When we talk about something, our mind creates an image of it...But what if our mind cannot? We speak about the particular object in a very abstract manner...We do not completely understand or know the object.
The same is true with corporates. Every corporate should have an image. So, when someone talks of it, that person should be able to visualise the company. Let us take a few examples...Apple, Google, Facebook, McDonalds, Mercedes, BMW, Nike, Microsoft, etc.
The one thing common between all these is the fact that these are some of the biggest brands in the world today. If we try to visualise them, we will be able to carve out an image for each of them.
Now let us compare them with their Indian counterparts There are very few examples which would fit the description in the above para. A reason why we have only 1 Indian company in top 100 world brands. The image could be a person or probably a logo.
Every company has a logo, but do they market it well. Its disappointing to say, but the truth is that very few Indian companies do so. Only recently, companies like Airtel, Yes Bank, Axis Bank, SBI, etc. Have started marketing their logos, but the rest still lag behind.
A proper and well marketed logo not only enhances consumer brand value but also increases the brand recallability.
My favourite logo is that of FMCG major - Unilever. A very powerful and a meaningful logo. A close look at it reveals the numerous shapes which form the U of the logo. Each shape representing each of the brands of Unilever. And yes, Unilever today is a huge brand.
Thus the importance of a logo and its marketing cannot be underestimated. It is infact even more essential for companies which target individuals and for companies which do not have a single individual as a visual representative of the company.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Candour - Is it Practical?
A lot of management gurus across the world, including the great Jack Welch, have preached the importance of Candour in everyday life and especially in business.
Lack of Candour is a barrier to complete exchange of essential information and ideas. It may not essentially be with an intent to do harm but it is naturally abstained from by people across all walks of life. No matter where we go, lack of frankness can be seen everywhere.
However, is it really practical to have a complete Candour policy? People abstain from being candid to avoid conflicts, from becoming an eye-sore. Why is it so? Is being frank that bad?
It is not easy to be candid. Being frank overwhelmes people. It causes resentment, reluctance, anger, conflict and awkwardness.
Personally, I do not advocate Candour. Yes frankness is essential. It reduces efforts, makes work better, easier and faster, but being candid about everything will somehow or the other create issues - personally and professionally!
Problem arises when people are not frank about the indispensables. Essential ideas and information should be frankly communicated. Appraisals and feedbacks should always be honest. People should not take criticisms negatively. There has to be a change in the thinking and mind set of people. When this happens, the organisation does better and employees have better motivation.
But let me be frank...Being candid about everything is not practically possible or viable. You should be candid only where it really helps people and the organisation. If you are candid and towards the end of the conversation you feel it could have serious implications, you should make an effort to tone it down a bit without taking away the essence and purpose of the conversation!
It is a challenge to implement it across all aspects of life, but it should be done!
Lack of Candour is a barrier to complete exchange of essential information and ideas. It may not essentially be with an intent to do harm but it is naturally abstained from by people across all walks of life. No matter where we go, lack of frankness can be seen everywhere.
However, is it really practical to have a complete Candour policy? People abstain from being candid to avoid conflicts, from becoming an eye-sore. Why is it so? Is being frank that bad?
It is not easy to be candid. Being frank overwhelmes people. It causes resentment, reluctance, anger, conflict and awkwardness.
Personally, I do not advocate Candour. Yes frankness is essential. It reduces efforts, makes work better, easier and faster, but being candid about everything will somehow or the other create issues - personally and professionally!
Problem arises when people are not frank about the indispensables. Essential ideas and information should be frankly communicated. Appraisals and feedbacks should always be honest. People should not take criticisms negatively. There has to be a change in the thinking and mind set of people. When this happens, the organisation does better and employees have better motivation.
But let me be frank...Being candid about everything is not practically possible or viable. You should be candid only where it really helps people and the organisation. If you are candid and towards the end of the conversation you feel it could have serious implications, you should make an effort to tone it down a bit without taking away the essence and purpose of the conversation!
It is a challenge to implement it across all aspects of life, but it should be done!
Saturday, May 28, 2011
BrandZ!
BrandZ was formed by Millward Brown Optimor to value the world's biggest brands. They take into consideration the consumer valued brands and not corporate ones...
The top spot this time was stolen by apple from last year's top brand - Google. Google is followed by IBM at 3, with McDonald's, Microsoft, Coca Cola, AT&T, Marlboro, China Mobile and GE complete the rest of the top 10 positions.
The only Indian company to feature in top 100 was ICICI Bank at number 53 while Infosys is expected to break in to top 100 soon.
Facebook is the bigggest new entrant in the top 100, while Wells Fargo, Apple, Pizza Hut and Standard Charter Bank were among largest gainers this year.
The data has been compiled with information from Brandz, Kantar Worldpanel and Bloomberg.
The top spot this time was stolen by apple from last year's top brand - Google. Google is followed by IBM at 3, with McDonald's, Microsoft, Coca Cola, AT&T, Marlboro, China Mobile and GE complete the rest of the top 10 positions.
The only Indian company to feature in top 100 was ICICI Bank at number 53 while Infosys is expected to break in to top 100 soon.
Facebook is the bigggest new entrant in the top 100, while Wells Fargo, Apple, Pizza Hut and Standard Charter Bank were among largest gainers this year.
The data has been compiled with information from Brandz, Kantar Worldpanel and Bloomberg.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Give India!
GiveIndia is a donation platform to support a cause from over 200 NGOs...It has been formed in 1999 by Venkat Krishnan who is an IIM-A Graduate.
Thousands of donors have contributed so far to over a million lives by supporting these over 200 NGOs...
GiveIndia has tied up with a number of corporates where a number of employees give up a part of their salaries directly...The contributors have the option to choose the specific NGOs where they wish to contribute their donations...
The website for GiveIndia
http://www.giveindia.org
Thousands of donors have contributed so far to over a million lives by supporting these over 200 NGOs...
GiveIndia has tied up with a number of corporates where a number of employees give up a part of their salaries directly...The contributors have the option to choose the specific NGOs where they wish to contribute their donations...
The website for GiveIndia
http://www.giveindia.org
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Credit Rating Agencies - A Farce??
When we look to make for investments, what are the things we analyse and keep in mind before taking any decisions??? Return...Time Period...and most importantly creditability!!!
How do we know the creditability of the instruments we are trying to invest in? Most of the time we are generally aware of some of them as the underlying entity or the reference entity is well known, has a public image and is probably a large corporate with strong financials. But what do we do in case we don't know the details so well??
We fall back on the judgement of institutions called Credit Rating Agencies. Some of the largest agencies are Standard's & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. If they rate some financial instruments strong, we think of investing in them or otherwise we don't.
The question is how credible is the ratings of these agencies. Can we really rely on them? Here are a few examples I would like to site -
1) The CDOs issued by institutions in USA against sub-prime loans - Most of the loans which went bad, were given some of the top ratings by credit rating agencies just a few days before they went bad!!
2) Lehman Brothers, AIG, Freddie Mac & Frannie Mae, Merrill Lynch - These companies either went bust or were on the verge of bankruptcy or required financial bailout. However, just a few days before these events took place, their credit ratings were quite strong and high.
3) USA, GREECE, IRELAND - When recession hit, USA, Greece, Ireland, Britain, Germany, Japan, Spain, etc. were some of the countries which were impacted the most. Yet before the situation of these countries were made public, their ratings remained the same and decently good since a long time. But when the exact situations were made public, the ratings of some of them were changed. Greece for example needed bailout. While the rating of the country was changed only after the news of bailout came.
So why do we need credit rating agencies if their ratings cannot be relied upon. Even a common individual with no knowledge of business and finance would be able to lower the creditability of a corporate or a country after knowing that they require bailout.
So, do these agencies have any liability or do they have to answer these questions??
The answer is no. These agencies have no liability, no obligation, etc. even if their ratings are wrong and cannot be relied upon!!
I guess its time to question the creditability of these Credit rating Agencies themselves to find out the truth. But, interestingly it would be difficult to establish the creditability of the people/firms trying to find out!!!
A VICIOUS CIRCLE OF MISTRUST!!!
How do we know the creditability of the instruments we are trying to invest in? Most of the time we are generally aware of some of them as the underlying entity or the reference entity is well known, has a public image and is probably a large corporate with strong financials. But what do we do in case we don't know the details so well??
We fall back on the judgement of institutions called Credit Rating Agencies. Some of the largest agencies are Standard's & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch. If they rate some financial instruments strong, we think of investing in them or otherwise we don't.
The question is how credible is the ratings of these agencies. Can we really rely on them? Here are a few examples I would like to site -
1) The CDOs issued by institutions in USA against sub-prime loans - Most of the loans which went bad, were given some of the top ratings by credit rating agencies just a few days before they went bad!!
2) Lehman Brothers, AIG, Freddie Mac & Frannie Mae, Merrill Lynch - These companies either went bust or were on the verge of bankruptcy or required financial bailout. However, just a few days before these events took place, their credit ratings were quite strong and high.
3) USA, GREECE, IRELAND - When recession hit, USA, Greece, Ireland, Britain, Germany, Japan, Spain, etc. were some of the countries which were impacted the most. Yet before the situation of these countries were made public, their ratings remained the same and decently good since a long time. But when the exact situations were made public, the ratings of some of them were changed. Greece for example needed bailout. While the rating of the country was changed only after the news of bailout came.
So why do we need credit rating agencies if their ratings cannot be relied upon. Even a common individual with no knowledge of business and finance would be able to lower the creditability of a corporate or a country after knowing that they require bailout.
So, do these agencies have any liability or do they have to answer these questions??
The answer is no. These agencies have no liability, no obligation, etc. even if their ratings are wrong and cannot be relied upon!!
I guess its time to question the creditability of these Credit rating Agencies themselves to find out the truth. But, interestingly it would be difficult to establish the creditability of the people/firms trying to find out!!!
A VICIOUS CIRCLE OF MISTRUST!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)