Month: December 2008

  • Dead Ends

    Ever since I saw Via Darjeeling, I’ve had this thought. In every movie that I’ve seen, the hero has to be victorious at the end. The villain never wins.

    Of course, there are movies with tragic endings, where the hero dies in the end, but its always due to life circumstances than the villain in particular. Also, in Bollywood multi starrer movies of yore, whenever the number of heroines was lesser than the heroes, one hero was destined to die somewhere before the end. Sholay like scenarios, where its technically impossible for the hero and heroine to get hitched, are also included in this. There are also side heroes who end up martyrs. Add to this, the various instances of heroine/brother/mother/ human friend/ dog friend etc taking revenge on the villain  (the last one was specifically included for Teri Meherbaniyan) and you never see the villain win. Anti heroes always have a justification.

    We obviously don’t have a problem with unhappy endings. There are umpteen number of films that have become hits thanks to the hero’s tragic death in the end. So what makes films shy away from endings with a triumphant villain? Is it a self created rule to make sure that good always wins in good vs evil? Because people watch films as an escape from real life, and cannot digest real life on reel life? Why can’t we digest endings where a villain wins?

    So will you pay to watch a movie where the villain wins in the end, or will you stay away because you’d feel cheated with such an ending? How about books with this theme?

    until next time, know any exceptions?

    PS. Bollywood/Hollywood (like say, Arlington Road), I can’t handle subtitled stuff 😐

  • The Construct of Communities

    The initial version of Blogger enabled communities only through comments. And it did enable it quite well, as my other blog would validate. A lot of the people who comment there have been doing so for years now, and some of them are not bloggers. These days, I’ve been noticing a lot of people utilising the ‘follow‘ function that a recent version of Blogger had introduced. Of course, there were many entities that were providing this service, but the official Blogger add on is still a help. What pleased me much was the inbuilt feed mechanism, which would get people to use RSS more.

    Twitter of course, is built on a follower/following concept. But I’d say that Twitter/Facebook/Orkut/LinkedIn are not built around one entity as much as a blog is. The groups on these (except Twitter which still hasn’t got groups outside Japan) can be considered communities.

    I saw a list of fastest growing social networks a while back, with Twitter leading (in terms of growth), not surprisingly. But what i was surprised by was the appearance of Ning at #3 (despite the note that in the survey, it did not meet the minimum sample standards). My surprise had perhaps to do with the fact that, though i am a member of a couple of communities, i have not been active there. Both the communities I am part of are centred around shared interests.

    It made me wonder about the construct of communities that individuals would prefer to build in the future. Would it centre around blogs, would it centre around microblogging tools like twitter, which I know a lot of bloggers now prefer. Would it be a customised version of twitter, that’s made possible by tools like Shout’Em or Twingr (via Mashable)  or even something like the Prologue theme of WordPress. Would it be based on lifestreaming services (self hosted like sweetcron or otherwise like storytlr) where they can aggregate activities that they do all around the net. Or perhaps a tangential version of this like Friendfeed which also builds in the community feature. Will iGoogle become more social? Would at some point of time, individuality merge into communities, as discussions around topics become more important than introduction of the topic in a personal space? Or would both exist (as it does in the current form) side by side, depending on subjective likes/dislikes without any commonality in evolution?

    until next time, social circles into social web

  • When the mass gets social…

    While there have been many negative reactions to the way the media handled the recent Mumbai events, I came across a few interesting ones that were a direct attack on the brands involved.

    One is a Facebook group demanding that Barkha Dutt be taken off air. At the time of writing this, I can see 1666 members in the group, and some pretty angry outbursts on the Wall. The photos are quite expressive too. The others were this post, and this, which talk about the Lead India campaign by TOI, and ask very pointed questions on where the winner is, and about collective responsibilities. Since news is a daily commodity, and has a way of affecting the audience more than say, the toothpaste used everyday, the media’s relationship with the audience is at a different level altogether, and that’s a double edged sword, as the examples above show.

    It set me thinking on the evolution of media brands, and also a service like Twitter. Mass media and social media have (among other things) one point in common – they’ve both been built on a certain amount of trust. I read a newspaper/watch a channel because I trust them to verify the content they give me, provide analysis and take outs and give me enough objective information to form a perspective. They’re filters. A service like twitter works on trust, among peers, and can be a wonderful filter, but only on very few occasions does it provide original content. Though the trust factor weighs heavily in favour of twitter, the difference in scale (of content) makes a comparison quite premature. But meanwhile, social media, by its very nature, is more or less transparent. Vested interests will come out sooner or later, the system has a way of bringing it out. Somewhere down the line, mass media has failed on this count.

    In an era where news has become a commodity, media brands have had to differentiate themselves somehow to remain relevant. One way to achieve this is through packaging, which, these days mostly amounts to sensationalism. Another way is through specific properties that people identify with. In some cases, this would be the same as packaging, and in others, it would mean creating something new – like a campaign. However efforts on both counts have perhaps resulted in the erosion of trust, and a negativity towards the excesses of coverage. And that’s where an instant journalism friendly tool like Twitter stepped in, whenever the situation was conducive. And this is not going to go away.

    So what I’m wondering is whether the first brands to feel the effects of a connected social world (in India) would be media brands, as opposed to say a toothpaste or a cola brand, or even a service like banking/telecom, simply because while other product categories can use social media as a tool,  media brands instinctively start looking at the twitter brand of reporting, as competition. I’d say that twitter has always been giving news to me, at the thin end of the long tail. This time, the information was such that  it interested the massive head of the long tail, and the aggregation was something no single channel could possibly do. The interesting part of the MSM vs Twitter journalism debate is that while all those who use Twitter can comment on MSM and its excesses, there are very few in MSM who can and do speak of the pros and cons of Twitter. 🙂

    To me, mass media has to handle itself on two levels. One, at a product level, it means that mass media have to get back to the basics -making sure that it provides the reading/viewing audience all the facts required to make an informed opinion, and then going a step further than the regular ‘SMS your views’ concept, and making sure that they take a stance that’s in alignment with the audience’s views. On a brand and communication level, they’ll have to walk the talk, roll out campaigns that don’t just pay lip service to issues that the audience cares about. Social media could help on both counts. But MSM has to do this now, when its brand equity and reach is far far more than social media. I can see some action already – Eyes and Ears, and A Billion Hands.

    until next time,  reporting vs journalism

  • Something in common

    A few weeks back, I read a book called ‘Patna Roughcut’. Its one of those nice little books that reminded me of ‘The Wonder Years’, except that this one is non linear even in terms of narrators (not just narrative). While it is set in Patna and Delhi, I could identify a lot of the stuff – something I described in my short review as “you know you were a kid in india in the 80’s ” moments.

    A few days later, I had a conversation with someone on GTalk, about Thums Up and Frooti and all those drinks that existed in the 80’s and 90s, some of which, like Gold Spot and Sprint don’t even exist now, except in our memories. I realised that inspite of the vast distance between us, in terms of geography, we had a few culture icons that transcended it. That includes consumer items like those soft drinks, ads like Surf-Lalitaji, Lijjat Papad, Rasna, serials like Humlog, Mr.Yogi, Buniyaad, books – Amar Chitra Katha and Indrajal and many other things.(if you have been reading this blog post 2005, you might like to read that post, its one that’s very close to my heart)

    I wonder whether there’s an inverse proportion between the maturing of a country/economy and the common memory of generations. I can imagine the earliest generation of our free country, who had a bond – they’d rejoiced on Aug 15th, 1947 and then watched, or sometimes, suffered, the horrors of partition. Later generations who could associate with Jawaharlal Nehru’s socialist monuments (from dams to PSUs), the assassination of Indira Gandhi and where they were when they heard it, the triumph of a cricket world cup, and for us liberalisation and a new economy that changed everything forever.

    And while we have an SRK, a Tendulkar, a Dhoni, perhaps even a Vishwananathan Anand that binds us, in essence we’ve boiled down to Bollywood and Cricket as our icon providers. Everything else pales in comparison, and is at best, a regional influence. A single DD channel doesn’t find a place now even in our favourites, and the same goes for brands across categories. Sometimes I wonder, when the post 2000 generation is all grown up, whether they’ll only be able to relate to those whom they’ve known through some earlier association, like a school or college, and relate only because of those shared memories. Are they missing out on a large collective consciousness, one in which even this generation can relate to someone of their own age, simply because they’ve grown up in the same era? Maybe there are icons that I know nothing of, after all I belong to an earlier set. 🙂

    until next time, nostalgia trips 🙂

  • Change we need?

    Considering the nature of the post, its a bit of paradoxical way to start. But it is the place the thought started – Dina’s post on The Paradox of the Wisdom of Crowds. It made me look at the way this blog has evolved. But before that, about the matter under discussion – in the attempts to make sure that we’re ‘tuned in’ to the blogosphere, we’ve begun to recycle posts and thoughts so much that there is very less of independent thinking. See, I told you it was a paradox.

    When i started this blog, the intention was only to have a place where i could air my ‘brand’ thoughts, in an Indian context. Because there was very little blog content around that (at least that i knew of) the thoughts were fairly independent. But somewhere down the line, the social media bug bit me, and I started writing about that too.

    That also meant that I had to follow the thought leaders in the social media/internet scene. So the Google Reader was stuffed with ‘Those Who Shall Not be Named’, and the list kept growing till (now) it’s a race against time to finish reading the stuff. As i commented on Dina’s post, I really don’t have the time to be original, and am (unfortunately) willing to chew on the nth generation cud, and pass it on to whoever is next.

    But, my way of adding value has been very simple. I aggregate from diverse sources and try to push the ideas along a line of thought. That’s very little originality. Even if i have to pat myself on the back, it can only be for stepping back and trying to see a pattern. Actually, a short while before Dina’s post, my thoughts had been going in this direction. But before we get to that, i feel there are two kinds of pressure that i can easily discern when writing about social media, web etc. One is ‘breaking’ news, the other is ‘knowing’ news. I am not in the former so I don’t feel that pressure. But I am not immune to the other. So there are links that show that I ‘know’ the news. This is because I’d hate some guy commenting (not that i get many) ‘Oh, XYZ had this article you should read. In it, he……..’  Childish, but true!! I’ve also been thinking whether sub consciously, it was a behaviour similar to some brands i rant about – a way of keeping the conversation in one’s own territory. But the result of these games is that I end up creating content for the people who write about similar things .. a very cyclical way of content generation.

    Nothing wrong with a self sustaining system, but its not great for an emerging scenario like social media, where new thoughts are the order of the day. Otherwise, if everyone links to everyone else, and everyone read everyone else, er, someday we’ll all figure out we’ve been moving in circles.

    But something changed, and that’s what made me think on a change in direction – my increased usage of Friendfeed, where I am able to share my Google Reader ‘knowing news’. 🙂 Of course, that’s a lil race too. Because I realise after i shared, that I am duplicating what someone has already shared. So, a few corrective measures that I’ve planned – a churning of the feeds I have subscribed in Google Reader, reading FF before sharing the Reader stuff, and through these I hope I can effect some changes in the contents of this blog, and add more value here.

    The only thing that worries me, though, is that I have no clue what the readers of the blog want. So,  before I adjust the content according to my learning curve, I’d like to hear from you. Also, i have a rating mechanism for your perusal. Right beneath the title on the post page. Please use that liberally. And then, i shall hope that the wisdom of the crowds will guide me.

    until next time, sorry Obama