Many conversations over the weekend glass of wine at get-togethers leave me disturbed. Invariably, friends and acquaintances begin by seeking advice on what they should eat and drink, what diseases they can ward off… you get the drift. And during the course of these wine and roasted peanut evenings (I avoid the cheese) emerge myths about what’s healthy. I’m listing the most common ones: Low fat: It usually means that a particular item has been stripped of saturated and unsaturated oils, both of which are good for the body in small quantities. Saturated fats keep the brain healthier and fungal and viral infections at bay, while daily intake (10 per cent of total calorie) of unsaturated fat ensures a healthy heart, balanced hormones and fewer mood swings. So eat full fat instead of low fat, but in small quantities — chuck the margarine and switch back to smaller quantities of butter. No sugar: Love your desserts but don’t want sugar? Add honey, jaggery, stevia, dates. Chuck artificial sweeteners. They are bad for your brain and your metabolism. Too much artificial sweetener can lead to a metabolic disorder and cause weight gain, defeating the purpose of ‘no sugar’ foods in the first place, and increase your risk for memory loss-related brain disorders. Oats or bran or whole wheat or rye or any other ‘healthy’ biscuits: Now that’s an oxymoron. Biscuits are processed foods and contain hydrogenated oil or trans fatty acids, which are also present in other junk foods that clog arteries. If a biscuit company has added 20 per cent oats, that does not really negate the bad fat, white flour and sugar which are essential for any biscuit recipe? No! Switch to snacks like chikki, poha, oats upma, roasted peanuts, mixed nuts (except cashew nuts) to get a healthy bite with your chai or green tea. Whole wheat or multi-grain or any other ‘healthy’ bread: Breads cannot be made without white flour unless you have a bakery at home. Most ‘brown’ breads have colouring and the highest fibre breads also have white flour. Instead, buy good quality breads from local bakeries that bake them fresh, as they require smaller amounts of preservatives to keep them fresh. Consume less, but consume the right thing. Cooking in olive oil: Indian cooking is high-flame cooking (we cook at 500-plus degree Fahrenheit till we kill all those lovely nutrients in food!). On the other hand, olive pomace’s smoke point is 409 degrees Fahrenheit. Any oil cooked beyond the smoke point gets carcinogenic, so please use safflower or canola. Question Of The Fortnight Send in your questions to askrachnachhachhi@gmail.com I’m doing everything right but unable to lose weight. I exercise 7 days a week, eat small meals and fruits, and sleep well. What could be wrong?— Sanila Das, Mumbai Dear Sanila,Women over 35 get into what’s called a “hormonal” bind. All exercise programmes are geared towards men and don’t work on women because our bodies are not logical due to our hormones. Your exercise regime is blocking weight loss. Alternate between 40 minutes of aerobic exercise and gentle yoga. Exercise only five days a week. It seems unbelievable, but I have made many women lose weight with just this. And yes, don’t eat after 7 p.m. The author is a certified nutritional therapist and WHO certified in nutrition. She is the writer of Restore, a book on how to fight diseases for working professionals (This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2015)
Read More
Reform in labour laws and fair and faster dispute resolution mechanism are a must if Make in India has to succeed in the near term, writes Rajendra ShrivastavPrime minister Narendra Modi has been campaigning hard for ‘Make in India’. He has fired all engines to attract foreign companies to create manufacturing capacities in India. Defence, nuclear power, aviation, space, electronics, railways, electrical industry, renewable energy, ports and oil & gas are some of the key focus areas. However, ‘Make in India’ can happen only in a few practical ways and those are elaborated below. Why would foreign companies invest to create local manufacturing in India? Because the educated manpower costs are lower in India; besides, there could be assured business growth with long-term visibility -- companies do not care much about business potential. Other than ease of doing business in India, the multinational corporations (MNCs) expect a fair and ethical behaviour by competitors and stakeholders in the local market. It has been my experience that this is often not the case. Another way is to partner with an Indian company and this is quite often the first choice of the management and boards of MNCs. But many MNCs face problems in finding a suitable local partner that knows the local system and its inner workings very well, and one that is willing to make equitable investment and take business risks. MNCs can also contribute to ‘Make in India’ by facilitating access to state of the art technology to Indian companies ie., license for local manufacturing. Transfer of Technology (ToT) entails protection to the supplier for its Intellectuals Property Rights (IPR), patents, copy rights, design and trademarks. Although the Indian government is trying to assure MNCs on IPR and patent protection, this is still an area of concern. The ‘Make in India’ route can compel MNCs to locally invest in some measure when a large order is placed with MNCs such as General Electric by Indian Railways for supply of diesel locomotives or Alstom for electrical locomotives. In such cases the investments by the foreign companies is dedicated to creating a niche local manufacturing capacity. Incidentally, this practice is not accepted by Russian suppliers, and they continue to receive orders worth tens of billions of dollars in the nuclear sector from the government. Also, while ‘Make in India’ seeks to attract investments, Indian start-ups are fleeing to other countries. Online grocery shopping portal Grofers, started by IIT Mumbai graduates three years ago, has relocated to Singapore to escape the Indian tax regime. MNCs such as Vodafone, Nokia and Vedanta that have been in India for decades are constantly among headlines for their battle in the Indian courts against taxes and notices for penal recoveries. This is not at all a good publicity for the country. Reform in labour laws and fair and faster dispute resolution mechanism are a must if Make in India has to succeed in the near term. The above-mentioned elements are keenly watched and critically examined in the boardrooms of any MNC that would like to invest under the Make in India drive. A note of caution: Some of the MNCs that have been in India for decades are economical with truth when it comes to their ‘Make in India’ credentials. They tend to pass off even routine expansion of capacities at their existing factories as their ‘Make in India’ contribution. The author is former MD, Nuclear Business, Alstom; President, Indorama and Country Director, EDF(This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2015)
Read More
Delhi is not Gandhinagar: managing contradictions and conflicting interest groups is a big challenge, writes Rajdeep SardesaiA year is an eternity in Indian politics: a year ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi could literally walk on water. His remarkable 2014 general election win had given him the confidence and the mandate to push ahead with a dramatic reform agenda if he so desired. Victories in Maharashtra, Jharkhand and even Jammu & Kashmir only confirmed the seemingly irresistible surge of the NaMo factor: ache din ayenge was the conviction among the masses. Falling oil prices only seemed to suggest that not just ache din but the Prime Minister was blessed with ache sitare too. Sadly, at a time when he was the Pied Piper of India, Modi missed the chance to take the national flock along with him: rhetoric and incremental change replaced execution and sweeping reform.As 2015 winds down, Modi is still the country’s number one neta by some distance, but the honeymoon period is clearly over. The defeat in the Delhi elections at the start of the year was the first sign that the bubble had burst. An aborted and dysfunctional monsoon session suggested that the opposition had recovered its voice, if not its votes. The fact that the Prime Minister had to eventually abandon his plan to push ahead with amending the land acquisition Act only confirmed that Modi could no longer take his Lok Sabha majority as a guarantee for implementing his agenda for change. Which is why the November elections in Bihar are now so important. First, an election victory in Bihar would suggest that the Delhi debacle was only a blip on the radar and confirm the status of Modi as the most energetic campaigner in recent political history and BJP president Amit Shah as the ultimate strategist. Second, it would be a big dampener to any hope of an opposition revival: the very fact that sworn enemies like Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad have come together suggests that this is now a battle for their political survival. The Congress party, too, is banking on Bihar to emerge as some kind of a magnet for anti-Modi forces in the future, even if it remains a marginal player in the state. Third, a win in Bihar would be a crucial step towards the BJP’s ultimate goal: total control of both Houses of Parliament by 2018. But most importantly, a BJP triumph in Bihar would give Modi the momentum to stay the course on plotting a personality-centric reform pitch. Last year when Modi came to power, his supporters saw his emergence as marking a distinct shift in the political compass of this country. It is true, as I have suggested in my book 2014: The Election that Changed India, that the Modi victory was pregnant with possibilities, good and bad. While the BJP was now established as the principal pole of Indian politics, there was still a question mark over just how the social and economic agenda of the country would be transformed by the new power arrangement at the Centre. Sixteen months later, we could argue that it is the government’s social agenda which has thrown up more misgivings rather than the hope generated by the Prime Minister’s promise of an economic revival. An emboldened Sangh Parivar has allowed its so-called ‘fringe’ a free run when it comes to its core ideological agenda of imposing a Hindutva-inspired cultural ‘nationalism’ on the citizenry. Then be it love jihad or ghar vapsi or rewriting text books, there seems to be a conscious effort to allow dormant forces to express themselves without fear of retribution.The Prime Minister’s silence on potentially divisive religious issues can be contrasted with his loquaciousness on his vision for the Indian economy. Unlike his predecessor who went into a prolonged stupefying silence, Modi has undoubtedly energised the electorate with his constant communication, be it to industry groups, NRIs, the youth or foreign investors. Slogans and ideas like Make in India, Start-up India, Digital India, Skill India, Smart Cities have had a hugely positive effect in marked contrast to the mood of negativism that had enveloped the Manmohan Singh years. As a feel good political guru who can enthuse any audience, Modi deserves full marks. But robust oratory can also throw up unrealistic expectations. Which is where Modi the dream merchant runs the risk of becoming a victim of his own hype. When you remain in constant campaign mode, then the danger is of promises not being matched by execution. So, while Modi trumpets ‘Make in India’, the truth is there hasn’t been any marked manufacturing revival, especially for small and medium scale enterprises. Job-driven growth still remains a mirage and infrastructure targets are still showing mixed results. Maybe, industry itself must share the blame: they expected the Modi government to play a T-20-like match when the Prime Minister himself is perhaps looking to put in place a policy regime that will yield benefits in a more patient Test match format.There have been successes: mining de-nationalisation, transparent auctioning of coal and spectrum, a serious attempt to reduce cronyism and corruption in high places, trying to focus on improving bureaucratic efficiencies, could all be viewed as the building blocks for the future. And yet, the failure to build consensus on the major tax reform in the shape of GST, the deeply flawed black money legislation, a lamentable failure to address serious agricultural and environmental challenges, and the status quo on urgent banking and financial reform have meant that the Modi government’s report card has just as many hits as misses. So far, one standard excuse has been the opposition, especially the Congress party’s refusal to co-operate with the government. It could be argued that the Congress is still a sore loser, unwilling to come to terms with the scale of its defeat last year. But it is equally true that Modi’s unilateralism has made him a difficult person to do business with: for example, the Prime Minister would have been better advised last year to make an eminently do-able GST legislation his calling card rather than seeking to push ahead with more contentious land amendments through an ordinance route. Maybe, building legislative bipartisanship to critical national issues has never been the Prime Minister’s strong suit. After all, as Gujarat chief minister, Modi had no opposition, either in the state assembly or outside it. He could afford to run the government as a single window clearance, individual-centric system with a heavy reliance on a few chosen bureaucrats in the chief minister’s office. Delhi is not Gandhinagar: managing contradictions and conflicting interest groups is a big challenge, perhaps bigger than the Prime Minister first anticipated when he won his historic May 2014 election. Which is why Bihar and the winter session that will follow is a test for both, Modi the campaigner and Modi the Prime Minister. As a campaigner there is enough evidence to suggest that he is more than a match for his rivals. As Prime Minister, he needs to go beyond catchy slogans and one-liners to engage a range of diverse interests: can he truly put India first rather than making it about Modi first? The writer is a senior journalist and consulting editor at TV Today, and author of the best-selling book 2014: The Election That Changed India(This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2015)
Read More
Modi must know that if the gap between promise and delivery is not bridged quickly, his pitch will begin to lose credibility, with costs both at home and abroad.
Read More
Modi’s US visit went as planned — he got Fortune 500 CEOs to hear him and his party got a rich database of Indians in the US, writes Nayan Chanda Compared with the breathless Indian television coverage and acres of print spent during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s six-day US trip, the near-total absence of media coverage of his visit in the US could be termed a failure from India’s point of view. That would, however, be a mistake. Not only did Modi’s trip face competition for the news cycle (coinciding as it did with visits by Pope Francis and Chinese President Xi Jinping as well as a rare appearance by Russian president Vladimir Putin at the UN General Assembly), but his visit had a different agenda from other visitors as well. Although he stayed in the same iconic Waldorf-Astoria hotel and addressed the UN General Assembly, his principal mission was to sell India to US multinationals and tech titans, and to win the support of Indians overseas. Though sceptical about his track record for reform, Fortune 500 CEOs showed interest in investing in India and Modi’s delegation returned home with a rich database of enthusiastic supporters who may be of assistance in the future. Modi’s business agenda was evident from the fact that his meetings were not in the corridors of the United Nations but in the gilded rooms of Waldorf-Astoria where American CEOs trooped in. It was also there that Fortune magazine hosted a dinner attended by 47 major CEOs — of Ford, Cisco, IBM, Lockheed, to MasterCard, Merck, Pepsi, DuPont and Dow. What emerged from the remark of the moderator of the closed-door meeting was that the businessmen did not mince words about their unhappiness with complicated regulations, excessive red tape, confusing bureaucracy, poor infrastructure and overlapping local taxes and urged Modi to speed up reforms. Modi concurred, “The world is not going to wait for us. I know that.” It was away from gridlocked New York, in Silicon Valley, that Modi found himself most at home. In his meetings with the tech CEOs like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, and Apple’s Tim Cook, he pitched his ‘Digital India’ vision. Although Google’s announcement of plans to provide Wi-Fi to 500 Indian railway stations, or Facebook offering free Internet service were the result of prior consultations, they added to the sense of achievement. The high point for the PM was surely the enthusiastic reception he received from 18,000 NRIs and Indian-Americans at San Jose’s Convention Center. Soaking up the ecstatic applause from the crowd, when he asked them for a “certificate” of keeping his election promise, he drove home political advantage by denouncing the corruption of India’s (unnamed but obvious) opposition party — in particular that of son, daughter and son-in-law. Besides scoring political points, Modi’s party took home very a valuable database of Indians in the US. Showing remarkable skills in the registration process for those wishing to attend the public meeting with Modi, the organisers sought passport, driving license and address details of each individual as a prerequisite for being considered for an entry pass, although actual delivery was subject to scrutiny by the sponsors. The organisers in America connected with 313 partner organisations, from the All World Gayatri Parivar to the Zionist Organization of America, which provided the email list of their members for free invitation. Similar move is afoot in the UK where an invited crowd of 70,000 at the Wembley stadium will greet Modi in November. Thanks to the email list obtained from 414 European organisations, the BJP can expect a massive addition to its Big Data of likely supporters and donors overseas. Neither Xi nor Putin can rival these riches. The author is Consulting Editor of YaleGlobal Online, published by the MacMillan Center, Yale University; boundtogether.bw@gmail.com (This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2015)
Read More
By Gurbir Singh The takeover of Network18 by Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries (RIL) has always been an enigma. Why did Reliance want to take over a media company after having burnt its fingers in 1991 with The Sunday Observer and The Business & Political Observer? Did a Rs 3.84 lakh-crore behemoth need to add a Rs 3,000-crore company to its repertoire? Or, was there some other agenda? Recent events at Network18 have reinforced the question: Can Reliance, with its multi-layered corporate compulsions, run a credible news network? Over a couple of days at the end of September, the leadership at Network18 underwent quick and dramatic surgery. A.P. Parigi, group CEO, Network18, who had been appointed barely nine months ago, was marched off as ‘advisor’ to the chairman Adil Zainulbhai. Rahul Joshi, editorial director at The Economic Times, was brought in as ‘CEO-News and Group Editor-in-Chief’ to ‘drive’ the company with ‘ownership mindset’. Joshi now straddles both corporate and editorial functions, a difficult and contradictory role. Zainulbhai’s circular also dispensed with Senthil Chengalvarayan, the editor-in-chief, Business Newsroom, and the face of CNBC India for over two decades. Reliance’s Network18 journey since 2012 is revealing. Reliance initially provided a rescue package to the then Raghav Bahl-promoted Network18 —some Rs 2,200 crore — against optionally convertible debentures (OCDs); by then Reliance had also acquired the Eenadu Group’s network of regional news and entertainment channels, and it was merged with Network18 making it a powerful 25-channel network. Initially, RIL’s statements took pains to portray an arms-length policy. The company said in its 3 January 2012 press release that RIL was setting up an ‘Independent Media Trust’ to fund the company, which would have “eminent individuals as trustees, thus preserving the management, operational and editorial independence....” The press release said the main object of the media foray was to acquire content for Reliance’s 4G venture ‘Infotel Broadband Services’. By June 2014, when RIL decided to convert its OCDs and wrest management control from previous chairman Bahl, the arms-length policy was all but forgotten. People quit in droves. In his exit letter to the CNN-IBN staff, editor-in-chief Rajdeep Sardesai said: “Editorial independence and integrity have been articles of faith in 26 years in journalism and maybe I am too old now to change!” Deputy editor Sagarika Ghose and IBN-Lokmat editor Nikhil Wagle also opted out. There was no ambiguity that RIL wanted both corporate and editorial control. Sagarika Ghose, who anchored the primetime ‘Face the Nation’ was told in February 2014 not to post disparaging tweets against prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi. Later, an edict was put out not to give media coverage to Arvind Kejriwal’s Aam Aadmi Party in the Delhi state elections. Those who defied the whip lost their jobs. News media is a strange product. It needs delicate touch and respect for good journalism. History has shown that those who run huge corporate empires, and used to command and control systems, are at a loss when it comes to news media. Its only raw material is credibility. If that is compromised, however powerful the corporate backing, it will not sell. See which way the wind is blowing for Network18: CNN-IBN has steadily slipped in audience ratings moving down to 3rd or 4th slots since the Reliance takeover, behind both Times Now and NDTV. Broadcast Audience Research Council’s data shows ratings in ‘000s have slipped from 199 in June this year (week 21) to 181 in September (week 39), even as NDTV climbed from 189 to 222 in the same period. Even its business channel CNBC has slipped to 2nd place with rating of 226 (week 39) as compared to ET Now’s 237. Can the new team pull Network18 out of this downward spiral? (This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2015)
Read More
At the risk of being too risky and 'out of the box crazy', societies all over the world, often rejected raw and bold entrepreneurialism.
Read More
Mary Shelley, published a novel in 1818 - a novel that talked of an eccentric scientist Victor Frankenstein, who creates a grotesque creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment. Victor who attempts to create life, is horrified by what he ends up making, a monster which came to be dubbed Frankenstein. Little did she know that this monstrous concept will become a nightmare for brands and branding professionals?Today branding professionals set out to create strong brands through different branding strategies (Mindshare, Emotional, Viral and now Cultural branding); but in the process are also empowering the stakeholders to create a double of a brand. Akin to Victor creating life, branding professionals create brand imagery in the minds of its stakeholders. But then a brand building exercise is not a monologue. The stakeholders through various means can Jam the Brand messaging and circulate the distortion in the popular culture. Therefore, a scary eventuality happens, events turn up in such a weird manner, that parallel brand imagery gets created and the brand actually becomes a demon, a monster, a persona non gratia. A Brandenstein - a brand doppelgänger.So what is this doppelganger brand imagery?The positive evocation of a brand gets clouded by its villainish imagery - the whiplash of negative aura enveloping brands is gaining ascendancy. This phenomenon is known as Doppelgänger Brand Image. Gaurav SoodDoppel (double) Gänger (walker or goer) is a paranormal double of a living person, and is deemed harbinger of bad luck.Doppelgänger Brand Image, comprising negative perceptions, creates a compelling set of motifs that influence the impact of a brand. The creation of this Doppelgänger Brand Image confuses customers and can lead to "brand avoidance" effects (Congress party down to mere 44 seats).The Doppelgänger Brand Image is jamming the messages and stories about a brand that are circulated in popular culture by consumers, anti-brand activists, bloggers, and opinion leaders in the social or non-social media.Look at a specific brand like Indian Premier League (IPL), a globally recognized cricket extravaganza valued at $3.2 billion in 2014. Brand IPL is a hybrid of cricket and entertainment - a model that was successful and instrumental in India's control over world cricket. But look further, and we become aware of problems therein (financial irregularities, match fixing scandals, nepotism, off-the-field conduct of players etc.). Interestingly, cricket was historically noted as a gentleman's game; however, IPL is mired in controversies of match-fixing and misgovernance, bringing to fore uglier aspects of the commercial event. The IPL stakeholders at large carry out circulating jokes, mimicking the messages, critically commenting on the unorthodox approach of the game (Cheer girls, auctions, parties, fixing etc.), hence creating the brand IPL's doppelganger - The IPL Brandenstein.Again, look at Congress - a party with legendary past, towering high and mighty on Indian political scene even half a century post independence. And yet, what a drubbing the brand has taken in the recent elections, the party down to a demeaning 44 seats. The corruption, remote control governance, Pappu, silent PM etc. created a Congress party brandenstein. What a stark antithesis to its earlier greatness and stature.Microsoft, the pioneer in personal computer operating systems and office utility software, is accused of ruthless capitalism, saddled with numerous censures and litigations on anti-trust. This doppelgänger imagery forced Microsoft to increase its corporate communication spends on promoting itself as a social responsible company.Similarly, Pepsi, the icon for youth, enjoying a leading market share, is implicated in harmful ingredients debate, and charged with inflicting harm to water tables. The delicious serves by McDonalds are painted as anti-health and obesity promoting. Goldman Sachs, the world leader in consulting and advisory, is portrayed in diabolical cold inhuman like hues. The list goes on. Nike got embroiled in sweatshop practices controversy and sales dropped. Tiger Woods himself and his endorsed brands got rubbed negatively.This Doppelgänger, if heightened in intensity, can acquire mega dimensions of a Brandenstein, and well-nigh bring death of a brand, a messy painful death. An in-depth biopsy into Doppelgänger Brand Image is worth studying. It shall yield deeper insights that can be used for better understanding and management of any brand. This emerging concept holds tremendous potential for deeper forays.The emergence of a powerful, popular Doppelgänger may signal that a brand has 'peaked' and must either evolve or decline. Brand researchers have explored the creation and circulation of monstrous Doppelgänger brand imagery by anti-brand activists and found that this powerfully influences public perception of a corporate brand.The practice of parodying messages and media activism or hacktivism in order to drastically alter their message is a core mechanism herein. The opposing stakeholders are busy jamming the brand messages and viral it through social media. The brand manager's challenge is to reshaping the brand as per contextual and strategic considerations. Accordingly, one has to allow for tactics to ward off Doppelgänger brand image.And, beautifully, one can venture in this direction: Can Doppelgänger Brand Imagery affect Brands in "positive" as well as "negative" manner? Are strong Brands more likely to be more vulnerable to Doppelgänger Brand Imagery? Let our brands not morph into unwelcome brandensteins. The brand managers need to strategize as to how to manage the brand's Doppelgänger. The best way to fight fear of course is to challenge it, than avoid!The author, Gaurav Sood, is a brand communication professional, brand educator & research scholar, with two decade practice in creating strong brands
Read More
