Saturday 28 January 2012

What next...


TCS 10 K in June 2010 was my first brush with quasi marathons…Since “Sunfeast” used to sponsor it, I decided to give it a shot and started preparing from Jan. Hazzaar surfing on net, strategies on diet, running, outdoor running etc were drawn and followed. Record of timings, improvements etc were kept and scientifically tracked. Had a good run, under 60 mins…
Initially it was a target setting and beating exercise (as usual) but I don’t know when I actually started enjoying it. “Endorphin” rush I am told.  A half marathon after that, another one due in Feb and I am sure it would go on.
What does it give me? Fitness, pleasure, feeling of well being, good sleep, stress busting and above all feeling of no guilt after a round of good beer…
Now all the science is thrown out of the window and I listen to my body on the eating, drinking and effort requirement….
I don’t run with music in my ears, I talk to myself (till I can) while I run. My wife asked me what do I think while I am running. Good question, I said. I will have to think…. I guess I concentrate on my running, enjoy the thoughts and after some time get numb on thinking…. but interesting thought, will concentrate on my thoughts from now onwards while running…
And these days, is it my imagination or is it actually getting popular in India? Also, a friend commented that it seems like a middle age syndrome now…
Whatever it may be “keep running”….

Friday 27 January 2012

Long hiatus

Been away for some time...graduated Sloan in 2009..new industry, new role, new work, new people to connect....been a great journey till date...will get back to blogging.
will write on my new passion - running

Sunday 14 June 2009

Profit for Not for Profit....contd...

In this blog too, I would continue the topic of profit for social enterprise. Kim Alters and Greg Dees describe a framework for the social enterprise as a spectrum from pure philanthropic to pure for profit. Foster and Bradach, in their paper “should non profit seek profit” argue that the number of successful SEs who have transited to “for profit mode” is very few to make a difference. Both Des and Foster argue that the quest for profit might move the SE away from their core mission. The paper to which I would subscribe the most is Mohd Yunus’s benefit maximization approach. I would argue that it is very important for the SE to make continuous attempt to be profit making. Let me discuss the reasons in a bit more detail:

Sustainability and scalability model: Sustainability would be a basic criterion for success of the social enterprise. The unmet need can be met either by sustainable effort or else by making the enterprise itself redundant over a period of time. An example of sustainability can be Teach for America, which as been around now for 20 years and is growing the footprints across the globe. The Fairtrade movement in the developed world has gained quite some momentum for it to become an accepted business practice. Scalability is debatable; however my view is that for the SE to have a profound impact, both sustainability and scalability are essential.

Now imagine a pure philanthropic model, how would you rate it on these two parameters? Attaining scalability and sustainability when you are completely dependent on external resources is close to impossible. Entrepreneurs do spend a great deal of time on generating resources, but having to barely survive would mean no thoughts on growth.

In the paper “Toward a better understanding of social entrepreneurship: Some important distinctions” By Jerr Boschee and Jim McClurg, convincing argument is made on these lines.

Financial Discipline: Profit making (and not seeking) would instill an acute sense of financial discipline. Costs would be looked at with a microscopic lens and so would be the revenues. “Sweating the capital” is the mantra for entrepreneurs and would lead to what Mohd Yunus describes as “benefit maximization”. With as ever increasing competition, even within the social sector, the resources would come to the entrepreneur who delivers the maximum value for money.

Would it deviate from the mission: The argument in the papers by Dees as well as Foster is that seeking profit would deviate the SE from the mission. Yes, possibly. The difference in a business venture and SE is the core mission. Number of organisations has corporate social responsibility programs for social benefit. The difference is the core mission. Hence, as rightly argued, SE needs to be very careful that in the “earned income behaviour” it should not loose sight of the core mission. Example is cited of the opera house for aiding budding artists vs conducting for profit professional shows. In this case also, I would argue, that if the core is to help the upcoming artists; reasonable number of shows to support the main cause is justified.

Do the numbers indicate critical mass: No, the numbers would indicate that the SEs attaining financial independence is far little. That is where I indicate the difference between attempt to make profit and having an earned income behaviour vs actually making profits. Also, let us also look at the data of successful entrepreneurial launches in the business world and compare these two.

To sum up: To sum up, I would quote from Mohd Yunus paper, benefit maximization. “We started out by assuming a world with two kinds of people, one kind wants to make money and the other kind wants to do good. But in the real world there are not two types of people, but only one type of person with two types of interests, in varying proportion. The recognition would lead to building of appropriate conceptual and institutional frameworks. Introducing SBE into the market place will be the most important part of this recognition process. Let us make a beginning.”

Friday 22 May 2009

Is “Not for Profit” the mantra for Social Entrepreneurship

I have, for quite some time, struggled with the association of profit with “Social Entrepreneurship”. Should it be or should it not be? I have my own views on it, but I wanted to explore some expert’s opinion before I pen my naïve views.

 SE has been defined in various ways. To quote a couple:

Asoka foundation: Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.

Wikepedia: A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change. Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur assesses success in terms of the impact s/he has on society. While social entrepreneurs often work through nonprofits and citizen groups, many work in the private and governmental sectors.

Skoll Centre: Social entrepreneurship is the product of individuals, organizations, and networks that challenge conventional structures by addressing failures - and identifying new opportunities - in the institutional arrangements that currently cause the inadequate provision or unequal distribution of social and environmental goods.

School for social entrepreneurship: A social entrepreneur is someone who works in an entrepreneurial manner, but for public or social benefit, rather than to make money. Social entrepreneurs may work in ethical businesses, governmental or public bodies, quangos, or the voluntary and community sector.

 The list can go on. For me the common thread is

  •  Unmet social need
  • Entrepreneurial capability to resolve the need

 This obviously leads to explore the definition of entrepreneur:

 Wikepedia: An entrepreneur is a person who has possession of an enterprise, or venture, and assumes significant accountability for the inherent risks and the outcome. An ambitious leader who combines land, labor, and capital to create and market new goods or services

All the other definitions are (surprisingly) fairly close to Wikepedia’s.

 Now why am I rambling with these definitions?

 The reason is that I am not able to reconcile that “social entrepreneurship” can exist without an attempt to make profits. When I say attempt to make profits, I mean that a revenue generation source and an income statement. The firm might be a loss making enterprise, with loans/grants/donations also as a revenue stream. This is what differentiates SE from normal charity. The entrepreneurship mindset would mean taking risk, generating resources, fighting against all odds, resolve the problem and at the same time generate revenue.

 The confusion creeps in when at all these sites, one sees great charity work, great social causes being identified as SE. People doing great work in charity or not for profit organisations for social issues like AIDS, cancer, poverty alleviation, education are referred to as social entrepreneurs.

 Is my thinking too narrow and the definition broader or do we need to look at the definition?

Friday 13 March 2009

Some real crazy viral videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SX1-650KIsU - You tube description - Extremely well executed viral ad which will make you believe it's just a home video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBbson2LLB4 Samsung Viral ad - page 3 style

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVGi7mgLSbM - and finally explanation for the glasses video shown in class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5DjZ0Q7G98 and its sequel - bobbing for glasses

Saturday 7 March 2009

Entertainment business @ Internet

One of the study group assignments made me research on the business of “professional video content download” business. To crystal gaze, some research was carried out on the video watching and buying pattern of consumers. Some of the results point out to not so encouraging behaviour on net. Will some business models need to be rewritten, going forward?

  • Though 39% of the consumers watch online videos but only circa 8% are willing to pay for the online content. Top online video sites are the ones offering for free (you tube, BBC etc)


  • Average length of the movie watched is only 3 min.
  • For every 1 official song download, 40 are downloaded illegitimately. A large percentage (almost 35%) have clear preference for pirated downloads.

 Another interesting issue is the preference of content consumption. It is estimated that people want to watch long duration videos on TV. Hence a mad rush to reach the content on TV. Apple iTV, launched and admitted as a mistake. Is it a case on not understanding the consumer needs or actually forcible creation of needs?



Saturday 28 February 2009