November 7, 2007
11:26 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
"Although tremendous change and innovation are happening in the US, we are, of course, not the center of the universe…" A magnanimous statement describing the content of Global Perspectives on the Digital Revolution, the ad:tech panel that I attended yesterday. I wasn't quite so sure most believed it.
Moderated by Paul Maidment, editor for Forbes.com, the panel was not really as global as one might hope.
My first thought upon walking into the packed conference room at the Hilton hotel in New York was "Wait… am I in the right room?" Five, identically suited, white male panelists sat behind the table up front, while the audience consisted mainly of mainly white professionals, with a smattering of Asian attendees. Global what?
As the discussion began, I was somewhat appeased by the British and Australian accents of Maidment and panelist Adam Good (Executive Director of Digital Innovation, Clemenger Communications) respectively, which served to infuse some variation into what could otherwise have been deemed a suspiciously homogenous group. Still – while all the panelists had worked and lived in various parts of the world, none of them were from the regions the panel centered around.
In spite of prior claims about attempting to identify what marketers could learn from other parts of the world that were doing valuable things, the discussion focused on efforts that Western marketers have made, or will make, to break into Latin American and Asian markets (the former within the United States.) There was no mention of the phenomenon of a reverse colonization of marketplaces- from the third world to the West. Neither was there any discussion about markets within Latin America as promised by the panel description; instead all discussion in that area centered on the Hispanic market in the US.
It should have been called "How Western Companies Can Break into Emerging Asian and European Markets." Or something to that effect anyway.
Altogether some good thoughts, but nothing earth-shattering or particularly insightful. Here are some highlights.
"The future is already here. It just isn't evenly distributed." Maidment kicked the discussion off with this thought, a theme which continued throughout as different speakers underscored how various regions displayed cultural specificities that marketers needed to be aware of before they made any moves.
The panel began by emphasizing the growing importance of social networks and mobile phones as new phenomena for marketers to focus on. A brief video presentation on "Asia" consisted of a display of impressive statistics about China, Japan and Korea that detailed the region's rise in Web 2.0, public wiFii broadband connections, and enterprise mobile IM users. One perfunctory line on India was the only mention of this country during the entire panel.
Adam Good explained the distinction between Asian usage and Western usage of mobile phones, with the former having a different market due to a stronger proclivity to use public transport rather than cars.
Marc Landsberg (President of Arc Worldwide) jumped in to emphasize how even within Asia, there are vast differences in culture- Japan and Korea for instance are very different Singapore, in which companies are far more concerned with ROI and how much money they are dishing out.
China differs from Korea in that the latter is far more advanced, with 89% of the Internet audience having broadband, an advanced 3G market (something China lacks) and companies like LG that keep pushing the bar higher. The Philippines too have an advanced mobile consumption – with many making micro payments via SMS for instance.
In response to a question by Maidment as to whether all countries are eventually going to catch up, finally ending up on a level plane, Ole Obermann (VP of International Digital Business Development, Sony BMG) explained that in certain markets, like Southern Europe where digital forms about 7 to 8% of marketing budgets, the importance of digital marketing will certainly continue to increase, however "a 35 year old Spanish guy's time off may not be spent downloading to his mobile; maybe he prefers to drink wine in the sun."
"It's about finding a product or strategy that speaks to people in a country," he went on to add, explaining that Ringback Tone, in which consumers get to select what their callers hear when they call their mobiles, have taken off in Greece because "Greeks like to express themselves… It's a cultural thing."
Marc Landsberg explained that "the future of digital marketing is mobile and it's local. Content that is most relevant is local content that can be linked to local communities and to the physical world that matters."
Landsberg also underscored the importance of social networking as a marketing tool, citing the Fiat 500 project he worked on, in which a social network was built up around Fiat. The aim was to get people involved in design decisions about the car, effectively creating an involved user community so that "when the time came to buy the car, you not only knew all about it, you also knew about the other people who were also buying the car."
Peter Blacker (Senior VP, Digital Media, NBC Universal, Telemundo Network Group) offered his insights on this, underscoring that while social networks can be great, it is important to be aware of cultural specificities. The concept of identity is heavily diverse and these differences extend far beyond language. He went on to identify music as one way to reach across cultural boundaries and played a demo of a new Telemundo effort to explore the Hispanic-American identity by using humor to focus on the idea of being Latino but not speaking Spanish; the target being the Hispanic audience in the US.
Finally, in response to a question from the audience about what the "next big thing" in the US digital markets would be, Good identified shopping via mobile phones, while Landsberg identified the usage of mobile phones as an identity device. Obermann predicted that in 3 to 5 years people will be paying a subscription fee to have music streamed to them whenever they want and wherever they are – the concept of ownership will be increasingly trumped by the concept of access.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
November 6, 2007
04:49 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
I spent the major part of last week in Rhode Island on the jury panel for the 2008 Rebrand awards, a yearly award series that offers companies the highest possible recognition for brand rebuilding and redesign in the business arena.
While the winners we finally agreed upon cannot be revealed until March of next year, the process of meeting with business, marketing and design minds from a range of different places and backgrounds, and of considering the applications submitted by over 100 companies that have recently engaged in substantial rebrands, is worth a brief glance.
My first thought when I walked in to one of three table-lined rooms at the Rhode Island Foundation (formerly a train station and hence fittingly large) was a resounding Oh No.
Thick binders covered practically every surface inch of the long tables that extended across the room. There were table loads of information explaining what the rebrands consisted of, with pages of before and after examples of the company, product or built environment, both before and after the rebrand. We spent the entire day reviewing these.
It was fascinating. There were instances of companies that had revamped, or at least attempt to revamp, not just their look, logos, and taglines, but also their organization's focus, target audiences, training programs, models of customer interaction, and the entire culture of their organizations. Materials submitted included photographs, pictures, sketches, promotional material, apparel, and videos. Fascinating and mind-boggling.
The criteria we based our decisions on were as follows:
• There had been a clear transformation for the better
• The rebrand had exceeded expectations or incorporated an element of surprise
• It spurred an emotional connection
• The rebrand had been intelligently executed and was capable of being
implemented organization-wide.
The final round of judging was unsurprisingly characterized by a range of different perspectives. First of several jury members suggested the addition of further criteria: whether there was a rebrand at all, whether the story behind the brand had changed, what the larger impact of the rebrand was, and perhaps whether a company was a little guy with limited resources or a large company with lots of money to splash around.
The range of comments, focuses and favorites also shed more light on how, although primarily from a design background, the jury members all had their own distinctive approaches.
Roger van den Bergh, the Founding Partner of design firm, Onoma, displayed an innate propensity to judge from a micro-level: fonts, lettering and logos and typography were what caught his attention and swayed his decisions.
Katie Sprague, Vice President of RTKL and of an architectural background, was more concerned with follow through: "A brand is all about translating a promise and getting it into a built environment – making it a living, breathing thing." Her stand resonated well with the rest of us.
Frank Kelly, President & CEO of Arnold Worldwide, repeatedly questioned whether a brand was telling a new story, or whether it had just revamped its look and feel.
Diane Hessan, President of Communispace, gave an emphatic speech about how brands are "bigger, loftier and more important that just the visual elements." Her major focus was on trying to unearth the core values that formed an impetus for a company's rebranding efforts, "to hear the insights behind what drove things."
In the end, five winners were arrived at after several rounds of debate and discussion: all displayed a substantial change that was in line with their objectives. Check back on rebrand next year to find out who these were.
Apart from the wining, dining, and general networking that ensued from all of this, I left the jury session having truly developed a deeper appreciation for the multitude of factors companies need to consider when performing a rebrand. Some of the major takeaways:
Rebrand comprehensively: if you're a firm that wants to go more upscale for instance, rebranding your logo without also changing your model of customer service is unlikely to be successful. Don't get me wrong - a lot can be achieved by changing your look and feel; just don't fool yourself into thinking you're "rebranding."
Ensure that you follow through: You can make all the changes you want on paper, but if users aren't seeing them, feeling them and believing in them, you've wasted a lot of time and money. Implementation, on all levels, is key. Don't just tell customers you've changed; show them you've changed.
Consider your business objectives: Write these out in block letters and stick them in front of you. Never ever lose sight of the purpose of your rebrand. Every single decision should be made within the context of what you are trying to achieve. Only then will your rebrand be effective.
Aim for consistency: Ensure that all marketing materials, and all facets of your organization portray consistency and embody your brand message.
Don't get carried away: Being original and different, and generating a lot of media buzz is great, but don't implement change just for the sake of publicity. Good, solid brands that attempt an unnecessary facelift can dilute themselves in the process.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 23, 2007
06:09 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
It's been a fashion statement for a few seasons now. Being Green is In. If you're a corporate entity trying to be socially responsible, there's no hotter way than endeavoring to save the earth.
Ever heard the expression if you're going to get wet you might as well go swimming? This weekend, Britain's 3rd largest supermarket chain will make a splashy show of corporate social responsibility by giving away 1 million green friendly light bulbs to its customers, in exchange for an energy saving pledge to help the environment.
The journalist in me is inherently suspicious of such moves on the part of large corporations; I tend to label them as attention seeking gambles in an effort to attract positive media attention. But in this particular case I really do think Sainsbury's deserves some kudos for its initiative (here at Fast Company, we have a previously established familiarity for the connection between light bulbs and saving the world.)
Timed to coincide with the turning back of clocks across the country, on October 27th, Sainsbury's is offering free Philips 11 watt bulbs (equivalent to 60w incandescent light bulbs) to encourage customers and colleagues to switch to greener alternatives during darker months.
In order to claim a bulb, customers need to pledge to replace a light bulb with an energy saving light bulb, take re-usable bags for shopping rather than use disposable bags, unplug the phone charger when it’s not being used, keep the fridge and freezer running efficiently, switch to taking more showers than baths, try drying clothes outdoors or hang them up inside, rather than using the tumble dryer.
Along with its light bulb giveaway, Sainsbury's will also reduce the energy it uses in stores for the weekend by 45 tonnes of CO2, the equivalent of enough electricity to power 22 households for a whole year.
A cursory glance at Sainsbury's list of accolades in recognition of its environmentally friendly efforts reveals that the supermarket giant has certainly made an effort to turn green in recent years. It was most recently awarded the Greenest Supermarket award at the ‘Independent Greenest Companies’ awards.
Tesco and Asda, Britain's first and second largest supermarket chains respectively, have also made several environmentally friendly initiatives. Tesco was recently awarded a "green Oscar" for its fleet of zero-emission electric vans. It also offers things like a bag free home delivery service for customers concerned by the number of plastic bags used, and a system of Green Clubcard points to encourage fewer carrier bags.
Asda, which is part of the Wal-Mart family, has also made several efforts to be environmentally friendly. Earlier this year, the chain asked customers to help it reduce waste by identifying over-packaged goods. It also implemented a bag-free check out trial by which shoppers were encouraged either not to use a bag at all or to bring their own bags into stores. Shoppers who did not take a new bag when shopping were rewarded with ‘green goodies for schools’ vouchers.
Many of the projects implemented by supermarket chains like Sainsbury's, Tesco and Asda aim not just to control the environmental ramifications of their own processes, but also to change the everyday behavioral patterns of their shoppers – the light bulb initiative being a case in point.
Sainsbury's in particular seems to have taken its customer engagement efforts one step further – beyond the realm of corporate social responsibility-- with a prominent section of its site dedicated to encouraging customer interaction and eliciting dialogue.
It has established an online social network by which customers can choose communities depending on their interests, ask questions, post to discussions and vote on different topics. For a supermarket chain, the community is quite developed – I was impressed. While on the site, I was informed about the newest members who had joined, I learned about what sort of alternatives to crisps (aka chips) one could give one's children, and I even read a few paragraphs of advice offered to a parent who was worried about her son turning vegetarian.
Between Sainsbury's giving away one million free light bulbs on the one hand and creating an online social network that encourages customers to interact (with themselves as well as Sainsbury's) on the other, the UK supermarket giant is making some smart moves, and attracting a well deserved bout of attention in the process.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 22, 2007
10:33 am | 0 recommendations | 3 comments
I was on the subway with one of my louder friends the other day when he said something particularly embarrassing. Red-faced I shushed him vigorously and looked furtively around to see how many people were chuckling. Talk about anticlimactic. Nobody.
Every single one of our surrounding co-passengers who sat within earshot had headphones planted firmly in their ears, seemingly content to just sit back and let the music keep them company. I was amazed.
It's not really a new phenomenon that many people who ride New York's subway carry iPods or other MP3 players. I just had never had an occasion to notice how large this number actually is. People keep inter-personal interaction to a minimum-- no looking, no talking, no touching (well not of one's own volition anyway). The music is just another way to keep the invisible walls impenetrable.
Listening to music on the subway isn't a bad thing at all – before it seems like I'm heading down that path -- but last week's incident (or lack of) has made me think about how public transport systems are increasingly being populated by more and more gadget wielders.
A recent piece of tech news: In the near future, possibly even next year, people may be able to freely use their cell phones on airplanes flying over EU airspace. Plans have already been developed to allow mobile phone usage above 3000 meters, without the risk of interference with the aircraft navigation systems.
Less newsworthy is the fact that New Yorkers will soon be able to use their cell phones underground. The Metropolitan Transport Authority recently announced a plan by which all 277 subway stations would be wired for cell phone and wireless Internet connectivity over the next six years. Reportedly, Transit Wireless, the company that will be installing the equipment, will also provide the MTA with the potential to extend the cell phone and wireless capabilities to subway tunnels. So far, the MTA has indicated no intention of doing so. Some seem to think they should.
Now I love using my phone; I love chatting with people. And particularly when I'm suspended in a tubular vacuum, staring blankly at the Delta ad in front of me and trying to decrypt the garbled sounds from above that are meant to keep everyone informed, the prospect of having a familiar voice just a button away to help pass the time sounds pretty appealing. The problem? It sounds pretty appealing to just about everyone.
Technology itself -- if intended for humane purposes, to facilitate interaction, solve a problem or make life easier -- can be wonderful. Problems arise around the way in which people choose to harness this technology. Sometimes, depending on the type of device and the way people choose to use it, too much technology can be a bad thing.
We already use cell phones in trains and on buses; so far with the help of guilt inducing announcements about being courteous or under the glares of their tired co-passengers, people have managed to stay pretty quiet.
But flights across Europe? Hour long subway rides from Queens to Brooklyn? The former is less daunting – people are more courteous on flights, and if nothing else, the higher prices of cell phone calls will act as a deterrent. But the latter? Sounds like a capsule shaped nightmare to me.
On the bright side, the less invasive usage of cell phones mid-air is far more likely to materialize in the near future than the ability to use phones in subway tunnels. The MTA seems to share the idea that cell phone usage on subways is a bad idea.
To be fair, like with most technology, as long as the usage of cell phones on subways, planes and other modes of public transport can be monitored or restricted, it could be a positive thing – particularly in emergency situations when riders are trapped underground. But for now, confining the extension of underground cell phone signals to subway stations is fine by me. It's the one part of my day when, away from my cell phone and the phones of others, I get to catch up on reading, listen to music or just snatch some "me" time during which no verbal responses are expected.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 17, 2007
12:06 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
A few weeks ago, as I reluctantly trudged my way to the office after an unduly aggravating morning commute, I noticed a brilliant splash of color whiz by me. I spun around, but without my usual dose of caffeine and in the midst of a groggy pre-work daze, I wasn't quite fast enough to identify the perpetrator.
It was still summer, although the tail end, so I put it down to one of those meticulously dressed New Yorkers who pay homage to all the seasons by color coding their wardrobes to complement the weather outside.
A couple of minutes later, there it was again – an incongruously multi-colored shape. This time it slowed down enough to honk loudly as I tried to shrug my bag back onto my shoulder and avoid spilling my coffee, all in one ineffectively swift movement.
A regular, yellow New York cab. Regular except for the enormous flowers painted on its hood… What on earth was going on?
A few hours later my not so latent curiosity got the better of me. I finally put aside my work and Googled "New York cab painted flowers." Here's what I got:
A project of Portraits of Hope -- a 12 year old non-profit program that was initially started to benefit seriously ill and physically disabled children, and later expanded to include a much wider array of both children and adults -- Garden in Transit is part of a series of projects that transform public landscapes and allow youngsters to showcase their work on a city- wide scale.
Beyond this, children who participate in Garden in Transit also participate in educational sessions in which they learn, and develop a dialogue, about important current affairs, community issues, the power of teamwork, individual and social responsibilities, and goals and achievements.
The project aims to be as inclusive as possible, providing telescope paint brushes for those with IVs or in wheelchairs, shoe brushes for children with injured upper limbs or hands, and flavored mouth brushes for those who can paint with their mouths. The main point of the project is to allow children who are facing challenges to leave behind a legacy by participating in a once in a lifetime historical happening (Ed Massey, Portraits of Hope co-founder, petitioned the city for 7 years before Bloomberg came on board and gave them the green light.) So far about 750,000 square feet of floral panels have been painted for the taxis.
Apart from the obvious benefits such a program provides to the children who participate in and learn from it, as well as the aesthetic benefits it offers a city that often doesn’t have the time to stop and appreciate the finer points of life, what strikes me about Garden in Transit is the simple brilliance of its medium.
I have a mild fascination with the concept of using public transport as advertising tool or using the public transport system as a marketing research database. In this case, I think most would agree that utilizing one of the city's most omnipresent icons – the yellow cab -- as a mobile artistic canvas is an objectively brilliant move, providing the campaign with reach and visibility that would be hard to achieve using any other medium.
When quizzed about the motivation behind using the taxis, Kyla Fullenwider, one of the project's directors, explained that the organization's rationale was to create a medium that would be completely egalitarian in terms of access: "The taxi fleet goes all the way around the city- East, West, uptown, downtown." While raising awareness for a cause or institution is by no means the main focus of this project, using the yellow cab as a medium will inevitably raise awareness to levels that using a less mobile, less ubiquitous canvas could not achieve.
"This is our highest profile event. If you come to New York city, you are going to see this project. It's not like going to the MOMA or to an exhibition somewhere. The medium of taxi is so great because it comes to you – you don’t have to go to it… It makes art accessible to everyone…" stated Fullenwider.
One of the project's biggest challenges is enlisting the support of taxi cab drivers, since the panels are installed with the voluntary participation of fleet owners and cab drivers. The project has so far covered about 40% of the city's existing fleet, and is aiming to get the entire taxi industry on board.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 16, 2007
06:01 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Material Girl Madonna appears to be thinking not just like an artist, but also like a businesswoman. The 49-year-old singer has signed a groundbreaking record deal with concert promoter LiveNation, citing her decision to adopt a more comprehensive, unrestricted business model as her reason for abandoning Warner Music after 25 years.
The $125 million deal gives LiveNation the rights not just to Madonna's songs, but also to all the activities that go along with them: TV shows, films, sponsorship, websites, tours and merchandise.
"The paradigm in the music business has shifted and as an artist and a businesswoman, I have to move with that shift," she stated. "For the first time in my career, the way that my music can reach my fans is unlimited. I've never wanted to think in a limited way and with this new partnership, the possibilities are endless."
The singer's move is reflective of the transitioning state of the music industry, which is currently racked by two strongly opposing forces: the implementation and preservation of digital rights management methods by record labels on the one hand, and the constant erosion of the same by fans and users on the other. Radiohead's recent release of its latest album online added a third dimension to this already complex picture, bypassing the record labels altogether and sending the message that even artists themselves think it is perhaps time for labels to overhaul their existing business models.
"…the trend shows how desperate record companies, faced with declining sales and profits, have become… more and more music executives are beginning to conclude that DRM is not the solution to their problem. It is easily circumvented, makes life difficult for law-abiding fans and does nothing to prevent the copying and online distribution of music from CDs," states the latest edition of The Economist.
The Economist also points out that a compelling reason for the music industry to forego DRM is to dissolve the mammoth advantage Apple currently has in online music sales because of it. Legally downloaded songs are protected by Apple's DRM system, FairPlay, which allows the company to negotiate favorable terms with labels. Foregoing DRM would weaken Apple's monopoly by allowing others to sell songs for the iPod.
The bottom line: having to abandon DRM will force record labels to think more innovatively, and more comprehensively, about how to market their music. LiveNation's deal with Madonna is a prime case in point.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
October 9, 2007
04:41 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Online is the new offline. Like most catch phrases this one doesn't really say anything earth-shattering; it isn’t really news that more and more things are going digital. What it does rather neatly encapsulate is that in implying the launch of a new dominant mode of operation, there are a host of implications, both online and offline, for lifestyles and business in general, and for the media industry in particular.
Harnessing one's audience to be the creators and well as the recipients -- revolutionizing what it means to be an "audience" by consciously leveling out an age-old hierarchy -- seems to be the direction in which the media industry is headed. Our own website is responding to this change. In a few weeks Fast Company will evolve to capitalize on all the capabilities that being an online company can offer, becoming a site that incorporates social networking and user generated content as heavily prominent and very integral parts of the site.
Near the vanguard of this new wave are advertisers who are increasingly responding to new trends of consumer involvement, accountability, transparency, and a focus on customized content. They are also grappling with the challenges of advertising within the rapidly evolving landscape of the print media as online media continues to develop exponentially, changing consumer expectations and responses both offline and online. It's unsurprising that as consumers are becoming more involved and demanding, so are the advertisers…
An interesting response to this has been on the part of GfK Starch(R) Communications, a company that is well known for surveying consumers' responses to print advertising.
Starch's original methods have been by interviewing consumers in person about how effective they think print advertising is, but with a new service called the eStarch Ad Readership service, the company is now also gathering online responses from the readers of print publications that contain the advertisements.
The Times reports that the new information will be far more relevant and predictive about consumer attitudes and habits, measuring "whether readers of an ad recommend a product or brand to others; whether attitudes toward a brand are changed by an ad; what actions, if any, readers take as a result of seeing an ad; and how much (or little) readers of an ad are 'favorably disposed' toward the advertiser’s brand."
On the one hand, print media has and will continue to have its aficionados, and print media clearly has its value, but on the other, advertisers are increasingly disposed to advertise in environments in which they can measure return on investment. The new Starch service seems to be aiming at bringing the two together: harnessing the online arena to bolster existing offline methods of surveying consumer responses to advertising.
"Since the dawn of advertising, industry professionals have struggled to determine whether their ad campaigns drove consumers to think positively about their brands and to open their wallets... Our new metrics, more completely answer than ever before the $64,000 ROI question that advertisers have been asking since the first ad was created," stated Philip Sawyer, Senior Vice President of GfK Starch(R) Communications.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
September 11, 2007
04:57 pm | 0 recommendations | 5 comments
I flew half way across the world day before yesterday- further even- due to certain mishaps that occurred along the way. While doing so I came to certain conclusions. Here’s how it all unfolded…
I missed my connecting flight from Paris to Bangalore: courtesy of “technical difficulties” on the part of an unapologetic Air France. After several bouts of heated discussion, a thin-lipped airline representative informed me with some finality that I had two choices: either spend the night on the floor of Charles De Gaulle in Paris and take a flight to Bangalore the next day, or more appealingly (so he implied), wait eleven hours in Paris, board a twelve and a half hour flight to Singapore, (which incidentally flies right over India), wait another four hours at Changi airport and finally board a flight to Bangalore. Given the option of a seat and some food as opposed to a hard floor and no sustenance, I unwillingly chose the former.
Stiff, exhausted and smelling decidedly less fragrant than I considered optimal, upon my arrival in Bangalore many, many hours (and several airports) later, I discovered that all three of my bags were missing. After being barked at by the security inspectors, given an unwarrantedly hard time for carrying golf clubs by an oversized Air France official in New York, and being firmly told off by what felt like an army of misanthropic airline officials everywhere, I marched up to the customer service desk in Bangalore, tough, prickly and ready to do battle.
The response I got threw me off guard. Instead of insisting that I was wrong, that it wasn’t their fault, and that there was nothing they could do, the airline officials at the desk in Bangalore were nothing but polite and accommodating. Their manner took me by such surprise that I spent the first few minutes regarding them with extreme suspicion.
My trip, many others like it, and the differences in attitude I have experienced over the years between New York and Paris on the one hand, and places like Singapore and Bangalore on the other, got me thinking along a somewhat broader spectrum. Customer service has always been a big deal in India, and indeed in most of South Asia. Fortunately or unfortunately, the general idea in South Asia seems to be: “The Customer is Always Right,” dissatisfied patrons are appeased at all costs, and even if the results aren’t great, pleasing the customer is such a mantra that there’s an air of extreme servility to much of India’s service industry.
Making trans-cultural comparisons on such a personal level is obviously subjective, but as someone who has lived a good part of my life between the United States and India, the opportunities to do so are frequent and often lead to speculation that if based on shaky foundations, is at least food for thought… In wondering why the service industries between South Asia and the Western parts of the world are so widely disparate, I came upon a couple of possible explanations.
First, that the concept of “chains” is still at an infantile stage in most South Asian countries, and as a result the “Customer Is King” ideology continues to pervade most aspects of the service industry, even those that do not need to follow it, primarily out of necessity and the fact that well, this is the culture here.
Walk into a restaurant, bar, store, hair salon, tea shop or gym in India, and people rush at you from all angles, eager to serve, or if not, at least always there to make sure if anything goes wrong you have an outlet for the satisfactory redressal of your grievances. Why? Because they need to make sure you come back… For a small store that is just one amongst a thousand others out there, customer loyalty can be the straw the breaks the camel’s back.
Secondly, and relatedly, overpopulated countries, like India, are still more about fuelling their service industries with manpower than automation. This propagates different ideals about customer service: with more of an emphasis on personal communication.
The first time I walked in a Target in the US, I placidly stood in one place, waiting to be approached by a store representative who would naturally guide me to anywhere I needed to go. I soon learned to find my own way around…
In India, if you’re going to walk into any big department store, you have to learn to fend off over enthused sales representatives who are only too willing to help. (Like everything else in life, a middle ground would be wonderful.)
And finally, the service industry is still undervalued in South Asia as compared to North America and Europe. Apart from the wages often being abysmally low, the respect many service related professions elicit is far less in South Asia: If the bartender or maitre d’ thinks you’re out of line in New York or London: unless you’re really a hot shot- you’re out. In India, well, The Customer is Always Right.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not implying that things work smoothly in South Asia -- bureaucratic tangles, fractured communication lines, and general chaos all ensure that even if the customer is all important, things will go wrong. It’s just the way in which the recipients of these wrongs are treated and regarded along the way that is so markedly different.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 28, 2007
06:07 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment
I recently wrote a blog post, Lost in Translation – How Do Linguistic Differences Affect Global Marketing, on how, in line with cultural differences, advertising, commercials and marketing materials are necessarily differently constructed, conceived of, and perceived across different cultures.
A flurry of recent media attention towards McDonald's attempts to go upscale in Europe, brought me back to thinking about the direction in which marketing efforts are trending in an attempt to stay globally competitive in a world of increasingly porous international geographical, trade, and cultural barriers.
Multinational corporations and international companies seem to buying into the concept that altering not just their promotional or communications material, but also their products and services in line with different audiences, is an essential milestone on the path to success.
McDonald's in London, France and other parts of Europe has revamped its interiors- replacing plastic with leather and changing the color scheme. "To make McDonald’s and a Big Mac work in the country of slow food, we felt we had to pay more attention to space and showcasing," explained Denis Hennequin, president of McDonald’s Europe,
to the New York Times.
The fast food giant has also made significant additions to its menu in an attempt to woo local palates, offering porridge in the UK, soup in Portugal, and French cheese in France. The New York Times reports that a food factory in Munich has been served with the task of conceiving new menus for different tastes in the 41 European countries.
McDonald's move towards cultural sensitivity is a smart one: combined European sales have increased by 15% in the first half of this year according to the Times. And Europe isn’t even half the story. Being from India, I have noticed this strategy being adopted by the fast food giant there as well, with localized items including meatless burgers, paneer salsa wraps, and McAloo Tikkis being served up.
While clearly bent on being somewhat localized, the chain is also wisely conscious about ensuring that it does not dilute the consistency of its brand. "We would like to stay true to our roots while moving forward,” Mr. Hennequin told the Times.
This is essential. Particularly since the fast food industry runs on the basic premise of consistency (apart from speed), being sensitive to cultural differences while simultaneously maintaining the overarching message of the brand is a thin line to walk. Like so many other things, McDonalds and other big international chains out there are going to have to find a middle ground on this one. They seem to be doing fairly well so far.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
August 14, 2007
11:57 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment
Rupert Murdoch's recent acquisition of the Journal has done nothing to put an end to rampant speculation about what is to become of the nation's second largest, and what many call its most prestigious, newspaper.
Murdoch's reputation as an unscrupulous media baron with less concern for quality than for advancing personal business interests precedes him. "The Journal is as good as it gets in terms of high-quality journalism… Mr. Murdoch is a tabloid king with a reputation for taking everything he buys downmarket," says The Economist.
Many seem to believe Murdoch's ownership could inflict damage -- The WSJ online reports that by the afternoon after New Corp's acquisition, 170 readers canceled their subscriptions in protest. Some have expressed concern based on Murdoch's seeming penchant for tabloids, and "trashy" publications. Just how worried should the defenders of journalistic integrity and fairness be?
To give Murdoch his due, he couldn't have come this far without more than a shred of business acumen. Sure tabloids sell, but with the New York Post, News of the World and The Sun Murdoch already has a fair cut in the market for trashy sensationalism. Just because the 76 year old Aussie entrepreneur splashes the covers of these publications with bikini-clad (and often bikini-less) babes doesn’t mean he would dream of doing the same to the Journal. His $5 billion offer for Dow Jones has been criticized as $1 billion or perhaps even $2 billion too high, and Murdoch would not undercut his own interests by diluting a brand for which he has paid such a high price.
Perhaps a more pertinent concern is about the Journal's objectivity; the paper, although conservative, is hailed as a symbol of integrity and good journalistic practice. "The Journal is not really one newspaper but two- a newspaper and a highly opinionated conservative magazine. Hitherto it has succeeded it drawing a line between them. Will Mr. Murdoch resist allowing his own conservatives opinions to blur the line?" meditates The Economist.
And that is the crux. With the entrance of Murdoch, who has a notorious reputation for exercising his personal views over the media properties he owns, could the Journal become a right-wing mouthpiece for the news? Not easily according to some.
David Carr of The New York Times explains that the Journal’s editorial page editor, Paul A. Gigot, will retain significant authority -- to choose editorial board members, columnists, the editor of the op-ed section, the editors of the book review and other sections, and to have the final say over op-ed pieces as well as editorial positions.
If adhered to, this agreement will confer significantly less power upon Mr. Murdoch than the publishers of most other newspapers in the US. This is a big if however, as many claim that the Australian media mogul made similar assurances when he bought the Times of London in 1981, ones that he flouted soon after. If he does abide by the agreement then how much power he will actually exert, at least over the editorial page, boils down to how well Gigot chooses to stand his ground.
Recommend This If you liked this, let others know:
