• Once Upon a Timezone

    Neelesh Misra

    Bollywood style romance with a Hollywood heroine, that’s probably how I’d describe the book, not just because of the story and the characters, who seem perfect for a movie version, but also because of the pace of the book and the turns within.

    Neel Pandey, obsessed with America, but whose visa application gets rejected, settles for a vicarious experience – at a call centre, where he gets transformed into Neil Patterson, and falls in love with a customer, in far away America, even as his father tries to get him married to a girl of the right caste, and his mother, whose own dreams have been stifled thanks to her husband, looks on helplessly.

    Angela Cruz, fresh out of college and building a new life as a journalist, away from her race-obsessed father, is smitten by Neil Patterson, thanks to a phone call she makes to fix her computer. She is led to believe that he’s American, while she herself cooks up a story of her being a model.

    Their turbulent love life is what makes up the remainder of the book. In addition to the parents, there are also a couple of characters who play important roles – Neel’s friend Meenal, whom his dad wants him to marry, and Rocky Randhawa, a con artist who runs a business of supplying fake visas.

    The story itself is quite predictable, but is breezy enough to make for a non-boring read. The author does have a sense of humour, though cliches have been employed at regular intervals, mostly as devices to portray a stereotypical Indian middle class family. In essence, reading it won’t do you any irreparable damage.

  • OfferGrid

    OfferGrid provides activity based shopping network solutions to merchants, e-tailers, daily and group deal companies etc. In conversation with co-founder Deepankar Biswas….

     

    [scribd id=83600144 key=key-12qqadrqlw7lht0o3lq1 mode=list]

  • On the first death of Facebook Commerce…

    Towards the middle of last year, I’d written a column at afaqs on how social and commerce were in a relationship. A few months later, I revisited the premise on a tangent and wrote an article for Kuliza titled “Social + e-commerce ≠ Social Commerce“. (pg 25)

    All through last week, after the Bloomberg report, in which a Forrester analyst phrased it as “But it was like trying to sell stuff to people while they’re hanging out with their friends at the bar“, I’ve been reading post after post proclaiming the demise of what has been called f-com. (Facebook Commerce) It finally made me tweet this

    I realised later that a similar statement had already been made – “Opening a storefront does not mean you have a social commerce strategy…” ~ Justin Yoshimura. In fact, f-com itself should only be one part of a brand’s larger Facebook strategy. The advice being given to brands, along with the news of the demise, is that they should make their own e-com sites more social. Fair enough, but what I don’t get is the mutual exclusivity. Indeed, if brands have adopted an f-com strategy that basically allows users to buy the same things available at their e- store, I wonder why they thought users would flock there. Yes, it does give the brand visibility, proximity to the customer, use of the social graph (like, recommend, share) etc but to the user, there’s really no value. In fact, f-com checkouts are apparently much slower.

    Examples of ‘inherently social businesses’ (entertainment, music, games) are being taken as exceptions to the closure trend. IMO, every business (arguably) is inherently social, the trick (actually the hard work) is in finding the social context. Many brands have created value through fan-exclusives, (Heinz) CRM initiatives (Starbucks) free sampling (Pantene) etc. I can understand that coffee is probably social, but shampoo and ketchup?

    Part of the fault is to do with the astronomical predictions on the kind of sales these Facebook storefronts were going to generate, part of it is to do with the trigger-happiness that unfortunately shadows most of everything on social platforms.  If brands learned to also pay attention to interest graphs on the network, and create scenarios that use the inherent (and phenomenal) social graph and new features like friction-less sharing better, Facebook can play an excellent role in the overall e-com strategy. As always, the answer is in focusing on user behaviour and experience and not allowing technology and fads to create a myopic vision. The old adage holds – Fail fast. Learn fast. Fix fast.

    until next time, f-c’mon

  • Why knots

    I was watching Priyadarshan speak at an award ceremony (on TV) about his new Malayalam movie starring Mohanlal and Mukesh. This ‘combination’ was hitting the silverscreen after a span of 10 years, and thanks to their history (early history I’d say) it was a special occasion. I had planned to catch the movie in the theatre but after reading (and listening to) the reviews, gave up the thought.

    On another channel, Mukesh was claiming that though Priyadarshan kept saying he would not do a comedy again during the shooting, its ‘acceptance by the masses’ would make him rethink. (Oh noes) But there was one interesting thing he said – that when one discovered one’s purpose in life (Priyan and film making) he/she feels constantly compelled to keep at it.

    D and I discussed whether Priyadarshan (and Mohanlal), who by now have their coterie, can be objective about their films. The box office collections, which is probably as objective as it gets, would be high anyway thanks to fan clubs across the state. There would be bouquets and brickbats anyway too. How can one be objective about those? In our own cases, how many of us can actually objectively take what’s usually called ‘constructive criticism’ for presentations/concepts/ideas? Or even praise for that matter? Now scale that to an effort that costs crores and months and imagine.

    But if one thinks of it in a simple questions framework, (for now, I’m ignoring when and where) once the purpose or objective (why) has been determined, the what and how is determined by asking who is it for. And if the answer to ‘who’ happens to be the self, then everything else is probably superfluous -dependencies, costs, and even feedback. It stops being the creator’s problem, and becomes the consumer’s. However, when there is no clarity on the purpose, the superfluous becomes the driver. And that’s the trap most of us are probably in.

    until next time, trappings 🙂

  • Weekly Top 5

    [scribd id=83019239 key=key-tcft3ohcia4a03ud5ti mode=list]