Referring to http://www.oto.co.id/infootomotif/berita_detail.asp?ContentID=2007052911322902000085
O my, Daimler Chrysler Indonesia (DCI) is selling its C-Class to Blue Bird for use in a taxi fleet. DCI sounds quite positive that the C-Class' luxury car image won't suffer since C-Class sales is not affected in Singapore although the cars are also used as taxi there.
I tend to disagree with DCI's opinion. I feel that the already low sales of Mercedes-Benz C-Class in Indonesia will fall because of this. Nevertheless, it shouldn't affect much though since the sales of C-Class is in the mere few hundreds of cars at most. Indonesians are very conscious of image. 90% of soap operas aired in TV won't talk about rich family's affairs and it always depict the family having certain types of cars, super big houses with golf courses, branded items, and so on. Those soap operas actually sell very well. It shows the dream and/ or of the population on being rich. On the other hand, Singapore's soap operas tend to portray lives of the average family. The focus seems to be different.
Therefore, I don't think DCI needs to be cautious in comparing Singapore's and Indonesia's society. Indonesians who can afford to buy Mercedes-Benz with cash would want to have a car similar to a taxi! However, selling as taxi might actually allow DCI to sell more C-Class? Hehe.. not sure.. I don't have the sales volume.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Fish with leg??
It seems that the pictures above has been chain-forwarded around. It is alleged to be a type of fish with legs!! Imagine the hype it creates. Besides Coelacanth, a "living species" by the virtue of unchanged appearance from its ancient predecessors, which has a resembling of leg at its fin, there is virtually living fish with obvious legs yet found till now. Sorry to say folks, those who gets excited that the pictures above is a fish, that creature IS NOT a fish. Hehe... It is in fact a salamander, called Axolotl, an amphibian from Mexico (http://www.axolotl.org/).
Strangely, Australians and Newzealanders call the salamander, Mexican walking fish. It's anyone guess why it's called so ;-)Well, it's not a fish after all. Haha... it's basically a salamander that maintained its larval form. Probably the easiest way to explain is through the metamorphosis of frog. Tadpoles metamorphoses in phases to become frog. If the metamorphosis stop at a stage where the leg is there but the larval appearance is maintained, well.... the tadpole will look like the Mexican salamander. :P Rather cute actually, this Axolotl, it is kept as Exotic pet although it's listed as endangered :S
Oh by the way, Coelacanth give births to young, not laying eggs as per normal fishes. There is also another queer looking fish, called rabbit fish or rat fish. It has a long tail like rats and a fin resembling a shark although the portion of the fin near the body is bigger than the end forming a "leg" looking fin.
Advertising? Get into the heart
Smart advertising eh? It's when you touch some nerves that the advertisement is effective.
Science and money
Thailand's decision to produce three patented drugs locally has caused one of the hottest arguments about intellectual rights. The pharmaceutical companies talk about their rights to earn a return to their investments in the discovery of the drugs and perhaps, arguably to an extent, the rights of their stakeholders to earn more dividends from the companies' share. While Thailand argues that the government needs to provide affordable drugs to its citizens.
There is only one common issues of those arguments, MONEY. Yes, all are about money. On one side, poor patients (regardless of what they do to contract AIDS or whatsoever), while on the other side, "relatively" poor (arguably) investors and scientists trying to earn more money. I see a vicious cycle of money and the "victims" here.
Science equipments are very expensive (I have experienced in buying some for my laboratories) indeed. However, the huge cost of drug discovery is in paying the scientists behind the discovery. I wonder what the true motive of the scientists in creating the drugs is. Is the motive to help people? Is the motive to somehow strike it rich because of the patents? And how does a scientist value himself when he/ she draws his pay? The key argument is the type of life that the scientist would like to have. Of course if the scientist is willing to live a life unlike Bill Gates and other millionaires/ billionaires, his pay should be relatively a mild point for the pharmaceutical company. Point One.
Arguably again, of course, is the valuation of a pharmaceutical company towards that scientist and its creation. Principle of economics indeed teaches the company to pay the lowest it can to the scientist so it can earn as much as possible. Now, if the pharmaceutical company pays the real value of the drugs by minimizing its profit, the cost of having the drugs would be lower. Point Two.
Another point, what drives an investor besides money and money and money? If investors start to support only the companies with high sense of responsibility to the community, instead of supporting their greed, perhaps more companies would contribute to the community. The cost of the drugs shall be lower since the need to maximize profits for the sake of the stakeholders is inexistent. Point Three.
A responsible human who values his life and steers away from vice, arguably, leads a healthier life and a lower chance to contract deadly disease like AIDS (an example since the case starts with AIDS drugs). Prevention always works better than cure. Reduction of demand eventually reduce the supply and perhaps zero demand may happen leading to zero supply. The choice is there. Point Four.
Therefore, in conclusion, if each human is to value his/ her life and live without greed, perhaps such case of drugs' IP fights can be minimized.
Each cent that you can reduce coming out from your greed will lead a long way.
There is only one common issues of those arguments, MONEY. Yes, all are about money. On one side, poor patients (regardless of what they do to contract AIDS or whatsoever), while on the other side, "relatively" poor (arguably) investors and scientists trying to earn more money. I see a vicious cycle of money and the "victims" here.
Science equipments are very expensive (I have experienced in buying some for my laboratories) indeed. However, the huge cost of drug discovery is in paying the scientists behind the discovery. I wonder what the true motive of the scientists in creating the drugs is. Is the motive to help people? Is the motive to somehow strike it rich because of the patents? And how does a scientist value himself when he/ she draws his pay? The key argument is the type of life that the scientist would like to have. Of course if the scientist is willing to live a life unlike Bill Gates and other millionaires/ billionaires, his pay should be relatively a mild point for the pharmaceutical company. Point One.
Arguably again, of course, is the valuation of a pharmaceutical company towards that scientist and its creation. Principle of economics indeed teaches the company to pay the lowest it can to the scientist so it can earn as much as possible. Now, if the pharmaceutical company pays the real value of the drugs by minimizing its profit, the cost of having the drugs would be lower. Point Two.
Another point, what drives an investor besides money and money and money? If investors start to support only the companies with high sense of responsibility to the community, instead of supporting their greed, perhaps more companies would contribute to the community. The cost of the drugs shall be lower since the need to maximize profits for the sake of the stakeholders is inexistent. Point Three.
A responsible human who values his life and steers away from vice, arguably, leads a healthier life and a lower chance to contract deadly disease like AIDS (an example since the case starts with AIDS drugs). Prevention always works better than cure. Reduction of demand eventually reduce the supply and perhaps zero demand may happen leading to zero supply. The choice is there. Point Four.
Therefore, in conclusion, if each human is to value his/ her life and live without greed, perhaps such case of drugs' IP fights can be minimized.
Each cent that you can reduce coming out from your greed will lead a long way.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Personal branding
Each person always talks and acts according to what one's subconscious mind tells one to. I call it personal branding. In a way, we would like to behave like a certain ideal personality. Therefore, our subconscious mind steers our action towards depicting that personality as ideal as possible. Normally, we don't realize what is happening. Depending on our opinion and/ or view to someone, we would behave in a certain manner in front of that someone while behaving in an opposite manner to another person. Reflect your behaviour towards two persons of dissimilar dominance upon yourself and you'd know how different you are.
I don't think it's bad to behave differently to different persona. I'd call it flexibility. We as social beings always need that flexibility.
I'd like to, however, talk about how one can market themselves using that personal traits. Too often, one sells one ability through tangible goods and services. The subtlety portion of selling "oneself" is rarely undertaken mainly for fear of rejection. However, if one manage to sell one's personality and method of doing things, one shall gain amount of "followers", "admirers", and "haters" in unexplicable manner.
A example of personal branding could be found easily in the field of photography. Let us say one photographer enjoys human photography. That photographer certainly has his own reason why he likes to take pictures of human, either human in action, human in stillness, and so on. When one engages a photographer, the best interaction happens when one is not putting the value to the photo but to the personality of the photographer. It's when one sees through the photographer's self and idealism that the best photo could be produced. Say, that person is buying the idealism of the photographer. Therefore, I'd say a photographer who manages to put to words his passion would enjoy the best customer around and he would be able to produce one-in-a-kind type of photography.
Nowadays, it's not the product and services that count. It's the story that matters and a story that links to the customers is the emotion of that sells.
I don't think it's bad to behave differently to different persona. I'd call it flexibility. We as social beings always need that flexibility.
I'd like to, however, talk about how one can market themselves using that personal traits. Too often, one sells one ability through tangible goods and services. The subtlety portion of selling "oneself" is rarely undertaken mainly for fear of rejection. However, if one manage to sell one's personality and method of doing things, one shall gain amount of "followers", "admirers", and "haters" in unexplicable manner.
A example of personal branding could be found easily in the field of photography. Let us say one photographer enjoys human photography. That photographer certainly has his own reason why he likes to take pictures of human, either human in action, human in stillness, and so on. When one engages a photographer, the best interaction happens when one is not putting the value to the photo but to the personality of the photographer. It's when one sees through the photographer's self and idealism that the best photo could be produced. Say, that person is buying the idealism of the photographer. Therefore, I'd say a photographer who manages to put to words his passion would enjoy the best customer around and he would be able to produce one-in-a-kind type of photography.
Nowadays, it's not the product and services that count. It's the story that matters and a story that links to the customers is the emotion of that sells.
Revolution in fuel technology
Revolution in fuel technology is needed to propel automotive transportation to the next step. Cars has been running on gasoline for far too long. Petrol and diesel engine design has not achieve any significant breakthrough so far. I reckon unless a real significant breakthrough is reached, the increase in fuel efficiency and global warming contribution from fossil fuel burning shall continue to be high.
Future transports are undeniably compact (even mini) with non fossil fuel. There is no way for the world to sustain fossil fuel based transports in 2100. The crunch produced by the overall CO2 contribution to global warming is experienced world wide. Despite the many denials by many countries (big or small), the effects are there. The changes are felt. More and more people are conscious that they contribute to the world's well being. That change of mindset has fueled the growth rate of alternative fuel car sales in US (car like Toyota Prius). However, until now the cars sold commercially mainly utilize a mixture of biofuel and fuel, some runs on bioethanol-fuel mixture. Fossil fuel is still there. Even the argument is bioethanol generates less CO2 in overall is still controversial. It is not easy to formulate an accurate method calculate that.
The real mindset blowing experience could only happen when hydrogen fuel technology, for example, suddenly reach a breakthrough where commercially feasible and safe hydrogen engine could be produced. The world is still waiting for it to happen. Meanwhile, I say reduce your fossil fuel consumption. Start small and accumulate your personal carbon reduction.
Future transports are undeniably compact (even mini) with non fossil fuel. There is no way for the world to sustain fossil fuel based transports in 2100. The crunch produced by the overall CO2 contribution to global warming is experienced world wide. Despite the many denials by many countries (big or small), the effects are there. The changes are felt. More and more people are conscious that they contribute to the world's well being. That change of mindset has fueled the growth rate of alternative fuel car sales in US (car like Toyota Prius). However, until now the cars sold commercially mainly utilize a mixture of biofuel and fuel, some runs on bioethanol-fuel mixture. Fossil fuel is still there. Even the argument is bioethanol generates less CO2 in overall is still controversial. It is not easy to formulate an accurate method calculate that.
The real mindset blowing experience could only happen when hydrogen fuel technology, for example, suddenly reach a breakthrough where commercially feasible and safe hydrogen engine could be produced. The world is still waiting for it to happen. Meanwhile, I say reduce your fossil fuel consumption. Start small and accumulate your personal carbon reduction.
Brain drain
Referring to http://www.antara.co.id/arc/2007/5/27/pembedaan-gaji-bagi-profesional-asing-dan-wni-di-tanah-air-picu-brain-drain/ (sorry, in Bahasa Indonesia), Indonesian students in Australia National University (ANU) lamented the difference in treatment given by companies in Indonesia to local and foreign graduates. Foreigners seem to be paid higher than Indonesians despite having the same skill and qualifications regardless of whether the Indonesians graduate overseas or from local University.
The brain drain phenomenon is fairly common to happen in developing countries. Those countries suffer to make their infrastructure works. No budget of course could much be put into the education. The situation is made worse by the menial political bickering that could easily blow up into non related issues such as race, religion, etc. Other developed countries seem to enjoy these events since it should keep the developing countries as continuously developing.
Even Singapore is having brain drain to a certain degree. Some of its scholars are happily taking up residence and even citizenship overseas, creating war of words (read: thesis) from opponent and proponent. Well, intellectuals like to be challenged. Humans like to be valued. If the value proposition and the environment do not support human development, brain drain naturally runs the course to the perceived better countries. The amount of immigrants (successful and unsuccessful) in US is one clear example. The unreigned freedom in US has enticed so many people to seek for better opportunity there.
Unless developing countries start to invest on their human resources to the fullest, it'd be hard for those countries to progress. Even for resource-rich countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and middle eastern countries, unless capable local human resources are there to utilize those resources effectively, no progress could be foreseen. The adventure of PT. Freeport Indonesia in Papua portion of Indonesia is one example. Papua has been under Indonesia since 1969. It is resources rich both in valuables like metals and species rich ecosystem. However, despite freeport being able to give an individual under the company up to 150,000 USD in 2005, Papua population remains one the most illiterate in Indonesia. Reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeport_indonesia, for ease of reference) released by Freeport has shown that it pays Indonesia army to watch over their camps. I'd say this is the direct result of having foreign companies taking over the resource management indirectly. It's not surprising considering the corruptions prevalent in Indonesia.
Well, in short corruption elimination and human resources proper valuation is extremely crucial for development.
The brain drain phenomenon is fairly common to happen in developing countries. Those countries suffer to make their infrastructure works. No budget of course could much be put into the education. The situation is made worse by the menial political bickering that could easily blow up into non related issues such as race, religion, etc. Other developed countries seem to enjoy these events since it should keep the developing countries as continuously developing.
Even Singapore is having brain drain to a certain degree. Some of its scholars are happily taking up residence and even citizenship overseas, creating war of words (read: thesis) from opponent and proponent. Well, intellectuals like to be challenged. Humans like to be valued. If the value proposition and the environment do not support human development, brain drain naturally runs the course to the perceived better countries. The amount of immigrants (successful and unsuccessful) in US is one clear example. The unreigned freedom in US has enticed so many people to seek for better opportunity there.
Unless developing countries start to invest on their human resources to the fullest, it'd be hard for those countries to progress. Even for resource-rich countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and middle eastern countries, unless capable local human resources are there to utilize those resources effectively, no progress could be foreseen. The adventure of PT. Freeport Indonesia in Papua portion of Indonesia is one example. Papua has been under Indonesia since 1969. It is resources rich both in valuables like metals and species rich ecosystem. However, despite freeport being able to give an individual under the company up to 150,000 USD in 2005, Papua population remains one the most illiterate in Indonesia. Reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeport_indonesia, for ease of reference) released by Freeport has shown that it pays Indonesia army to watch over their camps. I'd say this is the direct result of having foreign companies taking over the resource management indirectly. It's not surprising considering the corruptions prevalent in Indonesia.
Well, in short corruption elimination and human resources proper valuation is extremely crucial for development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)