Desicritics Category: Media: Advertising

The Day The Sur Died

a traveller — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:18:18 EST

If you haven't seen the "new" version of Mile Sur Mera Tumhara, you clearly haven't been on Twitter or Facebook all day. Both sites have been full of updates lambasting Zoom's attempt to modernise the classic we grew up watching on DD 1 on a regular basis.

I sat through it, all 16-and-a-half freaking minutes of it (which is nearly thrice as long as the original), and have the following thoughts on it:

1. In the original one, you felt you were watching Indians sing about their country. In this one, you never, for one second, are allowed to forget that these are the stars of Bollywood you're watching. I mean, did anyone look at Priyanka Chopra in that suit with the kids and think, "awww, look how sweet and loving she is"?!? And what the heck were Shahid and Deepika doing?!?

2. Some of the acts were truly cringe-worthy. I love Aamir Khan, but his whole act with the kids was totally uncool. And SRK at the end, with his trademark spreading arms out. Really? What was this, a promo for your next movie?

3. The original had mixed India's two passions, movies and cricket. This one, being made by Zoom, naturally focussed on move stars and movie stars alone (with a few musicians thrown in for fun). For some reason, however, they decided to then also throw in a few sportspersons at the end, all people who've made it to the papers in recent times. Firstly, the way it was shown seemed utterly patronizing and there-for-the-heck-of-it. Secondly, and interestingly, not one from cricket. What happened, was Lalit Modi not entertaining their calls?

4. The singing, oh, the singing. The original had Lata Mangeshkar's gorgeous voice for all the actresses. I know she's not singing anymore, but really, could they have at least tried to match the singer to the face? And didn't someone tell Shiamak Davar years ago that he should never, ever sing in public again?

5. The original had managed to show glimpses of India, the country. This simply couldn't. This was nothing but a bunch of actors being taken to a bunch of scenic spots, and asked to smile at the camera.

See the new version, and tell me you didn't feel like a little piece of your childhood died.

Here is the old version for comparison.

Haagen-Dazs - Ice Cream or Creaming The Indian Hide?

J Srinivasan — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:31:44 EST

I was rather dismissive when there were a flood of tweets with weird looking Bit.Ly links and hash tags with #HaagenDazs in them, saying this must be one more of those crazy things that fly around. Then I received a DM from a friend who suggested I read this “trending” outrageous thing on Haagen Dazs. I did and was initially outraged by the thought that some foreign ice cream brand wanted Indian Rupees but had the audacity to let only “International” passport holders in!

It bothered me all day today and I let fly some tweets this evening (check out the @jsvasan timeline). My tweets caught my friend’s attention and again it was suggested that I read a blog by what appears to be a foreigner who spends time in India. The blog is eloquent in its presentation of his point of view. But both he and my friend’s blog miss the point that bothers me. But before I run away with it, I’d like to respond to this blog. It is typical for a foreigner to explain away things without assuming any responsibility for misleading his readers or listeners as the case may be.

In my 35 years in industry, including working in a German company as also consulting with MNCs, I have never, ever, ever, seen an International Brand being launched in a new “territory”, let alone in a new country, without every single minute detailed being “directed” and cross checked by the big bosses. Thus I reject the implication that this was a “local” slip up. Too convenient. No, this was and remains an intended and well planned pitch, that has gone wrong. And may well have been in planning for months before the opening. Like the training pre-opening party the blog cites. And to think that their main bill board would be left to ‘local’ restaurant management? An International brand’s first store launch? Rubbish! It was intended and carefully crafted – very possibly by an astute advertising agency who knew the Indian psyche and who specializes in MNC accounts! Why do I say that? Here is why…

It is no secret that we Indian’s still have a hangover from colonial times. Anything foreign and white skin is “in”. Checkout ads and TV programmes, if you need any proof. But back to the HD story. Thus to justify HD’s high prices, they had to pitch to the “upper” or elite. And Noida is full of them. Only those who wouldn’t mind coughing up tons of money for frozen water laced with some flavour and milk, but more importantly to be seen at the place, would be able to even afford such a luxury. Add the population of home sick expats and you have a large enough market and nice $$$ in the business plan.

No, I reject the defense that this blogpost puts forth. I don’t blame him though, since blogging for a living isn’t easy. I assume this because any detail about the author is conspicuous by its absence on his home blog, save except that he blogs because the NYT refused his publish even his letters to the editor “with such alacrity and regularity.”

But the main reason for this post isn’t to let the Blogger know that not every Indians is fooled.

The main reason I post this is the fact that the BillBoard aimed at some things that’s true, even though not palatable. I’m not so bothered that some “locals” must surely have been allowed inside the restaurant. Or that some shameless Indian designed the BillBoard as directed by his brief. Or whether some gora sahib approved it. The ‘inadvertent’ slip doesn’t hurt because it was tactless. It hurts because it hits the bulls eye of truth. We Indians are masters at denial and hypocrisy. The bogey of racism is a convenient camouflage for a real inferiority complex. And I say this as an Indian myself, not as an accusation but as an inquiry that may help us in leaving the colonial past behind for the economic power this country is supposed to be heading towards.

If we had any self respect as distinct from a false sense of outrage, we would refuse to work at this company. We would boycott their products. We would refuse to supply things as vendors, We would file a criminal complaint at the jurisdictional police station. We would file a complaint with the Company Affairs Ministry. We would expose the ad agency this company employs. Given that it has happened in the a Delhi suburb, the MPs and Ministers are at hand for those with connection to demand prosecution of HD and its Indian distributor. The TV channels made passing mention and will be bought over; the ad revenue in these ‘hard’ times can’t be ignored. Blogging is fine to raise awareness, but needs to be the start, not the end of this episode. In this, the “locals” must step up to the plate. Now. Otherwise, a clear and distinct opportunity to send a message worldwide will be lost as also a move to leave our hangover of the past behind. One company tried a similar stunt here in Bangalore. The rest, as they say, is history.

And this is where we fail. Like one of the blogs identified, we are cowards. That’s the reason why we have a colonial past. And will continue to have one, even after the Gora sahib left. It’s time to stand up. Where is the famed courage of the Aryans?

That this has happened under the nose of the Indian Government is the final irony.

Haagen-Dazs, Mistaken Cause

mbjesq — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 09:59:56 EST

Photo credit: Times of India

As I have written in a different context, Indians have a strange love of parsing insults from the innocuous -- or as in this case, the poorly thought-through. Particularly when the phantom effrontery seems to come from foreigners.

The latest uproar involves a newly opened Haagen-Dazs ice cream store, which had the bad judgment to fly the banner depicted above to announce its store opening. It reads:

PARTIED AT THE FRENCH RIVIERA? WELCOME.
Haagen-Dazs

EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS

Access restricted only to holders of international passports.

The reaction began with a sketchily described post by Times of India writer and Chief Editor of Times Internet, Rajesh Kaira, on his TOI blog, Random Access. According to Mr. Kaira a pseudonymous "friend" of his was refused entry to this Haagen-Dazs store for failure to proffer an "international passport."

The story was repeated by the TOI as a regular news story. Both pieces carried the headline, "Sorry, Indians Not Allowed."

Since then, it has blanketed the blogs, generating breathless commentary. Feedback from readers has been overwhelmingly incensed and incendiary, even in response to the commendably even-handed post on Desicritics.

I don't get it. Sure, the banner was stupid beyond belief. But that's just it: who could read it and believe that it intended anything as sensible as an insult?

The promotion clearly meant to create cachet by equating the consumption of Haagen-Dazs with the romance and luxury of international travel. Was this ice cream seller determined to sell only to people who vacation in San Tropez? Of course not. To people who wish to sell us stuff, "exclusivity" means little more than "limited to anyone who will buy."

In Noida, that means Indians. It makes no sense to interpret "international" to mean "foreign" or "non-Indian". How many non-Indians are regularly hanging-out in the strip malls of the heinous suburban dystopia that is Noida? We can agree that the ham-handed promotion doesn't reflect a great deal of business sense in the first place, but was it really intended to exclude 100% of the store's potential customers?

True, the Times of India writer says his anonymous friend was excluded by the store manager (an Indian) for failure to present the so-called "international passport." Is this remotely credible? First, consider the source: TOI. Enough said. Second, doesn't this smack of, "I know a guy who knew a guy who..."? Third, what the hell is an "international passport"? The only thing I can think of is the United Nations Laissez-Passer, issued to employees of the UN and ILO.

The concluding line on the banner, "Access restricted only to holders of international passports" is, indeed, problematic. It is rather artless and seems takes the theme of "exclusivity" far too literally. But the clumsiness of the language also suggests that this was something generated locally and not by the marketing department of the American overlords. Leaving aside the inanity of the "international passport" requirement, what professional copy writer would follow the word "restricted" with the redundant word "only"? One in India, only.

Common sense suggests that (a) this was a dumb-ass promotional idea, (b) to foster the equally dumb-ass consumption of absurdly overpriced ice cream, (c) badly mishandled in the execution by some dumb-ass Indian ad agency, (d) on behalf of some dumb-ass decision-maker either at the franchisee or within the licensor's organization. The interesting issue is the last. Who was ultimately responsible for this idiocy? If there is insult to be found in this fiasco, was it a racist barb emanating from shameless foreigners?

I did a little investigation, calling first to Nestle, which owns the Haagen-Dazs brand, and then to the public relations office of General Mills, Inc., which owns the rights to all Haagen-Dazs franchise licensing outside of North America. The spokespeople at both companies stated that each store is an individual franchisee, with "independent responsibility and control of advertising and promotion." This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that General Mills didn't have a hand in the fiasco.

And which General Mills?

The next morning, I received an email from the director of Haagen-Dazs brand management at General Mills India Pvt. Ltd., Arindam Halder. Mr. Halder is the architect of brand management for Haagen-Dazs in India, and the man responsible for overseeing the opening of franchises like the one in Noida. His note offers some important details, which support my reading of the event as an ill-conceived marketing idea made even worse by incoherent manifestation:

There have been some reports on various online media alleging that the recently opened Häagen-Dazs shop in New Delhi, India, denied access to Indians. We vehemently and categorically deny this. Häagen-Dazs products and our Häagen-Dazs shop in India are and will always be for our consumers in India.
The recently opened Haagen-Dazs shop is open to one and all, and there’s no question of barring entry to anyone on any basis. The preview on Thursday, 10th December had a morning media event which was attended by journalists of repute from Indian media. The same evening we had a launch party for our friends and families, less than 5% of whom were foreigners. Also, during the mock training days at the shop leading up to 10th December, a lot of interest were generated and hundreds of walk ins were given samples of our ice cream. The store is now open to all public and seeing brisk business.

The poster in question was part of initial local store communication at a few locations within the same mall announcing the opening of the new Häagen-Dazs shop in the mall. The message was intended to suggest that you can enjoy, for instance, a taste of the French Riviera without traveling to France – by enjoying Häagen-Dazs. Unfortunately the reference to the international passport holder on the poster may have led to a significant miscommunication. This was completely unintended and we apologize for creating the misimpression that may have hurt our sentiments as Indians.

Regards,

Arindam Haldar
General Mills India

Clearly, there was no intent or attempt to exclude Indians; and we can all agree the brouhaha was the result of what Mr. Haldar euphemistically describes as a "significant miscommunication." But there are two very pregnant ambiguities in his statement. First, the "local store communication" language doesn't make clear who originated the promotional idea or created the banner, General Mills India (namely, him) or the franchisee. It simply says that the campaign was deployed locally, in the mall where the store was located. Second, the last line, in which Mr. Haldar says, on behalf of General Mills India, "[W]e apologize for creating the misimpression", suggests rather strongly that the banner came directly from General Mills India. It sounds very different than, say, "We regret that this misimpression occurred at a Haagen-Dazs franchise."

The concluding apology is also laugh-out-loud funny. So eager is Mr. Halder to self-identify as Indian, he essentially begs forgiveness for an Indian company having offended itself.

What conclusions can we draw from all this?

I think we can agree that there is no evil foreign hand in this story, no American or European racist out to mistreat Indians in their own country or determined to slight them. Indeed, Mr. Kaira of TOI got it exactly right (in his original essay, not the subsequent, abbreviated news item), even if he failed to look at the contribution of the licensor:

Whatever it is, it is idiotic. I checked later and found that the franchisee is an Indian company based in Delhi and the man incharge [sic] is also an Indian. I have often maintained that we ourselves are our biggest enemies. Our mentality is that of slaves and we think anything is good only if its approved by foreigners, or the “holders of international passport”. This is all about how India and Indians see themselves. Foreigners have nothing to do with it.

I don't necessarily fault the bloggers fanning the flames of this supposed outrage for failing to take the 15 minutes Mr. Kaira and I did to pick up the phone and get the facts. It is slightly disappointing, however, that the online commentators have almost uniformly ignored the obvious lack of malicious intent behind the fucked-up promotion. And there is yet deeper culpability in repeating only the tastiest, most shocking morsels of this story, in complete disregard of the basic fact that the errors in judgment were made not by foreigners, but by Indians -- even though this was reported and thoughtfully analyzed in Mr. Kaira's original story. This episode presents a cautionary study of how untrustworthy and manipulable online information can become as true journalism cedes way to what passes for "citizen journalism" in the blog world. It is always tempting to tell the story, not according to the facts, but according to the sermon one wishes to preach. The art is to tell a morally compelling story within the bounds of the evidence.

To her credit, and as we would expect, Deepti Lamba's Desicritics essay tells the full story -- as it was revealed in the original TOI piece -- and doesn't shy away from noting Indian responsibility for both the debacle itself and the underlying attitudes which engendered it. Yet, even Dee reaches the abrupt and slightly ambiguous conclusion that "racist brands" should be chased from India. Brands aren't ethical agents. People and corporations are. And those at the heart of this story were Indian. Perhaps Dee's intended plea is to abolish self-loathing; but somehow the anti-foreign implication creeps through.

There will be some, of course, bitterly disappointed that there is no longer a foreign scapegoat by whom to feel insulted; but they will have no difficulty transferring their ire to me for pointing this out. And it will feel just as good, since I am a foreigner.

If Indians want to salvage some national pride from the situation, they can always take encouragement from the fact this crazy promotion could happen in Mother India, but could never have occurred in the United States. After all, most Americans don't have a passport and have not heard of France.

Haagen-Dazs Not Allowed in India

Deepti Lamba — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:24:24 EST

Indian netizens are in a tizzy although the rest of urban India has yet to catch up on the news. At Select City Walk in Saket, New Delhi, the new ice cream parlour selling Haagen-Dazs ice cream put up a sign: Preview Only For International Travellers.

The individual who took the photograph and holds an international passport was also not allowed in since he was an Indian. The franchise owner who happens to be an Indian took the sign down and claims the signboard never existed but the photograph proves otherwise.

The Twitter crowd has already taken the protest banner under the hashtag #HaagenDazsucks. The news is spreading like virtual wildfire to ensure the fiasco is known to as many people as possible. After #chetanblocks and the 'Cow' moment of Shashi Tharoor, it appears, Indian Tweetizens have come of age, as far as virtual protests and mobs are concerned.

An apology from Haagen Dazs is not enough. Pressure should be put on Select CityWalk not to renew the ice cream parlour's lease. What's more people can peacefully picket outside the CityWalk mall in protest.

This is obviously a sensitive issue for Indians and a direct reminder of the Raj period when Indians and dogs weren't allowed into clubs and other 'white' places.

Times of India writer Rajesh Kalra summed it up well under the headline, Sorry, Indians Not Allowed,

Then I felt, why not use the power of the social media? Next thing I knew was that I had put up a few pictures on facebook, added a caption and also sent out a tweet with a request it be retweeted. In a few hours, it had turned into a viral and I started getting messages from angry Indians all over. Why just Indians, even friends in international media wrote to say “this is the stupidest thing they have seen in a long time”.

I didn’t stop at that. I ended up calling a few MPs I knew I could speak to bluntly and told them about it, taunting them about it.

I don’t know what finally worked, but it seems word did get around to the outlet’s franchisee and they started claiming there never was any restriction on anybody entering the outlet.

While this may be considered a victory for people power, I am still unable to figure out who in his right senses would have advised the dessert company to do something so stupid. Was it a way to generate controversy for free publicity? Did they think it will work subliminally on Indians mind that now that it has been ‘certified’ by international travelers it would be good for them too?

Whatever it is, it is idiotic. I checked later and found that the franchisee is an Indian company based in Delhi and the man incharge is also an Indian.

I have often maintained that we ourselves are our biggest enemies. Our mentality is that of slaves and we think anything is good only if its approved by foreigners, or the “holders of international passport”.

Unfortunately what Rajesh said happens to be true for many urban Indians until they do go to the US or Europe and realize its much ado about nothing. The well-lit Pizza Huts with impeccable service in India are no more than little holes in the wall, one of the many Pizza joints in strip malls along with Domino's and Papa John's. But let's give them their due - they have gone somewhat native and have lots of items for the Indian palate and like McDonald's are quite successful in India.

Designer bags and shoes are a dime a dozen and the best time to buy stuff in US is during the Thanksgiving and After-Christmas sales, from stores like TJ Maxx, Marshalls and from regular outlet malls. Exposure to the West is important for it takes away the glamour some Indians suffer from.

The issue is not about boycotting foriegn brands people can buy whatever they like but racist brands deserve to be boycotted and thrown out of the country. There is no other way of looking at it. I am not indulging in some chest thumping patriotism but stating a fact.

Some things are unforgivable.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream
(Wallace Stevens, 1923)

(Image, Times of India)

Shave India? Proctor & Gamble's Sexist Advertising in India

Sumanth — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:34:56 EST

Historically, sexism against men was passed off as something hilarious. Moreover, men in general tend to focus on bigger and riskier things in life, often ignoring the smaller issues, where constraints are slowly built up against them. This has resulted in increased stress, discrimination, choice-less and powerless lives for men. Now, the hate has gone so deep inside the society, that disrespecting men or masculinity is almost considered as a social norm.

So, it's obvious that, the marketing managers of Gillette India (an arm of Proctor and Gamble - P&G), never thought that they will be in serious trouble, when they started a campaign to enroll women to coerce men to shave. In short, Gillette tried to piggyback on women's empowerment theme to improve its sales.

The Gillete Campaign website ( Shave India says:

Women on the warpath! Women from various cities across the country have decided to come out of their man's shadows. They have joined forces to form an active change group called W.A.L.S. - women against lazy stubble. These women, joined by glamorous leading ladies like Neha Dhupia, Minissha Lamba and Mugdha Godse, have a single point agenda - to get their man to shave and come clean! If they are doing so much to look after themselves, it's time men responded too!

The Press release says:

Sonali Dhawan, Associate Director, P&G Beauty & Grooming, P&G India commented on the company's support of the campaign, "When we conducted a survey with AC Nielsen last year, we found that over 85% of Indian women prefer the clean-shaven look. W.A.L.S came about to let men know that women prefer them clean-shaven so it is about time that they got up and started shaving. We will do everything to support and scale it up to reach all like-minded women across the country. We have even introduced a new Gillette Mach 3 at an affordable price of only Rs 125, so men no longer have an excuse to not shave."

What?? Gillette (P & G) paid AC Nielsen to conduct a survey and would like to force the findings of that survey on the whole country?

Imagine, a company offering breast implants conducts a survey by paying AC Nielsen that men prefer women who have breast implants, then starts a campaign called "Men on War Path" and terms all women, who do not have breast implants as "ugly".

It is well established that capitalists have used women and women's issues to convert men into donkeys and free ATM machines. In an Advertisement by ICICI, a husband is called stupid by his wife in front of his small daughter, when he asks, if he should pay the premium of his insurance policy. ICICI is headed by a woman. Now, the story fits. One can understand why there is such a big hue and cry about diversity and women not breaking into the glass ceiling. Corporates promote radical Feminism to further their own narrow ends.

It is clear that women empowerment will increase consumer spending and will boost the economy. However, will it create fulfilment, satisfaction or happiness in lives of men and women, as they start leading choiceless lives as business establishments and Credit Card companies control their lives?

Imagine a scenario, when real estate developers, banks, Car makers and other companies start employing Nielson and other agencies to conduct surveys, which will establish that:

1) Women prefer their men to buy a big house or apartment in a big city.
2) Women prefer to change their car every 2 years and would like their husbands to pay for it.
3) Women consider husbands to be a dishonest, if they do not insure themselves enough.

Just imagine the consequences, when these findings are forced on to the society as women's issues.

It is interesting to observe the behaviour of feminists, when sexism and hate is directed against men with wordings like "women on warpath". They either ignore or downplay the issue. None of the leading feminists in India starting from Shobhaa De, to Shabana Azmi or Indira Jaisingh have spoken against this campaign. May be they are jealous that Gillette employed Neha Dhupia, Minissha Lamba and Mugdha Godse instead of employing them.

When it comes to my own feelings to this sexist campaign by Gillette, my reaction is: "How the hell you call me lazy, if I do not shave? How dare you lay your hand on my choices in my life and use media to propagate a meme that men who do not shave are lazy?"

Needless to say, angry responses from men from all over India poured into mailboxes of managers of Proctor and Gamble and spilled over to Internet (Stubble India) . Men celebrated December 7th as "National Stubble Day".

Vineeta Pandey writes in DNAIndia,

Wearing a beard or staying clean shaven is a man's prerogative. But a new campaign by Gillette is making some men feel this "fundamental" right is being violated.
Thousands of men have ganged up against the latest Gillette campaign -- Shave India Movement, Women against Lazy Stubble -- terming it mental harassment. Some of them have lodged a protest with the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). They have also called for a boycott of all Gillette products to "discourage" companies from creating campaigns that "spread hatred among genders" and "hurt religious sentiments." Terming the campaign in bad taste, the Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid said, "Sikhs and Muslims wear beards due to religious reasons. But their wives do not complain. Companies should be careful of religious sentiments before running campaigns," said Bukhari.

Mid-Day writes, an MNC cannot make fun of masculinity.

"All India Men's Welfare Association (AIMWA), celebrated December 7 as the National Stubble Day and has sought a public apology from the company. "We want Gillette to withdraw the advertisement and furnish an apology in all national dailies. The advertisement is sexist in nature and calls men lazy for not shaving every day," said Virag Dhulia, founding member of AIMWA from Bangalore. "The advertisement is derogatory and tantamount to domestic violence against men," said Swarup Sarkar, coordinator of the NGO Save Family Foundation (SFF), who is spearheading the movement against Gillette's promotional feature."

Book Review: Welcome to Advertising! Now, Get Lost.

Saurin Parikh — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:20:57 EST

For decades, the Indian advertising industry has heralded Ogilvy on Advertising as its bible, for the lack of an Indian equal. Not anymore. What Alyque Padamsee or Piyush Pandey or Prasson Joshi or other Indian advertising gurus haven’t done, Omkar Sane has.

Now, don’t start imagining Omkar Sane as a gray-haired intellectual past his prime. Sane is actually a 24-year-old advertising novice who was written Welcome to Advertising! Now, Get Lost, and that too after having quit advertising after just a few weeks. But from his observations – hilarious, satirical and oh-so-true – one might be forgiven for assuming that his tryst with advertising was probably decades-long.

Welcome to Advertising! Now, Get Lost is the story of an advertising agency pitching for a client. The storytelling isn’t conventional, but it works. There’s humour in every line and the Sane makes you guffaw, snicker and smile with each page. Every section and aspect of advertising has been ripped wide open and made a mockery of. I enjoyed the jibes on Copywriters (because I was one) and Servicing the most.

For me, the best thing about the book was that Sane has hit the head on the nail. As someone who has been a part of the ad industry, I can vouch for almost everything that Sane has written. The tantrums thrown by the creative, work days starting at 7pm, the endless nights, the overworked and underachieved art directors, the ‘can’t-do-with-or-without-them’ clients and the need for better chairs – Sane has portrayed everything beautifully.

Welcome to Advertising! Now, Get Lost is an essential must-read for everyone in advertising and everyone wanting to get into advertising. The book is cool because the former will laugh, with it and it will make the latter itch more to be a part of the world it describes.

And for everyone else who has nothing to do with advertising, they should read it for the humour and to once again feel bad about not being a part of the world’s coolest industry.

Omkar Sane unravels Indian advertising like never before and it’s a non-stop laugh riot.

Mont Blanc Mahatma

Maaya — Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:53:44 EDT

If nothing else, I am glad about the one impact of the Mont Blanc's coming up with a limited edition Mahatma pen - a $23,000 pen for a man who probably did not spend even $23 per month on himself. It provoked thousands into reflecting upon the contradictions that we live with and helped us more sharply identify to ourselves what we can consider practical values.

This action of Mont Blanc brings to mind a few characteristics that permeate our culture today. Riding on someone's else's greatness/ popularity. A 'Brand' culture that somehow makes it alright for an ordinary product to take on disproportionate value. A culture that can sell anything!

What was the logic in creating such a product, I wonder. A first-world luxury product to symbolize a man wore a dhoti and traveled third-class? A 'phoren' product for a man who thought, believed and lived 'Swadeshi'? A price tag that might be the entire lifetime earnings and spending capacity of the country's lower middle class, leave alone the close-to-the-Mahatma's-heart poor!?

One wonders whether the designers of the pen even pondered over the values or lifestyle of Gandhi when they designed it. I am sure it is not easy for a designer to create an 'exclusive' product that can suitably synthesize the two extremes - a more-than-elite Mont Blanc and a live-simply, egalitarian Gandhi - to commemorate Gandhi symbolizing his actions and virtues (never mind the vices. We can keep those aside for the moment). Didn't the marketing department of Mont Blanc warn it of the risk of fooling around with such a 'symbol'?

It might have been far better if Mont Blanc had distributed 'ordinary' pens in hundreds of schools to millions of children in the name of Gandhi, catering symbolically to the education needs of the poor. They could have then glorified THIS act into a fancy pen with maybe a concert or two thrown in to raise a few millions that could be distributed to grassroots initiatives. This could have catered to the demands of the 'Brand' needs as well as catered to the desire of Mont Blanc to pay tribute to Gandhi without compromising his principles.

At the moment, Mont Blanc's Mahatma pen does nothing except risk being a laughing-stock at the least and an 'Indian' backlash at the worst.

And in the meanwhile we can wait for the next products - interwoven gold-and-silk dhotis? ivory dandas inlaid with gems? diamond studded, round-framed spectacles? Suggestions, anyone?

Going to the Pictures

Zia Ahmad — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:08:16 EDT

In an effort to demonstrate a searing and incised account of film, cinema itself is identified as institutional. People assemble in a designated building and don’t seek to interact with one another. They pay to be silent spectators in a darkened hall. This identification of film aligns itself with obvious social as well as political and economic forethought. Though on closer observation, going to movies can not entirely constitute as a social activity. People would generally want to go with other people to the cinema but the intention is hardly to socialize with other people or even amongst themselves. The idea is to share a “viewing” experience that only cinema can offer with its mechanical means to project moving images.

More than social, the cinema-going experience is closer to the communal. In the dark of the hall, there are separate spectators who share the same film, the same experience. The collective gaze at the celluloid objects can be argued to be institutional. It is conditioned by power structures that are complicit in bringing the film to them in the darkness of the hall. In enacting a communal ritual where all spectators are equal, a commercial framework is constantly at work. And the paying audiences are provided with frequent indicators.

Before they cue up in front of the box office, they are lured in by inviting trailers for the feature they have come to see. The promotional strategy, which is proportionate to the monetary quality of the film, succeeds in getting the people to spend their money over the tickets. On their way to the hall, the spectators to be are incited to dole out more money on various refreshments and snacks that they might want to consume while watching the film. A paltry convention demands of the audience to round up their film going experience by stocking themselves up with soft drinks and pop corn. After nestling themselves comfortably in their seats, they are subjected to a bevy of advertisements they can easily have watched at home but are offered on the big screen which supposedly makes it excusable. The anticipation of watching the new film is piqued by a newer set of adverts that is a series of coming cinematic attractions. Only then does the promised film commences and idle chitter chatter subsides from the seats.

In the end, the seen or consumed feature presentation is judged against the price of admission. The question most filmgoers ask themselves is if the film was worth the amount of money spent on the ticket? The communal experience will invariably be weighed in monetary standards.

If the reply is in negative, there is a sense of being cheated. It has to be a monumentally bad film for the viewers to demand their money back. But most often the spectators go home, feeling exploited, instructing themselves to make a wiser investment the next time.

Conversely, if the viewer thinks he did make the right investment, there is a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment. Everything seems justified now. Not only the capital investment in purchasing the ticket, but the time taken out to see the film, the assorted refreshments were enjoyed thoroughly and the viewer would happily go out to celebrate the occasion with a round of drinks or a meal out. The communal experience has merrily paved the way for a social one.

The illustration above demonstrates how the seemingly shared experience of watching a film in cinema is bracketed by commercial concerns. The commercial interest is further and directly addressed through the film itself. The mainstream film calls attention to its mercantile features through the production values embellished in its form further transmitted via the star names attached to it and the visible costly spectacles. The sheer budgetary splendour of the film demands to be seen at a price. The accumulation through the box office receipts ensure there are further blockbusters to be made. It is an ongoing process that facilitates a capitalistic superstructure.

Book Review: The Google Way

Ganadeva Bandyopadhyay — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:08 EDT

The Google Way gives an insight into the fascinating story of Google. With its unconventional approach towards not only Internet search, which is its core business, but in many other business and technology processes forming essential part of the modern enterprise, Google has indeed been a trend-setter.

Going through the book, it appears that Google seems to have a thoroughly researched, many-a-time counterintuitive and analytical approach not only in its core business of Internet search but also covering business management and strategy, technology, the industry-academic interactions and positive use of the rapidly evolving Internet society as integral parts of its growth as a corporate entity.

Some of the interesting discussions in the book are centered around the unique reasons for rapid growth of technology enterprises on the West coast of the United States. These include legal and academic specialties of the region as well as the strong drive for entrepreneurship starting from higher education institutions.

Some of the unconventional ways of Google highlighted by the author include the triumvirate of management at the top, using OpenIPO method to go public, the cost-per-click advertising model, having small team sizes, uncommon recruitment practices and employee benefits.

The fourth and last section speculates about the challenges and risks based on the author's knowledge and experience until our present recessionary times. These include cultural and national concerns, confidence and privacy concerns or something on the management side like the effect of loss of one person at the top , out of the triad of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, among others.

The author has presented a well-researched book which would help corporates and educationists in developing the academia-industry linkages as well as looking the relevance of current course content in business schools. Book is recommended as a must read not only because of its management and technological utility but also to get a sense of the direction that our immediate future will take.

Mobile Operators - Horror Stories From India

Hardik Ruparel — Thu, 9 Apr 2009 12:24:35 EDT

My experience with mobile operators in India has been very bitter, as I'm sure it must've been for so many people. If I had a Rupee for every time I abused them, I indeed would be rich. You don't need to be a detective to realize the hegemony of the mobile operators here in India.

Firstly, the immoral messages being sent to Customers. Yes, believe it or not. My friends have often received such messages:

"Hi I am Julie. I am alone and lonely and need someone to talk to. Call me back at this number. "

Who sent this message? The mobile operator! Such messages are only sent to male customers and it shows how the companies are going to such extreme measures to make money out of people.
(And yet people sit and talk about "WESTERN INFLUENCES" affecting the youth of today. *Scoff* )

Secondly, the highly audacious schemes of overcharging on festivals ( Diwali, Holi, V-Day and so on.. ) shows how money-hungry these operators are. I mean, just look at their nerves to do such a thing. They just use these occasions to put their dirty hands in people's pockets and grab out the money. Come on just look around : EVERYONE reduces prices during festival times. I really think the government should force Mobile Operators to remove this clause from the agreement (if at all it is there.) This is an outright violation of Consumer Rights. They promised me a calling rate when I purchase the SIM card and that gives them no rights to hike the prices on some days of the year.

Thirdly, the helpline services. TERRIBLE. I am on Vodafone and when I dial the helpline number I am greeted with numerous offers, but not a single instruction on which number key to press so as to talk to the ridiculously unhelpful call center employees.

Fourthly, all mobile operators employ unfair means to overcharge customers. For eg: A song service. They say "Set the caller tune for free." But little does the customer know he is being charger per minute for the call he made to set the caller tune. Was that informed? No!

This is not the end. Everyone has their own share of such horror stories to share. Such unfair, immoral and unnecessary actions have to be dealt with severely. The mobile operators have already made way too much money and it's time such things be put to an end.