Different Tribes, One Village

Different Tribes, One Village

It’s not in my place to comment on the management styles of luminaries in the field of advertising, the AAAI and Ad Club Bombay and the debate around the AGC. But as the matter has been put up for debate, I offer my two cents on the matter. Needless to say, it is my personal opinion and I hope I will be forgiven for trespassing on haloed territory.

I hope I will be excused – choti muh, badi baat - but in the interests of the industry, it would auger well for the advertising fraternity to have a leader from both the advertising bodies. Their purpose of intent seems apparently to be the same- the best step forward for the industry - although the methods may vary. By electing a mild and neutral chairman from both sides, both their brains, and from each member of their respective teams, could be picked for the common good of the industry.

 It is hoped that as has always been the case, the welfare of the industry remain the primary concern of the elected team, leading the industry towards a horizon where no one has dared to go before.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of us all?

Mirror, mirror on the wall

Who’s the fairest of us all?

There we go again. Between two agencies, one that wins a Grand Prix and a few Gold metals and the one that 'maxes' the number of metals, who’s the better of the two?

  Well, there is little doubt that the one who wins the Grand Prix has a superior, in fact, unmatched advantage over the rest. 

But if there is an upstart stealing the rays from your sun by tallying up a much larger number of metals, then I think the Cannes method of tallying points to each type of metal would be appropriate.

 I know this method will create a lot of heart-burn to the better team, but hey, whoever said the team that won the most number of metals was the best? Your Grand Prix is proof enough of who is better. Do you need much else, especially when the news is received by the clients who then all want to win the Grand Prix the next time around, just like the one you did?

To put it more succinctly, I'd counter the quandary you find yourself in with a question of my own: 

Whose door do you think a client would come knocking on, the agency with the highest number of metals or the one that brought home the Grand Prix? 

Just think...

What is the Size of your Dream?

What is the Size of your Dream?

Does India need two separate advertising festivals?

I will counter that question with another: Should there be another Cannes in France, or the Oscars in Hollywood?

Has ‘Bollywood’ been able to be a Hollywood, apart from its cosmetic use of word play? Not to mention the various other wannabes like Tollywood, Kollywood etc?

The lure or importance of any festival lies in its exclusivity. If you want it to be just another advertising festival, sure, two, why ten, different ad festivals are the way to go. But if you want India to become the Mecca of Advertising, then nothing could beat the power of one; the more unique and spectacular its format, the better its retail value.

It should be a meeting of great minds, the sharing of wisdom between the greats that trickles down to those who are hungry to achieve more, the wannabe greats. 

And yes, it should also be a consortium that invites the clients to see some of the greatest work India has produced, to learn and allow their agencies some leeway to create ads that are perhaps beyond the scope of, dare I say, human evolution.

Could it be another Mecca?

 That would depend upon the size of your dream.

Newspapers - Do we need them anymore?

Newspapers - Do we need them anymore?

 You know, you may have a point there. I end up paying a cool Rs. 150-200 a month buying papers that I only give a cursory glance to every morning. Online news magazines on the other hand are for free and what’s more there are a plethora of papers I could read, more reliable, more targeted to a certain kind of audience. Online news come in industry -specific shapes and sizes and what’s more, as I said, they’re free. So why do I spend so much money on newspapers? 

I looked a little deeper into my spendthrift ways and this is what I found:

A newspaper gives me twenty odd pages of news a day, which would translate into over x number of newsworthy items a day, not repeated the next day or the next, with the editorials and the like coming in every day, a new view every day. While, in an online news magazine, an editorial comment or a blog by an established person of the industry decides to chip in his two cents on a subject affecting the nation, in sporadic spurts, one today, another a week later, whenever he deems it fit to write.

Sure I’ve read the news online, some as it happened with live video streaming, but if I were to want some more news on a burning issue, I would be disappointed. The newspaper on the other hand gives me the news in the first few pages with a 'link' to the issue on a subsequent page if I were so interested.

In a newspaper, there is something in it for everyone in the family. An online magazine is more specific, specifically catering to a particular type of person. I would hardly expect my daughter to read hbr.org, but she would most certainly be interested in knowing whether mobiles are indeed harmful to a person in the long run.

Even if the online news magazine was a general one, it wouldn’t provide me with local, or regional news in as much a depth as a local newspaper would. Or new articles every day would be too few and far between for me to be satisfied, and like an infidel I would look elsewhere for what was missing.

And, on a lighter tone, what better way to start your day, than with a cuppa hot coffee (or tea) and savour the feel and smell of crisp, newly printed paper rustling as I turn each page?

And if you are thinking what I am thinking, then the answer is yes. Yes, I do look at the ads in the newspapers. Sometimes, I dwell on it for a longer period of time and say to myself, “I wish I had written that!”

Are newspapers dying? Perhaps, but there are still people like me around that are still looking for and buying some cool newspapers.

And as long as newspapers have a decent number of fan-following, ads will follow with some great ads trying to woo the consumer into buying...

Experience vs. Youth

Experience vs. Youth

Experience or youth? Which of the two is more worthy in an advertising agency? That’s a tricky one and being part of the industry and one of the two I’d like to be diplomatic. Just kidding!

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that a good idea could come from either. We have examples of both: Our very own Piyush Pandey, an experienced hand (could anyone run O&M in India better?) and Marc Zuckerberg, a talented youngster who has fired the imagination of the world, with his Facebook, a website that has caught the fancy of old hands like me too.

If I were asked to make a choice between the two, I wouldn’t. But this I’d most certainly say: to the youth I’d say, listen to the elders, they’ve been through what you are just beginning to; to the older hand I’d say, look to the young and revive in yourself the passion you have lost somewhere behind.

Passion supersedes age or the lack thereof. Look for them that have a little something between their ears and you will never go wrong.

Passion for your job and the six inches between your ears will determine the importance of an employee; age has nothing to do with it.

 Perhaps you disagree? Do write in and let’s have a small chat, a little food to exercise our grey cells, perhaps?

If you are the best, you have no reason to fear the rest

If you are the best, you have no reason to fear the rest

It is human nature, no matter your social standing, if an online news magazine is free, there’s no better way to go. 

The ‘to charge or not to charge’ dilemma gains monumental proportions when established magazines also join the bandwagon of offering freebies. And therein begins an impasse. The writers are not for free, nor even can an established magazine sustain itself for long doling out handsome freebies for ‘the free addict’.

 Is there a way out? I don’t see one. The upstart online magazines will almost always give their content for free and will have a fair share of audience. Why? Because it’s free, never mind that it is not good. But it’s not them but the quality news magazines that I am concerned about and that forms the major focus of my intention in this write-up.

Any Johnny would tell you that if you are serious about fair and good content, then a keen reader in need of such content would not mind paying for it. The numbers may be smaller but the brand loyalty would be greater. But the burning question is do you want to be an exclusive magazine or would you like to draw the audiences away from other sundry magazines as well? Is it possible? Can you cut the cake and eat it too? Can you convert the roving eye into a faithful groom? Ordinarily I would think not, but if the established news magazines work harder at it, sure, it’s possible.

The following are some of the ways this could be achieved:

Give the run-of-the-mill stories that perhaps every online magazine would come up with for free. You still have the edge as you are established.

 Keep the rest of the articles - your carefully gleaned research findings, your special news, the case studies, matters close to the industry but which other magazines haven’t picked up – under wraps.

 So how do you get them to pay?

You don’t.

As you know, the freebie generation are succours for all things free. As that’s not always possible, meet them half way. Give them a slice, a blurb of what to expect from the article which you can read completely only if you subscribe to it. I think some of the magazines are already doing that with, may I add, modest results.

Let me illustrate the point: I am a casual reader of Harvard Business Review (hbr.org). I read what interests me online. And bless them, it’s for free. But hold on a second, not everything is. You have to be a subscriber to avail of some of the more interesting articles.

If hbr.org had made everything for subscribers only, they would have lost loyal readers like me, but by making some of the content available only if I subscribe, they invite me to subscribe, making me wish I had the money. 

They have not lost me and although I might go to other management sites (Are there any better? Are you kidding me?) that are free, I’d swear by the news that hbr.org provides. It’s just that it may take them a little more time to convince me to buy...

Would I pay if online news came bundled in a bouquet of other worthy news magazines? I’m not so sure. Why should I pay for something I have little interest in back home in India just because it comes in a bouquet of websites? I think I would resent having to pay for all when I want to read, or have time to read only a few.

If I may add a little something more: I think the reader would be very grateful if you could gauge the depth of his pocket before charging what he might feel is an exorbitant price for a (yes, I know) quality online news magazine.

As long as there’s no dearth of quality news, there will be no dearth of discerning readers.

To put it more succinctly:

If you are the best, you have no reason to fear the rest.