Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Whether the story about why horse-carts were forced to drive to the right is true or not, it was only natural that all who shared the roads with them would do the same.

The earliest cars – with little change from horse-carts, other than how the horsepower was delivered – would have been the first forms of mechanised transport to adopt that rule, created about a half century earlier.

Interestingly, the earliest rules for mechanised maritime transport, created more or less the same time as cars began to appear on the roads, were also referred to as ‘rules of the road’. Any guesses as to what direction ships swing to when on a collision course? Left? Or right?

Aviation rules were created within twenty years of the Wright Brothers’ first flight, or about half a century later from maritime laws.

It would take another half-century before they would consider thinking about aircraft colliding into each other in the 1950s, and it was only by the early 1980s that the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) would be put in place – when two aircraft are on collision course, they both swing automatically away from each other. Besides changing altitude – one going higher and the other lower – guess which direction both swing to? Right!

As to the direction to which space-craft will swing, when on a collision course – your guess is as good as mine!

 

 

 

Advertisements

The story goes that when the streets of the world started getting congested with horse carts, the inevitable fight would break out between carriage drivers when they came up against each other, and neither was willing to give way.

In France, the problem was so great that it reached the ears of Napoleon, and the Emperor decided to intervene. It was his decree that each carriage should stay to one side of the road to allow enough room for both to pass.

But to which side? Given that most carriage drivers carried a whip, which was also the handiest weapon when arguments degenerated, and given that most had the whip in their right hand, it was decided to place that errant hand furthest away from the opponent. Hence, all carts drove to the right of the road. And, when carts gave way to cars, the convention stayed.

Why, then, do the British drive to the left?

The logic of driving to one side of the road was well-appreciated on the other side of the English Channel. But then, the British were not ones to take orders from a French emperor!

(Of course, the reader must have guessed by now that this story was originally narrated in French.)

 

There were two aspects of human life that Freud found difficult to understand, inasmuch as whether they were driven by the Id or the Superego. These are religion and politics.

What drives us to choose our religious beliefs, assuming that we aren’t already born with these firmly entrenched? And our political affiliations?

Consider patriotism.

There is recurring evidence that successful military recruitment depends more on inner motivations of patriotism and self-actualisation, rather than any offers of wealth. This is the crux of jihadist recruitment as well. We find great individual satisfaction in adhering to the ideals of our nation. We find the Id very much in play.

On the other hand, we also find our sense of being through adhering to a larger group. The cause of the group is our cause. We are only too happy to conform to the dictates of what the group demands. An order has to be maintained. Be it a religious edict, or a political whip. The Superego is not challenged.

There is enough proof that almost all religions or nation-states hawk similar ideals. And even the most fanatical adherent is not likely to have studied the texts on the basis of which he will lay down his life, much less question their logic or relevance. The logical Ego is seldom, if at all, called into question. Which, perhaps reinforces the fact that religion and politics live truly at the extremes, making a constant switch between the Id and the Superego.

Switch the elements in the context of brands and marketing, and we’re not far from talking about what every brand manager dreams about – working on a “cult” brand, if not creating one during his lifetime.

While there are many explanations about cult brands and how to create them, could we build them on the basis of the same Id-Superego compulsions that mark religious or political adherence? We know, in any case, that they too owe their success in large part to unquestioning followers!

This then would be their logical construct, on the basis of Freud’s ego-states:

  1. Cult brands offer an ideal that attracts the believer at an individual level, and
  2. Cult brands have a distinct culture (that even non-users can see).

It is important to stress that both conditions have to be fulfilled by the brand to achieve that “cult” status. The choice of words here is deliberate, too.

Cult brands are not just about products, but about higher values (hence the word “ideal”), and the greater that ideal, the stronger the adherence to the cause.

Hence, Apple does not sell computers, it sells the chance to be exceptionally creative. Harley-Davidson does not sell motorbikes, but the chance to be exceptionally individualistic. Marlboro is not about the taste of a cigarette, but that of the great outdoors.

It might be argued that this is the basics of brand-building, i.e. selling benefits instead of features, but cult brands take this to the extreme. And the values, once established, are not lost track of: It must take courage to not talk of processor speeds, or horsepower, or tobacco blends when the competition is talking about them. But cult brands keep such information elsewhere for the seeker, not in their public face. Ideals are paramount, and the focus of any promise.

(A good test for this need to preserve ideals would be to ask if brand extensions or new launches retain the values of the original cult brand.

(An ad for the new Beetle stated, “The engine is in the front, but its heart is in the right place.” Is the heart of the new Beetle in the same place as that of the original? Or is the new product a victim of the same pretentiousness that the original was fighting against?

(Or the relaunch of the Nokia 3310. It has been decided that the new phone will come only with those games that it had when it exited the market.

(Which of the two do you think will regain its cult status?)

If the Id is satisfied through values, then the Superego needs “a distinct culture that even non-users can see”. Part of the user’s need is to belong, and his Superego can be satisfied best when he adheres to a cult that even non-users recognise. This is what we could call the brand’s culture.

So whether we know them intimately or not, whether we see them perform the rituals of their cult or not, we do know how Apple users behave before the launch of a new product, or how Harley-Davidson bikers dress, or what kind of brand extensions are to be found for Marlboro cigarettes.

The existence of a strong user culture around a cult brand is a must, whether or not it is to everyone’s liking. More often than not such cultures are born out of accident (the sixties’ generation making the Beetle an icon, or films like Easy Rider doing it for the Harley-Davidson), but, like religious cultures, brand cultures, too, can be manipulated – through rituals, symbols, heroes and more.

If the Id and Superego are reinforced by well-defined values and distinct cultures, then what role does the logical Ego have to play in the building of cult brands?

The premise of this Freudian analysis is that consumer choices are like other decisions that we make – a resolution of the demands of the Id with those of the Superego, with the guidance of the Ego. It is logical, then, to assume that most of our choices would lie between the two extreme ego-states.

However, when the nature of the product is such that it borders on near reverence – either out of absolute adoration or subjugation, as with cults or cult brands – and there be no middle ground in our choices, then we can state that the Ego has little role to play, if at all.

Let us not forget that cult brands get differentiated also because they do not follow the logic of others. Apple never tells us just how much faster or slower any Mac is compared to other computers, we just get to know what chip it uses (and users will tell you that it works at the “right” speed!). And the more other manufacturers focus on what chip is powering their products, the more Apple stands out from the crowd.

The myths surrounding cult brands emerge from their idiosyncrasies as well. Harley users know that the bike is not known for its brakes, but that is part of the Harley-Davidson experience. As with Apple, we do not know the horsepower of any bike – only torque is specified.

Of course, this does not mean that brands should be allowed to float, and that we should just hope that someday they shall have a cult status. We can help the process along. This could be done through simple tweaks to existing practices.

As mentioned, brand promises should be articulated as goals for self-actualisation, and organisational efforts should be to help buyers achieve those goals. Even I-Phone advertising is about creative expression. (The odd-ball in the portfolio, to this writer’s mind, is the Apple Watch, but it finds its legitimacy in delivering other functions through its handy format.)

Brand culture needs to be identified, defined and built upon. This cannot be dictated, but has to be nurtured. Meta-data should help, as would a willing ear to the ground.

And, of course, brand managers need to have the courage to ensure that their brands get enough time to gain the traction to get cult status. After all, most religions that have stayed have been around for at least a thousand years or more!

How deliberate it was, one doesn’t know. But if the new look adopted by LinkedIn is inspired by Facebook’s UI, then it’s time to doff our hats to the team that took the decision.

There is good reason to congratulate them: There is only that much individuality that products can hope for, before their differentiation becomes a burden on ease of use.

Take the typewriter keyboard, for one. Back when your QWERTY (or AZERTY) keyboard was designed, the guiding principle was to avoid the keys bunching up together when typing. So, frequently-occurring letters were placed as far apart as possible (at least in the entrails of the machine), and generations upon generations have since learnt how to type with the strict placement that is followed to this day – be it on your smartphone, or your PC, on the Mac OS or on Windows.

In fact, so rigid is this placement that you dare not change your keyboard even when working with the same language – the US International keyboard is not the same as that of the UK standard, just as the French is different from the Belgian.

The keyboard is an example of a UI, adopted for the benefit of all. It is a norm imposed on the user, and such impositions are more common than we might think – be it maritime codes (that are also used in aviation, and now in road transport), or even the idea of licensing software, rather than creating new ones for each organisation.

Very recently, we also saw how a major online retailer chose to use the ‘Pinterest format’ for his mobile UI. Just smoothens the usage. At worst, doesn’t turn away the user.

To come back to the new LI interface (maybe I am being exposed to it late in the day), it can only mean more ease of access for the non-habitual user (the one LI would possibly like to attract, even if the regulars could be monetised!). All told, nice and clean and inviting.

But here’s the question to you: How many instances can you think of where external binds are imposed on your consumer? How many are forced (laws of nature, or laws of habit), and how many could you impose to make your product or offering more user-friendly or more cost effective, and hence more attractive?

In other words, what is the Superego, or that external constraint, that impacts your product, and your consumer’s choices? And how are you cashing-in on it?

The role of the ego-states becomes a factor to consider by the marketer. Just as the consumer wants to satisfy the demands of each of his egos, so does the marketer need to assure that satisfaction; i.e. successful sales depend on addressing the needs of the Id and the Superego while providing the Ego enough reasons to choose between these extremities.

We gave the example in the previous post of how you might zero-in on your new Ferrari: The Id might want to choose the emotive (brand/heritage) and the sensorial (upholstery and color), while the Superego would come into play in choosing the factors that are beyond our control – the after-sales service, the condition of the roads where it will be driven, and others. In short – the Id would choose the irrational or the self-satisfying, while the Superego would choose through logic and on the basis of extraneous factors. Here, again, the Ego would come into play in weighing the pros and cons of the demands posed by either of the other two.

A lot of this satisfaction depends, of course, on the nature of the product. Staying with our given example, we do find that Ferraris come in colors that you wouldn’t find on a sedan – red, yellow and orange are part of the Id satisfaction in a Ferrari, black and mint-green aren’t! Even when delivered to the client, Ferrari, like most cars in that price range, makes a ceremony around the event – the Id is satisfied all the way through. Of course, in the event of a breakdown, here too the issues related to the Superego (after-sales service) are conducted in a manner that adds to the Id-satisfying Ferrari experience: the repair team comes to your house, and leaves you a replacement.

At another, more everyday level, we spoke earlier of how choosing between chocolates would depend on whether we want to consume it ourselves in the next 10 minutes (Id-satisfaction) or offer it to our in-laws-to-be (Superego satisfaction – extraneous needs coming first). The marketer would provide you with both options, and this would reflect in all aspects of the product – right down to whether or not you find it in the exiting aisles of the store, or in the interior, perhaps next to other gifts.

These are the questions to ask: In how many ways can my product serve as an Id-, Ego-, or Superego-satisfier? What aspects can we change, modify or promote to push it in a particular direction?

Necessarily, the responses to the questions will have implications on the many P’s of marketing.

Which brings us to the question: How are the 3 ego-states related to the pricing of a product?

Product categories can be categorized as Id-, Ego- and/or Superego-satisfiers. Within categories, it is natural that the same categorization differentiates one product from another. The same logic of the 3 ego-states comes into play when choosing between any short-listed set of products.

Consider having to choose between 3 high-performance sports cars. While the Ferrari and the Lamborghini and the Lotus would make up one set, offerings from the Porsche, the Audi and the BMW could make up another. While both sets are Id-satisfiers vis-à-vis most other cars, even these two sets would be differentiated on the basis of their rational factors (e.g. state of roads where used, or Ego-satisfaction) and their economic criteria (e.g. cost, ease of maintenance, fuel consumption, or Superego-satisfaction).

Again, within a Ferrari, Lamborghini and a Lotus, you might have different reasons to want one over the other – product heritage, or brand associations would be the Id-satisfiers at play, while other, more rational factors would bring in the Superego in the process of decision making.

And should you have made your choice, how are you going to choose which Ferrari it will be? While you might want to focus on the particular engine and its performance parameters, you might want to leave the lesser choices, like the colour and the finish of the interiors to your wife or girl-friend. Again, you’d be making the Superego decisions, while she would choose the Id-satisfiers!

It is one thing to judge and predict consumer behaviour, but quite another to hazard a guess on what it takes to set up industry in India.

One always has an inkling about what works and what doesn’t, and the many success stories one comes across (many heard from the horses’ mouths, when dealing with Indian conglomerates) offer good insight. But there are few pointers that one can really put down as “the 3 or 4 things you should really know when setting up industry in India”.

But the recent report about how the India-born Jyothy Laboratories turned around the Indian operations of Henkel’s FMCG arm offers insights that even I, as an Indian, am happy to discover. While the story of the turnaround, in itself, seems like a simple case of post-event analysis, and the steps taken by Jyothy seem to be the most logical in fixing what was a flawed operation, let us not forget that Henkel’s start was the classic approach an MNC could take in India (and no, Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser and P&G don’t count as such – they have been here too long to adopt MNC strategies in India). And the failure of such strategy is linked to classic truths about India that we cannot ignore. In sum:

1.       Treat India as a union of States, rather than as a single trade zone

Think of India as you would think of Europe or the US. Every State has its own natural resources, customs, ways of working and, most importantly, trade tariffs, taxes and duties. While passing through one State to another with raw materials or processed goods can be a nightmare, setting up industry in either can be a dream – almost all State governments will roll out the red-carpet, even if they cannot offer you the resources. Pick and choose the most optimal option. Jyothy, like Unilever and the other big players, understands this only too well – their products are made and packaged simultaneously in different parts of the country. Even India’s largest cigarette brands are made in different centres. The most common example of this heterogeneous-location production-distribution is, of course, bottling plants for soft-drink majors.  Henkel made the mistake of wanting to operate from a single manufacturing location, albeit with the good intention of quality control. They lost out on the logistics front, but could they have foreseen an India-entry with many ancillary units? Perhaps not! (Of course, such a strategy might not work for all kinds of industries, but let us not forget that even the Airbus is manufactured in parts, in different European countries, before being assembled in France.)

2.       Don’t look for infrastructure; work without it

As Rama Bijapurkar points out in her book We are like that only, India might be a new  market, but it has an ancient history when it comes to trade and commerce.

So, banks might not exist, but banking always has! While no MNC would think of giving cash up front to suppliers of raw materials, an Indian operator would. Think about it: The Indian daily-wage worker (out in an open pit mine) is not likely to have a bank account – s/he has to be paid on the day, else s/he will work for the person who can provide the daily cash flow. And again, the operations of the said mine might not even be on an electricity grid – only cash again will pay for the diesel for the generators that run the operations. Even high up on the chain – between the retailer, the distributor and the wholesaler of Henkel’s products – all transactions are likely to be in cash, which is flowing in from the consumer on a daily basis. You might want to introduce banking operations in the process, but few will want to be a part of it; it is just too tedious and the time lapses are not worth slowing down the process.

While on infrastructure, and the question of skilled manpower: Rest assured that you are not likely to find it easily. Most Indian industrial homes have educational institutions to their credit – these were not born so much out of charity, as from a need to find their engineers and even technicians easily. Even now, if you were to set up a project that needed skilled or semi-skilled labour in some Indian hinterland, what would you do? Displace hundreds from distant areas, or train them on the spot? The HPCL-Mittal refinery in Punjab is training their semi-skilled labour on the job, all recruited from the nearby villages. One way in which they amortise their costs is to complete the training process by awarding diplomas, by becoming accredited with the government as an educational institution. They retain the best workers, while the rest have their own reward. That itself attracts labour! The recent move by Volkswagen, to set up a training school for automotive engineers in Pune is one that will have far reaching repercussions. They could well have bemoaned the lack of trained manpower, and let time take its course in bringing up the automotive industry in India up to speed, but by training the manpower they need, right now, is the right way.

3.       Never forget, Indians are entrepreneurs by nature

This point is beautifully illustrated by Guy Sorman in his book The Genius of India. He gives the example of how a poor Indian, if in no way employable, will invest in a few utensils and a stove to set up a tea-stall in a busy marketplace; or start any such simple trade that earns him enough to live with.

We might think that Jyothy Laboratories is as entrepreneurial as any Indian company can be, but let us not forget all those who were willing to get entrepreneurial in the process: Not just the trucker who will organise it so his fleet doesn’t have to return empty or resort to tramping, but even the sales-force which is ready to work to incentives, rather than for perks. But the real honours go to the owners of the new manufacturing units who are capable of meeting quality standards at par with the best in the Indian FMCG industry.

Surely, there would be many other factors when it comes to setting up business and industry in India. But these would be the kind common to many other Third World countries. Your inputs and experiences would be welcome!

%d bloggers like this: