I
came across this quote recently - “I do not believe that friends are
necessarily the people you like best, they are merely the people who got there
first.” Peter Ustinov.
I started thinking whether
this possibly could be true.
Given our
social need to mingle and mix with people, we form social bonds with fellow
human beings. Of course, the level of bonding varies from functional (you and
your accountant), need driven (you and your pesky neighbor), social obligations
(your classmates or colleagues who you would rather ignore) to this type called
‘friends’. This bond needs no further explanation.
But
is it necessary that the friends you have known the longest are the ones who
you necessarily like the most? On the other hand, is it necessary, that you are
friends with someone because they merely ‘got to you first’? A flashback to the
first lecture of my under graduate program was a clear eye opener for me. Yes –
my friends today are the ones who got to me first. However, they aren’t my
closest friends.
It
was a startling realization. I started looking for examples around me which
could be explained by the ‘got there first’ syndrome.
One
early bird which comes to mind is the ‘Ambassador’ from Hindustan Motors (HM).
For close to 40 years, everyone who wanted a diesel automobile in India befriended
this car. ‘Premier Padmini’ was the only other option available but it lost to
the ‘Ambassador’ in terms of being sturdy and spacious. HM had the ‘got there
first’ advantage so to say but somewhere they became complacent and took their relation
with customers for granted. Instead of evolving with the customers and their
changing needs, the ‘Ambassador’ stayed the same.
When
Maruti entered the market in the 1980’s, Indians quickly befriended Maruti.
Within no time, Ambassador had lost its leadership position to Maruti. Moral of
the story is that people (customers) sometimes befriend certain people (brands)
due to absence of other people (brands) to befriend.
The
friend, the brand in this context, should not take the relation for granted. The
longevity of a relation does not necessarily ensure loyalty or strength of commitment.
If the brand does not evolve, adapt or grow with the customer, the friendship
starts to wither. The customers will hang around only because they have to and
not because they want to. The early bird definitely got the worm and lost the butterfly!
Another
first mover that comes to mind is ‘Acuvue’.
In
early 1980’s, the Vistakon unit of J&J sold contact lens only meant for
astigmatism, and were an expensive proposition. When they came upon an
ophthalmologist in Copenhagen who had conceived a way to manufacture contact
lenses inexpensively – J&J got to work. They bought rights to the product
and set up a high speed manufacturing facility. The company got a 6 month head
start over the competitors such as Bausch and Lomb and Ciba-Geigy. J&J not
only brought in a new product, they also marketed it differently. They marketed
the product to eye care professionals and end consumers as well. Even today, ‘Acuvue’
is the clear market leader. The competition was never able to catch up.
As
a leader, you need to continually be on the lookout to better the solution to
the problem your product is solving instead of becoming lethargic. Even today, J&J
is continually working towards developing a better product and also towards
some technologies which would make contact lenses obsolete.
‘Acuvue’,
which is the friend in this context, is seen as someone who understands your
needs better than everyone else. It would be quite difficult for a Bausch and
Lomb to convince customers that they are better than J&J. It’s a clear case
of that first friend being, and continuing to be your best friend!
With
every new person who gets included in your social circle (a new brand launch),
there is always an undercurrent of changing dynamics. There is no way for you
to limit the interactions between two people. The only solution therefore, is
to be totally cognizant of the state of mind your friend is in. The relation you
have had till now will hold you in good stead for a while. If the new friend
does enter the coterie, the secret is to quickly grow in the dimension that is
missing in you currently; the dimension which made the new friend attractive in
the first place.
The
longer the relationship, the more change a friendship is bound to see. Every
relationship needs work. The friend could have been with you since pre-school
but if he fails to understand your needs and wants as a young professional
today; the relationship will slowly change and possibly fade. The friend who
observes this change and responds to accommodate the change is the one who will
have the stronger relationship.
It
is a disconcerting discovery that you as friend are under the scanner, but
looks like Peter Ustinov was right after all.
well written dipsy... love how u intemingled the concept and explained it with the branding POV... superb!
ReplyDeletethankooooooo...:)
DeleteVery interesting, this analogy between friends and consumer products. What talent!
ReplyDeleteI agree on the content. To be friends with someone (especially, best friends), we need in common point. And a common past is not enough.
Now I have a problem, I try to find what object/friends I am....
I hope I am not a chewing gum ;-)
Great stuff. You are correct in saying Ambassador lost out due to lack of upgrades / not evolving with consumer needs. But thats in the long term. HM did a lot to turn around not just the Ambassador but the HM brand as well with new products and collaborations with global market leaders as well. However, when the M800 was launched, it was retailing at less than half the price of an AMby. So Suzuki made 4 wheels accessible to a larger slice of the Indian market. Amby could have still maintained its sales while Suzuki sold to a different set of the market. There were multiple reasons why it wasn't able to do this-but none more crippling than its HR related problems. In the 90s their Uttarpara plant alone had 14,000 employees (zero galti se extra nahi dAala maine)when they should have had not more than 3,000. their wage bills ensured that they couldn't do much in life other than try and stay afloat. Hence all of their other issues. heartbreak. a vintage design and the object de desire of entire generations just squandered. sorry for digressing. but you know how i feel about cars. If it wasnt so darned expensive i would have still bought one. never mind the service...or the resale value....or the lack of features.....or the lack of power...or safety...or efficiency...or(oh god this is an embarrassingly long list)...you get the picture.
ReplyDelete