The rise of the ‘Me’ world

A feeling quite a few people around me shared during Diwali this time around- ‘the number of people bursting fire crackers seems to be going down in our locality’. Most of the people saw this as a welcome sign as it could be related to possible lower levels of air and sound pollution along with an opinion that it was judicious use of money by spending it in other areas. While I still await stats of how much of e-retailers and malls sold this time around, I do foresee some big numbers arising here. But while it may have been better business in retail; I can help suppress a fear creeping in my mind- has the spirit of Diwali slowly eroded?

Bursting crackers during Diwali was like a social event in my building. Children and elders came down for the occasion, pooled the crackers and sweets and spent almost an hour together chatting, sharing jokes and enjoying the fireworks in each other’s company. Lighting up of a 1000 or 5000 maala intertwined with an atom bomb or Laxmi bomb was like the highlight of Laxmi Poojan. Lighting an anar or seeing a rocket go high in the air was charming. It all seems lost today when not a single person took part bursting crackers or even meeting each other on the occasion. My genuine concern- has Diwali lost its social relevance as a festival and become just another occasion to spend time and money on our own self?

Being an 80’s kid; I can safely say that I have seen the world change in more than many ways. Concepts like one car, one TV, one phone, one computer, one house per family has vanished and today we actually take pride in the fact that every person in a family is likely to have their own phone, TV, computer and car. Weekends or time after school was the time for negotiation with parents to play cricket, football or even hide ‘n seek with the neighbour’s kids. Even a game on Sega (only the few fortunate ones who owned it) was a group activity with 4-5 kids lined up before the set. All this seems to be a thing of the past.

With the sharp rise in consumerism has come the exponential rise in personal gadgetry which in a way is threatening the need for social interactions. Almost all kids today have a Play Station console or have mastered the game apps on their parent’s tablets and cell phones. Playing outdoors is usually limited to some sport involving a professional coach who is programmed to get them into a regime designed like a rigid framework rather than a way to unwind for recreation. One bat, a contribution to buy a ball, stumps drawn on a wall decorated with ball marks have been overruled by console buttons labelled by a circle, cross, square and a triangle.

This is not something which has happened all of a sudden. We have very slowly but surely migrated into an individual driven society. For my parent’s generation; it was always a group of friends or family that listened to the same radio shows, saw movies together in a theatre and on occasions of festivals- got together to enjoy on a higher level. Shopping was also a group activity with one buyer accompanied by 3 support cast. The only forms of personal space was either a form of art or reading books. For our generation, it was handheld video games and the Walkman which first intruded the personal entertainment space. Computers came in much later and affordability kept them at bay. Options with TV channels were few and hence was replacing the radio at some level. But the rest all remained similar.

Easier and affordable access to technology combined with rapid growth in communications and connectivity has together resulted in a social breakdown of sorts. Every aspect of life can now be termed personal and thereby be personalized to taste. From being convenience; technology is now giving a reason for the young and the adults to cocoon themselves from the outside world. Why play in the sun, when you can play on the LAN? Why walk around in a mall or a bazaar when you can shop and order online? Why do you need to spend an hour bargaining with a shopkeeper for a better price when the online store offers you a steal to begin with? Why write a letter when you can email? Why call when you can send a message on Whatsapp?

Today, while talking about a ‘built to last’ HMT watch belonging to his grandfather, my friend since nursery posed a thought questioning if ‘new technologies are really an advancement’. For starters, watches have become a fashion accessory and its functional role taken over by the cell phone. If capabilities and features are to be put in perspective; may be a wearable gadget has a lot more to offer than an HMT watch. But in this ‘Me’-driven world, what an iWatch, Samsung Gear or GOQii will lack is the charm of an interpersonal conversation started off with someone walking up to you and asking. “bhai, time kya hua hai”. 

How do brands die

I have often mentioned that being born in the 80’s and living through the years after has offer me and my generation an un-paralleled advantage- We have seen the world change in bits and pieces, day-by-day. Technology from my childhood is obsolete in most cases today; the one still around only have classical value. What the changes have also resulted in has been the fall of dominant empires and rise of new ones which replaced them. Some like Sony who changed with times still hold their stature. I don’t think people rate the technology of a Bravia, Vaio or Xperia lower to the Walkman at some point in the 80s. Sadly, the ones which got lost in their own glory to forget the art of adaptation went on to immortalize Darwin.

One of the most appealing and fascinating gadget my father had was an SLR camera from Minolta as well as a point-n-shoot Nikon. But what had to be treated with immense respect irrespective of the make was the camera film. So it didn’t matter if Sakura was now Konica, Fuji was cheap or Kodak was expensive- if by chance the film from any one got exposed accidentally opening the reel cover, down the drain went the memories. The films also demanded respect as you could click only 36 shots per reel (yes, there were some shady ways to do more on the same reel), so taking a picture was like a responsibility.

I took some time to read up on Kodak for making a case study and realised that Eastman Kodak was the oldest and the biggest player in the camera film plate arena for close to 100 years when I might have held a camera. It was a legend that had over 90% market share at one point thanks to its smart selling strategy of cheap camera units and milking the film and photo paper cows. Along with Gillette and its shaving blades, this was another great example of making the big profits on the consumables- something still followed by a lot in the market.

After the patent for the film plate was taken, a folding Kodak pocket camera in 1890, which was pegged at a very affordable price of $25. The main stay was the $10 to process and print the pictures which in combination with the camera paved the road to greatness. I’m not sure when BTL marketing was officially recognised, but in 1897, Kodak sponsored an amateur photographer contest and saw 25,000 participants. In 1904, Kodak held a Grand Kodak Exhibition featuring 41 photographs to attract an audience for the art. This connect is so natural that I cannot imagine if this marketing proposition might change for such events today.

The ads were so powerful to take the photography to people other than professionals - “You press the button- we do the rest”. Not to mention, signage’s along the roads reading, ‘Picture ahead’ with the well-recognised Kodak name under the sign is fabulous use of ambient media. The term "Kodak moment" might be used for eternity for every memorable picture. This was the strong brand connect that Kodak has in the memory of every individual. Sadly, I feel it won’t be wrong to say that no one uses Kodak in taking pictures any more.

The demise of the brand to the levels of bankruptcy in 2012 has been a classic case of treating it as a product offering and forgetting that the brand was a living being with a personality. Much like a human being, it has to adapt to changes and transform its role in the life of people to maintain its relevance. Yes, handling competition was important- so was transition into technology that could change the business dynamics. Kodak had developed a digital camera in 1975, the first of its kind. But the product was dropped for fear it would threaten Kodak's photographic film business, which was already facing threat from Fuji by means of its competitive pricing.

Marketing Myopia, as my marketing professor preached was like being so much in love with your products that you become completely ignorant of what damage this obsession leads to your own self.  The outlook from the management always remained that profit for Kodak was in making money on the consumables side as the optics was just a one-time buy. Digital imaging transformed this myth and when Camera phones came out, Kodak went into the business of vendor driven memory chip business.

Kodak had a fabulous connect with people and their memories. They had done everything right from the very beginning to reach a stature no one else can possibly manage. All they needed to do was possibly maintain that connect irrespective of selling films to feed their camera. If the phone got a decent camera, the logical move was to bring out a super camera that could also be a phone. Photograph= Kodak; that was the least or most they has to ensure. Sadly, they missed the bus and ran out of business.

What all this only signifies is that brands are like living beings interacting with their users. People wish to be associated with a brand for a part of its persona that builds these bonds. If the threads of this bond are not recognised and the relation turns into a transaction; you might just be the next Kodak.