• Minding Languages

    A few days back, Ajit Balakrishnan, CEO of Rediff.com, stated that there is no evidence from the last ten years of the internet business that users want online content in Indian languages. He cited the example of Rediffmail, which is available in 11 languages, but apparently, users prefer English 99% of the time. He further said that most young people were using internet to send messages, download music, view pictures or videos, none of which is particularly language related, and that virtually 90 per cent of the content is not text based. It sparked off an interesting set of comments, and a response post from BG Mahesh, CEO of OneIndia.

    While I perhaps agree that extrapolating language mail use to the entire language content need of a population may not be very accurate, I’d still have to say it is a kind of dipstick. I remember using Rediffmail in malayalam, having some fun with it, much like Google News in Malayalam, and then promptly forgetting about in a few days, and going back to the English content that i regularly use. (No, I’m not saying that I represent the language content need of the average Indian net user. 🙂 )

    Meanwhile Mahesh’s post raises at least a couple of great points – “users wanted to ‘read’ our content and very few wanted to write in the language”, and whether UGC should be the yardstick for measuring the need of language content. I would relate to that, to an extent.

    I’ll just try to recount a few experiences on the consumption of language content. I subscribe to Malayala Manorama at home, but don’t read it online. I used to follow a couple of Malayalam blogs, until a few months back. I am quite a heavy net user, and my content needs are more than satisfied by the English stuff available on the net. At this point, I cannot think of a kind of content that’d enthuse me to consistently consume it in a language  other than English. Another interesting thing I’ve come across in bangalore, is the amount of people who speak fluent Kannada, but can’t read or write it. It is in two digits, but I can’t be sure its a representative sample.

    Judging from the JuxtConsult 2008 India Online report, India has 40 million urban users and 9 million rural users, and the top 5 activities are Email, Job Search, Chat, News and Sports. It also states that

    Users of ‘vernacular language’ websites are up to 34% from last year’s 12%, (although 28% prefer English as the language of reading online, only 34% users are visiting vernacular websites regularly, indicating the lack of content online)

    I think that the average urban user would be keen on using English (he’s either comfortable with it, or aspires to be) Even with increased penetration into rural areas, the mindset that ‘English is the path to advancement’, which I have seen around me a lot, might make English a preferred language, more than the regularly spoken one. Also, unlike print, and television, which are more passive media (read/ remote click), the net is a more active medium, because it requires some navigation for the user to make full use of it. (links/downloads etc) I think its fair to assume that the width and depth of content available in English will always be more than that of other languages. It might have helped if India had one language, but it does not. Does that mean that there is no market for language? There is a market, which is why Google (including search and Orkut), MSN etc as well as Rediff, OneIndia etc are in the space, and a banking entity like Barclays offers its website in Hindi, but I doubt that it will ever explode or be the driver for growth or be the major beneficiary of the internet’s rural penetration (when that happens). I have a feeling that the catch 22 situation will last – not enough users to warrant content and not enough content to warrant usage.

    until next time, I could also end up eating my words…. in malayalam 😀

    PS. Interesting Update (via Medianama) – Rediff to communicate in 22 Indic languages. Ahem!!

  • Religiously following….

    I’ve always maintained that even religion should have a shelf life. This comes from a belief that religions were created at different times, basis the prevalent culture, accommodating the scenarios- natural and human created, and lifestyles in those times. The teachings were aimed at a more meaningful existence for fellow human beings, considering their existence then. Religion is a function of time and times.

    However, we seem to have held on to the words, more than the spirit, and thus perhaps failed to internalise the messages that are built into the texts. That could be the reason for the strife around us.

    Does a new time warrant a new religion? I don’t think so. In times when the mass shrinks and the individual and customisation rises, perhaps the opium of the masses needs to be re-looked at too.  I think spirituality and the connection to a higher force is a deeply personal thing, and should not be subject to the constraints of a religion. It should come from within rather than without, and I think such an understanding might lead to better lessons with a much longer shelf life. These lessons would make us better human beings, with a deeper understanding and compassion for everything around us, and therefore make the world a better place.

    Religion is not the path to salvation. A life lived with a better understanding of the spirit of the messages in it, could be. What say you?

    until next time, keep the faith

  • Talking Shop

    My post last week– on the topic of communities that individuals will initiate or will be part of, also made me think of organisations and brands, and what communities they would start/be part of. To begin with, perhaps there would have to be forks in the road, which hopefully would merge again at some point of time. Paths to accommodate employees, potential employees, consumers, suppliers and so on.

    If word of mouth is the primary marketing tool, it is important to get the organisation in order, and employees to believe in themselves and the place they work in, before transparency can be taken to the outside world. According to this RWW article, based on an Accenture report,  a large number of millenials (those born between 1977-97) expect their companies to accommodate their IT preferences, and if they don’t, they turn rogue and use technology that is unsupported and unsanctioned by their corporate IT departments. Social networks are great examples, according to the study, 59% use them inspite of their IT!!

    I’d written on this subject earlier, highlighting a few tools, that could help bring transparency to the employee and potential employee facing part. Recently, I came across a few more things that would help in these efforts. SocialCast (via Startup Meme), which provides ‘simple, smart messaging for team communication’. Meetsee, “Your personal virtual office ..filled with rich ways to communicate, share content, collaborate on documents, and build rapport between remote co-workers”. I also read that LinkedIn has made portions of company profiles public. As of now, they have 160000 profiles. I quite liked the career path feature under ‘Related Companies’. (eg.Take a look at Amazon’s profile.) What I’d like to see is companies taking this as an opportunity to converse more than a one way communication. LinkedIn can actually make a premium service out of this. Companies could also start off with using some existing apps on LinkedIn like Company Buzz, presentation apps, Huddle and Polls, each of which could add dimensions to their LinkedIn presence.

    On another front, brands are still grappling on how to utilise social media to reach out to their consumers. The question of where to have these conversations also still hangs. Both would obviously depend on the intent. Unfortunately, a lot of brands are seeing social media as just another broadcasting platform – a mentality of  ‘ah, the herd is on twitter, lets push the communication there’. Judging from the way the crowd responds to say (the most recent example) Ibibo, #FAIL.

    Like I said, it boils down to intent – making better products, addressing customer issues, using customers for R&D and so on. Chris Brogan has a wonderful post on what he calls ‘cafe shaped conversations‘. It made me consider the perspective that its perhaps not meant for every brand/organisation. That while there are advantages, for these advantages to achieve a scale that makes it worthwhile, might take quite some time for some organisations, because they aren’t built that way (?)

    But its also true that consumers don’t wait for the brand/company to start the conversation. And they like to band together. The communities at Facebook and Ning are great examples. I also came across a new site – Brand Adda, a community that revolves around brands, products and services. I first thought a 2.0 version of something like MouthShut but there new features added, which also allows for interaction initiated by the brand. Explained well in their FAQ. Perhaps they’re closer to GetSatisfaction. From a brand perspective, the conversation tools might be easier to handle than say, a SocialToo, which allows polls on Twitter. I’d like to see how this develops, since there’s definitely potential.

    The tools, irrespective of which stakeholder they address, are becoming increasingly significant. According to a recent study by Forrester, the % of people who trust the company blog as a new source is at a low 16%, right at the bottom of the table. This, I agree, is not a reflection on the concept of blogging, but more on the intent of companies which in turn, is translated into the content they post on the blog. And the path – blogs, twitter, LinkedIn etc are quite inconsequential if the intent is not sorted out first.

    until next time, connecting people…and companies..

    PS. A good resource on social media. Go on, there are free e-books.

  • Samarkand

    For those into history, Samarkand, in Uzbekistan, is the birthplace of Babur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty in India. For those into immediate concerns, like ‘where do we go for dinner tonight’, its also a restaurant on Infantry Road, part of the BJN Group. Infantry Road is a one-way, so don’t try to get in from the Safina Plaza direction.

    We called on Friday to reserve a table (the day you get a table without reservation, you might as well make life changing decisions too, you’re in luck) We were told that both the two seaters were already reserved, so we asked for a 4 seater, and then our 2 friends who were supposed to join us, failed to turn up. 😀

    Samarkand specialises in the cuisine of the place its named after. The menu card is a nice curio, and is in the form of a newspaper, and gives a small peek into the culture and cooking habits of the area.

    We’d decided to try out a kabab this time, so from the choices available, we selected a Murgh Gilafee Seekh, which is ‘made from chicken mince flavored with cardamom, and wrapped with finely chopped pepper’. Not a bad choice, and tasted good, especially with some of the sauces they provide. A bit of ‘anti snobbery’ desreves mention, as we were asked to eat the dish without the aid of cutlery. 🙂

    That, and the bread sticks, made us go for a single gravy for the main course. So, we ordered the Murgh Peshawari, which is ‘chicken in a rich and invigorating blend of spices, brown gravy, roasted garlic and fresh red chillies’. To go with it, an onion kulcha and a paneer kulcha. Boneless chicken, and a very tasty gravy, goes well with the kulchas too. The red chillies weren’t spicy though. The quantity is sufficient for two people.

    We were stuffed, so we skipped desserts, but there are a few good options, for about Rs.150. The service was very good, though unlike the last time we were here, there was no advice given on the menu.

    All of the above, including a bottle of mineral water (Rs.70 again)!! :O, and a service charge of 10%, came upto just over Rs.1000. In terms of wallet friendliness, its less affectionate than say, a Sahib Sind. So, a good place to go, if you plan to splurge.

    Samarkand, #66, Gem Plaza, Infantry Road, Bangalore. Ph: 41113366

    Menu and Photos at Zomato

  • @ the friends within followers

    Sometime back, I’d written about micro ambassadors, where I’d also touched upon the long tail of twitter influence that is made up by individual users, and marketing opportunities therein. I read a few posts recently that made me think on the subject a bit more.

    Some of the posts referred to a research paper on Twitter, by HP, which reveals that

    the driver of usage is a sparse and hidden network of connections underlying the “declared” set of friends and followers.

    A few numbers on the respondents (from the study) – 309740 users (this sample is 6% of the twitter universe, info courtesy Jeremiah’s post, the comments on the post are also very interesting), who on an average posted 255 posts, had 85 followers, and followed 80 other users. Among the 309740 users, only 211024 posted at least twice. The average @ replies ( conversations between 2 or more users, specifically mentioned in the tweets) were 25.4% .

    A few findings I thought were interesting. The number of posts increases with the number of followers but saturates after a certain point. However, this saturation does not occur if we consider the number of ‘friends’ (followers with whom a user has had 2 or more @ conversations). The study also shows that on a number of ‘friends’ vs number of followers chart, the number of friends saturate after a certain number of followers is crossed. Understandable, since in a day, one can only have so many conversations with so many friends. My twitter statistics (though not the same as the average user in the study) corroborate these friends and usage findings more or less. It is thus debatable whether there’s any sense in just increasing the follower count. A certain Guy definitely wouldn’t agree, and it does finally depend on the intent. 🙂

    It also questions the follower-influence- WOM marketing model, and its scalability. I’m actually quite happy with this since I have never been comfortable with this line of marketing strategy on a trust based network. While its not scalable generally, there are exceptions – Guy’s Alltop is one easy example.  The relationship he has with his ‘followers’ obviously doesn’t fit into the followers-friends definition discussed earlier.

    The echoing powers of RT (re tweeting) is another thing to be kept in mind. If I follow someone, and i find some content interesting/informative, there is a good chance I’ll RT that, even if I do not have regular conversations with that person.

    Lastly, this equation might change if Twitter implements groups. Even though its limited to Japan now, there is a good chance that the rest of the world could get it soon. Meanwhile, you can always use Twittgroups. Groups would allow consolidation of crowds interested in certain things. Marketing would definitely be easier then.

    And finally, to wrap up, the favourite twitter pastime- revenue models. If such marketing is not a scalable option, and will not excite brands to use twitter a lot, what will? I read two very good posts on the subject of revenues. RWW has a post on the search of Twitter being used as a revenue tool, since it gives live results from all of Twitter, and doesn’t wait for any indexing like Google does. In fact, the idea of companies using Twitter as an early alarm signal is something I have come across before. Nick Bilton has an interesting idea on Twitter throwing up the kind of immediately relevant ads we would like to see with “some really intelligent data mining and cross pollination”. I quite like that idea too. 🙂

    until next time, tweet and ye shall find 🙂