Human loves personal branding. In fact, every single one of us have always known about personal branding, or even branding in a more general term.
How many of you have losers in your school years or even in your working life? How many wise men/women do you know? How many smart geniuses do youn know? How many "monkey", "dog", "frog", or whatsoever in your school days? I bet every one of us is capable of answering "yes" to one of the questions. The underlying fact is that personal branding or branding in general is not only separated with thin line with stereotyping. When you observe that you don't like your friend's way of walking, you call her a duck. You practicaly brand her as "DUCK". When you observe that your friend talk too much, you or your friend brand him as something else. When you see a wise men, you highly regarded him/her, perhaps. When I was in my high school, despite being ranked in top 5% at school, I was called name as one of the most stupid character in cartoons world. All those are practically personal branding that we attributed to someone.
Basically, we tend to be able to attribute someone to some words after some time. Those people are already branded. Simply compare the "branded" people with other branded goods/ person like Nike, Adidas, Gucci, Louis Vitton, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Bill Gates, etc. In your opinion, how difference are those two groups of goods/ people in terms of rememberance? I reckon you'd realize that you can remember those two groups, when their corresponding attributes are mentioned, equally well. This simple comparison should easily show you that personal branding is in fact, prevalent. Every single one of us tends to even subconciously brand ourselves as a certain someone. We tend to portray an ideal self of ours to get a certain image of social self (we as viewed by others), which tend to starkly differ from our true self. :)
All in all, I don't forgive branding people with ridiculous traits or names. I know their sufferings :P Spare them please and just see the positive side of theirs. :)
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Ban of European airlines to land in Indonesia
Just few days ago, EU warned European to stop flying Indonesian airlines and that EU banned all Indonesian airlines from flying to European Union. The effect is said to have stopped a number of Europe tourists from leaving for Indonesia. Today, Indonesia government officials said that Indonesia is considering to ban EU's airlines to fly to Indonesia as a tit for tat move.
This is not the first time that I am amazed, to use a softer word, with the action of Indonesia govt officials' action. The ban of EU for Indonesian airlines is in fact a symbolic one. NONE of the airlines fly to EU anyway. The reason for not flying there might in fact lies in the fact that the plane might not even reach there safely. It doesn't make sense for the airline not to fly there if they are able to since there are huge number of European tourist visiting Indonesia per year. In fact, stated by Tourism Indonesia (http://www.tourismindonesia.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=580&Itemid=34), Europe market that used to make Indonesia one of its more popular holiday destinations has dropped after Garuda Indonesia stopped flying to Europe. Therefore, Garuda Indonesia IN FACT stopped flying there long before the ban. It's ridiculous.... The fact is that despite the poor service and age of aircraft, etc, Europeans USED the airlines long time ago.
Now, the tit for tat move to ban EU's airlines is clearly going to impact the number of Europe tourists hitting Indonesia further. I wonder whether the officials even think about who is at the bad end. The ban by EU is perhaps hurting the tourist arrival by a mere 20% while the ban of EU airlines might as well stop 99% of the EU tourists. The way some of the officials think are simply preposterous. Too often such words and actions are simply fueled by short-term and super short-sighted "nationalistic" view. I wonder whether it ever dawns on them that hurting the tourism industry, which fed so many poor people living from the already hurt tourism industry (due to terror), is against the nationalistic point-of-view, in the bottom line.
Politics are used to often in expense of the small folks in virtually all countries. Not a big wonder that some religious took it upon themselves to run the office. Not that I side with them. Mixing religion with politics will create another realm of problems. I don't want to talk about it here. It's simply too complicated. :P
This is not the first time that I am amazed, to use a softer word, with the action of Indonesia govt officials' action. The ban of EU for Indonesian airlines is in fact a symbolic one. NONE of the airlines fly to EU anyway. The reason for not flying there might in fact lies in the fact that the plane might not even reach there safely. It doesn't make sense for the airline not to fly there if they are able to since there are huge number of European tourist visiting Indonesia per year. In fact, stated by Tourism Indonesia (http://www.tourismindonesia.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=580&Itemid=34), Europe market that used to make Indonesia one of its more popular holiday destinations has dropped after Garuda Indonesia stopped flying to Europe. Therefore, Garuda Indonesia IN FACT stopped flying there long before the ban. It's ridiculous.... The fact is that despite the poor service and age of aircraft, etc, Europeans USED the airlines long time ago.
Now, the tit for tat move to ban EU's airlines is clearly going to impact the number of Europe tourists hitting Indonesia further. I wonder whether the officials even think about who is at the bad end. The ban by EU is perhaps hurting the tourist arrival by a mere 20% while the ban of EU airlines might as well stop 99% of the EU tourists. The way some of the officials think are simply preposterous. Too often such words and actions are simply fueled by short-term and super short-sighted "nationalistic" view. I wonder whether it ever dawns on them that hurting the tourism industry, which fed so many poor people living from the already hurt tourism industry (due to terror), is against the nationalistic point-of-view, in the bottom line.
Politics are used to often in expense of the small folks in virtually all countries. Not a big wonder that some religious took it upon themselves to run the office. Not that I side with them. Mixing religion with politics will create another realm of problems. I don't want to talk about it here. It's simply too complicated. :P
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Dodo
Human is a rather terrible creature. It just dawned upon me that it took a mere 80 years for human to wipe out the entire dodo species. Read about it in http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070703-dodo.html
The simple introduction of rat by the human immigrant to the stable ecology where dodo lives has partly caused the extinction. And global warming is causing an ongoing extinction in many parts of the worlds. Reported by the national geographic, some of the ancient arctic lakes supporting a unique ecosystem is drying u and the organisms in the lakes are nowhere to be found.
We really need to play our part in reducing the global warming. Simple action like using less styrofoam and showering for a shorter duration can contribute towards a better environment. A million people using 1 less styrofoam per week per person signifies 4 million less styrofoam per year. That's a huge number, isn't it?
The simple introduction of rat by the human immigrant to the stable ecology where dodo lives has partly caused the extinction. And global warming is causing an ongoing extinction in many parts of the worlds. Reported by the national geographic, some of the ancient arctic lakes supporting a unique ecosystem is drying u and the organisms in the lakes are nowhere to be found.
We really need to play our part in reducing the global warming. Simple action like using less styrofoam and showering for a shorter duration can contribute towards a better environment. A million people using 1 less styrofoam per week per person signifies 4 million less styrofoam per year. That's a huge number, isn't it?
Internet, you, and your money
In the internet age, information is at our fingertips. Unfortunately, not many consumers are able to gather the appropriate information to aid their purchase decision. I just saw some pre-wedding photos taken by a so-called professional photographer. Unfortunately, the photo looks very much amateur to me >< Doh, the lighting is terrible. I wonder why my friend's friend is willing to pay the photographer S$3,500 to have such an ugly photo taken.. Why don't they take a short time to browse the net for photographer's website and get an idea how pre-wedding photo can look like, the better ones of course.
I am going to help my photographer friend to do some of the shoots later. I hope I can help him with the styling. I'd show some of the processed photo when it's done.
Photo-editing software is so much advance nowadays that refusing to work with it sounds like refusing to use gas stove to cook and decide to use coal instead. After all, the photo-editing software only builds up on the high quality photo taken by the photographer. A photo with improper colour composition can't be magically changed into an award winning photo despite using sepia or grayscale tone. Hehe...
I hope I can push my friend with the photography work. At least, there is a channel for me to improve my soft side. :P
I am going to help my photographer friend to do some of the shoots later. I hope I can help him with the styling. I'd show some of the processed photo when it's done.
Photo-editing software is so much advance nowadays that refusing to work with it sounds like refusing to use gas stove to cook and decide to use coal instead. After all, the photo-editing software only builds up on the high quality photo taken by the photographer. A photo with improper colour composition can't be magically changed into an award winning photo despite using sepia or grayscale tone. Hehe...
I hope I can push my friend with the photography work. At least, there is a channel for me to improve my soft side. :P
Jobs and overtime
It never quite dawns upon me why there is even a need for people do some overtime in their working life. I saw people toiling away their lives in the office, involved in seemingly unending flow of work. I am confused on why it can happen.
I keep wondering what makes a company have a lot of employees who are working over time. Does that mean that the process is not right such that the wastage of time is abundant? Does it mean that the company is simply understaffed? Does it mean that the employee is slow? Does it mean that the company is trying to employ slaves to boost up margin? Unfortunately, somehow it seems like the erring point is at the company.... Process can always be improved, margin can always be improved without sacrificing the employee's time and pay, and so on. However, it's difficult to get the entire company to put effort in improving the business process unless some top management guys are openly supporting the changes.
A middle manager and lower ranked employee can't do much to improve processes without clear mandate from the boss. I think ideal company should manage its employees time well such that extra time are available for the employees to embark on ad hoc projects to improve the company's overall work and life satisfaction. Too often that in order to achieve short-term profit, employees are forced to work overtime without extra pay, with low pay, and/or in terrible working environment. It should be difficult for such company to survive if the employees are feeling the burden daily and no time and effort are put to improve the processes, procedures, and even on the business development side. After all, if you keep chasing the dangled carrot in front of your eyes, you won't be able to see what's at the side and your concentrated focus on the carrot will cause you to bump to the walls in front of you.
Continuous improvement on a company's process is mandatory and innovative solution and working environment needs to be fostered if a company wishes to remain competitive. However, if majority of the employees are kept busy on their work without much room for creativity to wiggle, it's pretty hard to imagine the company to succeed in the long term.
I keep wondering what makes a company have a lot of employees who are working over time. Does that mean that the process is not right such that the wastage of time is abundant? Does it mean that the company is simply understaffed? Does it mean that the employee is slow? Does it mean that the company is trying to employ slaves to boost up margin? Unfortunately, somehow it seems like the erring point is at the company.... Process can always be improved, margin can always be improved without sacrificing the employee's time and pay, and so on. However, it's difficult to get the entire company to put effort in improving the business process unless some top management guys are openly supporting the changes.
A middle manager and lower ranked employee can't do much to improve processes without clear mandate from the boss. I think ideal company should manage its employees time well such that extra time are available for the employees to embark on ad hoc projects to improve the company's overall work and life satisfaction. Too often that in order to achieve short-term profit, employees are forced to work overtime without extra pay, with low pay, and/or in terrible working environment. It should be difficult for such company to survive if the employees are feeling the burden daily and no time and effort are put to improve the processes, procedures, and even on the business development side. After all, if you keep chasing the dangled carrot in front of your eyes, you won't be able to see what's at the side and your concentrated focus on the carrot will cause you to bump to the walls in front of you.
Continuous improvement on a company's process is mandatory and innovative solution and working environment needs to be fostered if a company wishes to remain competitive. However, if majority of the employees are kept busy on their work without much room for creativity to wiggle, it's pretty hard to imagine the company to succeed in the long term.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Satisfaction
Seen www.starbucked.com? Hehehe.. it's a website created by a man who was practically starbucked. He encountered such a disappointment in Starbucks' service that he set up an anti-corporation website by his own money just to make sure he put his point clear. He has changed into a brand assassin.
I wonder about the number of brand assassin in Singapore. I have not been able to advocate any single brand although I have been exposed to quite a number of them in Singapore. After all, Singapore is a global city where most corporations seem to set up HQ here. Yet, despites the enormous amount of branded goods here, the service of salesperson and call center in Singapore is not great. I still recall how many times salespersons caused me to swear not to buy from shops. There have also been so many stories from friends on how restaurant waiter/ waitresses non-chalantly treat the diners as if the restaurant is paying the diners to dine there!!
The outrageous part of the service in Singapore is that there has been many calls for the customers to behave themselves before asking the service providers to provide good service. Now, who is the most affected party in this supposedly mutual business relationship? I would like to argue that it's the business units who are supposed to provide great services before they can expect loyalty, advocacy, and excellent attitude from their customers. The customers came with a certain expectation and that expectation should be met if the business would like to have a repeat business. Only by extending hands to the customers, can a company creates civilized customers and generate more profit.
I wonder about the number of brand assassin in Singapore. I have not been able to advocate any single brand although I have been exposed to quite a number of them in Singapore. After all, Singapore is a global city where most corporations seem to set up HQ here. Yet, despites the enormous amount of branded goods here, the service of salesperson and call center in Singapore is not great. I still recall how many times salespersons caused me to swear not to buy from shops. There have also been so many stories from friends on how restaurant waiter/ waitresses non-chalantly treat the diners as if the restaurant is paying the diners to dine there!!
The outrageous part of the service in Singapore is that there has been many calls for the customers to behave themselves before asking the service providers to provide good service. Now, who is the most affected party in this supposedly mutual business relationship? I would like to argue that it's the business units who are supposed to provide great services before they can expect loyalty, advocacy, and excellent attitude from their customers. The customers came with a certain expectation and that expectation should be met if the business would like to have a repeat business. Only by extending hands to the customers, can a company creates civilized customers and generate more profit.
Monday, July 2, 2007
There is something about statistics
Statistics is used everywhere to justify company policies. The challenge on using statistics is to learn not to torture the data. Amazingly, when one has some data, statistics is always use to make the data confess a particular response that the user would like to see. Once the user find something extraordinary (that he/she doesn't like), methods of regrouping, taking out the so-called outliers, etc will be employed to "smooth" the data and ta-daaa... the data analysis will produce something that the user would love to see...
Amazingly, although we know it's not so wise to torture the data, we still do it. Countless of times, I saw it happening, not only in academic scene, but more so in corporate scene. It's just very hard to see that the initial data analysis does not produce something we want.
But, do we really ever do a 5-why analysis on why the data looks wrong or why A is higher although it should be lower? Instead of fiddling with statistics to produce the "wanted" result, perhaps additional analysis (that MAKES SENSE) or simply letting the data as it is is wiser. As my friend said, "Data does not lie". Perhaps there is genuine explanation to the seemingly bewildering scene. It just that when we torture the data, the explanation will almost be definitely overlooked.
Amazingly, although we know it's not so wise to torture the data, we still do it. Countless of times, I saw it happening, not only in academic scene, but more so in corporate scene. It's just very hard to see that the initial data analysis does not produce something we want.
But, do we really ever do a 5-why analysis on why the data looks wrong or why A is higher although it should be lower? Instead of fiddling with statistics to produce the "wanted" result, perhaps additional analysis (that MAKES SENSE) or simply letting the data as it is is wiser. As my friend said, "Data does not lie". Perhaps there is genuine explanation to the seemingly bewildering scene. It just that when we torture the data, the explanation will almost be definitely overlooked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)