• Online Segmenting and segregating

    We’ll start the thought from the easiest place. Facebook. 🙂 From industry leaders quitting Facebook to TC stating that media attacks on FB are getting out of hand, to Facebook deciding to launch ‘simplistic’ privacy options, there’s a ton of reading material out there. (I liked Danah Boyd’s ‘rant‘ quite a bit) But let’s get to the scope of the post, before i digress way out.

    I think it might be safe to assume  that we are different persons to different people. To the large set of siblings, friends, relatives, acquaintances and the various people we interact with, we share different aspects and versions of our personality, depending on the nature, time, depth, even expectations of our interactions and relationships. So, in a Facebook context too, we would like to retain different levels of sharing and communicating too, in spite of Mark Zuckerberg thinking that having two identities shows a lack of integrity. I think this might be the core of the current tussle – a failure to understand the need to segregate connections, and therefore the content that gets distributed to them.

    When i read Adam Singer’s take on Chris Brogan’s post, I was completely in agreement, because I think HE has nailed a universal truth about normalisation. The last part of the post also mentions how we write basis the kind of audience we’d like. That is a kind of content segregation too, and it is necessary now more than ever, because of content abundance.

    It’s not just to do with publishing, it is also to do with the kind of communities we become a part of. The net provides tools which allows us to aggregate  people like ourselves – basis interests, attitudes, beliefs, and if everything else fails, even location 😀  My point, there’s segregation all around.

    Which brings me to the usual suspect – brands. I started on this last week, and found myself thinking of it during the recent UTV Bindass scuffle. Now, if we go by UTV’s brand communication, its clearly a youth brand. I’ve realised that ‘Youth’ is a very flexible segmentation, and people my age might argue that its all in the mind etc, but it was interesting to see that the average age of opinion sharers was on the erm, riper side of 30. I wonder if the brand would want this audience segment as its viewers.

    It reminds me of the Facebook user’s need for segregation choices. While the net gives the brand tools to find users in a desired segment/demographic, and the brand can limit itself to engaging them specifically, there really is no way to prevent interactions coming from/happening outside the segment. In an earlier era, it was easy, because it was mostly one way communication. Now, what does a brand do if its dragged into a conversation? The non-open options (protected tweets, invite-only community etc) are not really great. Now some would say that this thought approach is close to advocating control for brands – which is a strict no-no as per the tenets of social media 🙂 – but I can’t help but think of the choice that the brand might want in terms of the discussions they want to be part of.  In a case like Bindass, will “Thank you for the feedback, but we all know that different audience sets have different needs and likes. Hope to have some programming that you’ll like, soon.” really cut it?

    In Facebook’s case, while i can perhaps understand Zuckerberg’s version of how radical transparency will make us all better, I’ll still make a case for it to be a user’s choice, unhindered by beguiling ToS and changes to it. Similarly, in a scenario in which mobs and brand-baiting are rapidly on the rise, I’d say there should be a freedom of choice for brands too. How brands use it is a different discussion altogether.

    until next time, the answer, my friend, is flowin in the stream 🙂

    PS: Noted that Hippo, which is doing some excellent work on Twitter, replied to Tony’s Hippo-crates wordplay, (reply) but ignored the (same) one which i’d tweeted a couple of days earlier. (btw, he usually beats me to most wordplay stuff and more importantly, gives credit to original tweets when he doesn’t) Anyway, smart segmentation, Hippo knows i almost never snack.

    PPS: Its got nothing to do with the fact that Tony is almost a decade younger, okay? 😉

  • Higher Stakes

    The ‘cow slaughter ban’ bill that got passed in the Karnataka assembly sometime back, got a lot of people’s erm, goat, especially Mallus, for many of whom, paradoxically, its a ‘holy cow’ issue. But the phenomenal prospects of wordplay is not what got me thinking. Its the idea of something getting banned and the protests that follow.

    Take smoking, for example. I’m sure all the smokers would have been fuming at the bans that came out on various aspects of the product and its usage, but a lot of us feel that its a good thing for different reasons. Me, mostly because those lousy forwards with the much abused ‘kick the butt’ subject line, and horrible pictures, have stopped. I find that the majority of people I know support this ban, citing health reasons etc. But the beef ban, which (at least in a way) prevents killing of a life form, finds lesser supporters. Personally, I love beef, but as time passes, my feelings of guilt have also been strengthening, and its the case of a subjective like over ruling a ‘better for the cosmos’ thought. A sad rendition of  the “way to a man’s heart…. ” too. But I do wonder about a future when the majority would say that the beef ban is a good thing. A higher state of awareness?

    A few days back, I read Seth Godin’s post titled “Fear of Philanthropy“, where though his context is mostly to do with ’cause marketing’, he writes about knowing how much (of giving) is enough.  He paraphrases a question (attributed to Peter Singer) “Would you save a drowning girl even if it means ruining a pair of Italian shoes? If the answer is yes, why not use that money to save 20 kids starving to death at the other end of town/world?” Isn’t it the same? (I need to read up more on Singer, Practical Ethics, and the idea of “the greatest good of the greatest number”).  Godin points to proximity, attention and intent as factors that weigh in in our decision to ‘give’.

    Proximity and attention. I remember wondering in a post sometime back whether all this connectivity, instant communication and micro popularity would make us less compassionate and more inconsiderate. But then again, does this connectivity increase our proximity to issues and would it be negated by the lack of attention? Heh. Will it make us more conscious or will it cause to go even deeper into our own comfortable bubble?

    Intent. I saw Will Smith’s ‘Seven Pounds’ when it played on TV recently. The idea of a man donating different organs/parts of his body, after ensuring that the receiver is indeed worthy – ‘a good man/woman’ (“You’re a good man even when no one’s looking”). Commenting on the intent would spoil the viewing for you, but the point here is the time and patience taken to identify and verify the ‘goodness’. I’d have liked to do that too, but I’m afraid of what all it would entail. I convince myself that I don’t have the time. However, I can’t help but wonder optimistically whether one day, the collective consciousness would help take my awareness so high that my intent is made all the more stronger and then, everything else will cease to be a factor. But then I look in the mirror and say that I’m better off looking within myself, for its difficult to refute an oft asked question “I didn’t make it this way, why should I contribute to making it a better place, when I can buy my happiness in other ways?” As Godin says, its effective enough, sadly so.

    until next time, streamlined thoughts 🙂

    PS. meanwhile, if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, and have liked it, do officially ‘like’ it here 🙂

  • Medici

    No medicinal jokes will be entertained unless they end with ‘chee’, for that’s how you pronounce it. You can read all about the House of Medici here. It would tell you that they were a banking family turned royal house who originated from the Tuscan countryside and finally settled in Florence. It also informs you that they were one of the families who fostered and inspired the birth of the Italian Renaissance. What it doesn’t tell you much is about Catherine de’ Medici‘s role in fusing French cuisine with Italian and introducing the French to the fork. To read up on that, you’ll need to go to Medici, on 100 ft Road in Indiranagar. When coming from the Koramangala direction, its on the left, above Maharaja furniture, and opposite Indigo Nation. Parking is a breeze – valet for 4wheelers, and a large basement for 2 wheelers. 🙂

    We walked in at about 7.15 pm, and managed to get a good table, facing the road. Extremely stylish, but understated ambiance, that’s the first thing we noticed. The place somehow gives a feel that the visitor is in safe hands, of someone who is confident of what they’re doing. Hey, the cuisine is Franco-Italian, i have to at least pretend snobbery okay? But seriously, despite the cuisine’s ‘reputation’ (in these parts of the world), that’s another aspect that Medici needs to be credited for – the efficient service that relies on pleasantness, not snobbery. 🙂

    On to the menu. They have quite a collection of mocktails, and I was tempted to try the Funky Toffy, but I thought I had much ground to cover and this might weigh me down later. Even before we ordered, we were quite impressed with the complimentary bread served. (you must try the cheese provided along with it. Amazing) The food menu starts with appetisers, and includes a Prawn Mousseline, Beef Carpaccio, Salmon Tartare, Calamari Peperoncino, Quiche aux e’ pinards, Bruschetta, Tomato Mozzarella tian. (Rs.150-300). We chose a Poulet et de bacon quiche, “traditional French quiche with chicken and bacon”. You have the choice of 1 person/2 person portions. We chose the former, and regretted it since it was quite tasty. The crust part was slightly flaky, but complemented the filling extremely well, quite unlike anything I’ve tasted before. Highly recommended.

    You could also choose from the salad section – Caesar, Rucola, Roast Duck, and Seasonal Fruit. (Rs.150-280). We briefly considered the Roast Duck, but decided instead to go for a Wild Mushroom Soup, “creamy wild mushroom finished with truffle oil”, from the choice of soups – French Onion, Bouillabaisse, Gazpacho, Borscht,  and Chicken and Leek. (all Rs.150). The soup turned to be as good as claimed (by Karthik). It was creamy (brownish color though), and the truffle oil gave it a flavor that took it up several notches.

    Moving on, you could try the pasta options – Spaghetti Carbonara, Tagliatelle Puttanesca, Spaghetti Bolognaise, Ravioli, Tortellini,  Beef Lasagna, and Fusilli Marinara. (Rs.200-300) or Risotto – Prawn, Mushroom (Rs.300/250). The main course options are split into Meat, Poultry, Seafood and Veg. The veg section consists of Baked Aubergine, Asparagus Crepe, and vol-au-vent. (Rs.250). The poultry options are Chicken Parmigiano, Chicken de Medici, Duck a l’orange (Rs.300, 650). The meat section (Rs.350-400) has Fillet Mignon, tornado, Rack of lamb, and the one i chose – ‘Grilled Pork chops, “pork chops marinated with anchovy and basil served with brown jus and garlic mash”. The seafood options (Rs.350-650) are Fish en papillote, Grilled Scampi, Pepper crusted fillet of salmon, and D’s choice, Duo de poisson –  “fish fillet layered with salmon mousse and zucchini”.

    The pork chops were quite good, but my folly lay in underestimating the anchovy’s effect. Like D pointed out, it did mean that they took the ingredients seriously, but it made the meal slightly difficult for me. (I have a seafood allergy, with only a few exceptions). The garlic mash was quite good though. D was quite impressed with her fish dish, and felt that (probably) the cream cheese in the salmon mousse covering added to the taste.

    The dessert options are quite tempting too, especially the Chocolate Fondant, but we had a movie to catch, and were actually quite stuffed. The other dessert options are Tiramisu, Fresh Fruit Tart, Crepe Suzette, and Creme Brulee. (all Rs.150). Just a note that though the menu seems skewed towards non vegetarians at first glance, the vegetarians do have enough choice.

    All of the above cost us over Rs.1200. I plan to visit soon again, to atone for my wrong choice of dish, and to try the dessert options. I’d highly recommend that you drop in too, for a really smooth ambiance, excellent service, the best food presentation we’ve seen in a while, and a choice of dishes that are not really common here.

    Medici, Mannan Arcade, 2nd Floor, 1206, 100ft Road, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar Ph: 42044987, 42350674

    Menu and Photos at Zomato

  • Brand Privacy

    The implications of Facebook’s recent moves are still gobbling up most of the virtual column space available. From discussions happening in my own set of connections, it does seem to have gotten a larger crowd (than the usual suspects) interested.

    Jeff Jarvis’ post raises quite a few good points – the different levels of ‘public’, sharing vs publishing, to name a couple. The issue here is that Facebook is controlling where information we share on the network goes, we seem to have no choice in the matter. Mark Zuckerberg is unfortunately seen as pushing us to be public to ‘Everyone’ (a superb visual representation). But that’s where (and this is just an opinion) we might have reached anyway, given a little time. In any case, there are enough tools which allow me to create a network of my own and share it, without involving Facebook. My blogs worked that way, until I connected them with FB. Yes, it could cost me some reach, but there are ways to compensate that too, though yes, Facebook is really big.

    Like I tweeted sometime back, I think we just want the networks to be more ‘open’, so that we can decide who we can be ‘closed’ to. Right now, we don’t get to decide that much, and while I’m not defending FB here, this is something Google has been guilty of for a longer time. But that’s a different topic.

    I was, as usual, intrigued by how this affects brands online. Like I’ve said before, I wonder if there is a kind of hypocrisy involved when we desire privacy for ourselves, but expect brands to be more open on the social web, because it is of use to us as consumers. Many facets of this, so perhaps another post. But all this hullabaloo about privacy means that consumers will be more careful about their interaction with brands, and which ones they want to be associated with, at least online. So now, brands will require to do more to gain their trust and/or provide enough value to convince consumers, who might be otherwise reluctant to associate with a brand . Or will the casual ‘like’ become a commodity? From their own perspective, brands will now have to get used to more attention as the dynamics of Pages/Groups etc change.

    Meanwhile, on another front, another trend that has been creeping up on us is the segregation of crowds on the web. Like this article notes, the web allows us tools to create a ‘people like me’ bubble around us. This is linked to the kind of ‘privacy’ we are talking about – select groups with whom we can share specific things in specific contexts? It remains to be seen how many bubbles overlap and in what way. This trend, I believe will not die out soon, and the ‘groups’ will become even more careful about who is let in. How does a brand balance itself among different groups of people who now agglomerate themselves and are choosy about who they associate with online? Is this an opportunity to finally manifest the idea of being different things to different people, according to their finely split needs?

    until next time, its ‘like’ complicated 🙂

    Bonus Read: How Facebook’s Community Pages and Privacy changes impact Brands by Jeremiah Owyang

  • Gulp fiction

    I’m quite a huge fan of Heroes and was quite sad to see Season 4 end, more so than normal season finales, because after quite a while, there was a villain that I could really empathise with.  Robert Knepper as Samuel Sullivan just rocked. Though the villainy is manifested in his selfish desire to become more powerful, there was something in his arguments that made me forget it at regular intervals. To give you some context, the entire series revolves around people with special abilities (think X-Men). This season, mostly through Knepper’s character- Samuel, emphasised a lot on how society treats such people. Samuel’s desperation to belong (and later make normal people respect his kind) is expressed very well in his conversation with another character with abilities, Claire.

    “Freedom is what you do with what’s been done to you”, says Claire, quoting Sartre.

    “I always thought freedom was just another word for nothing left to lose”, counters Samuel, without acknowledging “Me and Bobby McGee” 🙂

    The urge to belong and the pain of being different. Mo wrote a post recently on being chided for missing a reference in a conversation. A reference to Pulp Fiction.  At a broader level its also a small commentary about our consumption of popular culture, and second had experiences. Its a sentiment I share – that somehow the consumption of popular and even off beat culture and getting the respective references is the benchmark for judging a person. So, to get bombarded with “haven’t you seen/read/eaten.. don’t you know..” is now a common thing. Like I told her, thanks to everyone becoming media, C+ is actually a great grade, considering the noise.

    In some ways, I felt it also throws up our need for validation. The consumption and the opinions we have on that decide the kind of role we land in our immediate crowd, and now, the larger world. From “Govinda movies??!!” and “MLTR is why I go away from you” to “Eww, you’re still on Orkut?! .. Omigod, how can you play Farmville??”,  this judgment happens all the time  🙂

    At times, the validation is for others and their expectations, and at times for the self. In many ways, I think its like some gladiator fight where a person is just fighting himself, and the expectations he has set. The audience could be the self, or others. If its the latter, its all okay so long as the person conforms to a broadly accepted set of norms within the crowd.Even if one wants to get out of it, its difficult. Its difficult to sever the connection between a validation that is given to one without asking and the ties that one would want with other humans. 🙂

    In Heroes, Claire’s character’s ability is instant regeneration. Break a bone, receive a bullet wound, and she heals instantly. In the last scene of season 4, she throws herself from the top of a Ferris wheel, lands on the ground all broken up, and immediately heals, all in front of a waiting media crew. An open challenge to society to accept her the way she is. And another character says “Its a brave new world”. To me, it was a statement of hope, one that will get out of a TV show that’s part of popular culture, and enter the real world.

    But meanwhile, for now, until the pill happens, the moment one goes beyond what can be immediately understood, and what provides a point of reference, one has to be ready for “And I will strike upon thee… “:D

    until next time, reverence to reference 🙂