Titan ads, with their finger on the pulse of middle India, remind me of ‘Hamara' Bajaj and Dhara adverts from the early-1990s. But to the viewer these lovingly crafted montages to the tune of Mozart symphony 25 could have been made at any point in the past 50 years. It is a purely functional ad and it does exactly what it says on the tin. On the contrary, Benetton's ‘Unhate' campaign showing an altered image of the Pope kissing the Egyptian Imam bears more of the hallmark of a political campaign, the date of which can be precisely located in the DNA of the message (always the message Adrian, not the medium). Using the sort of shock tactics much loved by animal rights protesters and campaigners against child abuse (territory with which the Vatican is very well acquainted), the campaign delivered high on all parameters. Just do the math. It has been all over the Twittersphere, in columns, blogs, forums, news channels and dailies, and will not be forgotten easily for many years. The cost of running such a campaign via regular media-purchasing methods would have meant a subsequent dismissal among the management ranks of Benetton, whose revenues dwindled between 2001 and 2004 across Europe (80 per cent of their market). Their target market (urban young, sick of stereotypes and want to improve the world) had not heard from the brand in over two decades, thanks to the founding family scaling back their involvement, and fashion players such as H&M and Zara completely changing the rules. With this campaign, Benetton resoundingly brought the brand alive. Nimki is right. Yes, audiences are sophisticated, but brands are even more so in specifically appealing to those who can see the dark humour in their ads. Similarly, Frequa, too, must know upfront who it is appealing to. Unfortunately, it seems that Adrian favours the safe strategy behind brands such as Tag Heuer, which with all their hype (remember the SRK ad?) aim profitably at the burgeoning Indian middle class. Nothing wrong with that, except they don't believe in having a dialogue with consumers. It is an old-fashioned top-down brand message. For all its high school crassness, the Benetton campaign at least taps into something real. It showcases a deep tissue understanding of how networking makes ideas go viral and global in a matter of days if not hours. It shows that you no longer need to spend millions on media to get the message across. It shows you how from drawing boards they allowed consumers to take the brand idea to their drawing rooms. I am not sure if Dushyant agrees more with the poetic licence of a creative or just because he is more clued in, he is going in the direction in which many future campaigns are headed. He is right though as Benetton's strategy resonates closely with the way consumers relate to brands these days. So does their timing. With ‘Spring' across the world, the ‘Unhate' campaign torches the nervous energy for change. Leaders shake hands and hug all the time. But who believes their friendship? For a moment, don't mock the liplock, look at how it stretches that handshake — from history to race, from homosexuality to geography, from religion to peace. John Lennon's song Imagine comes to mind. Benetton's Oliviero Toscani eloquently defends: "There isn't such a thing as a shocking picture. There is shocking reality that is being reproduced through photography to the people who aren't there."Indian politicians and religious leaders may be demi-gods but didn't Anna Hazare's successful anti-corruption social media campaign throw light on a growing trend that cannot be ignored? Politicians need disharmony to remain powerfully relevant. But brands like Frequa can break free. In this digital world, brands have the latitude to be ever freer, farther from logic, utopian and rebellious. Frequa can build a virtuous ‘timely' campaign that sparks a political debate, a policy revolution and stirs the collective consciousness of an entire nation. Much like Benetton India's ‘Broken Bangles' campaign (highlighting women's causes), by indirectly promoting Frequa as ‘timekeepers of a nation', the campaign can create a buzz about taboo topics that people care about, leading to positive emotions and feelings about the brand itself. Surely, such ads cannot corrupt the fabric of religion or morality. In fact, India needs them more now than ever. Not for a moment should Dushyant let Adrian assume that a "simple sports watch" cannot do better than (its simpler cousin) candy-coloured sweaters. After all, advertising buzzwords have moved from command, control and implement to connect, collaborate and adapt. Brands like Frequa cannot just deliver functional value but have to co-create with customers. Will Benetton goods fly off the shelves, thanks to that campaign? They have done so previously, and there is no reason to believe it won't work again. That will not be a shock, nah, not even a surprise.Kamal Julka last worked as a brand director for Hewlett-Packard, EMEA at Publicis London. She teaches at ICSC European Retail School. She has recently moved to Chicago.(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 23-04-2012)
Read More
Gen I is the choices it makes and the cardinal sin is not having a point of view at all. Brands have to stand for an unequivocal point of view or at least provide platforms for their franchise to express who they are. Otherwise, they risk their roles becoming passive and finally commoditised.Shockvertising certainly has use for clutter-break, engineering conversations and, at its best, building what Adam Morgan called ‘lighthouse identities' that provide thought-leadership. In this case, shock does not seem strategically purposive, in either need or rendition. Adrian questions effectiveness and is correct in pointing out that the mix lacks seamlessness, the message seems inconsistent and that it may alienate to no purpose. Barrun and team do not seem to approach the problem cross-franchise or the solution in a proprietary manner. Sports has to be the springboard given Frequa's footprint in precision sport accessories and sportswear. Barrun should address Adrian's concerns with strategic under-pinnings. He should nail Frequa's ‘Who am I?' core and ‘What business am I in?' to form a nuanced category-benefit construct versus a much sharper marketing TA definition. Appeal to the ‘youth' is too loose; choose sharper between serious athletes, sports enthusiasts, regularly fit, wannabe sporty and the armchair sports fans. One has to establish how contiguous or distant this TA is from the current TA (likely to be sport enthusiasts and serious athletes). Similarly, one has to identify the life values of this TA to understand what drives their choices at an emotional and functional level. Frequa needs sharply differentiated choices in the values it will own based on its core. It then has to figure out which TA these will be relevant to. Will shock be in line with the core?Shock may be a better strategic option when both category inertia and consumer apathy exist. The functional time-keeping aspect for sports watches is simplistic. Brands in this space do stand for higher aspirational values. Also, is this TA really apathetic or clued-in?Assuming the need for shock is TA-relevant, the shockvert still has issues. Proprietariness — where does this unique view stand with respect to Frequa's core of precision? Credibility — in the rest of the mix?Indian youth definitely want style, but substance has to follow. They eventually discard superficial appropriation of platforms like shock, especially if ‘thought-leadership' brands do not display consistency and integrity. Different is as different does; otherwise, you would be ‘bought' as a category or ad but not ‘bought into'. Emotional engagement followed by seamless functional ratification is critical. Increasingly, consumer loyalty is to the whole experience and not just to the format or brand. Unlike segmented Western markets, where category familiarity is a given, in under-penetrated India, it is equally about creating proprietary sub-categories and consumer education. One needs to walk even the savvier youth through, sometimes under-scoring the product or category. Else one runs the risk of the brand idea remaining esoteric and only a memorable rendition (a la some of our celeb adverts).Consumers now make benefit-bundle choices and are not limited by category definitions. For instance, the walls have been long crumbling between sports watches, fashion accessories, precision instruments, mobile phones, etc.Barrun needs to spell out competition — both in mind and matter, and beyond watches. In days of marketing return on investment (ROI) debates, he needs to acknowledge that shock is a tedious model to sustain. The threshold changes, novelty is needed — implying frequent innovation for concept and product to avoid being formulaic. Adrian is correct to be somewhat wary of taking on holy cows. Mass youth brands learn the hard way that individualisation works within affiliation while building ‘cool-th'. ‘Exclusivity' is not ‘exclusionary' in India that said ‘thought leadership' is about pushing the envelope and polarising discourse to re-evaluation point. Shock or not, only the bold survive and one should not please all. Hence, a sharper TA definition is the moot point. At the brand level, Barrun sees shock not as core, but as a support to keep Frequa contemporary. His gut points to a bigger role, but he is not fully committed. He should consider sub-brand architecture versus periodic tonality shifts. Also, it may be prudent to first earn shock spurs on the sports canvas. In an increasingly digital-social world, consumers eventually own the brand. The brand manager's role has evolved from message-owner to being a steward of experiences. Dushyant's campaign currently is an ad idea. He needs to pitch an end-to-end multi-stage marketing programme, spell out desired consumer transitions and ensure Frequa's core manifests consistently and cohesively.Siddhartha Loiwal is passionate about innovation, consumer decodes and strategy. He is based in Mumbai as head of marketing development and strategy at Marico India(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 23-04-2012)
Read More
Adrian D'sa looked up as Barrun Sarkar his marketing head rushed in to drop some papers on his table. But Barrun, who had seemingly been in a hurry, stopped short. Adrian, the managing director of Speeder India, smiled. There on the wall was a huge poster of an Antonio Federici ad for their ice cream, which showed a pregnant woman dressed as a nun, eating an ice cream. Barrun was surprised, taken aback and then very confused. No, not the picture, he had seen it several times before. But it was at least three years old! "What's with that old ad on your wall?" he asked Adrian.Adrian: You like it?Barrun: No! I don't! Why are you displaying it? It's... eh… out of place.Adrian: We will talk about this later. I have a meeting now with the Doordarshan people...Barrun: Are you crazy? With that on the wall?Barrun looked around. The other walls had Frequa's new campaign ideas plastered over them! Barrun was alarmed.Frequa was Speeder's brand that marketed precision sports accessories and sportswear. Among these was a watch that had once been a very strong brand. Since the watch was selling on its own, not much effort was going into positioning it specially or doing anything for it. But recently, Speeder decided it would put the watch back in the limelight. The brand manager (BM) who handled Frequa was Dushyant Verma. He had discussed broad ideas with Barrun and had developed some campaign ideas to see what imagery would suit Frequa watches. "Our steel and black image is now dead dull and people are now even going off watches; Frequa needs to show that it is ‘With the Times'." But these were not even finalised. So how did Adrian come to lay his hands on them?The campaign presented a young man in identifiable Indian priestly clothing with hair tuft and religious marks on the forehead, in a pub slurring over a girl as she gazes at his watch. The copy line said, "In your watch... times are changing. Are you watching?"Now something did not seem right to Barrun. He said, "Adrian, what is the game? These are in development and ideation, why do you have these on the wall?" There were other ads too -– like the old MR Coffee ad. There was one of Tuff shoes with two nude models and a python..... What was Adrian up to? Presently Adrian's secretary Gopalan came in and cringed seeing the walls. Putting on his practised unfazed look, he said, "The DD people are on their way up, Adrian..." and as he left, he gave Barrun a withering look. Barrun was taken aback. He shot back a "What have I done?" look and waited till lunch for the DD chaps to leave. Then stepping into Adrian's room gingerly, he asked: "Gosh did they react to the posters?"Adrian (making a face): All kinds of comments. Remember Antonio Federici's tag line: "Immaculately Conceived… ice cream is our religion." They were disgusted. Called it gumption. The Frequa poster mercifully did not carry our brand name, but they were potently upset. You could see it. Barrun (relieved): The ice cream ad was a shocker. No point upsetting people to increase brand recall — leaves a legacy of negative emotions behind. I recall the public were outraged and the ad was sought to be banned. Religion is something you don't mess with.Adrian: As a matter of fact the company had said something on the lines that their decision to use religious imagery stemmed from the apparent hypocrisy of religious preachers to social issues. And that just because a small minority felt offended, should not stop them from taking their expression to a larger audience. Barrun: Well, those ads were banned eventually, which shows that sensitivity does exist! Yet there are Benetton's ads that have also caused many an eyebrow to be raised! Thoroughly controversial, if you ask me.Adrian: But if you look beyond the controversy, I honestly think they couldn't have chosen a better theme to make their point. Think about hate, and how it manifests in the world today; intolerance and bigotry are at the top of the list. Battles are fought and people are killed over differences in race, religion, sexual orientation. You could say that hate is responsible for all of society's ills. Their broken bangles ad for India and its dowry malaise caused every heart to lurch. Yet I would wonder if the guys who kill their wives for dowry are their target audience... "But why are you eulogising about religion? Isn't your brand manager doing a campaign on Frequa that is going to set our business on fire?Barrun: Oh! You mean the ad with the believer guy and the gal?Adrian: Believer guy! That was no ordinary believer guy, that was clearly a Hindu priest. Barrun: Many of them are forced to follow their father's professions. Adrian, you don't become a priest by wearing your hair in a tuft!Adrian: That would seriously not be germane to any part of our business, no? So why are we dabbling in social war cries?Barrun: The gal there is a techno gal, don't you see? The ad shows all professions mingling. It is about the young and their world...Adrian: This is a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of a set of people.Barrun: They wear watches, Adrian; they consume advertising.Adrian: When heads of marketing remain in denial, then we have a serious problem as one chocolate manufacturer had some time ago, with a campaign they put out to launch a new variant. It showed Naomi Campbell and the ad was announcing the launch of some new chocolate, so the copy went, ‘Move over Naomi, there is a new Diva in town...' Funny thing is, the whole world noticed the play of brown... except the campaign boys. Naomi Campbell herself said, "I do not see any humour in this, it is insulting of me and the entire black community. "Likewise, you are feigning it is about young professionals mingling. When what the eye sees is a Hindu priest in a dilemma..."And funnily like you, like the Gelato ice cream people, the chocolate company too said to protestors, ‘no intention to cause offence – this is a humorous take on social pretensions of our chocolate....'break-page-break"Barrun, they both knew what they were doing and why, and had this response scripted. Can we sell watches in a world where some like it hot, and some like it cold? Can we be sensitive to both kinds of people?"Barrun: I agree, but there is a difference. The chocolate ad is playing on racial undertones – on an entire race in humankind, and not just one odd Hindu priest under the influence as in the Frequa ad. "In India, don't we deal with paradoxes all the time? Temple priests stealing from the Lord's treasury, celibate swamis and their covert non-celibate life, or political parties quoting from the Gita to suit their gains, or IAS officers filling their coffers out of state monies, or dalits being given quota but still being treated like one — where does it stop? "These are our times, Adrian! The world of purity you seek to project is gone. This is not a race-hitting ad; nor is there an intention to poke fun at religiosity."Barrun was not very convincing, probably because he was trying to speak for Dushyant. And here he was between an MD who was saying no and a brand manager who, at 30, thought Frequa must speak, it's time! In fact, that became Frequa's tag line on the BM's pin board.Adrian: I put up these ads to see how people react. Everyone who came in had a disturbing takeaway. I am in no mood to set fire to our business or be the driver of a communal riot on the streets. I am also coming from where they say, if your product is damn good, it will talk damn good and the consumer will hear damn good.Barrun: Loads of products are damn good, but unless you make the consumer try every single Swiss watch, for instance, how will they ever know whether a Swatch is as good as Longines or not. It's partly about the product and in part about the hype, the brand presence and the WOM (word of mouth) associated with it. "The problem, Adrian, is with the category, as I see it. To revive it, my brand has to don a desirable personality. It can use the vehicle of an ad to speak its mind. Such an ad need not be about the category or the product; it can simply express the brand personality. Once the consumer likes this persona, he wants to hang out with the brand. This is Dushyant's reasoning, to be fair, and I second it. "So today we are talking to a target audience whose window shows them the whole world. They are reading all kinds of news, from fragmenting Uttar Pradesh to growing poppy in Canada to gay movements the world over. So what do we have here? "Across the Western world, media has been obsessed with leading stories of church clergy and child abuse, gay celebs coming out of the closet and even rehab gone wrong. People consuming such material day in and day out often seem not to get shocked by shocking ads. "The brand itself may well be seen as funny, witty, uber cool, edgy or even borderline silly. Sure, it doesn't bring attention to its quality but maybe to its core values — especially if you are a brand that wants to depict how aware you are in bringing out taboo subjects to the table. "Have you attended one of these ‘Say No to Drugs' talks in schools? Or their sex education programmes? It is about an open world that talks about things as they are. They talk to you about drugs and sex in a matter of fact way without showing alarm or concern and the target audience is most receptive when you are shockingly cool. Why? I want to know."More than that, if we must use shock, marketing firms like us can use this behavioural response to further their brand message."Barrun's position was either sad or challenging depending on how you saw it. The fire of his younger BM burnt bright in him too, but it did not spit and crackle like it did at 30. Between 30 and 40, it had been muted by a dull surrender to ‘life'. No, not that Barrun lacked chutzpah — he had a strong maverick streak, except this time he planned to let his BM present his ideas when they were ready. No doubt he was defending Dushyant's approach, but as he himself reasoned to Adrian, "he represents the young people! He is able to see what the watch needs to have as presence."Adrian: At the cost of propriety?Barrun: No! Yet we cannot be inhibited anymore. The ground rules are changing, Adrian!Adrian: But before that tell me why are we doing all this? What's the proposition?Barrun: Starting with the brand and leading up, Frequa is damn good but the consumer cannot hear it talk. The problem is the category — it is doing very poorly. I have seen focus groups where respondents have said the following: I wear a watch, while my kids look at their cellphones to tell the time. I wear a watch only when I have to wear a suit. That is what it goes with. I find everything tells me the time — the dashboard, TV, the microwave, cellphone, my iPod, laptop... Only if I am wearing a T-shirt... I barely get my cellphone when it rings, because my bag is a mess! No no, a watch is better for me. As Adrian smiled, Barrun went on to justify that the brand has to lift up the category as well as present itself as a brave, bold and strong brand that brooks no nonsense, wishes to be with the times, and prefers that governments and elders contextualise their preaching and policies — that is what Frequa was going to do, but he, as head of marketing, was concerned with the category fading.Barrun: The only option is to position Frequa contextual to time. Technology, quality, pricing will be our table-stakes; but we will work on emotional parameters like "cool", "hip", "rebellious", etc., and adjust the storyboard accordingly. Frequa wants to be heard, Adrian. Adrian: And that translates to reckless?Barrun: On the contrary, to rebellion. Rational rebellion. I do care what the campaign says, but right now, we need to yank up the category with a shock. break-page-breakAt this stage, Adrian called in his brand strategist, Nimki Bharucha. After hearing the argument, she said, "Shock sells products, not brands."Adrian: Nims, listen, these clichés are awesome, but right now, my point is this: Generally speaking, shock, like any drug, keeps reducing in its effect unless higher doses are provided — a brand's strategy is often unable to provide the same consistently over time. Now, how is an errant priest connected to my product? Barrun is right, the problem is also the damn category. Nobody wants a watch less than a Tag Heuer with a Shah Rukh Khan attached. But we are selling a traditional Frequa. What on earth then, is a priest doing in my ad?Barrun: Sure it is not necessary to resort to messages that are not connected with the product, but then how does one explain the success of Onida ads decades ago in India with its devil as the platform? Most virals happen to be very topical and push the envelope and people's sensibilities! Nimki: Shock and awe tactics are an old hat — leading to increased sales and retention always. Whether it always helps the brand is questionable but if played right, it can. Point is, as society changes, the content they digest does have to keep up too. Edgy is not always bad, unless done without any taste! Adrian: If shock is what I want to depict, without hurting the feelings of the target audience , then ‘cop buying drugs' is probably better, maybe not so offensive. But where does one draw the line? We are a country divided by communities, sects and deities. Even within Hindus, you have sectarian animosity! So to what sect does that priest belong to? See? Nimki: Today's young do not worry about all that. Those who subscribe to a religious system are well grounded and ignore social taboos, for their religiosity has risen above social differences. And those who do not subscribe, don't care anyway. Adrian: Point is, we have to examine society as it is, not as we like it to be. The society ‘as it is', is the one making choices based on its likes and dislikes. And its likes and dislikes are coming from a society that is seeing a lot more than we like. So as society changes, the content they digest does have to keep up too — edgy is not always bad, but it must be done with taste. "My question is this: Is ‘shock' an ingredient in the brand's personality? Or is it a vehicle to keep the brand afloat? Or is it an accessory to keep its recall high? I don't understand.Nimki: I think Barrun wants to use shock to reinvent the brand and through that the category, or the other way. Okay, so let us look at other brands that shock effectively. Take FCUK, for example, where cleverly or cynically, it has reinvented itself due to shock, but it has not lost sight of the truth of good edgy fashion wear. Benetton has used shock but more as a tactic, I feel. Having said that, isn't it a double-edged sword? Shock generates feelings, positive or otherwise, that impact the relationship with the brand. So religious taboos like celibate with child, or priest in a disco or even racial ones like a black woman feeding a white baby are all difficult issues that a brand takes a stand on and if it aligns with the strategy then the pay-off is immense. If not, then you could well desensitise your target audience and not touch upon their core beliefs. Also, if shock cannot constantly innovate, stay smart, edgy, topical or interesting, then it is a lost game. There are moral standards that keep getting pushed, barriers of grossness that are yet to be broken and the direction we are set in, more is yet to come. Adrian: Absolutely! Shock must deliver a brand realisation as well. If not, you will fade with the shock. Barrun: Please understand, the category will do poorly if limited to the functional scope of timekeeping. Having said that, the luxury market has actually grown over the past decade, thanks to markets such as India, Brazil and China. And all watches that focus on emotional parameters such as sports watches with tennis, cricket and F1 ambassadors, show a rebellious streak, as having a personality. Thus, adding to one's sense of style and presence is very relevant today. Adrian: All that is now passé and boring too, Barrun, frankly, I don't identify with any of the sports. Is there a new story for me? Till you find that, don't abuse Frequa. I am not buying the shock theory.Classroom discussionCan advertising be a social reformer or should it stick to product? To be continued....casestudymeera(at)gmail(dot)com(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 02-04-2012)
Read More
When photographer Oliviero Toscani pushed our shock buttons with Benetton advertisements showing babies covered in blood, nuns kissing priests, death row prisoners and dying AIDS patients, their sales really soared. Of late, Benetton has toned down its adverts to actually show their product and you guessed it, the sales have been slipping since. It must be the delivery as nothing else has changed. Did Toscani not shatter every conventional idea within the industry about the role of advertising? For a brand with 7,000-odd stores worldwide, he wanted to grab the viewer's attention and talk about political issues that make us cringe. He used this institutional ‘shockvertising' to communicate the company's core values and promote a brand image. And much like Marmite, love it or hate it, if there is merit in the message, then shock will deliver. None of my schoolmates has forgotten the nineties advertisement from the British Safety Council that showed a Pope with the slogan ‘The Eleventh Commandment – Thou shalt always wear a condom'. Though teachers and parents detested it, teens my age and over thought it was cool. Understandably, this concept worked well back then. Dushyant will have to work ever so hard to shock a generation now. At the same time, one must argue that he seems to be more in touch with advertising today than Adrian, or for that matter Barrun. We all know that advertising is not just about storyboards and printed material anymore. It is viral, digital, WOM (word of mouth) and interactive, all of which have time and again shown that the least powerful messages are ‘neutral' —they are not strong influencing factors. If you are the kind who goes to a party, wants to be seen as ‘interesting' and discusses Shah Rukh Khan wearing a luxury watch, perhaps you need to update your conversation. Norm violation is partly why shock gets its message heard above media din and clutter, especially for brands in a category that has too many ‘me-too' and not enough ‘who-me' options. There is a reason why F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone felt compelled to revive the ‘shock branding' practice in the watch category with an advertisement for Hublot F1 Swiss watch (the first official F1 watch). Advertisements for this premium watch stopped people in their tracks with their bold, though dare I confess, risky advertising. The one advertisement that featured Ecclestone's black-eyed face accompanied by a quote "See what people will do for a Hublot" was like a virtual bomb on the Internet. It garnered four times the value in PR and the sales reportedly more than trebled. Even though the consumers and professionals of the watchmaking industry were rendered speechless in the face of such brazen, code-breaking brand positioning, the fact is, it worked. If advertising were a sport, ‘shockvertsing' would be its extreme avatar. Researchers claim that an emotional creative execution is key (the devil is in its detail) for it helps form memory connections just as long as we can ensure that that the advertisement does not disgust enough to activate the ‘reject' button or a flight response. Hence, if I were Adrian, my dilemma would not centre on the content of the advertisement copy but rather on whether, when the headlines fade, will I have sacrificed the long-term brand value of Frequa for a short-term burst of publicity? Needless to say that this would matter much more if Frequa had huge brand equity, but for a brand that is being revived, any publicity can prove handy and Dushyant seems to intuitively know that. Did Benetton's kiss-and-makeup campaign showing digitally altered photos of at-odds world leaders/ presidents have anything to do with selling shirts? Hell, no! But it did sell an awful lot more shirts than expected that fall. It ticked all the boxes — recall, reach, frequency and impact. Risky? Sure, which is why a handful of brands come to mind. But again, as Adrian I would be curious to know what prompted Dushyant to put Frequa in that ‘handful of brands' category? If Dushyant understands that consumers will allow a fashion brand to push the limits in a way they will not allow a laundry detergent brand to, why then is Barrun so cagey? Shock advertising is a great introduction to a lesser-known brand. However, Adrian must ask, that once they interrupt the audience and get its attention, how to keep it engaged? Frequa must both start and steer the conversation. Additionally, their website, social media and offline strategy should be in sync, so that every single time people see the advertisement, they hit the ‘like' button in their brain. As Nimki puts it, "if done with taste" the brave shall win. Adrian has nothing but only fear to lose. Kamal Julka last worked as a brand director for Hewlett-Packard, EMEA at Publicis London. She teaches at ICSC European Retail School. She has recently moved to Chicago.(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 02-04-2012)
Read More
Geoffrey Miller in his seminal and delightfully subversive book Must-Have speaks of the post-modern insight: "At its heart consumerist capitalism is not ‘materialistic' but ‘semiotic'. It concerns mainly the psychological world of signs, symbols, images, and brands, not the physical world of tangible commodities. Marketers understand that they are selling the sizzle, not the steak."For the consumer, a brand has value and earns loyalty when it moves beyond awareness generation and the communication of functional benefits to forge a link with their psyche and aspirations. Dushyant and Barrun argue that in an environment where the watch category is gradually losing relevance, and their brand is losing salience, the imagery and semiotics around Speeder's Frequa watches need to be updated.While their logic is sound, the choice of ‘shock' as the hook on which to peg the brand's distinct personality is fraught with risk. On one hand, in a predominantly young, highly competitive, and increasingly aggressive urban Indian environment, where youth icons like cricketers and actors are frequently seen making brash gestures in public, it is not entirely surprising that brands targeting younger audiences feel the need to align their tonality and expression of values with the perceived psyche of today's youth.On the other hand, shock as the hook for a brand's identity is almost always polarising. Some audiences, such as sections of the youth or those with a specific psychographic profile (regardless of age) will find resonance with it, while many others will find it alienating. As a result the brand could potentially find itself boxed into a smaller playing field.Dushyant and Barrun appear to have been influenced by international brands from analogous categories that have been founded with strains of rebellion in their DNA. However, there is a big difference between a brand founded on values consistent with dissent and rebellion and one that suddenly uses them as tactics to draw attention. For a brand with no history of anti-establishment stances, shock for the sake of shock, with no category-connect, would signal a sudden and alarming departure from its equity.In a culture increasingly enthralled by breaking news and sensationalism, with ever shrinking attention spans, shock also has a relatively short shelf life. It is likely to be transitory. A brand needs to stand on an emotional foundation that is durable. Adrian is right to sound a note of caution and put plans for ‘shock' advertising on hold, given the brand's existing equity and the category's context. By resorting to shock advertising, Frequa could potentially dilute its equity and alienate consumers, sacrificing hard-earned consumer trust at the altar of short-term growth. As an idea to revive the brand, it appears to be tactical and sensationalist, instead of strategic and equity enhancing.With the Frequa brand also present in the sportswear and precision sportaccessory segments, a dramatic positioning change for watches could have unintended consequences for these segments. All elements of a brand - product design, functionality, communication, emotional hooks and imagery — need to reinforce the DNA and send out consistent signals. When this happens, the result is a well-constructed, robust, and durable equity. Today urban Indians are living through a period of historic churn — in our economy, lifestyles, aspirations, priorities, and our sense of who we are and where we want to go. Increasingly, individualistic lifestyles are breaking out of a historically collectivist social framework. Affluence yet inequality, confidence yet insecurity. For a majority of our youth, the magnetic pull of glitzy modernity versus the roll-your-eyes drag of archaic tradition. At the core is an ancient culture that has hard-wired in us notions of propriety and accepted behaviour.When torn between opposing strains, a conflicted sense of roles, responsibilities and identities is often the result. Navigating this conflicted space is an intrinsically tumultuous process. A strategy that aims to carefully update the brand such that it is congruent with contemporary codes might be more effective than a short term attention-seeking tactic. Volatile, polarising swings in the semiotic signals that a brand sends out can occasionally break the clutter, but will end up creating doubts in the minds of consumers leading to long-term equity dilution. Those like Adrian who are sensitive to the consumers' evolving needs and psyche, as well as to the wildly heterogeneous and conflicted socio-cultural space that they are operating in, will build robust brand equities and win the trust of Indian consumers. The Third Eye is a qualitative research firm. The analysis is presented by Jasmeet Srivastava, managing director; Gitanjali Ghate, managing director; and Satyam Viswanathan, director(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 02-04-2012)
Read More
Indira Varshney stood leaning on Prahlad Uppal's doorway with the most horrified expression on her face. Further away from them all stood Ambi Kesavan, Uppal's contemporary in HR.The moment was explosive. This is what had happened. Indira had been away in the US to attend her kid sister's hasty wedding. It was a sudden decision she had had to make to lend the wedding a semblance of order. Only Ajit Saigal, her boss and MD of Delaware, knew that she had had a family emergency to attend to. As a result Indira had not been tuned in to office goings-on save the unusual email she received from Uppal saying that she was being made the head of Sales effective 1st January 2012, that Uday was moving into another function – all in keeping with international restructuring.Indira, who was caught in the arbitration between her sister and mother and getting the family to ‘sanction' the wedding, had not focused too deeply on the words in the mail. But two days ago when she was idling at La Guardia airport, she had seen Uday Basu's mail where he had written about how he was being compelled to resign and that if he did not accept the management's proposed compensation package they would go ahead anyway and announce that he was being replaced by Indira Varshney and that he would be reporting to her!Indira felt her stomach turn. What in heaven's name was all this? It was around 6.30 pm in India to her 8 am in New York. If she did not call now, then it would be more than 30 hours before she would get to speak to Basu. Indira called Uday from New York airport. "Basu? Can we talk? What is going on? I can't believe all this! I was told you were being moved into another function...!" They talked and Uday said, "They wanted me to leave, all along Indira. All this started in November, during the last quarter appraisal... well, I was naive and believed that Ajit wanted the sales leadership replaced because he wanted to place me somewhere else. We will talk..., but I needed to share all this so that you know."Sorry? ...oh no! a lot has happened in the last 8-9 days. And now even my exit compensation is being strangulated and HR has told me that if I do not accept what they are offering, they will go ahead and announce your installation and add that I will be reporting to you!"Indira was dumbfounded. How could things change in just 10 days? Suddenly La Guardia airport seemed lonely and alien. "How can they do this Basu!" she yelled. "I am so sorry... I knew you were being moved but there was some talk of Nigeria and... of course! Didn't Prahlad even mention it? Oh heck... how I wish I had opened your mail the same day as it came. We were very stressed out, Ankita went and did some dreadful things, the stupid girl. And I had to run to the US to restore peace and sanity. How I wish I had seen it the same day!"Uday: Oh, ok... yes, I knew you were in the US so I did not call. I only wanted you to be in the know as Ambi said it was relevant to do so. I am shaken Indira. Nobody in Delaware ever behaved like this. At first I negotiated like anyone would. Then three days ago I realised that it was very messy, very unclean, when they placed the ultimatum...Indira: Ultimatum? This is severe! What are we working for? I hate this!Uday: Not much choice anymore Indira.... they went ahead and made the announcement last week. Likely, soon after you left. Indira was shell-shocked. Uday was a director, no less. He had been her boss some years ago. How could the company behave like this? "Let's meet Wednesday for breakfast? Yeah, my flight gets in at 1.30 am but that's ok, let's meet at 8 am." And here she was now, standing at Uppal's doorway, looking at her colleagues, colleagues she wished to trust and rely on. "Prahlad, I will not accept the new position if it is coming on the back of such unpleasantness... and lies... how can I know that you can be trusted?" she said.Prahlad Uppal: This is the system, Indira! The game plan has changed in the last few years, and no, Ajit did not change it, the environment did.Indira: Oh, please! Somebody subscribed to the change to give it life! Anyway, I am not accepting this promotion, if you choose to call it that. Not because Basu is a friend. But because that is not the kind of organisation I joined. This cut-throatedness is not Indian. Uppal: The culture belongs to the company and I don't think there is a choice. It's the way the organisation has chosen to conduct its affairs!Ambi: You surprise me Prahlad. Here are two of us who believe otherwise, and you are a nice one to talk culture! (To Indira) You watch out; this entire drama is going to make you look like the villain of the piece.Indira was alarmed. Now the coins fell. She stood there covering her face with one hand and shaking her head. Then to Uppal: "It's off. Officially it's off. Take this as my verbal resignation. I am not going to be party to all this."Uppal: This is what I tell Ajit, you women are too emotional!Indira to Ambi: I might say something improper to him and that will not be nice. So let me leave... you can convey this to Ajit.Meanwhile an unhappy silence envelops Delaware. Senior management knew Uday had not accepted the terms yet his departure was announced. People were dazed. Something just did not make sense. They knew Indira, they knew Uday. They knew both were clean human beings with a clean approach to work. Indira was younger and had been at Delaware 11 years to Uday Basu's 17. But she had been around longer than their MD Saigal. Yet Saigal was the MD —there was a certain augustness attached to that office and it was usually assumed that it went to people with dispositions far, far superior. Hence there was much confusion at Delaware.break-page-breakThings turned ugly for Indira, exactly as Ambi had predicted. The first casualty was her secretary Maitry who had earlier been Uday's secretary. She stood before Indira sobbing pitifully and mouthing unintelligible platitudes about her ex-boss and this too: "I thought you would not let this happen..."Indira stared after Maitry in surprise. But Uppal's secretary, Isha, was ready with her repartee: "Maybe they used Indira as a pawn to engineer Basu out?" Isha justified that with, "I know how HR works."All in all, something like this had never happened at Delaware in the past. An element of fear and doubt seized employees. The management board met to greet and felicitate Indira in her new job. Uppal did not share with the MD the showdown he had had with Indira, nor had Indira gone to meet the MD. Mercifully for her, he was travelling till the day of the felicitation. She was now going to talk to him in the presence of his team. No less. There was the usual exaggerated bonhomie before the meeting as everyone groaned about work and everyone else groaned in return. One such was Kapil Chandok, head of finance, who said, "The next two quarters are going to be decisive for us. If things don't look up by June 2012, then we will be lining up at the cleaners... We can begin with costs, controlling flab was always a great way..."Saigal: I agree, Kapil, but not for too long, for good times are here! For we will now welcome on board the magic woman, Indira! Now that she is taking over, our fortunes are going to zoom. Poker-faced, Indira raised her hand to stop them, then said, "This is strange, you expect one person to make a difference to our profitability? Then what are others here for?"Saigal: Oh Indira, you are being modest! With you holding out for Sales, I see a great revival of fortunes!Indira: My argument holds Ajit. How can one person make a difference? Or even two persons? I do feel you are putting upon me a responsibility that is not entirely mine! Chandok: In other words?Indira: In other words, we should all carry responsibility for a corporate setback or failure. To say that I have been appointed to restore Sales is to say that Uday Basu single-handedly led Delaware to failure. And to say Basu failed, is to say the rest of us sit with our hands tied. Both statements are fallacious. Is it not? I now harken back to 2005, 6 and 7. Even 8. We were soaring! Our sales were off the graph! You were not here then, Ajit, but I recall we did not thump Basu on the back for the success. I recall we all sat and felt great that we were a terrific team. After which we drank ourselves silly.Which brings me to the raison d'être for my elevation. I sit at this table with 12 men and I am here to a make a difference... a difference to the otherwise all-men, no women ratio. I am aware of Delaware, especially Cathy Baker's accent on diversity. But diversity is not a decorative. It is a desirable but not an imperative. What is imperative is for everyone to be committed to goals. As for diversity we can show it in our attitudes to many things.Ajit, I cannot stand in judgement on why you want Uday out. But I wish to say this much: to remove him so as to appoint me, so as to take the diversity quotient up, so as to appear progressive — I cannot be party to that." The silence that followed was deafening. Saigal picked up the moment very efficiently and swiftly – "Well spoken Indira. Truly well spoken. But truth is Uday is going and the decision stands, the reasons are different from what you have understood." Indira: Coming from the MD of this organisation, I will place my trust in your words. I will see endorsement of that truth in the way Basu is treated hereafter.Then turning to his people Ajit raised a toast and pointless merriment followed. Indira stood by, completely confused. She had never encountered anything like this before, so she did not know what signs to look for. The committee had met for no other reason, and since kebabs and cookies took over, Indira also took away a sense that her protest had lived its moment and died. Indira left the conference hall unnoticed. That evening Maya called Uday and said, "Mr Ajit Saigal wishes to give you a farewell dinner. Oh no, not alone, silly, he has invited the entire board and other managers relevant to your tenure."Uday: When?Maya: On the very last day.A brief silence later both of them burst out laughing. "Let me guess," said Uday, "It will be the most expensive restaurant?" Maya said, "Nevermind Uday...ok, it is! Are you accepting the invitation?"Uday: Of course I am. I have forgiven him... besides, I want to see the other board members.But it was obvious to Uday that Ajit suggested the dinner at the stage when everything was finished — papers signed, all announcements done, and the fractional transition period coming to an end. Going away was like that...The atmosphere at the dinner was very disconcerting for most present. For those present were all senior managers, two top management secretaries, all area sales and territory sales heads and of course the management board. At one level Uday's peers felt very bad for him, but they were still working for Delaware and that made it imperative that they remain feelingless. Indira stood in a corner very angry with the turn of events, unable to say anything.Then Saigal made a speech, where he began with a story of no serious consequence. It meandered and got lost somewhere. Presently, Saigal was thanking Uday for his contribution to the company — which had some shifting in their seats. (Later Brian asked, "Did he mean those words?" And Uday replied, "One should not look for meaning. He is performing a role and he is doing it well. Are the words coming from his heart? How do we know where words come from? It's not that he is heartless. I am sure he is restless within. But he also knows he cannot and will not do it any differently. Because a lot of variables are at stake. But I know he is feeling bad about how he managed to get me out.")Then others made speeches, people who had evolved and grown with Uday at Delaware. The flavour was different. Ambi said to Uppal, "How well everyone thinks of him, why are we asking him to go, I wonder." Uppal moved away to pick up a pinwheel sandwich. Others too were heading for the buffet. They would pick their plate and quietly drift from the ‘epicenter' of correct talk, gently taking Uday away to the margins where they would not be heard telling him, "All this is so bad, we did not expect this..."Indira stepped in and took Uday away from the rest. "Basu, this is stupid and I am witnessing it all happen. I am really sorry. This spoils the mood for life! No, please allow me to speak my mind. You have been my boss, you have groomed me in different roles which is why I am here now, seen as relevant, good, competent... all that. But I am unable to enjoy this success with you!"Uday: That is not so. What they have done is over. I am not grieving. I am enjoying your success and I really mean it. Indira: Yes, I realise one must separate the persons from the organisation and I try and remind myself that it is the organisation I work for, not the people. break-page-breakOthers came up now one by one to Uday and this grieving group grew larger and larger. They stood there and told him how shocked they were and how they were disappointed by what they were witnessing. Many thanked him for all that he had done for their careers all these years and said they must remain in touch — which had a deathly finality... this began to bother Uday. Now he realised that this was in fact not just his last day at Delaware, but even his last hour. Uday's eyes misted, even if briefly.He checked himself in time as Justin Purush, the recently hired brand manager, came up to him with a hesitant smile. "Hi...," he said, and put out a hand and shook Uday's. Then in a whisper, he said, "Forgive me if my question is rude. Some people think you are leaving because you have been offered country manager-ship at Etzo..." and as Uday laughed, Justin continued, "and some think you have been asked to go, which is my bigger concern Mr. Basu." Uday: Hahaha.. and why is that?"Justin: Sir, do forgive me. I have just joined a few months ago. I would be worried if Delaware can create erratic situations such as these. I mean, I am serious about my career...Uday: You should not think like that. This is a large organisation and has very good people. You will learn more than you can even imagine!The previous three days, Uday had met one key distributor each for lunch and another for dinner. These were great dinners laced with memories of all that they had achieved together. Uday had such an amazing time at all these meetings, it did not seem like he was leaving Delaware! Some of them asked him gently if a strategy change was expected. Uday told them that the long-term strategy he had developed with his team had the board's approval and he did not see reason for it to change. They were not assured.He now took in the entire evening and tried to imagine life without any of these people or the buzz. Suddenly the pain was gripping. What a serious part of his life was being wrenched away! Elsewhere Ambi stood near Saigal but was unable to kick up a conversation. Nor was he able to bring himself to walk away. But Saigal made that easy. He said, "I have heard rumblings that you are unhappy with Uday's exit." Ambi: Mostly because I have been told he is going because his performance was bad. Ajit, never mind the 17 years; but do pay heed to the last six years. Sales have boomed. In fact we have never done so well ever! You have only just come in Ajit, three years ago. Four years until then, we soared outside the graph! Hence I wonder where your complaint comes from. Unless you blame the recession on Uday? Saigal was saved as Maya came towards them and Saigal left to get her a Coke. Ambi to Maya: Bad timing Maya. You gave him a chance to get away. Maya: Don't kid yourself that he would have answered your questions.Ambi: I am convinced Ajit needs to save face with the parent company and hence needed to be kicking someone real hard to show action. Hence Uday. But what Ajit misses is this: the ‘new' that he needs for the business cannot be used till the old is resolved. He made the mistake of thinking that Indira will be a willing replacement. She does not fit in with Ajit's ways... Does not Ajit have a bigger problem? Maya: Haha. This is like how I hastily cut open a new packet of coffee, that came from Bangalore (since it seemed to hold promise of new experience). And in order to empty the coffee jar to store the new, I began to overuse the old coffee! Yes, Ajit probably has a bigger problem now. A part of the new will not fit...Classroom discussion Should gender diversity be a mission or a vision? Or, both? Or... neither?casestudymeera(at)gmail(dot)com(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 26-03-2012)
Read More
I grew up with a basic tenet "character is what you do when you are sure that no one will ever find out". In an organisation's context, culture is what happens when people look in the mirror and say "this is the way things get done here". An organisation's identity is defined by the leaders who create the foundation for the culture; suffice it to say that things look a bit murky in Delaware. There are two key issues at play in this case — the issue of diversity and inclusion, and the role of the managing director and the HR leader.Organisations look at diversity or inclusion, which are broad and multi-faceted fields, not recognising that the two go hand in hand, and form the foundations for the culture they are trying to build. It is important to understand that diversity and inclusion, in their entirety, are about creating the foundation for each individual to develop and contribute to full potential in an environment where he feels valued and respected. We also need to recognise that diversity is a multicoloured coat — gender, quality of thought, skills, capabilities, experience and much more. Underlining all of this are values. When an organisation's values are not driven by respect, integrity, and valuing individuals, any stated focus on diversity and inclusion cannot be sustained.In this case, Uday Basu has been treated with scant respect, in so blatant a fashion that it is polarising the organisation. And Indira Varshney is demeaned, confused and left with a feeling of guilt — did she get the job because of her skills and capabilities or to put a giant tick in the corporatebox that they now have a diverse board with the requisite female representation! The situation in Delaware is the norm rather than an exception. Many Indian arms of MNCs have not spent time upfront to articulate what diversity and inclusion mean to them in our cultural context. They have not considered that it is important to have a more balanced workforce and how they will achieve this. It is important to have a clearly articulated plan for how they will achieve this, and to enroll key decision makers.In today's business context, diversity is an imperative. Organisations must reflect the communities in which we live — be it the overall population or the communities of consumers, customers and stakeholders. However, can this be done overnight with a single stroke of the pen? Can it be done at the cost of other people in the organisation? Will it ever be sustainable with just a token appointment of a few under-represented groups? Can it build a positive reinforcing organisation culture which people own? The answer to all these questions is a resounding NO. There is the classical conundrum of how to make two lines equal in length: cut the longer one, or lengthen the shorter one without taking away from the other. Affirmative action might be necessary in the early stages of the gender diversity journey, but it needs to be done without disenfranchising either side. In this case, Indira feels guilty that she has been the cause of Uday's departure. She feels insecure because "she is called upon to make a difference" in isolation and the rest of the organisation is uncertain because it does not understand whether the culture is one of meritocracy and contribution or whimsical to suit the needs of the bigger corporate.If Delaware is trying to improve its gender representation, the company could have identified some other role to promote Indira. For no fault of hers, she will now be a target — every success or failure will be attributed to her gender rather than her capabilities. Others have got a message from Uday's exit that the company's culture propagates a lack of meritocracy. This could seriously harm the organisation's ability to attract, retain and nurture talent. Above all what concerns me deeply is the quality of leadership shown by the MD and the HR head — two key stakeholders in building and upholding an organisation's culture. If all they want to do is mechanically implement the whims of the corporate headquarters, they are just laying the foundation of a fate as bad as Uday's or even worse — a corporate life led without any self-esteem or personal integrity. Delaware's leadership has not thought this through. Many business leaders are driven by personal survival and glory than authentic leadership. There appears to be a greater concern about "looking good" rather than creating sustainable legacies. Many HR professionals misunderstand the term "business partnering" to mean doing everything the business wants them to do rather than being a coach and holding up a mirror to business leaders. The leaders must remember that if they are content to lead without principles, no one will pay heed when they are in dire need.Matangi Gowrishankar is passionate about organisation development. She is based in Singapore where she works as a regional director, human resources, of a UK-based MNC(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 26-03-2012)
Read More
Delaware was an organisation! It has now forgotten that organisations have to have value frameworks that allow individuals to work in a safe manner. Now, Delaware is an organisation in decay. All individuals bring to an organisation a unique and a brilliant way of thinking. The uniqueness of each individual's way of thinking and his working in tandem with other individuals allows an organisation to grow. But an individual's uniqueness can only be an asset for the organisation when it functions within a value framework and when such a value framework is clearly defined. A key function of such a value framework is to guide individuals about what not to do. The second function of a value framework is to guide them on how to do things that are difficult. When an organisation does not define what not to do, it runs the risk of individual members of the organisation deciding what is right for the organisation and working at cross purposes. Also when an organisation does not instil "the how to" of difficult decisions, then it decays. I do not blame Ajit for the messy decision- making at Delaware. Nor do I blame Mark or Uppal. I, certainly, do not blame Uday. For blaming these individuals for the mess would mean that I would be following the same logic as Ajit. His logic goes like this: If sales are down then one individual is not working and that individual must be held accountable (presumably, so that others start working.) This logic is fallacious. Blaming just one person and making him accountable only repeats the problems rather than solving them. So who is responsible for the mess that Delaware finds itself in? I do not know the answer, as sometimes it is difficult to define human situations in terms of a linear cause and effect. So, let us visualise that Ajit and Uday are playing with a ball. In this game it is Uday's job to catch the ball that Ajit throws, and Ajit's job is to catch the ball that Uday throws. Both are catching well. Then one time, Uday is not able to catch the ball and he drops it. If one uses linear causality it would be logical to say Uday messed up and he does not know how to play; or also to say that Ajit does not know how to throw a ball and thereby conclude fault. Organisational processes (in fact most human interactions) are not as simple as this game! Now look at another game. Ajit, Mark, Uppal, Uday, Indira, Ambi, all the dealers and vendors of Delaware have a ball each to throw and are also supposed to catch the balls that are thrown in their direction. If we imagine all of them throwing their balls at the same time…how many balls will be dropped and how many will be caught? And who will be responsible for the balls dropped and who does not know to play ball? Who will decide who went wrong? Is it fair to think in terms of cause and effect? Is it possible to say who went wrong or is it more important to figure out what went wrong, and how things may be done differently, so that the objectives are met? Perhaps, what went wrong in this game is similar to what went wrong at Delaware. No one defined ‘what not to do' and ‘how to take decisions'. So all the decisions did not add up to fulfilling the objectives of the organisation. If one uses linear causality while thinking about organisations one may end up defining who went wrong. This is a good way of finding scapegoats. If, however, one were first to reflect on ‘what went wrong' and, in answer to this question, one looked for patterns, patterns that connect thoughts of various people about ‘what went wrong', then, prepared with this information, one can ask, ‘What should be done differently, now?' and ‘What would be the impact of the solution not only on the problem that has been defined but also on individuals and their capacities?' Then, one would find answers that are game-changers. The real change, my dear Mark and the invisible people you represent, is not to allow the MD to unceremoniously sack the Sales head who has a long association of 17 years with the company. Or to blame Ajit for sacking Uday. Or to blame Indira for taking over from Uday. Or to blame Uppal for not standing up to Ajit. Or for everyone to blame everyone else. So, while I do not blame anyone for the mess at Delaware, I do wonder what it is about this organisation that everyone has become a silent spectator and is ‘grieving'. Can an organisation survive such a mournful silence? Though one does not have all the information, one would really suggest to the team to reflect! Reflect by asking three questions: One, when did we start blaming individuals for collective failure? Two, what do we celebrate as success and how do we do it? Three, how do we honour near failures? The answers may throw up a solution and not a scapegoat! Dr Achal Bhagat is a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist. He is director, division of mental health and quality of life, at Medanta The Medicity, Gurgaon. He is also chairperson, Saarthak, an NGO in the field of mental health services(This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 26-03-2012)
Read More
