So, why cant the media change India?

Okay. So newspapers & magazines have been writing about corruption. About crime. About 'fundamentalism'. About how to improve India. They've been doing it for years.

Why does even the most vocal writing refuse to change things? Of course, there's the fact that it's easier-said-than-done. But then, shouldnt at least *some* people be influenced enough to change things?

Perhaps a few stats will explain things. Here're a few (approximate)numbers as a percentage of India's population:

Circulation of Times of India: 3%
Internet penetration: 7%
Unique users on Orkut: 2%
Twitter: 0.5%

To say nothing of regional newspapers and niche websites.

If any medium talks to such a small percentage of population, what are the odds that it'll change anything that concerns the other 95%?

Why arent marketing textbooks on the NYT bestseller list?

They ought to be, right?

Someone who's trying to teach you how to sell stuff to others ought to be doing a helluva job of selling his own textbook, right?

Two to tango

"A did such evil things."
"Well. A is a sadist. B is a masochist. They were consenting adults. It was a mutual arrangement. If B didnt like it, B could have walked off any time. Why should you and I have a problem?"

On making unsolicited advice work

During my first few days of work, I offered free consulting to some companies. These were small businesses, and needed some direction but couldnt afford full time agencies. I thought the experience would me as well help a newbie like me pick up the nuances of the online medium much faster than otherwise.

They get free consulting, I get free experience. Win-win. So we thought.

What happened? There werent any business disasters or ruined friendships. But changes refused to happen. Most companies just wouldnt accept recommendations to change stuff that obviously needed change.

Why did this happen? The companies were the founders' babies. What happened was that I showed up, offered unsolicited advice for free, and went about telling them their baby was flawed. It's understandable that they wanted a company that they built, not one I built.

The two companies for whom the unsolicited-advice arrangement did work showed what was missing elsewhere.

With these two companies, I wasnt very clear about what they wanted. I asked them to set a context, ask the questions. Only then would I work on what *they* defined. More importantly, I set boundaries about what I was *not* going to do. I got myself to shut my mouth when anything outside the agreed-upon-area came up.

That made sure I wasnt trying to bring up their baby - I was only buying her a gift.

When things dont work, reset expectations....

Easier than lamenting. Revised expectations mean you have what you want, even with other people.

Someone I work with wasnt very good at what we'd hired this person for. Options? Push this person? Lecture? Train? It turned out there were other things this person *could* do well(albeit stuff we thought of as 'lower end work;).

Once we shifted our notions of what we wanted from this person, it was easier for both of us. We're happy that the person's doing stuff to 'potential'. The person's happy about doing stuff that's comfortable.