fair n lovely

spiderman thmbs up
monetize prejudices

fair n lovely
asci = truthful; decency
consumers intelligent = why filter at consumers shudnt the filter be at admakers
prasoon joshi = real beauty rejected
different things offend diff ppl .. one body
social advertising - polio; all brands becoming socialy awaree as ppl becoming
democracy all votes are equal; consumerism all wallets are not equal

5% of women depicting colour not showing what 90% of women
correlation between fairness n success
art imitating life or is art imitating life

Government regulation of social media

he argument for internet regulation or censorship in India has mostly been framed in the context of ensuring national security and secular harmony. Efforts at regulation increased in the aftermath of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks and subsequent tightening of national security. While some see these arguments as justified given India’s experience with terrorism and history of ethnic and religious tension, many civil society and internet activists feel that the government’s attempts at regulation go too far, infringing on peoples’ right to free speech and expression.

As India positions itself as a global leader in the 21st century, one of its greatest strengths is its loud, boisterous, and often frenzied democracy. The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental pillar of this democracy, and efforts at curbing this right through arbitrary laws and rules will only serve to turn back the clock on the country’s social and economic progress. Mahatma Gandhi once advised a newly independent India to pursue a path of spiritual and inner purity embodied in the principles: “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil.” Surely a state that censors and curbs the free flow of information isn’t what he had in mind.

Many people come to us and say that it’s great you played such a big role in the Arab spring [uprisings], but it's also kind of scary because you enable all this sharing and collect information on people. Civil society groups, activists, and social movements have innovatively used the internet and social media platforms to combat corruption and bribery, redress grievances, and demand improvements in service delivery and governance more broadly. Initiatives such as Ipaidabribe.com, for example, provide Indians with an opportunity to file online reports of bribe giving or taking. Similarly, Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption campaign last summer usedFacebook and Twitter to generate public support against corruption.

Governments cannot cherry pick which aspects of the web to control and which not to. But it's hard to have one without the other. You can't isolate some things you like about the internet and control other things that you don't. Technology will move faster than governments, so don't legislate before you understand the consequences

By controlling social media, the government is doing a quick fix and not solving the real issues.  Why government hasn’t used social media till day to benefit from it. Although the government has created a presence it is nothing more than blowing its own trumpet.

Cultural sensitivity is not a pre-given fact in India. The reality is that India today is undergoing rapid social and economic changes. More than 50 percent of India’s population is below the age of 25 and nearly 65 percent under the age of 35. There are an estimated 100 million internet users in the country, with the number estimated to triple by 2014. Mobile phone penetration, particularly in rural areas, is extensive with over 800 million subscribers in 2011. With the rapid expansion of well-paying jobs in sectors such as IT, software, and business-outsource processing, many young Indians have access to disposable incomes far greater than their parents and have aspirations to work and live abroad. Against this backdrop, the government’s efforts to censor the internet and other media is an anachronism and symptomatic of a pre-liberalization regime of state regulation and control that is long past. And let’s face it, in a country of 1.2 billion people monitoring or policing user content is simply not feasible.

It’s ridiculously expensive. The cost of complying with regulation in the United States is $1.8 trillion each year, according to a recent report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Recommendation:

Freedom of expression is important, but there must be limits, like laws against defamation and remarks that can incite hatred of a race or religion. The Government should consider laws to combat cyberbullying and other forms of Internet harassment, and we are fully ready to support the government in such initiatives as always

Government agents in 74 countries demanded information on about 38,000 Facebook users in the first half of this year, with about half the orders coming from authorities in the United States for which we have always complied

Sometimes ‘unsocial’ media

The dark side of the media came alive once again amid an otherwise proud and celebratory moment. After 24-year-old Nina Davuluri of Indian origin was crowned Miss America, the first Indian American to hold the title, social media was abuzz with racist slurs, displaying not just abuse but hatred, and above all, ignorance. Celebrations for Davuluri were marred by comments that called her “Arab”, “terrorist” and linking the win with the 9/11 attacks in the US.   It appeared lost on those writing such comments that Davuluri’s father Koteshwara Choudhary, migrated to the US in 1981 and is a gynaecologist in Fayetteville, New York. Davuluri herself has a degree in Brain Behaviour and Cognitive Science from the University of Michigan, and aspires to be a cardiologist, a goal for which she pledged the $50,000 prize money she won with her crown. She remained poised and gracious and dismissed the comments saying, “I have to rise above that. I always viewed myself as first and foremost American.”   It is beyond doubt that racism and sexism are well alive in America, despite the country having come a long way from the civil rights struggle by the Blacks in 1960s and its first Black President serving his second-term in the office currently. Despite being a diverse country, post-9/11 the minorities in the United States have often come under attack and continue to be discriminated in social and political spheres. The rise of governors like Bobby Jindal has been an exception.   However, the present issue has two dimensions to itself, concerning not just the US but the world. The first is the continuation of association of dark skin with ugliness and white skin as being the paradigm of beauty. Today, fairness creams sell like hot cakes, along with products that vouch for white beauty. This is a trend world over. The ‘White Man’s Burden’ continues in terms of defining ‘beauty’ and this is accepted by non-white people in the millions perhaps because of a colonial mentality that accepts western colonialists as superior whom they wished to imitate. Its culture equates fair skin to beauty and high social status. America’s television star Oprah Winfrey also recently came face to face with racism that still exists in Europe. She was in a shop in Zurich and wanted to see a purse. The salesgirl, who didn’t recognize her, allegedly told her that “she won’t be able to afford it”. This case was not violent or hateful but shows how the salesgirl made a snap judgment about Oprah’s wealth based on the colour of her skin.   There is as much racism in India as in America perhaps. In India, matrimonial adverts openly mention the desired colour of the prospective bride which cannot be otherwise than fair. In 2010, India’s whitening cream market was worth 432 million dollars and had an annual growth of 18%. Cricket players and Bollywood stars regularly lend their face and voice to the advertisements for these products.   This acceptance of standardized beauty norms resulted in part from mind conditioning and racists. The Western colonial regimes left their mark on the cultures of the people they once ruled. And today, globalization and the aggressive marketing of western brands encourage people of other cultures to adopt “western standards of beauty”. It has been forgotten that beauty is in the spirit and personality of an individual, regardless of the colour of the skin. The second is the unmasking of the ugly face of the social media. The medium is popular with youth, more so because anonymity can be maintained while unleashing opinions and abuse.   Cyber-bullying is a worrying but growing trend. The social media does come with the freedom of speech but it is harming and discriminating others through words and pictures. However, this reflects minds unable to accept change that is coming in form of growing contribution of the minorities and recognition of it in some part in countries like the US.   Slow change can also been seen in pageants like Miss America. The competition started in 1921 as a gimmick to get people to hang out in Atlantic City after Labour Day — at the time it was charmingly called “The Most Beautiful Bathing Girl in America”. By the 1950s, it became conflated with everything that America stood for.   Ideas about what kind of woman could adequately represent America have evolved over time.  Originally, non-white women were not allowed to participate in the contest. It wasn’t until 1970 that a black woman competed. Since 1983, eight African-American women have worn the Miss America crown. In 2001 the title went to Hawaii-born Filipino Angela Perez Baraquio.   What was different about the Miss America pageant this year was that it celebrated diversity, with many South-Asian participants taking the lead. Davuluri herself thanked her fellow citizens for celebrating diversity. But racist comments about her win reflect the inability of the same people to accept change and let go of the patriarchal mindset that comes in way of their own development.   Davuluri’s win need to be celebrated for many reasons — it represents the inclusion of minorities among dominating Whites, giving a sense of hope to those who remain on the fringes of society that they can demand their rights, both constitutional and human. Above all, her win symbolizes that being dark-skinned is not about being ugly; it represents humanity as much as having white skin and a tiny waist does. - See more at: http://www.impactonnet.com/Sometimes-%E2%80%98unsocial%E2%80%99-media#sthash.SZGeKgGH.dpuf

UPA vs BJP

1.GDP growth: Average GDP growth in 1998-2004 (NDA) was 6% a year. Average annual GDP growth in 2004-13 (UPA), up to June 30, 2013, was 7.9%.

Caveat 1: The Vajpayee-led NDA battled US-led economic sanctions following the Pokhran-II nuclear test in May 1998. It faced a short but expensive Kargil war in 1999 and the dotcom bust in 2000. When it took office, it had the lag effect of the East Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 to contend with.

Caveat 2: The UPA government, in contrast, benefitted from the economic momentum of the high (8.1%) GDP growth rate of 2003-04 – the NDA government’s final year – and rode that wave. The global liquidity bubble in 2004-08 bouyed foreign inflows, helping UPA-I achieve a high GDP growth rate in its first term. The Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008 did hurt the Indian economy but the ensuing US Federal Reserve asset buying programme attracted a steady flow of near-zero interest dollars into India from 2009.

Despite these caveats, the UPA government’s average annual GDP growth rate of 7.9% in 2004-13 clearly scores over the NDA government’s average annual growth rate of 6% (though high inflation boosted the former significantly). First strike to UPA.

2. Current Account Deficit:

2004:  (+) $7.36 billion (surplus).

2013: (-) $80 billion.

The winner here is clearly NDA. It ran a current account surplus in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Under UPA this dipped into deficit from 2006 and has spun downwards since.

3. Trade deficit:

2004: (-) $13.16 billion.

2013: (-) $180 billion.

Again, advantage NDA.

4. Fiscal deficit:

2004: 4.7% of GDP.

2013: 4.8% of GDP.

Not much to choose between the two.

Caveat: This extract from the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) report, published in 2010, explains why and when the UPA government’s fiscal defict began to spiral out of control.

“The central budget in 2008–2009, announced in February 2008, seemed to continue the progress towards FRBM targets by showing a low fiscal deficit of 2.5% of GDP. However, the 2008–2009 budget quite clearly made inadequate allowances for rural schemes like the farm loan waiver and the expansion of social security schemes under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), the Sixth Pay Commission award and subsidies for food, fertilizer, and petroleum.”

“These together pushed up the fiscal deficit sharply to higher levels. There were also off-budget items like the issue of oil and fertilizer bonds, which should be added to give a true picture of fiscal deficit in 2008–2009. The fiscal deficit shot up to 8.9% of GDP (10.7% including off-budget bonds) against 5.0% in 2007–2008 and the primary surplus turned into a deficit of 3.5% of GDP.

“The huge increase in public expenditure in 2008–2009 of 31.2% that followed a 27.4% increase in 2007–2008 was driven by the electoral cycle with parliamentary elections scheduled within a year of the announcement of the budget.”

The recent announcement of the Seventh Pay Commission comes again, not unexpectedly, at the end of an electoral cycle.

5. Inflation:

1998-2004: 5%.

2004-2013: 9% (Both figures are averaged out over their respective tenures).

Advantage again to NDA. Inflation under NDA was on average half that under UPA, leading to the RBI’s controversial tight money policy, high interest rates and rising EMIs.

6. External Debt:

March 2004: $111.6 billion.

March 2013: $390 billion.

The UPA suffers badly in this comparision, a result of lack of confidence in India’s economy and currency following retrospective tax legislation and other regressive policies, especially during UPA-2.

7. Jobs:

1999-2004:  60 million new jobs created.

2004-11: 14.6 million jobs created.

Clearly, the UPA’s big failure has been jobless growth – a bad electoral omen.

8. Rupee:

1998-2004: Variation: Rs. 39 to 49 per $.

2004-13: Variation: Rs. 39 to 68 per $.

The NDA government’s economic and fiscal policies, despite the various crises of 1998-2000 pointed out earlier, evoked more  global confidence, leading to a relatively stable rupee (Rs. 10 variation) compared to the Rs. 29 variation during UPA’s tenure.

(Rupee rose from 40-plus to 39 between October 2007 and April 2008.)

9. HDI:

2004: India was ranked 123^rd globally on the human development index (HDI) in 2004, with a score of 0.453.

2013: India has slipped 13 places to 136^th globally on the HDI in 2013 with a score of 0.554.

10. Subsidies:

2004: Rs. 44,327 crore.

2013: Rs. 2,31,584 crore.

Here again, profligate welfarism, as the ADBI report quoted earlier shows, has led to a rising subsidy bill. Worse, a significant amount is siphoned off by a corrupt nexus of politicians, officials and middlemen.

Conclusion: UPA scores above NDA on one of the 10 parameters (GDP growth), is level on one other parameter (fiscal deficit) while NDA does better than UPA on the remaining eight parameters.

The next time Finance Minister P. Chidambaram wishes to stage an encounter with facts, he would do well to be aware of those facts.

Big data

As Hal Varian (a terrific economist at Berkeley/Google) says, “Data are widely available; what is scarce is the ability to extract wisdom from them”.

Social Media Social Campaigns its my fault

What All India Bakchod Did Right With “It’s Your Fault” – MediaNama

Here’s what I think worked for them:

Choice of medium and the impact of social media: AIB’s decision to use YouTube over television or any other medium is notable: With YouTube, video can go viral, given the ability for people to share the video and spread the word, which isn’t possible with broadcast. Every share now means another supporter who is creating more awareness. The cost of running such a campaign on television would have been quite high considering TV ad rates. In fact, given the success of the video, it’s likely that news channels will see this as a validation, and perhaps showcase the video on television.

Satire: Koechlin and Pandey’s straight face and smile throughout the video has brought out the sarcastic tone of the video.  The choice of satire over drama seems to have driven home the message much better contributing to the success of the video.

The choice of content: This subject could have been dealt with in so many different ways but the decision to highlight some of these baseless claims seems to have found resonance with the online audience.

No ads: The video has not been monetized with ads, and given the subject, we doubt it will be monetized. The impact that the video has had would be completely ruined if they decide to monetize it.

What next?

AIB has now managed to create a viral video on a sensitive issue in India. But what next? What is to come off this virality, apart from the shares and awareness? One of the most common criticisms against social campaigns on social media has been that it doesn’t have a lasting impact, and creates shares and comments. What AIB can do now is that they can ask people to submit their versions of “It’s my fault”, and get them to highlight statements they feel strongly against, using YouTube’s video response features, in order to take the campaign forward.

The other thing, as IndiaToday reports, is that they’re dubbing the video in other Indian languages, to reach out to more people.

Tweet4Change by Tata Jaago Re was another interesting campaign that raised funds for organisations dealing with women’s safety. MARD (Men Against Rape & Discrimination) is also another initiative that was created  on social media, but appears to have died down after its initial stint during the IPL 2013.

mondelez twitter social media

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-25/news/42394361_1_mondelez-india-mondelez-international-twitter

16,000 retweets, 18,000 Facebook likes and 5,000 Facebook shares were registered within the first hour of the Oreo tweet during the Super Bowl XLVII blackout. 'You can still dunk in the dark' 

 Venkat Mallik, president at Tribal DDB and RAPP India, equates it with Amul's outdoor strategy of creating topical ads. Only that Mondelez will be playing it on Twitter which will have a faster turnaround and a global impact

 #ShubhAarambh during IPL and with #NotSoSweet for Bournville