Why DO we Lie...Hmm, ya, seriously answer it.. Sometimes to hide wht wrong we hav done to someone, to giv surprise , sometimes , its better to lie for someones benefit, what ever may b the reason , but we all lie at somepoint of time to someone or the other..
But in a relationship, is it Ethichally right to Lie...???
Lies, by no doubt, are the most hated thing in a relationship. It leads to deceit, betrayal, infidelity and all their synonyms. It’s seen as one thing that can break the relation in such a way that nothing could ever set things right again. It taints the pretty picture with unsettling dark strokes on the canvas of the bond; thus the marks never go.
However, this is all a stereotypical behavior observed by most humans. We detest it when someone else does it, but unconsciously (of course, most of us are quite conscious) we do it in every aspect of our life. Over the years, courtesy of Religion, Moral Values, Human Rights and Ethical codes etc…“lies” have been given a bad name. It’s not understood properly (at least in most cases). Lying is one of the fundamental evils, I concur, but it’s not just that. Through open observation one can see its neutrality. It’s often used for vile purposes, but just because of its wide application in that goal, are we to completely rule out the other subtle benefits? Lying is one of the key factors in survival, happiness and a prosperous and healthy relationship.
Lies in a relationship keep it well formed and healthy. There are always time when some of our actions or comments might hurt the other person in variable ways, which can hardly be imagined before ever doing the action or making the comment. We humans are the most complex of organisms, and no matter how much you know a person and from how long, it all boils down to the fact that, there is always room for unpredictability, irrational behavior and complete misunderstanding.
There are various factors involved; situation, environment, history, time, personality etc and it’s absurd to think that one would know all the factors about a person at all times. We mistake, we mess up, and things can go wrong involuntarily. But it surely does not mean that one’s intentions were in agreement (at least, it’s nice to think so…but of course, we all have our share in diplomacy). In such situations honesty teaches us to tell the truth, but should we really listen to it’s teachings at that moment? It’s all fancy and dandy to talk about how honest and truthful a relationship should be. But unfortunately (though I don’t think it’s unfortunate but still I used the word for the convenience of the people) such relationships can never last long. It’s a fact that the more honest and truthful you are to someone, its not going to go in his/her good books. Humans keep grudges, they can’t forgive easily, though on the face they would seem as they have liked you for telling the truth but inside that crack never goes. And they are not to be blamed, they can’t help it. Things would hardly remain the same if your friend comes today and tell you that he betrayed you in such and such ways and he is utterly ashamed. No matter how ashamed one is, it’s not about that…the moment you tell it, is the moment of change…the whole image of you in his/her mind distorts.
So what can one do? Of course, lie. Lies can set things right, they can provide an opening, a second chance to not repeat a mistake, a way to not lose a person. How often small things stack up and become the cause for the asunder of years of cherished relation. Lies can give you those small tools to keep someone happy, why not lie the next time your friend asks about your whereabouts for you were to be at his/her place, why not lie about your true feeling about a particular characteristic of someone close, why not lie the next time you cheat (though, we hardly tell the truth ever in that department). Yes, as you might’ve observed we do all these things already, but here is a problem…Most of us afterward, have guilty conscience, because we think that it’s somehow unfaithful to lie. This is what I want to object on, it’s not unfaithful to lie, it’s just something to keep things in order and it’s natural. And if you rationalize, it’s a necessary evil devised for the long term benefits. One shouldn’t feel guilty, because it’s done for the other person, to make him/her feel comfortable and so the relation would remain healthy. However, it comes with a simple condition of sincerity, all of this aforementioned idea is only applicable when the lier is truly sincere to the other person. And because of this sincerity, one cannot argue that it’s the same as pretending. If you haven’t noticed in the whole idea, it would be worth mentioning that on a deeper level pretense is completely a different thing than what I am talking about here. On the surface it might seem as if I am saying to pretend and fake your emotions etc but all I am doing is providing an another vantage point, sincerity is the driving force in it, on the other hand without sincerity a lie is nothing more than the corrupt diplomacy forged to use the people for personal aims
I am not saying that “It’s ‘right’ to lie” (however, right itself is an ambiguity), but I am portraying the idea of lying from a positive angle.
I wrote this sometime back while observing some people in different relationships...what are your experiences?
Lies are like children: they’re hard work, but it’s worth it because the future depends on them
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
What's Wrong with me..
I ask myself that constantly. Constantly. I mean, it's just so unreal how I've come to be here! The Guy and I look at each other disbelieving-ly, shocked at where we've landed ourselves. This was not part of our original plan, the one we made right at the start.
n seriously, wht is wrong with me...I suppose i m a bit bi-polar in nature..
I'd be lying if I said I'm not scared. I'm scared stiff. I've psyched myself to believe this is going to be a lot of fun, numbing myself to thoughts of uncertainty and self-doubt. What else is there to do? I can't go back now.
But I have a list of things that I've drawn up under the head of 'Worst case scenario' in my head. What's the worst thing that can happen to me as a result of the decision I've taken. It goes something like this:
1. I'll spend hours commuting to and fro from the office.
Upside: Good. That will leave me with lesser time to be alone.
2. I'll have to work long hours, survive erratic timings.
Upside: Better still. That will leave me with still lesser time to miss Lucknow.
3.I won't get enough and good food to eat.
Upside: I'll lose some unwanted weight!
4. Office politics. They'll all hate me, be mean to me.
Upside: I'll better my art of ignoring irrelevant people.
5. I won't be able to cope up, not at all, with any of it - the emotional and the professional pressure.
Upside: What have I to lose? I'll go home just the way I came here. And be happy I tried at least.
6.I wont b able to handle crowdy palces like malls & clubs( I actually scares of)
Upside : What I have to do with the ppl, njoy d place not d ppl.
7. Left with no friends
Upside : Uptil now, I never had a permanent Friendship(atleast with Girls..ahhh).,all lie at all times, but it actually matters me a lot..Ironically, as for short snap be, they were d closest one to me n vise-versa..
And that last bit just makes me feel so much better. To have a home to go back to is all you can ask for in the worst of times. And I'm supposed to be having a good time! Nay?
n seriously, wht is wrong with me...I suppose i m a bit bi-polar in nature..
I'd be lying if I said I'm not scared. I'm scared stiff. I've psyched myself to believe this is going to be a lot of fun, numbing myself to thoughts of uncertainty and self-doubt. What else is there to do? I can't go back now.
But I have a list of things that I've drawn up under the head of 'Worst case scenario' in my head. What's the worst thing that can happen to me as a result of the decision I've taken. It goes something like this:
1. I'll spend hours commuting to and fro from the office.
Upside: Good. That will leave me with lesser time to be alone.
2. I'll have to work long hours, survive erratic timings.
Upside: Better still. That will leave me with still lesser time to miss Lucknow.
3.I won't get enough and good food to eat.
Upside: I'll lose some unwanted weight!
4. Office politics. They'll all hate me, be mean to me.
Upside: I'll better my art of ignoring irrelevant people.
5. I won't be able to cope up, not at all, with any of it - the emotional and the professional pressure.
Upside: What have I to lose? I'll go home just the way I came here. And be happy I tried at least.
6.I wont b able to handle crowdy palces like malls & clubs( I actually scares of)
Upside : What I have to do with the ppl, njoy d place not d ppl.
7. Left with no friends
Upside : Uptil now, I never had a permanent Friendship(atleast with Girls..ahhh).,all lie at all times, but it actually matters me a lot..Ironically, as for short snap be, they were d closest one to me n vise-versa..
And that last bit just makes me feel so much better. To have a home to go back to is all you can ask for in the worst of times. And I'm supposed to be having a good time! Nay?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Its not all about money honey..
So, Wht to begin with,..hmm..
Let me begin with a question. How much money is 'good enough' to leave peacefully? I realize it is an open-ended question with no possible consensus reply. But what I am trying to ask is, do we all really believe that money is merely a way of securing a peaceful life? If yes, then should we not also know how much is enough? On the other hand, if money is not the mean but the target itself, what's the target amount you are trying to reach? Is there a quantifiable answer to it?
I am fortunate enough to be at a stage of life where survival is not my main target. This is the case with a lot of people I know - my friends, my cousins, my seniors, etc. Lot of us earn substantially higher than our basic needs. Most of us also earn much above even our luzury needs that we enjoy. Most of us earn enough to take our families out for a movie or dinner few times a month. We earn enough to enjoy a couple of vacations in a year to a far-away place, away from the routine. Sure, we need money to do all this and more. Point is, many of us are earning much more than what you need to do all this. Day in and day out we are slogging out in our lives to get that higher increment or a super bonus that marginally/incrementally goes into our savings and not towards luxury spending. Saving for an uncertain future perhaps. Despite all this, I strongly feel a lot of us are giving way too much importance to money and financial safety, thinking about not just the next year or two but even 10 years and 20 years down the line. If this is how it goes, money will hypnotize us and leave us drained and dead even before we are actually dead.
I have two points to add further. First is the happiness quotient. If the money-making efforts are making you truly blissful, then half the problem is taken care of. You are not killing yourself internally for a secure future. However, is this not a rarity? Lot of us crib about not having enough time and mind-space to live for ourselves. The attempt to get 'work-life balance' has caught up in a big way among corporate executives. Clearly so, there seems to be an unhappy inner self even as the outer self is busy chasing the money targets. That, to my mind, is a problem one must address. If more money does not make you more happy on a daily basis (and not at a future unknown point in time), then we ought to change few things around.
Now, let's assume one is indeed blissful in doing things that consequently results in money being created. Case in point would be a sportsman, an actor, a painter, a musician or a CA for that matter who loves what she does. Even then, I have an inkling that there is something not-so-right. That's my second pointer. I cannot see a lot of sense in a situation where someone tries to achieve a separate room for each member of his family (by purchasing a 3BHK flat, for instance) at a time when some of them around in this world cannot afford a single small room for 10 of them put together. I am not intending to sound 'socialistic' here. Question that disturbs me is, do the money making people not think about the relatively under-privileged soceity? I am not taking anything away from people who make money. Surely they are extremly skilled and work hard to earn whatever they do. But, do they not believe that once they reach that point of security, they can then try to help somebody else around to get to security as well? Like as if we are one big family in this world and we seek & help each other out? Can we not do that more often than not? Can there be no collective efforts towards that? Or do we remain self-centered as always? Do we simply add more luxuries to our own wealth & lives, and may be end up not even enjoying them. By upgrading from a 21-inch TV to a super big Plasma, when life is so reckless & fast that we spend only a few hours in front of the TV. If that's the case, wasn't the decision to upgrade the TV just a symbolic gesture to tell the society around that you are a wealthy person and ought to be respected? TV is just an example, we could be spending our money in a lot of other ways.
I read this somewhere recently (I think it was Sri Sri Ravishankar who said this) that our education system needs to be modified to include two more things in it right from grass-root levels: a little bit about Philospohy and a little bit about Philanthropy. I totally agree. This will add a sense of perspective in our lives and see things in a different manner. We will be more compassionate and less wasteful in our attitudes.
I have asked myself how much money is 'secure' enough for my family. Working to reach that number and then trying to spread out for others is what my motto is. If you think this way of living makes sense, then ask yourself how much money is 'secure' enough for your family and their needs. Then work hard to reach a level where even 'ancilliary' works or more proper part-time that does not consume all of your time will help you earn that bit. Rest of the time can be used to make this whole world a much better place. This is where education helps. A professional degree like MBBS or CA must be used to make our lives less complicated and easier. Unfortunately, we use these degrees to challenge ourselves to earn some obscenely high amount of money and screw up our own happiness in the process.
I began with a question. Let me end with a beautifully worded line that I read as the status message of one of my friends and is apt here. A perfection of means & confusion of aims seems to be our main problem.
...
Let me begin with a question. How much money is 'good enough' to leave peacefully? I realize it is an open-ended question with no possible consensus reply. But what I am trying to ask is, do we all really believe that money is merely a way of securing a peaceful life? If yes, then should we not also know how much is enough? On the other hand, if money is not the mean but the target itself, what's the target amount you are trying to reach? Is there a quantifiable answer to it?
I am fortunate enough to be at a stage of life where survival is not my main target. This is the case with a lot of people I know - my friends, my cousins, my seniors, etc. Lot of us earn substantially higher than our basic needs. Most of us also earn much above even our luzury needs that we enjoy. Most of us earn enough to take our families out for a movie or dinner few times a month. We earn enough to enjoy a couple of vacations in a year to a far-away place, away from the routine. Sure, we need money to do all this and more. Point is, many of us are earning much more than what you need to do all this. Day in and day out we are slogging out in our lives to get that higher increment or a super bonus that marginally/incrementally goes into our savings and not towards luxury spending. Saving for an uncertain future perhaps. Despite all this, I strongly feel a lot of us are giving way too much importance to money and financial safety, thinking about not just the next year or two but even 10 years and 20 years down the line. If this is how it goes, money will hypnotize us and leave us drained and dead even before we are actually dead.
I have two points to add further. First is the happiness quotient. If the money-making efforts are making you truly blissful, then half the problem is taken care of. You are not killing yourself internally for a secure future. However, is this not a rarity? Lot of us crib about not having enough time and mind-space to live for ourselves. The attempt to get 'work-life balance' has caught up in a big way among corporate executives. Clearly so, there seems to be an unhappy inner self even as the outer self is busy chasing the money targets. That, to my mind, is a problem one must address. If more money does not make you more happy on a daily basis (and not at a future unknown point in time), then we ought to change few things around.
Now, let's assume one is indeed blissful in doing things that consequently results in money being created. Case in point would be a sportsman, an actor, a painter, a musician or a CA for that matter who loves what she does. Even then, I have an inkling that there is something not-so-right. That's my second pointer. I cannot see a lot of sense in a situation where someone tries to achieve a separate room for each member of his family (by purchasing a 3BHK flat, for instance) at a time when some of them around in this world cannot afford a single small room for 10 of them put together. I am not intending to sound 'socialistic' here. Question that disturbs me is, do the money making people not think about the relatively under-privileged soceity? I am not taking anything away from people who make money. Surely they are extremly skilled and work hard to earn whatever they do. But, do they not believe that once they reach that point of security, they can then try to help somebody else around to get to security as well? Like as if we are one big family in this world and we seek & help each other out? Can we not do that more often than not? Can there be no collective efforts towards that? Or do we remain self-centered as always? Do we simply add more luxuries to our own wealth & lives, and may be end up not even enjoying them. By upgrading from a 21-inch TV to a super big Plasma, when life is so reckless & fast that we spend only a few hours in front of the TV. If that's the case, wasn't the decision to upgrade the TV just a symbolic gesture to tell the society around that you are a wealthy person and ought to be respected? TV is just an example, we could be spending our money in a lot of other ways.
I read this somewhere recently (I think it was Sri Sri Ravishankar who said this) that our education system needs to be modified to include two more things in it right from grass-root levels: a little bit about Philospohy and a little bit about Philanthropy. I totally agree. This will add a sense of perspective in our lives and see things in a different manner. We will be more compassionate and less wasteful in our attitudes.
I have asked myself how much money is 'secure' enough for my family. Working to reach that number and then trying to spread out for others is what my motto is. If you think this way of living makes sense, then ask yourself how much money is 'secure' enough for your family and their needs. Then work hard to reach a level where even 'ancilliary' works or more proper part-time that does not consume all of your time will help you earn that bit. Rest of the time can be used to make this whole world a much better place. This is where education helps. A professional degree like MBBS or CA must be used to make our lives less complicated and easier. Unfortunately, we use these degrees to challenge ourselves to earn some obscenely high amount of money and screw up our own happiness in the process.
I began with a question. Let me end with a beautifully worded line that I read as the status message of one of my friends and is apt here. A perfection of means & confusion of aims seems to be our main problem.
...
who is the owner??
I read this statement recently and was quite struck by it: Things that you own now will end up owning you someday.
It is an extremely powerful thought. Loved it. It has been running inside my head since the moment I read it. Today, as I was having a conversation with my professor, he shared a beautiful story with me. It goes like this:
One fine day, while a sage is giving a discourse to his disciples, a man comes walking with his cow. The sage says to his disciples "See there, a man and a cow are coming together". The man hears this and gets a little agitated. He tells the sage "Hey old man, we are not coming together. You cannot put it like that." The sage replies "Oh yes, you are right. I am sorry. I will correct myself." He then tells his disciples "The cow is bringing the man". This makes the man very angry. He yells at the sage "Are you crazy? The cow is not bringing me. I am bringing it. I am controlling it. Do you understand?". To this, the sage replies beautifully saying "Sorry boy. The way I see it, the cow is bringing you alongwith it. If you leave the cow alone, it will still keep walking on its own, peacefully, without your help. But if it leaves you, can you do the same? So who's controlling whom?"
Awesome story. Hope you understand the gist and the message.
So, are you owning things or are they owning you?
It is an extremely powerful thought. Loved it. It has been running inside my head since the moment I read it. Today, as I was having a conversation with my professor, he shared a beautiful story with me. It goes like this:
One fine day, while a sage is giving a discourse to his disciples, a man comes walking with his cow. The sage says to his disciples "See there, a man and a cow are coming together". The man hears this and gets a little agitated. He tells the sage "Hey old man, we are not coming together. You cannot put it like that." The sage replies "Oh yes, you are right. I am sorry. I will correct myself." He then tells his disciples "The cow is bringing the man". This makes the man very angry. He yells at the sage "Are you crazy? The cow is not bringing me. I am bringing it. I am controlling it. Do you understand?". To this, the sage replies beautifully saying "Sorry boy. The way I see it, the cow is bringing you alongwith it. If you leave the cow alone, it will still keep walking on its own, peacefully, without your help. But if it leaves you, can you do the same? So who's controlling whom?"
Awesome story. Hope you understand the gist and the message.
So, are you owning things or are they owning you?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
"Have Breakfast… or…Be Breakfast!"
Who sells the largest number of cameras in India?
Your guess is likely to be Sony, Canon or Nikon. Answer is none of the above. The winner is Nokia whose main line of business in India is not cameras but cell phones.
Reason being cameras bundled with cellphones are outselling stand alone cameras. Now, what prevents the cellphone from replacing the camera outright? Nothing at all. One can only hope the Sonys and Canons are taking note.
Try this. Who is the biggest in music business in India? You think it is HMV Sa-Re-Ga-Ma? Sorry. The answer is Airtel. By selling caller tunes (that play for 30 seconds) Airtel makes more than what music companies make by selling music albums (that run for hours).
Incidentally Airtel is not in music business. It is the mobile service provider with the largest subscriber base in India. That sort of competitor is difficult to detect, even more difficult to beat (by the time you have identified him he has already gone past you). But if you imagine that Nokia and Bharti (Airtel's parent) are breathing easy you can't be farther from truth.
Nokia confessed that they all but missed the smartphone bus. They admit that Apple's Iphone and Google's Android can make life difficult in future. But you never thought Google was a mobile company, did you? If these illustrations mean anything, there is a bigger game unfolding. It is not so much about mobile or music or camera or emails?
The "Mahabharat" (the great Indian epic battle) is about "what is tomorrow's personal digital device"? Will it be a souped up mobile or a palmtop with a telephone? All these are little wars that add up to that big battle. Hiding behind all these wars is a gem of a question – "who is my competitor?"
Once in a while, to intrigue my students I toss a question at them. It says "What Apple did to Sony, Sony did to Kodak, explain?" The smart ones get the answer almost immediately. Sony defined its market as audio (music from the walkman). They never expected an IT company like Apple to encroach into their audio domain. Come to think of it, is it really surprising? Apple as a computer maker has both audio and video capabilities. So what made Sony think he won't compete on pure audio? "Elementary Watson". So also Kodak defined its business as film cameras, Sony defines its businesses as "digital."
In digital camera the two markets perfectly meshed. Kodak was torn between going digital and sacrificing money on camera film or staying with films and getting left behind in digital technology. Left undecided it lost in both. It had to. It did not ask the question "who is my competitor for tomorrow?" The same was true for IBM whose mainframe revenue prevented it from seeing the PC. The same was true of Bill Gates who declared "internet is a fad!" and then turned around to bundle the browser with windows to bury Netscape. The point is not who is today's competitor. Today's competitor is obvious. Tomorrow's is not.
In 2008, who was the toughest competitor to British Airways in India? Singapore airlines? Better still, Indian airlines? Maybe, but there are better answers. There are competitors that can hurt all these airlines and others not mentioned. The answer is videoconferencing and telepresence services of HP and Cisco. Travel dropped due to recession. Senior IT executives in India and abroad were compelled by their head quarters to use videoconferencing to shrink travel budget. So much so, that the mad scramble for American visas from Indian techies was nowhere in sight in 2008. (India has a quota of something like 65,000 visas to the U.S. They were going a-begging. Blame it on recession!). So far so good. But to think that the airlines will be back in business post recession is something I would not bet on. In short term yes. In long term a resounding no. Remember, if there is one place where Newton's law of gravity is applicable besides physics it is in electronic hardware. Between 1977 and 1991 the prices of the now dead VCR (parent of Blue-Ray disc player) crashed to one-third of its original level in India. PC's price dropped from hundreds of thousands of rupees to tens of thousands. If this trend repeats then telepresence prices will also crash. Imagine the fate of airlines then. As it is not many are making money. Then it will surely be RIP!
India has two passions. Films and cricket. The two markets were distinctly different. So were the icons. The cricket gods were Sachin and Sehwag. The filmi gods were the Khans (Aamir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan and the other Khans who followed suit). That was, when cricket was fundamentally test cricket or at best 50 over cricket. Then came IPL and the two markets collapsed into one. IPL brought cricket down to 20 overs. Suddenly an IPL match was reduced to the length of a 3 hour movie. Cricket became film's competitor. On the eve of IPL matches movie halls ran empty. Desperate multiplex owners requisitioned the rights for screening IPL matches at movie halls to hang on to the audience. If IPL were to become the mainstay of cricket, as it is likely to be, films have to sequence their releases so as not clash with IPL matches. As far as the audience is concerned both are what in India are called 3 hour "tamasha" (entertainment). Cricket season might push films out of the market.
Look at the products that vanished from India in the last 20 years. When did you last see a black and white movie? When did you last use a fountain pen? When did you last type on a typewriter? The answer for all the above is "I don't remember!" For some time there was a mild substitute for the typewriter called electronic typewriter that had limited memory. Then came the computer and mowed them all. Today most technologically challenged guys like me use the computer as an upgraded typewriter. Typewriters per se are nowhere to be seen.
One last illustration. 20 years back what were Indians using to wake them up in the morning? The answer is "alarm clock." The alarm clock was a monster made of mechanical springs. It had to be physically keyed every day to keep it running. It made so much noise by way of alarm, that it woke you up and the rest of the colony. Then came quartz clocks which were sleeker. They were much more gentle though still quaintly called "alarms." What do we use today for waking up in the morning? Cellphone! An entire industry of clocks disappeared without warning thanks to cell phones. Big watch companies like Titan were the losers. You never know in which bush your competitor is hiding!
On a lighter vein, who are the competitors for authors? Joke spewing machines? (Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple, himself a Pole, tagged a Polish joke telling machine to a telephone much to the mirth of Silicon Valley). Or will the competition be story telling robots? Future is scary! The boss of an IT company once said something interesting about the animal called competition. He said "Have breakfast …or…. be breakfast"! That sums it up rather neatly.
( Source : Dr. Y. L. R. Moorthi is a professor at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. He is an M.Tech from Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and a post graduate in management from IIM, Bangalore & I was fortunate to assist him )
Your guess is likely to be Sony, Canon or Nikon. Answer is none of the above. The winner is Nokia whose main line of business in India is not cameras but cell phones.
Reason being cameras bundled with cellphones are outselling stand alone cameras. Now, what prevents the cellphone from replacing the camera outright? Nothing at all. One can only hope the Sonys and Canons are taking note.
Try this. Who is the biggest in music business in India? You think it is HMV Sa-Re-Ga-Ma? Sorry. The answer is Airtel. By selling caller tunes (that play for 30 seconds) Airtel makes more than what music companies make by selling music albums (that run for hours).
Incidentally Airtel is not in music business. It is the mobile service provider with the largest subscriber base in India. That sort of competitor is difficult to detect, even more difficult to beat (by the time you have identified him he has already gone past you). But if you imagine that Nokia and Bharti (Airtel's parent) are breathing easy you can't be farther from truth.
Nokia confessed that they all but missed the smartphone bus. They admit that Apple's Iphone and Google's Android can make life difficult in future. But you never thought Google was a mobile company, did you? If these illustrations mean anything, there is a bigger game unfolding. It is not so much about mobile or music or camera or emails?
The "Mahabharat" (the great Indian epic battle) is about "what is tomorrow's personal digital device"? Will it be a souped up mobile or a palmtop with a telephone? All these are little wars that add up to that big battle. Hiding behind all these wars is a gem of a question – "who is my competitor?"
Once in a while, to intrigue my students I toss a question at them. It says "What Apple did to Sony, Sony did to Kodak, explain?" The smart ones get the answer almost immediately. Sony defined its market as audio (music from the walkman). They never expected an IT company like Apple to encroach into their audio domain. Come to think of it, is it really surprising? Apple as a computer maker has both audio and video capabilities. So what made Sony think he won't compete on pure audio? "Elementary Watson". So also Kodak defined its business as film cameras, Sony defines its businesses as "digital."
In digital camera the two markets perfectly meshed. Kodak was torn between going digital and sacrificing money on camera film or staying with films and getting left behind in digital technology. Left undecided it lost in both. It had to. It did not ask the question "who is my competitor for tomorrow?" The same was true for IBM whose mainframe revenue prevented it from seeing the PC. The same was true of Bill Gates who declared "internet is a fad!" and then turned around to bundle the browser with windows to bury Netscape. The point is not who is today's competitor. Today's competitor is obvious. Tomorrow's is not.
In 2008, who was the toughest competitor to British Airways in India? Singapore airlines? Better still, Indian airlines? Maybe, but there are better answers. There are competitors that can hurt all these airlines and others not mentioned. The answer is videoconferencing and telepresence services of HP and Cisco. Travel dropped due to recession. Senior IT executives in India and abroad were compelled by their head quarters to use videoconferencing to shrink travel budget. So much so, that the mad scramble for American visas from Indian techies was nowhere in sight in 2008. (India has a quota of something like 65,000 visas to the U.S. They were going a-begging. Blame it on recession!). So far so good. But to think that the airlines will be back in business post recession is something I would not bet on. In short term yes. In long term a resounding no. Remember, if there is one place where Newton's law of gravity is applicable besides physics it is in electronic hardware. Between 1977 and 1991 the prices of the now dead VCR (parent of Blue-Ray disc player) crashed to one-third of its original level in India. PC's price dropped from hundreds of thousands of rupees to tens of thousands. If this trend repeats then telepresence prices will also crash. Imagine the fate of airlines then. As it is not many are making money. Then it will surely be RIP!
India has two passions. Films and cricket. The two markets were distinctly different. So were the icons. The cricket gods were Sachin and Sehwag. The filmi gods were the Khans (Aamir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan and the other Khans who followed suit). That was, when cricket was fundamentally test cricket or at best 50 over cricket. Then came IPL and the two markets collapsed into one. IPL brought cricket down to 20 overs. Suddenly an IPL match was reduced to the length of a 3 hour movie. Cricket became film's competitor. On the eve of IPL matches movie halls ran empty. Desperate multiplex owners requisitioned the rights for screening IPL matches at movie halls to hang on to the audience. If IPL were to become the mainstay of cricket, as it is likely to be, films have to sequence their releases so as not clash with IPL matches. As far as the audience is concerned both are what in India are called 3 hour "tamasha" (entertainment). Cricket season might push films out of the market.
Look at the products that vanished from India in the last 20 years. When did you last see a black and white movie? When did you last use a fountain pen? When did you last type on a typewriter? The answer for all the above is "I don't remember!" For some time there was a mild substitute for the typewriter called electronic typewriter that had limited memory. Then came the computer and mowed them all. Today most technologically challenged guys like me use the computer as an upgraded typewriter. Typewriters per se are nowhere to be seen.
One last illustration. 20 years back what were Indians using to wake them up in the morning? The answer is "alarm clock." The alarm clock was a monster made of mechanical springs. It had to be physically keyed every day to keep it running. It made so much noise by way of alarm, that it woke you up and the rest of the colony. Then came quartz clocks which were sleeker. They were much more gentle though still quaintly called "alarms." What do we use today for waking up in the morning? Cellphone! An entire industry of clocks disappeared without warning thanks to cell phones. Big watch companies like Titan were the losers. You never know in which bush your competitor is hiding!
On a lighter vein, who are the competitors for authors? Joke spewing machines? (Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple, himself a Pole, tagged a Polish joke telling machine to a telephone much to the mirth of Silicon Valley). Or will the competition be story telling robots? Future is scary! The boss of an IT company once said something interesting about the animal called competition. He said "Have breakfast …or…. be breakfast"! That sums it up rather neatly.
( Source : Dr. Y. L. R. Moorthi is a professor at the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore. He is an M.Tech from Indian Institute of Technology, Madras and a post graduate in management from IIM, Bangalore & I was fortunate to assist him )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)