I find it surprising when most students I meet say economics is a boring subject. I find it even more appalling when MBA’s and marketing majors say it. Well, they would do well to know that economics is the mother of marketing. Most marketing theories be it consumer behaviour, market dynamics, competition, pricing and more have all been derived from economic theory.
If you subscribe to the view that economics is boring, or even worse, that economics is not for me, I intend correcting your opinion about economics. Not by telling how economics is useful but by telling you how it is not boring…by listing a few hilarious quotes from economics. Enjoy!
An economist is somebody who sees something happen in practice and wonders if it will work in theory.
A man explained inflation to his wife thus: 'When we married, you measured 36-24-36. Now you're 42-42-42. There's more of you, but you are not worth as much.'
All the great economic ills the world has faced can be directly traced back to the London School of Economics.
Making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg. It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else.
The first law of economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The second law of economists: They're both wrong.
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters.
Inflation is when you pay fifteen dollars for the ten-dollar haircut you used to get for five dollars when you had hair.
The trouble with unemployment is that the minute you wake up in the morning you're on the job.
An economist is a man who knows a hundred ways of making love but doesn’t know any women.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up thus: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Prosecute the protectionists
One of the many things that dominate the marketing scene these days has got nothing to do with marketing. It’s got to do with stupid politics (well, when was politics anything else). It’s the increasing clamour by politicians and spineless businessmen and some stupid sections of public who get swayed by the formers’ arguments – a clamour for protection – ‘save the small retailer from the threat of multinational monsters, ‘protect small industry from the tyranny of foreign competition’ etc.
All the arguments bandied about in support of protection could be rebutted with impeccable economic logic but allow me to quote a funny anecdote from the annals of economic history. It’s called ‘the Candlemakers’ Petition’.
The Candlemakers' Petition is a well-known satire of protectionism written and published in 1845 by the French economist Frédéric Bastiat as part of his Economic Fallacies. In the Candlemakers' petition, the candle makers and industrialists from other parts of the lighting industry petition the Chamber of Deputies of the French July Monarchy (1830–1848) to protect their trade from the unfair competition of a foreign power.
Guess who the foreign power is? Therein lies the satire! I have abridged the actual petition here. Enjoy.
“We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation.
This rival is none other than the sun!
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds -- in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the candle industry.
Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reason. If you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, the candle industry in France will ultimately be encouraged.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready: You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.”
If you wish to read the entire petition here is the place to find it:
http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/lacs/25candlemakers_petition.pdf
Read this, especially the next time you feel there should be some industry that needs to be protected from competition.
All the arguments bandied about in support of protection could be rebutted with impeccable economic logic but allow me to quote a funny anecdote from the annals of economic history. It’s called ‘the Candlemakers’ Petition’.
The Candlemakers' Petition is a well-known satire of protectionism written and published in 1845 by the French economist Frédéric Bastiat as part of his Economic Fallacies. In the Candlemakers' petition, the candle makers and industrialists from other parts of the lighting industry petition the Chamber of Deputies of the French July Monarchy (1830–1848) to protect their trade from the unfair competition of a foreign power.
Guess who the foreign power is? Therein lies the satire! I have abridged the actual petition here. Enjoy.
“We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation.
This rival is none other than the sun!
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds -- in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the candle industry.
Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reason. If you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, the candle industry in France will ultimately be encouraged.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready: You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.”
If you wish to read the entire petition here is the place to find it:
http://www.ccsindia.org/ccsindia/lacs/25candlemakers_petition.pdf
Read this, especially the next time you feel there should be some industry that needs to be protected from competition.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Is more the merrier?
…. maybe in life, but definitely not while your are positioning your brand or offering a promise. Brevity is the soul of wit and brand positioning.
Lux is glamour.
Dettol is protection.
Axe is sexual attraction.
Close Up is fresh breath.
What is Colgate? Yup, protection.
And what is Pepsodent? Protection, again?
How can two brands in the same category have the same positioning and still survive to tell the tale? They both did, didn’t they? Colgate has around 40% market share and Pepsodent has around 20% or so.
Pepsodent was younger; has far more modern imageries and is probably more kiddish than Colgate, which is older, serious and motherly. And Pepsodent has a strong ‘reason to believe’ – Germi-check formula (whatever that meant!).
And then something happened. The marketing whiz kids at Levers relaunched Pepsodent aka giving the brand a face-lift.
‘Dus nahi toh bas nahi’ – Pepsodent now fights 10!
The more the merrier!
Why just fight germs. Now let your toothpaste fight ……wait a minute. What are the 10 things that Pepsodent fights with?
Do you remember…..at least one of them? That’s the point. And that’s Pepsodent’s problem today.
Give the human mind one thing to remember and chances are high it would. Give it more than one, and it remembers none. Give it ten, and recalling them is anything but fun!
Germi-check was easy to remember. ‘Dus nahi toh bas nahi’ is easy to remember too but what’s difficult to remember is what those 10 things are. Consumers can’t recall. And when consumers can’t recall they don’t realize why they should buy the brand. And when they don’t realize that, they don’t actually buy the brand. Period.
It is already being evident. A recent press report quotes industry figures and states Pepsodent grew only 2% last year. The industry, though, grew by 14%.
A new growing brand like Pepsodent has stopped growing and is almost stagnating.
Surprised? I am. Not that it is stagnating but that it actually managed to grow in spite of the confused revamp.
By the way, Colgate grew, thank you. They have just one thing to establish – protection. And they are doing it well and doing fine in the market too.
More, in the context of brand positioning or promise, is no merry. Just a cause for worry!
Lux is glamour.
Dettol is protection.
Axe is sexual attraction.
Close Up is fresh breath.
What is Colgate? Yup, protection.
And what is Pepsodent? Protection, again?
How can two brands in the same category have the same positioning and still survive to tell the tale? They both did, didn’t they? Colgate has around 40% market share and Pepsodent has around 20% or so.
Pepsodent was younger; has far more modern imageries and is probably more kiddish than Colgate, which is older, serious and motherly. And Pepsodent has a strong ‘reason to believe’ – Germi-check formula (whatever that meant!).
And then something happened. The marketing whiz kids at Levers relaunched Pepsodent aka giving the brand a face-lift.
‘Dus nahi toh bas nahi’ – Pepsodent now fights 10!
The more the merrier!
Why just fight germs. Now let your toothpaste fight ……wait a minute. What are the 10 things that Pepsodent fights with?
Do you remember…..at least one of them? That’s the point. And that’s Pepsodent’s problem today.
Give the human mind one thing to remember and chances are high it would. Give it more than one, and it remembers none. Give it ten, and recalling them is anything but fun!
Germi-check was easy to remember. ‘Dus nahi toh bas nahi’ is easy to remember too but what’s difficult to remember is what those 10 things are. Consumers can’t recall. And when consumers can’t recall they don’t realize why they should buy the brand. And when they don’t realize that, they don’t actually buy the brand. Period.
It is already being evident. A recent press report quotes industry figures and states Pepsodent grew only 2% last year. The industry, though, grew by 14%.
A new growing brand like Pepsodent has stopped growing and is almost stagnating.
Surprised? I am. Not that it is stagnating but that it actually managed to grow in spite of the confused revamp.
By the way, Colgate grew, thank you. They have just one thing to establish – protection. And they are doing it well and doing fine in the market too.
More, in the context of brand positioning or promise, is no merry. Just a cause for worry!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)