|
   
|
It's ironical, but, in the capital of Indian advertising, Mumbai, the most physical of advertising media, hoardings, have been taken over by companies that exist in virtual space, dot.coms. Of the 175 hoardings that outdoor advertising company Selvel owns, 80 now host dot.com ads. And more than half the 40 hoardings owned by another outdoor ad company, More Group, too, do. Says M.M. Nandwani, 49, CEO, More: ''Outdoor is an ideal medium for dot.coms as their objective is to create instant awareness in the shortest possible time.'' And with the Internet year reportedly being as short as three months, time is a critical variable for these companies. Most dot.com hoardings are simple: they just feature the company's URL and a three or four word description. The idea is to get people to click on the URL displayed on the hoarding. Clicks mean everything: valuation; VC funding; and all else that makes a dot.com tick. The hoarding-rush has also been prompted by Mumbai's linearity: everyone has to move from one end of the city to another at least twice a day; the unlucky ones, more. But it isn't just OTS (Opportunity To See) that drives dot. coms to hoardings; it's price too. As a medium, outdoor is far cheaper than print or television. For instance, a hoarding at the Haji Ali crossing in Mumbai would cost the advertiser a mere Rs 3 lakh a month, with approximately 16,000-18,000 cars passing through the crossing everyday. With a CPT (Cost Per Thousand) of Rs 0.27 a day, since our comparison with a daily, and assuming that every car has at least two passengers, this is cheaper than, say, a half page ad in the Mumbai edition of The Times of India (CPT: Rs 0.52). Most importantly, as a reminder medium, outdoor beats all other media. Agrees Sandip Tarkas, 37, Director (Media Services), Fulcrum, HTA's media arm: ''No other media can give you this kind of frequency.'' But the passing of the peak of the dot.com fever must have surely hurt outdoor advertising companies? Not quite, for, the rush is still on. ''This month, the proportion of dot.com hoardings (in the total number of hoardings) has increased from 40 per cent to 50 per cent,'' says Vinod Warrier, 29, Senior Consultant, O&M Media. And life after the bubble bursts doesn't look very bleak for companies like More, either. ''In three months you'll probably be back asking me why there are so many television channel ads plastered across hoardings,'' shrugs Nandwani. -Nita Jatar Kulkarni GOD KNOWS Dear Lord Krishna: I have just finished reading Swami Someswarananda's book Business Management Redefined: The Gita Way (Jaico Books; Rs 575). You'll be disappointed to know that you don't figure much in the book, although the Swamiji draws quite heavily from your magnum opus. You are supposed to be omniscient: tell me, what is the author trying to do? I don't mind the lack of grammar or the bad subbing (can't blame the proof-reader for falling asleep; I myself just missed smashing my face on my keyboard twice). It's the way Someswarananda tries to debunk modern management practices in favour of the (allegedly) Gita-way of management that makes me squirm in my ergonomically-unfriendly chair. The Swamiji says that instead of reproducing shlokas from the Gita, he has tried to focus on finding solutions to today's management problems from it. Business Management Redefined is a noble effort-although many others of the Swamiji's ilk have tried to explain the relevance of India's ancient scriptures to modern management-but it stops well short of breaking new ground, and is, in parts, facile. Take, for instance, the Swamiji's core argument that a company's primary goal should be to benefit society. How? By making products that are affordable to all. Lord, you've been around much longer than I have. Tell me, are you aware of any company that does not want to maximise its profits? Surely, even as temporal a man as the Swamiji, must know the secular principle that the simplest way to do that is by selling low-priced products targeted at the mass market. With one caveat that the fair-minded Swamiji must surely recognise: no company can sell its products for a price lower than what it takes to produce them. That would certainly rule out the 'all' part of Someswarananda's argument. Methinks, the Swamiji-the Chairman of Vivekananda Centre for Indian Management-has tried to retrofit modern management concepts into stuff he's pulled out of the Gita. And his most scathing comments are reserved for B-schools who are accused of propagating myths like ''in industry and business, morality does not work; like (in) love and war, there is nothing (unfair) in business; and (by) being honest, one cannot grow in business''. I agree that there are companies that have dubious ethics. But in this age of corporate governance, GAAP, and activist investors, companies have more to gain than lose by being honest. Slightly better written (or edited), and Business Management Redefined could have staked its claim to being a comprehensive guide to an Utopian India Inc. If for nothing else, its argument that companies like Reliance Industries and Bombay Dyeing need to co-operate rather than compete earns it this distinction. Unfortunately, the Swamiji's nomenclature of competition is a trifle off: his examples of competitors that co-operate include Jet Airways & Holiday Inn, and Coke and Uncle Chipps. As you are aware, Lord, such co-operation is happening, and even has a name: co-opetition. But this phenomenon is caused more by the desire to maximise profits rather than a genuine urge to do good. I have nothing against your work, Lord. It's just that I am a little tired of people seeking to discover management insights everywhere, from Richard Adam's Watership Down, to pop-movie Karate Kid. Drucker Wept! Yours devoutly, R. Sridharan FAST(EST) FOOD Help-line? Yes. Alliance with cellular service-provider? Yes. This isn't an emergency medical service we're talking about; its pizzas. American chain Dominos and home-grown one Pizza Corner are slugging it out to be everyone's favourite home-delivery chain (although Pizza Corner is a dine-in as well as delivery chain, home-deliveries account for 40 per cent of its sales). Competition is intense: Dominos delivers its pizzas within 30 minutes of receiving the order; and Pizza Corner within 39 minutes, although both companies are quick to add that these timings are restricted to certain areas which their delivery staff can reach within the stipulated time. Nine minutes isn't a great differentiator. But Dominos responded to Pizza Corner's entry into the Delhi market-the two already compete in Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi, and Hyderabad, among other cities across India-by slashing prices by an average of 30 per cent. Although Dominos refused to share information with BT-its closed-door media policy, the company claimed, was in response to a rather uncomplimentary article on transnational fast-food chains that had recently appeared in a newsweekly-its spokesperson stayed long enough on the line to state some platitudes about achieving the economies of scale that made it possible to down-price its pizzas. Pizza Corner is at a great disadvantage when it comes to price: its eight-inch Pepperoni Pizza costs Rs 155 while a Dominos costs Rs 85. ''Promotions,'' proffers Sumir Anand, 33, Vice-President, Pizza Corner: ''will help us negate any price-advantage Dominos has.'' These promotions range from the sublime-buy a pizza, and get one free on your next purchase (and a free pizza is, undoubtedly, sublime)-to the ridiculous, Zzapi Nercor (an anagram of guess what) comics where the bad guys have names like Minodos (ha!), and Paz Thuzi (ha!), although Anand claims these comics are popular with kids. In which case the comics with the-funny-names strategy does make sense as kids do have a role to play in deciding where the family eats out. Price may not, however, be a significant differentiator in the home-delivery segment of the pizza market. After all, eating in is a dink (Double Income No Kids) phenomenon that has extended to other, well-heeled population-segments. Nor could promotions. Or ease of ordering. Pizza Corner has a toll-free number that's city-specific and easy to remember; Dominos' hunger help-line is the same across the country, wherever the chain has a presence. With little to separate one from the other-apart from taste, and that's an issue difficult to resolve-both companies have no option but to do more of whatever they are already doing. The winner? Pizza Hut, which isn't in the home-delivery game at all. But where are its outlets? -Aparna Ramalingam DEBT TRAP No, but it is close. In five years, India's national debt has risen by Rs 5,73,756 crore, from Rs 6,06,233 crore in 1995-96 to Rs 11,79,793 crore in 2000-01. In the same period, interest payments have doubled, from Rs 50,045 crore to Rs 1,01,266 crore. The last works out to 54.55 per cent of India's GDP. Still worse, the major portion of this debt (70 per cent) is internal-the government's market borrowings. But is the country in a debt trap? Not quite, believes D.K. Srivastava, 53, Senior Fellow, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP), and member, Eleventh Finance Commission: ''I do not think we are in a debt trap although the situation is alarming.'' According to the Maastricht Treaty, only if a country's interest payments exceed 60 per cent of its GDP can it be said to be in a debt trap. But 54.5 per cent isn't far away from 60. The fallout of this situation is, potentially, frightening: the government will have to borrow from the Reserve Bank of India to service its debt, causing interest rates to increase. High interest rates could impact private sector investments and threaten growth. Inflation, too, will soar. The solution? Simple, retiring high-cost debt-something that can be achieved by the privatisation of public sector firms. Explains D.H. Pai Panandikar, 67, President, RPG Foundation: ''The only way to reduce public debt is to sell off all PSUs, especially the profit-making ones, so that the Government can at least retire the high cost debts.'' The reason? There is little scope for the government to reduce capital expenditure. Major current expenditure components like interest payments, grants to states, subsidies, and defence expenditure cannot be cut. And downsizing government is a politically-sensitive issue. Budget:2000 did earmark Rs 1,000 crore out of its disinvestment target of Rs 10,000 crore for retiring debt but, given the pace at which the disinvestment engine is moving, even this relief is likely to take its time coming. -Ashish Gupta
|
|
Issue Contents Write to us Subscriptions Syndication INDIA TODAY | INDIA TODAY PLUS | COMPUTERS TODAY © Living Media India Ltd |
 |
 |
