MxMIndia

Category: BY INVITATION

  • The host plays mediator at times, completely at ease with himself and his guests, and never harangues. Gouri Dange is very taken with Mr Eye Candy's show

    Gouri Dange: Surprise! The non-Simipering talk show

    By Gouri Dange

     

    I quite like Love to Hate You (Star World 7pm). There, I’ve said it – I actually like something on Indian television. And no, it’s not only about the eye-candy host chap. His cuteness helps, but there’s more to it than just that. I find him a relaxed non-badgery host, almost old-world if I can use that expression, in the way he totally avoids the two syndromes that afflict most Indian TV hosts – which are: a) insufferable peacock preening, b) equally insufferable toadying-to-the- guest.

     

    In Love to Hate You (what’s with the ugly title lettering, though?), the host brings on a celebrity guest and an ordinary guest who dislikes the celebrity. The ordinary one gets a chance to speak his/her mind about why they don’t like the person’s work; and what really works about this is that they come up with pretty incisive, convincing and articulate stuff about the celeb that they don’t like. The other nice thing is that the celeb takes all this on board, and defends him/herself pretty ably. And yet, the makers of this show avoid the temptation of letting it all descend into a slanging match (a la TV debates) where the two participants circle each other with low growls, fangs exposed and hackles rising.

     

    The two people, and their host (the dishy one) actually talk, no one shouts, and the camera doesn’t subtly go into those ‘kill, kill, kill’ kind of angles used to cover wrestling matches. For the first time, I see people not interrupting each other, and actually looking interested in the other’s viewpoint, absorbing it, and then replying instead of rubbishing the point.

     

    The host plays mediator at times, completely at ease with himself and his guests, and never harangues. Mercifully, there is no Simipering, I mean simpering, and no Daah-ling-ing of anyone. If he knows the celeb guest well, the host makes that clear in a fairly matter-of-fact way, rather than using that as a chance to create an instant club of ‘us’ness. I like it!

     

    The format allows the ‘hater’ to first mouth-off at the ‘hatee’, without actually facing the hatee. And with very specific reasons (not just ‘your books suck’ or ‘your singing is awful’, but with examples of the suckiness or tunelessness.) The two are then put together, and the hatee manfully (personfully) sits through some of the criticism. Obviously the hatee too is either chosen for his/her maturity, and does not pout and say provocative or defensive stuff back. The hater is sometimes drawn into trying his/her hand at what the hatee does, and sportingly admits that it is hard work! And yet the whole thing doesn’t seem overly rigged in any direction.

     

    There should be a new genre-label coined for shows in which the celeb is put in the dock… it’s not just a talk show, it’s a ‘talk your way out of this’ kind of show, right?

     

    What is astounding about Love to Hate You, so far, is that one actually sees both guests backing down and shifting positions gracefully at times. The host is not invested in making anyone feel horrible, and has not developed cutting-off and putting-down or cosying-up into a fine art.

     

    (Contrast this with the ‘debates’ in which it’s usually Delhi Harpies versus Mumbai Sharpies, all conducted by Ms Hector or Mr Harangue, and you’ll know why I am so taken with this new show.)

     

    And Tears In The Kitchen

    On another note, did I say earlier that I find the combo of food and tears and runny noses on MasterChef (Indian and Oz) unpleasant? Well, that was tame stuff, apparently, now that MasterChef USA is here, with bleeped out words from judges, clanging of garbage pails in which not-good preparations are hurled, and many of the contestants probably back to bedwetting at nights. So now tears, snot and bladder malfunction too, in the kitchen… Please, spare me the drama and let me go next door and have a masala dosa.

     

    There is a new amusing sign that MasterChef is creating a whole new downstream market of buy-buy-buying Indian consumers: People who can’t cook or usually have someone cooking their meals, are suddenly re-doing their kitchens into replicas of the MasterChef sets. There’s wall-to-wall buff steel everywhere, six- and eight-burner stove tops, industrial-sized ovens, knives and choppers with which you can fell a buffalo. Words like claypot, tureen, coulis, hop, are being bandied about with eager-sophistication.

     

    I recently visited one such home, and sat watching a hapless chicken going round and round on a giant rotisserie, stubbornly refusing to get cooked. The host-cook, a man who can’t fry an egg, watched grimly on, while his wife wistfully fingered the take-away menu of the kabab-korner down the road. On my way home, I stopped at the bhurji cartwallah and had the best, made in minutes on a dented tava atop an old biscuit tin.

     

    Naming no Names is the mid-week column where novelist, columnist and counsellor Gouri Dange presents her tongue-in-cheek view of our world. The views expressed here are her own.

  • Ashraf Engineer has been there (journalism) and is now on the 'other side' (PR). Who better than to tell it like it is?

    [PR Channel] What journalists want: The 10 commandments for PR folks

    By Ashraf Engineer

     

    Whom do journalists love to hate? Public relations (PR) professionals probably wouldn’t top the list, but they’d come pretty close. The irony, of course, is that the journalist-PR executive relationship is deeply symbiotic – one can hardly do without the other.

     

    But before I say anything else, you should know that I empathize. I know journalists can’t wait to get you off their back – unless they need you. In which case, you need to respond, like, yesterday.

     

    How many times have you thought after an I-need-a-response-now ultimatum, ‘What do journalists really want?’

     

    Here are a few commandments. Live by these and, who knows, the rocky relationship might just get smoother.

     

    Thou shall be clear and concise

    Most journalists work to a deadline and don’t have the time for rambling, rah-rah press releases. Say what you have to without taking up too many words. You’re working to a deadline too, so this should work to your advantage. A well-written yet short press release has far more value than a tsunami of words that has at the core just one paragraph of usable information.

     

    Thou shall not promise what you can’t deliver

    Years ago, when I worked for one of Mumbai’s leading newspapers, Nobel-winning mathematician John Nash visited the city. The PR agency managing the visit promised us an exclusive interview, with other newspapers getting access to Nash only the next day. Turned out the agency promised every newspaper the same thing. Imagine our shock when we saw Nash’s interviews everywhere. My newspaper stopped dealing with the agency altogether. The CEO had to come over and apologize, but things were never the same again – we kept the agency at arm’s length and treated every communication from it with suspicion.

     

    Thou shall not peddle rubbish masquerading as news

    Journalists have had it with ‘news’ that isn’t really, well, news. And surveys that are little more than a few colleagues being asked their opinion. Good journalists are discerning; they won’t let something like that get through. The bad journalists, you should have no use for – they won’t last and will never be in a position to help you or your clients.

     

    Thou shall respect deadlines

    This might seem obvious, but you’d be surprised how often it is ignored. Nothing gets a journalist’s goat more than information/reactions not arriving on time. Your tardiness could slam the door shut on potential coverage. It could also destroy the goodwill that you and your firm might have with the newspaper concerned. Why risk it? Get it right.

     

    Thou shall make clients, facts available

    Journalists want people featured in the press release to be available, and also the facts and figures. There’s no point in pushing a story if its basic building blocks are out of reach. So, if your client has a new CEO, it’s not enough to just say it. The CEO must be on hand to articulate his vision and his plan. Unless you do that, a journalist would see no value attached to the story. Journalists aren’t carrier pigeons – they aren’t satisfied with only the information you give them. They may see a storyline you don’t, and would need support accordingly.

     

    Another sticking point is case studies. Wherever relevant, make sure you have good ones. Journalists love them because they make the story come alive. Make sure they support the larger story, make sure they’re well written.

     

    Thou shall know your target newspaper

    When I was working for a lifestyle newspaper, I was often flooded with press releases that weren’t relevant to me – from a new type of spark plug to a stent that made heart surgery cheaper.

    What were those PR executives thinking? We covered society events, fashion, cinema and television. Spark plugs? Really?

    Don’t carpet-bomb the media with releases. That’ll only result in a lot of dead trees and no stories to show for it. Read newspapers, know what they cover. Most good newspapers don’t simply run a press release; they use it to spark off an idea.

     

    Thou shall stay away from jargon

    Using jargon only creates an illusion that you know more than you actually do. And, like an illusion, it’ll shatter at the first challenge. Besides, it turns journalists off.

    So, the next time you’re tempted to say ‘ponzi scheme’, just say ‘a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors not from any actual profit, but from money paid by subsequent investors’.

     

    Thou shall address releases to the right people

    Have an UPDATED list of journalists and the newspapers they’re working for. My last job involved handling news specials for a leading daily. Yet, I was bombarded with companies’ financial results. On the irritation scale, it ranked only below being addressed as ‘Mrs Ashraf Engineer’ (and that happened too!).

    A newspaper I worked for even received releases for a journalist who had passed away!

    Send your releases to the right people, make sure you address them properly and – for God’s sake – make sure they’re alive. Otherwise, guess where they end up. It’s no wonder they say ‘delete’ is the journalist’s favourite key.

     

    Thou shall be well informed

    I’ve lost count of the number of times the PR professional at the other end of the line didn’t have even basic information about his/her client – size, location, turnover, etc. Apart from seriously harming your own and your agency’s reputation, it creates a poor impression about your client.

    Wait, weren’t you hired to do the exact opposite?

     

    Thou shall know this – a newspaper is not just a print product any more

    Every newspaper now has a website. The traditional press release format was developed over 100 years ago for print journalists. But they’ve changed. Most people get their news from the web first. This has sent tremors through newsrooms and altered them forever. In the process, the PR professional’s job has been altered too.

    Help the journalists do their jobs by providing graphics – and, where required, multimedia – that are relevant and on time.

    It doesn’t end there. Journalists might require quotes from experts and client executives. Your story may never see the light of day unless you travel this extra mile. So, help journalists help you.

     

    Ashraf Engineer is Head – Content at Hanmer MSL. After a 16-year career in journalism, he now heads the high-value content operation of the agency. He can be contacted at ashraf.engineer@hanmermsl.com.

  • Indians are rarely seen as part of the script in most sitcoms, romcoms, detective serials, and courtroom or medical dramas, grumbles Gouri Dange.

    Gouri Dange: Where’s the Indian guy?

    By Gouri Dange

     

    I have a question. The Indian diaspora in the US amounts to some… wait, let me Wiki it… ok, here it is: “According to the 2010 US Census, the Asian Indian population in the United States was 1,678,765 in 2000 and grew to 2,843,391 in 2010, a growth rate of 69.37 percent, the highest for any Asian American community, and among the fastest growing ethnic groups in the United States.” (Now ‘fastest growing’ meaning the existing ones are having babies all over the place, or more of our compatriots are joining the hordes there? My statistics-challenged mind is not able to figure that one out. But I digress.)

    The point that is noteworthy is that in spite of this sizable presence, Indians are rarely seen as part of the script in most sitcoms, romcoms, detective serials, and courtroom or hospital dramas. Now why is that?

    Before Indian readers instantly start getting all grumpy about this fact and talk about poor representation and discrimination and all of that, I think we Indians have a hand in this invisibility too. It’s because of the way most Indians are seen to live in the US. Indians by and large (and getting larger) stick to their own kind, work hard, and are not seen as people who hang around coffee shops named Central Perk or shoot baskets with colleagues or sit at the bar after a long day in the courtroom.

    The overall impression (partly right, partly wrong) is that they work long hours (take a look at ‘Asok’ from the Dilbert comic strip), scurry home or to an Indian restaurant or to a theatre showing a Bollywood movie or to an Indian wedding (synonymous with a Bollywood movie most times). This is why Indians perhaps simply do not form part of the script or landscape of American TV shows. And I rarely or never see an Indian name in the crew credits either.

    The only famous Indian who appeared once on Oprah pouted and neighed her way through the whole show in a hilariously wannabe accent, in a forgettable appearance some years ago. And of course she showed Oprah how to wear a sari. Now if that isn’t typecasting ourselves…

    As for fiction characters, there is Apu on The Simpsons. He is predictably the owner of a grocery store and has eight children. (Again, I’m not COMPLAINING here, I am just pointing out how we are perceived.) Hilariously, one scene particularly sticks in my mind: When everyone is making sand castles or other fun stuff on the beach, Apu is industriously making a replica of – what else – The Taj Mahal. And when someone knocks it down inadvertently, he takes great umbrage and cries out in bitter outrage: “You have desecrated our National Monument, you fat American!”

    Only recently has an Indian girl called Priya been worked into the Big Bang Theory (Z Café). But already we know that her mother would kill her if she knew she was seeing this boy.

    In the hospital comedy Scrubs (FX, Star World, Z Café) too, very few Indians are visible, though we know for sure that in real life, US hospitals are stacked high with Indian doctors. All you see in Scrubs, at the most, is a frightened looking sort of Indian-sub-continent intern as part of the backdrop. I also recently spotted what was supposed to be a Sikh doctor sitting with senior doctors Kelso and Perry on an episode of Scrubs, but he was wearing something like a maroon lacquer box with a thin border of tinsel on his head, which they were trying to pass off as a turban. Strange.

    The series Becker had the Ted Danson character in New York refer to an Indian only once – when he returns home and hears – what else – a blaring radio with a Hindi song, and shouts out down the stairwell: “hey Asian guy, turn it down, or I’ll call Immigration.”

    Friends has never had an Indian in it (someone correct me if I am wrong) in spite of the fact that it is set in New York, and none of the six friends could possibly live in that city without tripping over one of us Indians.

    Knowing the American propensity to be oh-so-fair-and-inclusive (the latest is the so very PC thing of saying Happy Holidays and not Merry Christmas, because in a racially mixed society someone may burst into tears for being included in a Christian greeting, apparently), I’m surprised that there aren’t more Indians on American TV and films, even as incidental characters. However, perhaps they steer clear of it all, given that they don’t really know the Indian in their midst at all.

    Naming no Names is the mid-week column where novelist, columnist and counsellor Gouri Dange presents her tongue-in-cheek view of our world.

  • Ajay Kakar, CMO – Financial Services, Aditya Birla Group on when the time's right for you to say ta ta to your agency

    The Anchor: 8 indications when you know it’s time to bid goodbye to your agency

    By Ajay Kakar

    These are the views of a person who has invested 15 years at the agency end. And for the last six years he has been at the client side.

     

    These are the views of a marketer who strongly believes that the role of an agency partner is invaluable to his success and the success of his brand.

     

    #1 When you have the frequent need to say all the best to exiting key members of the agency: A brand is built over years. Passion and consistency are two critical pillars in this journey. And if an agency loses/shifts your key team members frequently, that’s bad news.

     

    #2 When you have many people servicing your account but you do not remember the name of any: You do need mere hands and legs. To quote David Ogilvy, you need people who know more about the brand than even the client. People who leave an impression on you and make an impact on the brand. People you can’t afford to forget. Nothing less will do.

     

    # 3 When you have meetings only at times of a brief initiated by you: You need Brand Custodians and Brand Stewards. People who are thinking of your brand all the time. And not only when you have a felt need. Else you will always feel compromised.

     

    # 4 When your agency only discusses advertising or 30-seconders with you: In today’s world you need to surround and engage your fickle and distracted consumer at all times. And if your agency doesn’t help you with that they may be contributing to your losing your customer.

     

    # 5 When your agency does not meet you after a campaign to enquire about the results: A marketer does not need advertising. He needs advertising that sells. He is evaluated on results. If your agency is not helping you get there faster, cheaper or better, why will you value them?

     

    # 6 When your agency doesn’t ask for an annual hike with confidence and more so if your agency does not propose a performance-linked incentive plan: A true partnership must be a win-win for both parties. And if your agency is contributing to your success, why would they think twice before asking for your just rewards. Is it because they are not performing?

     

    # 7 When an agency doesn’t meet you at regular intervals to seek a structured

    feedback/evaluation: If your partner doesn’t have a road map with clearly defined milestones, there is a good chance that you are not headed in the right direction.

     

    # 8 When an agency does not aspire to win industry recognition/awards on your brand: In our business passion is everything. And if your partner is not excited to do pathbreaking work for your client work that gets noticed and talked about the brand is possibly not in safe hands.

     

    Ajay Kakar is CMO – Financial Services, Aditya Birla Group

     

  • Introducing a new weekly column reviewing the popular Bollywood film reviews in the media.

    New Column: Reviewing the Reviews by Deepa Gahlot

    Mere Brother Ki Dulhan

    Key Cast: Imran Khan, Katrina Kaif and Ali Zafar

    Written and Directed By: Ali Abbas Zafar

    Produced by: Aditya Chopra

     

     

    This Yash Raj Films production by first-time director Ali Abbas Zafar,got mixed reviews ranging from 1 to 4 stars,leaving readers foxed as usual.This is a common enough occurrence these days when reviewers are so afraid of a slamming when films they pan like Bodyguard go on to become blockbusters, that in trying to please popular tastes along with trying to express their own critical opinions, they often tip over to the side, that is, what the masses might like. The public, as always, is quite unpredictable.

     

    There were certain common points across reviews:

    a)The plot was stale

    b) Katrina Kaif saved the film with her  bindaas act

    c) Imran Khan is getting typecast as a wimp

    d) Ali Zafar (the Brother of the title) can’t act

     

    Hardly anyone noted the similarity to Hollywood film Dan In Real Life.

     

     

    Our take:

    Romcoms everywhere are pretty clich’d anyway,so this one’s not a complete dud. You get what you expect,which is not much.

     

    Irritatingly, Katrina Kaif plays a half-way rebel,who is done with her smoking-drinking (no sex) ways and now wants to settle for an arranged marriage. Imran Khan and Ali Zafar play hopeless Mamma’s boys, who can’t stand up for themselves.

     

     

    The Reviews:

    Mayank Shekhar of Hindustan Times gave it 1-1/2 stars, with a headline stating Mere Brother Ki Dull One. He wasn’t too impressed with the Katrina Kaif character, writing, Katrina Kaif plays the said rock chick. It’s hard to tell if her character’s restlessly rebellious, or plainly retarded.

     

    The Dull word appears in Sudhish Kamath’s review in The Hindu, with a headline: Katrina puts the dull in Dulhan. While pointing out, And for a romance film, it makes you fall out of love with Katrina. Ouch!

     

    Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express quite rightly says in her headline: We’ve seen this Shaadi before.This is a Yashraj rom com where funny-smart lines are a substitute for good old passion. Don’t go looking for any. Don’t go looking for any subtle notes, either. There aren’t any. Quite true Shubhra nails it there; plus she finds Katrina exhausting.

     

    Just 3 stars from the usually generous Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India.It is the verve factor which works admirably for the film which doesn’t have much to boast about in the story department. The film tries to remain high spirited throughout, both in terms of the narrative and the performances and mostly succeeds in keeping the smiles coming, she writes, and concludes that it is pleasant weekend viewing.

     

    Pratim D Gupta of The Telegraph was one of the kinder ones, noting the freshness of the Katrina-Imran pairing.Imran and Katrina make sure you sit in that plex chair, eyes wide open with a smile fixated on your face, and just let them happen to you. A bit treacly, that, but then that’s probably the response of teens flocking to the cinemas to giggle at Katrina’s antics.

     

    Rediff.com’s Sukanya Varma recommended the film to Katrina fans and gave it 2-1/2 stars. All three look younger than they are and bear an incredibly fresh, genuine and genteel disposition. First-time filmmaker Ali Abbas Zafar avails of these qualities to fashion a feel-good, melodrama-free, candy floss rom-com about two brothers and a mutual love interest.

     

    Aniruddha Guha of DNA is probably the only one who likes Ali Zafar, but gives YRF a drubbing. Every year, YRF launches a director or two, who then make the same films other directors were already making for the banner. There’s not a shred of originality, not even an attempt to rise over the mindlessness; just a set pattern that is replicated to the T, even though it’s met with little success time and again. His one star is the lowest the film gets.

     

    And finally, the four-star extreme from Taran Adarsh of Bollywoodhungama.com. According to him, there’s nothing wrong with the film. It is a delectably wholesome, heartening, feel-good entertainer. Not just a comedy, but also a tender, bittersweet saga, this rom-com is sure to melt your heart, then restore it anew all over again. Yet another winner from Yash Raj! It seems he was watching a different film from the rest of the world.

     

    Deepa Gahlot is a National Award-winning film reviewer and a veteran writer and commentator on the arts. She currently heads programming for Theatre and Film at the National Centre for the Performing Arts, Mumbai

  • It's not the job of the TRAI to keep broadcasters happy at all times. Occasionally it should be looked at from the consumer point of view, which is clearly the case here

    Peter Mukerjea: Thank you, TRAI (Now, please enforce it!)

    By Peter Mukerjea

     

    News today that TRAI have finally put a cap on advertising time per hour for TV channels is a most welcome move in my opinion. I’m sure all broadcasters, other than the savvy ones, will see this as a backward and a retrograde step because it means that they will start to feel the pressure initially, but I can assure them that this is not so, and the effect will be exactly the opposite on their adverting sales revenue line of their P&L sheets.

     

    First, it’s a simple case of supply and demand economics. Shrink supply and prices should go up. We see that with every product category, be it food, petrol, deisel, cooking gas, etc etc and TV airtime is no different. This will clearly help broadcasters shore up their revenue lines once they’ve managed to get media buyers and clients to understand this logic. That’s not going to be easy, but whoever said that selling TV airtime was a piece of cake.

     

    Ad sales executives in the numerous stations will now, finally, have to earn their keep, rather than simply earning good money and even better bonuses, simply by pushing in more ads into the breaks of movies, sports coverage and news channels. Programmers will need to work harder to get better deals from content suppliers and movie producers alike, instead of paying grossly inflated prices for movie titles and then having to recover the cost by stuffing the movies with ads, such that the viewer experience is diluted to the point of nonchalance. Of course, broadcasters will be up in arms with this directive from the TRAI and will kick and scream and throw their toys out of the crib like all babies do when they don’t get what they want. It’s not the job of the TRAI to keep broadcasters happy at all times. Occasionally it should be looked at from the consumer point of view, which is clearly the case here. So, thank you TRAI.

     

    Second, consumer groups that have had to put up with the barrage of advertising breaks in their TV viewing experience, for years on end, should be feeling relieved that finally the regulator has paid some heed to their woes of getting blasted with increased decibel levels in ad breaks, getting masses of drop downs  during live sports coverage and getting news channel tickers carrying branding of all kinds within it, masquerading as news headlines. Enough is enough and this was all done under the banner of self regulation!  In fact, the shoe should be on the other foot now and TRAI should consider setting up a consumer group forum who should be tasked with monitoring the violations to the new standards, as laid out by the TRAI and report these to the TRAI for further action and enforcement. So, thank you TRAI for improving the viewing experience of millions of long suffering TV viewers across the country.

     

    Sure, there will be several broadcasters who will now be unable to keep carrying more and more ads to secure their bottom line, who will suffer and will be pained by this statute and may well go to the wall and eventually go out of business, but sadly that is the reality of life. Those channels owned by big groups will not suffer at all as they will be able to withstand the initial blips and will come through this just fine. They will then also be at the forefront of the list of beneficiaries in a few months from now, but the smaller ones who do not have the deep pockets to sustain this correction must recognise that this party was not going to last forever.

     

    They should have read the rule book before they started. If they didn’t then it’s entirely their fault , for the ad time cap has been around for a long time and would have known full well that this free for all amount of air time inventory status quo was going to come to an end one day. That day has come. Far too many broadcasters have started up recently on the basis of a never ending supply of airtime being the way to earning revenues. They then produce below average content which then gets below average ratings and that advertisers pay virtually nothing for. This brings the whole industry down by several notches and attracts below average talent who do the same thing day after day thus creating a downward spiral. Thank you TRAI for improving standards in the industry.

     

    There is, in case you hadn’t spotted it yet, however a bright future for the industry. The fact is that with an improving revenue line for broadcasters, there will be a growth in corporate valuations over time which will enable them to deliver better shareholder value and see more investments coming towards the category. For sometime now broadcast media companies have been struggling to get their valuations up and have seen so much of their values eroded. This directive from the TRAI will go a long way in correcting that and so for that I thank TRAI once again. So instead of being a bunch of sour pussies, broadcasters should stop whining and get on with the task of putting their businesses back on track and tasking the ad sales teams to get cracking and reforecast their revenues budgets upwards for the rest of this year (or else they should get no bonuses this year , on the basis that they have less air time time to sell).

     

    Excellent times ahead – thanks to TRAI.

     

  • As long as all four kinds of news organizations are allowed to exist and flourish – and are subjected to firm and fair regulation and oversight – the news media in India will remain strong and vibrant.

    Comment: Jehangir Pocha on Media’s new Moguls

    By Invitation

     

    By Jehangir S Pocha

     

    Among all the transformations taking place in media, here’s the crucial one – the media baron is being replaced by the media conglomerate.

     

    Corporations are buying news properties once owned by individual proprietors at a rapid pace. Expectedly, media mavens and professionals are crowding conferences to express their angst: Are these oligarchs becoming media’s new moguls only to protect their empires and project their interests? Will they interfere every time a story is done on their favourite babu, minister or party?

     

    But this holier-than-thou approach that automatically assumes a media baron is better for journalism than a media conglomerate is as reactionary as it is wrong.

     

    A corporation owning a news property can be expected to slant or kill a story inimical to its core interests.  But those are few and far between.

     

    After all, how many core interests can a corporation have? On the other hand, many media barons have been notoriously whimsical, politicized, opinioned and ideological, slanting almost every story almost every day, and killing (or overlooking or underplaying) almost every story out of sync with their ideology, views or interests.

     

    In all democracies, the most slanted and ideological journalism has always been driven by media barons, from William Randolph Hearst, to Ramnath Goenka, Thaksin Shinawatra, Rupert Murdoch, Silvio Berlusconi, Michael Bloomberg and others.

     

    Their news properties have openly, sometimes shamelessly, displayed their biases.  Compare Murdoch’s Fox News with its corporate-owned competitors, NBC News (owned by General Electric), CBS (owned by Westinghouse), ABC (owned by Disney) and CNN (owned briefly by AOL). Which is most slanted? Which is most protective of vested interests? Which would any unbiased media professional rather work for?

     

    Yes, a media corporation might protect its pet politicians and restrain its news properties from covering its other businesses fairly. But many media barons do the same. Some appear to have more pet politicians than any corporation. In fact, often the “other business” of media barons is politics (consider Berlusconi, Thaksin, and Bloomberg).

     

    When it comes to coverage of oneself, it is India’s media barons who have constructed the self-serving maxim that “media mustn’t cover media”, leaving them free of all public scrutiny. That’s what’s allowed some of these tycoons to injure Indian media and dupe their viewer/reader by introducing poisonous practices like “paid news” and “private treaties”.

     

    It is highly unlikely that any media conglomerate would allow such practices precisely because of the fear of public scrutiny that publicly-listed and/or publicly known corporations naturally have. Companies run by professionals and overseen by a board of directors that includes independents and representatives from government-owned institutions are generally forced to put in place the systems and standards needed to run a business right.  Media barons exempt from oversight rarely do so.  This is why Murdoch’s newspapers spy on people and others don’t.

     

    This doesn’t mean concerns over how corporations will manage their new media enterprises can be ignored.

     

    As Indian media comes of age it must codify its journalistic standards and rigorously implement them through an independent body akin to Britain’s Media Standards Trust. Such a body should give India’s journalists protections, such as the legal right not to disclose a source, and freedom from prior restraint (attempts to prevent publishing/airing of an opinion/idea/story before it is published/aired).

     

    Every news organization must also be required to have an independent Ombudsman charged with ensuring fair and balanced coverage.  At the same time, this Ombudsman and/or the standards authority should also ensure journalists and news outfits respect the rights and reputations of others (anti-defamation), separate news from views, eschew ‘paid news’ and private treaties, protect national security, public order, and public health, and prevent incitement to hostility, violence or discrimination.

     

    Stringent regulations that prevent any monopolistic control of news are also essential to any democracy. To some extent, digital technologies and social media already ensure this. A smart line on Twitter or great video on YouTube can become more influential than an op-ed in the Times of India. But the government must still work to ensure there are enough voices in the media and that no one voice dominates the national discourse.

     

    Corporations enter (and sometimes dominate) the media business because it is highly capital-intensive. So, one effective way to maintain a plurality of views in news is to keep entry barriers and operating costs in the business low. For example, existing distortions in media policy, such as exorbitant “carriage fees” that benefit the well-heeled and hurt small news operations must be ended. Banks must be encouraged to lend to smaller media companies, capital requirements in the industry should be eased and more journalism schools built to develop a larger talent pool. Building stronger news-related services, like more text and video wire services, freelancer organizations, and shared news infrastructure, would also help newer and smaller players. Lastly, the government must pass laws to separate carriage from content, and control media cross-holdings.

     

    Ultimately, every kind of media owner – the government, individual, the public trust and the corporation – comes with pros and cons. India knows well the short-comings of the first three.  We will now discover the dangers of the fourth.  But as long as all four kinds of news organizations are allowed to exist and flourish – and are subjected to firm and fair regulation and oversight – the news media in India will remain strong and vibrant.

     

    Jehangir Pocha is CEO, INX News.

    The views expressed here are the writer’s and not necessarily those of MxMIndia.

     

  • In Media Mullings, Peter Mukerjea envisages a scenario that will enable the media industry in India to reshape and reinvent and become truly 'world class'.

    Peter Mukerjea: Dream On… after all we’re in March 2012!

    By Peter Mukerjea

     

    So, if I were the next Minister of Information & Broadcasting for the Government (which is about as likely to happen as a month of Sundays) here are the 7 things I would want to do in my first 7 days of taking on the job. Sorry Ambikaji, this, of course, is not to say that you’re not doing a fine job, which you are – but like my school report card said term after term, ‘Could do better’.

     

    1. I’d start with issuing a mandate to privatize Doordarshan asap and thus enable the public to buy shares in the new entity and operate it like a proper commercial organisation and remove all Government control over it. I’d call a Nandan Nilekani, Deepak Parekh kind of person and get him to take on the project of getting this done in no more than a year. He could in turn invite the world’s best financial gurus and merchant bankers to have them pitch for the job. Then to appoint a proper CEO and a management team to develop a growth plan for the business which would include online, social media, cable distribution and task them with getting on with that in the following 12 months. They would report to a Board and be accountable to them and the shareholders.

     

    Benefit: The taxpayer would not need to fund DD any longer and its independence would be ensured. Profitability would emerge which would enable DD to become the largest media company in India and compete with the likes of STAR , ZEE or any of the international companies like the BBC or CBS or SKY or FOX. It would then attract the world’s best talent and be seen as a jewel in the crown for India. The company would bring about an amalgamation of all media activities under one roof and take its place in the list of leading companies of the world. If the Oberois can do that with their hotels, there’s no reason why that cannot happen with DD.

     

    2. I’d create an OFCOM (the regulator in the UK) like organization who would be responsible to the Minister for all the regulatory issues and they would have the power to prosecute and de list broadcasters if they didn’t follow the letter (and spirit) of the law. This would be run by socially responsible individuals with distinction and standing in the community.

     

    Benefit: This would in turn, enable the various media organizations in the country to be mindful of their social and legal responsibilities and not abuse the same. OFCOM would also be required to ensure that the people that run these various media companies are categorized as ‘fit and proper persons’ to do so. Managing media will then not be the direct responsibility of the Minister who could then take an unbiased view on issues if they were ever escalated to the Minister.

     

    3. I’d call TAM and get them to install an overnight rating measurement system and give them one year to do that. No more. Meanwhile, to expand the current system to include rural markets across India and to do this in 6 months. If they were not able to commit to getting this done I would invite other Research and Technology companies from India and the world over to replace TAM.

     

    Benefit: We would move industry to the 21st century and be similar to other developed markets where overnight ratings are the norm. This will help broadcasters , content producers and advertisers alike and will also be a reflection of the consumer. The expansion of the measurement universe would benefit the country as whole and content providers and advertisers would then pay more attention to the needs of the rural consumer and this will help the current imbalance between the urban and rural.

     

    4. All news channels in the country, both Indian and foreign would be required to present their credentials via a barometer of measurement which is based on quality, integrity and depth of journalism rather than GRP’s (ratings) alone. This would apply to all forms of news – be it entertainment, sports, business, current affairs, social etc.

     

    Benefit: The consumer would benefit by being presented with news reporting which is responsible and credible but not driven solely by sensational and scandal. Maybe there will be a news channel from India that will emerge to compete with the BBC or CNN in international markets. Here again, if Infosys can be world class, there’s no reason why a news channel from India cannot be world class.

     

    5. I would remove all financial barriers immediately to foreign participation in all media and would therefore allow 100 percent FDI in media and media related technology businesses. However, those owning and running these media and technology companies must be Indian nationals as is the law in the US.

     

    Benefit: This will attract the world’s largest companies to participate in the growth of Indian media and speed up digitization and internet connectivity in the process. This would provide a base for on line connectivity for all, across the length and breadth of the country from the smallest of villages to the largest of cities which would in turn accelerate communication and exchange of information for all Indians everywhere.

     

    6. I would remove all price control mechanisms instantly for the pricing of cable TV & internet connectivity provided by cable operators, MSO’s, DTH and other service providers as this would urge them to provide their services at prices that are market driven and competitive. None of these services are ‘essential commodities’ and therefore should not come under the purview of price control. However, each such service provider would be required to provide channels from each available genre, in proportion to the viewership they attract e.g. GEC channels – say 25 percent, News say 5 percent, Sport – say 10 percent, Natural History – say 5 percent, Music – say 5 percent, languages – 50 percent and so on.

     

    Benefit: The consumer would benefit the most as services would be provided at commercially viable rates and the quality of service would undoubtedly be enhanced as the various service providers would compete to retain and grow their consumer base for their custom, by improving service levels and quality. The Government should have no role in pricing media and entertainment services.

     

    7. All private FM radio stations would be free to broadcast news and current affairs, weather, traffic info, business news, for as long as they feel is commercially viable. Private FM radio stations would also be free to broadcast any genres that they choose to and the license fee for each genre would be adjusted (by OFCOM) according to the value of the genre – ie talk radio, sport phone in, 24-hour news & current affairs, Bollywood music, Indian classical music, education, health, western pop music, western classical etc etc.

     

    Benefit: Consumers across the country would then receive news on their FM radio stations and be informed rather than exist in the dark as they are currently. If we believe that the right to information is a democratic right for all , then we must live upto that ideal and enable private FM radio stations to provide a news service to their listeners 24 x 7.

     

    I doubt that any of these will see the light of day in the near future but I do hope that decision-makers in India will move quickly to turn all of these into reality as they will help the media industry in India to reshape and reinvent and become truly ‘world class’. Or else we can dream on!

     

  • Sitting on the fence and watching these media moguls do a self-destructing act is motivating for those who don't take life too seriously and recognize that being born with a silver spoon is as much a curse as a blessing.

    Peter Mukerjea: Murdochgate update

    By Peter Mukerjea

     

    As I write this, it’s Sunday 1st April. It’s April Fool’s day and I thought it was an appropriate day to remind myself that one should not take life in media too seriously at all even though each one of us secretly believes that we matter. If that is so, you live in a fool’s paradise as that’s simply not true. It’s almost a case of ‘Mirror Mirror on the wall – who’s the…. of them all? ‘And that doesn’t just apply to Snow White.

     

    Do you believe that James looks himself in the mirror when he wakes up and asks himself that question?

     

    I doubt that somehow. For if he did he would know that he is now toast. Certainly toast when it comes to running his dad’s empire, towards which he was sailing comfortably just over a year ago.

     

    It’s been a while now, almost a year actually, since I suggested that James should step down. I guess he hasn’t yet done so from all his positions but almost 50 percent of them. But it’s not over yet. And it took him longer than I thought it would, but he did. At least from numerous boards in the UK that enjoyed his presence and executive prowess. The decision with regard to the ‘fit and proper’ test is yet to be taken by the regulator in the UK and in due course we’ll find out what their verdict is. The news which broke last week about the hacking of pay-TV codes will not bode well in their decision-making process even though James probably had nothing to do with it even though he was on the board of the company that claims that the allegations are ‘baseless accusations’. Oddly enough, the very same words used by the company last year when the phone hacking story broke. Since then much water has flowed under the bridge (of sighs) and as we now know, those accusations were never really baseless.

     

    From what I hear, shareholders in the company are gathering ammunition and momentum to get James off the other boards too but Rupert seems to be paying them huge dividends to keep them from pushing him to pull the plug on James. How long will that continue? Another six months or a year perhaps? But James cannot be in the consideration set for the top job at the corporation. And I think that’s the right decision anyway. He’s simply not there yet. And Chase – he is by far a more charismatic, knowledgeable and seasoned executive and what he knows on the tip of his little finger is more than the man in the sharp suit with a strange accent and super polite manners that make you feel a touch weird. So why is he still there? Perhaps, because, where else will he go?

     

    In India, where the presence of the Murdochs used to be regarded with the aplomb normally granted to that of a state visit, they now keep their head down and have their executives come to them rather than the ‘let’s visit the troops’ approach because reputations have eroded and some of the earlier public interest litigations may rear their heads once again.

     

    The fact that there’s trouble in the UK across several fronts is now a well logged fact and getting James to the US may do some damage control but can’t stop the avalanche completely. There’s potential trouble in the US, with the possibility of there being an investigation into the companies’ overseas corrupt practices. There’s a possibility of an investigation in Australia. In China there was trouble a few years ago and the company contracted quite heavily when the companies’ offices were raided and executives were shipped out. So far they’ve been safe in India. So, an earlier suggestion of mine in this column that James should consider setting up base in India now must make more sense to him although his presence in India would be regarded as a predatory move, of course, which will raise the shackles of all competitors. But that’s not a bad thing for the corporation and indeed for the man himself to use this an opportunity to reinvent himself.

     

    What finally happens will be known to all of us as time goes by but the there is a lighter side to all this. There’s the case of the horse that Cameron borrowed from Rebekkah (seeing as they have a home next to each other in the British countryside) and her hubby’s (who is Cameron’s school chum) laptop, that was found (and is still in the custody by the British police), in a bin in their garage that was ‘accidentally’ put there ! And then there’s the story of the German lingerie company that ran a series of ads in a campaign (last July) where they used James and his dad to full effect. They’re called Blush and if you were to Google – how to make Rupert Blush – you can see the ads for yourself.

     

    Wonder how far we are from a similar ad campaign like this in India. Piyush, Prasoon, Balki et al, are you listening?

     

    Sitting on the fence and watching these media moguls do a self-destructing act is motivating for those who don’t take life too seriously and recognize that being born with a silver spoon is as much a curse as a blessing. This entire episode to me is reminiscent of the late Robert Maxwell who was the owner of the Mirror Group of newspapers in the UK and who had a rather sad end. There were plenty of stories about Robert Maxwell but the one where he met two of his bankers on the rooftop of his building on Fleet Street and plied them with oodles of champagne is particularly noteworthy. After several glasses of champagne one of the bankers asked if he could go down to the loo for a pee but Robert Maxwell said that the best way was to pee from the edge of the building down on the street. Both Robert Maxwell and the banker then stood at the edge of the building and peed. When the banker asked “Will no one notice down there?” he was told by Maxwell “No – no one notices anything.”

     

    I’m sure there are a few more revelations yet to come and we’ve not seen or heard the end of this saga, but maybe by next year’s Fool’s day we’ll have had enough and will be truly sick of the goings-on, unless the new ones are so juicy and closer to home that they make us all sit up and ask for more. By the way – there’s a movie doing the rounds presently called The Hunger Games and it’s all about reality television and the extent to which broadcast companies will go to get ratings, and how it can be manipulated. If you haven’t seen it – you should. Particularly if you’re in the business of buying ratings or selling them. Never mind the content, it’s all about the ratings. More on that next week.

     

  • In Media Mullings, Peter Mukerjea on why James Murdoch must move to India

    Peter Mukerjea: Rupert & Son

    By Peter Mukerjea

     

    So, it’s finally happened that James, or JRM as he is known within the company, has stepped down. I’d said that he should (see Firstpost.com article) and for whatever it’s worth, I’m glad that he has.

     

    Enough has been written and no doubt more will be written about the rights and wrongs of the people involved in the entire phone hacking case and we will never know who will finally go to jail for the crimes that are alleged to have been committed.

     

    But that would be looking back and surely it’s much more fun looking forward and trying to gauge what’s about to happen next. If Rupert is true to his word, JRM will now be spending more time on international operations and on the TV business at large . Now that leads me to suggest that he should for Newscorp’s sake spend at least 75% of his time in India looking at new business opportunities that exist in the country. STAR experienced it’s highest ever growth in it’s business under JRM’s watch when he was the CEO in Asia. That’s not a coincidence, I can assure you. Conversely, STAR experienced it’s lowest growth when JRM left the Asia region and handed it over to pixies in Hong Kong who had no clue about India. For example, the lady who was given the baton by JRM had never visited India ever in her life. Strange decision, it has to be said.

     

    JRM, on the other hand, was a respected executive and was seen as a path-breaking scion of his father. And the fact that not everyone loved him was simply par for the course and to be expected. He was effective in reshaping STAR’s fortunes and turning a loss making company into a profitable one.

     

    Incidentally I continue to believe that none of the new channels that popped up in 2007/8 would have happened if Rupert had not taken his eye off Asia but he moved JRM to London to run SKY and with that opened up the gates for newcomers. Some channels failed to make the grade – 9X & Imagine for example, and others did well – Colors & 9XM for instance, but none of these should ever have been allowed to get started given the complete dominance that STAR had on the market. And all the people that went to run these channels, including myself , were almost all from STAR.

     

    Since then STAR has held up well, although after a wobbly start. Credit for which should be given wholly to JRM for giving autonomy to the current leadership in managing their business and most importantly cutting them loose from the Hong Kong intermediary, which was rightly cut to size.

     

    JRM’s big opportunity is now to push ahead with developing a range of new TV and other media products for the India market and enable it to grow speedily to create a very clear leadership position with plenty of blue sky space between the No1 and the rest. And only he can make that happen by physically being there and making the big decisions which would otherwise be lost in power point presentations between numerous layers of management.

     

    This would in turn spur ZEE and Sony and MTV and the rest to do the same and compete with each other and with the pace that STAR would have set for them. This will then collectively turbo-charge and accelerate the industry as a whole and taking full advantage of the economic growth that the country is experiencing. The next 10 years for the media business in India will be huge and despite the slowdown in the global economy the pace of growth will be better than almost anywhere else in the world.

     

    JRM once said “let’s make the best use of a crisis” or words to that effect and I think this is a crisis that has presented itself for just that opportunity. He has moved to New York from London but may be he should have a home in Mumbai too and really shake up the market. There’s tons to do with a very exciting future for a 40-year-old – like JRM, which regular or even above average executives will simply not be able to take full advantage of. They can at best take limited risk, if at all – but JRM can and he should.

     

    Will he or won’t he? Or will he slip in and out of the country quietly, once very few months and leave the big opportunity to the pixies once again? If he ends up doing that he will have missed a great opportunity to grow the business and also to get himself back up and be recognised as being one of the best TV executives in the world. After all, he is the son of Rupert.

     

    Although it started as a fortnightly column, Peter Mukerjea’s Media Mullings will now appear regularly on MxMIndia, but with no definite frequency.

     

  • Let's not forget that it's the profits of today's so called BadCo that were used to acquire, build and grow the television businesses in the first place, which are now seen as today's GoodCo

    Peter Mukerjea: GoodCo, BadCo & NewCo

    By Peter Mukerjea

     

    So it has finally happened. The break up of a mega corp. And it’s happening before our very eyes, and like global warming, it’s a sign of the times. In years to come, students at media schools in India and elsewhere in the world will be reading how the media landscape evolved and how new media slowly, but surely, took it’s place in society. The demise of print and eventually, television, along with the numerous obituaries on the subject will all be in the history books eventually. How media moguls like Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch were literally pushed off their lofty perches and new names and faces like Mark and Sergei took their places will all be a chapter or two in reference books. The erosion of the powerful dominance of print media brands will be replaced by brand names like Google, Facebook, Instagram. This period in social history will be seen by students of media studies as part of a process of evolution and not much more.

     

    But for those of us who are seeing this unfold, it’s indeed an interesting and captivating phase.

     

    Speaking to friends and ex-colleagues in New York, LA and in London recently, it seems many of them are seeing this as the transitioning of one company which comprises of both GoodCo and BadCo to several NewCos. Many of them are also now wondering how many more NewCos will emerge from this, and how soon, but more importantly for them, who will run them. The share price of the company stock has always been a subject of conversation amongst those fortunate enough to get share options, and the fact that it has been static or of negative value for long periods of time has been a source of annoyance. But the fact that this announcement has caused a flutter of activity and raised the share price is seen by many to be a good thing for them personally, so they can now actually make some use of the stock options and realise some value. Most also believe that this value will increase more dramatically when the family gives up control but that could be like waiting for Godot.

     

    Let’s not forget that it’s the profits of today’s so called BadCo that  were used to acquire, build and grow the television businesses in the first place, which are now seen as today’s GoodCo. Like God made little green apples, surely there will come a day, very soon, given that the seed of thought has been planted, when these very television businesses at GoodCo will also be spun off into individual entities, driven by the same principles that are the cause for the split today – providing better shareholder value and value creation. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles.

     

    The company which is the largest revenue driver within GoodCo could well find a viable financial spreadsheet reason and which showcases a scenario where better shareholder value could be created if certain parts of their GoodCo were then hacked off and cut away into separate entities as they were losing money or were no longer beneficial to their shareholders.

     

    I do think that the possibility that billions of dollars of further investments into the UK and Europe being stopped and being diverted to the US is more of a veiled threat than reality, but the possibility that the Euro Zone and their currency itself may not survive for too long, will have financial planners everywhere crunching their numbers and hedging their bets in all sorts of different currencies, anyway. So for Rupert Murdoch to say this so plainly in a recent CNBC interview is not altogether surprising but is reminiscent of childhood cricket games, where if one could not get to bat then, they would pick stumps, bat and ball and go home so no one else could play either. Maybe some of those billions will head to India or Afghanistan or Pakistan, where there’s plenty of low hanging media fruit and bargains to be had for those with pockets of cash.

     

    In India though, the trend compared to the UK seems to be the reverse and where each of the various media segments – print, television, cable, radio, outdoor and new media are all growing – albeit in an unregulated and pressure cooker kind of environment. This has to be great news for those working in the industry, and the business case for setting up several GoodCo, BadCo and NewCos would be different but the ethos and principles would of course be the same.

     

    Maybe it’s time for the head of an Indian conglomerate to sail across to meet the boss of the media company that is now busy setting up GoodCo, BadCo, NewCo and  ‘make him an offer that he can’t refuse’ as they say in Mario Puzo’s The Godfather. Not that this is in any way connected to the words used by British MPs in the select committee set up to investigate the hacking scandal in the UK – when asking James Murdoch if he ever felt that he was running a mafia company or words to that effect? James Murdoch was, of course, most offended by that question and as expected, he refuted it completely.

     

    Nevertheless, maybe it’s time for an Indian company to do what Rupert did some decades ago when he moved out of Australia and bought papers in the UK, thus  creating a global media company. For an Indian company now to own a few internationally acclaimed newspaper titles around the world, then cut losses by injecting Indian cost control systems and management into them would create real shareholder value – rather like the brilliant way in which Tatas have done with the Tata Motors acquisition of Jaguar Land Rover which was a real BadCo and is now a true GoodCo.

     

    Maybe this is where the NewCo will come in.

     

  • In other words, they applied a terrific amount of strategic thinking into each and every sport and took a very business performance management approach to everything

    Peter Mukerjea: 2012 Olympic Games – The philosophy of marginal gains!

    By Peter Mukerjea

     

    So now that the 2012 Olympic Games are over, I felt a sense of withdrawal for a day or so. I had got so used to watching hours of fabulous TV coverage across 24 channels – some in HD, of virtually all the events from different venues across the City ofLondonand further afield – sailing and rowing. I wasn’t one bit disappointed though, at not having been to the Games to see anything LIVE, only because the TV broadcast was of such a high standard, that making the effort to steer through the traffic to get there, shuffle with seating, break for snacks or lunch or tea or a pee break, that watching several events at the same time on TV was simply unbeatable, as an option.

     

    But, I did start wondering what it is that the recent 2012 Olympics did for me, in context to India Inc. and what I learnt from the Games themselves. The Games were terrific, as an event of course, the opening ceremony, the athletes, the management, et al, but how did Team GB do so well and so much better than the Beijing Games, just 4 years ago. What was their secret and how did they go about it? I asked a few people who are in the know of these things and the answers I got were astounding, although not surprising. There was also some timely in-depth research done by the IES (Institute for Employment Studies ) which will give us some insight on this.

     

    What stuck out for me was the “The concept of marginal gains”. This simple philosophy has made a big difference to the end result – the medal tally and put Team GB in 3rd place. This was a real surprise for me but not so when I probed a little to find out more.  Each sport had a performance director who had set a very clear goal for the team and at every stage of activity, the same question was asked – over and over again  – “is this going to make us better?”

     

    Be it rowing, sailing, running, jumping, shooting, boxing, whatever. They set a goal and then went about deconstructing the goals to see what needed to be done and how could something new make a slight marginal difference to the performance – a marginal gain each time. Not to make gains in leaps and bounds, but to do this on a step by step basis. And then to collectively achieve a better result each time.

     

    They would do multi-planner activity and had a meritocratic approach to everything – training, teamwork, funding, performance management, but they were also open to criticism. They were self critical at all times, got rid of flabbier organisations as compared to the earlier Games and better understood the concept of loss aversion. In other words, they applied a terrific amount of strategic thinking into each and every sport and took a very business performance management approach to everything. The support and funding that each sport got from Government was also based largely, if not entirely, on results achieved.

     

    None of this is earth shattering in itself perhaps, but the revelation gets more interesting when we see the ‘how’ and ‘why’.

     

    Based on interviews and focus groups with 154 team members, the research goes on to flag coaching and mentoring as key ingredients for a happy and successful team. It shows the team managers are not afraid of change and help create an atmosphere for innovation rather than wallowing in a blame culture. It also outlines 6 areas to avoid for anyone aspiring to engage their team.

     

    1. Never hope it will go away.

    2. Never have a bad day.

    3. Don’t be part of the problem.

    4. Don’t encourage discord and don’t play games to keep people on their toes or enhance competitiveness.

    5. Don’t manage performance before people

    6. Don’t hide, even if you are naturally shy and retiring.

     

    Great team spirit doesn’t happen by chance. The best leaders ensure their behaviour sets the standards for their staff.  The man behindBritain’s cycling success, Dave Brailsford, insists that it’s the little things that make a difference. Hence the likes of Chris Hoy and Victoria Pendleton taking their own pillows to meets, so they sleep better and making sure they clean gaps between their fingers to reduce probability of illness.

     

    Marginally obsessive perhaps, but dedication to success is infectious, particularly when it so clearly gets results. It’s certainly something for all managers to chew on in this post Olympic period.

     

    (But apart from this , what was also most endearing to me , was the lack of commercial breaks during any of the TV broadcasts. By the way, how’s the IBF getting on with limiting the volume of minutes per hour, for commercial breaks? )