YT: Yours Truly
RG: Random Guy
My space under the cyber sun where I weave the fabric of my life, one katha at a time.
On 5th October 2009, 4 major daily newspapers of the country – TheT imes of India, HT, Mint and DNA greeted us with a full page bright yellow jacket advertisement saying, ‘The Internet is under new management. Yours.’ Prime time slots on all major as well as niche television channels like Discovery, NatGeo played the Yahoo! Anthem – a minute long advertisement focused on the international spirit and interactivity of Yahoo!
Earlier this month, horizontal portal giant Yahoo! launched a global branding campaign ‘It’s Y!ou’ focusing on the user now being in charge of his internet experience through Yahoo! Personalization of homepage and other products are the ways in which Yahoo! wishes to offer superior web experience to its users. Costing them a little over $100 million, the campaign is seen as a long term transformation for Yahoo! who wishes to be at the centre of all internet-based activities for the users.
This brings out several interesting issues for discussion:
1. Conventional media – still alive and kickin’– It is interesting to see an Internet company leveraging conventional media – Print, television, radio to drive people to its website.
2. ‘Product innovation precedes the branding campaign’, so claims Yahoo! Yes, there have been several up gradations and add-ons, and the collaboration with Microsoft for the search engine Bing has been a huge step. The Homepage too has undergone a makeover, looking much sleeker, cleaner and appealing. The biggest feature that the Homepage now offers is the personalisation of content that one wishes to see on his/her homepage. There are also similar features in the other core products like mail, messenger and search (through choice of filters). But is personalization of content such a breakthrough innovation that it justifies a budget of $100 million? More so, can an entire branding strategy be based on this development in the product? In the past, iGoogle has offered similar options without so much as a ruffle.
3. Horizontal vs. Vertical portals – where are we heading?
In an age where digital immigrants are fast turning into digital natives, we all wish to become ‘specialists in information’ rather than being simply ‘well-informed’. Similarly, we tend to rely more on vertical portals for the depth and variety of content that they offer. For an avid internet user, a horizontal portal is increasingly being seen as a platform for the internet noobs to start off from. So the moot point is as the consumer preferences change as one becomes more adept with the internet, does a horizontal portal still offer us a reason to stick around? And more importantly can Yahoo! do that?
4. ‘Centre of peoples’ online lives’ is the positioning Yahoo! intends to achieve. But in current times where every digital native has 4 or more social networking ids (Orkut, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn) not to mention multiple mail accounts and other personal favourite websites can one website become the centre of users’ online lives? Interestingly, even Google seems to be in the race for this coveted position. It would be exciting to watch if Yahoo! can match up to the expectations it has set for itself.
In recent times, Yahoo! has undergone a plethora of changes both in its management as well as product portfolio. Streamlining of products, identifying and communicating the role of Yahoo! in cyberspace are a few tasks carried out by the feisty CEO Carol Bartz after coming on board. Agreed, that the company has had its share of tumultuous phases and even more may come, but one would be foolish to discount Yahoo! as it gears up for the challenge of becoming the centre of people’s online lives. Not to mention, Yahoo! sites are after all, the third most visited websites on the planet!*
*Source: June 2009, comScore
I spent two of my best hours today watching 'Angels & Demons' ...the experience still giving me goose bumps as I write this...
The age-old debate of Science vs. Religion.
How do you explain the existence of one to another?
How to explain the co-existence of both? And for how long ??
As the mysteries of one century become the logic of the next - one may say it’s a losing battle for Religion but then look around you...the faith in the Faith is stronger than ever!!
Karl Marx wondered (and wondered aloud) if religion was opium of the masses...which may have led few of us to question the need for religion. Isn't the world a much simpler place to live? When all the phenomena stand perfectly rationalized? When the miracles of old world are nothing but scientific wonders waiting to be discovered? And then why do we need the religion to sedate us, delude us providing illusions of an existence that life certainly isn't! Isn't science just the perfect answer for the rationalists amongst us? Almost like an antidote for religion, isn't it?
But then how do you explain the faith? ..the belief that ran across the world for centuries in one form or other. Yes, blaming the Pope and his Vatican running like a smoothly functioning corporation selling us hope, faith, peace and respect towards that one Big Guy sitting up there; is a very tempting option. But then is religion nothing more than the biggest con job that mankind ever faced?
In the closing scene of ‘Angels & Demons’, Cardinal Saverio Mortati says something so profound that it almost explains the age-old fallacies of religion. Almost. He says, 'Religion is flawed only because man is flawed.'
Religion and Science. Yes, both are outcomes of Man's imagination and creativity. Both man-made; yet so different - one appeals to the heart and the other to the mind. It’s up to us to choose - heart over mind or mind over heart. Religion has made blunders in the past - the propagators of religion can almost share a bench with Hitler in hell for their atrocities and impositions. We still pay for it and would continue to do so for ages to come. But science functions no better. Its blunders are going to be the blunders of mankind in the future.
And may be..just may be..when man is tired of science one day - he will look back and seek solace in religion as we do now seeking solace in science from the misgivings of religion. Is this why they are meant to co-exist? To offer man some respite when he has had enough of the other? Well, who knows..Maybe.
When Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opium of masses," one might wonder if he was asking us wean ourselves from it. May be not! For a man who learnt from the sufferings of others - maybe he found the key to the existence and sustenance of religion. May be he found a reason for religion in man's life. In the full context his words were:
“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.” (Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.)
How difficult this mortal human life would be if not for the illusory happiness that Marx talks about! How would life be if all things stood perfectly well explained and rationalized! ‘The Logic’ would then be our God and we all devoid of any hope or fear. (On second thoughts – Why does mankind always need someone/something to look up to? We remove God and replace it by Logic but the truth remains we replace it. But then again, it’s a better place to be – the last time one race made the others look up to it – it nearly wiped out the ‘others’!)
So are we saying that a flawed religion is better than none at all? Of course, it would be same as a flawed science (we are moving towards it) better than none at all. And since the situation of perfect religion and perfect science (just like a perfect competition) almost never exists..man has to make do with one of them...leaving the choice either to himself or going with the flow as per the societal context of his time and place.
Phew! That’s a lot of unanswered questions! But may be the point is to question rather than a muted acceptance! And yes, like all man-made creations – religion and science included, one needs to accept their flaws instead of overlooking them.
To quote Karl Marx again – ‘Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.’