Over the past few years I have had the opportunity of traveling far and wide across the world. I have been fortunate enough to be able to stay at some of the well known hotels. I have stayed at the Marriott, Hyatt, Le Meridian, Taj, Leela, and others at various locations in India and abroad. I must say that once you are used to the routine it is quite boring to stay at almost all of these hotels. Except for the subtle surprises that a Marriott might offer at occasions and on other occasions when the hotels bungle up your reservation and upgrade you to an executive room (more due to a lack of a better option that choice), there is nothing unique or surprising, that one would find while staying at these hotels.
For a hotel that calls itself 5-star would you not think that they should be in a position to delight the customer with the type of experience that is put on offer. When I enter the room of a 5-star hotel, no matter what, I will find a bed laid in the centre of the room, with TV kept across the room, a desk/study and a sitting area, not to mention the restroom, which is the most mundane bit. Why has that got to be the case in every hotel?
It amazes me that barring the landscaping that runs outside of the hotel there is pretty much no attempt made to differentiate the hotel from what they offer at the rest of the places. If this was 2000BC and designing was still taking baby steps then that would be a good excuse; fortunately it is not! Why can't each hotel; based on the geography and location be bound by a theme of its own. Something that makes it unique, something that offers surprises and mystery at the same time. When I enter the room of a beach resort, why can't the room have furniture that fold into the wall so that the room can be converted into a large play area during the day for the kids to play and cosy room by night for them to sleep peacefully after an entire day of riot. Why can't there be a water flow maintained through the entire property, water passing through every room, thereby cooling the rooms, instead of the regular AC. Why can't designing be taken to a new level to make living spaces special and experience worth remembering and so remarkable that you need to tell all of your friends?
The amount of money that these hotel chains would spend on marketing; if spent on making such upgrades, will perform the function of marketing automatically. Why does nobody put in that effort to make the experience special? What is with being routine and boring? Its amazing to be unique!
I wait in hope that someday, one of these chain will decide to do something unique, remarkable and out of the box. I would love to go stay at such a place...
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Let Visitors Spend More...
India has been seeing a sharp rise in tourism over the years and there have been countless acres of forest that have gone under the axe to print matter to the same effect. I may quote some of the statistics that have been mentioned with regards to this industry.
In 2006 there were as many as 4 million visitors who visited India who spent a total of $ 8.9 billion. The tourism industry has been showing a growth rate of 20%, year on year. I am surprised that they managed to spend so much, considering the fact that we are horrible at providing opportunities to spend. The tourism industry in India is touted to grow at a rate of 30% till 2010 and with the commonwealth games coming to India and the possibility of even the olympics coming to India, we really need to look at the opportunities that visitors have to spend in India.
Let us shift to Paris...
As soon as you enter the lobby of a hotel you find a huge array of pamphlets mentioning some 25 different site seeing trips that one can take to move around the city. On all of these combined one can spend a cool 1000 Euros per head. Then you decide to head out to see the city... There are a huge array of souvenir stores that offer a range of products, no no! they are not traditional craftswork which will find no use but to sit in my showcase once I return back to my country. Instead it is the mundane, day to day stuff, that one can use regularly. Imagine the number of times an American is going to go back to America and wear a 'Sherwani'. Not only are these day to day products, that one can use easily upon returning; but they also have Paris pasted prominently over it (In fact I still believe that baring the ubër fashion stores, its impossible to find a T-Shirt in Paris without Paris written on it). Good Advertising! Don't you think? Why do you think that the city gets the most number of visitors, its because all of these people carry all of this stuff back home and do free publicity for the city.
Is it so difficult for someone in India to do the same in every major city of the country. Can this country that is known for all of the hospitality that it can offer to its guests; not offer them descent avenues to spend their cash at. I think there is a desperate need for such services in this country. Here is a situation where we need to decide to push our own country to the world, and offer our best to the world.
Will someone take the lead?
In 2006 there were as many as 4 million visitors who visited India who spent a total of $ 8.9 billion. The tourism industry has been showing a growth rate of 20%, year on year. I am surprised that they managed to spend so much, considering the fact that we are horrible at providing opportunities to spend. The tourism industry in India is touted to grow at a rate of 30% till 2010 and with the commonwealth games coming to India and the possibility of even the olympics coming to India, we really need to look at the opportunities that visitors have to spend in India.
Let us shift to Paris...
As soon as you enter the lobby of a hotel you find a huge array of pamphlets mentioning some 25 different site seeing trips that one can take to move around the city. On all of these combined one can spend a cool 1000 Euros per head. Then you decide to head out to see the city... There are a huge array of souvenir stores that offer a range of products, no no! they are not traditional craftswork which will find no use but to sit in my showcase once I return back to my country. Instead it is the mundane, day to day stuff, that one can use regularly. Imagine the number of times an American is going to go back to America and wear a 'Sherwani'. Not only are these day to day products, that one can use easily upon returning; but they also have Paris pasted prominently over it (In fact I still believe that baring the ubër fashion stores, its impossible to find a T-Shirt in Paris without Paris written on it). Good Advertising! Don't you think? Why do you think that the city gets the most number of visitors, its because all of these people carry all of this stuff back home and do free publicity for the city.
Is it so difficult for someone in India to do the same in every major city of the country. Can this country that is known for all of the hospitality that it can offer to its guests; not offer them descent avenues to spend their cash at. I think there is a desperate need for such services in this country. Here is a situation where we need to decide to push our own country to the world, and offer our best to the world.
Will someone take the lead?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Does our market react to ad campaigns?
It was just a thought that occured to me today morning, as I was looking at the Teach IndiA ad campaign that Times of India has undertaken...
Back in August last year, the sub-prime crisis had already broken out in the United States, the indication of financial troubles were looming. There was a feeling that the emerging markets will not take the blow of this economic downturn in the US. Also, around the same time, the 'Lead India' and the 'India Poised' campaigns were up and running in India. The correlation of the positive movement of the market and the campaign being run at the same time is worth noticing.
Towards the end of the year and with the dawn of the new year, these campaigns began to wane and so did the confidence in the stock markets. Essentially nothing had changed, as far as many of the sectors are concerned but the beating down was consistent across all sectors.
I know that there was an initial feeling that de-coupling will occur which never happened and FIIs pulled out of Indian markets and all of those stories that the finance gurus offer. But were the people offering advice to these FIIs not based out of India? Are they not human? Could they not get influenced by ads?
At the end of it all, I would like to say that; there is no conclusive evidence based on which, I have framed the above argument. It is just a thought and I think there is something there...
Back in August last year, the sub-prime crisis had already broken out in the United States, the indication of financial troubles were looming. There was a feeling that the emerging markets will not take the blow of this economic downturn in the US. Also, around the same time, the 'Lead India' and the 'India Poised' campaigns were up and running in India. The correlation of the positive movement of the market and the campaign being run at the same time is worth noticing.
Towards the end of the year and with the dawn of the new year, these campaigns began to wane and so did the confidence in the stock markets. Essentially nothing had changed, as far as many of the sectors are concerned but the beating down was consistent across all sectors.
I know that there was an initial feeling that de-coupling will occur which never happened and FIIs pulled out of Indian markets and all of those stories that the finance gurus offer. But were the people offering advice to these FIIs not based out of India? Are they not human? Could they not get influenced by ads?
At the end of it all, I would like to say that; there is no conclusive evidence based on which, I have framed the above argument. It is just a thought and I think there is something there...
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Network Businesses - Death of Large Corporations
There was a time when big meant powerful. A time when big companies bought the smaller ones and grew in capabilities and strength.
The bigger; the better.
Companies were able to easily hold onto 50% - 60% of the market and beat the competition with their superior marketing power. Those days are soon going to be passe. The future does not belong to the big but the small companies.
These guys are nimble, can move swiftly, have the flexibility to change with the needs of the market. Small companies; with brilliant people, who in their individual capacity are capable creating value, have been coming together constantly. There are several such firms that operate across the world today. The era of large companies having a wide array of capabilities is gone and specialists who are truly remarkable at the work that they do, who work in very narrow domains of knowledge are replacing them fast. These small organizations, network with similar entities, but with varied competencies, in order to achieve huge synergies.
In the end several such groups, each consiting of just a handful of people will come together to pose a major challenge to the large firms who are bulky and cannot adapt quickly enough to the changing business environment.
Microsoft was extremely competitive when it was small, slowly and steadily it went on absorbing one small company after the other and now finds itself in a position where it is not able to compete effectively in any of the domains where it exists. Its latest launches have all failed and so have its attempts to buy others. The case is similar with Wal-Mart, Ford, and numerous other companies that are large.
In the years to come, smaller and smaller companies will come together to achieve larger and larger goals. It will be important for the now large companies, to split themselves into smaller and managable companies, which are specialists at what they do. They will have to network with not only themselves but also with other specialists firms.
This may not be the death knell for the large firms, but it surely is a warning!
The bigger; the better.
Companies were able to easily hold onto 50% - 60% of the market and beat the competition with their superior marketing power. Those days are soon going to be passe. The future does not belong to the big but the small companies.
These guys are nimble, can move swiftly, have the flexibility to change with the needs of the market. Small companies; with brilliant people, who in their individual capacity are capable creating value, have been coming together constantly. There are several such firms that operate across the world today. The era of large companies having a wide array of capabilities is gone and specialists who are truly remarkable at the work that they do, who work in very narrow domains of knowledge are replacing them fast. These small organizations, network with similar entities, but with varied competencies, in order to achieve huge synergies.
In the end several such groups, each consiting of just a handful of people will come together to pose a major challenge to the large firms who are bulky and cannot adapt quickly enough to the changing business environment.
Microsoft was extremely competitive when it was small, slowly and steadily it went on absorbing one small company after the other and now finds itself in a position where it is not able to compete effectively in any of the domains where it exists. Its latest launches have all failed and so have its attempts to buy others. The case is similar with Wal-Mart, Ford, and numerous other companies that are large.
In the years to come, smaller and smaller companies will come together to achieve larger and larger goals. It will be important for the now large companies, to split themselves into smaller and managable companies, which are specialists at what they do. They will have to network with not only themselves but also with other specialists firms.
This may not be the death knell for the large firms, but it surely is a warning!
Sunday, August 3, 2008
What makes 'Apple' succeed
The question, 'Why Apple products are the benchmark that the industry keeps chasing?'; is one that many have tried to explain (I shall take my shot at it!). I think that there is just one thing that they do right and that is 'SEXING UP' their offering.
Now let us take the case of the iPod (since it is the most successful Apple product)...
The iPod is just a music/video player that can do a bunch of other things. Oh by the way, you cannot load music on it without iTunes and if you are on your friend's computer and the iTunes does not have all the songs that you have loaded onto your iPod already, it will pretty much delete everything on your iPod. Ok... moving on... It will not accept any video files other than mp4, so you have to convert all the videos prior to loading them onto the iPod. You also need to convert all audio files into mp3 files in order to load then onto the iPod. Oh, oh and it does not let you you take any song out of it either, just in case you wanted to transfer some songs onto your computer. All of these problems do not exist in any of the other mp3 players in the market but still they dont sell as much. So with all of these problems and shortcomings, how does a product zoom to become the hottest selling gadget in the world?
The secret behind Apple's success is rooted in the development of its products, in the same manner in which Warren Buffet invests.
According to Warren:
One must find a company that is undervalued or one where there is great potential to unlock value.
Once you have understood the company and have belief in the management, invest as much as possible in the company to ensure huge returns from the same
This is exactly the same policy that Apple pursues as far as its products are concerned. They introduced just one product called the iPod whose function was, simple and straight forward. They put all the technology and marketing effort behind that product. All their investment ran behind that one product and the concentrated effort resulted in their product being an instant success. The variants that were introduced later on were based on the needs that existed in the market and since that one single product, a brand and an aspiration for the same had been established; the variants (which were few) were easily established as well.
Even if we look at the iPhone...
They came out with just 2 models which differed primarily in terms of the storage capacity that they offered. They believed in the product that they had put together and they bundled all the features that they possibly could into that one product (making for a rich product offering) and provided all the might of their marketing to that one product, creating a huge buzz about the product despite all of its deficiencies (which they corrected in the 3G version).
The idea of diversification has been killing quite a few companies. The width of their product offering causes confusion in the minds of the consumer. Also, the offering made through their products as well as the marketing push is not focussed enough to cause the product to be a runaway success.
Does diversification always result in doom?
Now let us take the case of the iPod (since it is the most successful Apple product)...
The iPod is just a music/video player that can do a bunch of other things. Oh by the way, you cannot load music on it without iTunes and if you are on your friend's computer and the iTunes does not have all the songs that you have loaded onto your iPod already, it will pretty much delete everything on your iPod. Ok... moving on... It will not accept any video files other than mp4, so you have to convert all the videos prior to loading them onto the iPod. You also need to convert all audio files into mp3 files in order to load then onto the iPod. Oh, oh and it does not let you you take any song out of it either, just in case you wanted to transfer some songs onto your computer. All of these problems do not exist in any of the other mp3 players in the market but still they dont sell as much. So with all of these problems and shortcomings, how does a product zoom to become the hottest selling gadget in the world?
The secret behind Apple's success is rooted in the development of its products, in the same manner in which Warren Buffet invests.
According to Warren:
One must find a company that is undervalued or one where there is great potential to unlock value.
Once you have understood the company and have belief in the management, invest as much as possible in the company to ensure huge returns from the same
This is exactly the same policy that Apple pursues as far as its products are concerned. They introduced just one product called the iPod whose function was, simple and straight forward. They put all the technology and marketing effort behind that product. All their investment ran behind that one product and the concentrated effort resulted in their product being an instant success. The variants that were introduced later on were based on the needs that existed in the market and since that one single product, a brand and an aspiration for the same had been established; the variants (which were few) were easily established as well.
Even if we look at the iPhone...
They came out with just 2 models which differed primarily in terms of the storage capacity that they offered. They believed in the product that they had put together and they bundled all the features that they possibly could into that one product (making for a rich product offering) and provided all the might of their marketing to that one product, creating a huge buzz about the product despite all of its deficiencies (which they corrected in the 3G version).
The idea of diversification has been killing quite a few companies. The width of their product offering causes confusion in the minds of the consumer. Also, the offering made through their products as well as the marketing push is not focussed enough to cause the product to be a runaway success.
Does diversification always result in doom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)