With the United States imposing import duties of 25% and 10% steel and aluminium under the Trump administration, Indian companies will not be directly hit, but could get hurt due to higher supply pressure in the countries where India is a major exporter, said a report by India Ratings and Research.India’s steel and aluminium companies’ exports to the US are as low as 2% and 6% respectively. “However, the impact could percolate through lower international prices due to excess supply from exporting countries while also leading to lower exports,” Ind-Ra said.Read it at Financial Express Related Items read more
An unexpected turn of events for an Indian couple planning to have their baby girl in Winnipeg has led to the family being torn apart.Joby Varkey and Robin Roy are both Indian citizens and permanent residents in Canada, with full time jobs in Winnipeg.Read it at Global News Related Items
Being mediocre and thrown out of academia 25 years ago, pushed into selling insurance, investments and real estate, I enjoyed reading Lavina Melwani’s article “Academic Stars” (Jan. 2007). Teaching of English by Indians to students in the West has been highlighted in the article, which made me reflect on my days learning English in India. English as the world’s lingua franca dominates Indian languages and literature in India, especially with the growing emphasis on science and technology. Indian literatures have suffered at the hands of English – Hindi the most.To get recognition and make money in India and abroad, one has to write in English and be published in the West. Several schools have been established in the US and elsewhere outside India to impart education and conduct research on Indian culture and history, as well as in Sanskrit literature, often with generous donations from affluent Indians. But nowhere in these 50 or so schools, have I found an Hindu Indian as professor of the subject or for that matter in Buddhism or Jainism. White, Christians always teach Sanskrit and Indian culture. What an anomaly. Can we find a Hindu Indian teaching Christianity and Western culture in American or British Universities or even in India?I have not read much of Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate, featured in your article, except The Argumentative Indian, which is very enjoyable and makes excellent reading, save for its India bashing and venomous comments against BJP. Has Sen written on the ills of western society, its political system, especially in the US and UK, where he has spent most of his academic life?Recognition in the West comes from reciting Shakespeare and speaking out against Hinduism and Indian culture, not by admiring the Vedas and Sanatan Dharma, which were founded on the principles of self-upliftment and betterment of humanity rather than prizes and materialistic glories, which is why they are neglected by Indians in India and abroad. But Indian culture and Sanskrit had its own adherents in Ramkrishna, Vivekanand, Aurobindo, CV Raman, Raman Maharshi, JC Bose, Tagore, Gandhi, Prabhupad, to name a few, who influenced the West so much. A report on them would bring a very noble, but different and proud reflection on Indian educators.Arun MisraAlpharetta GA I enjoy your articles and find it refreshing that you publish candid viewpoints on several issues. This encourages me to share my thoughts on the recent discussion in the media of the “manglik” issue surrounding Aishwarya Rai (Feb 2007).It is interesting that people are upset with movies like Water, yet little is done to counter the notion that the female is always at fault even for her horoscope.It is amusing to hear and read that if a girl was born under certain planets, she can be termed “manglik” and has to marry a tree to be worthy of marriage to a man.Would a man be asked to marry a tree or something else if he had a mangal? Is there a guarantee marrying a tree first would work?Lajuvia eMailI enjoyed the article “Yours Conveniently,” showing the success of South Asians in the industry. As a regular reader of Little India I see many articles on the accomplishments of Indians but none on those facing problems, e.g. with green cards. Thousands of Indians are facing difficulties with immigration. Your article notes that a million dollars were collected for the construction of a temple, but people are indifferent to the real problems of immigrants who are tied up in immigration delays. We need help so that lawmakers on Capitol Hill will listen to us. Arunesh Mohan, Via eMailIf Shilpa Shetty were an ordinary individual on the reality show Big Brother she would not have garnered as much sympathy (“O, Sister,” Feb 2007). As she is a Bollywood queen and attractive there was this outpouring of support for her. I find it appalling that the same Indians do not stand up to condemn the treatment meted out to the “Dalits,” and the scheduled castes/tribes in India. Many of them still are treated very unfairly. Guess that is the difference between being rich and famous and poor and downtrodden, right? I wish the author had brought up that point too instead of focusing on Shilpa and her reality show for which she was already compensated rather handsomely and is out to make more. True she deserves some sympathy, but not enough to merit headlines nor a big writeup in Little India. ManishVia eMail I am writing in response to the letter by Sophia (Feb 2007) commenting on white skinned people in Hindi movies. She is looking at the trees and missing the forest. Just because a few whites show up in the background (was this a movie set in the US?), doesn’t mean that if you are white you get a part in Hindi movies.Let’s take a look at the top heroes and heroines. Amitabh Bachchan and Shahrukh Khan, are as brown as they come. Amitabh had to battle better looking and lighter skinned heroes like Rajesh Khanna and Dharmendra and we all know how that ended up.Who is the top heroine today? Rani Mukherjee? The previous top actress was Madhuri Dixit. It’s not as if white skinned actors are making a late entry to Hindi cinema. Yester-year actresses like Babita, Vimi and Shakila were no more than B-grade heroines. Back in the 1970s a battle raged between Parveen Babi (white) and Zeenat Aman (dark skinned) for the title of the “Western” girl, it was no contest – Zeenat won by a mile.It is pretty clear that at least in Hindi Cinema, unlike Hollywood, good looks or skin color will not take you far. The Indian cinema-goer has always preferred good acting to looks. Top actors like Bachchan, Jaya Bhaduri, Shabani Azmi, Nutan, Nargis, etc. rose to the top because of their acting skills, decidedly not their looks. The only white actress to rise to the top in the last 50 years was Madhubala, and if you think it was because of her skin color, you need to have your eyes checked. Jayant PatelVia emailI think it is inappropriate to discuss the engagement of Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai (“To Be Mrs B,” Feb 2007), as this is a personal family matter and the media has no right or reason to form opinions. Even writing on such personal family matters for public consumption is wrong.Prajesh Lakshmanvia emailApart from Dr. Tulasi Polavarapu, (“The Midway Generation,” Dec 2006), I did not read about any of this generation using their American affluence to help the less fortunate in India. The stereotype of the Indian in America is frugal (euphemism for being monetarily cheap). This was commented on by one of your readers a few issues ago. I hope it is the first or immigrant generation that has created this stereotype and the Midway generation will share their good fortune with their less fortunate brethren in India.Blair Williamsvia eMail Related Items read more
Christmas is here! And that means everything is out of place for a while. There are big trees inside little houses, we all eat more than usual, and, of course, we cannot forget the pandemonium of shopping in crowded malls. This time of year is always both bewildering and exhilarating to me as I think back on what started off this retail madness.When baby Jesus was born, the three wise men or the Magi are said to have brought Him gifts, setting off (unwittingly, I’m sure) the trend of giving gifts for Christmas. They purportedly brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. We all know that the gift of gold or money is always welcome, especially with a new baby to diaper and a top-of-the-line and all-options-loaded donkey to pay off and feed. However, I can’t help but wonder: did Mary really need the frankincense and myrrh, and if she did not, what did she ever do with them?Growing up in India, as a Hindu, I was always jealous of my Christian friends. They had a jolly old man with a bottomless purse, aka Santa Claus, who bankrolled an entire holiday for them. Thanks to this guy, they not only got new dresses for Christmas, but also gifts to be enjoyed and showed off. Not that we were hurting, but there is just something about a box all wrapped up and tied up with colored ribbons. Of course, an integral part of the magic of receiving gifts as a child is believing in the existence of Santa Claus. Now, if the concept of Santa had originated in India, there would be temples to him, regular prayers held throughout the year, and probably even a cult of Santa-ites. But here, he is a strange figure who you believe in totally for the first few years of your life, and then go through the rest of it knowing that it is a lie. This double standard can even affect how you view a gift. If this kind-hearted stranger brings it to you, the gift is wonderful; but if you know that your parents got it, then you think that the least they could have done is go to shop around for a nicer color.The magical age when children believe in Santa disappears soon enough in elementary school when they encounter either an agnostic’s child or an obnoxious know-it-all who bursts their bubble. Some parents actually get mad when their child finds out the truth. In my opinion, that is carrying things a little too far. It is all very well to want to relive your own childhood through your child’s innocence, but believe me, there will be nothing cute about it when your 21-year-old is seen posting a letter to Mr. Santa Claus, North Pole. Now, if somebody were to actually publish an article about how Santa Claus is just a mythical concept made up by mall-owners and people in search of seasonal employment, all heck will break lose.In our own family, we have circumvented this problem by telling our daughters that while Santa does exist (after all, they have a picture with him at the mall), he is a very busy man, so he asks Mom and Dad to pick out their gifts. We have also told them that they can never divulge this secret to their friends otherwise Santa won’t recommend them for gifts next year (so as to avoid hate mail from angry parents).In the minds of children, gifts at Christmas are always associated with Santa, who disappears as they reach adulthood. However, the tradition of gift giving lingers, because no amount of reasoning can stop us from craving nice things, can it? Let us face it: no matter how much we decry the materialism that pervades the holiday, we still like to look in the shops at this time of the year. When else can we find an ironclad reason for plunking down 20 bucks for a plush dog wearing a snow hat and scarf that takes 4 AA batteries and barks to the tune of ‘Jingle bells’? We all need to feel good about our lives once in a while, and nothing says “I feel good” like a gift that we don’t need and can’t afford. That is why I feel bereft: I never got cool gifts for Christmas. When I came to the U.S. at the ripe old age of 22, I didn’t have a rich friend who might get me something fantastic. I was a struggling student myself who certainly couldn’t afford anything extravagant for myself. Then I fell in love and got married … to a man who doesn’t believe in surprise gifts and gift-wrapping. Mind you, I’m not complaining (imagine if I would at this time of the year,), but getting a winter jacket that I myself picked out and that I absolutely need, in its Macy’s bag, just doesn’t cut it. What is worse, after years of penny pinching, there is so much guilt associated with extravagant spending that the purchase of any item priced at over $10 might just put me in therapy.So I drive by the malls seething with envy over being excluded from the materialistic orgy inside. I lament that I was not born to American parents, who might even have divorced and remarried once or twice, which would have culminated in my receiving many expensive presents from multiple stepfamilies. And why, oh why, did I choose to have a few good friends instead of a large group of contacts who air-kiss cheeks and hand out expensive stuff at the end of every year?Wait … maybe that is what it was all about! No, not the stuff about divorce or insincere friends, but the part about what a feel-good gift is all about.I researched frankincense and myrrh and here is what I found. They are both plant resins that are constituents of perfumes and incenses, and used to be worth more than their weight in gold in historic times. So here is my theory: Mary didn’t actually need any frankincense or myrrh, she certainly couldn’t afford any on her monthly budget, but she might have really liked the stuff. So the Magi gifted those things to gladden her heart on the occasion of the birth of her child, something akin to buying a new mother a bottle of expensive perfume. If that was the case, they were indeed wise men … Related Items read more
In one of its biggest new product launches in years, PepsiCo recently unveiled Pepsi NEXT — a mid-calorie beverage that contains 60% less sugar than regular Pepsi-Cola. The soda, which comes in Pepsi’s trademark peppy blue can, is accompanied by an aggressive ad campaign targeting calorie-conscious customers who in recent years have replaced carbonated soft drinks with teas, flavored waters and sports drinks. The company calls Pepsi NEXT a “game-changer in the cola category” and has bestowed a hopeful tagline: “Drink It to Believe It.”The question is: Will Wall Street?It’s been a rough few years for PepsiCo. Indra Nooyi, chairman and chief executive officer, has diligently tried to transform the company from a purveyor of sugar-laden bubbly beverages and salty snacks, into one that has healthier and more wholesome offerings. But performance has — pardon the pun — fizzled. Shares of PepsiCo have barely budged during her six-year tenure, while the stock price of rival Coca-Cola has nearly doubled in that time. Perhaps most embarrassing for the once stalwart competitor in the cola wars, its flagship brand, Pepsi, no longer claims second place in market share of the carbonated soft drink market. In 2010, Diet Coke took over the number two spot and has remained there.Investors are impatient. Some accuse Nooyi of focusing too intensely on her nutrition strategy while overlooking PepsiCo’s North American soft drink business. Earlier this month, the company announced management changes intended to restore their confidence in the company: John Compton, who most recently ran PepsiCo’s highly successful Frito-Lay business in the Americas, was named president, while Brian Cornell, a PepsiCo veteran, has been wooed back from running the Sam’s Club chain for Wal-Mart Stores. He will fill Compton’s previous position. The restructuring not only gives PepsiCo’s board some options for potential successors to Nooyi, but is also a clear statement that the company is attempting to return to its profitable past.“Based on the management changes, it appears that the company will be back to emphasizing its sugary beverages and snack foods,” says Jason Schloetzer, a professor of accounting at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. “This is kind of like Pepsi saying to its investors, ‘We understand we were very profitable in these areas, and now this is where we are going to refocus our energy.’… It’s hard to shake the past — particularly when the past was more profitable.”The renewed focus on high-margin drinks and snacks may assuage investor concerns for now, but experts caution against trading a solid, long-term strategic repositioning for a bit of short-term success: Nooyi’s goal of reinventing PepsiCo’s product line is sensible, but real and lasting change takes time. To increase market share and revive earnings, experts suggest, she needs to spend more money on marketing top beverage brands — a move that is already in the works — and to put the right people in charge of those divisions. Nooyi also must do a better job of managing Wall Street expectations and courting institutional investors who care about sustainability and will give her more time and leeway to achieve her goals.‘Performance with Purpose’A native of Madras, India, Nooyi joined PepsiCo in 1994 as the company’s chief strategist. Seeing a bleak future for fast food, she pushed the company to make some bold moves: In 1997, PepsiCo created a spin-off firm (now called Yum! Brands) to unload KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. The following year, Nooyi was promoted to chief financial officer and helped engineer a $3 billion acquisition of Tropicana. In 2001, Nooyi — who has an MBA from Yale — co-orchestrated a $14 billion takeover of Quaker Oats, which makes Gatorade. PepsiCo’s earnings skyrocketed, and Nooyi became a force in the corporate world. In 2005, Forbes magazine ranked her the 11th most powerful woman in business. She became PepsiCo’s first female CEO in 2006.Her strategy — to more than double PepsiCo’s revenue from nutritional drinks and snacks to $30 billion by 2020 — is no doubt ambitious. Through senior level appointments and internal initiatives, she has pursued her cause. She enlisted Derek Yach, a former World Health Organization official, as senior vice president of global health and agricultural policy. Under Nooyi’s watch, the company also started working with farmers and scientists in developing countries, like Ethiopia, on sustainable growing techniques. In 2009, PepsiCo rolled out compostable bags made from biodegradable plant material for one of its chip brands. (The bags were eventually scrapped because customers thought they were too noisy.)Nooyi has also worked to reformulate PepsiCo’s existing products, and has made creative acquisitions to boost the nutritional quality of its offerings. The company has reduced the fat, and taken out some of the sugar in many of its mainstream products, and it has added whole grains, fruits and vegetables to some of its snacks. The company has also come up with entirely new products that are, at least arguably, healthier — Pepsi NEXT, which contains high-fructose corn syrup and artificial sweeteners, has 60 calories to regular Pepsi’s 100. In 2010, PepsiCo acquired a majority stake in Russian dairy Wimm-Bill-Dann to give it more of a presence in yogurts and grain-enriched dairy products.In many ways, Nooyi’s strategy is aligned with the times. With 34% of adults in the U.S. classified as obese, and nearly one in three children considered overweight, the media — and indeed many Americans — are paying closer attention to the importance of healthy eating. It is a trend that has gotten the better of some businesses. For example, Hostess, the privately held company known for indulgent pleasures including Twinkies and Drake’s snack cakes, filed for bankruptcy in January.What’s more, corporate social responsibility — once just a catchy phrase — has become an increasingly relevant issue for companies and consumers alike. According to a recent survey by public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, more than 75% of consumers say that social responsibility is an important factor in their purchase decisions, and 70% say they are willing to pay a premium for products from a socially responsible company.“More companies and consumers are paying attention to greenness and sustainability,” notes Georgetown McDonough’s Schloetzer, who is an expert on corporate governance. “Companies are thinking about how their operations affect the end-to-end supply chain and are considering the recyclability of their packaging materials. It’s an inventive way to run a business. As an impartial observer, it’s perhaps noble for Nooyi to try to transform a large company in this manner.”Michael Useem, a Wharton management professor and director of the Center for Leadership and Change Management, says Nooyi represents a new breed of corporate leadership. In a cover story for U.S. News and World Report on “America’s Best Leaders” in 2008, he wrote that Nooyi “is attempting to move beyond the historic trade-off between profits and people. Captured in her artful mantra — ‘performance with purpose’ — she wants to give Wall Street what it wants but also, the planet what it needs.”Shortchanging Core Brands?Unfortunately for Nooyi, Wall Street is not getting what it wants. Last month, PepsiCo warned that its profit would drop 5% this year. Revenue at its Americas beverage unit — which includes Pepsi, Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana and Lipton and accounts for about a third of PepsiCo’s annual revenue — was flat. Shares of PepsiCo are down about 2% for the past two years, while the S&P is up about 20% over that time period. In spite of this, Nooyi received her first salary bump in five years as CEO last year. Her total compensation was $17.1 million, up 6% from 2010, according to a regulatory filing.David Reibstein, professor of marketing at Wharton, says that much of Nooyi’s problem is that she was trying to do too much too soon. “To a large degree, Nooyi is very progressive in her thinking,” he states. “She has a far-reaching vision of what she is trying to do. The obligation to be responsive to your shareholders and to also be thinking about societal and environmental impacts are [good goals], but you need to be able to get there from the here and now. It’s going to take a considerable amount of effort over a sustained amount of time.”Critics charge that Nooyi has allowed the firm’s core brands — namely beverages in North America — to languish. “Taking the central focus off your core brands can be problematic,” says Charles Taylor, professor of marketing at the Villanova University School of Business. “When you’re building a new line of business, or doing brand extensions, the risk is high, especially compared to keeping your focus on brands with very high equity that have been effective for you for many years. I wouldn’t say [core brands] have been neglected, but they haven’t been as aggressively marketed.”In 2010, for instance, PepsiCo elected not to advertise during the Super Bowl telecast, which is always one of the most-watched television events of the year. As an alternative, the company in January of that year debuted The Pepsi Refresh Project, a social media campaign where customers proposed community service ideas to invigorate and revive their neighborhoods. The company spent in excess of $20 million on the effort. In November of that year, Advertising Age ran a story proclaiming that The Refresh Project “doesn’t seem to have had a major influence on the brand’s bottom line.” It’s impossible to draw a direct correlation, but 2010 was also the year that Diet Coke overtook Pepsi in market share.Coca-Cola, of course, is a formidable competitor. The company has been lauded for making smart, calculated marketing choices. Its heavy investment in advertising in China during the Beijing Olympics is one example. A full year before the Games, Coca-Cola advertised on thousands of Chinese billboards and bus shelters with a media campaign highlighting the country’s homegrown athletes. Today, Coca-Cola holds about 17% of the Chinese beverage market, while PepsiCo has a 6% share, according to Euromonitor.Back in 2002, Coca-Cola made another good bet by sponsoring reality-TV talent contest “American Idol” for less than $10 million. The 12-week television program captured 23 million viewers for its finale, prompting USA Today to run the headline: “Real winner of ‘American Idol’: Coke.” The show has since become a ratings juggernaut. PepsiCo, which passed on the opportunity to sponsor “Idol,” now sponsors “The X Factor,” another singing competition, spending up to $60 million for the sponsorship of the show, according to Adweek.Cultivating a New Pepsi GenerationIn spite of these problems, PepsiCo remains a strong brand. “Your average loyal Pepsi drinker isn’t aware of the efforts to move toward nutritious foods, and Pepsi has not done anything that [has caused] long-term damage to the brand,” says Taylor. “Pepsi is still considered by Interbrand as one of the top brands in the world.” (For the record, PepsiCo stands at number 22 on Interbrand’s ranking, while Coca-Cola has been named the world’s most valuable brand for the past 12 years.)PepsiCo has its work cut out for it., however. Already plans are taking shape to boost brand awareness: In February, the company ran its first Super Bowl TV commercial for Pepsi in three years. Nooyi also recently announced plans to increase PepsiCo’s marketing budget by as much as $600 million this year, which represents about a 15% increase over last year. Most of the new spending will be dedicated to the U.S. beverage business. The firm also plans to launch its first-ever global marketing campaign for Pepsi.Nooyi has also made some strategic management changes that demonstrate her commitment to PepsiCo’s beverages division. In September, Albert Carey, a PepsiCo veteran and head of the company’s smaller, but more profitable, Frito-Lay North America snacks unit, took over its Americas beverages unit. Carey succeeded Eric Foss and Massimo d’Amore, who co-ran the business. Foss left PepsiCo in December, while d’Amore was essentially demoted; he still runs the Latin American beverage business, but reports to Carey.Nooyi’s strategy to reinvent PepsiCo’s product line has proven tough to execute because changing customer appetites is not easy. “You may have a vision for what the market will be wanting, but it doesn’t mean it wants it now,” says Wharton’s Reibstein. “You can’t leave your customers behind.” An effort by McDonald’s to introduce “good for you” menu items serves as a cautionary tale. Take the McLean Deluxe, which it marketed in 1991 as a heart-healthy alternative to other hamburgers. The burger had 310 calories and only nine grams of fat. “A healthy breakthrough for the American public,” lauded a New York Times editorial. But customers complained it lacked taste. In 1996, the company removed it from the menu.“McDonald’s has introduced some healthier foods over the years, and it has had some success here and there. But the majority of people are still buying Big Macs,” notes Taylor. “For the most part, consumers are set in their ways. Getting consumers to eat healthier food is going to take at least a generation — even in spite of best efforts by companies.”This does not mean Nooyi should abandon her plans, observers say. Rather, she needs to develop a strategy that better balances the short term with the long term, according to Yoram (Jerry) Wind, Wharton marketing professor and director of the SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management. “Companies can be socially responsible, provide more nutritional and healthier products and still be profitable, but it requires careful management of board and Wall Street expectations,” he says.A deft touch as a manager — and perhaps different investors altogether — are also needed, he adds, noting that Nooyi should put more effort into courting institutional investors who value sustainability and who will give her more latitude to achieve the company’s overarching goals. “There are opportunities for creative approaches here. She should show them that she has a plan to achieve financial objectives … and still be socially responsible,” he says. “It is doable.”Whether Pepsi NEXT is the next big thing in cola, or whether it goes the way of the McLean Deluxe, Wind suggests that Nooyi’s pursuit of aligning agriculture and nutrition is sound. “Maximizing long-term shareholder value and addressing some of society’s biggest problems, such as obesity, nutrition and health, is the right kind of strategy.” Related Items read more
Related Items