I have never watched a super bowl match. But I have heard from the time I entered into a B-School 11 years back that it is a big day for the advertisers in the US. Even though not to that scale, the same is true in India during World Cup Cricket. Cricket is a religion in India. I am an aethist though.
The last World Cup saw very interesting cricket centric ads. Marketers tried every trick in the book to associate their brands with India's inexplicable obsession with cricket. I really liked the Nike Ad. Excellent stuff. The cricket stars, Sreesanth (The only cricketer to play for India from my state. Proud? NO) and Zaheer Khan have the most insignificant role in the whole story. I have a feeling the ad is trying to tell us that the Indian cricket fan is much bigger than the Indian cricket star. Socialism. I love it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib3WSzJyqVQ
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Is it a goal or not?
Use of Technology in Sports has been debated over and over in the previous years. Those who love the traditional way of managing believes that advent of new gadgets has made the game lose its charms. Errors in human judgement need to be a part of the game. Because these errors create anger, disbelief and sadness. These extreme emotions are very much part of a sport.
Those in favour thinks otherwise. A game should be evaluated on the basis of the capabilities of those involved with it. If new technology helps this cause, then it should be used. I am a bit confused. I find merits in both arguments.
But what surprises me is the crudeness of technology used. The Goal line technology in football is used to find whether the ball has completely crossed the goal line or not. It is unfortunate that this is still done by goal line camera. Even though high resulution devices are used, the system is prone to error. Why do we still use this system inspite of having better technology. Nike, for instance, has developed a chip which can be inserted into the ball which can send out signals to the referee's watch. The "middle of the road" approach cannot do anything else but harm; to the game, those managing it and more importantly to those watching it. (No prizes for anyone who guessed that the team I supported yesterday was at the wrong end of the decision)
Those in favour thinks otherwise. A game should be evaluated on the basis of the capabilities of those involved with it. If new technology helps this cause, then it should be used. I am a bit confused. I find merits in both arguments.
But what surprises me is the crudeness of technology used. The Goal line technology in football is used to find whether the ball has completely crossed the goal line or not. It is unfortunate that this is still done by goal line camera. Even though high resulution devices are used, the system is prone to error. Why do we still use this system inspite of having better technology. Nike, for instance, has developed a chip which can be inserted into the ball which can send out signals to the referee's watch. The "middle of the road" approach cannot do anything else but harm; to the game, those managing it and more importantly to those watching it. (No prizes for anyone who guessed that the team I supported yesterday was at the wrong end of the decision)
Internet Marketing Quiz - Do we have technology?
Dan says that it took him 2-3 minutes to read one page in the text book. To all those who were preoccupied with intellectual pursuits through the whole of the term and never got the chance to read the book, you still have 16 hours before the quiz. That gives just about sufficient time to finish reading.
Do we have a technology developed to help students in such dire situations. Something which can help to crunch a whole text book, compress it into few MBs and then transfer it into our memories. Great inventions are made when the inventors have their backs against the wall!
Do we have a technology developed to help students in such dire situations. Something which can help to crunch a whole text book, compress it into few MBs and then transfer it into our memories. Great inventions are made when the inventors have their backs against the wall!
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Personal Benefits from Course E464
I am one of those who benefitted hugely from Dan's experimentations. I presume people like Ashwani would agree. I was right at the bottom of the learning curve before I started the course. Never knew what blogging was. I always thought blog writers were people who had nothing else to do in life. I could have not imagined the power of social networks without this course. I have also started to understand the language of people far younger than me.
The course has put me on the upward trajectory of the learning curve. I should thank the whole class for their blogs for making me realise my ignorance. Some of the guest talks also tried to rekindle my entrepreneural spirits. New ideas have started budding in my head. I have to resist the temptations to get back to running ventures. (I do not want to lose money again!) But I might not be able to resist this for long. Should I thank Dan for making me confused yet again?
The "self actualisation" part came in the form of a comment from my friend who read my blogs. "Your writing is not as bad as I thought", he said. See, I reached the top of Maslow's pyramid. No more needs to be satisfied. Thanks to E464 for taking me there...
The course has put me on the upward trajectory of the learning curve. I should thank the whole class for their blogs for making me realise my ignorance. Some of the guest talks also tried to rekindle my entrepreneural spirits. New ideas have started budding in my head. I have to resist the temptations to get back to running ventures. (I do not want to lose money again!) But I might not be able to resist this for long. Should I thank Dan for making me confused yet again?
The "self actualisation" part came in the form of a comment from my friend who read my blogs. "Your writing is not as bad as I thought", he said. See, I reached the top of Maslow's pyramid. No more needs to be satisfied. Thanks to E464 for taking me there...
Risk Free Return is not a Utopia afterall.
B-School Pundits have been trying to drill the relationship between risk and return into my head. Logic says "Higher the risk, higher should be the expected return". Gambling is a high risk activity and hence should be associated with higher expected return. As far as I know betting is very close to gambling.
But if one is willing to accept lower return, a small return might be achievable with almost zero risk in betting. I am talking from the point of view of the betting companies. The internet revolution has seen a proliferation of these companies. Some of them does not seem to be very prudent.
Let us take the example of a football match. In a last week's fixture the odds for scoring more than two goals in the match were different on two sites. If you bet with William Hill you could win 80P for 1 Pound if there are more than 2.5 goals (to cover the possibility of 2 goals). The same bet on Company X had an odd of 1:1. Imagine that a person bets 1 Pound on WH and WH hedges it with a bet of 90P on Company X. Whether it looses or wins, it still gets 10P. A 10% risk free return in 1.5 hours! Good?
Is it legal to sell and buy bets in the UK? I do not know. If it is, are the companies doing it? I do not know. But if they are not, why do'nt they recruit me. In the current environment, I do not mind working for a betting company. I can watch free football too!!
But if one is willing to accept lower return, a small return might be achievable with almost zero risk in betting. I am talking from the point of view of the betting companies. The internet revolution has seen a proliferation of these companies. Some of them does not seem to be very prudent.
Let us take the example of a football match. In a last week's fixture the odds for scoring more than two goals in the match were different on two sites. If you bet with William Hill you could win 80P for 1 Pound if there are more than 2.5 goals (to cover the possibility of 2 goals). The same bet on Company X had an odd of 1:1. Imagine that a person bets 1 Pound on WH and WH hedges it with a bet of 90P on Company X. Whether it looses or wins, it still gets 10P. A 10% risk free return in 1.5 hours! Good?
Is it legal to sell and buy bets in the UK? I do not know. If it is, are the companies doing it? I do not know. But if they are not, why do'nt they recruit me. In the current environment, I do not mind working for a betting company. I can watch free football too!!
Sunday, 22 February 2009
The art of delivering hidden message
The term, "surrogate advertising" is very popular with tobacco and alcohol manufacturers in India. The product can be manufactured; it can be sold; and it can be consumed legaly. But the product cannot be advertised. The result, we have major alcoholic beverages companies requesting people in their commercials to drink "club soda" and "drinking water", products which they barely manufacture.
Is such advertising an ethical measure? Does it serve the purpose of keeping the youth away from such vices. In this internet generation, the strategy barely serves the purpose. The posters, hoardings and shop displays still exist. It is probably not right to advertise such "dangerous" products. But neither is the fact that the companies are forced to do it.
Watch the Cobra beer ad below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Cz9YArGz0
Will anyone buy drinking water after watching that?
Is such advertising an ethical measure? Does it serve the purpose of keeping the youth away from such vices. In this internet generation, the strategy barely serves the purpose. The posters, hoardings and shop displays still exist. It is probably not right to advertise such "dangerous" products. But neither is the fact that the companies are forced to do it.
Watch the Cobra beer ad below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Cz9YArGz0
Will anyone buy drinking water after watching that?
Technology revolution and Political views
When I was a kid, a wireless hand set was a symbol of luxury. Leave alone the internet. The facility to send information across the internet was highly controlled by the government. The huge potential of the web was never being tapped. The same goes with the Global Positioning System. It was illegal to take photographs of bridges due to security reasons. But now there is minimal government control on these high tech areas. The infusion of private capital into developing innovative technology has radically changed the way in which we live. Some political analysts uses this argument to advocate free economy.
Attributing this huge success to one single factor is not right. Free thought has been a huge force behind the success. But there are other factors including policy decisions to channelise investment. Lack of control has helped unhealthy practices to creep into the system. We had high tech frauds and bubble bursts. Other than the pace of change, the change is like any other one which has happened in our history. Painting it as the victory of one type of political thought is not right.
Attributing this huge success to one single factor is not right. Free thought has been a huge force behind the success. But there are other factors including policy decisions to channelise investment. Lack of control has helped unhealthy practices to creep into the system. We had high tech frauds and bubble bursts. Other than the pace of change, the change is like any other one which has happened in our history. Painting it as the victory of one type of political thought is not right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)