Eccentric Expressor

FDI in Airlines Industry!!

FDI in Airlines is pending for quiet sometime and it should be taken into consideration. Air carriers will get a breather from the cut throat competition and spiraling oil prices. China did it long back. Government should take steps to relax regulations.

Airlines will be able to come out of debt and will think to provide good bare minimum services. Also as this industry will get lot of investment, our tier 2 airports will develop and new technologies will come with it. It will create jobs and revenues will multiply. Indian air services will compete at global level to take it all together to newer heights.

Thinking from consumers perspective, it will be easier to travel across borders, improved services, benefits and cheaper, better quality control, safety measures will improve, better connectivity and what not.

Things that can concern are air pollution due to increased air traffic, though not to an alarming extent. Also Foreign investors can make it a money making model if a lot of leverage is given in terms of regulation, of which chances are less because their brand will also be at stakes.

Teaser Campaign: Better way for Marketing??

Guess it depends mostly on the expectations met based on the hype set. This hype set can prove to be best or worst depending on what you have in store for consumers. Teaser thinking has been a very bad experience for Ford Edsel, which was named after Henry Ford's son "Edsel". It was launched with the teaser slogan: 'The Edsel is coming'.

Teaser campaign which Ford thought will give it the best marketing by generating enough curiosity among the consumers actually backfired them. It was a car designed from a manufacturer's perspective and not from consumer's perspective. Its name was compared with weasel, grille was said to look like Vagina with teeth, Design was criticized, nothing much special about it and overpriced. Now this happens when consumer's expectations are very high and one can't blame consumers. After the dazzling Thunderbird, consumers had lot of expectations from Edsel(credits to hype for teaser slogan). It was not supposed to be revolutionary car but an evolutionary car. Blame it to research for not finding what people wanted or expectation(hype)

which was not met.

I wonder what would have happened if the expectation set were not that high?? Here is a perspective which i think would have helped in promoting the launch of Edsel. If the teaser had restricted the consumer's expectation, Edsel would have secured a different place in the market. Teaser plays the most important part here because once you give a flash of thought mind rambles in thousands of directions, which builds expectations and hence the comparison starts when actually it is in front of you. It never meets the expectation. Just imagine if someone gives you a thought that there is a James bond sci-fi movie just round the corner, looking at his past movies one can imagine whether his/her thoughts will have any limitations and when such movie comes it might miss to strike a chord, which is what happens a lot many times with a multi-starer-hyped our very own Bollywood movies. In a way teaser should be focused and should not carry with it any idea about the product which the product actually doesn't have in it.

PS: Edsel was denigrated as "The car with the toilet seat grill".

Process matters not the Final Product

Today's "consumer" driven world doesn't accept that. Customer Relation can put an enterprise on top or can bring down at the same time, also customer feedback can get you one of the best inputs on the product. Consumer is the one who gets the final product and so it is the final product that matters.

With the choices of products hitting the market frequently, consumers have gone way smarter over the past few decades. A client or a consumer expect the best service no matter how or what is the procedure it has followed. If the service is not worth his spending, enterprise should be ready to loose the competition, its process won't be able to save it from the brand damage and losses.

Now this can happen with any industry. Lets say a Business strategy implementation firm is approached by a famous client. Now the ball is in client's(consumer) court. Based on what he wants(final product) he will recommend(to other clients) or will come back with better hopes. Here final product will benefit both client and enterprise in acheiving their respective goals.

But lets say if the process is followed. It might happen that it will not lead to final product what is required or it may have other consequences like will take time, more money, will exceed the deadline, which will have negetive effect on enterprise's reputation.

Its only the final Product which goes to the consumer and consumers are active Social Media users, which is the future. Which puts enterprise's future at stakes if they don't go for final product.

Big Mac: Part of the Legend

Kudos to McDonalds for solving the mystery behind Napoleon's hidden hand inside the pocket.

I am loving it :)

Together!! 'Lets Conserve Energy'

A finger alone cannot do what a hand can do. A single person cannot do what a team can do in any sport. On the same lines indeed it is unrealistic to expect individual nations to make, independently, the sacrifices necessary to conserve energy.

Having said that it is the one who starts the revolution and others follow the league. But we can't wait for someone to initate, Especially when things are just waiting to get worse. An International leadership where all the leaders come to decision considering all the road blocks, individual perspective, social and economic development is required.

Now it is of atmost importance that we have a worldwide co-operation because it might happen that to achieve this goal a set of rules may hinder the development for a few nations, or may directly affect the population, or may bring down already established nations. So a worldwide consent is must for its success.

Lets take a real life situation here. When all the countries to cap on carbon emission coined the concept of carbon credits, the best example of international leadership. To bring down the carbon emmision or green house gases it was decided to fix a certain level of carbon emmision based on the economic health of a nation and if a country exceeds the level it will have to pay or it will have to buy carbon credits from other nation. As of now it has been successfully implemented and is progressively helping bringing down green house gas emission.

With one nation in the role it would not have been possible. But together our leadership made it and sure we can in future for any cause.Their are certain issues which cannot be handled individually by a nation (i.e. funds for natural calamity kept by UN, funds for economic meltdown, poverty, social services, fighting terrorism). we need all hands to meet because these are not single handed jobs. Conserving Energy is one of them.

Something which our future generation will look up to and be grateful of us. Together we can!! United we stand, divided we fall.

New Coke!! a big failure in 1985

How can this happen to coke?? Mind-boggling as it seems.

Coke in 1985 launched a sweeter version of the soft drink named 'New Coke' withdrawing its traditional 99 years old formula. Why would a firm with well captured market do that??

Coke's market share had dropped significantly due to its competitor Pepsi and it's own product range(diet Coke, Fanta) by 1984. It became the major threat for the top management. Two years into taste tests and research, working with the secrecy of a military operation, time and money put in the research could not measure or reveal the depth of emotions to original coca cola. It underestimated the power of its original brand.

Coke focused on product, not on the brand. Management can't be blamed on this because when the rival(Pepsi) deteriorates your product by being product centric and comparing products(Its taste, sweetness etc) in its ad campaigns, one always tries to back the product with changes in it. Though the way coke went about it was wrong. They didn't even try to know consumer inputs, though they were not that stupid to go for this option but circumstances(didn't have the choice to curb market share dropping) made them do this. Probably that was also the reason that no one was fired for this disaster. Finally, coke had to stop its 'New Coke' and it brought back the classic coke. Clearly this was the case of product management and not new product(Brand) development.

Consequently an unexpected(not serious) thing happened. For all the money coke put in research didn't go for a toss. Consumers realized how good their classic coke was in its absence in the market, so when it came back it got an overwhelming response. A few critics say that it was an intentional move by coke to publicize its product, but I don't see any point for anyone to do something like this intentionally.