A few weeks ago, India Today (April 8, 2008) came out with a cover story on 60 greatest Indians. Here's what the magazine wrote about the public poll that produced this list: “The poll began on March 14 and ran for three weeks through the India Today web site and SMS.
A total of 18,928 votes came in, with Bhagat Singh leading with 6,982 votes, Subhas Chandra Bose coming second with 5,193 votes and Mahatma Gandhi trailing at 2,457 votes.
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, who forever stepped aside for Jawaharlal Nehru, has been redeemed in posterity, at fourth position with 8 per cent of the votes, compared to just 2 per cent for Nehru.
Another steely nationalist, Indira Gandhi, is sixth, with 3 per cent of the votes.”
Now, Saheed Bhagat Singh was a socialist and an atheist. Netaji, along with Panditji, was a leader of the left wing of the Congress; he was also unquestionably secular.
Was India, especially young urban India (looking the method of voting, one suspects the overwhelming majority of voters were fairly young), voting for the socialism and secularism?
Forgive my cynicism, but that's incredible.
As the Today article says, “Its (India's) marketplace has already shed all those socialist inhibitions and become the playground of the so-called wealth multipliers.”
And while secularism is widely practised (live and let live), one doubts if it is as widely believed in (conscious respect for all religions).
So what's going on, according to me? Three things.
1.First, what's common to the first four on the list, Bhagat Singh, Netaji, the Mahatma, and the Sardar? Many things, of course, but in the context of the poll, one stands out: Their heirs didn't enjoyed political power. They haven't had to pay for their descendents' deeds.
2.Second, one shouldn't be surprised if there were strong regional patterns in the voting, at least in the voting for Bhagat Singh, Netaji and Sardar Patel. More specifically, there be may be strong linguistic biases too.
No doubt, all three had pan-Indian appeal while alive. But after their deaths, they have been turned into regional idols.
3.Finally, one senses a desire to right history's wrong, of giving to one's own leader what was his due.
How justified am I in making these sceptical hypotheses, without a shred of evidence to back them?
Not much. Still, I can offer an excuse.
A list like this one probably has far more to do with selling ad space than with celebrating nationhood (no matter who writes the profiles and how well those are written). The very act of letting the public, and not eminent historians, choose - that too without any criteria - can only mean that that the list's sole possible value is as a reflection of popular opinion.
Hence, commenting on the public, without in any way commenting on the personalities they choose, is the only reaction one can legitimately have. If the surveyors anticipate any discussion and debate, they expect the arguments to centre on today's voters, not yesterday's greats.
As S Prasannarajan asks in the article introducing the list, “Is it that, as India, which at any rate is hardly Gandhian or Nehruvian in its political expression, strives for global power status, someone out there, someone disillusioned with the conformism of a smug state, is missing the romance of the revolutionary leap—and the martyr’s war cry, Inquilab Zindabad?
Is it that the mystique of the deviant, the transcontinental adventurism of the rebellious, is more alluring than the intimate humanism of the fakir? Is it that a steely nationalist like Patel and a strong, overpowering helmswoman like Mrs G are missing in an India of wishy-washy pretenders to the throne?
Is it that India is nostalgic about the moral power of a JP at a time whenthe so-called socialists, products of his ‘total revolution’, are an embarrassment to his memory?” (Emphasis mine, throughout.)
My reaction, pessimistic as it is, is perhaps valid.
Source: http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6964&issueid=49&Itemid=1
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Friday, 25 April 2008
Ugly music
A big filmstar is going to host another one of those horrible reality shows where, probably, families will challenge each other in who sings most off key. The ads are up across the city. I noticed two.
Each features a Hindu family and a Muslim family.
By chance? Unlikely.
India is 80.5% Hindu, 13.4% Muslim. If you pick 4 Indian families at random, the chance that you'll end up with two of each religion is 1.16% (sq0.805 X sq0.134).
Having done this 50:50 picking, your chances of following up with a 50:50 pairing is 2/3 (H1, H2, M1 and M2 can be paired thus: H1M1 & H2M2, H1M2 & H2M1, and H1H2 & M1M2).
Combining, we find that there's only 0.78% (0.0116X 2/3) probability that filmstar & Co ended up with the Hindu vs. Muslim pairs by chance.
I have assumed there are only two ads. If there are more, and they have inter-religious pairing too, then the chances would go down further.
I cannot but see these Hindu-Muslim ads with jaundiced eyes. Ostensibly, they invite the country to make music together. Underneath, one suspects, lies a sinister if silly intent.
Each features a Hindu family and a Muslim family.
By chance? Unlikely.
India is 80.5% Hindu, 13.4% Muslim. If you pick 4 Indian families at random, the chance that you'll end up with two of each religion is 1.16% (sq0.805 X sq0.134).
Having done this 50:50 picking, your chances of following up with a 50:50 pairing is 2/3 (H1, H2, M1 and M2 can be paired thus: H1M1 & H2M2, H1M2 & H2M1, and H1H2 & M1M2).
Combining, we find that there's only 0.78% (0.0116X 2/3) probability that filmstar & Co ended up with the Hindu vs. Muslim pairs by chance.
I have assumed there are only two ads. If there are more, and they have inter-religious pairing too, then the chances would go down further.
I cannot but see these Hindu-Muslim ads with jaundiced eyes. Ostensibly, they invite the country to make music together. Underneath, one suspects, lies a sinister if silly intent.
Monday, 14 April 2008
Just try responding
Direct doesn't work. How can it when companies treat responses so shoddily.
What do I mean? Pick up your newspaper or open one the spam mails in your email box. Call, email or write back. And see what happens. My bet is that nothing will.
If someone gets back, it will be with zero information, intelligence or interest.
Why do they waste their money to waste consumers' time? One of those many mysteries of modern marketing, I suppose.
What do I mean? Pick up your newspaper or open one the spam mails in your email box. Call, email or write back. And see what happens. My bet is that nothing will.
If someone gets back, it will be with zero information, intelligence or interest.
Why do they waste their money to waste consumers' time? One of those many mysteries of modern marketing, I suppose.
Why do offers work
I have searched long and wide for something on this, but found very little. Direct marketers are fond of saying that the offer accounts for 40% of any mailing's success, but don't appear to have thought too much about why offers work, and why some do better than others. I suspect the amount of testing, even in the West, is nowhere near as much as DM gurus would like us to believer. Otherwise, there would be more on this than platitudes and lists. But that's besides the point.
I was reading some interesting books lately, and a couple of them made threw light on offers. Investment expert Michael J. Mauboussin's More Than You Know discusses the principle of reciprocity. In commercial terms, it means if someone gives you something for free (say, a clothier offers you a soft drink while you are taking a look at his ware, before you have spent anything), you make it a point to reciprocate his gesture, usually by making a purchase.
This is most gratifying, because he uses the same as I did in my presentation on offers (http://pachatterjee.com/pdfs/offer.pdf), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini.
On the other hand, in Predictably Irrational, economist Dan Ariley talks about the amazing power of 'free', it's de-risking effect, and the way that switches off normal rational choosing.
I had included the de-rsiking bit in my presentation too, though I didn't know then about the amazing experiments and explanations that Dr Ariley writes about.
I'd very much like to know more about offers, especially about price-offs (5% off), 'bulk' discounts (buy 1, get one free) and gifts (refill free with pen). Would you know of any books, articles or research papers?
I was reading some interesting books lately, and a couple of them made threw light on offers. Investment expert Michael J. Mauboussin's More Than You Know discusses the principle of reciprocity. In commercial terms, it means if someone gives you something for free (say, a clothier offers you a soft drink while you are taking a look at his ware, before you have spent anything), you make it a point to reciprocate his gesture, usually by making a purchase.
This is most gratifying, because he uses the same as I did in my presentation on offers (http://pachatterjee.com/pdfs/offer.pdf), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini.
On the other hand, in Predictably Irrational, economist Dan Ariley talks about the amazing power of 'free', it's de-risking effect, and the way that switches off normal rational choosing.
I had included the de-rsiking bit in my presentation too, though I didn't know then about the amazing experiments and explanations that Dr Ariley writes about.
I'd very much like to know more about offers, especially about price-offs (5% off), 'bulk' discounts (buy 1, get one free) and gifts (refill free with pen). Would you know of any books, articles or research papers?
Monday, 7 April 2008
Why do we need swipe machines for loyalty programmes?
Companies spend large amounts marrying loyalty software with centralised billing systems, so that points may be properly awarded and redeemed (though I have been told that such bridging software is easy to write and inexpensive to buy, I have no evidence of either being true). Why don't they hire a small staff of tele-executives instead?
All that sales clerks will have to do is call these back-end executives and read out the bills and membership numbers. The latter will make entries into the loyalty accounts.
Admittedly, this introduces chances of human error at both ends: the sales clerks can read wrong, and the tele-executives may hear or type incorrectly. Also, the system can be programmed to send SMSs and emails to the members, so that details can be confirmed. The proposed system should be at least as dependable as the electronic ones used now, and more flexible.
Moreover, moderately well-trained executives will be able to suggest on-the-spot offers and promotions, even hints for cross-selling, by looking at the members' profiles and shops' inventory (I assume inventory will be centrally accessible).
Of course, this will not work for shops with many customers, where sales clerks are pressed for time. But how many shops are like that? Most shops should be be able to tackle their loyalty programmes with remote executives.
Let's not forget, millions (ok, tens of thousands) of transactions are made over the phone every day, and quite a few of these are complicated.
At any rate, one can and should have some executives online to back up electronic systems.
All that sales clerks will have to do is call these back-end executives and read out the bills and membership numbers. The latter will make entries into the loyalty accounts.
Admittedly, this introduces chances of human error at both ends: the sales clerks can read wrong, and the tele-executives may hear or type incorrectly. Also, the system can be programmed to send SMSs and emails to the members, so that details can be confirmed. The proposed system should be at least as dependable as the electronic ones used now, and more flexible.
Moreover, moderately well-trained executives will be able to suggest on-the-spot offers and promotions, even hints for cross-selling, by looking at the members' profiles and shops' inventory (I assume inventory will be centrally accessible).
Of course, this will not work for shops with many customers, where sales clerks are pressed for time. But how many shops are like that? Most shops should be be able to tackle their loyalty programmes with remote executives.
Let's not forget, millions (ok, tens of thousands) of transactions are made over the phone every day, and quite a few of these are complicated.
At any rate, one can and should have some executives online to back up electronic systems.
Secretary on call
Salesmen hate paperwork. Everyone does. But salesmen's hate hurts companies, because nobody at HQ has any idea about what's going on in the field.
Very soon salesmen will get super-smart PDAs linked to HQ via satellite, and then the bosses will be able to spy on the poor souls 24/7.
Till that happens, why not try something simple: Give them secretaries.
These secretaries will not travel with the salesmen, but sit at an office and take notes over the phone. For example, a medical representative will dictate, “It's 10.45 pm and I've just met Dr So-and-so of 123 XYZ Lane, ABC city. I have him 23 samples of PQR medicine and 2 thermos flasks.” His secretary would duly note this, and update all records.
Of course, secretaries may be shared between salesmen, just as customer care executives take care of multiple customers.
This way the salespeople will be on a telephonic leash, while not having to do any paperwork.
There will invariably be some problems, but isn't it an idea worth trying out?
Very soon salesmen will get super-smart PDAs linked to HQ via satellite, and then the bosses will be able to spy on the poor souls 24/7.
Till that happens, why not try something simple: Give them secretaries.
These secretaries will not travel with the salesmen, but sit at an office and take notes over the phone. For example, a medical representative will dictate, “It's 10.45 pm and I've just met Dr So-and-so of 123 XYZ Lane, ABC city. I have him 23 samples of PQR medicine and 2 thermos flasks.” His secretary would duly note this, and update all records.
Of course, secretaries may be shared between salesmen, just as customer care executives take care of multiple customers.
This way the salespeople will be on a telephonic leash, while not having to do any paperwork.
There will invariably be some problems, but isn't it an idea worth trying out?
Friday, 28 March 2008
Should loyalty programmes pay interest?
In all the loyalty programmes I know of points have a constant value until they lapse, when they lose all value. But if one of the avowed aims of loyalty programmes is to keep customers loyal, shouldn't it be somewhat different? Shouldn't points value go up wit time? After all, it's the customers' deferred discount lying with the company.
Ok, that's ridiculous.
However, a time-linked valuation may be an idea whose time has come. It may go like this: Points have 150% value if redeemed within 30 days of their accrual; 125% if redeemed between 1 and 3 months; 105% if used between a quarter and a year; 100% thereafter, till they lapse. (It works like a bank account standing on its head.) There may be hikes in value around customers' birthdays and anniversaries, etc.
Communicating these value changes and deadlines will give marketers excuses to talk about other things too. The whole intention is to make recency work for you.
The technology is surely there by now. Is anyone using this system or variable valuation?
Ok, that's ridiculous.
However, a time-linked valuation may be an idea whose time has come. It may go like this: Points have 150% value if redeemed within 30 days of their accrual; 125% if redeemed between 1 and 3 months; 105% if used between a quarter and a year; 100% thereafter, till they lapse. (It works like a bank account standing on its head.) There may be hikes in value around customers' birthdays and anniversaries, etc.
Communicating these value changes and deadlines will give marketers excuses to talk about other things too. The whole intention is to make recency work for you.
The technology is surely there by now. Is anyone using this system or variable valuation?
Zero
“Didn't pull anything at all.”
“Hardly any conversions... in single figures. The whole lead generation exercise was a waste.”
“Zero. Ziltch.”
You don't hear these too often, but you hear them often enough to worry. Because word spreads, and soon enough the whole industry is being tarred with the same brush: Direct marketing doesn't work. Lead generation is BS. Cold calling is the only way.
It's a mystery if something, anything, doesn't work at all. Probability loathes unmitigated disasters.
Let's think of an financial services company that agrees to pay, say, Rs 100 per lead. No sales manager would agree to such an amount unless he's quite sure that he will be able to convert a substantial number of these leads. We don't have to stretch credibility to envisage a binomial distribution with p = 10%, that is, there is a 10% probability that a lead randomly picked from the bought list would convert.
With such a probability what should one expect from a list of 2,500 leads, where a lead is defined as someone who explicitly expresses interest in a particular product of a particular brand by filling a form, and asking the company to get in touch with him?
The number of trials and mean are large enough to apply the normal approximation. And this says that there's a 99% chance that one should make between 288 and 211 converts.
The probability of making less than a hundred conversions is... zero, negligible.
“10% is too high,” you'd say. Let's try 5% for argument's sake (remember, it's Rs 100 a lead).
Even after halving the probability of success, we retain a 95% chance of making 103 to 146 sales. The probability of converts staying within double figures is 1.09%. Again, negligible.
So what do we tell the sales manger when he complains that leads were all duds? Logically, you should tell him that his lead management system doesn't exist: It's a wonder that his company does.
In real life, you bow your head and watch him renegotiate the rate, reducing it by 99%. Because theory be damned, he's god.
“Hardly any conversions... in single figures. The whole lead generation exercise was a waste.”
“Zero. Ziltch.”
You don't hear these too often, but you hear them often enough to worry. Because word spreads, and soon enough the whole industry is being tarred with the same brush: Direct marketing doesn't work. Lead generation is BS. Cold calling is the only way.
It's a mystery if something, anything, doesn't work at all. Probability loathes unmitigated disasters.
Let's think of an financial services company that agrees to pay, say, Rs 100 per lead. No sales manager would agree to such an amount unless he's quite sure that he will be able to convert a substantial number of these leads. We don't have to stretch credibility to envisage a binomial distribution with p = 10%, that is, there is a 10% probability that a lead randomly picked from the bought list would convert.
With such a probability what should one expect from a list of 2,500 leads, where a lead is defined as someone who explicitly expresses interest in a particular product of a particular brand by filling a form, and asking the company to get in touch with him?
The number of trials and mean are large enough to apply the normal approximation. And this says that there's a 99% chance that one should make between 288 and 211 converts.
The probability of making less than a hundred conversions is... zero, negligible.
“10% is too high,” you'd say. Let's try 5% for argument's sake (remember, it's Rs 100 a lead).
Even after halving the probability of success, we retain a 95% chance of making 103 to 146 sales. The probability of converts staying within double figures is 1.09%. Again, negligible.
So what do we tell the sales manger when he complains that leads were all duds? Logically, you should tell him that his lead management system doesn't exist: It's a wonder that his company does.
In real life, you bow your head and watch him renegotiate the rate, reducing it by 99%. Because theory be damned, he's god.
Numerology
I'm reading E-mail Marketing by Tim Beadle. On page 27 it says, “Research has shown that the optimum length for copy is around 200 words or less. Beyond 200 words, response rates for the SAME offer decline. That does NOT mean this is right for you – test it, try 100, 200 and 300 and see which pulls best.”
Even with the qualifier, I abhor this type of data. The more I think about it, the more harm such 'research findings' seem to have done to direct marketing. No summery is provided, and no source is sited. We don't know how many tests were carried out, across how many brands, in how many product categories. The author is silent about the range of response rates. He doesn't, of course, tell us how much the responses fell by.
One wonders why he quoted the figure at all, except to give an illiterate client to impose a counterproductive and baseless restriction on work. Or enable an equally illiterate agency person to fill the auditory vacuum during a meeting with numerical - numerological? - basalt.
Even with the qualifier, I abhor this type of data. The more I think about it, the more harm such 'research findings' seem to have done to direct marketing. No summery is provided, and no source is sited. We don't know how many tests were carried out, across how many brands, in how many product categories. The author is silent about the range of response rates. He doesn't, of course, tell us how much the responses fell by.
One wonders why he quoted the figure at all, except to give an illiterate client to impose a counterproductive and baseless restriction on work. Or enable an equally illiterate agency person to fill the auditory vacuum during a meeting with numerical - numerological? - basalt.
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Which explains?
From the article A child and divorced by Rohit Parihar in India Today (March 7, 2008): “Around 1.6 crore child marriages continue to take place in parts of India... By far the largest numbers are from a caste-ridden Rajasthan where children as young as four, five or even less are married off or traded like so many cattle.
According to the 2001 census, of the 1.6 crore children in India who got married before they reach official marriageable age, 18.3 lakh came from Rajasthan alone.
Which also explains why of the estimated 1.7 lakh divorces that take place before the children reach marriageable age, the largest number, around 6,200, are from Rajasthan. (my emphasis)”
Does the preceding data explain why 6,200 of the divorces came from Rajasthan? I'm afraid it doesn't quite. The state's share of child marriages (11.44%) is more than three times its share of child divorces (3.65%).
And the writer does not give any reason why we should expect a similarity in ranks, that is, why Rajasthan's being No 1 in marriages should lead it being No 1 in divorces.
As a matter of fact, the difference in shares (of marriages and divorces) points to an even worse story lurking elsewhere.
More follows a few paragraphs later: “A survey undertaken for India Today by NGO Prayas ... one of the 3.7 lakh children in her state and 20 lakh across the country who got married before the age of 14 — too young to even remember the ceremony, if there was one.
And like 50,000 others in the country and 1,200 in the state under the age of 15, she got separated from her so-called husband as swiftly as she had entered into wedlock with him.”
The first figure pertains to children below 14; the second to children below 15. In that stage of life, one year may make a great difference. Shouldn't both figures have had the same age cutoff?
Assuming we ignore the one year difference, what do we get? This time, Rajasthan's share of (below 15) marriages (18.50%) is more than 7½ times its share of (below 14) divorces (2.40%)! To be fair, the author doesn't claim any causal link between the marriage and divorce figures here. Yet the numbers neighbour each other, so one can't be blamed for suspecting a connection was hinted at.
I am guessing, without reason, that the later set of figures (marriages below 15 & divorces below 14) came from the survey. If so, one cannot but notice the differences between them and the census figures. For example, the share of marriages goes up (from census to survey) by about 7% (perhaps indicating that Rajasthan's child couples are, on an average, younger than other states' – please see below).
The census figures have no age-cutoffs, which should partially explain the differences. Besides, the census came out in 2001, while the survey was, presumably, more recent. Nonetheless, one wishes the magazine had published the survey, or, at least, excerpts from it on the Web.
My main problem with the article though is that it describes a problem without mentioning any efforts at its solution. For the children's sake, I hope that is the author's worst oversight.
According to the 2001 census, of the 1.6 crore children in India who got married before they reach official marriageable age, 18.3 lakh came from Rajasthan alone.
Which also explains why of the estimated 1.7 lakh divorces that take place before the children reach marriageable age, the largest number, around 6,200, are from Rajasthan. (my emphasis)”
Does the preceding data explain why 6,200 of the divorces came from Rajasthan? I'm afraid it doesn't quite. The state's share of child marriages (11.44%) is more than three times its share of child divorces (3.65%).
And the writer does not give any reason why we should expect a similarity in ranks, that is, why Rajasthan's being No 1 in marriages should lead it being No 1 in divorces.
As a matter of fact, the difference in shares (of marriages and divorces) points to an even worse story lurking elsewhere.
More follows a few paragraphs later: “A survey undertaken for India Today by NGO Prayas ... one of the 3.7 lakh children in her state and 20 lakh across the country who got married before the age of 14 — too young to even remember the ceremony, if there was one.
And like 50,000 others in the country and 1,200 in the state under the age of 15, she got separated from her so-called husband as swiftly as she had entered into wedlock with him.”
The first figure pertains to children below 14; the second to children below 15. In that stage of life, one year may make a great difference. Shouldn't both figures have had the same age cutoff?
Assuming we ignore the one year difference, what do we get? This time, Rajasthan's share of (below 15) marriages (18.50%) is more than 7½ times its share of (below 14) divorces (2.40%)! To be fair, the author doesn't claim any causal link between the marriage and divorce figures here. Yet the numbers neighbour each other, so one can't be blamed for suspecting a connection was hinted at.
I am guessing, without reason, that the later set of figures (marriages below 15 & divorces below 14) came from the survey. If so, one cannot but notice the differences between them and the census figures. For example, the share of marriages goes up (from census to survey) by about 7% (perhaps indicating that Rajasthan's child couples are, on an average, younger than other states' – please see below).
The census figures have no age-cutoffs, which should partially explain the differences. Besides, the census came out in 2001, while the survey was, presumably, more recent. Nonetheless, one wishes the magazine had published the survey, or, at least, excerpts from it on the Web.
My main problem with the article though is that it describes a problem without mentioning any efforts at its solution. For the children's sake, I hope that is the author's worst oversight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)