|
    
|
I N T E R N E
T Here's a Ripley's believe it or not. Did you know that 60 per cent of all Net access world-wide is through non-English languages? Netpreneurs don't just believe it. They are scrambling to cash in on it. Ronnie Screwvala's United Television (UTV), which came out with the first local language portal (or lortal), tamizha-tamizha.com, is launching another one in Gujarati by the end of April. Says Biren Ghose, 43, CEO (New Media), UTV: ''We have started work on 5 regional language portals, and will launch 3 more by the year-end.'' Other portal pashas like rediff. com, indiainfo.com, and Satyam Online also have options in Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, and Gujarati. But these are translations of English versions. What's driving the lortal rush? For one, more than 1,650 languages are spoken in India, 19 of which are official languages. Then, there's a big Indian diaspora that wants to be part of regional virtual communities. More importantly, advertisers get a platform for cost-effective and target-oriented marketing. But the lack of local language software and content are keeping the market from taking off in a big way. Dot.coms are, however, getting their act together. Says Ghose: ''Content will be sourced from regional centres. Where there is a will, there will be eyeballs.'' -Arijit De M A N A G E M
E N T An argument between father and son over whether to use welding or riveting in the farm equipment their privately-owned company, JC Bamford, made, led to the first split in their business family. Fifty-five years later, the founder's grandson, Anthony Bamford, runs his UK-based £1-billion unlisted empire with as much conviction. Recently in India to announce major expansions plans for his organisation's joint venture with the Nandas-owned Escorts Group's, Escorts JCB, Bamford took time off to speak with BT's R. Sridharan on the pros and cons of family-managed businesses. Excerpts from an exclusive interview: On owner-managers. In India, family-managed businesses seem to be a dirty word. I don't see why it should be so. I've been in business for 50 years, and I am the only member of the family who works in the business. The business itself is run by a chief executive. And I would like to believe that I've earned my spurs, having worked in the business for something like 26 years. I think no (family member) should run a business unless they have the ability to run it. On the grooming of heirs. The business is run on a professional basis. I have 2 sons, and both of them are studying. Neither of them is doing engineering or management. They have some interest in the business, but it comes more from the fact that their father works for the business. If they want to take a deeper interest in the business, I would like that they become better educated first. I don't agree with the concept of automatically appointing family members to the board or making them head of a division. On family-manager leadership: My role is to guide the professional management. All our 8 units are run by managing directors and their team. I see my role as being strategic, to set the goals for the business, to ensure we grab opportunities, and also product development. In fact, a lot of my time is spent on product development issues. On JCB's sharp focus. I respect businessmen who can run many different businesses. But I don't know how they do it. Frankly, I find it difficult enough to be in one business and do that one thing well. M A R K E T I
N G Theirs is the face that launches a thousand brands. They are not models, and they are not endorsers. They are the brand ambassadors. And marketers are falling head over heels trying to rope them in. Horologer Swatch's Indian market messiahs include movie stars Shah Rukh Khan (for Omega) and Aishwarya Rai (for Longines); its other brand, Rado, is served by ex-cricketer Kapil Dev and model Lisa Ray; and Tissot-another premium Swatch label-gets Mohammed Azharuddin to don the cap for it. Why the rush for brand ambassadors? Apparently, there is a shift away from owning a personality presence-via adverts and endorsements-to ''owning their spirit'' via the ambassadorship. Says Santosh Desai, 37, Veep, McCann-Erickson (India): ''It's no longer a superficial relationship.'' And it should work, if the ambassadors do a Ferrari to product sales. -Aparna Ramalingam A U T O M O B
I L E S Imagine Maruti Suzuki merging with Ford India. Or Daewoo Motors and Fiat India becoming a part of General Motors India. Or Hindustan Motors merging with Mercedes Benz India. Sounds farfetched? Not really. In the race to expand their product portfolio for global market dominance, auto companies have gone into a deal frenzy. Ending their 2-year search for partners, global auto giants DaimlerChrysler and Mitsubishi Motors recently tied the knot, whereby the debt-heavy Japanese company gets $2.04 billion from the German giant for a 34 per cent stake. Just weeks before that, General Motors had bought the promoter Agnelli family's stake in Fiat, the Italian auto major. Not to be left out, Ford Motor Company acquired the British sports utility vehicle brand, Land Rover, from bmw for $2.9 billion. The American No. 2 in the automobile sector already owns stakes in other Asian car manufacturers such as Mazda, Suzuki, and Nissan. All this, even as the ailing Daewoo Motors is scouting for a buyer, and Honda strikes a deal with General Motors to supply engines. The rationale behind the alliances? To make inroads into the growing Asian markets. The Americans and Europeans cannot do that effectively today because they do not make the kind of small cars that consumers in Asia prefer. Acquiring, or tying up with the popular Asian brands, will give them marketshare, without adding to the industry capacity. What do the alliances mean for India? ''A parallel drawing up of battle lines,'' says B.V.R. Subbu, 44, Director (Marketing), Hyundai Motors India. Hyundai's parent in South Korea is itself a subject of unsolicited bids from the likes of General Motors. At the end of the day, the Indian market may come to be dominated by General Motors, Ford, Toyota, and may be Honda. Should consumers worry about the shakeout? A little, because less competition will tend to push car prices up. And there could also be a consolidation of retail outlets. Strap up and watch this space. -R. Sridharan C O R P O R A
T E The bubbles have burst. And the fizz fallen flat. For Atlanta-based beverage giant, the $19.80 billion Coca-Cola Co.'s (Coke), its India foray is turning out to be one long nightmare. On April 4, Coke announced that it was writing off half of its $800 million India-related assets. The bulk of the write off by the company is related to bottling operations, advertising, and marketing. Sad for a company that has invested more in India than in any other emerging market. Worse, the investment is twice what its arch rival, the $20.36 billion PepsiCo (Pepsi) has made here. A press release from Atlanta, however, courageously reiterated that ''The company remains committed to growing its business in India.'' Brave words. Especially in the light of the fact that in its 1999, 4th quarter results, Coke admitted to a loss of $45 million, which it attributed to its investments in Japan and India. It also said that it would review its bottling operations, and re-evaluate its assets in India. This, along with the appointment earlier this year of a new trouble-shooting CEO, Alexander Von Behr, shows that the zing is missing in Coke's operations in India. According to a Coke insider, Von Behr's agenda in India includes an overhaul of the operations of its 51 bottling plants, by centralising certain functions like purchase while decentralising others in order to make each plant a profit centre. Von Behr will also be promoting all of Coke's India brands, including Thums Up. But the number one concern? Pruning of runaway costs without wresting initiative from the local management. What went wrong? To begin with, Coke's integration strategy seems to have backfired. The company-under erstwhile CEOs Richard Nicholas and Donald Short-is said to have spent Rs 1,500 crore acquiring bottlers, and paying them Rs 8 per case, against the standard Rs 3. Pepsi, in contrast, invested in its franchisee-owned bottling operations-it has 26 of them and 16 company-owned ones-rather than trying to buy them out. Says Ramesh Chauhan, 59, Chairman and Managing Director Parle, and erstwhile Coke partner: ''The goodwill premium was high, but it was done in a bid to consolidate future profits.'' The second factor could have been Coke's expensive promotion tactics. Coke is said to have spent nearly Rs 6 crore in signing Bollywood heartthrob Hrithik Roshan. Indipop celebrity Daler Mehndi was paid Rs 4 crore for a similar deal. But despite its aggressive promotion, Coke still trails as the 3rd cola brand-after Pepsi and Thums Up-although Thums Up is its own brand. To effect a turnaround, Coke is going ahead with an extensive organisational redesign with what it calls it 'profit-centre' model that hinges on decentralisation. Under the new plan, every bottling unit will be treated as a profit centre, with a young manager at its helm who will deliver on profit, market share, and sales volumes. He will report to a regional general manager who will look after about 6 to 7 plants, and there would be 6 such regions. Adspend would be more accountable, and there would be a sharper focus on Thums Up. The association of Coke with cricket, movies, music, and film stars will continue. But it will be some time before Coke gets over the feeling that it was Short-changed. -Paroma Roy Chowdhury
|
|
Issue Contents Write to us Subscriptions Syndication INDIA TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | COMPUTERS TODAY © Living Media India Ltd |
 |
 |
