Desicritics Author: Lekhni

The Right To Buy Counterfeit Goods

Lekhni — Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:37:47 EDT

I want the right to buy counterfeit goods. I will launch into a detailed argument shortly, but first, I will tell you why this post came about.

The New York Times’s city blog had a recent article about an ad campaign on NYC pay phones, which tells you why buying counterfeit goods is bad. Apparently, it’s because you are supporting child labor, drug trafficking, organized crime and even worse.

And what, pray, is the “even worse”? The ad itself doesn't say, but the New York Times helpfully suggests that it might be terrorism. Apparently, the terrorist cells involved in the Madrid train bombings were financed by, among other things, the sale of counterfeit CDs and stolen cars.

Well, all I can say is, I am glad they were not financed through the sale of tomato soup. Or dark chocolate. Or well, toothpaste. What would we all do then?

As for supporting child labor, I find it hard to believe that only counterfeit goods are produced using child labor? It’s true that sweatshops are not as prevalent now, many companies have policies against it, though I don't know if they are always strictly implemented. For instance, I cannot believe that Tirupur employs zero child labor. Not a single kid? Not even the tea/ coffee boy? Look at the bevy of brands which source from Tirupur though..

But leave alone the ridiculous ad. Why do decent, law-abiding people buy counterfeit goods?

There are two types of consumers who buy counterfeit goods. One category is the consumer who gets duped into buying counterfeit products unknowingly, while they intended to buy the original. That is cheating, and I am not strongly against consumers getting cheated.

But there is a second category - consumers who seek out and knowingly buy counterfeit products. They know these are knock-offs, and while these are law-abiding consumers who would never dream of doing anything wrong, they buy counterfeit products without a qualm. Why do they do that?

Three reasons:

(i) They cannot afford the brand name goods, but still aspire to owning the brand,
(ii) They believe that the price of the goods should be lower. Basically, it is a form of protest against perceived mis-pricing.
(iii) They cannot buy the original product either because it is not available or because there are some regulations that prevent them from purchasing it.

Reason 1: Obviously, these are aspirational buyers who would buy the original product if they could afford it. The Louis Vuitton bags that are sold in NYC sidewalks are lapped up by people because they would also like to share the experience of owning a Louis Vuitton bag. There is no issue of lost revenue to LVMH from these counterfeits, because none of these people can afford a Louis Vuitton bag, or is going to buy one at its current price.

Reason 2: It’s a form of protest. The people who buy pirated DVDs and books or download free music are actually making a statement that they believe these items are mis-priced. They are also willing to settle for slightly lower quality for the lower price.

Reason 3: The regulations are not in touch with everyday reality.

Growing up in pre-liberalized India, I heard a lot about the “Black Market”. I even had to write Hindi essays about the “Kala Bazaar” and how this was a grievous ill to society. The Black Market, in my mind, was a shady assortment of shops that people would venture into after dark, or perhaps it was only frequented by smugglers.

Yet, like most families I knew, we would buy sugar in the same “Black Market”, especially around festival time, because the ration sugar was quite inadequate.

We also had gold smugglers who were the staple of movie villainhood, and hawala merchants who would, no doubt, in some dark corner of a building, exchange your Rupees into grubby dollars.

But there was a reason why gold smugglers and hawala merchants thrived. Gold could not be imported freely – there was never enough gold to meet the demand.
RBI also had enormous restrictions on the amount of foreign currency one could take abroad. People who came to the US in the 70s tell us stories about how they were only allowed to bring in $7 into the US. Seven dollars. Imagine, they may have had enough money to tide them through their first meal in the US.

Now that gold can be imported freely and RBI has moved from a fixed to a floating exchange rate, and restrictions on students and tourists are much more relaxed, we don’t hear too much about the smugglers.

Let's face it - there is an economic reason why people buy counterfeit products. Unless companies address this reason, sale of counterfeit products is not going to go away. There is no point in having laws which are unrealistic and do not address the underlying issue.

Companies should recognize that counterfeiters are potential customers. The proportion of people who would switch from counterfeit to the original product (if the price is right) would be much higher than the conversion rate for walk-in customers. Think about it - who is more likely to buy Microsoft Vista - the person who is currently using a pirated version of Vista, or the person who is using Safari?

But why don't companies see these customers as a market segment?

Isn't the basic principle of marketing - to listen to what your customer is saying? The purchases of the counterfeit products of a company are trying to say something. But is anybody listening?

Secret Rules for Air Hostesses

Lekhni — Mon, 9 Jun 2008 10:44:28 EDT

How does an air hostess's weight matter ? Of course it's vital, as any airlines will tell you. Air hostesses must be slim and young and pretty. Never mind if they are not courteous or speak such poor English that they do not understand what "toast" means. That's not what their job is about anyway.

The Hon'ble (male) judges of the Delhi High Court would agree. The Court thinks that Air India (or Indian or whatever they call themselves now) was right to ground five air hostesses because they were overweight. This is what the Hindu reports:

The rules prescribe different weight limits according to their height and age. For an 18-year-old air hostess with a height of 152 cm, the maximum weight permissible is 50 kg while air hostesses in the age group of 26 to 30 and a height of 152 cm, the weight limit is 56 kg.

Of course, Air India itself is very overweight and the Maharajah packs a hefty paunch, but then the Maharajah is not an air hostess.

I had always thought that air hostesses are really a sort of glorified waitress. Except, they are waitresses who don't depend on customers' tips for their income, which explains why air hostesses in US airlines are so rude to passengers. But apparently not. Air hostesses must be in the fashion industry. Why else would they have rules saying air hostesses can't marry, get old or put on weight? I thought such rules were only reserved for models. Also obviously, male stewards are not in the fashion industry. That is why none of these restrictions apply to them.

But why stop at just age and weight? The airlines have other secret rules for air hostesses that explain the quirks in their appearance, behavior and the quality of airline service these days. I have seen these rules in action in the US, and I am sure they exist in India (or Indian). So for readers of this blog, I am letting you into a trade secret that is guarded zealously by the airline industry. I shall tell you the secret rules.

The Six Secret Rules for air hostesses:

Rule 1: Air hostesses should remember that they are, first and foremost, sales persons. They are responsible for selling stale trail mix, cheap headphones and overpriced blankets and pillows. Unfortunately, airlines do not as yet sell water, so air hostesses should refrain from handing out water unless specifically requested by passengers. Even then, they should provide water only in tiny water cups.

Rule 2: All air hostesses should wear high heels that are at least 6 inches high. Heels of five inches may be permitted in special cases, with prior approval. They should sashay through the aisle, rolling carts on high heels, and also use these heels to curb passengers who demand too much attention, like extra cups of water.

Rule 3: Air hostesses should have long fingernails that are at least an inch long. Long fingernails are an important accessory that can be used to dip into cups and discourage use of complimentary drinks by passengers. They can also be used to poke passengers while handing out cups of water and juice.

Rule 4: Make up is very important. Nail polish and lip stick should always be bright red in color. Also, make-up should be applied heavily, so the face looks pale, contrasting with the bright red lipstick. Eyes should be heavily made up. This appearance, when combined with a glare, may scare some of the more timid passengers.

Rule 5: Hair color should be brown on Tuesdays and Thursdays. On all other days, it should be black. Red and orange highlights are recommended.

Rule 6: Air hostesses should give the appearance of smiling at passengers. But genuine smiles are not recommended, in case the passengers get too friendly and request additional cups of water, newspapers or other services currently free.

The airlines take interaction with passengers very seriously. Hidden cameras will be placed above each seat to monitor whether air hostesses chat with passengers or otherwise indulge in courteous behavior. Such behavior can attract disciplinary action. Air hostesses are permitted to be rude to economy class passengers, however, and also to smile in relief, however, when passengers depart the plane.

Perhaps there are more. Certainly the airlines seem to invent a new rule every day, and you just have to open the papers to learn about it.

Mano a Nano - Coming Face to Face with a Nano

Lekhni — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:58:45 EST

The Tata Nano is finally a reality. We have all seen it and read about it. We have heard opinions on it from everyone and their milkman. But what is it really - manna from Heaven for the middle class, or the beast that will leave Indians gasping for air on their roads?

There are two main arguments that people are making about the Nano - one, it will add to the already congested traffic on the roads and two, it will add to the pollution on the roads. How valid are these arguments?

Argument 1. It will add to the already congested traffic on the roads: Certainly, it will. All those people who now commute on motorbikes, scooters and scooterettes will now buy the Nano. Traffic will become worse.

But let us step back and think about why we have so many motorbikes and scooters on the roads in the first place. Certainly, no one wants to spend two hours every day stuck in traffic, dicing with daily death in dangerous two-wheelers (with or without helmets) and spending thousands of Rupees each month on petrol. Not to mention the time spent in hunting for parking spots.

So why do they do it?

Because, quite simply, our mass transit systems are grossly ineffective. People prefer risky rides in motorbikes to even more risky rides in overflowing buses and trains.

Before we blame people for choking our roads, let us look at the alternative – buses that are completely inadequate, infrequent and crammed with passengers in every inch of space, including some people hanging on to the doors and windows. Buses that do not stop at required stops, and are subject to sudden route diversions. Buses that are even slower than the surrounding traffic. Passengers that provide free groping and unsolicited massages to women passengers.

And then there are the trains. The trains are present only in some cities, but where they do exist, they are careful to follow the spirit of the buses. So they are also overcrowded and passengers provide free groping in these trains as well.

If this is the alternative that people have, is it so surprising that people would rather take their chance with the traffic and petrol prices?

Argument 2. It will add to the pollution on the roads: Ratan Tata has said the Nano will meet all emission norms including Euro 4 norms. That should answer the debate on Nano emissions.

But let me go further and reframe our point of reference. What is the alternative to a Nano? What does a car-less family use when they all travel together? Sometimes, they all perch precariously on the same two-wheeler (the older kid wedged in the front, younger kid in mama’s lap at the back). Now this situation is way more unsafe than any air pollution. More usually, they take an auto, that rickety, smoke-spewing three-wheeler from Hell. Now, I am not sure what emission norms are applicable to autos, but I am willing to bet that they are less stringent than cars and in any case, the autos on the road do not follow any emission norms to the littlest extent. Just as they do not have electronic meters and any semblance of customer service, but that is another story.

If more Nanos mean less autos on the road, trust me, the roads are going to become a lot less polluted.

So how do we make India's roads less crowded? By improving the mass transit systems. We should expand our mass transit systems, integrate them with existing systems and embrace innovative ideas like "share autos" (of course, with emission norms that are in place and enforced). Not all solutions need to involve expensive multi-year projects to build elevated rail systems. Simple solutions, like allowing private operators to run commuter specials during rush hour can work as well.

Come September, we will see a lot more Nanos on India's roads. Let us see them for what they are - the attempt of our middle class to make the best of a bad situation. Let us not focus on criticising the Nano, but on criticising the state of our mass transit systems. Perhaps then, we may see some change for the better.

* derived from ma•no a ma•no : a direct or face-to-face confrontation.

The Mumbai Outrage

Lekhni — Sat, 5 Jan 2008 00:40:52 EST

When I read newspapers, I subconsciously put on my thick-steeled mental armor. Reports of accidents, deaths, murders all bounce off me and I feel nothing, just numb. But some news articles somehow pierce through my armor plates. The Mumbai molestation incident was one such report.

I was horrified that such an incident should have happened, and in Mumbai of all places. Clearly, this is not how we treat women in our culture. Clearly, the low lives in question have grossly misbehaved and should be punished. This much was clear to me.

Sadly, apparently not everyone thinks this way. What saddens me is how other people reacted to this news, and what it tells us about our society and the status of women in our society.

I am shocked when I read articles blaming the women in question. These opinions are everywhere - from political parties to bloggers, there are many voices that have commented that somehow, the women must have brought it on themselves.

To all those who think this way, tell me, how can you even think of blaming the victims? Why do people blame "disco culture" and "pubbing"? Why is it wrong for women to stay out late but perfectly all right for men to do the same? Are women under some kind of martial law?

Why is it wrong for women to drink but socially acceptable for men to do so? Not that there any reports of the women in question being drunk or misbehaving. Let's get this straight, the women did not misbehave here, it was some men who did, so please stop blaming the victims!

Think about it. If you go on the path of blaming the women for every crime committed against them, where will you stop? You can blame any aspect of a woman's appearance. Long hair, short hair, supposedly tight clothing, jeans, T shirts, shorts anything can be an excuse for boorish behavior by men. Next, you will blame women for wearing make-up or showing their hair. Where does this all end?

Are women only safe when they stay at home all day? Or will you assume they are safe at home, because by then they are too frightened to report any crime? Abuse does happen even within homes. Rape, incest, domestic violence, these will happen even if they stay at home. I am sure you will think of some reason to blame those women as well.

Please stop trying to impose restrictions on women. It is not the tight clothing the woman wears that causes the issue, it is the dirty thoughts and actions of a few perverted men. I wish everyone would accept this fact and not try to pass the blame.

This is not an issue specific to the 14 men who were charged. It is not specific to the larger mob that attacked the women. It is not even specific to New Year's eve, or Mumbai. None of our cities are safe for women, at night or even in many parts, in daytime.

Violence against women is not based on what clothes they wear, or anything they do. Violence happens because men know they can get away with it. If we had a policy of zero tolerance towards such incidents, even men with twisted minds will think twice before misbehaving.

But no, we have a society which winks at the men and blames the women. Here lies the larger problem. We have a society that is still deeply ambivalent in its attitudes about women. We deify women, but we also demonize them. We discriminate against them, we deride them. In short, we never believe that they are really entitled to the same rules and the same freedom that we unquestioningly accord men.

The Mumbai molestation is not an isolated incident. Crimes like this will continue to happen, until we stop thinking these are just the fault of a few twisted minds. No, those men have just taken the principle that women are unequal to their extreme.

Those molesters treated those women as objects, not human beings. But the rest of society is not treating them as equal human beings either.

Satire: A Guide to Matrimonial Photos

Lekhni — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:28:34 EST

It’s that time of the year, when all your friends are getting married or running off to India to “see” assorted girls. You look around and realize that you are the last bachelor in your group. You are sick of going to weddings and receptions and watching your friends snag all the pretty girls.

It’s not like you want to remain single. It’s not like you have not tried. But here you are, sitting in a dimly lit room, alone, reading a blog. You wonder where you are going wrong.

May we suggest that the root of the problem lies with your photo? No, no, we are not casting any aspersions on your looks. We are very sure you are handsome and good looking and all that. But it’s not your looks, it’s the photo.

Now, what do you mean “we?” you ask me. Have you developed multiple personality disorder or something? Nothing like that. I am just saying “we” because here, I am representing the voice of womanhood. Well, something like that. Bear with me, will you…

Consider a typical scenario – parents find interesting leads on “girls”. They consult assorted astrologers who peer at horoscopes and make random pronouncements. Sometimes the horoscopes don’t match. Sometimes they do. Parents are happy. Astrologer is happy. They get girl’s picture and examine it closely. Length of neck, shape of jaw and crookedness of nose and teeth are all carefully measured and analyzed. If the girl passes all these tests, they inform you that they have “received inquiries”.

“So there is this girl…” your Mom starts off, ending with “…and they want your photo. All I have is your old college photo, taken five years back, and the passport photo, taken two years back. Shall I send the passport photo?”

You panic. Now your Mom will look at any photo of yours and only see her handsome son. But you know better. You have stood in front of the immigration officer many times and watched him open your passport, take one look at your photo, shudder violently and hastily snap the passport shut. Yes, you have no illusions about your passport picture.

“No, no, not the passport photo!” you shout into the phone. “I will email you a more recent one.”

This is exactly the right thing to do. But this is where you stumble and it all starts to unravel. Little do you realize how complicated the act of taking a photo is. But don’t worry, we are here to offer our advisory services, based on our collective wisdom gained from looking at photos of hapless guys.

We can see you are now getting impatient to learn more about the magic mantras, so without any more delay, we shall tell you our 10 Don’ts To Taking a Matrimonial Photo.

1. Do not pose with your dog. We agree your dog is beautiful. We love golden retrievers and German shepherds, and dogs in general. In fact, we love them so much that every time we pick up your photo, we only see the dog. So please leave your dog out of the picture. Conversely, this is a great idea if you want to draw attention away from your paunch or your receding mane.

2. Why does every single one of you have to stand in front of the Grand Canyon or the Golden Gate? We now have ten beautiful pictures of the Canyon at Mather Point, and six of the Golden Gate. Trouble is, now all the photos look the same. The only photo we now remember is the guy who wanted to be different – he posed in front of Alcatraz. We wonder what he was trying to tell us?

3. We know which university you went to, so no need to pose in your school T-shirt. On the same note, no photos of you wearing shorts either please…your hairy legs are really not attractive. Really.

4. Don’t send pictures hugging random children, we can see you love children but again, we wonder what you are hinting at.

5. Don’t send group photos, we are not sure which one you are. Or worse, we might decide we like your friend better.

6. Don’t send the photos where you wear goggles and a cap, we do need to look at your whole face, not just at your moustache. What is the cap trying to hide anyway? Your balding pate?

7. Please don’t send any photos taken at parties. We do not want to see you eating samosas, even if they make you look deliriously happy. We do not look at your face, instead, we are drawn to the green chutney stain on your shirt. Then there is the wine glass in your hand. Maybe it contains rum, or wine, or Pepsi. We are cool with it. But all you need is for our Dad or Grandfather or Random Uncle to take one look at the photo and say “Chee! Ladka peetha hai!” and you are going nowhere, fast.

8. No convocation photos, please. Yes, yes, we believe you when you say you have a degree. We really don’t need proof, and certainly not a vision of you in oversized purple and black robes. We tend to shudder and think of bats.

9. Don’t take your picture inside your apartment. But if you have to, could you first look around to see there are no towels or underwear lying on the floor? We like to zoom in on digital photos. So do you, I am sure, but we are the ones who will notice that plate of half-eaten food lying on the table, with the interesting green growth.

10. Is that a TV set showing football in the background? We can see how this would have happened. You are chatting with your friends about going to “see a girl”, and one of your friends offers to take your picture. Let’s wait for half-time, he says. We think this is a great example of how little you care about sending us the perfect picture. Here we are, spending hours deciding what to wear and planning that perfect look for our photo. That is how considerate we are. And you just take a photo during half-time? How can you be so casual about it? This one goes first into the trash can.

As you can see, we tend to read too much into your photos. Yes, we are also very picky and choosy, and use any excuse to turn up our noses.

Yes, we are like this only. But then, do you have a choice? No. So we suggest you print out this list and carefully read each item every time you take a photo of yourself. Trust us, it’ll help.