Self-branding : The single most important question you need to ask youself

When it comes to branding your own self ( such a necessity in the current job market), the single most important question you need to answer is : Who the hell are you ?

While there are many of us, who are rather modest about our selves, there is a case to be made to be immodest, to position oneself well and reap the rewards that come from being noticed. Infact, one of my favourite sayings in Hindi ( popular in Mumbai, the financial and commercial hub of India is): " Jo Dikhta hai, wo bikta hai" - meaning, What is visible is sold faster. There is some truth to this statement, even as it applies to us as professionals.

This statement just about sums up everything that you need to do to establish yourself as a credible professional/ artist/ writer. I believe that if one seeks to answer this rather basic question thoroughly, with an in-depth look at the talents, dreams, aspirations, skills, experience that one has; this can be a ticket to the dream job or assignment.

How do i know this ? Well, partly from experience ( honestly, I am no super-achiever), but i do believe i have accomplished a tiny bit of what i wanted to do in life both professionally and personally, and also by observing others. I have made a few career transitions and apart from being lucky, i believe, i did do a few things right.

It is more by reading, observing those who have done very well for themselves that i notice some traits and habits which we can use too,to brand our own work and position ourselves uniquely, to break through the clutter.

So, how does one answer this rather important question ?

Here are a few ways to clarify who you are and to differentiate yourself from all the millions of people out there :

1. Bring what you love : I borrowed this from a documentary title of the Grammy award winning Grot Singer Youssou Ndour, a Senegalese singer. He has made a name for himself by focusing on what he has : his heritage as a Grot singer. He took this age-old traditional singing tradition to the world, packaged it well and is now respected as one of the most original singers Senegal has produced in a long time. Focusing on our own unique skills, traits, heritage may be a good way to answer this question too.

2. Be passionate about what you know, and know it well : There is something to be said about specialisation, though i hate the word. But in today's day and age, it makes sense to focus on one or two narrow pursuits and be on top of what is happening in the field. Nothing replaces depth and expertise. This will instantly win you credibility. Expertise has value.

3. Be credible : It helps to have credibility in your field, and be known as the "go-to" person for any problems or advise that others may want.

4. Showcase your strengths to the best of your ability : There is no point focusing on one's weaknesses, though one should admit them. I am a terrible editor, and i know it. Though, i write (fairly) well. This is something i am aware of, and admit when needed. It helps to be aware of what it is that one brings to the table.

5. Get third party endorsement : It helps if others talk well of you. References, letters of recommendation, Awards are all good ways of establishing one's credibility.

In sum, I believe that everyone today is short of attention. And this includes not only your friends, family, employers but also anyone who you come in contact with. With split-second decision time, people can make decisions which work in your favour or against you.

Given this scenario, branding one self and positioning of one's work clearly is not only recommended, but has become an absolute necessity.

Public Relations need not be a dirty word

I recently watched a documentary by John Pilger about wars and propaganda " The wars you dont see", where the veteran journalist made a very strong ( and valid) case for tackling and reading through mis-information and lying that goes on in the build-up and execution of a war. He mentioned and quoted Edward Bernays, considered one of the founders of modern PR as we know it.

While i totally agree with Pilger and his journalistic philosophy - what i came away ( and also notice among many people) is a derision of the profession and a subconscious lack of belief in what "publicists" say or do. In the cases that he has mentioned in the documentary ( WWII and Gulf war) propaganda was definitely used to built public opinion and manipulate people. Clearly not a good thing.

I remember reading a survey a number of years ago, which pointed out that Ad men are among the least trusted among professionals, only after lawyers and politicians. Not a good thing if one is looking to build credibility, isnt it ?

But looking at it practically, just as lawyers can use their skills both to defend a corrupt Wall-street type and at the same type use it to pursue justice for the impoverished and socially marginalised, the same can be said about PR and propaganda too.

The image attached is from the Civil rights movement era and demonstrates the power of the spoken word as well as stunning visual images used by the activists during that time to drive home a message - of equality and social justice.

Very valid and relevant messaging, even from a PR perspective.

I would say that in today's day and age, with the challenges that we face - socially, economically as well as politically, it is high time that social activists, civil rights professionals ( and even journalsits) learnt a few tricks of the trade so they could further the cause of the poor, marginalised, oppressed and dis-advantaged.

It is like using the devil's trick on the devil himself. But in this case, PR is no devil. It is a tool, much like the writers pen or the surgeon's scalpel. You cant blame the tool for what it is used.

Something to remember, before we start pointing fingers at a profession that has obvious social uses.

De-constructing India-bashing

This post is a response to an article by Anand Giridharadas in the NY Times on 1 July 2011 titled "In Fight for Better India, Best to Look Within", an attempt at a provocative essay, which fails miserably. A dear friend was offended at this article, and I thought about this for a while before writing my own take on this important issue : that of India-bashing.

Well, for starters, it is not new. There have been as many India haters as there have been Indophiles. Among India-bashers, VS Naipaul, Khushwant Singh come to mind. And these are contemporary writers, who have written some deep, insightful stuff,though i dont agree with most of Naipaul's analysis.

Khushwant Singh, the veteran journalist and writer does it with style, class as well as good humor, which seems to be lacking in Giridhar's writing, which comes across as pompous, grand and obviously flaky.

Going back to Giridaradas's article, his opening is not only offensive, but also racist and bigoted. Sample this : " I have entered India from the sky five times over the past year. Those flights started in airports where norms, rules and authority carry weight — Hong Kong; Doha, Qatar; Newark, New Jersey; Frankfurt. But in waiting to board, I have come to a troubling realization: Airport workers around the world have learned the hard way that my people — Indians, resident and diasporic — cannot be boarded the way other humans are".

I am always suspect of anyone who uses hyperbole to draw attention. It is as if his/her ideas are not strong enough to make a case - and one has to rely on exaggeration and show of bravado or intellect to draw attention ? How else would he expect to enter India ? On an Elephant, if not on an Airplane ?

He further offers us more "insights" with such inane examples such as :" A heart-rending example involves ambulances. Several times in the past few years, I have been in traffic in a major Indian city and suddenly heard an ambulance behind. To watch it forge fitfully ahead is to observe thousands of drivers make the choice to ignore it. Some people genuinely cannot pull over. But many can. Mostly, they don’t. Not a small number of Indians must die each year thanks to that collective refusal to be bothered".

I am reminded of a comment by Joan Robinson, who taught Amartya Sen at Cambridge, who told him once:"whenever you make any generalization about India, the opposite is equally true".

For sure, this is his personal observation of a few people - and i can counter this with a few dozen examples from my 26 years in India, when the exact opposite has happened, when total strangers have risked their lives to save other strangers. My friends who have personally tended to wounded and hurt passengers - again total strangers, not to mention giving way to ambulances.

This is not to say that he is making up this issue or at worst imagining an India which does not exist.

Nor is my gripe with his American roots or NRI flaunting of "insights" that come from spending a summer consulting with a firm in Delhi and "understanding" the deep existential angst that only the author understands.

There are far too many journalists who fall into this trap of trying to de-construct India in a few months / years and offer the world solutions, as they seem fit.

Implicit is the assumption that there are no intelligent and sentient beings in India and we needed an American born person of Indian origin to return and civilise us.

I wonder if Giridhardas has even read anything about India. Is he familiar with Nehru, Tagore, Premchand ? Has he seen any Satyajit Ray films ? Has he worked with any non-profits or civil society workers who grapple with these issues on a daily basis ?

Does he even read newspapers ? Times of India, Economic Times, The Hindu ??

My educated guess is no. He hasn't really bothered to do his homework. His un-inspiring talk on Jon Stewart's Daily Show is a case in point . He makes a fool of himself when he says that the real challenge to the US is not from India or China's economy, but from their "cultures". Really ??
">

This guy needs some lessons in Macro-economy before he is allowed to open his mouth.

I wonder how the NY Times and other media allow such inane observations to pass off as "analysis".

Again, it may be because from a western perspective, he is credible because he is one of "them", who is diagnosing the problem from the "inside" ( being an Indian and American at the same time).

I believe this smacks not only of racism, but also bigotry and lazy journalism.

And it is about time someone protests this non-sense and tells Mr Giridharadas that he would be better off spending a few more years and perhaps tempering his own ego before he goes off on trips on Airplanes and landing in his country of origin - analysing problems to which he offers no solutions.


The more such people speak for India, the more he loses his credibility among the "real" Indians, those who struggle with the daily challenge of de-constructing India. Their fear and suspicion of the 2nd or 3rd generation Indians would be validated - who in many cases are rightly called ABCDs : American Born confused Desis.

He would do well by reading a bit before he writes more nonsense. Khushwant Singh may be a good teacher to follow. The grand old man of Indian writing has style, grace and humility. Something sorely lacking in this arrogant young punk from Ohio.

He would also do well to remember what Nirad Chaudhury said about India, that even "Exceptions in India run into millions".

Communications as an ongoing process – in the grant seeking process

A few weeks ago, I attended a workshop at the Foundation centre, (http://foundationcenter.org/newyork/) in New York city on Grant seeking basics. While the session was about broader aspects of seeking a grant, preparing for it and the modalities of how to do it effectively; what stuck with me was the notion of communications as an ongoing activity in the entire process.

The instructor mentioned that from her experience, the ones who successfully received grants were ones who had formed some form of a network with the foundation or grant-making body and had already prepped them about the work that they seek to do, and also had laid the foundation of this- in some shape or form.

This not only strengthened their case, but also made sure that their top of mind recall remained high.

Simple, isnt it ? Well, yes and no. Most of us are aware of this basic fact, but when either seeking a grant, applying to one or even servicing one, we tend to forget this fact. I am no veteran of grant-seeking, but i do see parallels from the world of client-servicing, which i am very familiar with. As a former Public Relations consultant, i am all too familiar with the process of acquiring a new client, nurturing them and sustaining this relationship.

It can be tedious, painful and at times nerve-racking. But all in all, if there is one thing that can help smoothen this it has got to be Communication.

Ongoing, consistent, clear, honest and transparent communication with all stake-holders ensures that you not only remain on the top of their minds, but also that your work is clearly recognised and valued for what it is. That was my biggest take-away from that talk.

Bollywood and Terrorism

I recently watched “A Wednesday”, a Bollywood thriller, starring Anupam Kher and Naseeruddin Shah - indisputably among the finest actors in Hindi cinema today. They were the protagonist and antagonist respectively, dealing with one issue which Bollywood; which in my opinion has been handled rather openly and directly: terrorism.
While it is true that terrorism, violence do not make for good dinner table conversation, and people watch cinema for entertainment and to switch off from their daily worries , it is also true that cinema as a medium is extremely powerful and can be used to effect change and bring about a change in people’s perceptions. Bollywood, I believe is coming of age.
In contrast, I will argue that Hollywood has failed in this regard. There are too many stereotypes, clichéd arguments and portrayals of the “other” – that is to say anyone non-western or American as evil. At the outset, I must also admit that I am no authority on cinema – but I am surely a film buff. I have grown up around a lot of theatre, cinema and have spent a lot of time around people who work in the medium and promote it.
Coming back to Bollywood, despite the fact that there is an overdose of emotions and of course the typical masala formula of song and dance; most of the movies I have seen dealing with this rather heavy subject, do a decent job.
My name is Khan is another recent film that comes to mind –which touches upon issues of terrorism, loss, grief, Love and higher emotions. The Shahrukh Khan starrer is about a mentally challenged Muslim boy who grows up to face inordinate challenges of both identity as well as personal adjustments – and overcomes them through sheer determination and passion for life.
Right from the days of “Dil se”, a 1998 film, starring Shahrukh Khan and Manisha Koirala; which is about terrorism in the North East part of India, which to date remains involved in cessasionist violence. It was part of Mani Ratnam’s trilogy on terrorism and human relationships (the other two films being Roja and Bombay).
Indian parallel cinema, which incidentally also has a good following, as compared to “mainstream” cinema continues to make powerful statements about contemporary social issues.
A more nuanced approach needed ?
There is for sure an awareness of the complexities of the origins of terrorism, as well as the human element of where a terrorist comes from. This can be considered a sign of maturity of the industry, as well as a good deal of understanding of the issue of terrorism itself ? This is not to clear Bollywood of all blame and give it a clean chit.
There is stereotyping going on in Bollywood too– right through the 80s’ and 90s’ – with the Sherwani wearing, pan chewing Muslim man and the Burqa clad Muslim woman, as if these were the only realms of possibilities in the Muslim world. Almost always, terrorism is associated with Muslims in mainstream cinema.
If there is one thing that can be said about Bollywood’s treatment of the issue of terrorism it is this : the industry is not shy to tackle it head on. There is no ambivalence and beating around the bush. While the western media, and Hollywood in particular still relies on blatant stereotypes and use of worn out formulas to make blockbusters (the same can also be said about Bollywood to some extent), some actors and directors seem to be making a conscious effort to address this issue with all the honesty they can muster- and are succeeding fairly well at this.
This intellectual honesty and directness, I believe, will produce more original and cutting-edge cinema, which hopefully will have some social impact in the years to come.

Media and grassroots advocacy

In our class on International and non-profit management at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, a few weeks ago, we discussed the case of Greenpeace and its efforts to stop the dumping of used batteries in Argentina. Greenpeace’s efforts to creatively manage media to send out messages about global warming, climate change and environment conservation are legendary.

It is interesting to note that the group garnered enough media support and sufficient grassroots mobilization to ensure that there would be a new National Law on Management of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment.

This is a classic case of use of traditional media, social media as well as the internet to pressure the companies in question to get the results that Greenpeace wanted. One must remember that limited budgets, need for on the feet and smart thinking is what differentiates work for grass roots organizations from large corporate or even the government. Strategic communications, in my experience, takes on a whole new meaning. It can be akin to guerilla warfare in many ways.
I believe media and especially strategic media communications (Social media, Public Relations included) can help grass root organizations in the following five ways:
1. Help build credibility
2. Cheap and ( at times) free publicity which is essential for a grass roots organization, which may not have big marketing budgets
3. Build stakeholder confidence
4. Keep the issue(s) alive and energize the staff
5. Create an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders involved and ensure that there is adequate feedback
My most successful campaign working at Ogilvy Public Relations, India was for our client Apollo Hospitals, the largest healthcare services provider in India. I ideated several campaigns during my stint there (between the years 2007-08), one of which one two global awards for its social marketing (Clio and Abby). I was able to bring in several grassroots organizations, including a local theatre group to put up a film festival on international women’s day to get focus on women’s health issues.
Additionally, during my work at Centre for Civil Society, a think-tank based in New Delhi in 2003, we used media rather effectively to ensure that our ideas were spread and the advocacy work received the kind of ink-space that we felt would guarantee some action in the areas we were advocating for. I believe that the work that we did for our Education campaign is significant in terms of media usage. The School choice campaign has had a very significant impact and the state governments in North India have adopted various measures that we advocated.
The work for both these organizations involved building credibility for the causes – that is healthcare issues and education for all – involving local organizations and people. We also partnered with local celebrities in giving joint press statements during certain important events as well as helping spread the right messages about critical healthcare and other issues.
The tools that we relied mostly were very cost-effective – including media relations, partnerships with other organizations etc. keeping our costs low. One such example I can think of is organizing a free Asthma screening camp for the local traffic police of Bangalore city by Apollo Hospitals. This idea originated from our end and was championed by the Hospital, as it made sense for them to do it as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives.
Both the CCS and Apollo Hospital cases involved building greater confidence in the stake-holders and also greater involvement of all parties involved. We also managed to create an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders involved and ensure that there is adequate feedback

Media, as we have come to accept, has assumed a dominant role in our lives; and there is enough proof to say that this will only continue to grow in the years and decades to come.

The Arab revolutions, which are ongoing as of today, are an example of grass-roots organizations, which came together, organized and spread information about demonstrations and overthrew decades old dictatorships. Social media in particular have been very effective in these revolutions.

All in all, one cannot deny that media and activism are coming together like never before in this generation –which is empowered with Facebook, Twitter and other social media. While there is enormous potential to use this to educate, engage and build stakeholder value, there is also the danger of not using it at all or at worst ignoring these tools. It is the choices that we, as communications professionals make, that will determine the success of our organizations.

Who is worse : The monster or the people who helped in its creation ?

Blame Greg Mortenson or the media ?

I am upset, angry and saddened to learn about Greg Mortenson and the revelation that he has been swindling away money from innocent people all over the world – in the name of building schools for poor Afghani, Pakistani children. While at one level, he is to be blamed entirely for what he did, at a more nuanced level, isn’t the media to be blamed too ? How ? You may ask.
Well, for starters, why did it take all these years for the media to wake up to the reality that the funds were being mis-used. Anyone with basic investigative skills ( in particular those whose job it is to follow and write about non-profits) should have been able to locate the financial statements of the Central Asia Institute and report any irregularities they may have noticed. They could have, and ideally should have done this due-diligence and fact checking. If we do it in cases involving domestic issues, why not with a charity which is claiming to be educating thousands of children. Simple isn’t it ?
Well, it turns out it is not all so simple.
Media, as we know and are seeing on a daily basis, tends to be a victim of groupthink . Iraq war, War in Afghanistan are just two examples of the media falling all over themselves to reproduce every word that came out of the State department. There were exceptions to the rule for sure, but for the most part, media has become a tool of manipulation by those in power. Groupthink dominates discussions at times, and the most dominant idea or meme perpetuates, sometimes without being questioned. It takes someone like 60 minutes to stop, look hard and eventually find out the truth. Until this happens, all the media play along with what is convenient and seems easy to follow - just like sheep.
A victim of its times ?
One of the reasons I chose not to pursue journalism in India, when I had to make a career choice is the direction that the field was ( and is ) taking. There seems to be a huge influence of the corporate sector and the government, in any mature media market. India, USA are but two examples. “Independent media” is a term which has become fashionable. The very word is a contradiction of sorts. Why should they even call a media publication, while by its very nature it is supposed to be independent, non-partisan and free to publish what it wants ? Makes sense ?
Media today is a victim of what I would call the “celebrity syndrome”. The media ( just like all of us are) is desperately searching for heroes. Simply because we live in such cynical times, where most of us cannot think beyond our own selves, when someone like Greg Mortenson comes along, who claims to have climbed hills, survived harsh conditions and shows idealism, we grab him with both hands and don’t let him go.
We want a piece of him, his idealism and all that he stands for – because he represents what is noble, lasting and real in us.
Alas, he seems to have mis-used this trust, and the media seems to have gone overboard in just showing what a hero he claimed to be he is, thus creating a monster.
Can we draw any lessons from this ? Perhaps yes. Here are a few :
1. Media should do some fact-checking and we should also demand this of them, and not just blindly consume information
2. We should all question everything we read in the media and especially if a story is too good to be true
3. Stay away from hyperbole. At least, I am increasingly becoming wary of people who indulge in it.
4. More fact-checking, careful analysis, transparency are needed and also avoiding the tendency to hero worship
5. On a cynical note, I think we should all learn some budgeting and financial analysis – at least we can learn to read financial statements and see who really paid for that private jet flight.

At the same time, there should not be cynicism. This incident or any other should not stop us from giving to worthy causes or individuals. What we can draw from this is the need to be vigilant and caring at the same time.. Being one without the other can be devastating.