Friday, October 05, 2007
A ghazal made immortal by Mehdi Hassan
Ranjish hi sahi dil hi dukhaanay kay liyay
aa aa phir say mujhay chhorr kay jaanay kay liyay aa
pehlay say maraasim na sahi phir bhi kabhi to
rasm-o-rahay duniya hi nibhaanay kay liyay aa
kis kis ko bataayengay judaai kaa sabab ham
tu mujh se khafaa hai to zamaanay kay liyay aa
kuchh to meri pindaar-e-mohabbat ka bharam rakh
tu bhi to kabhi mujh ko manaanay kay liyay aa
ek umr say hun lazzat-e-giryaa se bhi mehruum
aye raahat-e-jaan mujh ko rulaanay kay liyay aa
ab tak dil-e-khush_feham ko tujh say hain ummeedainye
aakhari shammain bhi bujhaanay kay liyay aa
aa aa phir say mujhay chhorr kay jaanay kay liyay aa
pehlay say maraasim na sahi phir bhi kabhi to
rasm-o-rahay duniya hi nibhaanay kay liyay aa
kis kis ko bataayengay judaai kaa sabab ham
tu mujh se khafaa hai to zamaanay kay liyay aa
kuchh to meri pindaar-e-mohabbat ka bharam rakh
tu bhi to kabhi mujh ko manaanay kay liyay aa
ek umr say hun lazzat-e-giryaa se bhi mehruum
aye raahat-e-jaan mujh ko rulaanay kay liyay aa
ab tak dil-e-khush_feham ko tujh say hain ummeedainye
aakhari shammain bhi bujhaanay kay liyay aa
Friday, August 31, 2007
Stocks and Relationships
Every time I look at my stock equity portfolio, I cannot resist classifying them beyond the conventional ways (Sector, Blue Chip, Punter etc. etc).
What follows now is one of those random segmentation take-offs that revolves around comparison between relationships with women and relationship with stocks.
What follows now is one of those random segmentation take-offs that revolves around comparison between relationships with women and relationship with stocks.
One-night-stand stocks
These stocks are dangerous opportunistic purchases. However, the thrill of making money on these is the greatest. These stocks offer great prices for a very short period of time and quickly bounce back to the earlier levels. A successful deal always leaves you with a very fond memory (smiles).
These stocks are dangerous opportunistic purchases. However, the thrill of making money on these is the greatest. These stocks offer great prices for a very short period of time and quickly bounce back to the earlier levels. A successful deal always leaves you with a very fond memory (smiles).
Flirting stocks
These are also opportunistic purchases but with much paraphernalia. These are not convincing stories from a medium-to-long term future but in the short-term outlook is great. Great enough for you to take the plunge and buy some. Let me clarify that these are NOT weak counters.. just that future earnings is not clearly and convincingly visible.
These are also opportunistic purchases but with much paraphernalia. These are not convincing stories from a medium-to-long term future but in the short-term outlook is great. Great enough for you to take the plunge and buy some. Let me clarify that these are NOT weak counters.. just that future earnings is not clearly and convincingly visible.
Serious affair
Most of the commodity / cyclical stocks would fall in this range. In the boom cycle your relationship with these stocks would be most rewarding. It would, at multiple occasions, make you believe that they should become marriage-able stocks. Much to your dismay, when supply side forces a down-turn, you will be forced to exit.
Even after exiting you will always cherish the great rewards that you had reaped with these stocks.
Most of the commodity / cyclical stocks would fall in this range. In the boom cycle your relationship with these stocks would be most rewarding. It would, at multiple occasions, make you believe that they should become marriage-able stocks. Much to your dismay, when supply side forces a down-turn, you will be forced to exit.
Even after exiting you will always cherish the great rewards that you had reaped with these stocks.
Marriage-able stocks
These are stocks that will remain in your portfolio for life (most likely similar to your spouses). However, your confidence in them would follow a pattern which is as straight as a sine-curve. They will test your patience, your courage, pretty much everything at regular intervals. Forcing you to re-think not about the stock but entire equity market altogether. (smiles)
Some examples – Ranbaxy, ONGC
And finally…
These are stocks that will remain in your portfolio for life (most likely similar to your spouses). However, your confidence in them would follow a pattern which is as straight as a sine-curve. They will test your patience, your courage, pretty much everything at regular intervals. Forcing you to re-think not about the stock but entire equity market altogether. (smiles)
Some examples – Ranbaxy, ONGC
And finally…
Mother like stocks
All loving, never disappointing, stocks. They only move up or at best consolidate. You always doubt entering them thinking that they have already run-up. But anytime is good time to enter into stocks like these.
Some examples - Reliance Industries, BHEL, L&T.
All loving, never disappointing, stocks. They only move up or at best consolidate. You always doubt entering them thinking that they have already run-up. But anytime is good time to enter into stocks like these.
Some examples - Reliance Industries, BHEL, L&T.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
16 Core Observations of Social Design
- Humans are complex social animals.
- Technology doesn’t change us very fast.
- Humans constantly search out ways to communicate more efficiently.
- The primary use of the Internet is communication.
- People play different roles in different parts of their life.
- People tend to connect to those people they are similar to.
- Who we are similar to depends upon our situation and goals.
- Over-similarity can lead to group-think.
- Unpredictable behavior emerges within groups over time.
- People act differently in groups than they do individually.
- The people we know greatly influence how we act.
- People usually compare themselves to those in their social group, not society at large.
- Humans aren’t always rational, but are usually self-interested.
- When humans are uncertain, we rely on social connections to help us out.
- We have biases that we aren’t conscious of.
- Because life in not deterministic, we cannot always predict human behavior
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
How startups work or don't
Got this excellent piece of text from a friend who is currently working as a "commando" :-)
Great read! enjoy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses grow from start-up to conglomerate in three distinct phases, each of which is driven by a different type of person. The differences and conflicts between these waves of activity help explain why so many small companies self-destruct as they grow, and why so many large companies are so bad at doing anything new.
By Rob Landley (TMF Oak)
Chapter 12 of Robert X. Cringely's Accidental Empires gives an excellent analogy between the growth of a company and a military operation. He talks about three waves of expansion, each with its own characteristics and each one driven by people with very different sets of skills.
The first wave to hit the beach when entering new territory consists of commandos. These are people who, in Cringely's words, "Work hard, fast, and cheap.... Their job is to do lots of damage with surprise and teamwork, establishing a beachhead before the enemy is even aware that they exist." Simply put, they create something out of nothing, turning an idea into a product. A commando can literally do the work of a hundred normal employees when they've got the right problems to work on. A start-up without commandos has nothing to sell.
The second wave consists of infantry, exploiting the opportunity created by the commandos. These are the people who turn a promising start-up into a profitable business with systematic development, manufacturing, and sales efforts. They provide structure to the company that allows it to grow beyond an activity shared by a half-dozen friends into a real business. As Cringely says, "While the commandos make success possible, it's the infantry that makes success happen."
The third wave consists of police. Once the business has grown into its market niche, the third wave is an occupying force intent on holding territory. Author Eric Raymond describes middle managers as "conservators of the stability of the organization," which makes the presence of middle management a clear indicator that the third wave has arrived. A middle manager's job is to say no to ideas that don't originate from on high, somewhere near the CEO. This prevents the enormous size of the company from tearing it apart. A mature third-wave corporation is full of bureaucrats defending the empire, approximately as interested in reducing expenses as growing sales. Third-wave gains come from economies of scale, incremental growth, and by simply remaining profitable quarter after quarter.
Yahoo!'s (Nasdaq: YHOO) commandos were its founders, Jerry Yang and David Filo. Venture capital funded Yahoo!'s transition to a second-wave company with hundreds of employees, struggling toward profitability. It's still a second-wave company.
Earlier this year, VA Linux Systems (Nasdaq: LNUX) bought Andover.net, primarily because Andover owned some interesting websites, including one it had bought only months earlier: Slashdot.org. Slashdot was also founded by two college students, Rob Malda and Jeff Bates. When Andover acquired Slashdot, Rob and Jeff handed off the administrative portion of their duties in order to concentrate on their creative work. They were amused that the jobs they used to do as a part-time sideline were now handled by more than a dozen full-time staff members at Andover. This is the normal productivity difference between commandos and infantry. The difference is you can hire more infantry fairly easily, and order the ones you have to do specific tasks. Commandos just don't work that way.
Although infantry and commandos can work together, there is some natural tension between the two groups. The founders of many companies leave after the IPO, commandos looking for fresh challenges rather than settling down to nurture old ideas. On the other hand, infantry can take much of the non-creative load off of commandos, giving them a protected environment in which to work free from distractions.
The third wave is fairly exclusive. Agents of change and facilitators of change don't mix with opponents of change. The only place second-wave people can survive in a third-wave company is at the executive level. The only way dynamic individuals can survive middle management is by outranking it. The problem here is that the company cannot promote from within easily. Middle management stifles visionaries, who leave the company or give up their creative ambitions. The company must hire executive talent from outside the company, or wind up as a paralyzed, reactionary zombie. This fate nearly befell AT&T (NYSE: T), IBM (NYSE: IBM), and many other large companies that gave middle managers executive power to suppress ALL change within the company.
Commandos categorically cannot STAND middle management. A third-wave company cannot keep commandos around. Period. Commandos create change, middle managers prevent change. When "the suits" take over, the commandos are outta there. The bureaucrats often don't value commandos during the brief times they have access to them (often in the brief period of time between buying a promising start-up and killing it). The commando's idiosyncratic nature, even outright unreliability, may be a minor price to pay to receive the benefits of their brilliance, but the unpredictability is all the bureaucrats can see, and it gives them hives.
Usually, commandos leave long before the third wave. When the second wave becomes too prominent, and building upon existing successes becomes more important to the company than creative new directions, the commandos simply get bored, take their stock options, and leave. This isn't a "lack of discipline" (a strange accusation to level at people who work 90 hours a week), this is just the way creative people ARE. Steve Wozniak of Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL), and Steve Jobs when he couldn't be CEO of a second-wave company. Mitch Kapor at Lotus. Netscape's Jamie Zawinski. The list is endless.
An interesting business model Robert Cringely recently covered in his PBS column is a private company founded by a couple of commandos with the intent of spinning off a continuous stream of new second-wave companies, each with its own IPO. The commandos come up with the new products, assemble a team of infantry around each one, and then release it into the wild. Meanwhile, the commandos are busy creating the next new product. You can read about it here.
Healthy companies need to mix the various waves. As they grow, they need to survive the transition from first wave to second wave, and later from second wave to third wave. At all costs, they need to isolate any commandos they need to have on staff from middle management. The case of the launch of IBM's PC is an instructive example of how a third-wave company can do this. (This is covered both in Accidental Empires and The Innovator's Dilemma -- both perspectives are valuable.)
As investors, we tend to focus on second- and third-wave companies. First-wave companies aren't publicly traded, and most start-ups fail because their commandos can't handle the details of running and growing a business yet don't hand it off to competent infantry. Second-wave companies are Rule Breakers, most lucrative early in the second wave with plenty of room left to grow along their current lines. Third-wave companies with second-wave upper management are Rule Makers, stable and profitable with the potential for steady growth. Third-wave companies with third-wave executives are probably not a good investment.
-- Oak
Great read! enjoy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses grow from start-up to conglomerate in three distinct phases, each of which is driven by a different type of person. The differences and conflicts between these waves of activity help explain why so many small companies self-destruct as they grow, and why so many large companies are so bad at doing anything new.
By Rob Landley (TMF Oak)
Chapter 12 of Robert X. Cringely's Accidental Empires gives an excellent analogy between the growth of a company and a military operation. He talks about three waves of expansion, each with its own characteristics and each one driven by people with very different sets of skills.
The first wave to hit the beach when entering new territory consists of commandos. These are people who, in Cringely's words, "Work hard, fast, and cheap.... Their job is to do lots of damage with surprise and teamwork, establishing a beachhead before the enemy is even aware that they exist." Simply put, they create something out of nothing, turning an idea into a product. A commando can literally do the work of a hundred normal employees when they've got the right problems to work on. A start-up without commandos has nothing to sell.
The second wave consists of infantry, exploiting the opportunity created by the commandos. These are the people who turn a promising start-up into a profitable business with systematic development, manufacturing, and sales efforts. They provide structure to the company that allows it to grow beyond an activity shared by a half-dozen friends into a real business. As Cringely says, "While the commandos make success possible, it's the infantry that makes success happen."
The third wave consists of police. Once the business has grown into its market niche, the third wave is an occupying force intent on holding territory. Author Eric Raymond describes middle managers as "conservators of the stability of the organization," which makes the presence of middle management a clear indicator that the third wave has arrived. A middle manager's job is to say no to ideas that don't originate from on high, somewhere near the CEO. This prevents the enormous size of the company from tearing it apart. A mature third-wave corporation is full of bureaucrats defending the empire, approximately as interested in reducing expenses as growing sales. Third-wave gains come from economies of scale, incremental growth, and by simply remaining profitable quarter after quarter.
Yahoo!'s (Nasdaq: YHOO) commandos were its founders, Jerry Yang and David Filo. Venture capital funded Yahoo!'s transition to a second-wave company with hundreds of employees, struggling toward profitability. It's still a second-wave company.
Earlier this year, VA Linux Systems (Nasdaq: LNUX) bought Andover.net, primarily because Andover owned some interesting websites, including one it had bought only months earlier: Slashdot.org. Slashdot was also founded by two college students, Rob Malda and Jeff Bates. When Andover acquired Slashdot, Rob and Jeff handed off the administrative portion of their duties in order to concentrate on their creative work. They were amused that the jobs they used to do as a part-time sideline were now handled by more than a dozen full-time staff members at Andover. This is the normal productivity difference between commandos and infantry. The difference is you can hire more infantry fairly easily, and order the ones you have to do specific tasks. Commandos just don't work that way.
Although infantry and commandos can work together, there is some natural tension between the two groups. The founders of many companies leave after the IPO, commandos looking for fresh challenges rather than settling down to nurture old ideas. On the other hand, infantry can take much of the non-creative load off of commandos, giving them a protected environment in which to work free from distractions.
The third wave is fairly exclusive. Agents of change and facilitators of change don't mix with opponents of change. The only place second-wave people can survive in a third-wave company is at the executive level. The only way dynamic individuals can survive middle management is by outranking it. The problem here is that the company cannot promote from within easily. Middle management stifles visionaries, who leave the company or give up their creative ambitions. The company must hire executive talent from outside the company, or wind up as a paralyzed, reactionary zombie. This fate nearly befell AT&T (NYSE: T), IBM (NYSE: IBM), and many other large companies that gave middle managers executive power to suppress ALL change within the company.
Commandos categorically cannot STAND middle management. A third-wave company cannot keep commandos around. Period. Commandos create change, middle managers prevent change. When "the suits" take over, the commandos are outta there. The bureaucrats often don't value commandos during the brief times they have access to them (often in the brief period of time between buying a promising start-up and killing it). The commando's idiosyncratic nature, even outright unreliability, may be a minor price to pay to receive the benefits of their brilliance, but the unpredictability is all the bureaucrats can see, and it gives them hives.
Usually, commandos leave long before the third wave. When the second wave becomes too prominent, and building upon existing successes becomes more important to the company than creative new directions, the commandos simply get bored, take their stock options, and leave. This isn't a "lack of discipline" (a strange accusation to level at people who work 90 hours a week), this is just the way creative people ARE. Steve Wozniak of Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL), and Steve Jobs when he couldn't be CEO of a second-wave company. Mitch Kapor at Lotus. Netscape's Jamie Zawinski. The list is endless.
An interesting business model Robert Cringely recently covered in his PBS column is a private company founded by a couple of commandos with the intent of spinning off a continuous stream of new second-wave companies, each with its own IPO. The commandos come up with the new products, assemble a team of infantry around each one, and then release it into the wild. Meanwhile, the commandos are busy creating the next new product. You can read about it here.
Healthy companies need to mix the various waves. As they grow, they need to survive the transition from first wave to second wave, and later from second wave to third wave. At all costs, they need to isolate any commandos they need to have on staff from middle management. The case of the launch of IBM's PC is an instructive example of how a third-wave company can do this. (This is covered both in Accidental Empires and The Innovator's Dilemma -- both perspectives are valuable.)
As investors, we tend to focus on second- and third-wave companies. First-wave companies aren't publicly traded, and most start-ups fail because their commandos can't handle the details of running and growing a business yet don't hand it off to competent infantry. Second-wave companies are Rule Breakers, most lucrative early in the second wave with plenty of room left to grow along their current lines. Third-wave companies with second-wave upper management are Rule Makers, stable and profitable with the potential for steady growth. Third-wave companies with third-wave executives are probably not a good investment.
-- Oak
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Interesting view - at least directionally !
Very interesting piece. Gives an interesting twist to the tale. Though I believe the professor from Britain is more right than others. The consumption capacity of China and India as potential markets is too overpowering an arguement. Increases in cost of production etc , in medium to long term, will get offset by evolving "ready-to-consume" largest middle class is the world.
Please do read the complete story from the link below.
http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8515811&fsrc=nwlbtwfree
Sunday, January 07, 2007
5A or 25B or 14 C - What do you like ?
I have added more than a few thousand passenger air miles for the fledgling airline industry in the last few weeks. Let me admit at the very outset that at a broad level, I hate air travel. Hate it even more if the flight time is in the early morning daypart. Most activities (almost all) in life can be enjoyed to the fullest with complete bowel & intestinal support .Traveling in air in the early morning hours doesn’t help on that front for sure. No - gastronomical complications and its effect on air travel is not the central theme of this post.
Last few weeks in the air and at the airport have allowed me to discover certain broad directions to choose seats in an aircraft. (I assume none of the readers of this post fly business class!!)
- First row seats
Very difficult to get, but by far, the best place in the aircraft. Leg space no problem at all. Snacks/meals served much earlier. Proximity to the toilets. And the biggest pleasure is to have an option to lean back with no chance of someone doing the same to you.
However, it suffers from a few drawbacks also. Firstly, if it’s an airline with business class, it can lead to severe depression attacks. The curtain between economy and business is never enough to conceal the extra-courteous treatment by extra-appealing air hostesses with extra-charming affectionate gestures. It would force you into serious career planning so that you can be on one of ‘those 16 seats’ sometime in the near future. Secondly, in case the airline does not have a business class, there are still potential problems. You could hear the warm and loving Spice-jet hostess bitching about ‘certain’ lecherous or irritating passengers. She might be right in her response but one is not conditioned/ expecting to see an air-hostess fume & seethe (wah wah – nice word!!). This “new and real” facet of air hospitality could lead to irreversible changes in your future outlook of the airline. Needless to say, these seats will ensure that you will have the opportunity to spend THE highest amount of time ogling at the air-hostess (especially if she is angel-like) with occasional encouraging gestures, like a smile in return.
- Middle seats (between Window and Aisle) are obviously completely avoidable. Only in case of one event would such a seat be recommended. However that event has zero probability of occurrence.
Last few weeks in the air and at the airport have allowed me to discover certain broad directions to choose seats in an aircraft. (I assume none of the readers of this post fly business class!!)
- First row seats
Very difficult to get, but by far, the best place in the aircraft. Leg space no problem at all. Snacks/meals served much earlier. Proximity to the toilets. And the biggest pleasure is to have an option to lean back with no chance of someone doing the same to you.
However, it suffers from a few drawbacks also. Firstly, if it’s an airline with business class, it can lead to severe depression attacks. The curtain between economy and business is never enough to conceal the extra-courteous treatment by extra-appealing air hostesses with extra-charming affectionate gestures. It would force you into serious career planning so that you can be on one of ‘those 16 seats’ sometime in the near future. Secondly, in case the airline does not have a business class, there are still potential problems. You could hear the warm and loving Spice-jet hostess bitching about ‘certain’ lecherous or irritating passengers. She might be right in her response but one is not conditioned/ expecting to see an air-hostess fume & seethe (wah wah – nice word!!). This “new and real” facet of air hospitality could lead to irreversible changes in your future outlook of the airline. Needless to say, these seats will ensure that you will have the opportunity to spend THE highest amount of time ogling at the air-hostess (especially if she is angel-like) with occasional encouraging gestures, like a smile in return.
- Middle seats (between Window and Aisle) are obviously completely avoidable. Only in case of one event would such a seat be recommended. However that event has zero probability of occurrence.
- Emergency exit seats
Leg space? no problem at all. Other incentives include a 5 minute demonstration by the cabin-crew on emergency landing instructions. The air-hostess would do it standing close enough for others in the vicinity to boil with rage (especially the first time fliers who will attribute this behavior to sheer partiality). In case an ‘angel-like’ kingfisher airhostess is doing it, you would be thinking of everything in the world but emergency landing. She would leave you over-awed with her professionalism and beauty.
Another severe drawback, you will hardly see anything but the wing of the aircraft which is supremely boring.
In the airlines that serve snacks/meal, you will have the highest probability to be served at the last. By that time her overflowing smile would disappear and she might not even ask “veg. or non veg. sir?”. In case you are amongst the unlucky last few, be ready for coffee or tea within 5 minutes of getting the food. This will leave you with no other option but to smile and say no.
Some calls that you got to take
- Aisle seat or not
Relatively better from a leg space perspective and have relatively higher probability of getting smiling gestures from the cabin-crew. Your path to the toilet would not generate irritated gestures.
In my view, the most dangerous seat in the aircraft. Especially, if you are the type who knows that there is no prize for galloping to the exit once the aircraft lands. This seat will ensure that the fellows on your left / right force you into the queue (unwillingly) while the aircraft is still taxi-ing and the cabin crew in-charge is requesting everybody to remain seated. In case you don’t budge, you will not be congratulated for your patience but be looked down upon for this rude gesture.
- Seats in the rear part vs. front part
My theory - airlines while issuing boarding cards, put a ‘particular’ set of people in the rear part. You might not want to be with them. Therefore, even if the bait is a window seat, don’t fall for it. Also, you will regularly sight individuals walking towards the toilet. No offense intended but those “sightings” are completely avoidable. Always choose something in the front part of aircraft.
Finally, what ever seat choice you may exercise, getting a nice co-passenger (read 23-24 year old, good looking babe working/studying in Mumbai) is a random event with very heavy expectations and zero probability of occurrence. I don’t think people at check-in counters are sadists and therefore it’s the larger-than-life force that decides it. The all mighty has the most important role to influence outcome. Some smarter lads (unlike me) would bias the outcome to their favor by engaging in smart activities at the airport itself.
Moral of the story - If you dont get the first row seat, just pick up any window seat available in the front of the aircraft and hope for a co-passenger who is less than 70kg of weight and 170 cm of length.
Moral of the story - If you dont get the first row seat, just pick up any window seat available in the front of the aircraft and hope for a co-passenger who is less than 70kg of weight and 170 cm of length.
For those who want to make the seat selection process more scientific and inductive. Please visit this website. You will be amazed at the kind of multi-layered-latent need gaps that get addressed to in US. http://www.lovemyseat.com/
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Distraction Economy or Distracted People??
Scene -1
Trinamool Congress, yesterday, had a newly-found speaker on NDTV 24/7 - the urbane, eloquent, well-informed (learned? am not too sure) Mr. Derek-o-Brian. The others in the debate were Mr. Ali from CPI (M) and Mr. Gurcharan Das who were providing substantive arguments backed with information but in a “non TV-viewer-friendly” format (slow, monotonous, heavy worded, non-inciting, had no hard-hitting “10 sec parting statements”). Basically they were making TV viewing boring. On the other hand Derek in his new avatar was way too TV friendly. He was well-prepared, showing off documents in his hand, standing amongst people in the middle of the street in Calcutta, making crisp and pointed remarks.
There is a new crop of camera savvy, slick-talking, flamboyant speakers on the TV screen. My favorite is Mr. Suhel Seth. With an all-influencing TV and especially the news channels, political parties will soon need to recruit these savvy faces to represent them on the silver tube in order to keep-up their political fortunes.
Trinamool Congress, yesterday, had a newly-found speaker on NDTV 24/7 - the urbane, eloquent, well-informed (learned? am not too sure) Mr. Derek-o-Brian. The others in the debate were Mr. Ali from CPI (M) and Mr. Gurcharan Das who were providing substantive arguments backed with information but in a “non TV-viewer-friendly” format (slow, monotonous, heavy worded, non-inciting, had no hard-hitting “10 sec parting statements”). Basically they were making TV viewing boring. On the other hand Derek in his new avatar was way too TV friendly. He was well-prepared, showing off documents in his hand, standing amongst people in the middle of the street in Calcutta, making crisp and pointed remarks.
There is a new crop of camera savvy, slick-talking, flamboyant speakers on the TV screen. My favorite is Mr. Suhel Seth. With an all-influencing TV and especially the news channels, political parties will soon need to recruit these savvy faces to represent them on the silver tube in order to keep-up their political fortunes.
Actually he, (Suhel Seth) is not just a person anymore. He is an archetype of a new phenomenon that is fast hitting the TV screen in particular and the society in general. The focus is dangerously shifting towards the “How is it being said” aspect. “Who is saying it” and/or “What is being said” are increasing losing their significance.We all are avid consumers of the silver tube (not as much as an average US citizen, but nevertheless). The ferocity of channel swapping is increasing unabated. Therefore, getting eyeballs is a problem of the past, the bigger problem today seems to be to make them STICK.
Right from storylines, to the appearance of characters, to the choice of News Headlines; every aspect of the content is attention-grabbing / “in your face” in nature.
Welcome to Distraction Economy. Loss of attention span is ailing society today. The time invested in evaluation of a message is dropping at an alarming rate. Though, nobody would accept that, as it would question the belief that our evaluation has improved with more information.
Look at how The Times has transformed its presentation style in the last few years. The new mantra is – “How can you make the reader get the most news in the least number of minutes and words?” And there comes the “16 point bold sub headlines filled with striking pictures”. Even the editorial section has been infected by it. Mr. Swaminathan Aiyar or Mr. Gurcharan Das can be great thinkers but if they can’t deliver in 15 seconds, they are NO GOOD… (So, let’s create a small box that highlights the most enticing part of the article).
Sooner than later the efficacy level of the Times would match the emergency exit instruction card in Airlines.
Scene - 2
Couple of days back, I was browsing in my favorite section at Big Bazaar, The Food bazaar. In the vegetables section, I saw some “ready-to-cook”, cut and neatly packed vegetables. Honestly, I really liked the idea and obviously I picked up a few of those packets. However, it got me thinking on how a larger attitudinal shift is taking effect, much beyond the convenience argument as it may seem.
More Scenes
- During my last visit at Crossword, I realized that Books are becoming magazines. Their covers are stark, attention-grabbing attempts at reducing the time-spent in finding the book you think you want to read. And to top that, Mr. Shriram doesn’t think twice before putting a “Nobel-price-winner-look-alike yellow ribbon” on the books (Sriram recommends?? Excuse me??). I am certain that evolved readers, (unlike me) squirm seeing that.
- “Lose weight sitting at home” said one Television Ad.
- “Power yoga” at Mickey Mehta’s gym
The broad attitudinal shift that I am hinting towards is an old, much debated topic.
“Means versus End. Outcome versus Process. Enjoying the process is more important.”
THE Outcome is becoming overwhelmingly powerful in comparison to the process.
Faster Favorable Outcome is the panacea for all. Everybody wants that and wants that at any cost.
I am curious.
Everywhere around me I see products, services, brands trying to reduce the time-spent in the process and promise a fast-forward route to the outcome.
However, if everything around is promising (and, I think, they actually are delivering) super-time-saving options, where is all this “saved-time” going?
Enjoying is surely an individual and definitional issue. Of course it can vary from person to person. (Spending time with your girlfriend, or with your family or at a play-station or a basketball court or at the shopping mall) However, the important question is - Are we getting more time to do the things that we enjoy? I think, NO.
Without being judgmental on the ways of enjoyment, I am just asking why is the time-spent on things we enjoy REDUCING. Especially if everything else, is “saving-time” for us?
I think volume is running ahead of value. The list of things we think we would enjoy has grown more because of the feasibility and the accessibility rather than by the enjoyment derived.
Without being judgmental on the ways of enjoyment, I am just asking why is the time-spent on things we enjoy REDUCING. Especially if everything else, is “saving-time” for us?
I think volume is running ahead of value. The list of things we think we would enjoy has grown more because of the feasibility and the accessibility rather than by the enjoyment derived.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Mohd Afzal or LN Mittal – Take your pick?
The profile of role models speaks volumes about a society in many different ways! A cross-sectional view of role models across societies can serve as a very strong and accurate indicator of aspirations, values, outlook for respective societies.
An even more interesting exercise would be to analyze role models for a particular society on a longitudinal basis. The results, I am sure, would be extremely insightful and can also help in predicting the future of the society as a whole. (Obviously this can have significant commercial / business merits also.)
Neither my age, nor my academic background, merits me to get into a long-term longitudinal analysis of Role models for the Indian Society. But I will attempt to offer for a shorter term cross-sectional view across India. With the awesome-threesome (Chidambaram, Manmohan and Montek) at the helm of things, we are confident about India’s rise as an economic superpower. With such a context in place, we suddenly see a new profile of role models (LN Mittal, Sunil Mittal, The Ambani Brothers and more.). Obviously the story of role models is not always pleasant. Eastern UP and North Bihar has had a new crop of youth who are taking up crime. A big reason (apart from the state of affairs of UP and Bihar) is the success of Indian-version of Don-Vito-Corleone’s sitting and operating from South and Middle-east Asia. Or Mohd. Afzal for that matter might be a terrorist to some but a role model to freedom fighters in Kashmir.
The more one thinks about it, the more complicated it gets (actually quite an irony, but I guess it’s true more often than notJ).
– The first complication would result from the asking a basic question. Are these role models really the real role models or are they created through media? At some level, access to information (more importantly correct information!) would be a significant affecting variable. This is where media becomes dangerously powerful.
– Another complication would be the fact that sometimes the choice of role model has to be filtered through the sieve of social acceptance. This would therefore lead to two definitions of role models (the real one and the claimed one). The claimed one is obviously flawed. In the field of market research this is one of the more abundant errors (for instance, Why Delhi-ites would have supremely high MHI compared to other metros or Why 25-34 year old males watch Discovery and News Channels in the late night).
– Thirdly, one can confuse the popularity of individuals with them being role-models at large. This is tricky because the choice of a role-model is a very individualistic and intrinsic view. This makes it difficult to identify them at a society’s level and calls for smarter techniques to figure them out.
– However, the most important complication that I wish to raise here is Why are balanced ordinary individuals not worthy of being considered as role models? Why does a role-model need to have eccentric tendencies along with a self-obsessed and selfish pursuit of following one’s dream at “any” cost? Why is playing multiple roles responsibly and reasonably successfully, NOT considered great? Why a person who plays a good father, a good son, a good husband, a good professional, a good player is NOT be technically considered a role-model for society.?
An even more interesting exercise would be to analyze role models for a particular society on a longitudinal basis. The results, I am sure, would be extremely insightful and can also help in predicting the future of the society as a whole. (Obviously this can have significant commercial / business merits also.)
Neither my age, nor my academic background, merits me to get into a long-term longitudinal analysis of Role models for the Indian Society. But I will attempt to offer for a shorter term cross-sectional view across India. With the awesome-threesome (Chidambaram, Manmohan and Montek) at the helm of things, we are confident about India’s rise as an economic superpower. With such a context in place, we suddenly see a new profile of role models (LN Mittal, Sunil Mittal, The Ambani Brothers and more.). Obviously the story of role models is not always pleasant. Eastern UP and North Bihar has had a new crop of youth who are taking up crime. A big reason (apart from the state of affairs of UP and Bihar) is the success of Indian-version of Don-Vito-Corleone’s sitting and operating from South and Middle-east Asia. Or Mohd. Afzal for that matter might be a terrorist to some but a role model to freedom fighters in Kashmir.
The more one thinks about it, the more complicated it gets (actually quite an irony, but I guess it’s true more often than notJ).
– The first complication would result from the asking a basic question. Are these role models really the real role models or are they created through media? At some level, access to information (more importantly correct information!) would be a significant affecting variable. This is where media becomes dangerously powerful.
– Another complication would be the fact that sometimes the choice of role model has to be filtered through the sieve of social acceptance. This would therefore lead to two definitions of role models (the real one and the claimed one). The claimed one is obviously flawed. In the field of market research this is one of the more abundant errors (for instance, Why Delhi-ites would have supremely high MHI compared to other metros or Why 25-34 year old males watch Discovery and News Channels in the late night).
– Thirdly, one can confuse the popularity of individuals with them being role-models at large. This is tricky because the choice of a role-model is a very individualistic and intrinsic view. This makes it difficult to identify them at a society’s level and calls for smarter techniques to figure them out.
– However, the most important complication that I wish to raise here is Why are balanced ordinary individuals not worthy of being considered as role models? Why does a role-model need to have eccentric tendencies along with a self-obsessed and selfish pursuit of following one’s dream at “any” cost? Why is playing multiple roles responsibly and reasonably successfully, NOT considered great? Why a person who plays a good father, a good son, a good husband, a good professional, a good player is NOT be technically considered a role-model for society.?
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Does it really matter?
For my Urdu Ustaad it really does. For the uninitiated lot, let me introduce my Ustaad. Mr. Ibrahim Durvesh, the octogenarian phonetician in Urdu who lives almost nameless, in a small 150 sq. ft. kholi close to JJ hospital. He has actually worked with the likes of Mehdi Hassan.My fascination for Urdu (almost entirely due to Ghazals) sparked me to check out this option. In the true Modern day MBA style, he said that he has a unique “7 session course” to learn Urdu (includes writing, speaking and appreciating).
“Somebody is actually claiming to teach Urdu in 7 sessions??” I just jumped at the prospect. Actually, the ROI calculation was too compelling for me to say “no”.
Before I move to the central theme of the article let me credit him for the honesty. At the end of 7 sessions I could even dare to pick up an Urdu newspaper and read the headlines at least. It’s a different issue that I have completely lost touch due to the lack of practice. :-)
Urdu is a fascinating language. The emphasis given to phonetics is simply amazing. For instance “Z” can be pronounced in 4 different ways (Guttural, Palatal, Aerial, Labial and some intermediaries) or how “Gh” of Ghalib is a guttural sound while “Gh” of Ghadi is an Aerial sound or “ph” of “phool” is a dento-labial sound etc etc.
He pointed out at multiple occasions, that film stars don’t even accurately pronounce the Urdu words in their dialogues. He would squirm listening to them and would complain to me “pronunciation is life to Urdu, how can they ruin a beautiful language like that?”
Umrao Jaan’s remake is a testament to mediocrity that is rampant amongst the cinestars.
Over the last 3 years, on being initiated to Hollywood movies by my mates (dear and near & flat and batch), I have realized to my amazement, the seriousness with which great actors do their homework for films. How Robert di nero would actually drive a cab in New-York for a few days before starting Taxi Driver! How he would actually work on his physique to suit the character’s life in Raging bull”!
Look at what our Blue boys are doing in South Africa vs. the Kangaroo Kids in Adelaide. Actually, we fail to admit that even at their peak they were not close to being world’s best.
I can give multi-million more examples (Indian Economy vs. China, Polity of this country), but think will rest my case here.
I think we have become a society, infected with mediocrity which invariably leads to incorrect judgments on what we call success.
So, does it really matter? Well if this doesn’t, then what does?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
