Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Alain Ducasse or Aveek Sarkar


The “LoC” imagery seems to have struck a chord with many readers of this newborn blog. Not surprisingly – perhaps, closer observation would reveal that most of the responses are from the “Azad” side of the LoC raising obvious questions about Human Rights and Freedom of Speech on the “occupier” territory. (You’ll get the “occupier” vs. “occupied” drift if you read my other blog on Kashmir: “Politically Incorrect”). But honestly, I am just being provocative here in the hope of eliciting some response from the “second floor” (or is it Gurgaon now?) types ?

Be that as it may, the issue raised was whether the LoC is going to remain a permanent reality. Are the differences really so irreconcilable? My friend Indrani – who has worked on both sides of the fence, as it were, feels the ‘twain shall never meet’ – whereas Rajeev (Dubey) a former young editorial colleague from BW has asked if we need the LoC at all? Kalyan (Kar) thinks, the LoC may not be such a bad thing after all – as it lends some dynamics that keeps the adrenaline flowing. Saurjyesh, our man from Reuters, talks of arrogance and lack of communication on both sides.

While teaching I use another analogy – which I am not sure will go down well with members on either side of the LoC. But, what the heck – we are not here to please anyone, are we? I like to compare Media with the Restaurant business. There was a time when the best restaurants were owned by the top chefs. They would hire a “Manager”, a steward or captain and a few waiters to run the place. You would not see a single advertisement of the restaurant anywhere in town, in any newspaper or magazine. Reputation was built simply by the word of mouth (quite literally so).

In the age of competition (where success is measured in “footfalls” or “eye-balls”) things are bound to change. Enter the promoters and professional marketers. They identify a “niche”, develop a “concept”, “create” a brand and then engage a Chef to run the kitchen. So far so good, an Imtiaz Quereshi needed a Nakul Anand to market the Dum Pukht and a Hemant Oberoi is happy to be a celebrity Chef and work for the Taj at a salary that would make many CEOs salivate (more than they do while eating the food he dishes out - tho' I am told that the remuneration top editors are commanding these days, with Stock Options et al, would make many a corporate honcho's eyes pop-out in disbelief). But, the problem arises only when the Marketing Manager starts dabbling with the recipes and tells the Chef how to cook or how much ‘dum’ the Biriyani should have.

Surely there are the Alain Ducasse’s of the world (or our own Rahul Akerkar of Indigo, Mumbai fame) – Michelline starred Chefs who run their own signature restaurants. But, how many 'owner-editor(s)' like Aveek Sarkar do we have in business? For the better part – you need an A D Singh to start an Olive ( btw – A D, I believe, is the son of Nippy Singh – ex ToI, India Today and now Express – one of the original “sabun-wallahs” who crossed over to Media ). But, I doubt if A D would ever take “punga” with his Executive Chef.

That brings me to the point made so articulately by my old schoolmate Eskay (journo turned Corporate Communicator): “The rules for success are surprisingly the same - a good product, well-targeted with the right marketing mix. Sure, there will always be aberrations and so the not-so-best product will, for a while, be the leader. But that happens in every marketplace as you'll know only so well”. My question is what makes a “good product” ? Is it what the Chef turns out of the kitchen or the packaging, presentation and ambience of a restaurant ? You’ll say, of course, both. I disagree slightly. The two together don’t make a product but a “total experience”. And, there rests my case – Media too ( Print included ) is not just a “product” it’s an “experience”. It’s another matter though, some try to convert it into a “product of expedience”.

Shall wait to hear your views...….

3 comments:

Unknown said...

Good start, Sandip. More strength to you. You are right. The print medium is here to stay in India and stay as a strong and credible force. In my view, no new medium will displace any old medium. Every one of them will coexist and thrive--with modifications in the mix and the marketing. So, print, radio, TV, cinema AND the Internet will all stay--and all thrive.

Unknown said...

Having spent a considerable part of my waking hours in the print media, I am always surprised by the 'hollowness' of this LoC concept (as it presents an adversarial attitude rather than a cooperative one). I like to refer to it as peaceful coexistence of Saraswati and Lakshmi.

Is there really a dividing wall ? Well perhaps in the minds of insecure persons - no matter which side of the border they may be in. There is an inherent belief that both the partners are working towards a common objective - ie generating profits. After all let's not forget its a business - not a charitable service.However, the content must remain sacrosanct - not a purchasable commodity.



I like to define the print media a 'mind product' where it is difficult to quantify the tangible benefits one derives after 'consuming' it. Did my 'awareness'/knowledge increase by 10 bucks , having spent 2 bucks on purchase?. Which is why most publications use projective type questions ( rather than direct ones) to elicit what the reader truly feels about a publication.

Happy you have started this blog Sandip - let's gradually move on to more important aspects.I love your passion !!!

Unknown said...

I am really happy that somebody has thought of starting a serious dialogue on the subject of the media. Congrats, Sandip. And my apologies for being such a late participant in your blog, even though I think I was among the first ones to whom you had discussed the scope and merit of starting this exercise.

And I find you have been kind enough to mention me somewhere in this post! I am honoured.

It's been 30 years that I began my journey in print -- it is only recently that I have wandered into the web media. I have always breathed print, and do so even today.

I will keep things short here. For years now I have been thinking about this LOC and the great divide between Editorial and Brand Marketing/Sales. There were times when I thought that editorial always got a raw deal simply because most journos were ill-equipped with the typical MBA's gift of the gab and jargon of the markets.

We often resented the fact that newspaper was equated with a toothpaste or a detergent or what have you. Where was the "mind" factor in such a scenario? Was intellect and a lowly soap one and the same? A soap never taught you anything -- it just cleaned your body (if the beautifully creative soap ads were to be believed). The morning newspaper or the weekly magazine stuffed minds with thoughts, information, knowledge, etc, etc.

So was there / is there a case of seeing everything from the manager's eyes and his Power points that always impressed the powers that be? perhaps not.

I think for the first time, Sandip has brought fantastic clarity in this debate. What the print media produces is not a "product" -- it is really an "experience"!!! If you look at it as an experience, a lot of the confusion clears up. This is exactly what the hot-shot managers from Whirlpool, Unilever, P&G et al should understand! Their precious PPTs and their B-school jargon can be tackled and tempered only by successfully making them drop the word "product" from their mindset, and make them talk of the "experience"!

thank you, Sandip. No wonder you exceled during your stint as a senior media manager and made hordes of friends from acoss the LOC.