Not too often, but every now and then, certain events make us proud. Wait, thats too strong. Lets say, we just stop feeling like total losers. The Pokhran tests, Chandrayaan, Bhuvan etc are some recent examples.
They may not mean much to the younger generation that grew up in the relative prosperity of the late 90s, for they already visualized us as an emerging superpower. But if you have grown up in the 80s and early 90s, and experienced the legendary Indian bureaucratic lethargy (or lethargic bureaucracy), such headlines do bring joy and emotion. You wonder if we are finally breaking away from our past. If we really can do more than write code and deal with angry Americans on telephones.
To be honest, our quality was never world class, for we were rooted is the strong tradition of good enough. When asked to choose any two from fast, good and cheap, we inevitably choose fast and cheap. Be it software or anywhere. Clients are amazed by our rapid fast turnaround of deliverables and appalled by their quality. It seems this is more pervasive than what I thought.
Chandrayaan was touted as India's "nano" space project, cheap but highly effective. The celebrations had hardly died down when some defects came to the fore and now the mission is officially dead. Even the celebrated Pokhran tests have come back to haunt us with a scientist claiming the yields were disastrous and others shouting it was "good enough". And Bhuvan is a nonstarter.
I believe these are not isolated incidents but a reflection of our ethos and pysche.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Sports Formula
The sports ministry has declined a request to bring F1 racing into India on the grounds that F1 is not a sport but rather a commercial entertainment initiative. The logic is impregnable.
The traditional argument to develop sports is that it promotes physical well-being and mental toughness. It is also purported to build character, but the conduct of today's athletes hardly supports this assertion. As for the F1 debate, the formula of the modern day sport has two elements: substance and form. In substance, racing cars cannot be compared to cricket, soccer, hockey or any other sport. Not only is it risky and life-threatening, but winning and losing depends as much on the vehicle as the driver. Yes, it does improve physical endurance and mental sharpness, but in its basest form, it is a thrill rather than a sport. As for the form, which is F1 or A1 racing, it is very close to how every major sport is played today.
Almost every sport has gone pro, meaning it is played for money rather than for pride or fun. Their popularity has more to do with the astronomical sums involved in contracts and sponsorships than anything else. Now, playing for money does not necessarily take away the virtues of sport, and I am definitely not advocating that sports should not be commercially viable. Neither should sportsmen be required to put national interest above individual interests. However, one must recognize that money transforms the nature of the game, and consequently, every sport today has elements of entertainment in it. Ah...those shades of grey.
From what I have read, it did not look like the ministry will have to make any investment. It only had to grant permission to franchise F1 in India. So I am not sure why the ministry rejected the proposal and said arbitrary things like the funds can be put to better use elsewhere. If indeed taxpayer money is involved, I am in complete support of the ministry's decision.
What pushed me to write on this was Karun Chadok's comment that even Olympics are an entertainment. It is true that Olympics are reduced to a form of entertainment in India, for we have systematically ensured that our athletes don't even get close to the medals. We end up watching what the rest of the world is doing. But to generalize that is foolish. To me, the Olympics capture the true spirit of sport, and provide the rare occasion to watch sport triumph over money.
The traditional argument to develop sports is that it promotes physical well-being and mental toughness. It is also purported to build character, but the conduct of today's athletes hardly supports this assertion. As for the F1 debate, the formula of the modern day sport has two elements: substance and form. In substance, racing cars cannot be compared to cricket, soccer, hockey or any other sport. Not only is it risky and life-threatening, but winning and losing depends as much on the vehicle as the driver. Yes, it does improve physical endurance and mental sharpness, but in its basest form, it is a thrill rather than a sport. As for the form, which is F1 or A1 racing, it is very close to how every major sport is played today.
Almost every sport has gone pro, meaning it is played for money rather than for pride or fun. Their popularity has more to do with the astronomical sums involved in contracts and sponsorships than anything else. Now, playing for money does not necessarily take away the virtues of sport, and I am definitely not advocating that sports should not be commercially viable. Neither should sportsmen be required to put national interest above individual interests. However, one must recognize that money transforms the nature of the game, and consequently, every sport today has elements of entertainment in it. Ah...those shades of grey.
From what I have read, it did not look like the ministry will have to make any investment. It only had to grant permission to franchise F1 in India. So I am not sure why the ministry rejected the proposal and said arbitrary things like the funds can be put to better use elsewhere. If indeed taxpayer money is involved, I am in complete support of the ministry's decision.
What pushed me to write on this was Karun Chadok's comment that even Olympics are an entertainment. It is true that Olympics are reduced to a form of entertainment in India, for we have systematically ensured that our athletes don't even get close to the medals. We end up watching what the rest of the world is doing. But to generalize that is foolish. To me, the Olympics capture the true spirit of sport, and provide the rare occasion to watch sport triumph over money.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Game Theory and Traffic Rules
Game theory attempts to explain our behavior in situations where the success of our choices are impacted by the choices of others. Price wars are the most common example. If Pepsi cuts prices, assuming elastic demand, sales will increase and so will profits. But if Coke follows suit, Pepsi's action will be neutralized such that both Coke and Pepsi end up with lower profits than what they would make if prices werent cut in the first place. So letting prices be is the best course of action for both, which is the conclusion they will eventually reach after the game is played multiple times.
I got thinking if this explains the problem with our traffic rules. When we all follow rules, then it gives those who break them an advantage. Let's say the rule is that we stick to our lanes regardless of traffic. Now, if the traffic is slow, someone can cut across lanes and weave through traffic, assured that everyone is driving in their lane. But once that happens, the rest will naturally feel cheated and start doing it too, and we end up with massive chaos.
I see two ways of addressing the problem. One is to remove the incentive for breaking rules, by imposing hefty and consistent fines, which is impossibly difficult to do in our country. The second is to let people play this "game" enough times until they realize that we are better off following the rules. It doesnt mean every single person has to experience chaos before sanity returns. Once enough people decide to follow rules, a critical mass is reached. You have - tada - a tipping point. You see people following rules, then more people follow rules and so on. The concept of social proof kicks in.
Its not as far-fetched as it sounds. I think it partly explains why Mumbai has better lane discipline and civic sense than other cities - people here have seen traffic chaos so many more times.
I think the unfortunate part is when everyone starts to follow the rules, some of us will be tempted to break them and get an unfair advantage. And when there is no system of fines or penalty, more people will start doing it creating another tipping point and the cycle continues...
I got thinking if this explains the problem with our traffic rules. When we all follow rules, then it gives those who break them an advantage. Let's say the rule is that we stick to our lanes regardless of traffic. Now, if the traffic is slow, someone can cut across lanes and weave through traffic, assured that everyone is driving in their lane. But once that happens, the rest will naturally feel cheated and start doing it too, and we end up with massive chaos.
I see two ways of addressing the problem. One is to remove the incentive for breaking rules, by imposing hefty and consistent fines, which is impossibly difficult to do in our country. The second is to let people play this "game" enough times until they realize that we are better off following the rules. It doesnt mean every single person has to experience chaos before sanity returns. Once enough people decide to follow rules, a critical mass is reached. You have - tada - a tipping point. You see people following rules, then more people follow rules and so on. The concept of social proof kicks in.
Its not as far-fetched as it sounds. I think it partly explains why Mumbai has better lane discipline and civic sense than other cities - people here have seen traffic chaos so many more times.
I think the unfortunate part is when everyone starts to follow the rules, some of us will be tempted to break them and get an unfair advantage. And when there is no system of fines or penalty, more people will start doing it creating another tipping point and the cycle continues...
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Consultants as Traffic Police
Consultants are arguably the most hated bunch of professionals around. While the financial engineers have stolen that crown momentarily, it won't be long before the trophy is passed back. Not just because the crisis will be forgotten, but also because every minute, consultants are coming up with ludicrous recommendations. Ludicrous when you look at them with 20/20 hindsight that is.
Every manager worth his salt hates to employ a consultant for it is a tacit admission of his own incompetence. Yet, the consulting profession continues to thrive and remains the most sought after career option for management graduates. What gives?
I was crawling in Mumbai traffic when it hit me. In front of me was a Santro sandwiched between a truck and a BEST bus. Now truck and bus drivers believe in extreme precision. They will drive by within an inch of your vehicle without skipping a beat. In this case though, both of them were generous enough to spare a couple of inches, but the Santro guy got all worked up. He kept nervously peering over the bonnet and looking through the side windows to make sure he was okay. I, of course, clearly saw that he just had to maintain his line and he was fine. For a minute I was amused, but soon realized it happened to me as well. Several times, in fact. Sitting inside the car, I find it incredibly difficult to accurately estimate the space available around the vehicle be it when making a sharp turn or parking in a tight spot. And that is what happens to organizations as well. People within find it difficult to clearly see the external environment. And their calls might result in a traffic pile up, or worse, a crash. The former causes organizations to lose its direction and momentum while the later pretty much kills them.
Time for your friendly neighborhood consultant to step in. He is not a Santro expert – you are – but he knows enough about it to guide it out of traffic. Which is what consultants often do; they bring in simplicity and clarity. In other words, the value added by a consultant comes from his perspective and not so much his competence. If he is a good one from McK, he will know the shortest route to the expressway. In that sense, he is no different from a traffic policeman. Of course, the recommendations would fail if something else comes up on the suggested route - another traffic snarl, for example. Or you ignore his idea and stick to your route and by some freak chance the traffic clears up. And when that happens, organizations ensure consultants dont go unpunished.
I have taken artistic liberties to make the analogy work and sincerely apologize if it caused offense to traffic policemen.
Tailpiece: It is much more difficult to estimate navigate sharp turns if you are driving a big car like Accord or Corolla. That explains whylarge organizations react sluggishly to changes in environment.
Every manager worth his salt hates to employ a consultant for it is a tacit admission of his own incompetence. Yet, the consulting profession continues to thrive and remains the most sought after career option for management graduates. What gives?
I was crawling in Mumbai traffic when it hit me. In front of me was a Santro sandwiched between a truck and a BEST bus. Now truck and bus drivers believe in extreme precision. They will drive by within an inch of your vehicle without skipping a beat. In this case though, both of them were generous enough to spare a couple of inches, but the Santro guy got all worked up. He kept nervously peering over the bonnet and looking through the side windows to make sure he was okay. I, of course, clearly saw that he just had to maintain his line and he was fine. For a minute I was amused, but soon realized it happened to me as well. Several times, in fact. Sitting inside the car, I find it incredibly difficult to accurately estimate the space available around the vehicle be it when making a sharp turn or parking in a tight spot. And that is what happens to organizations as well. People within find it difficult to clearly see the external environment. And their calls might result in a traffic pile up, or worse, a crash. The former causes organizations to lose its direction and momentum while the later pretty much kills them.
Time for your friendly neighborhood consultant to step in. He is not a Santro expert – you are – but he knows enough about it to guide it out of traffic. Which is what consultants often do; they bring in simplicity and clarity. In other words, the value added by a consultant comes from his perspective and not so much his competence. If he is a good one from McK, he will know the shortest route to the expressway. In that sense, he is no different from a traffic policeman. Of course, the recommendations would fail if something else comes up on the suggested route - another traffic snarl, for example. Or you ignore his idea and stick to your route and by some freak chance the traffic clears up. And when that happens, organizations ensure consultants dont go unpunished.
I have taken artistic liberties to make the analogy work and sincerely apologize if it caused offense to traffic policemen.
Tailpiece: It is much more difficult to estimate navigate sharp turns if you are driving a big car like Accord or Corolla. That explains whylarge organizations react sluggishly to changes in environment.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Dogs and Culture
Came across this, well, interesting piece of news. Some guy in New Zealand barbecued his pet dog. Inevitably, the SPCA raised a hue and cry and came close to taking legal action, but realized there was no case because the dog was killed painlessly. Usually such events only get a couple of lines, but this was a full-blown story with interesting details.
The incident took place in Auckland but the man originally came from Tonga, where dog meat is perfectly acceptable. Why was he so desperate as to eat his pet dog? Apparently, the wife was bored with it. So what better way than to make a meal of it! I dont know if they have a 911 number for SPCA over there, but they seem to have reacted pretty quickly. "The dog had been skinned and partially charred" when SPCA arrived!! Man, in our country, even an ambulance wouldnt reach in that time. Unfortunately for SPCA, it is legal in NZ to kill animals so long as they are killed swiftly and painlessly. The guy hit the dog on its head with a hammer to render it unconscious and then slit its throat - apparently the standard procedure of killing animals for meat.
The SPCA is disturbed that it is legal in NZ for people to kill and eat their own pets, and are pushing for a change. But here's the part that intrigued me. SPCA advised the man that it was not part of the "culture" to kill and eat pets. My guess is this Tonga region must have be home to natives or aborigines who were here before us (going by the fact that dog meat is still acceptable there). And now we have the gall to tell them what is culturally appropriate!!
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/no-charges-man-barbecued-dog-2919419
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/spca-calls-law-change-after-dog-bbq-2919922
The incident took place in Auckland but the man originally came from Tonga, where dog meat is perfectly acceptable. Why was he so desperate as to eat his pet dog? Apparently, the wife was bored with it. So what better way than to make a meal of it! I dont know if they have a 911 number for SPCA over there, but they seem to have reacted pretty quickly. "The dog had been skinned and partially charred" when SPCA arrived!! Man, in our country, even an ambulance wouldnt reach in that time. Unfortunately for SPCA, it is legal in NZ to kill animals so long as they are killed swiftly and painlessly. The guy hit the dog on its head with a hammer to render it unconscious and then slit its throat - apparently the standard procedure of killing animals for meat.
The SPCA is disturbed that it is legal in NZ for people to kill and eat their own pets, and are pushing for a change. But here's the part that intrigued me. SPCA advised the man that it was not part of the "culture" to kill and eat pets. My guess is this Tonga region must have be home to natives or aborigines who were here before us (going by the fact that dog meat is still acceptable there). And now we have the gall to tell them what is culturally appropriate!!
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/no-charges-man-barbecued-dog-2919419
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/spca-calls-law-change-after-dog-bbq-2919922
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Independence Patriotism and Stardom
We are supposedly proud of our Independence yet the celebrations are ridiculously formal, typically limited to the hoisting of our tricolor and distribution of sweets from the neighborhood halwai. Today's HT editorial says we should express ourselves more freely. Totally agree with that coz in the US, most people look at 4th of July as an occasion to meet family or go to Vegas rather than stick US flags on their shirts. Of course, its been more than 200 years for them now but only 60 for us, so maybe at a subconscious level we are a little afraid to celebrate. If we relaxed too much and let our guard down, maybe...you get the point.
Next is the question of patriotism. In the movie, "The Rock", Sean Connery surrenders after Ed Harris threatens to kill a tourist held as hostage. In the ensuing conversation, Connery says he thinks Harris is a friggin idiot. Harris quotes Thomas Jefferson about nurturing the roots of liberty from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Connery retorts with Oscar Wilde's "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious". Harris strikes Connery behind the neck, who falls to his knees and follows up with "Thank you for making my point!" If it was a Bollywood movie, the hall would be drowned in whistles.
Is patriotism losing its relevance today? For that matter even independence. No country can claim to be totally independent of the rest of the world. Except Iran and North Korea maybe, but even they have some outside help. The great United States that proclaims itself to be land of the free and home of the brave is probably the least independent nation today. Why, even our economy is intimately linked to the fortunes of the US as the recent crisis has shown. So in days of globalization where interdependency and interconnectedness rule, independence is an illusion. Even governments get influenced when making policy choices.
Things are even murkier with patriotism, which was never clearly defined to begin with. Its not right to love and protect one's own faith, gender, community or even state against another, but it is miraculously right to defend one's nation against another. The definition and boundaries of patriotism have been conveniently morphed over time. Some freedom fighters and most kings are revered as valiant patriots although their actions amounted to nothing more than protecting their own little territory. If patriotism is the feeling that one's nation is the best among all, how different is it from terrorism? I am not denying the need to defend one's nation against terrorists and wars, but let us clearly identify it as a necessary evil than an inherent virtue.
Finally on SRK's detention at Newark. Applying my learnings from Taleb's FBR, someone being a celebrity doesnt rule out their possibility of being a terrorist. That he is popular doesnt mean he cannot be a criminal. Plus the fact that someone has not killed until today doesnt mean he wont ever. That's a black swan for you. Although in SRK's case, I have this funny feeling that the immigration officer's wife is a big fan of SRK and must have dragged him along to watch one of his inane movies. Wont blame him for the reaction! But our politicians are taking this incident more seriously than Kalam's frisking!!
Next is the question of patriotism. In the movie, "The Rock", Sean Connery surrenders after Ed Harris threatens to kill a tourist held as hostage. In the ensuing conversation, Connery says he thinks Harris is a friggin idiot. Harris quotes Thomas Jefferson about nurturing the roots of liberty from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Connery retorts with Oscar Wilde's "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious". Harris strikes Connery behind the neck, who falls to his knees and follows up with "Thank you for making my point!" If it was a Bollywood movie, the hall would be drowned in whistles.
Is patriotism losing its relevance today? For that matter even independence. No country can claim to be totally independent of the rest of the world. Except Iran and North Korea maybe, but even they have some outside help. The great United States that proclaims itself to be land of the free and home of the brave is probably the least independent nation today. Why, even our economy is intimately linked to the fortunes of the US as the recent crisis has shown. So in days of globalization where interdependency and interconnectedness rule, independence is an illusion. Even governments get influenced when making policy choices.
Things are even murkier with patriotism, which was never clearly defined to begin with. Its not right to love and protect one's own faith, gender, community or even state against another, but it is miraculously right to defend one's nation against another. The definition and boundaries of patriotism have been conveniently morphed over time. Some freedom fighters and most kings are revered as valiant patriots although their actions amounted to nothing more than protecting their own little territory. If patriotism is the feeling that one's nation is the best among all, how different is it from terrorism? I am not denying the need to defend one's nation against terrorists and wars, but let us clearly identify it as a necessary evil than an inherent virtue.
Finally on SRK's detention at Newark. Applying my learnings from Taleb's FBR, someone being a celebrity doesnt rule out their possibility of being a terrorist. That he is popular doesnt mean he cannot be a criminal. Plus the fact that someone has not killed until today doesnt mean he wont ever. That's a black swan for you. Although in SRK's case, I have this funny feeling that the immigration officer's wife is a big fan of SRK and must have dragged him along to watch one of his inane movies. Wont blame him for the reaction! But our politicians are taking this incident more seriously than Kalam's frisking!!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Outliers and Hofstede
MBA is a great leveler. The heady excitement of macroeconomics, finance and marketing is tempered by the fatal boredom of HR and OB. And one topic that inevitably gets raised in HR and OB is the Hofstede’s Index.
Geert Hofstede, a Dutchman, profiled the behavior of people in various countries and concluded that cultural differences can be explained on a four-point scale: Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity and Uncertainty Avoidance. B-schools and academia adore such neat models and, next to Porter’s Five Forces, Hofstede’s Index has to be the most frequently used tool to explain away the failures of MNCs. It makes you sound intelligent and gets you points for class participation. Beyond that, it seemed useless. Until I read Outliers.
Gladwell’s latest book attempts to search beyond the obvious traits of successful people – that is intelligence, hard work and perseverance. They are important, he agrees, but claims there is a little something, called luck, which actually catapults them into a different league. Like his previous books, Outliers makes for interesting reading, but what made me sit up and take notice was his analysis of plane crashes.
Here is a chilling recount of the 1990 Colombian Avianca plane crash in New York. The aircraft is desperately running out of fuel, but has not been given permission to land. The captain asks the first engineer to contact ATC and tell them it’s an emergency. The first officer contacts ATC, and among other things, mentions they are running out of fuel. Planes are expected to be low on fuel as they reach the destination so ATC doesn’t give this much weight. But rather inexplicably, the first engineer doesn’t push.
The situation makes no sense, until one looks at it through Hofstede’s index. Colombia is a country with relatively high power distance, where people are more respectful of authority. Hence, no questions were asked. If the first engineer was an American, Gladwell claims, the conversation would have taken a different course. Reading this sent a chill down my spine, but it seems airlines world over have recognized such manifestations of cultural differences in everyday interactions, and have taken measures to train their pilots and crew.
Jai Hofstede!
Geert Hofstede, a Dutchman, profiled the behavior of people in various countries and concluded that cultural differences can be explained on a four-point scale: Power Distance, Individualism vs. Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity and Uncertainty Avoidance. B-schools and academia adore such neat models and, next to Porter’s Five Forces, Hofstede’s Index has to be the most frequently used tool to explain away the failures of MNCs. It makes you sound intelligent and gets you points for class participation. Beyond that, it seemed useless. Until I read Outliers.
Gladwell’s latest book attempts to search beyond the obvious traits of successful people – that is intelligence, hard work and perseverance. They are important, he agrees, but claims there is a little something, called luck, which actually catapults them into a different league. Like his previous books, Outliers makes for interesting reading, but what made me sit up and take notice was his analysis of plane crashes.
Here is a chilling recount of the 1990 Colombian Avianca plane crash in New York. The aircraft is desperately running out of fuel, but has not been given permission to land. The captain asks the first engineer to contact ATC and tell them it’s an emergency. The first officer contacts ATC, and among other things, mentions they are running out of fuel. Planes are expected to be low on fuel as they reach the destination so ATC doesn’t give this much weight. But rather inexplicably, the first engineer doesn’t push.
The situation makes no sense, until one looks at it through Hofstede’s index. Colombia is a country with relatively high power distance, where people are more respectful of authority. Hence, no questions were asked. If the first engineer was an American, Gladwell claims, the conversation would have taken a different course. Reading this sent a chill down my spine, but it seems airlines world over have recognized such manifestations of cultural differences in everyday interactions, and have taken measures to train their pilots and crew.
Jai Hofstede!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Knowing your Audience
Read RGV's interview w/ TOI today. Apparently, he has given up trying to figure out what the audience wants. It seems the Indian audience is too diverse to create something that will satisfy everyone. He claims that people love or hate his films for different reasons. That there is no consistent feedback on why a certain film worked and why another didnt. So he has stopped worrying about what people want or think and decided to do his own thing - hoping that it might appeal to just enough people to recover his investment.
I agree with his observation but not necessarily the conclusion. RGV clearly understands that presentation and treatment are as important, if not more, than the story and actors. Fault him for his ridiculous choice of actors and stories, but you cant criticize the technical standards of his movies. His problem, now, is that he is focusing too much on the form while ignoring the substance. In fact, he seems bent on proving that the audience will lap up anything that has slick editing, sound effects, and unexpected camera angles. And there's the rub.
His criteria of analyzing audience is off. He is trying to find a common pool of people who'll appreciate his directorial touches like Bhiku Mhatre's death in Satya, Abhishek's character in Naach, Urmila's experience in Bhoot and what not. And then he feels there are too many variables. Naturally. He is losing the forest for the trees. He cant expect ordinary moviegoers to get each of these nuances. It worked fine in his younger days coz he was not as sophisticated . Think of it as a pyramid. The higher up you go, the fewer there are. The trick is to target the base with the vast majority of our moviegoers. They understand simpe human emotions like love, hatred, pride, envy, greed etc. And so long as a movie has these ingredients served in a coherent manner, it will find takers. Not to say the ones purely relying on treatment wont succeed - just that it is a much riskier bet.
A confession is in order. I am a die-hard RGV fan and firmly believe that even his worst film is much better than the best films of several "succesful" directors.
I agree with his observation but not necessarily the conclusion. RGV clearly understands that presentation and treatment are as important, if not more, than the story and actors. Fault him for his ridiculous choice of actors and stories, but you cant criticize the technical standards of his movies. His problem, now, is that he is focusing too much on the form while ignoring the substance. In fact, he seems bent on proving that the audience will lap up anything that has slick editing, sound effects, and unexpected camera angles. And there's the rub.
His criteria of analyzing audience is off. He is trying to find a common pool of people who'll appreciate his directorial touches like Bhiku Mhatre's death in Satya, Abhishek's character in Naach, Urmila's experience in Bhoot and what not. And then he feels there are too many variables. Naturally. He is losing the forest for the trees. He cant expect ordinary moviegoers to get each of these nuances. It worked fine in his younger days coz he was not as sophisticated . Think of it as a pyramid. The higher up you go, the fewer there are. The trick is to target the base with the vast majority of our moviegoers. They understand simpe human emotions like love, hatred, pride, envy, greed etc. And so long as a movie has these ingredients served in a coherent manner, it will find takers. Not to say the ones purely relying on treatment wont succeed - just that it is a much riskier bet.
A confession is in order. I am a die-hard RGV fan and firmly believe that even his worst film is much better than the best films of several "succesful" directors.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Consumer Insight
Carrying forward from the last post, there are two diametrically opposing views on this matter. One believes that consumers are really smart and will call your bluff the moment your product takes them for a ride. Examples include consumers dumping American made electronics and cars in favor of Japanese ones.
On the other hand, some believe that consumers are gullible and will willingly buy a golden noose only if you knew how to sell. Examples include Coke and credit cards. There was no "need" for cola. Someone made up with a drink and transformed it into a habit. If Fair and Lovely really worked, half of us in India would be swans now. Yet, the product continues to mint money for HUL, and has spawned a market for fairness creams.
How does one reconcile these two observations? The popular notion of succesful businesses is a neatly laid out set of numbers, projections and valuations, but any business is incomplete without the understanding of human psychology, which provides the most crucial insights. Mr Charles Revson, co-founder of Revlon famously said, “In our factory we make cosmetics. In the store we sell hope”. That's the key. What you are making and selling are often two different things.
Even in case of more mundane products like ball pens, consumers are buying expectations not products. And if the performance doesnt meet the expectations, well, you are screwed. And these expectations can stem from totally irrational notions. Chinese products are presumed cheap so its really tough for a Chinese manufacturer to sell premium products. In such situations, the solution is not in the 4Ps but rather in the other often neglected P - the Psychology of consumers.
On the other hand, some believe that consumers are gullible and will willingly buy a golden noose only if you knew how to sell. Examples include Coke and credit cards. There was no "need" for cola. Someone made up with a drink and transformed it into a habit. If Fair and Lovely really worked, half of us in India would be swans now. Yet, the product continues to mint money for HUL, and has spawned a market for fairness creams.
How does one reconcile these two observations? The popular notion of succesful businesses is a neatly laid out set of numbers, projections and valuations, but any business is incomplete without the understanding of human psychology, which provides the most crucial insights. Mr Charles Revson, co-founder of Revlon famously said, “In our factory we make cosmetics. In the store we sell hope”. That's the key. What you are making and selling are often two different things.
Even in case of more mundane products like ball pens, consumers are buying expectations not products. And if the performance doesnt meet the expectations, well, you are screwed. And these expectations can stem from totally irrational notions. Chinese products are presumed cheap so its really tough for a Chinese manufacturer to sell premium products. In such situations, the solution is not in the 4Ps but rather in the other often neglected P - the Psychology of consumers.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Credit card fraud
Enough has been said about the less-than-clean practices of financial institutions that perpetuated the housing crisis. Mortgage lenders have been accused of predatory lending practices and selling home loans to people that could afford them in the first place. Yet, the people running the mother of all scams continue to mint money.
The business plan of the credit card business would sound hysterical if it werent true. Create a card that lets people spend money they dont have, then charge banks for issuing these cards and merchants for accepting them!! Sounds villainous, but you have to give it to the ingenuity of Visa and Mastercard. They have managed to drive the world's largest economy into a trillion dollars of debt. In some ways, the credit card culture can be blamed for the reckless nature of US homeowners in taking on loans they knew nothing about.
If the idea was just convenience, couldnt they have just created a card that lets people spend their own money? I realize I am giving the impression that the top guys at Visa and MasterCard went on a strategic retreat for a week and racked their brains to come up with this fraud, which is probably not the case. Most likely, the card started out with the noble cause of offering convenience, but we took it to a totally different level. Of course, the debit card is ubiquitous today and is outpacing credit cards, but thats only 'coz we have realized our folly.
The business plan of the credit card business would sound hysterical if it werent true. Create a card that lets people spend money they dont have, then charge banks for issuing these cards and merchants for accepting them!! Sounds villainous, but you have to give it to the ingenuity of Visa and Mastercard. They have managed to drive the world's largest economy into a trillion dollars of debt. In some ways, the credit card culture can be blamed for the reckless nature of US homeowners in taking on loans they knew nothing about.
If the idea was just convenience, couldnt they have just created a card that lets people spend their own money? I realize I am giving the impression that the top guys at Visa and MasterCard went on a strategic retreat for a week and racked their brains to come up with this fraud, which is probably not the case. Most likely, the card started out with the noble cause of offering convenience, but we took it to a totally different level. Of course, the debit card is ubiquitous today and is outpacing credit cards, but thats only 'coz we have realized our folly.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Of superstitions and Traditions
FM radio is my only source of distraction during my commute to work and back. Something to keep me sane lest the traffic and the driving skills of fellow commuters drive me crazy. Yet, FM itself drives me crazy sometimes. We have 8 FM channels, so at any given point, the probability that one of them is playing a song I like is pretty good. Yet, it routinely happens that every channel is running an ad or their RJs are blabbering away to glory. And sometimes the trash spewed out by these RJs gets to my nerves.
Like today, for example, every RJ was extolling the virtues and traditions of Rakhi. Listeners can win gifts for calling in and sharing their memorable Rakhi experiences. Even celebrities were interviewed to throw light on this great tradition of bonding among siblings. Some RJs had tied Rakhis to government servants as a token of gratitude and love for keeping the city going. I don’t know the exact genesis of the ritual, or its symbolic meaning, but I am sure it is in the lines of the protective band on the brother’s wrist warding off evils, or even better, the sister taking on harm that was otherwise intended for the brother. This is undoubtedly a big event in many Indian families, and its fine to maintain that tradition.
But the same RJs were making mockery of the rituals we perform during an eclipse. That throwing away all food before the eclipse was blind faith. That asking pregnant women not to venture out was being superstitious. RJ after RJ was shunning these superstitions and proclaiming to be free of blind faith.
I wonder where tradition ends and superstition starts. Too much to expect the RJs to know this. If they had better IQs they wouldn’t be making a fool of themselves on radio.
Like today, for example, every RJ was extolling the virtues and traditions of Rakhi. Listeners can win gifts for calling in and sharing their memorable Rakhi experiences. Even celebrities were interviewed to throw light on this great tradition of bonding among siblings. Some RJs had tied Rakhis to government servants as a token of gratitude and love for keeping the city going. I don’t know the exact genesis of the ritual, or its symbolic meaning, but I am sure it is in the lines of the protective band on the brother’s wrist warding off evils, or even better, the sister taking on harm that was otherwise intended for the brother. This is undoubtedly a big event in many Indian families, and its fine to maintain that tradition.
But the same RJs were making mockery of the rituals we perform during an eclipse. That throwing away all food before the eclipse was blind faith. That asking pregnant women not to venture out was being superstitious. RJ after RJ was shunning these superstitions and proclaiming to be free of blind faith.
I wonder where tradition ends and superstition starts. Too much to expect the RJs to know this. If they had better IQs they wouldn’t be making a fool of themselves on radio.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Indian Airlines
Well, I will claim to have successfully predicted that the proposed airline strike will invoke a sharp reaction from the government. If I got it right, I am sure it was plain obvious to everyone. As it happened, the airlines themselves were not united, and the strike has been called off.
What I like about such failed attempts is that they succeed exceedingly well in making the point. With losses mounting and what not, the last thing airlines need is the hassle of refunding fares to passengers. They just wanted to prick Praful Patel's butt and make him lose sleep on a few nights. Mission superbly accomplished.
What now? Mr. Patel says no bailout for private airlines. And that's fair enough. I am no expert on this industry, but Spice recently posted a profit and thats good enough for me. It indicates, if managed well, there is scope for improvement. On the other hand though, globally the airline industry is a disaster. But still there is a Singapore here and a Southwest there that defies the trend year after year after year. Airline CEOs need to roll up their sleeves and get creative about fixing the issues. Laying off employees and asking for price cuts on jet fuel is lazy management - these are the two biggest expenses, and if u reduce expenses, u make profit right? Wrong! The industry needs some fresh bottom-up thinking. Although not as fresh as Capt Gopinath's I guess, who is blamed by some for the mess we are in:)
What I like about such failed attempts is that they succeed exceedingly well in making the point. With losses mounting and what not, the last thing airlines need is the hassle of refunding fares to passengers. They just wanted to prick Praful Patel's butt and make him lose sleep on a few nights. Mission superbly accomplished.
What now? Mr. Patel says no bailout for private airlines. And that's fair enough. I am no expert on this industry, but Spice recently posted a profit and thats good enough for me. It indicates, if managed well, there is scope for improvement. On the other hand though, globally the airline industry is a disaster. But still there is a Singapore here and a Southwest there that defies the trend year after year after year. Airline CEOs need to roll up their sleeves and get creative about fixing the issues. Laying off employees and asking for price cuts on jet fuel is lazy management - these are the two biggest expenses, and if u reduce expenses, u make profit right? Wrong! The industry needs some fresh bottom-up thinking. Although not as fresh as Capt Gopinath's I guess, who is blamed by some for the mess we are in:)
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Zee Saregama Lil Champs
Of late, I have gotten addicted to this show. The quality of kids is simply amazing. What blows me away is the apparent ease with which the kids perform. Although I am quite sure they must be putting in hours of hard work and preparation behind the scenes. It even makes me wonder if it is fair to make kids work in this manner.
But, there are some irritating aspects of the show, starting with the intros and profiles of children which are downright cheap and tasteless. Even the two kids emceeing the shows get to you after a while.
As far as the quality of the contestants go, this is beyond comparison.
But, there are some irritating aspects of the show, starting with the intros and profiles of children which are downright cheap and tasteless. Even the two kids emceeing the shows get to you after a while.
As far as the quality of the contestants go, this is beyond comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)