It was the time when Indian Idol finale was to be aired and although I thought the show was pathbreaking in many ways, the SMS voting was beginning to resemble the Great Indian Political Tamasha more than a talent hunt.
Midday frontpaged a report on how the BMC worker's unions pledged their support to Abhijeet Sawant - the contestant whose dad worked with the corporation.
100,000 workers X average of 5 family members = 5 lakh possible votes. OK - so maybe all may have actually voted but some might also have sent in several entries, all still adding up.
Meanwhile ads were apparently appearing in Chhatisgarh papers urging people there to vote for Amit Sana...
The point is: Talent Hunts are based on the 'may the best man win' concept. So if I honestly believe X or Y is 'better' - sure, I should share this opinion with the world and even urge you to vote for him.
But simply asking for votes because I am from your city/ caste/ school - this is no different from what Indian politicians do. And the results are clear for all to see - the 'best man' usually doesn't even get nominated! The likes of Manmohan Singh are too educated and too unpopulist to get voted to office - but the like of Laloo can keep getting elected.
Coming back to Idol, Indians appeared to be rating 'humility' more seriously than whether the singer had star quality. No doubt both Abhijeet and Amit were good singers - but personally, I didn't think they possessed the 'X factor' which was mentioned by the judges in every episode.
The odds appeared to be stacked against Amit Sana - he was singing under medication, and also the fact that Abhijeet was from Mumbai was likely to influence votes in his direction.
Yet, I would urge junta to vote for whoever they think is 'better' - whatever your definition of better may be. As long as it's related to talent and not something vague like 'he's a Maharashtrian'.
Monday, September 13, 2010
The last 'obscene' day of school
This is Mumbai - not Bihar!
Std X prelims are over. It's the last day of school - an emotional moment in the life of a 15 year old. As per tradition, kids are inking farewell messages on each other's uniforms and diaries. They are doing this outside the school - in a building compound.
But the fact that boys and girls 'embraced' each other and wrote messages like 'I love you' and 'I will miss you' apparently irked members of the society where this was happening. They complained to the school authorities, who came rushing and took the kids to the principal's office in a rickshaw.
Principal Ajit Kaul, to punish this 'obscene' behaviour, slapped teenager Bilquis Chhapra. This he admits to - and find nothing wrong with. The girl, on the other hand claims she was dragged by the hair and slapped several times more.
This incident took place in suburban Mumbai - not rural Bihar. It is strange and disturbing to see such a medieval definition of 'obscenity' in a co-ed institution!
Even stranger is the fact that the other parents are siding with the principal and justifying his action! They are demanding Bilquis and her family should apologize. Probably under pressure from the school management.
Thank God the girl's parents appear to be standing by her , at least.
Aapko takleef kya hai?
Honestly I don't see that any offence was committed.
a) The activity took place outside school
b) If the kids had something shady in mind they would have gone to some deserted/ dark corner. Why would they risk being 'caught' hugging in broad daylight in a building compound where some of them lived?
Had girls been writing 'I love you' to each other - no one would have cared. But the fact that boys and girls did so is being made out to be obscene. Hello! 'I love you' does not always mean 'I lust for you' !!
The principal later said he was upset because the students showed 'disrespect to the school uniform'. Well, I remember writing on friends uniforms when we passed out of school - what's the big deal? You're not going to wear it anymore so you write messages and make it something to preserve forever. A sweet memory of your school days.
Lastly, whatever the offence - and I do not even consider this to be one - a school principal is out of bounds when he SLAPS a 15 year old girl.
It is extremely traumatic - and demeaning - for a teenager who has probably never even been slapped by her own parents.
Perhaps he was feeling 'helpless' because school being technically over for the girl he no longer had power over her. The correct thing to do would be to express displeasure and simply summon her parents.
If he really had the students 'best interests' at heart as he claims - at least the man should have spared a thought for the impending board exams. What state of mind will Bilquis have been in then? Would she really had been able to concentrate on her studies??
Were principals born middle-aged?
I am drawing conclusions based on news reports - perhaps there is more to things than meets the eye.
But one thing's for sure, teachers and principals have completely forgotten what it was like to be young. Many of our educators have serious issues - arising from frustration with their low-paid jobs. They are unable to manage their own low self esteem and resultant anger.
They harbor extremely negative perceptions of everyone and everything around them. Especially yeh aajkal ke bachche (kids these days)
Educators prefer to see students at a superficial level and find them 'oversmart' and 'disrespectful'. And instead of winning their hearts and minds by inspiring and stimulating them, they decide it's time to show 'who's the boss'.
All that does is make young people somewhat fear - and mostly jeer. And the disinterest-defiance cycle continues.
P.S. The biggest irony is that the school where the incident occurred is called 'Children Welfare Centre School'. Some welfare!
Std X prelims are over. It's the last day of school - an emotional moment in the life of a 15 year old. As per tradition, kids are inking farewell messages on each other's uniforms and diaries. They are doing this outside the school - in a building compound.
But the fact that boys and girls 'embraced' each other and wrote messages like 'I love you' and 'I will miss you' apparently irked members of the society where this was happening. They complained to the school authorities, who came rushing and took the kids to the principal's office in a rickshaw.
Principal Ajit Kaul, to punish this 'obscene' behaviour, slapped teenager Bilquis Chhapra. This he admits to - and find nothing wrong with. The girl, on the other hand claims she was dragged by the hair and slapped several times more.
This incident took place in suburban Mumbai - not rural Bihar. It is strange and disturbing to see such a medieval definition of 'obscenity' in a co-ed institution!
Even stranger is the fact that the other parents are siding with the principal and justifying his action! They are demanding Bilquis and her family should apologize. Probably under pressure from the school management.
Thank God the girl's parents appear to be standing by her , at least.
Aapko takleef kya hai?
Honestly I don't see that any offence was committed.
a) The activity took place outside school
b) If the kids had something shady in mind they would have gone to some deserted/ dark corner. Why would they risk being 'caught' hugging in broad daylight in a building compound where some of them lived?
Had girls been writing 'I love you' to each other - no one would have cared. But the fact that boys and girls did so is being made out to be obscene. Hello! 'I love you' does not always mean 'I lust for you' !!
The principal later said he was upset because the students showed 'disrespect to the school uniform'. Well, I remember writing on friends uniforms when we passed out of school - what's the big deal? You're not going to wear it anymore so you write messages and make it something to preserve forever. A sweet memory of your school days.
Lastly, whatever the offence - and I do not even consider this to be one - a school principal is out of bounds when he SLAPS a 15 year old girl.
It is extremely traumatic - and demeaning - for a teenager who has probably never even been slapped by her own parents.
Perhaps he was feeling 'helpless' because school being technically over for the girl he no longer had power over her. The correct thing to do would be to express displeasure and simply summon her parents.
If he really had the students 'best interests' at heart as he claims - at least the man should have spared a thought for the impending board exams. What state of mind will Bilquis have been in then? Would she really had been able to concentrate on her studies??
Were principals born middle-aged?
I am drawing conclusions based on news reports - perhaps there is more to things than meets the eye.
But one thing's for sure, teachers and principals have completely forgotten what it was like to be young. Many of our educators have serious issues - arising from frustration with their low-paid jobs. They are unable to manage their own low self esteem and resultant anger.
They harbor extremely negative perceptions of everyone and everything around them. Especially yeh aajkal ke bachche (kids these days)
Educators prefer to see students at a superficial level and find them 'oversmart' and 'disrespectful'. And instead of winning their hearts and minds by inspiring and stimulating them, they decide it's time to show 'who's the boss'.
All that does is make young people somewhat fear - and mostly jeer. And the disinterest-defiance cycle continues.
P.S. The biggest irony is that the school where the incident occurred is called 'Children Welfare Centre School'. Some welfare!
Gen next Politician Haazir Ho !!!!
"Narain Karthikeyan became the first Indian to compete in Formula One. Sania Mirza became the first Indian woman to reach the third round of an international Grand Slam. All very thrilling. But hang on, folks. Before we get carried away over how youth is shattering the old world, a word about how the old world is still demolishing the young."
In a hard hitting piece in the Indian Express dated Feb 7th, 2005 Sagarika Ghose asks: Why haven't all those young politicians we elected last year (dubbed by the media as GenNext MP's) made an impact?
Alas, she says: "None of those young MP's have either distinguished themselves as charismatic or powerful leaders of people or as heartful orators. They have not been able to announce original ideas. Nor have they been able (or allowed) to significantly challenge geriatric party leaderships by sheer force of personality and achievement.
They haven't been allowed to succeed precisely by the same politics to which they owe their existence: namely the politics of family. Family has brought them political success, but paradoxically family has trapped them in political stagnation."
Ironically that time of the year the "Minister for Youth Affairs and Sport" was the 75 year old Sunil Dutt who was neither youthful nor sporty!
The average age of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's cabinet is definitely 70 plus. The opposition BJP is also populated with oldies. A B Vajpayee could have gracefully retired after the election. But no, the old guard continues and by the time they actually 'let go' the young fellows (like Arun Jaitley) will have white hair themselves.
Some things, evidently, won't change that easily. Maybe, just maybe, when Priyanka Gandhi becomes PM. Don't snigger - it's going to happen sooner or later. So one may as well focus on the possible silver lining.
Given facts if political life such as corruption will remain - whether the young or old are in power - I for one would still plump for youth. Because young politicians - thanks in part to their fancy overseas education - have a greater stake in seeing the country progress than politicians well past the prime of their lives.
Give them a chance to take risks and turn some of their 'foolish dreams' into reality. Before the little idealism they possess gives way to cold, hard cynicism...
In a hard hitting piece in the Indian Express dated Feb 7th, 2005 Sagarika Ghose asks: Why haven't all those young politicians we elected last year (dubbed by the media as GenNext MP's) made an impact?
Alas, she says: "None of those young MP's have either distinguished themselves as charismatic or powerful leaders of people or as heartful orators. They have not been able to announce original ideas. Nor have they been able (or allowed) to significantly challenge geriatric party leaderships by sheer force of personality and achievement.
They haven't been allowed to succeed precisely by the same politics to which they owe their existence: namely the politics of family. Family has brought them political success, but paradoxically family has trapped them in political stagnation."
Ironically that time of the year the "Minister for Youth Affairs and Sport" was the 75 year old Sunil Dutt who was neither youthful nor sporty!
The average age of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's cabinet is definitely 70 plus. The opposition BJP is also populated with oldies. A B Vajpayee could have gracefully retired after the election. But no, the old guard continues and by the time they actually 'let go' the young fellows (like Arun Jaitley) will have white hair themselves.
Some things, evidently, won't change that easily. Maybe, just maybe, when Priyanka Gandhi becomes PM. Don't snigger - it's going to happen sooner or later. So one may as well focus on the possible silver lining.
Given facts if political life such as corruption will remain - whether the young or old are in power - I for one would still plump for youth. Because young politicians - thanks in part to their fancy overseas education - have a greater stake in seeing the country progress than politicians well past the prime of their lives.
Give them a chance to take risks and turn some of their 'foolish dreams' into reality. Before the little idealism they possess gives way to cold, hard cynicism...
Advertising works but ....
The Bad, the Ugly, the Good
The most popular way of building a brand - including youth brands - is conventional advertising. Does it work? Yes and no.
Yes - because although people in general (and young people in particular) believe that they are not 'really influenced' by advertising - which isn't true. Sure, we don't run out and buy stuff right away because we see it advertised and yes, we do consciously tune out a lot of it. But at an unconscious level every ad we see - in every medium we see it - leaves its mark.
There are broadly three kinds of advertising:
a) "I exist" advertising: This is the simplest form - a piece of communication which tells you x or y product is in the market and demonstrates what it can do for you. ie make your teeth whiter, hair shinier etc.
This is on the face of it 'boring' but it does work in the sense that it often induces trial within established product categories. For example, if I am a shampoo user, and I am exposed to attractive ads for 'Garnier Fructis' I will most likely be willing to try the new brand.
But at the end of the day, 'I exist' advertising only appeals at a rational level. The use of brand colours, situations, models (and sometimes celebrities) can add a bit of differentiation.
But repeated hammering in of product benefits and pack shots rarely allows the communication to make a lasting and emotional impact.
b) "Irrelevant" advertising: Here, the agency tries hard to be entertaining, witty (the accepted formula to 'connect' with the youth) - but there is no connection whatsoever with the product.
There is a long, long list of such ads currently running on TV. It appears as if the copywriter had a series of humorous situations or 'skits' in his or head and when the need to make an ad comes up, these come in handy. A tenuous connection is established between the skit and the product and voila! Ad taiyyar hai.
Remember Chlormint? The only impact it made on young people was canteen conversation around the question -"Are those two guys in the ad gay?"
Another sad trend is how every Indian ad somehow wants to associate itself with the Great Indian Institution of Shaadi (marriage).
Nescafe's latest prospective bride meets prospective groom ad is a case in point. The agency needs to take note of the scathing feedback it's getting from the traditional Nescafe audience (the young and upwardly mobile).
A recent tagline which caught my attention was Sunsilk: "Life is what happens while you're making other plans". As I haven't actually seen the ad I shall refrain from comment except to say that phrase is definitely inspired by a stale internet forward!
c) Truly creative advertising: This is the kind which is relevant, memorable and at some level produces a warm, fuzzy feeling - a kind of unconscious alignment with the brand. These ads are creative - but never take the focus away from the product or message. Yet, they do not keep harping on functional benefits or keep flashing the brand logo.
The best recent example is the Hutch 'boy and dog' commercial. I think Pepsi's 'Dil maange more' (the heart wants more) campaign which ran for several years was also path breaking. The sentiment was something the youth of this country really identified with.
So much so that after a hard won battle to recapture a mountain peak during the 1999 Kargil war Captain Vikram Batra immortalised that phrase on national television.
Sadly, since then Pepsi has adopted a new catchphrase 'yeh pyaas hai badi' (this thirst is big) and although it means approximately the same thing, adding the product connected word 'thirst', in my opinion, destroys the magic.
Most of Nokia's advertising also leaps out of the clutter. It helps that they have a bunch of really innovative products to advertise :) Easier to be creative with a 7250 than a daily moisturiser.
But it's also a reflection of the company's clarity - every ad focuses on communicating just ONE message. Like, this is a colour phone, or this is a phone for fashionable people. The million other features be damned!
Every brand manager would like to see "truly creative' advertising for his brand but is usually unable to take the risk involved and hence settles for a) "I exist" or b) "Irrelevant advertising.
Between the two I'd say the straight forward "I exist" school of advertising at least accomplishes part of its job. That's any day preferable to the "irrelevant" school which in my opinion is simply money down the drain.
Clutching at straws
As a kind of desperate 'kuch to work karega' measure companies pin their hopes on celebrities. However, there is no successful example of an Indian celebrity whose endorsement has actually helped sell more of a product.
Reebok used rap stars in its advertising campaign and suddenly went from being a fuddy duddy brand to a cool one once again. Sania Mirza or Shahid Kapur or even the bigger stars can't produce that effect in India. And in any case, celebs invariably endorse several products at the same time and hence are not strongly associated with any one brand.
Conclusion: Great advertising does build youth brands but is rarely and inconsistently produced, especially in India. If you are clear that "youth" is the target segment think cutting edge, and not 'let me also appeal to mummy, daddy, munni, chunni and Ramu doodhwala" with the same ad.
The most popular way of building a brand - including youth brands - is conventional advertising. Does it work? Yes and no.
Yes - because although people in general (and young people in particular) believe that they are not 'really influenced' by advertising - which isn't true. Sure, we don't run out and buy stuff right away because we see it advertised and yes, we do consciously tune out a lot of it. But at an unconscious level every ad we see - in every medium we see it - leaves its mark.
There are broadly three kinds of advertising:
a) "I exist" advertising: This is the simplest form - a piece of communication which tells you x or y product is in the market and demonstrates what it can do for you. ie make your teeth whiter, hair shinier etc.
This is on the face of it 'boring' but it does work in the sense that it often induces trial within established product categories. For example, if I am a shampoo user, and I am exposed to attractive ads for 'Garnier Fructis' I will most likely be willing to try the new brand.
But at the end of the day, 'I exist' advertising only appeals at a rational level. The use of brand colours, situations, models (and sometimes celebrities) can add a bit of differentiation.
But repeated hammering in of product benefits and pack shots rarely allows the communication to make a lasting and emotional impact.
b) "Irrelevant" advertising: Here, the agency tries hard to be entertaining, witty (the accepted formula to 'connect' with the youth) - but there is no connection whatsoever with the product.
There is a long, long list of such ads currently running on TV. It appears as if the copywriter had a series of humorous situations or 'skits' in his or head and when the need to make an ad comes up, these come in handy. A tenuous connection is established between the skit and the product and voila! Ad taiyyar hai.
Remember Chlormint? The only impact it made on young people was canteen conversation around the question -"Are those two guys in the ad gay?"
Another sad trend is how every Indian ad somehow wants to associate itself with the Great Indian Institution of Shaadi (marriage).
Nescafe's latest prospective bride meets prospective groom ad is a case in point. The agency needs to take note of the scathing feedback it's getting from the traditional Nescafe audience (the young and upwardly mobile).
A recent tagline which caught my attention was Sunsilk: "Life is what happens while you're making other plans". As I haven't actually seen the ad I shall refrain from comment except to say that phrase is definitely inspired by a stale internet forward!
c) Truly creative advertising: This is the kind which is relevant, memorable and at some level produces a warm, fuzzy feeling - a kind of unconscious alignment with the brand. These ads are creative - but never take the focus away from the product or message. Yet, they do not keep harping on functional benefits or keep flashing the brand logo.
The best recent example is the Hutch 'boy and dog' commercial. I think Pepsi's 'Dil maange more' (the heart wants more) campaign which ran for several years was also path breaking. The sentiment was something the youth of this country really identified with.
So much so that after a hard won battle to recapture a mountain peak during the 1999 Kargil war Captain Vikram Batra immortalised that phrase on national television.
Sadly, since then Pepsi has adopted a new catchphrase 'yeh pyaas hai badi' (this thirst is big) and although it means approximately the same thing, adding the product connected word 'thirst', in my opinion, destroys the magic.
Most of Nokia's advertising also leaps out of the clutter. It helps that they have a bunch of really innovative products to advertise :) Easier to be creative with a 7250 than a daily moisturiser.
But it's also a reflection of the company's clarity - every ad focuses on communicating just ONE message. Like, this is a colour phone, or this is a phone for fashionable people. The million other features be damned!
Every brand manager would like to see "truly creative' advertising for his brand but is usually unable to take the risk involved and hence settles for a) "I exist" or b) "Irrelevant advertising.
Between the two I'd say the straight forward "I exist" school of advertising at least accomplishes part of its job. That's any day preferable to the "irrelevant" school which in my opinion is simply money down the drain.
Clutching at straws
As a kind of desperate 'kuch to work karega' measure companies pin their hopes on celebrities. However, there is no successful example of an Indian celebrity whose endorsement has actually helped sell more of a product.
Reebok used rap stars in its advertising campaign and suddenly went from being a fuddy duddy brand to a cool one once again. Sania Mirza or Shahid Kapur or even the bigger stars can't produce that effect in India. And in any case, celebs invariably endorse several products at the same time and hence are not strongly associated with any one brand.
Conclusion: Great advertising does build youth brands but is rarely and inconsistently produced, especially in India. If you are clear that "youth" is the target segment think cutting edge, and not 'let me also appeal to mummy, daddy, munni, chunni and Ramu doodhwala" with the same ad.
Brands that tell a story
Piggybacking on a personality
One of the big youth fashion brands to spring up in recent times has been 'Von Dutch'. It's not well known in India, though you might occasionally see an MTV veejay sporting a Von Dutch t shirt. You really can't miss that distinctive, 'flaming' logo.
Chris Detert, the marketing director of Von Dutch Originals, says: "We have created a clothing line and lifestyle brand with an edgy, rebellious spirit - a brand that many people, from all walks of life, can relate to."
How did they do this? By piggybacking on the personality of a strange man named 'Von Dutch'. And then further embellishing and propagating the legend.
Who was Von Dutch?
Von Dutch is not Dutch at all. He was a mechanic called Kenny Howard who achieved pop cult status in America in the 1950s by painting and 'pin-striping' cars and bikes. Since he used the name 'Von Dutch' cars customized by him came to be known as 'dutched'. His most famous 'creation' was a logo - the 'flaming eyeball with wings'.
As an article by Bob Burns on the man notes
When a car owner came to him, he didn't tell Dutch what he wanted, he just told him how much 'time' he wanted to purchase. The designs were up to Dutch, and many of them were created way down deep in the recesses of his eccentric imagination.
He was subsequently imitated by many others such as Shakey Jake, The Barris Brothers, Tweetie, Slimbo, Big Daddy Ed Roth.
But essentially the guy was a very niche hero, somebody biker circles looked upto. How did he spawn a major mainstream fashion brand?
Well, the answer is - he didn't. The chap died in 1992 - paranoid, alcoholic and penniless. His daughters later sold the rights to reproduce their father's imagery to Michael Cassell, a maker of surfer clothing who established 'Von Dutch Originals' in 1999 with one single store.
Cassell had his eyes on the niche market of bikers (the "hot rod" set) but his partners (who'd worked with brands like Diesel and Fiorucci) believed they could appeal to a wider, fashion audience.
As an article titled the "Ad Nuseam Marketing of Von Dutch" notes
"It took insight, luck or both to see that Von Dutch could be, well, exploitable. Celebrities such as Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher showed up wearing the logo caps....The whole appeal of course was explaining who Von Dutch was."
The story of Von Dutch - a man who was an individualist and rebel - gave a unique coolness and personality to the brand. Something that conventional advertising could never have achieved!
The Trucker Hat Phenomenon
The "killer" product was the trucker hat (so called because it was favored by truckers and tractor drivers). It became so popular that the company had to limit its production to 'maintain' exclusivity and yet hope that the 'followers' would be willing to wait to buy the product even as the trendsetters moved on to the Next Cool Thing.
And the strategy seems to have worked. By 2003, the company was doing $33 million in sales and for 2004 revenues were in the $100 million region.
Of course, there has also been some backlash. Those who got into the trend early and shelled out $ 75 for a hat and felt good about it started resenting the logo being all over the place.
Companies producing 'Von Sucks' and 'Von Done' hats and clothing sprung up. Meanwhile some folks discovered that Von Dutch was, in addition to being a creative genius, also 'not such a nice man' (racist, alcoholic etc). And the members of the counterculture who had 'owned' Von Dutch also felt betrayed at the commercialization of their hero.
Von Dutch will eventually start declining in popularity. Maybe the founders will have to find another original, another counter culture icon to tap into and commercialize.
The point simply is that a good 'story' can lend character and resonance to a brand.
Many brands take their names from their designers - who are living personalities. Ralph Lauren, DKNY, Pierre Cardin, Prada, Calvin Klein etc etc.
But a youth marketer with vision can also tap into the prevailing counter culture - something very niche - and commercialize it.
It can happen in India
The runaway success of the 'Osho' slipper (the chataai base chappal with the velvet straps) is a good example. The slippers were originally sold outside the Osho ashram in Pune's Koregaon Park.
A few young people discovered they were really comfortable to wear and the next thing you knew, everyone wanted to have a pair. I remember about 4 years ago, a guy who worked in my office and who had gone for a Shirdi visit happened to go Pune and found himself flooded with requests for 'Osho slippers' - they cost about Rs 200 at that time.
Soon enough the chaps who're always looking for the next big trend - the ones who sell your stuff on Colaba Causeway and Janpath - realised there was a huge potential in this product. They started manufacturing it on a mass scale and you can now buy Oshos for just about Rs 70 a pair.
Meanwhile, they even introduced new designs, straps, embellishments like shells, sequins. There's a variation for men with square toes and an upturned front.
The 'Osho' - even two years after it went mainstream - continues to be one of the biggest fashion fads to have hit the Indian youth.
Oshos have worked at two levels:
a) The 'Osho' connection lends it personality and 'coolness'. I can bet the Osho slippers would NEVER have taken off in such a big way had they just been called 'bamboo chappals'.
b) At a practical level Oshos are comfortable and affordable. They fit in with the current attitude which is to 'dress down' to college as opposed to dressing up - which is something only for kids who've just joined college - completely wannabe!
Can Osho go the Von Dutch way?
I see no reason why some clever marketing can't turn 'Osho' slippers into a worldwide phenomenon like the trucker hat. And, like Von Dutch, metamorphose into a lifestyle brand. Of course, it would be something the Osho ashram itself would have to endorse (which it is unlikely to).
What the Osho brand would represent to young people is:
a) Indian spirituality, mysticism
The Appeal: the search for inner peace, tranquility is something universal - and a current worldwide obsession.
b) Individuality
The Appeal: Osho lived his life the way he wanted to, something most of us will probably never be able to do.
c) 'Free Sex'
The Appeal: Something uniquely Osho, and very aspirational. Again, we will never actually get to do it but we can buy into the philosophy by buying into the brand!
Conclusion: Tap into the 'counter culture' for ideas if you're a youth marketer. Then, walk the thin line between cool and crass while attempting to commercialize it. If you get it right, you will find the rewards simply amazing!
One of the big youth fashion brands to spring up in recent times has been 'Von Dutch'. It's not well known in India, though you might occasionally see an MTV veejay sporting a Von Dutch t shirt. You really can't miss that distinctive, 'flaming' logo.
Chris Detert, the marketing director of Von Dutch Originals, says: "We have created a clothing line and lifestyle brand with an edgy, rebellious spirit - a brand that many people, from all walks of life, can relate to."
How did they do this? By piggybacking on the personality of a strange man named 'Von Dutch'. And then further embellishing and propagating the legend.
Who was Von Dutch?
Von Dutch is not Dutch at all. He was a mechanic called Kenny Howard who achieved pop cult status in America in the 1950s by painting and 'pin-striping' cars and bikes. Since he used the name 'Von Dutch' cars customized by him came to be known as 'dutched'. His most famous 'creation' was a logo - the 'flaming eyeball with wings'.
As an article by Bob Burns on the man notes
When a car owner came to him, he didn't tell Dutch what he wanted, he just told him how much 'time' he wanted to purchase. The designs were up to Dutch, and many of them were created way down deep in the recesses of his eccentric imagination.
He was subsequently imitated by many others such as Shakey Jake, The Barris Brothers, Tweetie, Slimbo, Big Daddy Ed Roth.
But essentially the guy was a very niche hero, somebody biker circles looked upto. How did he spawn a major mainstream fashion brand?
Well, the answer is - he didn't. The chap died in 1992 - paranoid, alcoholic and penniless. His daughters later sold the rights to reproduce their father's imagery to Michael Cassell, a maker of surfer clothing who established 'Von Dutch Originals' in 1999 with one single store.
Cassell had his eyes on the niche market of bikers (the "hot rod" set) but his partners (who'd worked with brands like Diesel and Fiorucci) believed they could appeal to a wider, fashion audience.
As an article titled the "Ad Nuseam Marketing of Von Dutch" notes
"It took insight, luck or both to see that Von Dutch could be, well, exploitable. Celebrities such as Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher showed up wearing the logo caps....The whole appeal of course was explaining who Von Dutch was."
The story of Von Dutch - a man who was an individualist and rebel - gave a unique coolness and personality to the brand. Something that conventional advertising could never have achieved!
The Trucker Hat Phenomenon
The "killer" product was the trucker hat (so called because it was favored by truckers and tractor drivers). It became so popular that the company had to limit its production to 'maintain' exclusivity and yet hope that the 'followers' would be willing to wait to buy the product even as the trendsetters moved on to the Next Cool Thing.
And the strategy seems to have worked. By 2003, the company was doing $33 million in sales and for 2004 revenues were in the $100 million region.
Of course, there has also been some backlash. Those who got into the trend early and shelled out $ 75 for a hat and felt good about it started resenting the logo being all over the place.
Companies producing 'Von Sucks' and 'Von Done' hats and clothing sprung up. Meanwhile some folks discovered that Von Dutch was, in addition to being a creative genius, also 'not such a nice man' (racist, alcoholic etc). And the members of the counterculture who had 'owned' Von Dutch also felt betrayed at the commercialization of their hero.
Von Dutch will eventually start declining in popularity. Maybe the founders will have to find another original, another counter culture icon to tap into and commercialize.
The point simply is that a good 'story' can lend character and resonance to a brand.
Many brands take their names from their designers - who are living personalities. Ralph Lauren, DKNY, Pierre Cardin, Prada, Calvin Klein etc etc.
But a youth marketer with vision can also tap into the prevailing counter culture - something very niche - and commercialize it.
It can happen in India
The runaway success of the 'Osho' slipper (the chataai base chappal with the velvet straps) is a good example. The slippers were originally sold outside the Osho ashram in Pune's Koregaon Park.
A few young people discovered they were really comfortable to wear and the next thing you knew, everyone wanted to have a pair. I remember about 4 years ago, a guy who worked in my office and who had gone for a Shirdi visit happened to go Pune and found himself flooded with requests for 'Osho slippers' - they cost about Rs 200 at that time.
Soon enough the chaps who're always looking for the next big trend - the ones who sell your stuff on Colaba Causeway and Janpath - realised there was a huge potential in this product. They started manufacturing it on a mass scale and you can now buy Oshos for just about Rs 70 a pair.
Meanwhile, they even introduced new designs, straps, embellishments like shells, sequins. There's a variation for men with square toes and an upturned front.
The 'Osho' - even two years after it went mainstream - continues to be one of the biggest fashion fads to have hit the Indian youth.
Oshos have worked at two levels:
a) The 'Osho' connection lends it personality and 'coolness'. I can bet the Osho slippers would NEVER have taken off in such a big way had they just been called 'bamboo chappals'.
b) At a practical level Oshos are comfortable and affordable. They fit in with the current attitude which is to 'dress down' to college as opposed to dressing up - which is something only for kids who've just joined college - completely wannabe!
Can Osho go the Von Dutch way?
I see no reason why some clever marketing can't turn 'Osho' slippers into a worldwide phenomenon like the trucker hat. And, like Von Dutch, metamorphose into a lifestyle brand. Of course, it would be something the Osho ashram itself would have to endorse (which it is unlikely to).
What the Osho brand would represent to young people is:
a) Indian spirituality, mysticism
The Appeal: the search for inner peace, tranquility is something universal - and a current worldwide obsession.
b) Individuality
The Appeal: Osho lived his life the way he wanted to, something most of us will probably never be able to do.
c) 'Free Sex'
The Appeal: Something uniquely Osho, and very aspirational. Again, we will never actually get to do it but we can buy into the philosophy by buying into the brand!
Conclusion: Tap into the 'counter culture' for ideas if you're a youth marketer. Then, walk the thin line between cool and crass while attempting to commercialize it. If you get it right, you will find the rewards simply amazing!
What's kept in a name??
The Power of a Name
When a youth brand is launched, how much thought goes into its name? Not as much as it should! Take a random sample of recently launched products in the hair category: Livon, Numis, Silk n Shine - all being advertised heavily.
Does any one them have resonance or character? The first two sound like stuff your doctor might prescribe and the third is absolutely unimaginative and literal!
A great name can set the tone for a brand. It leaps out from the clutter all around and says "Look at me! I'm made for you!!"
Let me illustrate what I mean. People always want to know what the whole concept is. "Gosh, that's interesting!" is the usual reaction. This little piece of information communicates something about the product's character - that it's quirky, and different. So:
a) It evokes curiosity - that's an obvious effect
b) More subtly, it communicates attitude.
Which is what building a brand is all about.
Now this is of course only the first step - further the product itself should live upto the consumers expectations in numerous ways. Like it should be widely available, well priced, contain interesting products, have quality printing etc etc.
But this first impression which the name makes, I am convinced, is crucial to the product's success.
Every youth brand wants to have 'attitude' and if the name itself can communicate that - it's like "well begun, half done".
Examples of brand names which I think rock:
FCUK - the clothing brand reached iconic status, its clever choice of name contributed a good deal!
Nike - the company was originally called Blue Ribbon Sports. (Can u imagine Blue Ribbon shoes ever reaching the status Nike has? I can't!) It was only 8 years down the line that Phil Knight rechristened the shoes he sold as 'Nike' - from the Greek godess of victory.
Of course, more than Nike, the name, it was the 'swoosh' trademark which became iconic. So when I say 'brand name' I really mean the complete package - logo design included.
Like FRIENDS was a good name for a show about 6 young singles in New York. But even the way it was written, the font and the dots in between - that was interesting!
But remember the first Rule of Cool.
You never shout "I'm cool".
When people see you, they just know that you are.
It happens all the time. With their friends and peers, young people can instinctively tell who's really hip ie has a style of their own and who's a wannabe.
Similarly, a brand must communicate coolness in an authentic way and not come across as a wannabe.
So an Indian company (Madura) choosing a foreign sounding name (San Frisco) for its jeans is a bad idea. The product is good, but the consumer - at some level - may feel that it's not authentic. ie "If I want a foreign brand I'd rather go in for a real foreign brand eg Levi's, Lee, Wrangler..."
The name has been shortened to SF jeans but the point is - why not anticipate the problem and choose a name that's really unique in the first place?!
When a youth brand is launched, how much thought goes into its name? Not as much as it should! Take a random sample of recently launched products in the hair category: Livon, Numis, Silk n Shine - all being advertised heavily.
Does any one them have resonance or character? The first two sound like stuff your doctor might prescribe and the third is absolutely unimaginative and literal!
A great name can set the tone for a brand. It leaps out from the clutter all around and says "Look at me! I'm made for you!!"
Let me illustrate what I mean. People always want to know what the whole concept is. "Gosh, that's interesting!" is the usual reaction. This little piece of information communicates something about the product's character - that it's quirky, and different. So:
a) It evokes curiosity - that's an obvious effect
b) More subtly, it communicates attitude.
Which is what building a brand is all about.
Now this is of course only the first step - further the product itself should live upto the consumers expectations in numerous ways. Like it should be widely available, well priced, contain interesting products, have quality printing etc etc.
But this first impression which the name makes, I am convinced, is crucial to the product's success.
Every youth brand wants to have 'attitude' and if the name itself can communicate that - it's like "well begun, half done".
Examples of brand names which I think rock:
FCUK - the clothing brand reached iconic status, its clever choice of name contributed a good deal!
Nike - the company was originally called Blue Ribbon Sports. (Can u imagine Blue Ribbon shoes ever reaching the status Nike has? I can't!) It was only 8 years down the line that Phil Knight rechristened the shoes he sold as 'Nike' - from the Greek godess of victory.
Of course, more than Nike, the name, it was the 'swoosh' trademark which became iconic. So when I say 'brand name' I really mean the complete package - logo design included.
Like FRIENDS was a good name for a show about 6 young singles in New York. But even the way it was written, the font and the dots in between - that was interesting!
But remember the first Rule of Cool.
You never shout "I'm cool".
When people see you, they just know that you are.
It happens all the time. With their friends and peers, young people can instinctively tell who's really hip ie has a style of their own and who's a wannabe.
Similarly, a brand must communicate coolness in an authentic way and not come across as a wannabe.
So an Indian company (Madura) choosing a foreign sounding name (San Frisco) for its jeans is a bad idea. The product is good, but the consumer - at some level - may feel that it's not authentic. ie "If I want a foreign brand I'd rather go in for a real foreign brand eg Levi's, Lee, Wrangler..."
The name has been shortened to SF jeans but the point is - why not anticipate the problem and choose a name that's really unique in the first place?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)