Month: July 2008

  • Mocha

    And, at long last, we finally landed up at Mocha on Lavelle Road. Keep going down Lavelle Road (from MG Road) and this is about 50 m after the Walton/Lavelle/Vittal Mallya junction, just before Java City. We got in by about 7.45, and the place was already fairly crowded. We sat indoors, but there’re also some very good outdoor seating options.

    Disclaimer: There’s a bit of anarchy in the ordering sequence.  At this place, we order the shake first, and then decide what to eat. It has nothing to do with The Joker. Blame it on the chocolate.:)

    So, we first ordered a Dutch truffle cake shake. The menu said it was a chocolate shake so sinful you might want to go for a confession. I confess they were right. The quality and the quantity. It must be said that we arrived on this particular choice after much debate all thanks to the exhaustive options available.

    To fill up the rest of our collective tummies, we ordered a Country Roast Chicken Panino and a Blackened Balti Chicken Crustini. The former is wildfire roasted chicken and slaw served with fresh basil presto, and the latter is chicken and peppers cooked in balti spice. While we were slightly concerned about Balti, it turned out to be just fine. 🙂 However, we found that these two, while not lacking in taste or flavours, we e not sufficient to leave us satiated. So, again, afer much debate, we decided against having dessert (thanks to familiarity with the humongous portions that are served here) and ordered one more snack – Pollo con Aioli, which is marinated chicken with Aioli. No, we had no clue on who (er, what) Aioli was. 🙂 It tasted a bit like corn, and a bit like the soggy peanuts we sometimes have, but overall was a bit bland. The saving grace was the sauce they gave with it. On hindsight, we really should’ve been gluttonous and gone for that ‘That Chocolate Thing’. For now, all we’re left with is its description – rich gooey flourless chocolate cake layered with dark chocolate ganache served with chocolate ice cream. Sigh, next time, definitely.

    All of this cost us just below Rs.600. Thats one of the good things about Mocha. It allows you to sample a lot of things, and still leaves enough room and dough for chocolate 😉

    Mocha 080 65357111 , 080 65357222

    PS. You can also check out the review of the other Mocha in Bangalore, here.

    Menu and Photos at Zomato

  • Bang Allure

    She was tired of this place. Yesterday, an announcement about more power cuts. Great, no lights. And what was with the city today? Why was there such an eerie silence around? Great, no sound too. God, was some light and sound too much to ask for in a metro?  That was when the bomb exploded.

    until next time, careful what you wish for

  • Brand Manager 2.0

    Disclaimer: I promise to work on the 2.0 fetish -#7 here

    I’ve always been a fan of this thought – ‘the tyranny of the big idea‘. This is also a great read on the same subject. The one line take-out would be that in the presence of the big idea, smaller ideas which might have had the potential to make the brand more interesting would get lost. I can safely say that I’ve seen this happen, with smaller, but good ideas being thrown into the bin because of the lack of sync with the prevalent communication theme. While these posts are around a couple of years old, in a world where conversations are becoming more important, the relevance of the thought remains as much as before, in fact more important.

    So, continuing from yesterday’s post, ideas being non-commodities, it’d actually make more sense for brands to have the idea-buckets that the posts speak of. Which leads me to this post, which mentions that “a brand can, and should have more than one one proposition for itself.” For those who believe in the inflexibility of positioning, this would be difficult to swallow. But look at it this way, on any given day a technological or even an environmental change could deem your entire communication premise infeasible. Theory, huh? Okay, another perspective, what’s google to you? Search engine? Mail? IM? Office Tool? Communities? …. You get the picture? Meanwhile, the thing I’ve been wondering is, in this new way of brand diversification, how different should the different propositions of a brand be? Do they have to be related to each other so that the strengths of one can be used to help the other? Or can they be like Big Adda and Big FM and Big Flix, seemingly unrelated? And the last question, as audiences become more fragmented and individual niches become too small to monetise each separately, would it force brands to become aggregates of several similar niches along the long tail?

    Which brings me to the point of my post. What does all this do to my role – that of a brand manager. The very fact that I’ve got my brand being different things to different people means that my audiences are differentiated and there’s probably no single animal out there who I could define as the brand’s audience. Its more a zoo. It also means that I’ve keep myself abreast of the conversations and the needs of different sets of people. That makes me more of a communities manager. Is this the natural evolution of the brand manager. Wait, that’s not all, I also have a human angle to this. When you’re dealing with communities, it works best if you are part of the audience itself in terms of interests. It  lends credence, and thus, in a way, the line between professional and personal interests start blurring. Which perhaps is a great thing, as more and more people get to do what they’d like to do. But given the fact that we’re still dealing with businesses and individuals here, how exactly can processes be evolved in this scenario, where there is so much of the individual in the brands he deals with? Bluntly, what happens when the person leaves, or something like this happens?

    until next time, people management 2.0 😉

    PS. All ye bloggers, check this out, blogger accommodation (via Indianweb2)

  • The powers that be

    Decision making is something we try to be good at, maybe it has something to do with the little bit of a control freak we have in all of us. And we judge some as good decision makers, and some as bad, not pausing to think that the seemingly good or bad decisions can be reversed so quickly by a twist of fate. Of course, there are some who would refuse to attribute even a small iota of it to fate, but then that’s an age old argument, so I’d not want to get in there now.

    Meanwhile, though decisions affect any number of people from an individual to nations, depending on who takes them, I tend to believe that the control that we have been given seems to be reducing with each passing period. No, not as individuals, but as humanity in general.

    Reading mythology, Indian and otherwise is taking its toll on me 🙂 , so humour me. Every civilisation speaks of gifted individuals, and several of them who could cause epidemics, control the elements of nature, and change things in a way that would be inconceivable to us (that a human could do such things) Our mythology (which I believe to be history as opposed to myth) has a liberal splattering of sages who could give curses, heroes who could change the course of battles with a single weapon and so on.

    Stories, you say, but do you think that at some point of time, a higher power trusted humans enough to give them the liberty and the ability to do such things, and because of what we have done to ourselves, it has been taken away from us?

    until next time, fall from grace

  • Any Ideas?

    Reading this post today, on how Tata Sky and Dish TV have both partnered with matrimony portals -Bharat Matrimony and Shaadi.com respectively, in the space of a single day, I realised how fickle competitive advantages really are. It also reminded me of a much debated post on Scobleizer yesterday on tech blogging, and where it’s at. While the initial premise of that post was how focus was now more on the biz part of it than the mutual discovery of stuff, it then moved on to fleeting attention spans and the quest for the latest shiny object on the www. And how every tech blog out there is trying to beat each other in reaching the latest news first.

    Which essentially makes news the commodity and ways to reach the audience first the competitive advantage. Pretty much the same game as what our TV channels are upto these days. When I look around, i see commodities happening all around, to all sorts of product categories, and brands ending up aping each other so that they don’t miss the bus. So whether its reality shows or strange four letter acronyms for shampoos or features in mobile phones, remove the brand name and you won’t notice the difference. And to me, thats a problem, because in a commodity led culture, quantity led factors like volume, reach etc take precedence, mediocrity tends to become the norm, and no one thinks that they should figure out a better way to reach the consumer than the bus.

    And that led me to think of ways and means of how brands can fight it. While I’ve been thinking of clear positioning as an obvious starter, I also realised there were some brands that not only created the big idea and ended up making a verb out of it – xerox, google, to name a couple, they were so radical either in thought or execution that they never actually positioned themselves. And before I go further, I apologise for taking you on this stream of consciousness trip. Now, not all brands can be lucky enough to get a not-easily-copiable idea or a drastic new way of executing it.

    And that brought me to the potential of a brand which has taken a great first step in leveraging its brand name very well in the absolutely commoditised market of telecom- Idea. I’m sure you must’ve seen the TVC by now. While the campaign is indeed good, what I’m more impressed with is that now that they can actually focus on the innovative uses of utilising a mobile for the betterment of the individual and the society he lives in, and do a lifetime’s supply of campaigns, built around different ‘Idea’s. It offers a way to create a positioning that’s beyond communication. I think that this approach has the potential to build a superbrand. From a new media perspective, and considering that the mobile is almost ubiquitous now, think of the conversations that this could create, obviously around ideas.

    That said, any ideas on how brands can beat commoditisation?

    until next time, an idea and change