W.W.D.D.?

I have always admired the Buddhist way of respecting all life.  I must admit that I have killed an exceptionally scary looking spider or two in my day, but generally speaking I try not to harm any living creature.  I’ve moved far more spiders from inside of my home to the great outdoors than I have executed. 

Most recently, after getting our 25 baby chicks and watching them grow, naming them, having them peck feed out of my hand, gently picking them up and rescuing them when they fly “over the border” of their little area, I made the decision to go ahead and be a full-fledged vegetarian.  We were darn close anyway. 

Unlike most people who lean into vegetarianism, I stopped eating fish first.   I was concerned about the way we are decimating the life of our oceans.  I’m really not sure that people who live in land-locked Tennessee are really meant to eat sushi-grade tuna.  It’s not exactly environmentally-friendly locally-grown fare.   But, chicken and beef?  Why, you could get those from right here in Tennessee, and they were in no danger of extinction. 

But, then we got the chickens.  And then we had Buffalo wings when Triston came over.  And then I almost wretched up what used to be one of my favorite dinners.  How could I look my precious chicks in the eye at 9:00 when I was smacking my lips over her cousin at 6:00?  It wasn’t a huge leap to also apply this feeling to the beautiful brown-eyed bovines I passed every day on my way to class.  So that was it.  No animal was going to have to die for my consumption again, I determined.   Buddha would be proud.

In a related story, Susie called me in a panic as I was about to turn into the driveway this evening.   There was an injured deer in the woods just adjacent to the big dogs’ fenced-in area.   The dogs were going nuts, and the deer was on the ground and in shock.  We believe it had a broken leg. 

After placing several calls, the best answer we could get was that we should call the sheriff’s office.  Now, in the world of animal rescue, “call the sheriff” is code for “there’s nothing we can do” which is code for “this animal needs to be put out if its misery.”  In fact, the one wildlife rehabilitator we called said that he would lose his license if he rehabilitated a white tail deer because they were already so prolific and they really needed hunters to keep the population down.  “Besides,” he drawled, “you can’t rehabilitate a deer with a broken leg.  The most humane thing you can do is shoot it.”

We called the sheriff.  As we waited for a patrol car to show up, I stood out on the front porch wondering what the Buddha would do in this situation.  Was that “respect all life” thing such an absolute that helping to ease suffering was also off limits?   Would the Buddha have simply given the deer food and water and let nature take its course, even if nature would seem to have an inhumane lack of compassion?

In the end, I did what I always do.  I checked my own spirit and tested my own actions and behaviors against my own consciousness.   When the sheriff’s deputy arrived, I showed him the way to the deer.  Then I left him alone with it.  I went back to the house and waited.  Pretty soon, two shots were fired about 10 seconds apart.  They almost seemed to rip through my chest.   Then I felt release.  The deer was gone.  So was the pain. 

What would Buddha do?  I care about as much for the answer to that question as I do for the similar question about Jesus, or Muhammed, or Shiva, or Billy Graham.  Consciousness, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, is an art and not a science.  We can’t achieve enlightenment by following the rules or path of another.   We can only achieve it by artfully wending our way along the path that is ours alone.    So, on my path this evening I helped end the suffering of another being on this planet.   For me, it was the right thing to do. 

But it still wasn’t easy.

Marketing During Recession: Millward Brown's POV

Marketing During Recession: To Spend or Not to Spend?

It’s been proven that an increase in marketing spend during a recession can gain a long-term advantage for a brand. But many marketers, constrained by budgets and circumstances, won’t be able to use this strategy. Will this leave their brands in peril? Or should decisions on how much to spend be taken in light of the overall prospects for the brand and category?

Everyone is talking about recession. The talk alone may be enough to trigger one, whether the underlying economics dictate it or not. From observations of recessions past, we know that consumers are quick to rein in spending when hard times are predicted. Many business leaders behave the same way. Anticipating reduced sales, they are inclined to cut back on variable costs, including marketing, in order to deliver on the expectations of the financial market.

However, a great deal of evidence suggests that it’s not a good idea to reduce marketing spend during recession in order to hit financial targets. Doing so may leave your brand in a less competitive position when the economy recovers. Over the years, research studies have confirmed that the best strategy in terms of long-term ROI is to increase marketing expenditure during an economic slowdown. An analysis of the Profit Impact of Marketing Strategies (PIMS) database, presented at a March 2008 IPA conference, provides the latest evidence. This analysis compared the results achieved by companies that increased, maintained, and reduced marketing spend during recession. Metrics used were Return on Capital Employed (ROCA) during the recession, ROCA during the first two years of recovery, and market share change during the same period of recovery. While companies that cut marketing spend enjoyed superior ROCA during the recession, they achieved inferior results after the recession ended. During the recovery, the “spenders” achieved significantly higher return on capital employed and gained an additional 1.3 percentage points of market share.

These findings, which may seem counterintuitive, can be explained by three basic factors.

1. The relationship between share of market and share of voice

The connection between share of market (SOM) and share of voice (SOV) has been proven. The higher your share of voice compared to your actual market share, the more likely your brand is to grow its market share in the subsequent year. So, if you increase your marketing investment at a time when competitors are reducing theirs, you should substantially increase the saliency of your brand. This could help you establish an advantage that could be maintained for many years.

2. The relationship between brand size and profit margins

Because they enjoy advantages of scale, big brands enjoy an advantage over smaller ones in terms of attracting repeat purchase and recouping their marketing investments. Therefore, a brand that increases share during a recession stands to benefit from this multiplier once the economy rebounds.

3. Reduced “noise” during recession provides opportunities

A new product launch may actually have greater impact during a recession than at other times, for several reasons. A product that is unique or demonstrably better than others should be able to command a higher price, even among price conscious shoppers. Competitors who are running scared may be late in countering a new product with their “me-too” offerings. And, because media costs are likely to be lower, advertisers should get more bang for their buck. These savings may be compounded by the relative ease of cutting through in a less cluttered atmosphere.

Overall, competing in a recession is like running a marathon. A smart frontrunner will seize the lead and work to increase it while others are flagging. If the other runners allow the gap to widen, it will be really tough for them to regain the lost ground when the pace picks up again.

Recession Proof your Income (Internet Network Marketing)

A few thoughts on reading Shantaram, by Gregory David Roberts

It had been recommended to me by many in my friends circle, that this is a good book. I’d rather differ a bit; it’s a great book and makes it to one of my favorites. The book is a story of an Australian convict, who escapes from the jail and finds himself in Mumbai, via New Zealand. In Mumbai he lives in the slums, joins the mafia, gets addicted to heroin and gets off it, travels to Afghanistan to fight with the mujaheddin, acts in bollywood movies and so on. As many of you who have read the bestseller would know that this is autobiographical of the authors’ life.

The good part of this novel is the way in which the protagonist explains what he learns from life, about love and happiness in addition to others, and the author has kept it short rather not getting into a fable like writing. One of the many aspects I would remember of this book is a statement made by Abdel Khader Khan, a mafia don in the book, who justifies doing wrong things for the right reasons, or the philosophy about life that it tends towards complexity.