed and enslaving levels of debt? Look at what an Ivy League college charges.

Roseanne and the mob do not understand this country and its market system. Neither is perfect, nor are the wealthy people they produce. You are, however, free here -- and free to keep the wealth you earn.

Steve Jobs understood. May he rest in peace.'

- Paul Kengor, 'On Steve Jobs, Roseanne Barr, and the Wall Street Mob.'

Come Home

2011-10-08T19:35:00.000+05:30

Why Alphy cares and I don't

2011-10-08T18:56:00.003+05:30

Alphy's been fussing about her few strands of grey. Though I have thrice as much, I don't care. Instead, what bothers me more is my battle with the bulge. The difference between our 'bothers' is the difference between what is the pursuit of the 'ideal social self', and the 'ideal self'.

To Alphy its about looking a certain way when she's 'out'. To me its looking a certain way, when I am 'in'. Let me explain. Alphy cares more about how she looks to others. I care more about how I look to me. If my bulge gets the better of me I'll be disappointed with myself. In fact it isn't easy for me to admit I may lose (I won't!), for that will diminish me in my own eyes. For Alphy the disappointment I reckon is more about how she may have to answer her significant others, our neighbours for example.

Our pursuit of our ideals selves is a universal. The difference is whether that pursuit's a result of a desired social self, or just a desired self. The former category consists of those who care about what others think. The latter look to answering to themselves. Either way, its apt opportunity for marketers. Though I must add, they will have to position brands differently while appealing to the two types I described.

For the Alphy types, the brand's promise will have to be social success. For the me types, it will have to be self satisfaction that's guaranteed!

P.S. Alphy vehemently disagrees with my analysis. But I know I'm right! :)

Apple Man, 1955-2011

2011-10-06T19:32:00.002+05:30

'Good lord. Any one of these many accomplishments, and Jobs would be hailed as a titan of industry. You may or may not be an “Apple person,” but the way you work, play and compute have all been deeply effected by the man in the black, mock-neck sweater. From your Windows 7 all-in-one computer, to your Acer Timeline ultra-lightweight laptop, to your SanDisk MP3 player, to your Android smartphone or your Samsung tablet — none of them are made by Apple and all of them adhere to the vision of Steve Jobs.

That’s an astounding legacy, unparalleled except perhaps for Henry Ford.

Poor health is certainly what prompted Jobs to resign yesterday as CEO of Apple, Inc. Nobody knows how long he’ll have to enjoy his retirement — but he’s earned it like no one else has.

So, thanks, Steve, for all the insanely great stuff. Thanks also for leaving Apple in such capable hands. But thank you most of all for setting an example that never failed to inspire.

ONE MORE THING: I’m adding this on the day of Jobs’s passing, too. Three days ago, industry analyst Horace Dediu crunched some very serious numbers. Since 2007, iOS has gone on to become a bigger profit center than all of Microsoft.

That is, in the space of four years, Apple created, from scratch, something more valuable than Microsoft’s entire product line. And they did it with just two devices, the iPhone and the iPad.

Now that’s a legacy.

Rest well, Steve.'

- Stephen Green, 'Steve Jobs: RIP.'

Making sense

2011-10-06T18:56:00.004+05:30

At times, stuff that makes no sense to me makes perfect sense to others. The other day, the diesel Genset (in the basement) that lights up our building during times of power cuts, was the object of prayer. I can't get it. Why must a 'thing' be part of worship?

But then I realise its part of what's been for ages a religious practice in our country. To those who do the practice it makes perfect sense. After all, Ayudha Puja is a 'worship of the implements'. Now if I were a marketer, being either confounded or staying blissfully ignorant about such practices is a no-no. After all, to successfully sell I must know how consumers buy. Knowing how consumers buy is a subset of knowing how they behave in real life. Making a Genset an object of worship is part of that behaviour, and so making sense of such practice must up on the marketer's priority list.

Knowing and absorbing culture is a necessity for marketers. Its facilitates the crafting of consumer value propositions that operate within cultural diktats, thus bringing with it greater mass acceptability.

Of course, along the way the Genset worship will also start to make sense.

Free markets, not redistribution, is the best way to reduce Poverty

2011-10-03T21:35:00.004+05:30

So now we have some of the top economists in India advocating a return to universal PDS. What's important to note here isn't their advocacy, but the institutions they belong to.

Should it be surprising that economists who work for government institutions or institutions funded by government advocate the PDS?

Note what Andrew Quinlan of the CF&P Foundation has to say, "Poverty is typically used as an excuse for expanding government and redistributing wealth, but freedom and prosperity go hand in hand. We need more economic freedom - which means less government interference - so that the less fortunate have an opportunity to climb the economic ladder."

Adds Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute, "The safety net has become a hammock. Rather than reducing poverty, government programs have gone overboard and are now encouraging it. The government needs to return to its core duties and the federal government should get out of the business of income redistribution."

Garibi Hatao, Tax Badao

2011-09-30T22:20:00.005+05:30

The brouhaha over Rs. 32 setting the poverty line in India heralds a return to classic socialist idiocy. But then again you shouldn't be too surprised at such idiocy in India. After all, shaking off an embedded socialist welfare psyche isn't easy because of two reasons. One, cultivating economic sense in a welfare state isn't easy. Two, from a psychological perspective the welfare state idiocy makes people feel like they are the caring kind.

Lets for a moment suppose the poverty line were raised to a higher rupee level. The result would be greater 'people numbers' in the poverty bracket. Pray, who will then feed, clothe, and care for these enhanced numbers? Of course government, the socialists will clamour. Pray when has government ever fed and cared for the poor? Remember the Indira Gandhi times, when taxes were at its highest, and 'Garibi Hatao' was loudly bandied around? What happened? The poor remained dirt poor! The well off and the salary earners paid sky high taxes that did nothing for the poor, and everything for those in government!

Fast forward to now. Despite the oft quoted lie that the rich have gotten richer and poor have gotten poorer, what's real is everyone's lot has only gotten better. Agreed, the creamy layer has zoomed up faster and to a greater degree vis-a-vis those below, but everyone's RELATIVELY better off! No thanks to government, all thanks to lesser government. Those sectors that have loosened on government control have fared way better for people associated, either as producers thus wage earners, or as consumers thus wage spenders.

Ponzi Government schemes feeding off tax payer money and easing poverty is a pipe dream. It hasn't, and won't happen. What instead will set off lowering of poverty will be easing of government control, and letting private sector create jobs that come out of acts of commercial value creation. Put a spoke in the wheels of private enterprise and I guarantee, you won't ever wipe out poverty. A raise from a base level of 32 rupees so more people can be called poor also won't help.

Even a bit.

Clueless 'bout me!

2011-09-22T10:47:00.004+05:30

I am not surprised at times I am clueless about what I do. I always knew this 'lack' was bound to happen. I only wished I'd spot it quick.

I did.

Last Sunday at church I see this kid buttoned to the hilt. I thought he looked cute. Then his dad walks in buttoned up too. Soon it dawns. I realise its the dad's influence playing out on the kid. The former's choice of clothes for himself drove choices made for the kid (at least when it came to clothes).

Then it hits me. By Jove, extend that to yours truly!

I've always picked the more casual kind of clothes for Jaden. Why? I love causals and wear 'em, even at church (though most think that's inappropriate). It was unnerving for me to realise I've made choices for my kid based on choices I make for myself. Without even knowing it!

The influence of the family on a child, I believe, is vastly underestimated. We are who we are, deep inside, thanks (or maybe, no thanks) to our family. The generation influence that get's carried on plays out subtly without either generation knowing. Agreed, a subsequent generation could 'break' away, but again deep inside, nothing much changes across generations.

For example, if you hate the insecure you, load part blame on your parents. They can in turn pass it on.

Up.

Death of the Cool

2011-09-20T08:55:00.001+05:30

'Cool depended on liberalism. In fact, it was an offshoot of it, suckling on the mother’s milk of Keynesian economics. As long as there was plenty of deficit spending to go around, we could all be cool. Life would be one long evening at Max’s Kansas City.

Of course, it’s not. In today’s pay-as-you-go world, being cool is a luxury few can afford. This accounts for the extreme discomfort we may be seeing in our media and, to a lesser extent — they still have more money — Hollywood. Our media, our journos, depend on being thought cool and, consequently and perhaps more importantly, thinking of themselves as cool. When they suspect they are not, they begin to behave like worker bees when the queen is killed. They tend to run around and act out. After a while, they seem lost. Their numbers dwindle.

This is just because cool depended on a hive mind in the first place. It was little more than fad. We are well rid of it.

And in part because cool is gone, the remaining liberals are the new reactionaries. They are the ones trapped in the past, the enemies of the future.

Not that there are so many liberals anymore, outside the media. I spotted a new Prius today in a tony L.A. neighborhood sporting a pristine “Romney in 2012″ bumper sticker. Such a thing would have been incongruous, maybe even unheard of, four years ago. But cool is dead. You’re free to do what you want.

And make no mistake about it — cool was oppressive. It told you how to be and what to be. In some ways cool was the inverse of itself. It was the enemy of freedom while pretending to be its apostle. Nowadays there is nothing more square than to be cool. So feel free to be whatever you want to be.

You may even be cool again. In a new way.'

- Roger L. Simon, 'Death of the Cool.'

The attitude contrasts to Moditva

2011-09-19T22:44:00.003+05:30

When brand gasbag Suhel Seth terms Modi a 'transformational leader' he ends up saying more about himself than the Gujarat Chief Minister. He reveals himself as someone who's taken the 'affective-feel' route to forming attitudes. Such attitudes are what lead to the usage of a descriptive term like 'transformational'. Now, pray why Suhel writes such stuff? Because an invite from the Chief Minister lands him a sermon that he gives the business-wallahs in Ahmedabad. I am not surprised. Guys like Suhel thrive on ego needs. A chance at a sermon and they'll bellow the tune you seek.

Contrast Suhel with some one like Teesta. Her route to attitudes is the cognitive one. She's not one to sway to ego-lures. She sticks her ground and focuses on what she's after. Justice for the victims of Gujarat.

The affective route to forming attitudes works with the gasbag types. For they'll do anything to ride an ego trip. Its important therefore for brands to go overboard with emotional appeals. But take the same route to appeal to those high on cognition needs, and the brand will fail in engineering positive attitudes. The 'objective' types can only be won over with rational appeals that make sense to their intelligence.

Modi's fast works for those gung-ho on machismo. It falls flat with those that seek justice. What we need to watch out for is whether the gung-ho appeal will work outside of Gujarat.

I for one don't think so. Plus hope so.

The Hindi, Hinglish, & English crowd

2011-09-18T20:07:00.003+05:30

Segment the young in India and you get three kinds. The Hindi, Hinglish, and English. The first kind, mostly found in towns and villages (north of India) take to Hindi, lock, stock, and barrel. The second, the 'Hinglish' crowd populates towns and metros. They oscillate between, and integrate Hindi and English to suit them. This is the 'going on dude' crowd that inadvertently or knowingly peppers English with large doses of Hindi, or the other way round. The final bunch is the convent educated, metro crowd. They are the 'dude' crowd. They frequent cafes, sport sneakers, swear by denims, and pretty much are clued into everything digital.

The young pose the biggest interest to marketers. In addition to being large in numbers, the young don't hold back on consuming, and because it'll be while before they kick the bucket, the moolah marketers can extricate from them (read, customer lifetime value) can be quite a sum.

Featured above are two commercials from Telecom companies, one's for the 'Hinglish' crowd, the other targets the 'English'.

The sensory adaptation in callousness

2011-09-17T10:32:00.005+05:30

At times we are surprised at our callousness. Other times we wonder how others can be that way. Especially when everything around seems to be screaming out for care and empathy. Take the aftermath of the bomb blasts in Delhi. Relatives of the dead and injured ran pillar to post to get information. Some even had to pay money so they could a buy a cloth to cover the dead at morgues.

Imagine that. How callous of the hospital authorities to disrespect the unfortunate and the dead! How dare they leave the bodies bare, and then demand money for a piece of cloth to be used as covering!

Morbid as it is, there's an explanation to why we and others turn callous. Its called sensory adaptation. What can shock doesn't because our senses adapt. Our senses adapt when our sensory thresholds go up. And those thresholds travel north if there's consistent repetition and reinforcement of stimuli. The hospital authorities turned a blind eye on the dead because being dead and lying around wasn't new to them. They had seen it one too many times, and so it failed to shock.

Sensory adaptation is the marketer's worst enemy. Consumers fail to respond to marketer overtures simply because they've adapted to everything the marketer proposes as stimuli. The ads don't work, the promos don't lure simply because of this. The only way to break out of this adaptation rut is by presenting the consumer with stimuli that's unique and irresistible.

As for the hospital authorities, I'd say a good thump is in order.

Imagine Me

2011-09-17T09:35:00.000+05:30

The charade of deregulation

2011-09-15T22:08:00.003+05:30

Know why petrol prices are up? Or why intelligence agencies fail in India? Well, its the same reason why we have pathetic roads, tripping power, dry pipes, the misery list is endless.

The reason? Government and regulation.

When there's zero accountability, and tax payer money in plenty, what else is to be expected? Of course, the defence of government is their tom-toming deregulation in the oil industry, but tell you what, that's just a charade. For example, the price hike from tomorrow according to the government is in response to the weakening rupee leading to a higher import bill. Really? Where are the figures? Tell us the actual increase in cost to government, and then tell us how you arrived at a price increase of three rupees. Also, if its real deregulation, why aren't prices moving up and down everyday, based on global demand and supply? In the US, prices even change morning to evening.

Truth is, deregulation isn't real deregulation in India. It is regulation in disguise. Plus there's zero transparency. For the consumers in India (add the poor too), the only way out is to let the markets dictate efficiencies and prices. But for that we'll need lesser government and greater deregulation.

Pipe dream, I guess.

The Real Winners

2011-09-14T21:56:00.004+05:30

Its indeed distressing to know our hockey players get close to zilch despite winning the Asian Champions Trophy. But then again, the hockey federation supposedly has no money in its kitty. And then there's the veritable comparison made with cricket, and its board that's rolling in money.

Well, I say the comparison's rather unfair. Don't give cricket and its administrators too much credit for all that money. Instead give more credit to the fact that we can't as a nation produce winners in the global arena in any other sport. Couple that with the good fortune Indian cricket enjoys in earning the world champion tag in a boring sport that a handful of countries play.

Its almost like the adulation the IITs and the IIMs enjoy. There's hardly any real competition thanks to regulation keeping the biggie B Schools from the West out. Plus the first four decades of artificial scarcity meant these institutions got a headstart with near zero competition for all that time.

Know what, save your adulation for the real winners. The ones who beat out free market competition and emerge on top of the pile. I can tell you that happens because they give the best deal there is to their consumers.

Those are the real winners! Worthy of our admiration.

Much ado about nothing

2011-09-13T21:50:00.003+05:30

Part of our problem in India is the excess virtue that we ascribe to stuff that needs no such worshipful attitudes. Look at our response to parents and teachers. We aren't supposed to question their wisdom for they can't be wrong. And even if they are, we must stay mum and buy into their nonsense.

Beats me.

I for one don't think parents or teachers deserve any more respect than anyone else. In fact every person deserves respect. We don't need to dish out respect in larger doses for any particular entity. In fact doing the extra doses for ages I believe, is at heart of why there's never any deviant or radical thinking (read, innovation) that comes out of our country.

Now such virtuous attitudes extend into consumption territory too. Much virtue for example is seen in minimal consumption. If one dares to consume in plenty, there's a bout of condemnation waiting round the corner. Agreed, there's a great divide between the 'have' and the 'have-nots' which may call for 'responsible' consumption. But the truth is, the lot of the 'have-nots' get better if the 'haves' consume in larger quantum. Limiting consumption only makes the have-nots worse off.

I for one think its time we abandon our sense of excessive virtue. I bet it'll only do us good.

Why we can or can't forgive

2011-09-12T15:54:00.005+05:30

Forgiving isn't easy. But its easier doing, if either the act doesn't cut too deep, or is an exception, not the norm.

Words can hurt. If such words repeat often, forgiveness will run thin eventually petering out. It will also then become difficult to separate the articulated from the articulator. Meaning the person now starts to embody the language mouthed. Forgiveness turns next to impossible.

Its the same with our experiences as consumers. The first one that goes sour may not sound the death knell for the service provider. After all, we are willing to forgive. But if it happens one too many times we won't be as forgiving. Chances are we'd abandon the provider and move to another.

This then harkens the beginning to the end of a service provider. In life as in business, its important we get our language and our service right as many times as we can. For there's always someone at the receiving end who may be called to forgive if we mess up.

If we stumble too often, chances are we'll shut sooner, or kiss being forgiven goodbye.

Lest we forget

2011-09-11T19:25:00.001+05:30

'September 11 is but one part of a long struggle, one that continues to be a testament to our humanity and our ideals. While 9/11 seems apocalyptic in our history, it is neither the first nor the last chapter in America's fundamental story. Our nation exists because Americans had a vision. They believed that there should be one place on Earth premised on the ideal that every person should be allowed to rise to his or her fullest potential.

Hostility to that vision is the reason that we have been the repeated target of aggression. And why we were the target 10 years ago. Our triumph has not come from being unscathed—then, or even in the future—but in refusing to fall, either as Americans or as America, from our vision. That is 9/11's deeper message. And it is indeed one we must never forget.'

- J T Young, 'Remembering 9/11 and Recognizing Its Message.'

Standing up

2011-09-11T19:17:00.002+05:30

So let me understand what the third world commentators are saying about America fighting the wars its fighting. Their collective chorus recommends America should have taken the 9/11 aftermath lying down and playing mum. Yeah, its a thought. But thank God, the Americans thought otherwise. Thank God, there was someone who stood up to evil.

Make no mistake, America must stand for liberty. Communist, freedom depriving China can't and won't do it. Ditto for socialist Europe. The United States of America is our only hope for a free world.

But be worried, for everything isn't as hunky dory as it seems, even in the land of liberty. Note Michael Filizof, 'If the World War II generation was "The Greatest Generation," their baby-boom offspring upon whose watch 9/11 occurred are "The Weakest and Most Narcissistic Generation." Instead of unifying the nation, the political left manipulated the worst attack on the American mainland since the War of 1812 with shameless demagoguery. Why? As historian John Lukacs has written, the left everywhere is motivated by fear.

After 9/11, the left (which had undertaken a largely-successful 40-year campaign to undermine American values and American patriotism) was terrified to see Americans rally to the flag, to the military, and to patriotic values. The lesson of 9/11 is this: the American left fears the American right more than it fears Islamic terrorism. It fears patriotism and nationalism more than Sharia law. The left would rather appease Islamic militants than rally to a conservative American president from the Republican Party who believes in the U.S. Constitution and in Jesus Christ. September 11 revealed that the U.S. is a disunited society riven by factionalism and narcissism. Consequently, it cannot -- and ultimately will not -- survive.

On 9/11, actual terrorists hijacked airliners filled with hundreds of civilian men, women, and children and murdered those innocents by smashing them into the World Trade Center. As the Twin Towers erupted in flames, office workers trapped on the upper floors faced a horrifying choice: would they rather burn to death, or jump a hundred stories to the pavement?

Hundreds jumped. Some held hands on the way down.

Ten years later, the vice president of the United States said that congressional Republicans who balked at raising the national debt ceiling to an obscene $16 trillion were "acting like terrorists."

There is no better proof of American decline than that.'

For the world's sake, I hope Michael isn't right.

Ground the Maharajah

2011-09-11T06:10:00.002+05:30

'It’s not difficult to understand why Air India is in so much trouble. The airline industry belongs to the “hospitality” sector, which needs high service standards to be maintained. Now in a government company, the last thing on any employee’s minds is customer service. No wonder then that the air hostesses are rude (and crude), the food is ugly to look at (and tasteless) and even the basic facilities inside the aircraft (upholstery, toilets, air conditioning, choice of newspapers and magazines) leave much to be desired. Yet, the pricing is as high as that of the much better private airlines. Why? Because Air India’s costs of operations are high…..and they must be passed on to their customers! And why is that so? Many reasons but primarily because it has a bloated work force. The number of people who work in Air India is some 40000 odd; in comparison, the number of people in the much larger Jet Airways is less than 10000. Such a big workforce – leading to a huge salary burden – and such a work attitude clearly makes Air India an unviable airline.'

- Prashant Pandey, 'CAG should have recommended selling off Air India….'

Selfish self pursuit is way better

2011-09-10T21:22:00.005+05:30

The problem with Arundhati's socialist rant is that propagates an 'equalising' process that achieves the exact opposite. In fact the outcome of such drives (read, to achieve equitable prosperity) is greater inequity, and of course the loss of freedom.

Societies that are freer, and that allow for the pursuit of selfish inequality have end up with what comes closest to equitable prosperity. Meaning the general lot of people who populate such free societies are far better. On the other hand societies that have through government tried to engineer equitable prosperity have miserably failed. Plus they have perpetrated on their people a system that eats into their freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Its important every nation recognise the value of liberty. Liberty is what engineers prosperity on an near-even platform. There is no government anywhere in the world that's achieved the utopian dream of equity dreamt by likes of Arundhati. Attempts at equity surely have been made in the past. Such experiments have turned places into ones where everyone's miserable. Everyone, except people in government, and power positions.

As we turn the corner on 9/11 we must remember those attacks and others as ones that attempted to take away our liberty. Under the garb of perceived wrongs the perpetrators of such heinous crimes try and disrupt our world of commerce. A world in which we enjoy the greatest of god's gifts, freedom. A world that allows us freely to engage in what is at the heart of our personal and collective prosperity.

The right to produce. The right to consume.

Aanakallan

2011-09-10T12:32:00.000+05:30

What we remember

2011-09-08T21:23:00.004+05:30

Riding the bus back home puts a smile on face, and its got nothing to do with getting away from work. Truth be told, I love what I do at work. I get to teach the smartest students there are, and the interactions I have with them are as rewarding to me.

Going back home sporting a smile has much to do with with the images that play in my head, drawn from memory. I can see the kids and Alphy. Their lovely welcome that I get to see every evening is what splits my face in two via a smile. In fact, I can almost remember everything about them, right from the beginning. I can do that because I draw those recollections from what is called my long term memory. I can see Alphy waiting for me at the Cafe' where we first met. I can draw the call (from an uncle) that told me Jaden's left his mama's tummy to tumble into the world. I can hear Brooke's cry even though my mom-in-law hadn't yet seen her, but she had her phone up (with me on the line) to catch Brooke's cry from inside the room where Alphy had just given birth. Everything is crystal clear in my head!

Now that's some lesson there for brands who are trying to worm into our long term memory so we evoke them when there's a purchase consideration. What's the lesson? Its that, what makes into our long term memory is what affects us deeply. What brands normally do is put their money on communiques to get into consumer long term memory. Of course, its worth a try, but what's better than ad spends is to try and turn a 'touchpoint' into an experience that sears into the consumer's long term memory. From experience we as consumers know that's rare. Consider this for an example. What I remember about the Whirlpool brand isn't any of their fancy communiques. Instead I remember how their service personnel stood me up when I needed help with a choice of stabiliser for the double-door refrigerator that I had bought . To me, all the money Whirlpool put into theirs ads and other campaigns is wasted money. I remember zilch from that.

What we remember is what affects us deeply. The good and the bad times are what gets etched into our memory. Its time brands knew the 'good' time they give consumers is what puts them into consumer long term memory. That in turn is what evokes them and puts them as strong contenders in the consumer's consideration set.

Its people who matter to consumers

2011-09-07T19:30:00.003+05:30

In our everyday life at home the rare 'tense' moment (while raising our kids) between Alphy and me is quite an influence on my immediate subsequent behaviour. The hassled me turns a tad bit harsher when it comes to disciplining Jaden. The hassle hangover stays for a few minutes after which I am jerked back into a realisation of my own behaviour. Thankfully its then back to normal.

Our states of mind influence what we exhibit as behavior. Our states of mind in turn are highly susceptible to the quality of the preceding human engagement. A pleasant encounter with people puts us at ease. A testing one frays our nerves.

In the world of business, every service encounter can either have a pleasant or a bitter aftermath. If its the former that plays out, expect the consumer to exhibit a negative attitude to what's encountered next. For example, a callous waiter can be real cause for our grouse with the food. Conversely a lovely store person may be reason why we buy more than we need.

Its time marketers understood the power their people wield when it comes to business and sales. In fact I'd recommend companies not waste too much money on software and systems. Instead that money is better spent nurturing people.

I can guarantee you, that will be money well spent.

What terror aims to disrupt

2011-09-07T19:14:00.004+05:30

The terror strike on innocents in Delhi is an act of cowardice. Such an act aims to take away what is our legitimate right. The right to life and liberty.

As a nation we are indeed vulnerable to such dastardly acts. But we stand firm in our resolve, both out of choice and compulsion to go back to what we do in our everyday lives. The aftermath of this tragedy mustn't be blame-games. Instead the focus must be on how we pre-empt and prevent further terror attacks through strengthening intelligence.

Praying for families who have lost loved ones, and for the injured.

The definition of a Jerk

2011-09-05T22:37:00.005+05:30

The one difference between a child and an adult is the latter's ability to delay gratification. For children, delaying gratification doesn't come easy. Their demands are the 'right now' kind. It's natural kids do that because they are obsessed with themselves. It takes time for them to realise there's others in the world, that those others matter.

The funny thing is, there's enough adults out there who haven't grown out of being kids. Like children, they too are self-obsessed. The difference is, their behaviour makes them jerks while children at their age are tolerable. Self-obsessed adults are easy to spot. They are the insensitive louts we put up with.

A focus on the self erodes our ability to delay gratification. Which is good news to marketers, for it hastens a sale. Marketers on their part do everything to lure consumers by giving them umpteen reasons on why gratification needn't be delayed. For example, EMI payments, a 'limited period offer' are all tactics to prompt imminent gratification.

The next time you think you really can't live without something, and that's a product or service, know two things. One, you are getting to being obsessed with yourself. Two, you're taking a road that's eroding your ability to limit yourself. I guess as a society we can put with either.

Its when you cross that line and turn into jerk that society begins to lose. Here's hoping it doesn't come to that.

Hungry Eyes

2011-09-03T16:49:00.000+05:30

Buffett's buffet ain't generous

2011-09-03T16:27:00.007+05:30

It isn't what Warren said that's bothersome. After all what else can you expect from a liberal? Its the hypocrisy that's irksome.

Note the WSJ editorial: For a guy who spends a lot of time advocating for higher taxes, Warren Buffett does a remarkably good job of minimizing his own corporate tax bill. This is all to the good for Mr. Buffett and his fellow Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, who no doubt can invest the money more wisely than the federal government is likely to do.

Mr. Buffett's recent decision to invest in Bank of America represents another tax-avoidance triumph for the Berkshire chief executive. U.S. corporations are subject to a top federal income tax rate of 35%, the second highest in the world. But the Journal's Erik Holm notes that Mr. Buffett and the Berkshire bunch won't pay anything close to that on their investment in BofA preferred shares.

That's because corporations can exclude from taxation 70% of the dividends they receive from an investment in another corporation. This exclusion is intended to prevent double- or even triple-taxation as money is earned by one company, paid to another company and then ultimately paid out to shareholders. The policy makes sense; we only wonder why the exclusion isn't 100%.

With the 70% exclusion for Mr. Buffett and his fellow shareholders, Berkshire will enjoy an effective tax rate of 10.5% on the $300 million in dividends it will receive each year from Bank of America.

We're tempted to suggest that Mr. Buffett should do what he might call the patriotic thing and volunteer Berkshire to pay the full 35% rate as a good corporate citizen. But even if Mr. Buffett won't say it, most Americans know that more jobs will be created if the money is deployed by the Berkshire bunch than by the Beltway boys.

Warren's doing what no marketer must do. Build perceptions and then do a lousy job when the experience turns real. Warren's hypocrisy is aimed at building perceptions about his grandiose generosity. Surely that hits home with the liberals. But to others (like me, for instance) its a whole lot of hot air. Sure, Warren's contributed big time to charity. But me thinks even that's to keep the benefactor image rolling. What's real about Warren is what exposes him as a hypocrite.

For brands, perceptions matter only that much, in engineering the first buy. Then on, its the experience that will dictate whether there'll be a comeback by the customer. As for Warren, the image's done and over with.

At least for some of us.

Psst...Buffet's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes!

Its a loss of face they're salvaging

2011-08-29T20:28:00.008+05:30

As I had mentioned Om Puri's language was regrettable. An apology will surely set things right. But don't for a moment think the clamour to censure him is about maintaining parliamentary dignity. Its more about salvaging the collective esteem of parliamentarians who have taken a terrible bashing the past week. After all, who amongst us can take a hit when its comes to self esteem?

I am convinced the need for self-esteem far outstrips every other need, even basic physiological ones. Take taking to suicide for example. People don't mind killing themselves. Its the loss of face they can't put up with.

The need for esteem is good news to marketers. It allows them to offer consumers solutions that heighten their sense of self-esteem. Of course, it isn't good news to poor Om Puri who was ganged upon (on a TV show) just now by parliamentarians seeking to bring back from the brink some of their lost esteem. I am not sure the politicians salvaged anything judging from the mouthful they got from Arun Bhatia (also on the show), and the studio applause that accompanied the latter's tirade.

P.S. - Wanna know who willingly took a beating to his esteem? Read this.

Empathy is never in plenty

2011-08-28T21:11:00.004+05:30

Alphy can't stand the commercial (featured above). But she can't tell why. I can. As a mom of a baby girl, and a li'l boy, she's dying to catch a quiet moment. Yet she doesn't see herself as someone who'll take to a grimace if she's loses a hush moment she's trying to steal.

The Admen behind the commercial thought there were connecting to consumers with a witty and identifiable scene. Yet what they lacked is empathy. They didn't care to know what moms really feel about 'exasperating' baby cries.

One critical skill when you sell is empathy.

Of course, being a mom helps too. As for the Ad, frankly I don't get it and I am not surprised. It'll be a while before we get empathetic Adpeople who make sense.

Keynes v Hayek

2011-08-28T06:00:00.000+05:30

Why Middle Class greed is good!

2011-08-27T19:13:00.004+05:30

Why is Middle Class greed good?

Before I say why, note that this 'condemnable' greed is funded by their own hard earned money. I wonder why anyone should have a problem with that? Consider this. If the middle class are greedy that means they'll only care for themselves. Is that bad? What would they do when they care only for themselves? They'll try and make their lives better. How will they do that? By buying products and services that increase their comfort. What will that do? Put money into the hands of people that sell those products and services. What will that in turn do? Put money into the hands (read salaries) of those who participated in the process of making products and services.

The average man will have money in hand only if average others consume. That consumption is at the heart of a nation's prosperity.

Again, if the greedy middle class didn't spend their money, what would they be doing? Sleeping with the money beneath their pillows? Far from it, they would be investing it. If they invest their money, what good does it do? It becomes capital for others to use to make products and services.

You see, its the same products and services story. Goods and services remain the only fuel to prosperity of a country.

Making a direct reference to the middle class hankering for lower interest rates as stated by Alam, what's again wrong with that? If for a moment the government or Alam think that's greed, so be it. But do us middle class a favour. Open up the markets to competition in lending. Let competitive markets decide the rates.

Think about it. Where do you think the rates are gonna go?

I rest my case.

Socialist Idiocy

2011-08-27T18:43:00.006+05:30

Even as the upper-crust hanker after second cars and bigger houses, their ‘Yeh dil maange more’ cries as insatiable as ever, they find their anxieties echoed by millions who earn less but are eager to gatecrash their party. In an ironic twist of fate, both middle-class achievers and aspirants—who together number about half a billion—feel threatened by renewed reforms. They have developed a set of vested interests in the status quo...

Second, the global financial meltdown of 2008 gave people a vivid picture of the horrors of a free market run amuck. Suddenly, Indians saw the ugly side of globalisation, a lack of which had insulated them from jobs and investments going poof overnight. Once the West’s Great Recession hit, India’s economy dipped to a growth rate of under 7 per cent in 2008-09, from over 9 per cent earlier, but bounced back soon after. India suffered no bankruptcies and few job losses. This was a relief. In a 2009 article, Ruddar Datt, an economist, wrote that ‘the lesson of this experience is that India must exercise caution while liberalising its financial sector’.

What's the problem with Alam's analysis (stated above)? As usual it's a lack of understanding of free market economics. And please don't assume all economics is welfare economics.

Note Thomas Sowell's response on the same,

Reason: What do crisis (finacial meltdown) like this, and public reaction, say about general public understanding of economics?

Sowell: I think in the U.S. and in most of the world the public understanding of economics is abysmal. But it’s one thing not to understand something. I don’t understand brain surgery. It’s another to want to form policies on things on which you are ignorant. I hear the wonderful phrase “I want to make a difference” when it comes to policy. I would be horrified if I wanted to make a difference in brain surgery. The only difference is more people would die on the operating table.

The only encouraging thing about public reaction to the crisis is that going by polls citizens seem to have more misgivings about some of these policies than politicians or the media. Still, though there have been studies that indicate the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by years, what is also clear is it was enormously popular. FDR was elected four straight times, and more than once without ever having brought unemployment down to single digits. An economic disaster does not necessarily mean a political disaster. If we could raise the average level of understanding of economics to what Alfred Marshall had in 1890, the vast majority of politicians would be voted out of office.

What should the likes of Alam do before they write such one-sided nonsense?

Learn free Market Economics for real, not the welfare kind.
If you can't, at least listen to Sowell (video above).
Read my post above on why middle class greed is good.

Om's said what Brands say

2011-08-27T17:59:00.005+05:30

The talking heads on TV don't get it because they've never been in my class. If they had, they'd known though regrettable, what Om Puri slurrily ranted about is exactly what every other citizen wants to say. Om Puri said it. Every other person in India has been saying this in silence for decades.

Okay, but what about being my class?

Being in my class would have taught you and the talking heads, consumers are dying to express who they are. But they can't mouth it from the rooftops. 'Cos no one would care to listen to who they are. So what they do is take to brands. Brands speak for them. The brands they wear is the language that articulates their identity. For instance, denims from Levis that rides the girl's long legs is what screams her diva status to everyone else.

Om Puri's rant, despite regrettable language, connects 'cos it spells out what everyone's been dying to say. Tell you what, listening to Laloo's performance on the floor about parliamentary procedure, intended not as much for constitutional compliance as wanting to preserve a status quo that's made him what he is, seems to only confirm the possible truth in what Om said.

What say?

Do you believe?

2011-08-26T16:34:00.002+05:30

'Evolution is the only subject that is discussed exclusively as a "Do you believe?" question with yes-or-no answers. How about conservative journalists start putting mikes in front of liberal candidates and demanding, "Do you believe in the Bible -- yes or no?" "Is an unborn baby human -- yes or no?" and "Do you believe teenagers should have sex -- yes or no?"

This is the flash mob method of scientific inquiry. Liberals quickly surround and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them. They are baffled when appeals to status (which would work on them) don't work on everyone else...

It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible.

Nor would each of the 30 to 40 parts individually make an organism more fit to survive and reproduce, which, you will recall, is the lynchpin of the whole contraption...

The more we have learned about molecules, cells and DNA -- a body of knowledge some refer to as "science" -- the more preposterous Darwin's theory has become. DNA is, as Bill Gates says, "like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created." (Plus DNA doesn't usually crash when you're right in the middle of reproducing.)

Evolution fanatics would rather not be called on to explain these complex mechanisms that Darwin himself said would disprove his theory.

Instead they make jokes about people who know the truth. They say that to dispute evolution means you must believe man walked with dinosaurs...

Maybe if we called the Intelligent Designer "Louis Vuitton" to avoid frightening the Godphobics, they'd finally admit the truth: Modern science has disproved Darwinian evolution.'

- Ann Coulter, 'The Flash Mob Mentality of Scientific Inquiry.'

Brooklyn, the music's within...

2011-08-26T09:11:00.003+05:30

Happy Birthday, Brooklyn Alice Titus.

For the umpteenth time, its REGULATION, stupid!

2011-08-25T20:35:00.005+05:30

'The entire gamut of intellectual discussion has been focused on a top down approach to the given issue. The issue is to have a competent authority at the top and hope he runs the show. While the top end of the spectrum is required, what one needs to realize is that the focus should be equally on the bottoms up approach. The focus should be equally on how we can break open the issues at the bottom end of the entire chain, at the fundamental and mundane level. People need to be empowered with education and the audacity to confront the bribe giver head on. At the bottom end of the chain, the systems need to be refined at the point of delivery. Why should a cop bribe? Because he is not paid enough and he is not punished for violating his code of conduct. Why is my friend forced to give a bribe to the cop? That is because we neither have the patience to not break the law nor do we have the means to go through the trouble. This is where the system needs to be equally more refined so as to address the weaknesses in the system in terms of parity of pay for the cop and introspection within us not to bribe the cop. Once this approach of addressing the bottom end equally as much as the top is adopted, this would ensure that on a pragmatic level, the society as a whole refines itself to move forward.'

If there's dumb, what you read above is as close as it gets. What's recommended above stems from zero understanding of both human behaviour and free market economics.

Contrast what Sriram recommends with that of Joh Stossel,

'We grow up learning that some things are just bad: child labor, ticket scalping, price gouging, kidney selling, blackmail, etc. But maybe they're not. What I love about economics is that it can show that what seems harmful is actually good for society. It illuminates what common sense overlooks...

Most people call child labor an unmitigated evil. David Boaz of the Cato Institute and Nick Gillespie of Reason.tv say that's wrong.

"If we say that the United States should abolish child labor in very poor countries," Boaz said, "then what will happen to these children? ... They're not suddenly going to go to the country day school. ... They may be out selling their bodies on the street. That is not an improvement over working in a t-shirt factory."

In fact, studies show that in at least one country where child labor was suddenly banned, prostitution increased. Good economics teaches that as poor countries get richer and freer, capital investment raises the productivity of labor and child labor diminishes. There's no shortcut through government prohibition -- unless you like starvation and child prostitution.'

The answer to corruption isn't a sermon on introspection and a call to down greed. The fact is greed's GOOD! The pursuit of self interst is best thing that can happen to a society. The real answer to corruption isn't greater regulation and more regulators. On the contrary its zero regulation that downs corruption.

And for God's sake listen to the likes of Milton Friedman to get a hang of what I am saying, and take the time to watch video above.

Maybe, just maybe, you'll wisen up.

Conversing isn't Engaging

2011-08-24T21:27:00.001+05:30

Every once a while India Inc. come up with a dose of corporate varnish that sure looks slick, but dig deeper and you see its all a gooey mess inside. Take the latest one on how CEOs are engaging and sniffing out talent from within their flock. And the techniques they are using include going up the flock at a canteen table and striking conversations so they can a get a picture of their flock's office lives, or sitting through and participating in a selection process that decides who amongst their flock will be sponsored for a study program abroad.

I gotta ask, is this for real? Do the CEOs really think this is the way to engage? Do they realise conversing isn't engaging? Do they know conversations only result in perceptions? Do they realise to get to reality, they have to go beyond mere conversations? Plus I guess the bigger question is, do they really wanna engage to gauge what's real? Or is this mere lip-service?

Its the same classic mistake marketers make. Marketers think engaging with consumers is drowning them with advertising yakety-yak. Its no surprise they sink their money on mindless Ads that aren't even noticed by consumers. And then they go on to treat their frontline staff with disdain and pay them peanuts as compensation. The result?

Unhappy frontline employees.

Skeptical consumers who know they matter till they pay the price.

What lets Institutions stay

2011-08-23T21:41:00.004+05:30

Its classic Catch-22 for the Congress Party. Whatever it does, it'll mess up. Its either succumbing to persuasion and subversion of Parliamentary procedure by taking up the Bill, or the risk of being booted out of power come next election should Anna's health deteriorate.

What should the Government do?

Find a middle ground. Pronto. Don't bother too much procedures. After all, democracy is about the people, and the latter currently don't seem to come across as a lynch mob, though the risk is they may degenerate into one. Also loose any remnants of belligerence and negotiate with the Anna team in earnest.

In the world of business too its consumers who matter. Not procedures, not policies. Procedures and policies matter only if they aid in the creation and delivery of superior value to consumers. If they don't, yank them out and consign them to the bin. Businesses stay and thrive only if they matter to consumers.

In nations, institutions stay if they serve the people.

Perish the thought of local wisdom

2011-08-21T19:21:00.005+05:30

We're back to familiar territory. B School surveys for the year tumbling out, accompanied by local management wisdom. What's familiar? The nonsense. The clamour for Indian management thought to break away from 'western models', for Indian management to tap into spiritual wisdom, the list is nonsensically endless.

Pray, what is western thought? Take for example the concept of CRM which proposes consumer engagements not be treated as transactions, rather as opportunities to build relationships for a lifetime so as tap into what's termed 'life time value'. Now why would such a 'western' concept be irrelevant in India? Take another. What about the Motivational hierarchy from Abraham Maslow? Are Indians motivated any differently?

The call to 'indianising' management thought is a big bunkum. All management concepts, whether western, eastern, northern, or southern are generic and so can be applied universally. It really doesn't matter where you live, the principles in business as in life are universal. Of course, its a different take when you say Indian-centric research. Surely that is very important. For now we have no documented, studied data on the Indian business scenario. For example, understanding the Indian buying psyche so as to position a value proposition correctly requires we go out into the marketplace to study that psyche. That's research for you that's India-centric, and as I mentioned that is a space that's currently blank.

What Indian management needs isn't a dose of spirituality or India-centric thought. Instead it needs to embrace the western but universal principle of free markets unleashing the ingenuity of private citizens. And for heaven's sake, such thought is what must find its way into Indian business schools as part of teaching curriculum, rather than socialistic nonsense.

Here's hoping it will.

Gendered violence: Beyond her body politic

2011-08-20T10:34:00.002+05:30

'By conservative estimates, there are 1,500 'half widows' in Kashmir, says the APDP report. These are women whose husbands have 'disappeared' during the conflict, but have not been confirmed as deceased. These women live a life of perpetual limbo, which is cemented by failed legal mechanisms, and results in economic squalor, social isolation, and psychological trauma. Since the law does not deem them 'widowed,' these women are ineligible for administrative relief, and instead are solely dependent on their individual resilience, which may include begging in burquas (covering out of shame, rather than religion), menial labour, prostitution, or seeking aid from family members. Their children grow up vulnerable to exploitation (even child labour or abuse in orphanages) and impoverishment; face lack of education; and suffer psychological damage...

Beyond spending time on photo-ops to assess whether a woman minister is simply a prop or something to be taken seriously, or news-cycles that assassinate the character of yet another woman who alleges rape, the citizens, their governments, and the media would be wise to spend time understanding and responding to the gendered effects of protracted conflict. Just as peace and security discussions require lesser fixation on the sex or appearance of the political leader across the table, peace and security generation requires an investigation into women's overall experiences, beyond fleeting, sordid fascinations with direct inflictions on their bodies.'

- Mallika Kaur, 'Gendered violence: Beyond her body politic.'

Barefoot Blue Jean Night

2011-08-20T10:01:00.000+05:30

We follows I

2011-08-19T16:25:00.005+05:30

Jaden's art on the wall isn't always welcome. At home we're trying to find a balance between permission and denial to his scrawls on the walls. For now, we aren't getting anywhere. His creative instincts seem to be on a gallop. But what's interesting is they seem to reveal much.

The first scrawls that started a while back put his name on the wall. Over and over. Then they started getting more inclusive. Currently, Brooklyn, Alphy, and I feature on the walls. Isn't that interesting? At first, for Jaden its a sense of self that's exhibited. A certain comfort achieved in that category and his circle gets bigger. His immediate social setting that's us as family get included.

As people and as consumers we fixate on ourselves. Meaning we're absorbed by our own needs. From a behavioural perspective, this is the recognition of need stage in what could turn into a consumer decision making act. After the recogniton's done we loosen our grip and let the socio-cultural environment in (note, the socio-cultural could also be the reason to a recognition of need). That's the influence stage playing out. Pretty soon we may decide.

For the marketer the hope is for a sale. For the consumer, the hope is need fulfillment.

Care's rare

2011-08-19T16:03:00.004+05:30

Now I don't think food's a big deal. Ditto with cooking. But then when its me cooking dinner at home, it means much. Because knowing I am doing something that's for family brings in a certain sense of warmth. Its a good feeling, and its based on something real.

Its like in the case of love. Hearing love's different from experiencing it. On the flipside saying love's different from doing love. Saying's cheap. Doing's everything. And at times, doing is cooking. The way I did.

Saying you care about consumers is cheap. That's what your ads do. Consumers take such ad-talk with a pinch of salt. Caring's about doing. If you care for your consumers you need to prove it in your actions. Real care is caring post purchase. Though the money's in your pocket you respond to a plea and rush in to plug a problem the consumer's having. As I said that's real care.

Which by the way is rare. In life, as elsewhere.

The Marketing story in Anna

2011-08-18T22:18:00.003+05:30

What is the marketing story in Anna Hazare?

Simple. Its a story of a need and a promise of fulfillment. What's the need? Pretty simple again. The need of a better life. And who's out there with a promise of fulfillment? Anna Hazare, of course.

Its mind boggling to think that for the last sixty years no one's (read governments in power) been able to give the common man in India a shot at a better life. But then again should you be surprised? Where in the world has government been the cause to a better life for the citizenry? In fact its always minimal government and minimal regulation that frees the ingenuity of people, which in turn translates into the unleashing of entrepreneurship that's at the heart of a nation's prosperity.

But I guess that realisation is going to take donkey's years in India. After all shaking off an entrenched socialist past first requires a paradigmic psychological shift in mindset. Then it requires fundamental structural changes in policy and governance frameworks. All of which takes time.

So I guess for now, we can sit back, or participate and hope the Anna movement hits home.

(As I write this, the idiot box's favourite gasbag Suhel Seth is waxing eloquent about a lot of things associated with the Anna movement that mean almost nothing. Coming from a former adman, should that be surprising?)

The making of the Anna nightmare

2011-08-17T16:14:00.006+05:30

Could there be a worse PR disaster ever for the UPA government, more so the Congress Party? Nah. Don't think so. Anna while rising by the minute, is taking the UPA image down into the gutter. Its a pity there aren't any smart spin doctors around to bail the Congress Party, and the UPA out of this nightmare.

First, what the did the government do wrong?

One, they got the THEME wrong. The government put out rational arguments to confront the emotional blitzkrieg Anna had unleashed. Its common knowledge to marketers, consumer won't rationalise when their right brains dictate their behaviour. Wish the government knew that. No amount of constitutional lectures are going to work when a crowd's in frenzy.

Two, they got the MESSENGERS wrong. Suave, sophisticated cats don't work when the opponent is earthy and simple. The likes of Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Singhvi, and Salman Khurseed work if the audience is the English news watching kind. If the audience is the swooning kind, you need a different lot to connect with the ones in frenzy. You need someone who's got mass appeal. Now who fits the bill in the current government? None, I guess, though I must add, Rahul's getting there.

Three, they got their ENDORSERS wrong. Constitutional lawyers who've gotten fat on the status quo-system don't make great endorsers. Their 'subversion of institutions' story may be right, but who's willing to listen? Especially when the masses know these 'constitutional experts' may probably have never faced the brunt of corruption. Their glibness and their stature would have bailed them out at government offices. Not so for the common man. His lot's different. He knows the hell government bureaucracy is, having experienced it throughout his life, and so he's least willing to listen to the constitutional fat cats.

Four, they got their MESSAGE wrong. The two biggest blunders of the past two days have been, the attack on Anna's credibility via corruption charges, and taking Anna to Tihar jail. The irony in these two acts just got amplified. A corrupt government calling a Gandhian corrupt. A corrupt government taking the Gandhian to a jail housing the corrupt! How much more ironic can it get!?

Now, what's the way out for the government?

One, back off from a direct confrontation. Two, open up to a dialogue with Anna and party. Three, shut up, and stop sermonising. Four, go back to the drawing board on the government Lokpal Bill. Five, Lose the arrogance, and start talking to the masses via mass media on the future course of action on the bill.

Finally, for god's sake, get your governance right by punishing the corrupt, increasing transparency, and loosening on bureaucratic regulation.

Of course, I know, easier said than done!

Celebrating Freedom

2011-08-15T09:34:00.004+05:30

Happy Independence Day!

How Civilizations Die

2011-08-14T22:20:00.001+05:30

We're beginning to see the final result of that idea in Britain. The welfare state creates a society of beasts. Meanwhile, nonjudgmental elites don't dare condemn the animals their programs have created.

Rioters in England are burning century-old family businesses to the ground, stealing from injured children lying on the sidewalks and forcing Britons to strip to their underwear on the street.

I keep reading that it's because they don't have jobs -- which they're obviously anxious to hold. Or someone called them a "kaffir." Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee's call in a Manchester United game.

A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can't find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there's no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.

But like Louis XVI, British authorities are paralyzed by their indifference to their own civilization. A half-century of berating themselves for the crime of being British has left them morally defenseless. They see nothing about England worth saving, certainly not worth fighting for -- which is fortunate since most of their cops don't have guns.

This is how civilizations die. It can happen overnight, as it did in Revolutionary France. If Britain of 1939 were composed of the current British population, the entirety of Europe would today be doing the "Heil Hitler" salute and singing the "Horst Wessel Song."

- Ann Coulter, 'THE SUN NEVER SETS ON THE BRITISH WELFARE SYSTEM.'

What rises, What sinks

2011-08-14T19:44:00.004+05:30

Corporate branding means zilch to consumers till a company's products deliver. I mean Mahindra can cry hoarse with its 'rise campaign'. So can Hero Motors, proclaiming it will rise post the Honda exit. To consumers all of this doesn't matter one bit. They'll take nothing for granted. In fact, they will wait for these companies to unveil their products, and then they'll judge making comparisons to MNC products. If Mahindra or/and Hero deliver, they'll 'rise'!

Corporate branding surely gives a company's products a 'consideration' edge. I mean consumers may put them higher up in their list because of greater recognition and recall. But tell you what, these considerations won't come because of any communication campaigns. They will materialise because the company's delivered in the past with products. Take Mahindra for example. Their SUV product Scorpio's done more for their corporate brand than all the advertising dollars they've sunk.

Mahindra and Hero won't get any favours from consumers for their corporate brand communication campaigns. Those favours will come only if they can bring to market products consumers value. That'll then be their best communique ever. Plus they can save up on what they've sunk on the likes of Akon, Boris and others.

Ennamo Etho

2011-08-13T17:56:00.000+05:30

For whom the bells must toll

2011-08-11T14:48:00.004+05:30

'If you live a normal life of absolute futility, which we can assume most of this week’s rioters do, excitement of any kind is welcome. The people who wrecked swathes of property, burned vehicles and terrorised communities have no moral compass to make them susceptible to guilt or shame.

Most have no jobs to go to or exams they might pass. They know no family role models, for most live in homes in which the father is unemployed, or from which he has decamped.

They are illiterate and innumerate, beyond maybe some dexterity with computer games and BlackBerries.

They are essentially wild beasts. I use that phrase advisedly, because it seems appropriate to young people bereft of the discipline that might make them employable; of the conscience that distinguishes between right and wrong. '

They respond only to instinctive animal impulses — to eat and drink, have sex, seize or destroy the accessible property of others.

Their behaviour on the streets resembled that of the polar bear which attacked a Norwegian tourist camp last week. They were doing what came naturally and, unlike the bear, no one even shot them for it...

The depressing truth is that at the bottom of our society is a layer of young people with no skills, education, values or aspirations. They do not have what most of us would call ‘lives’: they simply exist.

Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community. They do not watch royal weddings or notice Test matches or take pride in being Londoners or Scousers or Brummies.

Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its present. They have their being only in video games and street-fights, casual drug use and crime, sometimes petty, sometimes serious.

The notions of doing a nine-to-five job, marrying and sticking with a wife and kids, taking up DIY or learning to read properly, are beyond their imaginations...

An underclass has existed throughout history, which once endured appalling privation. Its spasmodic outbreaks of violence, especially in the early 19th century, frightened the ruling classes.

Its frustrations and passions were kept at bay by force and draconian legal sanctions, foremost among them capital punishment and transportation to the colonies. Today, those at the bottom of society behave no better than their forebears, but the welfare state has relieved them from hunger and real want.

When social surveys speak of ‘deprivation’ and ‘poverty’, this is entirely relative. Meanwhile, sanctions for wrongdoing have largely vanished...

But it will not do for a moment to claim the rioters’ behaviour reflects deprived circumstances or police persecution.

Of course it is true that few have jobs, learn anything useful at school, live in decent homes, eat meals at regular hours or feel loyalty to anything beyond their local gang.

This is not, however, because they are victims of mistreatment or neglect. It is because it is fantastically hard to help such people, young or old, without imposing a measure of compulsion which modern society finds unacceptable. These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything different or better.

A key factor in delinquency is lack of effective sanctions to deter it. From an early stage, feral children discover that they can bully fellow pupils at school, shout abuse at people in the streets, urinate outside pubs, hurl litter from car windows, play car radios at deafening volumes, and, indeed, commit casual assaults with only a negligible prospect of facing rebuke, far less retribution.

John Stuart Mill wrote in his great 1859 essay On Liberty: ‘The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people.’

Yet every day up and down the land, this vital principle of civilised societies is breached with impunity.

Anyone who reproaches a child, far less an adult, for discarding rubbish, making a racket, committing vandalism or driving unsociably will receive in return a torrent of obscenities, if not violence.

So who is to blame? The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass.

The social engineering industry unites to claim that the conventional template of family life is no longer valid...

A century ago, no child would have dared to use obscene language in class. Today, some use little else. It symbolises their contempt for manners and decency, and is often a foretaste of delinquency.

If a child lacks sufficient respect to address authority figures politely, and faces no penalty for failing to do so, then other forms of abuse — of property and person — come naturally.

So there we have it: a large, amoral, brutalised sub-culture of young British people who lack education because they have no will to learn, and skills which might make them employable. They are too idle to accept work waitressing or doing domestic labour, which is why almost all such jobs are filled by immigrants.

They have no code of values to dissuade them from behaving anti-socially or, indeed, criminally, and small chance of being punished if they do so.

They have no sense of responsibility for themselves, far less towards others, and look to no future beyond the next meal, sexual encounter or TV football game.

They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential.

Most of us would say this is nonsense. Rather, they are victims of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute, and denies the underclass the discipline — tough love — which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.

Only education — together with politicians, judges, policemen and teachers with the courage to force feral humans to obey rules the rest of us have accepted all our lives — can provide a way forward and a way out for these people.

They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings. My dogs are better behaved and subscribe to a higher code of values than the young rioters of Tottenham, Hackney, Clapham and Birmingham.

Unless or until those who run Britain introduce incentives for decency and impose penalties for bestiality which are today entirely lacking, there will never be a shortage of young rioters and looters such as those of the past four nights, for whom their monstrous excesses were ‘a great fire, man’. '

- Max Hastings, 'Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters.'

Insults, Stupid Arguments, and Lies

2011-08-10T14:38:00.002+05:30

'As the 9/11 massacre underscored the failure of the left’s multicultural worldview, so the current debt crisis highlights the failure of leftist redistributionism.

In fact, leftism has failed utterly. It has failed everywhere and it has never done anything else but fail. From the murderous, leftist tyrannies of the Soviet Union and China to the soft but nonetheless oppressive and stagnant socialism of a moribund Europe, the relativist, wealth-crushing, overweening state has revealed itself to be an engine of misery and collapse.

This is a disappointment to many. To those who feel they are entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor, to those who feel their good intentions can be brought to fruition by the government, and to those, most of all, who fancy themselves elite, who fancy themselves better able to make moral and economic decisions on your behalf from on high than you, the citizen, can do on your own — to all of these, the failure of leftism is a trauma so great it has yet to be accepted. Rather, in order to distract both their followers and their opponents — and maybe themselves — from the gathering facts on the ground, leftists routinely rely on three well-worn techniques: insults, stupid arguments and lies.'

- Andrew Klavan, 'Insults, Stupid Arguments, and Lies.'

The reason to the Louts of London

2011-08-09T21:20:00.003+05:30

The louts of London were long coming. What else will you breed if you plant and nurture a welfare state? Of course louts who feed for free off the sweat of those who work for a living. Europe is populated by liberal socialist soft states that have for long rewarded lazy louts by dipping into the working man's coffers. In doing so they've near perfected the immoral welfare state. Now the very same louts bred by state have paid back in kind with arson and looting when bankrupt European states announce and enact welfare cuts.

Be warned. Barack's doing what Europe's done for years, in the US. Creating the immoral welfare state. What London's witnessing will one day dawn across the Atlantic. Its only fit Barack and everyone else knows that a society's glory lies in the promotion and sustenance of acts of industrial value creation. Great societies are those where people toil so products and services can be crafted. And in participating in the industrial act these hard working people earn an income which they then use to buy products and services.

Welfare states insult the toils of hard working men. They commit daylight robbery when they dip into the hard working mans' income to reward louts who don't move a muscle. Britain and other European states have been doing this for long. And now when they've gone bankrupt they've cut back. With disastrous results

Is it any wonder London's burning? (To know how the louts are bred, watch the Judge Judy video above.)

Its Me, stupid!

2011-08-06T15:06:00.003+05:30

If people tell you they love the company they work for, or the cafe they frequent, or the car they drive, they are stating what is an honest lie. They don't love their company, or the cafe, or even the car. Its them they love. All those branded products don't really mean a thing. Well, you may ask, what about the cars, the cafes, and companies?

You see, its what brands do to us that matters. The brands themselves are meaningless, its the personas they construct that have us going ga-ga. The company I work for may allow for greater self expression and articulation. Meaning, it has an informal culture which allows me to sport casual clothes at work, or has me calling my bosses by first names. The Cafe on its part gives me space to 'chill' out. The car elevates me to a status of 'cool'. You see, its me!

They make me! In return I love them. Which is why brands carry personifications that I imbibe (via purchase and use) to make me, me. And I love the made up me. Me loving me's only to be expected. If I insist my love for my company, car, or cafe isn't about me, then I guess its time I had my head examined.

Hey, goes for you too!