This must be the axe effect!

I believe every day, Unilever India is hitting a new low in its advertising. I had a great respect for Unilever's products until frankly, their advertising has taken a more 'mass appeal' (I believe that's what their ad agency will refer to it as). In particular, the Axe deodorant ads, which appear to intentionally and with poor subtelty suggest- 'this deodorant will make girls want to have sex with you', are in awful taste- some of the other lesser known brands seem to have similar ads- now whenever i see an ad with scantily clad women, my first impression is- here comes another deodorant!

I am not a professional marketer- which in fact is one of the reasons i'm probably not more succesful (yet anyway) as an entrepreneur. I believe marketing is the life blood of a corporation, but frankly, i find these advertising campaigns in horrible taste, suggestive of a degenerative corporate culture which believes in selling no matter what the costs. i am embarassed to watch such ads on tv with parents and child (ren) along, fearing i may actually have to explain the ad to a child someday.

i recently received a chain email from a friend about some very interesting advertising- single page and very hard hitting. innovative, concise and very witty. yet in excellent taste- proof that people are not out of ideas. what troubles me is that kind of advertising marketeres are coming up with.

Now i'm sure i'll find atleast one or two advertising execs claiming- oh you're not the target market so you won't get it. sure i get it. perhaps it will now be also 'acceptable' to sell drugs to children, gambling to the poor and corruption to the masses- all because we're not the target market right? you can sell anything with scantily clad women it seems- except credibility.

During college days, i recall reading in the "problem of the indian economy" textbook, why India's progress has been slow thus far. One of the reasons cited was our family setting- we are dwellers, who continue to live in the same house all our lives, 'lounging' around, particularly in joint families, on the community wealth (in this specific case, family wealth). this was suggested to have a 'free rider' effect, with unproductive units of society been propagated to generations and forth.


I was dumbfounded and enamored, totally in support of the view. Today, I believe my utter faith in the concept may have been somewhat exaggerated. With experience of having lived in both the US and India, i feel there are some noteworthy:

1. The US housing burder may be temporarily 'eased' off if a number of individuals move in with their families.

2. Family budgets may stand to benefit by virtue of 'large scale', with a number of basic expenses such as food, telephone, electricity, rent, etc. being spread over a larger base and thus reducing the per-head burden.

3. in-house chores and service costs of basic jobs such as gardening, plumbing and other handywork may be reduced by transferring loads to unemployed members- thereby increasing their productivity and reducing outward cash flow for the family as a whole.

4. older members of the family may be able to reduce their healthcare expenditures by having a family member take care of them. as a corollary, their health may actually improve in a more vibrant household, psychologically speaking (considering several millions of americans are in depression).

the free rider effect i mentioned earlier may well turn out to be a boon in this case. However, everything in life is a double-edged sword. For instance, the increase in homicidal tendencies may actually increase the litigation expenses in some families (kidding!). We as Indians have historically failed to protect what is our own- yoga, ayurveda, learning from the Vedas and so on. Will we hold on to our good values letting go of the bad?

gender, age and other biases

As an old friend once pointed out rather poignantly, religion is nothing but a set of rules installed at a time of need. Society as an organic entity may well find religious 'notions' antiquated by virtue of need, wants and other aspects of contemporary life.
My wife is a stay at home mom (for the time being anyway). My mom was too. My father works and so do I. We have domestic help but certain duties are assigned to each individual- for instance, in my family, women take care of household responsibilities while men ensure that the external environment, money, etc. is taken care of. this of course, is a more broad-based division.

We study in management, that where more than one boss is present, chaos is likely to ensue. We as managers, executives, etc. find it extremely objectionable. Imagine two heads of household- both with 'shared' or 'overlapping' responsibilities in this context! In a family, there are unlikely to be very well defined boundaries of conduct and authority so if anybody says here it's possible, let them prove it rather than say it.

assigning duties is sometimes perceived gender, race or otherwise biased. We, in the Indian society consider the 'baniya' clan to be the traditional 'businessman' or 'trader'. I know several muslim craftsman who are simply fantastic at what they do! i'm sure there are others but i can't recall off hand.

Within the household itself, grandmothers tend to be the spiritual centers of the family. Grandfathers tend to act as monetary guides, delegating executive activities to sons, whose children bear the burden of 'training' for the next generation. THis mimics in my humble opinion, the structure of modern corporations starting with directors, executive boards and at some level, the interns and trainees.

is it so bad? I recall telling a fellow african (originally) roommate that BET is an example of what he termed later as 'reverse racism'. why do we feel so bad about calling a spade a spade. perhaps we're looking at the negative side of things rather than the upside. remember- calling someone tall can be both a compliment and the opposite....

A need for community

I've always been a rebel at heart. i must admit that i've sometimes taken so much pleasure in 'rebelling', that i've actually counter-argued against a stand that i agreed with. however, sinful pleasures aside, I must sadly mention that i attended a close relative's funeral today. it's a sad affair really, a lot of relatives were present and while the deceased was aged and his death probably a release to himself, one must recognize an individual's presence, particularly when he's left us.

I write this blog today solemn-ed somewhat. Being a rebel, i came to know how important community really is, especially in today's day and age, when people are increasingly 'individualistic', rather than 'community' oriented. I for one, have no idea how to even conduct myself in a temple, much less have any knowledge of any hindu 'processes' if you will. My guess is that i'm not alone, and in such a time, it is community that comes to the rescue- one offers knowledge of this, another that and so we create a 'pot' of information (often unfortunately, opinion). however, nothing in life is one-sided. with good comes bad, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, i realized something sad, that family, especially extended ones, seem to come together only at major occassions- weddings, parties, anniversaries, etc. however, it seems only in death are we truly coming together, sharing in each other's sorrows, which is truly more difficult than sharing joy. furthermore, we seem to forget animosities, grudges and so forth, only at this sad 'occassion', recognizing there is a bigger issue at hand.

Till death we stay apart, in Death we unite....

Of Fanatics and Patriots

How easily we forget loyalties. Until only a few weeks ago, we were lambasting MNS and Raj Thackeray for his nonsenscial, provocative and undesirable speeches and today we're fighting over whose city wins the IPL. More importantly- whose city to support! have we forgotten the first initial of the IPL- Indian! somebody even went to the length to suggest that supporting a team other than your own cities is like calling somebody else your father![cross my heart- it's true!]

Granted that other nations take inter-club rivalry in sports such as baseball, football, american football and such rather seriously. One friend even informed me of a physical threat they received in an American bar for supporting another team. Really, with all the inter-state commotion, do we really need more?

surely supporting a sport is more important than supporting a club isn't it? Maybe i'm completely off the mark here. If I am, we will one day see our own nation saying "let cricket go to hell if india can't win".

The latter friend mentioned above, also told me of an individual he knows who is such a 'fanatic' supporter of Sachin's, that god forbid should somebody criticize him that he will bite your head off. is this really a fan? has anyone reading this post seen the movie- "the Fan"?

the other day i had a rather lively and animated discussion with a friend about various social subjects- it was a major refresher from the usual attitude i see in fellow indians, who get peeved about the minutest thing. this individual (whom i shall not name)- not only did she not take anything personally, she also calmly and with interest, replied with reason and justification, rather than blowing her top off, reciting curses and the like, in her defense. Glad to know there still are 'Indians' out there!