'Real men need to fight the cultural scourge of swing fashion trends. Real men are not trendy. They’re classic. No one wants to see lithe and androgynous men. And no one wants to see a man’s chest hair, either.
More important than the silly trends and those that hawk them is the underlying cultural acknowledgment. There is no dressing up capitulating, weak behavior. Pictures of President Obama catching a football or lining up a putt with Tiger Woods or shooting a basketball with his campaign logo on it will not make up for the fact that his actions are weak and scraping. While there is no question that President Bush burnished his image with cowboy boots and brush clearing, it would have rung hollow had he not had the gumption to back up the image. President Obama’s problem is that the image and the action don’t match.
Real men demonstrate manliness — not from superficial photo ops. So men, either you got it or you don’t. Showing heavage will display nothing but insecurity or a strange disconnect from what normal women find appealing. Leave fashion trends behind. Embrace the kind of masculinity that is self-evident: decisive, common-sense action. It’s not something one wears. It just is.'
- Melissa Clouthier, C’mon Guys! Please Don’t Show Us Your ‘Heavage’.
Monday 7 December 2009
Real Men
The Climate-Change Travesty
'Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic manmade warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future...
The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.
Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.
Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.'
- George Will, 'The Climate-Change Travesty'.
The Copenhagen Circus
'According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.
The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from "saving the world," the world's leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.'
The only true saviour of the world is commerce. The hard of work of mortals (read, value creation) that ends up as goods and services that are then traded. For money that comes from earnings of another who's toiled in a similar value creating activity.
This is what's fair and noble.
Not the 'Save the World' hypocrisy of Al Gore types whose only desire is to fill their own pockets skimming off the scam they have engineered called Climate Change & Global Warming.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday 6 December 2009
Spirituality ISN'T me!
'Says Sri Latha, from Oneness University, “Spirituality means coming in touch with your inner truth, becoming conscious of what you truly are. Spiritual intelligence leads to emotional intelligence, which makes you a happier person.” She recommends, “We tend to block and escape emotional disturbances. Pay attention to your discomfort, probe deeper and change your own perception of the world around you.” As spirituality doubles up as pop psychology, in an “I, me, myself” world, we seem to have evolved to seeking a higher self. Says Los Angeles-based yoga guru Bikram Choudhury, “Yes, I’m the most important person for myself. If I die tomorrow, everything ceases to matter. Self-realisation is God-realisation. Spirituality is about creating a road between your mind and your own atma or soul. Spiritualism is all about learning to connect with your own spirit.” '
I am amused at the kind of hogwash that gets passed off as spirituality. I am even more amused that there can be takers for this kind of bunkum. Recommendations to get 'self-centered' is an act of selfishness, than selflessness. It only makes the spirituality-seeker even more blind to what's 'reality'. In fact the kind of 'introspection' these pop-gurus recommend can't and won't work. Simply because any act of 'looking inwards' has to be a post mortem analysis of a context or a situation.
My analysis of me has to be one where I try and decipher my own behaviour, in order to get to the bottom of what could have caused it. And my behaviour would have been exhibited during what I call a 'situation' which then becomes the 'context' for analysis. Of course, it may not always be possible for me to engage in this analysis on my own. That's when I should get into what's called therapy.
The pop guru's call to sit cross legged and zero in on your 'core being' is nothing but a whole lot of wasted time.
Business introspection too is situational. Contextual. Post mortem analysis is a must to better value delivery to consumers . To carry out such an act, the relevant business context is sequenced and studied. To see what went right or wrong. To know if a firm is part of a chain of activities that creates 'best' value for consumers. The introspection called for requires that the activities that make the chain be benchmarked against 'best-in-class' practices. A comparison to a best-in-class practice can point out what's being done right or wrong. The focus for the firm in question then becomes matching and bettering best-in-class practices.
Pop spirituality is the refuge of people who can't honestly introspect their own behaviour. Its a convenient way of bypassing what otherwise becomes the most trying of engagements. Coming face to face with one's own frailty. In the business world too, many firms put off such introspection, choosing instead to live the illusion of grandeur.
For firms, as for people, such illusions go bust. Sooner, if not later.
Saturday 5 December 2009
Does cultured mean civilised?
'Indians have culture but not civilization. Culture is how we entertain ourselves; civilization is how we entertain others. Culture is our attitude to beauty and ugliness, to power, to religion, and to family. It shows in our music, in what makes us laugh. Civilization is our attitude to mankind. It’s defined as social development of an advanced stage, but civilization never actually arrives; it is only reached for. It assumes there is high purpose to life, to wealth, to culture. It believes that man will exhibit the signs of his evolution. He will improve upon man. For this he must build—but what?...
Indians should buy their books from Landmark, their phones from Tata Indicom, their television sets and washing machines from Croma; and they should stay at the Taj. They should drink Tetley tea and Himalayan mineral water. They should watch TV on TataSky and get themselves insured with Tata AIG. Why?
Last year, Sir Dorabji Tata Trust gave away Rs201 crore. Sir Ratan Tata Trust gave away Rs153 crore. This is not CSR (corporate social responsibility) or other corporate varnish: It’s pure philanthropy. Witness its quality: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Tata Energy Research Institute (Teri), Indian Institute of Science, National Centre for the Performing Arts. That is civilization...
The Tatas set up Teri, India’s first green industry initiative, in 1974.
Under R.K. Pachauri, in 2003, the name Tata was neatly excised from Teri and replaced with the word “The”. Now, Teri’s magazine and website are testament to the greatness of Pachauri, who will show up to collect any award you give him, including GQ Man of the Year. But that is our culture...'
- Aakar Patel, 'Parsis have civilization; other Indians don’t.'
Friday 4 December 2009
The Junk Science of Climate Change
To all the believers in the Junk Science of Climate change; a visit to Climate-Gate is a must.
Also read, 'Fast facts about Climategate' here.
Sphere: Related Content
Contrived Reality
'The ‘Bruce’ David Brooks celebrates is not just the self-effacing voice of our musical traditions. After all, in the rock pantheon he is ‘the Boss.’ Rather, the concerts are fully dramatized and choreographed presentations of Springsteen as the everyman oracle of this mythology, bourn on Wagnerian walls of sound. Metcalf observes, the persona is constructed, “a majestic American simpleton with a generic heartland twang,” a much refined invention, all “po-faced mythic resonance that now accompanies Bruce’s every move.”
The fanciful working class authenticity is key, the basis of the Boss’ claim on what Brooks sees as immense moral authority. Brooks quotes Landau, that there is “not a lot of irony” in Bruce’s work, which, if you have any critical distance from the fabricated character, attendant mythology, and anthemic music, is dead wrong, Otherwise, you are Metcalf’s “rock and roll naïf,” and Landau is a circus huckster.
Springsteen is not alone in constructing a persona, with its own mythology, claiming an imagined authenticity. Many among the cast of characters of the 60’s counterculture, including rock stars, were in fact middle class kids who remade their own histories and identities, which is okay so long as 40 years after Woodstock and Altamont you mention to your impressionable 15-year old kid, this is show business, these are not the real gods, this is not your real history.
But this is not likely among the blue-state elites. Rather, it is likely that Brooks’ daughter will, at an elite university, be taught a map of reality rather close to the Boss’ faux Americana. This is only too cruel, as it is also likely that today’s 15-year-olds will be asked to be stoical, to pay for all the mischief, all the self-serving boomer schemes, financial and otherwise.'
- Edward Azlant, 'David Brooks' Sentimental Education: Bruce Springsteen'.
Thursday 3 December 2009
Anxious consumers buy
It was a 'horrible' news report that sent my anxiety levels sky high. A story on a tragic LPG cylinder leak that culminated in an explosion took the life of a li'l boy and had his parents badly burnt.
At home, our immediate reaction was to take a look at our own LPG cylinder usage. We replaced the old tubes used on the cylinder and the one at the stove, and changed our earlier practices of usage. We now ensure the stop-levers in and out of the house (connecting to the stove and cylinder) are shut when the stove's not in use. Plus, more importantly, we shut the valve on the cylinder, again when not in use.
Its interesting to note that anxiety levels rocket when consumers are exposed to contexts they can relate to, more so when it involves a product/brand they own or use. For example, if there's a media report on a brand of car that one owns, its more probable the owner reads it as compared to a non-owner. If one travels everyday to work, an accident on the road you travel on becomes important enough for you to seek more details. An LPG cylinder explosion, and we check our own usage practices and effect necessary changes.
Heightened levels of anxiety among consumers pose what can be termed as a 'ripe' opportunity. For a sale or an up-sale. Here's how. A death or disease in the family may remind you of your own mortality. Should you be approached by a Life Insurance agent around this time (hopefully after the mourning's over), the chances you pick a policy is extremely high. Read a story on a car crash caused by worn out tyres, chances you think about replacing your car's tyres is pretty high. Should a dealer get in touch at such times, you'd me more than willing to go with his recommendation of a brand of tyres.
Now I know it isn't easy to know when consumers are being subject to heightened levels of anxiety, at least on an individual basis. But its possible to generalise that anxiety should there be a mass communique (read, media report) that you believe can spread that anxiety around. In such cases, capitalise and communicate your brand as a solution. The chances of a sale will surely be high.
Read the report on how two Indian brands tapped into flu anxiety with immunity claims in their communiques.
Wednesday 2 December 2009
What's common to IIMs & Tiger Woods?
Lousy PR.
It didn't matter that one's a set of top ranking B-Schools in India and the other's the top ranked golfer in the world. Both reacted to crisis in a downright amateurish manner.
The 'crashed' servers at CAT exam are being attributed to virus attacks. A claim that's being pooh-poohed by industry experts. In fact, cyber experts say pinning the blame on a virus attack may have worsened things for applicants. Cyber experts opined that the official explanation of a virus would open the doors for students to question the exams and approach courts to have it cancelled. In addition, the Press Conference addressed by the IIM-A director too was nothing to write about. Lame answers delivered in a fashion I call, amateurishly defiant.
Tiger Woods too reacted no better. He's clammed up fuelling even greater speculation. The Drudge Report had his crash as headlines for two days running. Allegations of an affair surface. And now it seems two women have lined up, and are set to go public with claims that they had affairs with him. Tabloids on both sides of the Atlantic desperately seek New York nightclub hostess, Rachel Uchitel, as she's supposed to be the 'woman in question'. The whole drama swirls amidst Tiger Woods' silence. More so I'd say, due to his 'silence'.
Publicised crisis requires that brands handle them deftly. Deftly means, one, react as quickly as possible. Delays paint the party in question as guilty or as trying to cover up. Two, Respond. Its a must to, unless its felt 'silence' is better; that staying mum will ensure the story 'dies'. And when responses are given, its imperative that they are well thought out, and choreographed to perfection. Send in the most convincing, credible people with strong communication skills. Not amateurs with degrees.
Note what Larry Kudlow writes in his 'open' letter to Woods; 'But in your case, if there is no alcohol, drugs, or infidelity, and if there is a better-sounding, truthful explanation of your events, you’ve gotta get out there and say it. As you know, your clean, serious, sober, near-perfect, golden-boy bloom is already off the rose. And if you insist on stonewalling, from now on it’s damage limitation. And that will be no fun at all. Your bottom will be lower than anything you ever imagined.
Fans love the way you play, and so do I. Sunday afternoons are a treat watching you. But you’re in a heap of trouble right now. Stonewalling, whether in business or politics, seldom pays.
C’mon Tiger. Be a mench. Fess up and clear the air. If you do it soon, you will be forgiven, and this too will pass.'
Now, that's great advice, but I can't help but add mine. To the IIMs; get yourselves a PR agency. Pronto. To Tiger, if your PR agent advised you to stay mum, fire the guy/agency and get a more sensible one. Pronto again.
Tuesday 1 December 2009
Consumer Anxiety is as much, post purchase
I remember placement time when I was at the verge of graduation. The year was 1993. I recall the anxiety that went all around before 'placement', as much as after placement. That is, we were anxious before the placement process started, and once we were selected, we still talked about how it would be with the company we were about to join.
The point to note here, is the post-placement psyche. It didn't matter we were placed. It was now about the choice we made of the company that would be our future workplace. Was it the right one, we wondered? More so, for students who weren't joining Day Zero recruiters. The reinforcement that they sought revolved around speaking about the company they were about to join, with whoever cared to listen. And in that conversation the selected student would try and point out how fortunate he was to be able to work for the particular company.
In Behavioural terms, such an 'act' is termed 'rationalisation'. And it isn't limited to colleges and students.
Marketers ought to recognise that consumer anxiety isn't restricted to a pre-purchase scenario. Post purchase too, anxiety levels rise. About whether the choice made was the right one. Especially if the product in question is a high-involvement one with considerable purchase risk. Consumers react to this anxiety by engaging in four kinds of responses. One, they rationalise the decision as a wise one. They talk about it, the way it happens after placements. Two, they may seek advertisements that support their choice and avoid those of competitor brands. Three, they may attempt to persuade friends or people they know to buy the same brand, and thus confirm their choice. And, four, they may turn to other satisfied owners for reassurance.
The lesson in here for marketers is one of post purchase communiques. As much as brands use pre-purchase communiques to pilot buys, post purchase ones too are needed to reduce welling up anxiety. In a corporate recruitment scenario, this post purchase communique could be a mail sent to the recruited students stating how pleased the company is to have them and how much they look forward to the students joining and building a successful career with them.
The delusion in 'Buy Nothing Day'
'Without the West’s ‘irresponsible’ consumption habits, developing countries would be a lot worse off. Without the soulless global corporations sucking at the pool of cheap labour, many ‘exploited’ workers would have no job at all. Workers wages help them to feed and clothe their family, and boost the income of those around them. Also, those in developing countries acquire new skills and technology that can be used to aid development. The success of the Tiger Economies show that working with a Western economic system is better than rallying against it.
Moving towards a culture of Buying Nothing will also do zilch to address climate change. Consumption leads to the creation of wealth; and increasing wealth is exactly what is needed to deal with the issue. Buying Something leads to the creation of new, better, cheaper and cleaner products. Created wealth is invested in things such as green technology and research into geo-engineering projects. Without an economic system that relies on consumption, we would be sitting in the dark and cold, paying penance for our forefather’s environmental ignorance.
Encouraging a decline in consumption is deluded, dangerous and thankfully impossible. The promise of rediscovering the true you from a day of suppressed spending is utterly daft; our economic system has evolved because it is best at serving our needs and desires. AdBusters claim that if you persist in your sacrifice of shopping “you will transcend – perhaps reaching the kind of epiphany that can change the world.” However, all that would be transcended would be all sense of reason. The rejection of a consumption-based economy would change the world, but for the worse.'
- Charlotte Bowyer, 'Buy Nothing Day' (Adam Smith Institute Blog)
The Loo's a pointer to the Kitchen
I shudder going to cloakrooms (read, loo) at most restaurants. Because what I see may put me off. Not just would it kill my appetite, it would even get me off that restaurant. I leave, possibly never to return.
Why? Because I make judgements about cleanliness of the kitchen based on what I see in the loo. Again, why? Isn't in unfair to judge a kitchen I don't see, based on a loo I see? Shouldn't an evaluation of the serving area (diner) be the base to my judgement? That is, if the restaurant serving and seating area's clean, surely the kitchen must be?
The answer to that is comparable to what's said about character. 'Character is what you do when no one's looking'. Similarly cleanliness is about keeping clean, those areas that may not be termed a 'primary' contact point. The serving area in a restaurant is the primary point of contact. Its but natural that the staff keep it clean. The loo is only an 'allied' area. The staff may not be find it as necessary to keep it clean. But how wrong they are. If the loo were to be clean, in all probability, I for one will take the kitchen, which is an 'invisible' area as clean. The same inferences however cannot drawn from the cleanliness of the serving area.
Too many times, firms focus on what's a 'front-end', assuming that's what drives judgements. But customers are clever. They may be on the lookout for a glimpse of what's a 'back-end' in your business. Their perceptions on quality is more driven by how the back-end performs rather than the classic front-end.
Tell you what, wanna know if a restaurant's clean? Check the glasses on the table, the sauce bottles and the cruet set. If they are, chances are you're sitting in a clean area. Now check the loos. If clean, relax, enjoy your meal. If your 'checks' on the table and in the loo don't leave you satisfied, I'd say, scoot.
Or stay, suffer the consequences.
Monday 30 November 2009
Fiction fuels Reality
'First of all, most fiction is not just fiction, and this is certainly true of Twilight. Fantasy aside, fiction still communicates ideas, values, and messages, and these in turn, affect the day-to-day activities of readers and movie watchers. Throughout The Twilight Saga, both Edward and his family, and some werewolves too, are depicted as living absolutely awesome, exciting lives. The "coolest" thing is that they all have specials powers beyond average mortals. It is this lure of power, and the promise of it, that tempts real teenagers and adults today to explore the mysterious world of occultism.
They're doing it now, in record numbers.
- Steve Wohlberg, 'The darkness of Twilight: Hidden perils behind today's vampire craze'.
Is Brand aviodance anti-Brand?
Brand avoidance supposedly is a phenomenon where consumers choose to stay away from established brands, to move to a 'local' establishment even if the 'movement' means a rise in price. Its so done as consumers are beginning to 'worry about the larger social and economic impact of brands'.
Does that mean we are seeing the beginning to the end of brand domination? This should have Naomi Klein delirious with joy. But I say, bunkum. Consumers don't care for anything other than themselves. The supreme quest for any consumer is to maximise personal payoffs through acts of consumption. And just so you know, there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, its their love for themselves that's good for society in general, because it propels consumption. Consumers spend, so they can better themselves, in turn generating income for others to spend.
Consumers moving to 'local' shouldn't be looked at as an anti-brand act. Instead it should seen as a lesson to brands that their duplication of a standardised format breeds fatigue. It makes consumers seem as if they are part of a faceless, nameless herd that tramps into such formats. It seems to them as if there's a loss of identity.
The cycle of brand to non-brand to brand is only to be expected. Right now in the US, its brand to non-brand. In developed countries, brands have hit the 'fatigue' wall. Not so in developing countries where brands are making their entry. The 'move' in such places is non-brand to brand. Brands are sought. Non-brands are abandoned.
Its like what's happening to malls. In the US, they're kickin' the bucket, in India, that's where everyone is.
Sunday 29 November 2009
Throw the boor offstage
Alphy flipping channels, with me taking a peek saw the screen fill up with an award function. Cyrus Broacha seemed to be in charge of 'announcements'. The supply side scarcity that I mentioned in the post below seems to be true for comedy too. In India
The guy is worse than horrible. But I guess he gets away with his brand of disgusting humour thanks to the concept of 'supply scarcity'. Guess we have only the likes of such boors around. But then again, I take comfort in the fact that I have the POWER! To change channels. To log on to SNL online and watch what I call real comedy.
I wish more Indians do that. Because then we can finally throw the boors off stage.
'Regulated' Quality ain't 'real' Quality
That the servers crashed on the first day of the CAT shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, Murphy's law has a way of sneaking in. But the fact that there is still a horde of aspirants (note, there's been a drop in CAT registrations this year) looking to get into the IIMs should be of concern. Because it points to an artificial supply side scarcity when it comes to Post Graduate business education in India.
In defence one can say that the 'horde' is a pointer to top quality education services being offered. But tell you what, in a regulated environment, competition-driven quality is hard to come by. The 'quality' available for purchase is thanks to government driven regulation. In fact, the ones that rule the roost do so in manners, unchallenged.
Change that and you will have even better quality to products and services for consumers. That includes Post Graduate business education. And for once there won't be the hordes 'pining' to write an exam, and surely, there won't be a media screeching about server crashes.
Sphere: Related ContentSaturday 28 November 2009
Is the Shorba thin, or grainy?
'The Dal Shorba, which came first, was refreshing but once I began sipping on it, a bit of the grainy texture typical to pulses hit my palate. I reckon they could have made it a bit thinner for the right consistency'.
Well, that's a food critic writing in DNA newspaper about the soup served at Lobby Cafe in Bangalore. So, should the shorba go thinner?
I think not. Drop it any thinner and you will have idiots fuming as to why they have to pay a bomb for flavoured water. This is classic 'food dilemma'. Should the shorba stay grainy, upsetting the likes of a food critic, or go thinner, risking being labelled gutter water?
The answer is, the critic and idiots can got to the blazes. So can 'purist' authentic food. It ain't about either of them or about authenticity. Its about who your target consumer is and what he wants. If he wants the damn shorba thin, oblige. If he wants it grainy, repeat the former.
Critics are paid to say what they have to (or maybe they aren't). But I can tell you, they haven't the foggiest of idea about how products and services are sold. In the 'real' world, what sells, is what customers want. So figure that out and give it to them. Even if it means doing the 'classic' shorba to death!
Parallel Universes
'Fakery and chutzpah, ruthlessness and greed, made an amazing emirate and a £30-million human brand. Both dazzled, confused and glinted with moral ambiguity. The world approved of neither, but at least they were better than the alternative. Dubai was built by migrant Indians and Bangladeshis, virtual slaves, passports confiscated, living in distant labour camps, who frazzled and fainted with heatstroke off the sides of the Sheikh’s skyscrapers...
Dubai is to freedom what Jordan is to feminism. She might represent the worst excess of porn culture, a sad and sordid role model for womankind. But you can’t deny she’s rich. She’s one sister who’s done it for herself...'
- Janice Turner, 'Jordan and Dubai, parallel universes collide'.
Friday 27 November 2009
Look the part, Learn from a stumble
Then & Now, and Toys
'Personally, I think a child needs two dolls - so that they can go on adventures together - a pencil, and a notepad. That's it. Everything else is decadent Western corruption. When I was a child, we made our own amusements: drinking vinegar pretending it was whisky, flooding the garden with a hose, spitting contests. Punching each other really quite hard. Permanently mentally disturbing each other with constant, low-level psychological warfare. We didn't have Hannah Montana wigs, or Pixel Chix, or, or ... Puppies In Our Pockets. We made bows and arrows out of Rosebay Willowherb (that were rubbish), glue out of flour and water (that was wholly ineffective) and papier mache objects that, for some reason, never really dried out, and rotted on the windowsill, emitting horrible, oddly turnip-y odours.
That's why I want to - throw all the kids toys away! Genuinely. Well, everything except the Polly Pockets and Barbies, which they play with very nicely, and the dollshouse, which Dora has recently re-wallpapered very nicely. Everything else - off to the charity shop. There's so much that the kids don't have a clue what they've got, and it's always all over the floor. If they only had three things each, they could just neatly place them on an otherwise empty shelf at the end of the day- like Laura Ingalls Wilder used to, with her paper dollies - and the house would, finally, be tidy.'
- Caitlin Moran, 'These kids have TOO MANY SODDING TOYS'.
Thursday 26 November 2009
Our Thanksgiving
'This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.' (Psalm 118: 24)
Happy Thanksgiving Day!
Sphere: Related ContentGive, to one who doesn't seek
'There is one more duty...that I ask of you before you go home.
What would you have me do, Caesar?
I want you to become the protector of Rome after I die. I will empower you to one end alone---to give power back to the people of Rome...and end the corruption that has crippled it. Will you accept this great honor that I have offered you?
With all my heart, no.
Maximus...that is why it must be you.
But surely a prefect, a senator...somebody who knows the city, who understands her politics.
But you have not been corrupted by her politics.
And Commodus?
Commodus is not a moral man. You have known that since you were young. Commodus cannot rule. He must not rule.'
That's Caesar asking Maximus to shoulder the responsibility of giving Rome back to its people, in the movie, 'Gladiator'. The exchange is a brilliant demonstration of why someone who doesn't seek power should be the one entrusted with it. Its the very lack of lust for power that made Maximus, in the eyes of Ceaser, the one to be entrusted with it.
In the business world too, when it comes to a single minded focus on consumers, brands must be entrusted with people who are dogged in their pursuit of creating value for consumers. The stakes that they have close to their heart will be the brand's, not theirs. Which means they will do whatever needed, to make the brand matter to its consumers.
Consumers alone.
In organisational terms, that would mean acquiring resources and building competencies that translate into consumer value. Everything else is non-value add. Now in no way am I suggesting that this be an activity bereft of emotion. I am only saying, this be an activity that's led by someone who isn't on a trip of self-satisfaction. That it be someone who's focused instead, on Customer satisfaction. Because the latter's what keeps businesses and brands, alive and kicking.
Why mind matters
I've always been one who's believed in 'consumer sentiment' and how that has an impact on consumption patterns, which then have macro repercussions.
Note an earlier post, 'I fear the biggest fallout of this recession would be on consumer sentiment. People, cutting back on purchases, on speculating on a depressed economic future. That would be dangerous as it would then 'down' disposable incomes, down consumption and that cycle surely will lead to a catastrophe.
So instead of looking at the recession as a correcting mechanism, at least in India, it should be feared as a phenomenon that can depress consumer markets with repercussions that will send the economy into an even worse spiral!'
Niranjan Rajadhyaksha, writing in HT Mint reinforces the importance of understanding the workings of consumer minds and its implications. He writes;
'Another recent provocative piece on a similar issue is by Paul De Grauwe of the University of Leuven in Belgium. He argues that economists could not anticipate the financial crisis because they made extraordinary assumptions in their macroeconomic models about the cognitive abilities of human beings. Modern psychologists and behavioural economists have shown that humans can understand bits and pieces of the world, and hence depend on simple rules or heuristics to make choices. Correlations in such beliefs tend to create waves of optimism and pessimism that we see above all in the financial markets.
But standard economic models assume that humans are perfect calculating machines. De Grauwe calls for a bottom-up macroeconomics. “The bottom-up model has agents who experience an informational problem. They do not fully understand the nature of the shock or its transmission. They use a trial-and-error learning process aimed at distilling information. This process leads to waves of optimism and pessimism, which in a self-fulfilling way create business cycle movements. Booms and busts reflect the difficulties of economic agents trying to understand economic reality,” he says. In this way of looking at the world, economic cycles are caused by endogenous factors rooted in human cognitive limitations.'
Read Niranjan's complete article here.
Tuesday 24 November 2009
Credibility Sells, so does Cute
I can’t help but feel proud when I hear and watch Dr. Manmohan Singh talk at the White House. Here’s someone who’s the finest specimen of a thorough gentleman. To me, Dr. Singh epitomizes what a leader should be. In fact, according to me, he’s the best we’ve had as Prime Minister, since independence.
But what interested me even more at the bilateral talks I witnessed, was the contrasts in the two men involved. Both hold top jobs in their respective countries. One’s the President of the United States and the other’s the Prime Minister of India. Both are study in contrasts. Especially for the reasons behind their respective rise to the top.
To understand this contrast better, one has to look to the concept of brand endorsements and how the choice of endorsers is the key to building right brand attitudes. Let me explain. If the brand in question provokes lower levels of ‘elaboration’ on the part of consumers, the endorser must be one who’s highly attractive and so can garner ‘identification’. With him. Thus, with the brand. If on the other hand, the brand drives high levels of 'elaboration', the key’s to get consumer to ‘internalize’ the message. This requires the endorser be highly ‘credible’.
Let me illustrate. If it’s a soft drink you want to sell, and the target audience is youth, rope in an attractive celebrity. The star in the message (read commercial) gets the young viewer to identify with him/her, which in turn leads to the right attitude being formed towards the soft drink brand. On the other hand, if what you want to sell is an automobile fuel pitched as one that gives extra power, it’s important you get a race car driver in the Advertisement. Because the racer brings with him credibility when it comes to talking about fuels. This credibility then provokes ‘internalization’ of the message. Which leads the biker to believe the fuel’s good for his mo’bike.
Attractiveness leads to ‘identification’. Credibility leads to ‘internalization’. Both help build the right attitudes towards brands, thus help in a sale.
Barack was sold to a voting audience on an ‘attractiveness’ plank. A community organizer with zero executive experience is no good as a president. Yet, Barack won. Because his long winding gas bag speeches delivered with panache mesmerized air-headed liberals and college going youth. They ‘identified’ with Barack. Voted for him and gave him the top job.
Manmohan Singh’s a contrast. He sold on ‘credibility’. His present and past is near spotless. It shone for the dignity and decency with which he lived both his professional and personal life. And so when Indians voted Congress, they partly voted for the man who was most credible as a politician. What he said, they ‘internalized’. Then voted, for him, and his party.
Both Barack and Manmohan won, albeit for different reasons. One for cute, the other for credibility. One because of ‘identification’, the other, for ‘internalization’.
The Psychology of Warranties
'So why, asks a paper published in the December issue of the Journal of Consumer Research, do so many consumers still buy extended warranties?
... They concluded that the decision to buy a warranty had a great deal to do with a shopper’s mood.
If a customer is about to buy something fun (ie, a plasma television rather than a vacuum cleaner), he will be more inclined to splash out on extra insurance. This is because consumers value “hedonic” items over utilitarian ones, regardless of the actual price tag. This is especially true if the item is on sale, as finding an unexpected bargain leaves buyers feeling flush and pleased. The study also found that poorer consumers are more likely to buy “potentially unnecessary and overpriced insurance”, because they are more worried about the expense of replacing a product if it breaks.
The popularity of warranties should logically depend on the likelihood of a product’s failure, says Mr Kalra. But although most policies go unused, he admits that the emotional tranquillity that comes with buying a new warranty is not in itself without value, even if “rationally, it doesn’t make sense”.'
- 'The psychology of warranties' (Economist)
Monday 23 November 2009
Image is Everything, almost!
I surmised it was the Hobson's choice for her. An image or none. And I thought for a successful corporate career, it had to be the former. At least to make it past the first set of assessment tools, namely the Group Discussion and Interview. But then there's a tinge of remorse for my recommendation. Because I told her, a change in image would mean changes in exhibited personality. It would mean a stronger tone for the voice, a stiffer body language, maybe even piling on a few more pounds. Recommending the superficial doesn't come easy to me. But then again, the consolation is a greater possibility of a job offer.
Some people are born with a physical form that's great default material for the 'right' image. Some aren't. Some among the former make best use of it and appear on silver screens. Many cheer. Many swoon. And riding on the adulation they go on to advise us on how we must live our lives, when they themselves walk deviant lines.
The latter, sans great physical forms get advised on piling on the pounds, strengthening their tones and so on.
Some products too have an advantage of default stimuli that contributes to a 'right' image. For example, the parent country of the product. If its consumer electronics and the manufacturing firm's Japanese, perception's positive. Engineering and Germany go together. Precision and Switzerland are bedfellows. But what if the Electronic or Durable good's Korean? What about Korean cars? Tell you what, at one time that would have been a drawback. Not so today. The Koreans have topped the Japanese, the Americans and Germans. It surely was harder for them, considering the 'country of origin' effect they were susceptible to. Yet they made it. They got to the top. Kudos to them. Kudos to the likes of LG, Samsung and Hyundai.
Now, back to what I started with. I know, it will be difficult for her to get the tone, weight and body language right. But if she can, and I know it can be done, it would be like what the Koreans did. She'll beat the Hollywood types.
And I for one, will be pleased.
Sphere: Related ContentAs always, 'Old Wine, New Bottle'
'Actually all assertive messages in the media that seek to relaunch a backward area as a newly arrived miracle require a serious rethink. Relaunching anything from a flagging product to a failing state in India, mostly turns out to be an exercise in pouring old wine in attractive and expensive new bottles by clever copy writers.
Flights to all state capitals today carry tieless, fast-talking young ad agency reps, summoned to devise a saleable product relaunch. They then congregate to enact an expensive ritual behind closed doors in the best hotel in town, also known as a “presentation”. Despite their utter lack of ground knowledge or of the local languages, their presenters deliver hypnotic sermons in English, to an audience of Hindi or Bhojpuri or Maithili-speaking clients in all high seriousness using mysterious abstract terms such as— “brand identity”, “brand value”, “market share” and “core value”, just as the wily Brahmin priests once used terms such as swaha, swadha and namo namah!
The clients, by now happily soporofic after the substantial “working lunch” that must accompany each ritual in India, are usually quite pleased with the linguistically enhanced and flattering image of themselves and so the “relaunch” package is okayed. The success of bagging such contracts hinges on how convincingly the client’s goals can be made to “look” like a radical departure from their predecessors, even though substantially they may be no different. And how can they be, given the specific caste calculus and financial compulsions that drive state government formation from Chandigarh to Patna?
- Mrinal Pande, 'Rethinking relaunches'.
Sunday 22 November 2009
Rebel to Reckless is a thin line
According to publisher HarperCollins, Sarah Palin's memoir sold 300,000 copies its first day, among the best openings ever for a nonfiction book. Pretty impressive considering it even topped first day sales of Hilary Clinton's 'Living History'.
Its only fair to assume that the Palin book will remain on the bestseller list for some time to come. To me, this is the 'real' launch of brand Palin. The earlier exposure of Palin to America and the rest of the world can at best be called an 'introduction'. One that didn't go down well with many. As much as well with many others.
Hence on, its a different ball game. This is Sarah Palin's 'blockbuster' entry into mainstream politics. Its bound to get tougher with greater scrutiny. And for Sarah Palin to come off it looking like a Presidential nominee, will require as much of managing perceptions as being who she really is.
Its best to remember that most judgements are made on perception. Not reality. Else, why did a community organiser get elected president? So its important Palin manages perceptions well. I for one, admire everything she stands for. But I don't make the voter population. Palin's connect with conservatives is pretty much established. Not so with fence-sitters who take time to make up their minds. To hit it off with them, one thing's crucial. Palin can be the 'anti-establishment rebel' (read, maverick) but must never get smeared as 'reckless'. Its a thin line between rebel and reckless. Rebels question Status Quo, which is good. Reckless on the other hand jeopardise status quo, which isn't acceptable. Voters would rather have status quo than put it to jeopardy, even if it means living with something that isn't hundred percent acceptable.
How Palin manages her image will depend on how carefully she chooses and manages her public engagements. Where and what she talks will be of utmost importance. Note that Obama got college going nitwits eating out of his hand simply through long-winding gas-bag talk that sounded like it was the heralding of universal nirvana. Of course, that isn't a recommendation. But Sarah will have to get her 'talks' right. Oprah was a good start. My gut tells me this time around Palin will be more cautious and choosy.
Certain business brands too hit public consumer spaces as mavericks. Which is very well. Because that gets them an audience. Take Nando's chicken based in South Africa, for example. Wacky and irreverent they elicit grins. Its worked for them. Contrast that with Brand Mike Tyson. It was his 'hell to high places' story that almost made him boxing legend. But then came the breakdown. Rebel turned reckless, even pathetic. And now, I am not sure if people care enough to even want to know how he's faring. Though I must add, the Oprah appearance with Holyfield may have helped.
Its a thin line from rebel to reckless. Maverick to rabid. Mass following requires brands stay on this side and not the other. For Sarah Palin, the test for the future will be one which requires she keeps the rebel tag alive without going too much 'rogue'.
Sphere: Related ContentSaturday 21 November 2009
Dawkins gets a taste of Divine Justice
Friday 20 November 2009
Why its Sniffles for me, not the Rumba
The sniffles I've had for what seems like an eternity is getting worrisome. A fever seems to be round the corner. Looking back, I have only me to blame. After all, this is sniffle season. The onset of winter brings along ailments that are all too common. Its a pity I didn't take the right precautions when the transition happened. From higher to lower temperatures. From dry weather to one heavily laden with atmospheric moisture. In fact, I now know its the wobbly transition, that is fluctuating temperatures and weather that did me in
Transitions are difficult times. For it needs a shedding of the old for a new. What worked for the 'old' now has to be abandoned for what is necessary in the 'new'. In my case what was important was a change in clothing that could have warded off the incoming cold.
For Businesses too, transitions are difficult times. And transitions come in varied ways and hues. For example, a business could face a transition in terms of a changing demography. An aging populace could be replaced by young uns. This means business models will have to be tweaked. The conservative store that you had, will now have to be done with one bursting on colour and product types. Where once you had coffee being served, cappuccino makes an arrival. Where once you had toned down lighting, the store's now big on neons. Shut down the soft piped music. Let sounds boom.
Another transition could be in terms of technology. And this has happened once too often. The arrival of Internet, for example, revolutionised the way business was done. This added interface radically changed the way customers were engaged with. The Amazons, Ebays, Paypals, Googles, Pricelines, Drudges made it big. Because they understood and capitalised on the transition.
Transitions can also be driven by a change in political philosophy. Socialism giving way to hesitant capitalism changes a business landscape. Like the way it did in India. Soon you have competition like never before. Consumers have choices they never had and their bargaining power skyrockets.
Businesses that can't handle transitions that sweep their industry, like me, soon are bound to fall ill. But the ones who see it coming, and prepare for it, can ride the transition in a manner they emerge unscathed. They even come out of it, raring to capitalise on new opportunities that the new climate brings. The Tatas, Bajajs, Birlas are good examples of companies that rode the 'socialism to capitalism' transition well, in India.
On a personal note, if I'd been a bit wiser, rather than nursing the sniffles, I'd be navigating the dance floor doing the rumba.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday 19 November 2009
Boon n' Bane in Vertically Challenged
Being 'vertically challenged' has at times been a problem. But at other times its such a blessing. Like when I was young, some girls thought it cute. But now that there's 'greying at the temples', and 'perking up at the sides', cute's out.
Hold on. Comfort's in.
Travelling out of Cochin by train last night saw us huddled on what's known as the 'side' seats. The ones reserved for us was Side-Lower and Side-Upper in the compartment. Now I guess the railways didn't have any basketball players in mind when they came up with these seats. 'Cause they wouldn't fit. But Alphy and me did. Barely. Thanks to the 'vertically challenged' state I was talking about.
So much for 'short' perks.
What's interesting is, at times for brands too, not 'standing tall' (read, minimal marketing communiques) stands in good stead. Here's how. One, it keeps the attention of the biggies in the market, off you. And two, you are left to your own consumer audience that could turn loyal. They may even stick by you, should the going get rough. Take the magazine, Reader's Digest for example. Compact in its look and presentation, RD remains strong in its circulation figures worldwide. Though I must add, in the US, its filed for bankruptcy. But according to Walter Beyleveldt, the managing director of Reader's Digest Australia, "The filing is a balance sheet adjustment. It's a financial transaction rather than something that relates to the core running of the business. The actual health of the business is strong. The magazines and ad revenues continue to be strong. Overall the company actually posted only a 2 per cent decline in total revenues year on year."
The scene's grim for most print publications, at least in the US. Amidst such impending ruin, the likes of RD, though hit, will continue on. Goodness as they say, comes in li'l packages. And I say, such goodness must find ways to hang on. After all, we'd be better off with it, than without.
Wednesday 18 November 2009
Its the system, stupid!
The David Headley affair in India has been a worrying one. To have an LeT operative roam the streets with impunity surely sets off alarm bells. Yet the response of the administration to its aftermath reminds me of similar responses, in the organisational context. How most organisational administrative systems respond to crisis.
The response almost always is focused on the outcomes. Never on the 'root cause'. That is, the mad scramble by the authorities, post the Headley fiasco, has seen them target the 'usual suspects'. Business places he visited (read, cyber cafes, health clubs, hotels) and people he engaged with (read, at places he was at). Now I am no expert at investigations, but common sense tells me if a suspect were to roam the streets with legitimate documentation that bails him out, how are business places and people supposed to know he's the dangerous kind?
The 'real' problem lies deeply embedded within failures in the intelligence and law enforcement community. Systems or people messed up. And they must be set right. Trying to increase vigilance at a social and business level is a good thing, but that isn't where the core problem lies.
In organisations too, the above mentioned practice is rampant. A crisis is almost always succeeded by a bout of fit that sees most, except the perpetrating system administration, being admonished. I remember while at the hotel I used to work, almost two decades ago, there was this incident regarding a customer complaint on coffee. Coffee, from the customer complaint, seemed to have been served lukewarm. In response, the Food & Beverage management jumped to the conclusion that it was the serving stewards at fault. And so all the F&B Department personnel were ordered to undergo a training on coffee and how to prepare it. Little did the ignoramuses at the top of the F&B administration realise that coffee wasn't being served lukewarm, because the steward was screwing up. It was because of a variety of other reasons. One, the decoction used in coffee preparation (constituting 15% of the prepared coffee) was kept lukewarm in double boilers in the kitchen. Two, the milk and coffee pots used in the service of coffee would be made of EPNS which when kept in the pantry, would turn deathly cold when not used. Therefore when the lukewarm decoction and the hot milk were poured into these EPNS pots (when there's an order), temperatures automatically dropped further. Three, the distance between the kitchen area and the restaurant, though not much, meant the steward had to walk some distance to reach a guest table. In an air conditioned environment such walks are again responsible for drops in coffee temperature.
All of this meant the steward wasn't at fault, or even if he was, his role was negligible. To arrest coffee temperature declines the administration had to look elsewhere. Just like, to arrest a Headley scenario from repeating in the future, a hard look has to be taken at intelligence and law enforcement systems in India.
Because that's where the problem lies. And should such comprehensive analysis be undertaken, its akin to what's known as 'Root Cause Analysis'. A must in preventing the present from playing out in the future.
Tuesday 17 November 2009
The limits to a Regional Identity
There's a marked difference between regional brands and niche ones. Before I get to what sets them apart, let me state what makes them similar. Its just one count. Both attract a limited audience.
Regional brands play into geographic variables and appeal to consumers of a particular region. That's what limits their appeal. Their choice of geography as a variable. Not so for niche brands. What limits them isn't geography. Instead its income, lifestyle and other such socio-economic variables. This in effect ensures their appeal cuts across geographies. Let me illustrate. A Rolex or a Ferrari may not command a wide audience, yet in a way they do, across countries and regions. The rich and powerful desire it, buy into it. Doesn't matter where the rich reside, its a Rolex they sport, its a Ferrari they drive.
Contrast that with a Kerala based soap brand like Manjal. It takes its name after turmeric, that's good for our skin. Yet its identity limits its appeal beyond the southern peninsula in India. For Manjal to make it big, it must adopt an identity that's beyond southern geography.
Regional political parties in India too remind me of the concept of 'limited' regional brands. Born out of a regional opportunity, regional political parties in India can't and don't have pan-Indian visions. And even if they do, they don't have the wherewithal to craft a national identity. Their petty leaders can't break their local mindsets to free the party from its regional shackles. A classic case in point is Shiv Sena based in Maharashtra. No matter, what transformations it has in mind for the future, it can't break out of its 'local' thinking. The party supremo's comment on Sachin Tendulkar is a clear demonstration of its 'caught between the Devil and deep Sea' existence. MNS's rise forced the supremo's hand. Therefore the anti- Sachin statement. The fallout? Neither here, surely not there. When I say 'here' I mean Maharashtra. I can't think of Marathis being happy at what Bal Thackeray wrote. What about Indians across various states ( the 'nor there')? I bet, they too are fuming at him having taken on someone who's closest to an Indian National Icon. In fact, I can't think of any personality that commands the kind of immense respect across India than Sachin Tendulkar. A gifted cricketer, he's been exemplary both in his professional and personal life. Taking on him is akin to taking the road to doomsday.
Regional Brands, to turn Pan-Geographic brands, have to undergo a comprehensive change in identity. And for that, the paradigmic shift called for has more to do with mindset than marketing.
My guess is, its a long shot for local players.
As they say, You can take the man out of the method.
The method out of the man?
That'll be the day!
Monday 16 November 2009
Why is this man bowing?
'Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs and tyrants. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize...
Ashamed of his country but arrogant about himself--what a disgusting combination.'
- Scott (Powerline Blog), 'Why is this man bowing?'
Sunday 15 November 2009
Stoop, for the Bow's back!
I am not surprised servility comes easy to Obama. His pathetic bow, repeated for the umpteenth time is but natural to someone who's a flag bearer to BIG government. After all if you believe in more government, you should also cultivate with it, the skill to bow, umpteen times.
Having lived through what was socialist hell in India, I know the value of a 'bow'. Wanna buy cooking gas so you can have food on the table? Bow to the government babu at the Agency. Wanna get an electricity connection, water running through your taps? You know who to bow to. They sit at the hallowed electricity and water board offices. What about a passport so you can spend your own hard earned money to buy a ticket to fly to another country, that's if you get a visa? Again you know where to go and who to bow to. The list was endless.
Bowing was your ticket to whatever it is you wanted, in the Government Raj.
Obama's knows it, so practices it. Makes a spectacle out of it.
In an economy where products and reach consumers via the government, because its them who've taken on the task of producing it, bows will find their place in the sun. Countries that won't need bows are those that will have private citizens engaged in the act of production and distribution of goods and services. In such places, Buyers will trade with Sellers with deals of their own. Buyers will have the liberty to buy, as much as not to. It will be their choice.
Not so for countries where the likes of Obama preside. Its the bow that will be a citizen's ticket to rationed prosperity. And just so you know what's expected of you and how its done, the President sure shows it best.
Jesus the Capitalist
'Who is this capitalist exploiter of workers who thinks he can pay people whatever he wants?
Most theologians will tell you this landowner represents none other than Christ himself. The names, currencies, and exact quotes have been changed, but the essence of the story Christ told in Matthew 20 hasn’t. It’s a helpful story to remember when Michael Moore is out telling us that capitalism is anti-Jesus.
Moore’s statement is one of two grave theological errors that liberals commonly make when recruiting religion to their cause. At best, he’s doing eisegesis, where, rather than trying to figure out what stance the Bible takes on an issue, the debater comes to the Bible with a point of view and then cherry-picks scripture to support that view, ripped from any context.'
Adam Graham, 'Jesus the Capitalist'.
Saturday 14 November 2009
Love's good, Hate's better!
Sarah Palin's book in the 'real' is almost here. The book's legend already, because on Amazon its raked up most pre-release sales. I am looking to read it too, though I know it may be some time before I can do that. I will read it for the reason I can get to know someone who I deeply admire, better. Here's a woman who's everything she shouldn't be, in liberal eyes. Especially I may add, liberal lady eyes. She hunts, talks her mind, takes on the establishment, chose to have Trig, her baby with Down's syndrome. Which means she refused to abort. All that's taboo for the bra-burning kind.
But that's my heroine.
It can't be hard for anyone to guess that it wont just be the likes of me buying the book. Palin haters will also make merry. They will buy, read the book and spew venom. They have done it in the past and will be at it, post the book launch.
Brings me to the point I want to make. The best thing that can happen to a brand is what's happening to Sarah Palin. That people love everything about her and others can't stand the sight of her. This means they'll either spew venom or sing paeans. Either's a good thing. Because either means a buy. And even if there isn't a buy, there's sure publicity (read, the venom spewed and paeans sung). Which means, listeners get curious. That's again a good thing, because then there would be more buys.
Brands, hated and loved, have a good thing going. A good thing in their fan and hate brigade. Fans buy into the brand. Haters too buy in for a different reason, or shriek hoarse enough, so hitherto neutral listeners turn inquisitive enough to buy in.
All round, its a win-win.
Wednesday 11 November 2009
Vegetarian by choice?
Ribbing vegetarians comes easy to me. I know, that isn't nice, but the wicked me can't control the urge. Like yesterday a student was telling me she was vegetarian. My ribbing got her to retort it was 'out of choice'. That she enjoyed being a herbivore. That the sinful pleasures in being a carnivore wasn't strong enough a temptation. That she wouldn't budge no matter how much her carnivore friends tried.
Fair enough. In fact, I think beneath the ribbing I have this grudging sense of admiration for ones who can keep off, what's staple for the likes me.
But then again, was her choice truly hers?
The 'Theory of Reasoned Action' suggests that, a person's behavioral intention depends on the person's attitude about the behavior and subjective norms (BI = A + SN). If a person intends to do a behavior then it is likely that the person will do it. Furthermore a person's intentions are themselves guided by two things: the person's attitude towards the behavior and the subjective norm. Behavioral intention measures a person's relative strength of intention to perform a behavior. Attitude consists of beliefs about the consequences of performing the behavior multiplied by his or her valuation of these consequences. Subjective norm is seen as a combination of perceived expectations from relevant individuals or groups along with intentions to comply with these expectations. In other words, "the person's perception that most people who are important to him or her think he should or should not perform the behavior in question."
The student in question told me she was a Jain. Now I may not know too much about them, except that they steer clear off stuff that's even remotely carnivorous. Moreover, even as herbivores they have their reservations with certain kinds of food (Wikipedia calls it, the most radical form of religiously-motivated diet regulation in the Indian subcontinent). Therefore guess what happens if you grow up in such a diet regulated environment? Your diet attitudes will for sure be fashioned by your family that acts as a normative reference group. Plus the subjective norms that kick in reinforce what then turns into exhibited behaviour.
One of vegetarianism.
Termed by Herbivores as a choice that's 'deeply personal'.
Convinced?
Sphere: Related ContentTuesday 10 November 2009
The Myth of Unconditional Love
Discussing the merits of my previous post on 'Faith & Belief' with Prof. Asha led to another, on 'Unconditional Love'. My colleague's view was that the closest we can get to such an 'unconditional expression' is when we experience a mother's love. In other words, a mother loves her child unconditionally.
At the cost of sounding improper, I must say that isn't the case. If you were to ponder carefully, you would discover that most expressions are far from unconditional. Even that of a mother's. They are in fact very much the conditional kind. I would even go so far as to say that most contexts out of life are pretty much transactional and therefore unconditional applications are a myth. Its just that it may seem like a one-way act of 'giving' only because the give-take exchange may not play out at the same time. I mean, the 'give' happens much earlier than the 'take'.
Most parental love is conditional. The giving of love in larger quantum plays out towards the early age of a child. Its the 'give' phase. As the child blooms into a youngster, 'returns' are called for. Expectations are set. And then, are articulated. In rare cases, the vocalisation is withheld, though expectations remain within. Most parents can't but put forth expectations from their children. It could be an expectation in terms of choice of vocation, choice of mate, choice of lifestyle, or similar such demands. Parents who articulate expectations do so as either demands, or at times even as threats. Call the latter emotional blackmail.
Contexts like I said earlier, are mostly transactional. Non-transactional 'one-way' acts require the courage to sacrifice. Most, including me, lack it. And so I am sorry, despite how depressing it sounds, I have to declare the paucity of 'unconditional love'. Though I must hasten to add, that a reading of Ephesians 1:4-5 should bring in lots of cheer;
'For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.'
Now that's pretty much as unconditional as it can get. In fact, I must say, its 'unconditional'.
Amen.
Bigoted Notions
'Dream-makers have always projected idealised and unattainable images of women - to create insecurities and stimulate desires. That's what they do. And, sadly, countless non-white women can't resist their pernicious influence. They believe that skin colour can make or break you. And that can even include what shade of brown or black your skin is.
Surveys in the U.S. have long shown that all things being equal, lighter-skinned black people get more job and life chances than do those with darker skins...
...now we have a world where American morality and media impose their standardised Western notions on every corner of the globe. And a surge in 'ethnic' self-loathing and self-mutilation has emerged in its wake. What is different now is the absence of any political or social fightback against this. The message seems to be that race is dispensable, can be wiped out if you can pay for the privilege. Then what?
Do Jet and Umi and all those other young women think they will be good enough to please the bigots of the BNP?
When, oh when, will we stop being our own worst enemies?'
- Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, 'Why are so many black and Asian women desperate to be white?'
Monday 9 November 2009
Faith gets the first Buy, Belief seals Loyalty
An interesting discussion had me thinking about Faith and Belief. Especially in religious matters that have a 'God' implication. Faith is what takes one to God. Belief is what keeps him there. Belief is the post experience outcome. Faith is what leads to a trial.
In India religion is big. I mean its practice is varied and widespread. Crisscrossing the country are various religious places of faith. In fact religious places in India are known for particular reasons with particular practices. For example, the practice of Attukal Pongala sees more than 1.5 million women throng the Attukal Devi temple, where they prepare a concoction called Pongala (rice cooked with jaggery, ghee, coconut and other ingredients) in the open, in small pots to please Goddess Kannaki (the deity at the temple). This particular religious practice has its own reason. What's fascinating is, the throng only seems to get bigger by the years.
A consumer's dalliance with a brand too has parallels to religious practices. Parallels to Faith and Belief. Faith on a brand is an outcome of right perceptions formed. About the brand. All credit must go to the brand's communiques. Belief on the other hand in the brand is a result of either positive personal experiences with the brand or faith on a reference group's belief. That is, I believe in a brand because I have used it, and so know it to believe it, or because my colleague who's an expert on products in that category, has been a user himself, and vouches for it.
Brands that seek loyalty must first engineer that 'leap of faith' which translates into a first buy. And then deliver on hitherto perceptions (read, via outcomes) in a manner where the buyer comes right back, and also is instrumental in getting others to come.
All because the buyer's traversed the path of faith, and turned the corner. He's now a believer.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday 8 November 2009
Is Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo a good idea?
I am glad the Karnataka crisis seems to be petering out. Though yesterday's blubbering Chief minister on TV has done neither himself nor the party any good in terms of image. In fact, I think a weepy Karnataka state CEO has only furthered an image of weakness.
That brings me to an important question. Is blubbering in full public glare a good idea? Forget what new age pop psychologists say about having a good cry, I say, Perish the thought.
Save for one condition. Let me explain.
Blubbering souls that come to my mind when I think about it are, Kapil Dev, Vinod Kambli and Paul Gascoigne. All sportspeople. Two of them messed up. One got it right. Kapil's blubbering came across as pathetic. Because it seemed as if he wanted his tears to have us believe he couldn't be bought. Vinod's blubbering was again ill timed. His crying when India forfeited the stopped match against Sri Lanka seemed to suggest he needed our sympathy. I guess we didn't do him that favour because we knew he was on his way out of the team, thanks to his lousy batting. And so we didn't care if he howled.
The man who got it right was Gascoigne. His weeping turned him into a celebrity, overnight. Remember Gazza mania? Here was someone who cried because England's loss really seemed to have got to him. Hey, we almost had all of England wanting to put a hand or whatever out to comfort him.
Why did Gazza make it where the other two messed up? The answer is that 'one condition' I was referring to, earlier. For blubbering to hit home, make sure the tears don't come across as 'plotted'. I mean don't cry as part of a script. Most people are lousy actors, and so the tears would only result in smirks from the ones who witness it. Cry, off the cuff, because its natural. Because you are overwhelmed. Gazza's was such a cry. Another who cries because of pure emotion is Roger Federer. The moment overwhelms him. Such cries are fine. No smirks earned.
But if you ask me, don't cry at all, if you can. If you still think you want that howl to get you off your stress, I'd say, go to your room, pad the walls and give it a go!
Sphere: Related ContentSaturday 7 November 2009
How Capitalism Will Save Us
'Nations that liberalize their economies, that allow people greater economic self-determination, end up moving, sooner or later, toward democracy. Since the nations of the world began to liberalize their economies in the mid-1980s, the percentage of democratically elected governments has surged from 40 percent to more than 60 percent today. China, for example, is not yet a Western-style democracy. But the nation is freer today than it was during the era of Mao Tse Tung and the repressive Cultural Revolution.
Despite all the gloom and doom voiced by its critics, the free-enterprise system is--and has always been--the best way to unleash the creativity, inventiveness, and energy of people and mobilize them to meet the wants and needs of others. That's because free-market transactions, far from being driven by greed, are about achieving the greatest possible mutual benefit, not only for the parties directly involved but eventually for the rest of society.'
- Steve Forbes & Elizabeth Ames, 'How Capitalism Will Save Us'.
Language or Prejudice?
Note Debarshi Dasgupta's two questions (to Genesis Global School);
'Why can’t Kantabai be my child’s guru?
And why should some opinionated and prejudiced faculty member at Genesis be instead my child’s guru?'
My answers; Of course, Kantabai can be your child's guru and, sure, some opinionated and prejudiced faculty doesn't have to be your child's guru. That's your democratic choice.
But also note, it doesn't have to be any other's. I mean, its a free country we live in and so we are free to choose. Now, I have no idea if the school intended the Advert in question to denigrate Kantabai's choice of language. But one thing's for sure. The Ad agency behind the communique has crafted smart, though in poor taste, copy that sears into the psyche of Indian parents. Again, let me state, I am all for languages of the varied kind flourishing, but I am not too sure if I appreciate moralising on choices made either by marketers or by consumers.
Debarshi shouldn't be taking the school to task. That's shooting the initiator. That's poor choice of target. The real target must be society. For having perpetrated the 'myth' that certain languages can get you better off for the future. But wait a moment, is society surely at fault? Or is that the way things really are? That your command over certain languages surely gives you an edge over others and so there's greater guarantee for a better future?
Think about it.
No society is perfect. Which means people that make up society in many ways are flawed too. Yet, one must appreciate the fact that choices people make in a society are intended at better futures for themselves. At least that's what they believe. And so they must be left to that, so long as no law's broken. Moralising is good for people who haven't sold a dime worth of goods any time in their lives. Theirs is the 'social task' (or is it?) of chasing a pipe dream that ain't gonna fructify anytime in the next million years.
In closing let me quote what junkcafe posted on , 'How Capitalism will save us';
'Free markets do not exist to promote perfection or even eliminate social ills, but to deal with a dynamic world in a rational manner.'
Also, Genesis Global School is in no way going to contribute to the popularising of Kantabai's language.
But Debarshi Dasgupta can. Its a 'free' choice.
Sphere: Related ContentShopping Emotions
'There are a couple of emotions that determine shopping behavior. The fundamental of them are greed, altruism, fear and envy. Greed drives a customer to purchase more than what he or she needs. A wide range of options, better products and lower prices generate that increased desire to purchase. Often, a customer would consider it a good opportunity to buy more than what she needs and to gift others as well. Higher purchase is also driven by the fear that the current offer may not be available for long and so the product has to be purchased right away. And envy sets in when one sees others buying and making the best out of a deal. 'Sabse Sasta Din' was successful because we were able to effectively capitalise on all of these emotions. The prices were great but they were on offer only for a day. Customers noticed everyone else - friends, colleagues, neighbours heading to Big Bazaar and they didn't want the opportunity to pass by. With all these emotions working in complete harmony, the stage was set for a huge response.'
Kishore Biyani, 'It happened in India'.
Friday 6 November 2009
Is it the rolls, or is it me?
Breakfast today needed me to dig into Paneer rolls that Alphy had packed, to take to work. Unwrapping the silver foil and taking the roll out saw a minor disaster unfold. The stuffing spilt out. The li'l mess it created irked me. And I wondered why Alphy couldn't have sealed the roll on any one side which would have prevented the spill.
A moment later something else struck me. Maybe I could have held the damn thing other than in the bazooka style. Maybe that could have prevented the mess that had irked me. Maybe I could have been more careful rather than have expectations of Alphy.
Its instinctual for us the believe the other's the transgressor. Because that protects us from our own frailties. Its helps keep the illusion that we have about ourselves alive. Pity, because such foolish behaviour is what stops us from truly knowing ourselves. And our lives turn into a quest towards finding who's wronged us, rather than searching within.
Now, such attitude is no-no for marketers too. Because it limits the ability to assess a context from other than our point of view. Meaning we can't see the customer's point of view. The only 'view' that should matter. The point of view that helps find answers to consumer behaviour. In fact, if we fail to do so, that is, assume the customer's at fault for what's happened, we perpetuate our inability in finding solutions that could otherwise help find favour with the one who keeps our business alive.
Now, I am in no way suggesting that other's can never be at fault, Of course, they can. But I only hope that comes after some soul searching. In fact, the next time around, before the rolls hit the kitchen table, I will have a talk with Alphy about sealing any one side.
Maybe even participate in its making.
Should be fun.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday 5 November 2009
Passion can do what Onida can't
Brands supposedly take consumer experiences beyond what's functional. That is, functional performance is a taken. Its the psychological that's the add on, that blooms on purchase. I mean brands connect on the emotional front.
But what if the brand goes kaput on functional performance and what's almost a non-brand does well on that very parameter? Let me illustrate. A few years ago, we bought an Onida DVD player with assurances that it will play all formats, even scratched DVDs. Tell you what, it didn't. Recorded DVDs had a hard time playing. On our part, we didn't heap any blame on the brand thinking its a DVD problem.
A few weeks ago, visiting parents brought with them a DVD player that they had received as a gift for having subscribed to a Cable channel. The player was a brand called PASSION. Never heard of it. It didn't even have the sleek look Onida had. But guess what it did? It played all those 'recorded' DVDs that were gathering dust. More than being happy at this, we were surprised. How can Passion do what Onida couldn't?
The kiss of death for a brand is when it fails on what its supposed to. When I buy I a durable, I say, to hell with the emotion, the brand must do what's it bought for. If it can't, I give it the Medusa look. My warm embrace is taken elsewhere, now reserved for the likes of Passion.
After all the name though corny, backed up performance. In fact I can even feel the emotion creeping in.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the birth of a brand.
All rise.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday 4 November 2009
Bangalore Weather & Sales Promos
The Bangalore weather reminds me of Sales promos.
Neither does the weather leave me be fully well (been down with the sniffles for what seems like forever) nor does it strike me down. Promos too are similar. They don't give you anything substantial though they make it seem as if its the deal of a lifetime. Nor do they leave you empty handed. I mean it isn't just the product that you get for your money. There's always something that's close to worthless that comes along.
Its the 'neither here-nor there' syndrome. Better off because of the promo? No. Worse off? No again.
Sick? No. Well? NO!
Sphere: Related ContentThe mobile phone lesson
Its seems the four metros in India have crossed 100 percent mobile teledensity mark. Meaning, the number of mobile phone connections in these cities are higher than the number of residents. Now, despite the fact that in India statistics are always shaky, this one has important consumption behaviour implications.
Two, in fact.
That if technology creates products that enhance our lives, we will take it to it wholeheartedly. Mobile phones personalise conversations. Plus they help us communicate without the limitations of geography. And of course, they let us talk.
Also, if technology ensures that costs to consumers drop, they will up consumption. In India, falling rates see people talking more. Falling handset and connection costs see people taking to more than a single phone and connection.
The lessons? Its ain't 'new' products that are needed. Its products that understand our ways of life and help us enhance our experiences that will see mass adoption. Also, its products that fit within our means that again see an explosion in terms of adoption. And so if you keep those prices down, you will see greater levels of consumption.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday 2 November 2009
Questions with no Answers
At times, people ask me questions, and then before I can gather my wits and answer, they lapse into a monologue that tells me what the answer should be. If I take the cue and answer the way they expect me to, its a 'win-lose'.
Win for them, because they hear what they want to. Lose for me because I feel like the idiot. Though there are times, when I have this wide grin in my head. Guess then I should tag it a 'win-win'. They've got their answer and I am grinning.
Customer exchanges too can at times, turn out like the exchange above. The customer gets into a retail store to buy a product and then lapses into a monologue, telling the shop floor person what's the best buy. This calls for 'smart' judgement on the part of the sales person. If the choice of the customer is a good one, breathe a sigh of releif. If it isn't, decide whether to correct or not. I'd say, in most cases, don't. After all, there's no guarantee he will heed to you and even if he does, God forbid, there be a problem later, the customer will squarely place the blame on you.
So I say, let him talk. And let him buy. His choice. Just like I let the other person have the answer he's told me. The one he seeks.
Who gets the lion's share of dessert?
At work, for a change check this out. When at an informal place like the cafeteria, notice who the servers respond to with a sense of urgency. I mean, who do they bend backwards to serve? There's gotta be some people at your company who command that kind of response. Tell you what, these important Uns may not necessarily command greater power via the organisational hierarchy, yet they manage to call the shots, especially in places like the cafeteria.
Why is that?
The answer lies in what's called perceptual interpretations. That is, the servers at the cafeteria may have no clue about what's on the hierarchical chart. Yet, they know some people are more important than others. They infer that because they see these people hobnobbing with powers that be and overall, their demeanour will seem to exude power. They move about purposefully, adopt commanding mannerisms and so on.
Never mind reality. In corporate life, despite what formal hierarchies dictate, some people tower over others. Its the order of the corporate world. What's interesting is, such orders extend everywhere, even into the world of brands.
Despite the fact that two brands are dead alike, in our minds, one will tower over the other. Or others. Thanks to perceptions. We see the 'higher-up' brands on TV presented in a manner where our minds register them as superior. And so if our consideration set features a few similar brands, our perceptual interpretation will 'up' one above the rest. The resultant effect may be a purchase in its favour.
Its similar such favours at cafeteria line-ups too. Watch carefully and you will see a generous helping of the dessert go to the powerful one. You sadly are left with a meagre spoonful.
Pity, huh?
Saturday 31 October 2009
Whither Malayalam Cinema?
'In the eighties, a “Malayalam film” screened in the north would have carried two contrasting kinds of stigma. It could be high art (Aravindan, Adoor, John Abraham; always spoken of in awe, mostly from a safe distance). Or a dubious sort of porn, playing morning shows in halls where the seats would clatter and bite. Either philosophy or filth—that’s what everyone thought. Films that occupied the middle of the spectrum were the secret that never got out. Unbeknownst to the rest of the country, for two decades, Kerala made perhaps the best mainstream films in India. Commercial cinema had hit a strange barren patch up north, lifeless for no apparent reason, like a marathoner hitting the wall—Hindi turned infantile, Bangla went into intensive care (continues to be there). Tamil went hip—it got a spritz of MTV and technical savvy, and earned Japanese fans. But Malayalam witnessed a silent efflorescence, across popular genres. A range of stories and story-types, scripts full of nerve and sinew, naturalistic acting. Credible, rooted and real—and very entertaining. In the high tide of that phase, novelist-scriptwriter M.T. Vasudevan Nair, director T. Hariharan and superstar Mammootty had teamed up for the lush period epic Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha, a revisionist take on a balladic villain, just one of a fistful of Malayalam ‘hits’ that made it to the 1990 IFFI Panorama. Now, two decades later, the troika has put together the costliest Malayalam film yet— a full house Sunday matinee in the carpeted hush of PVR Ambience, Gurgaon, worlds away from those morning shows.'
- Sunil Menon, 'Pazhassi Raja.'
Its isn't the food, stupid!
This should be interesting. Roadside Kebab king Bade Miyan is going premium. On cards, is a slew of fine dining restaurants that will try and tickle fickle up-market taste buds. Bade Miyan wants to take the premium road because his upmarket clientele who 'home-order' his wares, as they don't want to be rubbing shoulders with 'Aam junta' (masses) in the dust and heat, will get a chance to dig into his cuisine in surroundings that appeal.
'If all goes to plan, uniformed waiters will replace the existing crop of chokras, piped music should take the place of car horns and swear words, and freshly washed serviettes will outsmart the ‘mini tissues’ being handed out now. For the 70-year-old Mumbai street-food legend, the transformation from a 10x4 feet steel stall to a restaurant will be a quantum leap.'
The question is, will Bade Miyan make it with the rich and mighty?
Yes; that is if he understands that the change in consumer segment makes a change in mindset imperative. Let me explain. The high and mighty are as ignorant or knowledgeable as the aam junta when it comes to food. Though they may pretend otherwise, they don't know anymore about what's 'authentic' food. Of course, there may be exceptions. But they are few and far in between. To cater to this hoighty-toighty crowd requires Bade Miyan to take food beyond 'food' to an 'experience'.
It isn't the food, stupid!
Up-market dining is about appealing to all the senses, not just the palate. The surroundings and the ambiance must reek of 'manufactured class'. The music must be sublime. The food must come garnished. The waiter must be adept at 'silver service'. That means serving from a bowl, using a service set, only from the left hand side. Right is for plated food. The Cook turned Chef now has to wander the dining hall, make small talk. Promise recipes to fashionable women.
Tell you what, for Bade Miyan, this will be radical. I am not so sure how comfortable he will be with this sort of business model. For his sake I hope he is. Here's wishing him the best for the 'Bada' road ahead.
The Spell Breaker
'One of our great failings is our gullibility and how prone we are to superstition. More than any other nation perhaps, we are taken in by a whole host of outlandish swamis, gurus, yogis, babas, acharyas, astrologers, palmists and the like. Sadly, even though they have repeatedly been exposed as fraudsters, they continue to flourish and determine much of our lives. We need more Abraham Kovoors and Basava Premanands to steer us on the rational and scientific track.'
Saluting Basava Premanand. The Spell Breaker.
R.I.P.
Friday 30 October 2009
Who does Hollywood hate?
'Good people hurt innocent people every day. We lose our tempers, say things in anger and generally come to regret it later. That’s one of the rougher parts of dealing with the human condition. And when good people watch Larry David piss on Christ, his mocking and blatant disrespect makes them angry. Some might even think, ”I should produce a YouTube of me pissing on Hollywood’s god – Barack Obama!” Which wouldn’t be a difficult or expensive thing to do in this digital age.
But good people don’t follow through on such things. Eventually, their better nature takes over as they think about how such a cruel and disrespectful act might hurt those they know who admire Obama … or the president’s two young daughters.
Nothing, however, stopped Larry David — not the time, logistics, planning or funds needed to put this cruel episode together. David’s not a dumb man, and neither are the many people who made the production possible. Every one of them knew exactly what they were doing, what the outcome would be and what Christ means to His followers.
And they relished every moment of it; the planning, execution and most of all, the uproar and disappointment that followed.
Anger puts cruel thoughts in your head. Hate’s the fuel required to take you across the finish line.
There’s no shortage of fuel in Hollywood.'
- John Nolte, 'Pissing on Jesus: Hollywood Hates Us Exhibit 11,567.'
Right to Live & Reason to Kill
I guess what happened today morning is what got me to finally write, what I am about to. While reading the paper early this morning, I heard the bedroom door creak. Scampering out of it was Jaden, who soon got his li'l legs to carry him past me, to the kitchen where Alphy was. He sprang into her arms and planted a broad morning kiss. Alphy's grin was huge.
Could there be a better start to a morning?
But at times there aren't. A few days ago I woke up to news of a brutal murder, of a family of three in Bangalore. The murdered included a girl of eight. Reading the story was heartbreaking. It seems the girl just before she was done to death was sketching something on paper. Because when her body was found, beside it was pencil and paper.
The police seem to be close to cracking the case. I hope they do. And then I hope the honorable courts find whoever responsible for death of the child, not worthy to live. I hope its a death penalty for the murderers.
Now there's a distinct possibility that my reasoning is driven by emotions, especially since I am a father to a three year old son. But I know it isn't. Because I believe society must find a minuscule minority who commit such crimes not fit to their lives. In letting them live, you disrespect the right to life of a murdered li'l girl. Of course, I am in no way suggesting that opportunity for reform be denied to criminals. In fact, every chance possible must be given for reform. Yet for people who commit crimes sans any semblance of humanity, no such favours should be given. And in denying it, and doing away with them, society rids itself of evil. Also, let this be known, in doing so, society in no way turns barbaric. If society didn't, call that heartless and barbaric.
As John McAdams at Marquette University's Department of Political Science said on deterrence (oft quoted as to why death Penalty should be abolished), "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
I know Human lives are no comparison to anything else, yet, I think I may draw some parallels. In business too, there come times when the plug must be pulled. Off brands that fail consumers. Letting them potter around is unfair to other brands in the firm, that do well. Or brands that can replace them. 'Turnaround' is a good idea. Business History has its set of turnaround brands that have bounced back. Yet, when one's sure the brand's beyond repair, its better to show no mercy. Its better to pull the plug.
Its the right and the most sensible thing to do. Period.
For readers interested in the contentious issue of Death Penalty, I'd recommend ProDeathPenalty. Its definitely worth the visit.
Thursday 29 October 2009
The lesson Michael can teach Maoists
The Maoists seem to go from bad to worse. Their sister organisation held up a train a day ago in India, so they could scrawl graffiti calling for their comrade's release. And pray what's behind all such destructive acts? The desire to uplift the downtrodden.
If the Maoists do really want social upliftment, they should look to a place and a people who have had immense success at it. In fact, I'd recommend the Maoists look at a recent act that's radically different from their philosophy, yet, is what's true 'upliftment' philosophy. Of course, I can tell you the Maoists will never get around to understanding it. After all, aren't they named after a mass murderer? That should be an indication of how sensible they are.
Across the ocean from where the train was stopped, the post death jamboree rolls on. I am talking Michael Jackson. In death he's opened up opportunities like never before. Former non-released tunes are now being brought into the open for a price. In life, I wonder if these limp tunes would have had takers. In death, there are many. Michael's life's on screen. Viewing comes at a price. His funeral attendance rights too brought in the moolah. And I can tell you, the post death marketing juggernaut won't stop anytime now.
Now the intellectual moralists may not like what's happening to one who's dead and gone. Tell you what, these dimwits are the same ones who sympathise with goons who hold up trains. What a pity. I wish they knew that the only philosophy that matters is one that can be traded. Where the ones involved in the trade benefit. Their lives get 'uplifted'. If the Maoists wanted answers to Social upliftment they should look to the likes of people who cash in, even in death. Simply because there's money to be made. Make no mistake, nothing that breaks the law of the land must be allowed. But if something's within the law, and can be traded, so be it. In fact I'd say, encourage it. The Maoists with a laudable goal of social upliftment should teach the tribals the tricks of trade. Because that's the only philosophy that matters. One that engineers social upliftment. Instead of blocking trains, one must learn to sell to people on trains, learn to participate in the spoils of transportation.
Because in the end, our salvation lies not on a held up train. But on one that's running. Held up trains are only good for socialist graffiti. The ones running on tracks open up markets for capitalistic trade. Of course, Social upliftment too.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday 28 October 2009
Why women bitch
'So why do women bitch? Some Sociologists say the reason is Biology. Appearing stronger than other females in the group puts you at the top of the pecking order, meaning you are more likely to be chosen by the most desirable male. We may live in a more sophisticated society now but this biological determination still manifests itself in the urban jungle, with women vying for promotion and partners in an increasingly competitive world.
As society still expects women to be well behaved, our aggression must be veiled - meaning that the most lethal criticism is invariably couched in sycophancy. "It must be lovely having small breasts," a fellow author said to me recently at a book launch. "Clothes must hang so well."...
Why is bitching the female weapon of choice? Well, for starters, we women are more verbally dexterous than men. Women use, on average, 350 more words in their daily vocabulary, although my husband says that this is because we use 35000 more words in a day and, for men, there are only so many ways they can find to say "Yes, dear".
Shooting from the lip is our defence. While most men grope their way towards a single entendre, women can double and TRIPLE them. Women are the Navratilovas of the back-handed compliment.'
- Kathy Lette, 'Why the BITCHING never stops.' (Good Housekeeping)
Sphere: Related ContentWill we save the Tiger?
I guess the Tiger's under threat in India. The magnificent animal faces extinction if something's not done to stop the poachers and depletion of the its habitat. Radio Indigo based in Bangalore has been running a campaign to help save the Tiger. Radio Jockeys and other celebrities who feature on the Radio channel have been for some time now, trying to get us people to participate and do something about the Tiger.
The question is, will we? Do we care for the Tiger? And if we did, why?
The answer to the above mentioned questions lies buried in our understanding of Human Motivation. We are moved to act only if two conditions are satisfied. One, the problem or the issue we face must be known to us and be of importance. Two, the issue/problem that we face must be bigger than others that we encounter in our lives. I mean, that the Tiger's in trouble should be of more importance than, say, our need to renew the car insurance that's running out, or the pressing need to pay the kid's fees at school, and so on. If it isn't, I am sorry, the Tiger's plight won't get us to bat an eyelid.
If as brands you can't move consumers to act in your favour, know this. One, you aren't known or aren't important enough as a need-solution for them to act. Or, maybe you are important, but someone else seems to be even more. It could be a competitor brand, or another product in another category.
For the Tiger's sake, I wish something's done. But if the masses don't join in, don't blame 'em. Because they are busy tending to what they think is more important.
Dismantling America
'How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to "change the United States of America," the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country...
Nothing so epitomizes President Obama's own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year-- each bill more than a thousand pages long-- too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question-- and the biggest question for this generation.
- Thomas Sowell, 'Dismantling America'.
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Paranormal Activity is Marketing Activity
How does a movie shot on a budget of $11,000 in a week in the writer-director's (Oren Peli) home become a top grosser in Hollywood history? Note, cash registers are still ringing. Also note, the movie had in the past (2007) played a few fright festivals.
So, what's different now? What happened?
The answer is one that should turn PA into Marketing legend. Paranormal Activity is the perfect example to brilliant marketing. It got the Marketing Ps, dead right.
As a product, though not pioneering, PA is old wine in a fantastic new bottle. Sure, Blair Witch Project was the pioneer, but PA perfected the art of scary by presenting it in an edgy new format. No jungle or getting lost for PA's characters, instead its the claustrophobic environment of a bedroom that plays out on screen. The cine viewer, by the sheer pull of spooky events in a bedroom, is forced into it, to participate. And viewers participate, because unlike the blood splattered gory movies, PA keeps them on tenterhooks with cutting edge suspense. After all, at some time of our life, our bedrooms scared us enough to look under the bed. So we better be frightened of spooky bedrooms.
PA also got its viewer segment dot on. Note; 'Two weeks ago, Paramount started playing Peli's film at midnight in 16 college towns. Many showings were sold out. Sorry, come back next week, if you dare. No tickets created a hot ticket — the movie grossed $1.2 million in its early, limited engagements — and Paramount stoked the fever by urging fans to go online and "demand" a wider release. More than a million such requests came in, allowing Paramount's website to brag that PA was "the first-ever major film release decided by You." '
A 'You' driven product gets the best communique ever. One that emanates from the consumer (read viewer) himself. Imagine consumers demanding a movie be shown! And what about all the requests that came in? PA soon spread its distribution net to cover as many 'relevant' viewers as possible. This weekend, PA has expanded to all-day runs on 159 screens in 44 cities, and according to early reports, it's headed for a box-office breakout — perhaps the highest three-day gross of any film showing in fewer than 200 venues.
PA is a case in Marketing success. The lessons it can teach are many. But above all, its a lesson that should enthrall small time entrepreneurs worldwide. That you don't have to be an established deep pocket firm to be successful with consumers.
That, all you need is Ingenuity & Marketing.
If God's Conservative, is CNN doomed?
Connect these two.
One, In the United States, Conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace in 2009, confirming a finding that Gallup first noted in June. Forty percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 20% as liberal. This marks a shift from 2005 through 2008, when moderates were tied with conservatives as the most prevalent group.
Two, CNN, which invented the cable news network more than two decades ago, will hit a new competitive low with its prime-time programs in October, finishing fourth – and last – among the cable news networks with the audience that all the networks rely on for their advertising.
Now, who are the leading news guys on TV? Bill O'Reilly tops at 881,000 viewers and Sean Hannity rakes in 659,000 viewers . Liberal news analysis is way behind.
Consider the first snippets' implication on the second. Conservatives outnumber Liberals, 2 to 1. On TV, Fox's viewers outnumber their liberal counterparts, almost 3 to 1. Which means in addition to conservatives glued to O'Reilly and Hannity, moderates too seem to be joining in.
Where does that leave liberal news media? Of course, as a viewer segment liberal numbers are big enough to be catered to. But the question is, how many channels can profitably operate, pandering to bleeding liberals? Not many. And that's why CNN's going down.
What choices does CNN have? Reinvent and go the Conservative way. Its a good idea, considering there aren't any other strong conservative networks jostling with Fox for conservative eyeballs. But, that isn't going to happen any time soon, considering the fact that liberals can't and won't see business sense anytime in the near future. Isn't that why they see Obama as the Socialist saviour? Which means the choice CNN has is to ratchet up its liberal propaganda to the level of Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, that may give them a chance. To stay afloat. But then again, CNN already has its opinionated sister network in HLN.
I say, it will be tough going for CNN.
Brands that see their segments dying, have three stark choices. Either abandon the segment to move to a growing one (reinvention becomes a must), or fight hard to eat into competitor share (added investment becomes imperative), or to go on their knees and pray hard (humility is non-negotiable) that their segment numbers grow.
For CNN, I recommend prayer. But then I realise, isn't God conservative?
Data Graph: Gallup
Sphere: Related ContentMonday 26 October 2009
Is being smart, being right?
Though they often tell us that being ethical is about choosing right over wrong, it ain't as simple as that. Right over wrongs are easy. Its right over just' a li'l less right that's difficult.
In Management its said, you have to work 'smart'. Pray, what's smart all about? And do ethical issues arise when you take the 'smart' way? Take the case of a brand that doesn't tell you that the claim it bandies about is a result of research on a skewed sample. For example, a fairness soap that claims 98 percent of its users felt fairer in two weeks, makes a 'smart' claim. Not a 'right' one. If broached, the brand will point to some flawed research. Note, reality is otherwise. Again, take the case of media publications. They all claim to give us the 'truth'. What they really mean is, their version of the truth. That's again 'smart'.
So in tom-toming 'researched' claims or telling us they tell us the truth, or that they care for us consumers, etc., brands do what's smart. Just like at work, when people go with the boss' dumb idea, they do exactly the same. In pointing out the weakness of an idea, far from earning the boss' approval, they risk his wrath. Maybe even promotion up the hierarchical ladder. So they shut up, and play along. The boss is pleased, They get their ride up; its all round win-win. Though how far the organisation's benefited is any one's guess.
Doing the 'real' right things, and not the 'smart' right things, calls for courage. Because in doing so, there's bound to be a loss. And if some one's not up to that loss, I'd say the smart route's the best route. That goes for brands too. Stating that as a media magazine, you will always give us the truth is 'smartly' right. Not 'real' right. And as mentioned when I started, the choice here is not between right and wrong, its between 'smart' and 'right'.
Smart 's better.
Though I reserve my admiration for losers who don't go smart, but right. The ones who 'lose', who sacrifice, for the sake of what's 'right'. Without qualms. Without complaints.
Saturday 24 October 2009
Grocery Store Musical
Improv Everywhere is a collection of artists who stage scenes in public places. For tonight’s Late Movies, here are a few favorites. Their latest effort is called Grocery Store Musical, featuring six undercover actors who sing a lovely song about fruits and vegetables mixing together.
Via: MentalFloss
The pipe dream of Social Justice
Of course, the call for 'inclusive growth' seems all too human. Yet the idea of an equitable society is flawed. Because that is isn't the way nature intended anything to be. Hierarchies are but natural. Flattened worlds, the kind seen by Thomas Friedman, can't and won't exist. Its a pipe dream.
Equitable societies driven by inclusive growth seem to be pet talking points for politicians. And that is but natural. After all if such Utopian dreams have to come to fruition, taxpayer burden has to grow. The funny thing is, large sections of society can't come to terms with the fact that 'social justice' is a canard. Because it makes them feel as if they aren't doing their bit. And so they are like lambs led to slaughter, by hair brained government schemes, that instead of wiping out poverty, make the people in charge more prosperous than before.
Herbert London addresses the issue of Social Justice and puts it the 'right perspective';
'For many, social justice is a form of egalitarianism. Why, it is sometimes asked, should a few have so much and the many so little? This is the fairness gambit. Overlooked by acolytes of this position is that individualism on which this nation has put a premium is often at odds with economic equality. If people are free to pursue their goals, some are likely to be more successful than others.
The government has attempted to legislate a form of egalitarianism through progressive taxation. But even with a progressive tax designed to reduce the wealth of the most successful Americans, income disparity cannot be eliminated. Unless you change human nature and incentives as the Soviet Union unsuccessfully attempted, economic equality (read: social justice) is unattainable.
It is instructive that so-called progressives want to gain control of the state in order to bring about social justice. However, whenever this effort has been successful the progressives or radicals end up rewarding themselves and impoverishing those they claim to represent. Poor people are invariably subject to this political protest chant, but most know that it is a fiction borne of demagoguery.
Life is not fair — an observation everyone understands intuitively. The rich want something they cannot buy and the poor covet what the rich already have. If there is psychic justice, it is found in religion where every believer is equal in God’s eyes. But in the City of Man, social justice is a chimera, often sought but impossible to attain.
Perhaps it is time to inter this notion, bury it deep into the past. Of course, that isn’t likely to occur when so many are committed to its retention. They will parade across our streets calling for social justice as if they had any idea what it is they are seeking.
This is the lamentation of our age, a chant of frustration and desire. As long as governments seek to address this apparent concern manifest as passion, there will be reinforcement for the employment of these empty words. Listen carefully and you will hear the words “social justice” at any protest rally. This is a case of reifying fake ideology.'
In the world of marketing too, brands may be tempted to work for the 'greater good' of society. Bad Idea. Brands have one responsibility, one alone. Create and deliver value to consumers. In doing so they create fertile ground for what is a fair exchange. Products and Services for the consumers' money. A part of which the brand then pays its employees for being architects to the fair exchange.
And that for you, is how social good is propagated. Governments, instead of preaching inclusive growth should concentrate on their one critical responsibility. To provide for an environment where such fair exchanges flourish, within the confines of the law of the land.
Social Justice will follow.
Friday 23 October 2009
Thursday 22 October 2009
Stars fall, Institutions musn't
I guess its bittersweet for ISB.
The FT MBA rankings has put ISB at No. 15. That's the sweet spot. The bitter one refers to the arrest of Anil Kumar, co-founder and member of the executive board of the Indian School of Business. This follows another, earlier this year. Mendu Rammohan Rao, former dean of ISB, resigned after questions were raised over his role as the board member of scandal-hit Satyam Computers.
As a business school, ISB is intact. In fact their response to the scandal has been measured and mature. The Dean has acknowledged Anil Kumar's contribution and has refused to pass judgement before the courts decide. But what's even more noteworthy is the image ISB has built over its few years in existence, sans personalities. ISB's focus on 'Global Learning' rather than personalities has paid off. Maybe this wasn't intentional. But their not hyping personalities associated with the school has stood them in good stead. Personalities fall, the Institution doesn't. Now this far cry from others who are personality driven. The risk they run is, if the personality's maligned, it rubs off on the institution.
Its smart for brands to focus on their core offering. Associations must be temporal. Because celebrities fall. And Brands that bank on celebrities go down with the star. But brands that have their core value proposition intact, and deliver on it consistently, won't be affected by a star's fall from grace.
Just like, Anil kumar can go down, ISB won't.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday 21 October 2009
Who's listening to Talk Radio?
'I’m sorry, but I don’t see a sign at the clubhouse, saying “no liberal hosts.” The only sign is from the public, who hates them. It’s called supply and demand. The demand is for a conservative viewpoint – and it’s currently being supplied.
What happens when you supply a product for which there is no demand?
You get Air America. Some might call that a noble experiment, but it was neither noble, or experimental. Instead it functioned like a jar of leftwing preserves– a time capsule of corrupt liberal thinking, circa 1977. And, of course, for NPR to succeed, it needs government assistance. For liberal ideas to survive, you need welfare.
So, in short, CNN is right: talk radio is about access. But they’ve got it backwards. The reason why talk radio is conservative isn’t because radio limits access for the left. It’s conservative, because the rest of the media limits access from the right. Other than Fox News, talk radio is the only place you can hear another point of view.
It’s a shame CNN can’t be happy with that. But like a whiny child who needs all the stuffed animals in the toy store, it won’t rest until there’s no opposition. It wants the Fairness Doctrine, when what it really needs is a spanking.
And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.'
- Greg Gutfeld, 'CNN Perplexed By Talk Radio'.
Consumption contrasts in Tiger vs. Dragon
Its fascinating to study the contrasts in consumption behaviour in India, vis-a-vis China.
China's been a difficult market to crack for foreign firms. What's interesting to note is the Chinese consumers' reaction of foreign goods. Undercutting prices has not worked for MNC brands. In fact Chinese consumers perceive these brands to be costlier, despite the fact that they really aren't. A Nielsen survey suggests that 'one strategy that has brought success to several foreign firms has been to charge high prices—a surprise, given that earnings in China remain quite low. The report concludes that Chinese believe that foreign brands are more expensive, even when they are not. That suggests that they should aim to compete on quality rather than cost.'
Now this is a marked contrast to what happens in India. Indian consumers may aspire for foreign brands, but aren't enamored by high prices. The mass markets in India don't have a problem sticking to an Indian brand if they find it to be value for money. Foreign brands taking on mass markets in India have been forced to ride the 'low price-good quality' bandwagon. More so because competing Indian firms have been able to deliver on this 'value for money' requirement.
Balakrishna and Sidharth writing in the Hindu BusinessLine identify two key initiatives that are a must for MNCs to crack Indian Markets. One, make products affordable, and two, get your consumer segment right.
They state, 'Foreign companies that entered India lured by visions of a "250-million strong middle-class market" are beginning to realise two key characteristics of the Indian market: India is a low-income market and while it might have millions of consumers, each individually consumes little. Many foreign companies selling branded consumer products and services have been compelled to alter their strategies in line with these two characteristics.
To succeed in the Indian market for both products and services, foreign companies have come to realise that it is necessary to make the products affordable, address the right segment, widen their offerings and adapt their product to Indian needs, and to promote community rather than individual usage.'
India and China with their vast populace remain consumer markets of the future. Yet to successfully tread either markets, MNCs need approaches that are markedly different.
As they say, different strokes for different folks. That's the key.
Tuesday 20 October 2009
Curing non-existent ailments in Education
Though Education Minister Mr. Kapil Sibal has his intentions right in terms of Education 'reform', his prescription seems to be going awry. His latest suggestion of including XIIth standard marks as part of evaluation criteria for admission to the IITs seems fine, though, on a personal note I don't think it matters one bit. But when he points to the sprouting of IIT coaching institutes as one of the reasons to bring XIIth standard marks in, he's stumbles on economic logic.
In fact, as one of the coaching institute Director pointed out on TV, inclusion of XII standard marks is an added opportunity for coaching institutes to offer coaching classes for XII standard exams. So the new policy, instead of shutting them down, will only help them grow. What defies complete economic logic is the Minister's assumption that a change in the evaluation criteria will arrest the growth of coaching institutes. You don't need to be an economist to figure that the existence and continuance of a business firm solely hinges on one factor. Consumer demand. If there's demand for coaching, institutes will flourish. You want to shut the institute down, curb demand. If you want to curb demand, let kids get into the IITs sans the JEE. Of course, that isn't possible. So institutes will remain. There's nothing anybody can do about it. Not even a minister.
But beyond all of this, there's the all important implication. The supply side scarcity when it comes to education in India. And that scarcity exists because the supply side is still regulated by the government. So education reform shouldn't be about IIT admissions, it should be about letting the private sector participate, unfettered, in offering education services to student consumers.
But then you may ask, what about quality? Fly by night operators? Of course, the Private participatory scene wouldn't be perfect. But it surely will be better than one controlled by the government babu. I know it isn't easy for a populace that's grown up on government services to trust the private sector to do better. But economic logic proves why private sector's always better.
Note Milton Friedman in 'Free to Choose', talking about 'Who protects the Consumer?';
'Ask yourself what products are currently least satisfactory and have shown the least improvement over time. Postal service, elementary and secondary schooling, railroad passenger transport would surely be high on the list. Ask yourself what products are most satisfactory and have improved the most. Household appliances, television and radio sets, hi-fi equipment, computers, and, we would add, supermarkets and shopping centers would surely come high on that list.
The shoddy products are all produced by governments or government-related industries. The outstanding products are all produced by private enterprise with little or no government involvement. Yet the public - or a large part of it - has been persuaded that private enterprises produce shoddy products, that we need ever vigilant government employees to keep business from foisting off unsafe, meretricious products at outrageous prices on ignorant, unsuspecting, vulnerable customers.'
Also watch Milton Friedman discuss Education in the video above.
Monday 19 October 2009
A Man Apart
'At first I thought his initial popularity would carry him through to a second term. But as each day passes and the false, almost inappropriate gestures register with the people, Americans are beginning to recognize this president as a man apart. He is our stranger in a land he doesn’t understand.
Americans are not warlike; nor does imperial ambition fill their soul. They have done almost nothing for which daily apologies are necessary. Their blood soaks the beaches of Normandy; their graves litter European towns. And their fortune saved millions from the plight of destitution. Americans do not appreciate a man so removed from their history, so out of tune with the American experience, that he reflexively expresses regret for the very conditions that should engender pride.
Perhaps this president will learn. But I am not confident that can happen. His life experience without a father in his home and a mother seeking adventure abroad was unstable. His closest associates vilified the nation he now leads. Is it any wonder his wife said she could take no pride in America till now? The past is to be rejected. Milestones in history are erased from memory as storage, cast aside as unnecessary.
This is a unique moment in our history. It is certainly the only time in my life when our national instincts are being reconditioned. From a nation that was a model to the world, we are now told that superiority is unbecoming, a hindrance for the emergence of global egalitarianism.
President Obama, as a man apart, may attempt this recasting of America. But, as I see it, America is not yet ready for his experimentation and, most likely, never will be.'
- Herbert London, 'Barack Obama: A Man Apart'.
Bonoising America
'Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of America. Rebrand, restart, reboot. In my view these 36 words, alongside the administration’s approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing health care at home, are rebranding in action.'
Sure Bono, also, why not state the fact that Obama didn't meet the Dalai Lama, didn't support protesters in Iran and sided with Zelaya? Shouldn't this be added to Obama's brilliant foreign policy initiatives? Initiatives aimed at furthering the Obama brand of Democracy.
Rebranding in action or a hypocrite casting his lot with the devil?
Extreme Climate change? For once Bono, why don't you watch something with a difference? Something other than Gore's lies. I'd recommend 'Not Evil Just Wrong'. Now I could on and on with what a disaster Obama is, but hey, I guess everyone knows by now. Fox tells us that its only 43 percent of Americans who'll cast their lot with Obama, if elections happen now.
Bono's rebranding America advice is akin to asking the iconic Dove soap brand to reposition itself. Bad advice. Dove's doing fine with its 'mild-moisturising' message. Consumers love it for what it is. Ditto for America. 'Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness' is perfect. Minimal Government works like a charm. Also, that Obama stands firmly against liberty has been established. The urgent requirement for now is to vote the likes of Obama out and go back to what America stands for.
And I can tell you, it ain't Climate change, Big Government & Socialism. As for Bono, he can go back to belting his songs, pocketing his money, paying no taxes, and playing hypocrite.
Sunday 18 October 2009
Why we say what we say
'But why do we feel the need to type? To Tweet? To talk endlessly about ourselves on blogs? It's because we have too much information coming in. And we need an outlet. An 1980's programmer would call it GIGO [Garbage In, Garbage Out].'
Sure Devita, there's too much of information coming in, and so we may need an outlet, plus we need to be careful what we put 'out there', but I'd venture a different guess as to why we need to babble endlessly in cyberspace.
In fact I'd say the real reason's twofold. One, there ain't any other way we can express what we've been forbidden to most of our lives (blame family or social norms), or can't because we're shy; and two, there ain't any other space where we can remain faceless or at least not face our receivers and yet propagate what we want to put 'out there'.
The Internet's the first media space that provides talkers or consumers with a free platform. The Internet is also the first accessible platform that allows for a 'one to many' mode of conversation. Show me a man not wanting to express himself and I'll show you one who's not babbling online. Also show me a man who can make confident face to face conversation, and I'll show you one who's restrained in his yakety-yak, online.
As Homo sapiens, our need to communicate is inherent. And as social beings our desire to express what we encounter, feel or ideate is natural. In addition to the need to communicate, our need to be communicated to is as much a necessity. Bereft of the ability to communicate, or to be communicated to, we lapse into an isolated, lonely world that is depressing. The Internet's manna to wannabe communicators who've otherwise lapsed into silence.
And as I've said before, our desire to communicate is good for brands too. Because that's what brands help consumers do. Communicate. Through goods and services conspicuously consumed. Devita has a point about why we need to be careful about what we say in cyberspace. But the degree of information overload in cyberspace will in no way regulate what we as Homo Sapiens have been genetically programmed to do.
Communicate.
Saturday 17 October 2009
The Narcissists in Us
Too many times I have encountered narcissists. I even get to see one in the mirror at times. Narcissism is impossible to get away from because as Scott Peck states, we tend to see things always, at first, from our own perspective. We may, later, see the other's, and that springs from our ability to empathise.
Empathy is critical to any marketer. In fact successful Marketing is steeped in the ability to empathise. With consumers. The ability to see things from their perspective. Take any service encounter. The best way to to manage this dynamic scenario is by being empathetic. The customer at your store comes in with a perspective that's his own. His queries arise from his personal 'store-view'. He sees and interprets your store based on a psyche that's uniquely his. Sure, he may turn out to be like an earlier customer, yet what he sees, is his own world. Managing him requires a marketer to walk that world.
Narcissists who can't practice empathy, that is disconnect from themselves to see another's point of view, are dangerous, both to society and to Marketing. They remain blind to others and their points of view, thus rendering themselves ineffective in spheres that require social or business contact. In classrooms too, empathy is the key. All those times when I've failed to grasp a student's reaction and respond accordingly, I've let the narcissist in me get the better of me. I lose on empathy. The scenario that I encounter, confounds me. Post mortem, at a later point in time when I ride my ability to empathise, I see clearly what the scenario meant. And then I decipher the student's reaction and learn what should have been an appropriate response. Should I not at a later point empathise, I may even ascribe 'wrong' to the other. Which then has the abilty to 'influence' my future encounters.
Scott Peck puts it brilliantly in his book, 'People of the Lie'; 'We all of us tend to be more or less self centered in our dealings with others. We usually view any given situation first and foremost from the standpoint of how its affects us personally, and only as an afterthought do we bother to consider how the same situation might affect someone else involved. Nonetheless, particularly if we care for the other person, we usually can and eventually do think about his or her viewpoint, which may well be different from ours.
Not so those who are evil. Theirs is a brand of narcissism so total that they seem to lack, in whole or in part, this capacity for empathy...
We can see, then, that their narcissism makes the evil dangerous not only because it motivates them to scapegoat others but also because it deprives them of the restraint that results from empathy and respect for others. In addition to the fact that the evil need victims to sacrifice to their narcissism, their narcissism permits them to ignore the humanity of their victims as well. As it gives them motive for murder, so it also renders them insensitive to the act of killing. The blindness of the narcissist to others can extend even beyond a lack of empathy; narcissists may not "see" others at all.'
Friday 16 October 2009
Why we Buy
Its Diwali season. And as Rama Bijapurkar stated, its the season that's a barometer to consumer sentiment. If consumers loosen their purse strings this season, it will be a cheer for future consumption. If they don't, gloom's just round the corner.
To prepare for this season marketers need to know why consumers splurge during festivals. Though the conventional reason stated is, its celebration time, the real reason's otherwise. Festival time's fertile ground for consumers sentiment. Here's why.
The two external entities that bear down on consumers as influences are, a firms marketing effort and the socio-cultural environment. During festival time, firms' marketing efforts reach a crescendo. Communiques abound with lures never seen in normal times. New products and campaigns are unveiled. Price offs abound. Add to this, socio-cultural influences. Whoever the consumers consider as reference group, messages that emanate from them's the same. They are buying and they prod you to. For example, your neighbour's bought a new LCD TV and brags about it to you. He tells you both about the product and the kill he made for the price he paid. Add to this the cultural context. The cultural circle within which you live has ingrained into you through fables and myths a practice that this is time to celebrate. You have seen this happen for ages past. And so you follow. Its natural.
So you see, the external influences on you as a consumer are at their peak. The resultant is, decision making is at its easiest. Information searches provides you with the goods. Evaluations are easily made on products available. And price offs convince you of that you are being wise when you buy. In fact, your psyche that's made up of what motivates you, prods you to perceive, learn and build attitudes towards brands is at its conducive best.
The consuming climate during festivals is at its best. Built by a combination of brilliant influences from the outside that craft a willing psyche within.
That's why we buy.
Marketers note.
Wednesday 14 October 2009
Who's the real Superstar?
At rare times, knowing a bit about some one's life turns into a bolt from the blue. More so, if the person in question has a Bollyowood past (as an actor). Mention Bollywood and I am thinking of parking my brains somewhere.
But then I read about this former actor and I have no qualms in admitting there are superstars in life. Real life. Kamal Sadanah is a superstar. A harrowing past and he comes out of it wiser. Wise enough to teach me lessons.
Two things he says connect at a personal level. One, about spirituality taking him nowhere (I knew that) and two about what family means to him. A Bruce Wayne like reclusive existence too hits home. I love anonymity. My guess is, Kamal will never be the mass consumer man (Note, that's not to say he can't make mass cinema). He's too sensible (he says, 'And then there are always acting offers for a genre I call 'monkey cinema', offers I graciously refuse!') and so can't appeal to mass sensibilities. But he can and will have his appeal. With seekers high on cognition.
Brands can be intellectual. Their appeal may be limited but their connect with like minded consumers will be deep and personal. In fact, its loyalty guaranteed. It could be cinema, it could be software. Brands that tickle grey cells have an audience in consumers who are cognitively driven. Such brands, to get to this audience will have to remain recluse, limited and appeal to their intellectual sensibilities. Do the mass act and you alienate them.
Kamal the person is thinking man's fodder. But even more, he's a superstar.
A real one at that.
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday 13 October 2009
Judge not lest Ye be Judged
Flor isn't too happy at Bono being painted the hypocrite. It makes me wonder about our judgement calls. Are they warranted? Should we be pointing fingers at Bono, the generous?
Before I answer, consider the parable of the widow with two coins at the temple. (Luke 21:1-3) “As He looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. ‘I tell you the truth,’ He said, ‘this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
The parable puts Bono's generosity in perspective.
Now I am also aware of what Jesus said about judging others, "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the plank in your own eye? "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the plank that is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye." (Luke 6: 41-42)
The moral of all of this? Judge, but with care.
Consumers play judge all the time. On consumption and even before. They gain that right for the money they pay in acquiring a product or a service. Having worked in hospitality, a decade and a half ago, I've been at the receiving end of judgements. For hospitality services offered. At times I've felt the judgements were unfair. But I had no choice but to grin and bear it. It sure takes a toll on your esteem but then it also steels you up for the future.
Classrooms too are filled with judgements. Fair and unfair. I think that combination is perfect. Because for Marketers as for Professors, it is important to sift between the former and the latter. If an objective evaluation leads to the conclusion that the judgement's been unfair, dismiss the judger and his response as pomp. For he is a pompous fool. On the other hand if assessments point to the latter, see and grab it as an opportunity for improvement.
I wonder how Bono should react to Letts' judgement? Take it or dismiss it? Of course, I can't be a judge to Bono's judgement so I'll leave it to him. But then his 'dodging the Bush hug' brag to another hypocrite, Obama ( I agree with Imus), tells me he's one pompous ass.
For sure.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday 12 October 2009
Zero thought means a brand 's a habit
A light bulb changing incident at home leads to a change in switches for the new bulb to be put on. The problem is, my hand almost always reaches for the older switch. After putting the old switch on, I realise the change that's happened. Tell you what, the change happened a few months ago and yet my hands don't reach for the new switch. It invariably goes back to the old one.
Habit. That's why.
Habitual actions involve minimal thinking. The act 's almost automatic. Like I've said before, breaking such habits is a gargantuan task. Brands that try and do that, face what's akin to an uphill climb.
But what about brands that are part of habit? Such brands, I believe are secure. Their security comes from being part of consumer habit. Like for example, my picking the morning edition of Times of India (newspaper) at my doorstep. Or Nandhini milk packets left by the milkman in a tray outside, every morning. In fact, at home, if we open the door and don't see our morning ToI, or the milk, its bothersome. Its out of the normal and so not welcome.
Brands that can worm their way into consumer habits will be purchased or consumed without too much of thought. What's funny is, it isn't buying that calls for thinking. Instead, its the possibility of non-availability of the brand for purchase or consumption that calls for thought.
Bothersome thought.
Wow.
Hypocrite
'Bono is a prime example of baby-boomer good vibes - of feel-good politics tarted up with celebrity endorsement. Born in 1960, he is a pin-up for late fortysomething, early fiftysomething urbanites of a vaguely Left-wing bent.
That is, they feel they should be Left-wing, though they may not live out their principles in their spending habits. It is a very Islington state of mind. Bono, for instance, is fantastically extravagant. He is an enthusiastic buyer of stocks and shares - he owns a hefty chunk of the New York money magazine, Forbes.
He travels the world in a bubble of executive-jet comfort, spending a fortune on his little treats and fancies and racking up tens of thousands of air miles. Here is a man worth hundreds of millions who has a villa in the South of France, an Italian palazzo looking over the briny near Dublin and a multi-million-pound penthouse in Manhattan. And yet Bono's message to the Tory conference, as ever, was a homily about the poor and neglected of Africa.
If he feels that strongly, why doesn't he cough up some more of his own fortune?'
- Quentin Letts, 'Why do politicians - including sadly, the Tories this week - fawn over Bono, a smug hypocritical, whining, tax dodging Irish mountebank?'
Posts
