My 3-point advice to Bush

Even President Bush knows that he is, well, not to put too fine a point on it, screwed. He has got everyone blaming him and hating him for the Iraq war, but no one seems to have a solution for him.

The Republicans have absolutely no idea. They guess that more troops will do the trick, even if it leads to more deaths.

The Dems have a brilliantly clear officially stated position: “staying the course is not the solution”. But, of course, they don’t have a clue about what is the solution.

The rest of the world wants Bush to continue doing what he has been doing so that he can make a bigger fool of himself and they can all laugh at him and at America. Besides, no one really cares about Iraq.

It seems only Bush and I care about a democratic, secular, economically vibrant Iraq where men can get drunk if they want to and women can wear skirts if they want to. In fact, I suspect that I am thinking ahead of Bush on this because I want the same for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as well, and I am not sure he will agree with me on the getting drunk part.

First, he should go on a Haj. That’s right, he should go on a Haj. This has four slam dunk implications for him. One, he will convince the Islamic world that he is not a Christian terrorist as many believe him to be. Two, he will give them a moral victory that he can afford to give, without withdrawing the troops. Three, he will electrify the American media with a new topic of discussion that will push the deaths from the front pages. And four, it will start rumors that he has converted to Islam which will completely confuse the jehadis.

Second, he should start building 500 malls in Iraq with immediate effect. At first glance, this may look nothing more than a classic divide-and-conquer strategy; the jehadis will have to divide themselves because they will have so many more targets and they will be easier to conquer. But my advice runs deeper than that. With 500 malls being built, there is a rational for the presence of American troops. They will be there to protect the construction. It’ll create jobs for the locals and it can be made to pay more than killing Americans, which is the only other job option in Iraq now. And finally, there is that benumbing and bewitching energy field that malls, once completed, have on human beings of all color, race and religion that somehow mysteriously diverts them from terrorism.

And now the third point of my three point advice. Rename Iraq. It doesn’t cost much but can have a galvanizing diversionary impact. In one stroke Bush can change the terms of the debate from “should we pull out or not” to “is naming Iraq as Babylon a good idea?”

He may think I am joking, but these are the only concrete solutions actually in front of him.

Free, Perfect and Now: part 2

The story so far (scroll down for the blog entry part 1): There is a strong hypothesis that, in the near future, all functionality will become free, perfect and instantaneous (now). The question is: what will you charge for? How will you build a brand?

One possible solution lies in creating cool customer experiences. This requires constant innovation to stay one cool experience ahead of your competition.

The second thing that the customer may be willing to pay for is trust. This goes beyond the reliability of the product into the space of “do I trust this company?”

A strong trend that supports this is the rise of the “company brand”, as opposed to the “product brand”. The product brand was historically built around “what can you (the product) do for me (the consumer) and was driven by advertising. The company brand will be built around “what do you (the company) stand for and how do you behave” and will be driven by how the company walks its talk.

Let me give 3 examples.

Till 1995-6, Microsoft was seen as the underdog in the technology world. It was seen as a bunch of smart kids who had outwitted giants like IBM; iconoclasts who made tons of money but ate hamburgers; and the people most likely to chart out the future course of technology. However, after the browser war, the same Microsoft was seen as a bully. Still a bunch of smart people, but who were willing to cross the line and be ruthless to protect their turf. The change in perception had nothing to do with the quality of code coming out of Redmond; it had everything to do with their behavior. And it has been Microsoft’s “behavior”, (that of “not innovating”), that has been the subject of most articles/opinions written about it (next comes Gates’ charity; which is also a “behavior” trait).

If you look at GE, and analyze the articles written about it, very few have to do with the plastics they make or the quality of their aircraft engines or x-ray machines. However, the lack of transparency around Jack Welch’s retirement package makes news and impacts perception. Much is also written about GE’s management aggressive, performance driven management culture, which drives company behavior.

And then, there is Google. When it agreed to abide by the “requests” of the Chinese authority, it kicked up a storm, because Google wasn’t behaving as people expected it to under pressure. “Don’t be evil”, the famous Google vision line is all about guiding its behavior; not its products.

These three companies come from different eras, but are amongst the strongest brands in the world today. Each of them is a magnificent company in its own rights and has deserved the pedestal each is on. Yet, as the examples show, organizations will do well to focus on their behavior and build their company brand to earn the trust of their customers.

Democracy, Corporations and China

Whenever the issue of China comes up, the West invariably brings up the twin issues of democracy and free speech. These are not only considered as important cultural values, but are also projected as being critical to long-term economic growth and innovation. One of the regular questions being floated around is: “Can innovation happen in China without free speech?” The
implication being that it will remain the factory to the world and nothing more.

This may be dangerously misleading. Consider this:

There is a large (and important) part of the West that doesn’t believe in, and doesn’t practice, either democracy or free speech. It’s called the Corporation.

A few wise men (the board/senior management) make the decisions; the rest have to execute it. Censorship? You bet! Monitoring your activities? Of course! Snooping your email. Sure! Hauling you up for criticizing your company in your blog? Thank your stars you are not fired!

There are too many similarities between the way China is run and the way a Western corporation is run. In fact, the fundamental reason for the similarity is the same: efficiency and productivity.

Yet, corporations have survived, innovated and thrived. I guess China will do so as well.

I do not condone military-backed authoritarian regimes. Give me my anarchic, chaotic, colorful democracy any day. But I think that we may be making a big mistake by questioning China’s economic future because we don’t like its socio-political beliefs.

Let me add a few more observations from China. One of the indicators of the “liberal index” of any country is the length of a woman’s skirt. They are deliciously short in China. Another is the attitude towards alcohol. Freely available. There is enough skin on TV. Porn is available on the streets. Sex is always a possibility. When these are coupled with low crime, great infrastructure and the hope of making more money tomorrow than you are making today, there is a high possibility that you may get a society that is not actually interested in expressing political views.

Demographics lesson aboard UA888

When the stewardess in the business class reminds you of your grandmother’s social circle, you know you are flying United. In fact, you can teach an entire 5 credit course on global demographics by simply putting 2 pictures next to each other: an American air hostess and an Indian airhostess. No lectures, no text books, no homework. Just one slide to prove that America is definitely aging. Its planes are aging too. The video monitor on my seat didn’t work. My neighbor’s reading light didn’t work. Both our seats refused to recline beyond what they used to 10 years ago.

An aging workforce has obvious economical implications, like the condominiums in Florida. But there are other things to be considered. Older people tend to be grumpier. They resist change. They want to go home early. They complain about aches and pains in different parts of their body. They think they know everything. Can such a workforce compete with the young, driven, ambitious, 70-hr weekers from India and China? It’ll be interesting to see the battle of demographics.

Demographics cuts both ways, naturally. The only thing worse than having grumpy, old, conservative people on your pay roll is to have frustrated, jobless youngsters on the streets. If India fails to provide well paying, reliable jobs to the millions of youngsters, there will be blood on the streets; literally.

Free, perfect and now: Part 1

What happens when “functionality” becomes free, perfect and now? It’s the inevitable and logical conclusion of cheaper, better and faster.

Take long distance communication as a functionality. With the combination of computer-to-computer phone, messenger, email, the functionality is free, it’s good enough to be called perfect and it’s instantaneous (“now”). Maybe it’s not available to everyone, but it’s a strong trend.

So what happens when “functionality” becomes free, perfect and now? What do you charge money for? How do you build your brand?

It can be argued that the world can be divided into the world of bits and the world of atoms. In the world of bits, this hypothesis looks plausible. But what about the world of atoms? Will a car become free (the functionality of moving from point a to a reasonably distant point B)? What about razors? What about tables and chairs? The world of atoms has to recover its marginal cost of production.

There are 2 forces at play in the world of atoms. One is the steady reduction in the marginal cost of production due to globalization. The second is the relentless pursuit of technology that will overturn our current concepts and make many things, those we take for granted today, obsolete tomorrow. An example is nano-technology. It creates self cleaning clothes. Goodbye detergents.

So if functionality is free, what will companies charge for? And what will consumers be willing to pay for?

I believe there are 3 things that companies of the future will have to focus on.

The first is to provide “cool experiences” to their customers. An example is the cellular ring tone. The cost of talk time is going steadily down, but ring tones are expensive. In India, people have customized ring tones for different people who call them. And these are expensive. Yet, people change their ring tones on a regular basis. You don’t really need it as a functionality, but it’s a cool experience.

The problem with a cool experience is that it gets stale. So, you have to continuously refresh them. Which means that companies have to innovate on a regular basis, otherwise the next cool experience will be provided by your competitor. It’s very much like the fashion industry and every industry must study the fashion industry to figure out how they make customers pay money for things they don’t really need. Apple definitely does so.

Will write about the other 2 areas of focus in another blog entry.

What if India were to really shine?

This is an article I had written for the web version of the Outlook magazine. I am reproducing it here and hoping that Outlook will not sue me ffor breach of copyright. You can access it at www.outlookindia.com, but you will have to register. So, here goes.


What if India were to really shine? There will be more women studying and more women working. So, there will be more "love marriages". Many of them will be "inter-caste". This will drive national integration and remove the caste divide. No amount of legislation can achieve this as much as economic progress will.

As women will become financially independent, divorce rates will jump up. And those who are fond of saying "This generation is not willing to compromise", will do well to remember that everyone will be doing all the compromising at the work place; with their boss, with their colleagues, with their missed promotions and with their small increments.

And, as more and more children will be born, whose parents (or, ex-parents) speak different languages, English will become the dominant language of India. Valentine Day will become an Indian festival, coming exactly on the full moon after Makar Sankranti. South India will celebrate it one day before North India.

There will be many more vehicles on the roads. But the amount of road will remain the same. The growth rate will be enough to get you a vehicle, but not enough to create funds for infrastructure after greasing the mandatory pockets.

Flyovers-in-construction-forever will be the dominant visual of the country. They'll take up most of the driving space.

Driving will become such a pain that everyone will have a driver. Supply will not be a problem. In fact, it'll be the career of choice for most educated youngsters who can't get into a call center.

Eventually, half of India may be working in call centers and the other half may be their drivers. But it sounds too far fetched. All the marginal farmers couldn't have committed suicide.

Call centers will not be called call centers. They'll not even be called BPO. A new, more respectable term will be created. Something like "Global Business Enabling Hubs".

China will not replace India as the call center capital of the world. They'll learn English but it'll sound like Chinese because they don't have a culture of laughing at the other person's English accent, like we have. Analysts miss this important competitive advantage.

Even Patna will have an IIT. There will be over 500 of them in the entire country. American TV channels will make programs on how IITs produce the best call center employees in the world.

Maids will still be available. But, since most of the unemployed women will have a son or a brother who speaks English, and is a driver or a call center employee, it'll be beneath the dignity of the family to have them work as maids. So, they'll become expensive; like everything else except the drivers. And they'll be called Domestic Supervisors.

The houses will get smaller. They'll be full of gadgets which we will not use but will be forced to buy by the marketers. Most of the gadgets will be more intelligent than us.

Life will be busy with important things like being stuck in the traffic. Watching music videos on a 150-inch wall projection, alone, will be the preferred mode of relaxation. Because the house will be small and the screen so big, everyone will have a perennial headache.

This will bring down the population growth rate. It'll also drive up the drinking. More drinking will lead to more divorces which will lead to more drinking.

Prices of alcohol will stabilize, but that of water will shoot up.

We'll consume our annual domestic quota of power in the first 3 months with all the gadgets in the house. There'll be a thriving black market in the energy sector. Designer candles will be a boom industry.

There will be no "native place" for children to go to.

Paying for petrol will take up 20% of our combined (or divorced) salary. Everyone will have a minimum of 6 credit cards.At any given point, three of them will be over the limit.

Will we be happier? On one hand, many more of us will have a job, a house, a car, a driver and even 3-D mobile phones (whatever they will be). On the other, we'll be divorced, drunk, fat, cramped for space, lonely and in debt. I don't know.

But, it'll be a great time to be young and not be worried.

On Design

A design is complete when there's nothing more left to take out; not when there is nothing more left to add. Think of a typical Hindi movie. The director keeps on adding things: song sequences, comedy situation etc. That's bad design. Think of cooking. You don't want to keep on adding all the spices possible; just the right ones in the right quantity.

Why is design important? Because it is the first point of contact between your product/idea and your consumer. It's the first thing a consumer reacts to. Given that product functionality is usually a commodity, design can be a powerful differentiator. Think Apple.

It's true for all design. Irrespective of whether you are creating or judging; and irrespective of whether it is a book cover design, an ad design or a product design, remember this: a design is complete when there is nothing more left to take out. Look hard at all the elements. Think of what you can take out. The temptation to keep them will be very strong. There will always be a logic for the presence of each piece. Just like there's a logic to having that extra song. Be tough.

Once all the extra stuff has been taken out, you'll find the harmony that's the sign of a great design.

Emoticons from Hallmark?

I was sitting next to a Hallmark person during lunch. The discussion was around the trends in traditional greeting cards vs e-greeting cards. E-greetings are winning steadily, although the situation is not as serious as analog vs digital cameras. Yet.

I gave a simple idea to him. Hallmark should create a branded range of emoticons and have it bundled with MSN messenger etc.

Hallmark is in the business of helping you express yourself. More and more youngsters are expressing themselves through sms, messenger etc (I can take an educated guess that amongst teens, 10% of the conversation is what would have required a "card" earlier). Hallmark should be in that market.

It's true that one can download emoticons from the web. But, here (a) Hallmark can leverage its brand to package, consolidate and dominate this market, and (b) It can create out of world emoticons because it knows more about feelings and expressions than anyone else.Hallmark has no choice but to dominate the e-greeting space; otherwise it'll vanish one day. This should be a small step in keeping itself relevant for the webby boomers.

Smart Indians, dumb Americans; Smart America, Dumb India

There is a widespread belief in India, cutting across language, class and caste, that man – to – man India is better than the US.

Everybody knows a “mediocre” person who would have been jobless and gone hungry had he stayed in India, but is now living in a 4-bedroom, 3-garage suburban house in the US and is driving a Toyota. Everybody, even those who have never visited the US, knows about the Americans at the check-out counters who can’t subtract 5 dollars from 20 dollars without the help of a calculator. We, of course, do differential calculus mentally.

Our conceit and arrogance misses a very important point. The American system has been designed in such a way that every single person is a part of the economic engine. It is well known that the power of a network increases� in proportion to the square of the nodes in the network. No wonder then that the American economy is so much more powerful.

The Indian economy, on the other hand, is driven by a few chosen people who have come through an endless process of filtering. There is no place for the academically challenged. The network has lesser number of nodes. It also has an unintended consequence. We don’t know how to collaborate.

Each successful Indian professional has been trained to come “first”. We award ranks from early stages of school. We compete bitterly in school and then compete ferociously to get into college and continue to compete savagely in college. Inevitably, we compete at work instead of collaborating. We believe that we could have done any job better. And the power of the economic network suffers.

Indians may be smart; America is smarter.

Economic progress and divorces

For years, India held this moral aura around itself when it came to divorces. America had divorces and India had Culture.

I look around and see that a statistically significant percentage of my friends are divorced. It is the inevitable price of economic progress. There are many reasons for each individual divorce, but one factor cuts across all of them: financial independence of women. The reason India didn’t have divorces earlier was that women were not financially independent. God knows that they have had enough reasons to walk out on their husbands.

But, globally, there seems to be one more interesting force at work. This is the Jha hypothesis.

Marriage as an institution is thousands of years old. When the concept of marriage was created “for life”, life expectancy was hardly 22 years. Men got married at 15 and “for life” meant 7 years. Today, “for life” can mean anything from 40-70 years of married life. That can be a long time. And that wasn’t the original deal.