Shahrukh Khan's Kolkatta Knight Riders Team for IPL.
Official Site: http://www.kolkataknightriders.com
Test post for Google Search tweaks.
What sells in India?
1. Cricket
2. Gossip - celeb, real people, fiction
3. Sleaze (sex is banned)
4. Religion
Thanks Ashish
Any more additions?
Kind of Business
I am always on the lookout for businesses. It just dawned on to me that I would never launch a business that I myself would not use. This rules out things for kids, grown up adults, religious sects, evangelist community and lot more.
Advertisement: Work and Die
Print advertisement for recoveringworkaholics.com
Awesome insight. Very well done.
Found on Advert Eyes
Awesome insight. Very well done.
Found on Advert Eyes
Why?
I wrote this piece some time ago. Its about time I posted it.
In my opinion everything you do must have a "Why" answered before its done.
Why "The Infinite Monkeys"?
Because there are million things on your mind at any given point in time and there is no way that you an keep track of them on paper notebooks. Maximum you can scribble them. Chances are that you would misplace the notes and then they would be lost forever.
Logical question is that isn't blogging tougher than scribbling .. ? Answer would be .. yes it is but it gives me an easy retrieval system. Better than text files and notebooks. Data is all about retrieval. Without retrieval, its plain old information. And information by itself has no real value.
TIM is an attempt to collect online, all thoughts and things that can be helpful. It could be a news clipping, an article, a link, an interview, a piece of thought, a doodle. Anything.
Why online?
Its easier to read later. Recollect thoughts.
Why blog?
Ideally I would want a system where I can post my current moods, locations etc. This would make it very easy to recall at a later date. Since I don't have a system like that, anything that is close enough serves the purpose. And hence Blogger. I can post things with an email address and can write and edit at will. I can also put categories to the posts and all thoughts would be in context. I can make tag clouds. I can hunt for similar posts and get feedback and opinion from people.
Munna Bhai @ Jaadu Ki Jhappi
Munna Bhai gave yet another medium to express gratitude - Jaadu Ki Jhappi. Suddenly hugging someone just like that was cool.
This Jaadu Ki Jhappi was meant to express gratitude, to help someone raise their spirits, give someone respect, shower affection and what not.
One simple gesture was transformed into a nationwide infatuation.
Obviously the second Munna Bhai gave something much much bigger. Gandhigiri. Suddenly Gandhigiri was cool and was admired.
This Jaadu Ki Jhappi was meant to express gratitude, to help someone raise their spirits, give someone respect, shower affection and what not.
One simple gesture was transformed into a nationwide infatuation.
Obviously the second Munna Bhai gave something much much bigger. Gandhigiri. Suddenly Gandhigiri was cool and was admired.
1v1: Popular vs Pertinent
Popular vs Pertinent
One can either have popular sentiments or pertinent sentiments.
This popular vs pertinent debate applies to a lot of things. You could write about popular things or pertinent things. You can broadcast popular news or pertinent news. You can talk to popular people or pertinent people.
Case in point... Indian media. Indian cricket team won over Australia and every single space was used to talk about he cricket match. Many more important things were left out.
What are you? Pertinent? Popular?
One can either have popular sentiments or pertinent sentiments.
This popular vs pertinent debate applies to a lot of things. You could write about popular things or pertinent things. You can broadcast popular news or pertinent news. You can talk to popular people or pertinent people.
Case in point... Indian media. Indian cricket team won over Australia and every single space was used to talk about he cricket match. Many more important things were left out.
What are you? Pertinent? Popular?
How Zero marketing can revive Indian hockey?
Prof. Ray Titus talked about reviving Hockey on his blog here. I am copy-pasting it here ...
I dont really agree with him. I left a comment there. Reproducing it here ...
Any thoughts?
You don't need a marketing genius to plot how hockey can come up to cricket's stature in India. For that matter, pin no credit to anyone in the cricket administration team (read BCCI) for cricket's supremacy as a sport in India.
The only reason why cricket is what it is, despite being one of the most boring of sports, is 'cause that's one game at which we are 'world-beaters', never mind the 'world' being just a few countries.
Want a resurgence in hockey? Get India to win!
Sure, that's a tall order considering yesterday's Olympic qualifier debacle. But its not impossible. Can the guys who manage the sport. Get in foreign coaches. Revamp the admin. team. Build astro-turfs for players to play and practice on. Bring in something akin to Corporate governance.
Again, an initial investment is needed. Well, its worth it, if that can propel India to become world beaters. If that happens, watch the moolah roll in. No marketing whiz-kids needed.
I dont really agree with him. I left a comment there. Reproducing it here ...
Hi Prof. Titus,
I am mostly a silent reader of your blog and agree to most of the things that you say. However today I disagree with you.
I dont think getting more facilities and making the game professional will help the status of Hockey in India.
I think there are two huge variables in making something a mass phenomenon.
1. The network effect coupled with a feedback loop: Most people (including media) talk about the game because most people want to hear about it. And more people want to hear about it as everyone else around them is talking about it. No one wants to be left behind. Over a period of time, this network effect gets a positive feedback loop and suddenly you have a mass hysteria for something. In our case, cricket.
2. Experience: Most of the current fans of Cricket have grown up playing the game in the gullys, homes, schools etc. Most of the people have fond memories of the game and somewhere or the other they relate to the game and hence the following.
Am sure there are other things also. Please share.
Regards,
SG
P.S.: Posting this on my blog as well.
Any thoughts?
Lessons from Warren Buffet for Start-Ups
Lessons for startups from WEB's Letter to Shareholders.
Warren E. Buffet is one of the most celebrated men in the modern history. Better known as WEB, he is a self-made billionaire made most of his money from investments. His flagship holding company, Berkshire Hathaway has stake in more than 70 businesses. WEB believes in taking a controlling stake in companies and chooses a company because of the business value and the kind of people running it. Any mention to WEB is incomplete without talking about Benjamin Graham - WEB's mentor and Charlie Munger - WEB's partner at Berkshire Hathaway.
I would look at his few nuggets of wisdom and look at their implications for start-ups from his 2007 letter to shareholders.
People
There could not be a better starting point than Charlie Munger. They are one of the most celebrated teams in the financial world. Everyone knows that we need to select business partners very carefully. All partners should trust the judgments of other partners and should stand behind every decision.
Most of the managers at Berkshire have "... no financial need to work". This simply means that the people who are working are working because they love working. Rewards for them are not economic in nature but are psychological - of taking their company to a new level, of becoming leaders in what they do and pushing the limits.
WEB further states that "these managers is that they have exactly the job they want for the rest of their working years". This is probably the most important line for a startup. Have people who like what they are doing rather then employing people.
Business Decisions
A lot of startups assume that once they reach a user base, they can sell out to a bigger player. This approach can take them only so much far. They should take a cue from WEB. He has been advocating the importance of a long-term time horizon for businesses. In my opinion, selling out is ok but only after reaching a point where you think that the other party can contribute more meaningfully to the business and its shareholders.
WEB says, "as with Berkshire, a deal is a deal.” A lot depends on the way your word is taken in the market. Especially when you are starting, a lot of reputation is on stake. As it’s said, reputation once gone is gone forever.
Businesses
WEB says, "A truly great business must have an enduring moat that protects excellent returns on invested capital". Most of the startups are engaged in reinventing the wheel. I can recall just two Indian innovative products. For a country of a billion, just two innovative ideas? Need of the hour is to look at businesses that are different, can not be copied easily and havhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife a moat round it. The moat could be because of the scale (IRCTC), technology leadership (Zoho), people (??), knowledge of markets (Future Group?), low cost of operations (?) and many other factors. Startups need to identify their moat and build their company around it.
Realistic Assumptions
It’s always recommended to fly high. But the feet should be well grounded for that. Like in the report, WEB says, "Berkshire’s past record can’t be duplicated or even approached. Our base of assets and earnings is now far too large for us to make outsized gains in the future." It would have been easy for WEB to paint rosy pictures but he chose otherwise. Startups should be realistic when they set their goals and get down to implement them.
To end it on a light note, WEB says, "Just as Adam and Eve kick-started an activity that led to six billion humans, See’s has given birth to multiple new streams of cash for us. (The biblical command to “be fruitful and multiply” is one we take seriously at Berkshire.)". Startups need to identify a business that can grow organically and can operate for a long time.
Although WEB says "Start-ups are not our game”, I could still find these nuggets of wisdom. Anyone wants to share more?
Warren E. Buffet is one of the most celebrated men in the modern history. Better known as WEB, he is a self-made billionaire made most of his money from investments. His flagship holding company, Berkshire Hathaway has stake in more than 70 businesses. WEB believes in taking a controlling stake in companies and chooses a company because of the business value and the kind of people running it. Any mention to WEB is incomplete without talking about Benjamin Graham - WEB's mentor and Charlie Munger - WEB's partner at Berkshire Hathaway.
I would look at his few nuggets of wisdom and look at their implications for start-ups from his 2007 letter to shareholders.
People
There could not be a better starting point than Charlie Munger. They are one of the most celebrated teams in the financial world. Everyone knows that we need to select business partners very carefully. All partners should trust the judgments of other partners and should stand behind every decision.
Most of the managers at Berkshire have "... no financial need to work". This simply means that the people who are working are working because they love working. Rewards for them are not economic in nature but are psychological - of taking their company to a new level, of becoming leaders in what they do and pushing the limits.
WEB further states that "these managers is that they have exactly the job they want for the rest of their working years". This is probably the most important line for a startup. Have people who like what they are doing rather then employing people.
Business Decisions
A lot of startups assume that once they reach a user base, they can sell out to a bigger player. This approach can take them only so much far. They should take a cue from WEB. He has been advocating the importance of a long-term time horizon for businesses. In my opinion, selling out is ok but only after reaching a point where you think that the other party can contribute more meaningfully to the business and its shareholders.
WEB says, "as with Berkshire, a deal is a deal.” A lot depends on the way your word is taken in the market. Especially when you are starting, a lot of reputation is on stake. As it’s said, reputation once gone is gone forever.
Businesses
WEB says, "A truly great business must have an enduring moat that protects excellent returns on invested capital". Most of the startups are engaged in reinventing the wheel. I can recall just two Indian innovative products. For a country of a billion, just two innovative ideas? Need of the hour is to look at businesses that are different, can not be copied easily and havhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gife a moat round it. The moat could be because of the scale (IRCTC), technology leadership (Zoho), people (??), knowledge of markets (Future Group?), low cost of operations (?) and many other factors. Startups need to identify their moat and build their company around it.
Realistic Assumptions
It’s always recommended to fly high. But the feet should be well grounded for that. Like in the report, WEB says, "Berkshire’s past record can’t be duplicated or even approached. Our base of assets and earnings is now far too large for us to make outsized gains in the future." It would have been easy for WEB to paint rosy pictures but he chose otherwise. Startups should be realistic when they set their goals and get down to implement them.
To end it on a light note, WEB says, "Just as Adam and Eve kick-started an activity that led to six billion humans, See’s has given birth to multiple new streams of cash for us. (The biblical command to “be fruitful and multiply” is one we take seriously at Berkshire.)". Startups need to identify a business that can grow organically and can operate for a long time.
Although WEB says "Start-ups are not our game”, I could still find these nuggets of wisdom. Anyone wants to share more?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)