Both eyes for an eye, and for the tooth– the whole jaw!

There would be a million sports fanatics who would claim just like me, that the love for the sport is above and always precedes the love for one’s own country. To seem politically correct, we hide the jingoism within us when our country is being pitted against a foreign opposition. Any rational sports aficionado would evaluate the strengths of both the playing teams, as in the case of the current India-SA cricket series and come to a conclusion that the S. African team deserves to win because they have field a better playing 11, and probably another set of non-playing 22 too!

But what does a team do when there is adversity staring in the face in the form of a better quality, and in this case an arrogantly pompous opposition? Be nice losers? Well, there surely isn’t much humility required in the first place if one does not end up on the winning side! There are instances aplenty within the domain of cricket itself, the very mention of which should pump up the adrenalin of a sportsman and invigorate the fervour to win which is almost as important as the skill itself!

The moment of today- Sreesanth’s amusing concoction of the Arabic belly dance and Mallu-land Dampanguttu (a word that Tamilians use to indicate “dancing at will”) exemplifies this spirit of the vehement desire to win against a team and an individual (Andre Nel- Kill the bastard!!!) that prides on its caliber, what if sledging is a critical constituent of the end result! For all we know, the Indians might still end up on the losing side in the series, but all that a spectator investing 8 hours almost meditating in front on the television wants is purely a reaffirmation of the zeal to win, not the win itself.

I agree that there are surely less animated ways of doing the same, something that the 2 pillars of our cricket culture, Sachin & Rahul show us from time to time by letting only the 38” wooden instrument do the talking- But the game would lack on the entertainment value minus the public displays similar to that of Dada waving his shirt, Kumble punching the air with his fist with a bandaged head (the picture-perfect moment when he got Lara LBW after he was hit on the head), Rahul himself giving a mouthful and a bat-full back to Donald on the 96-97 ODI series & Sehwag’s utter disdain for the Aussie bowlers during the last tour to the Oz-land- These are moments that spiral off two things, one- bring alive the Indian in us and two- create un-viewable one-hour segments on primetime news with stalwarts of immense repute such as Yashpal Sharma, Chetan Sharma & Madanlal beaming on the camera with "Rajnigandha & Prince gutkha" plagued million dollar smiles! Great they can feel happy about the game, now that their prestigious careers are over!

What a small gesture like that can do to the team can’t be quantified. I mean, the scorers did not add another 36 runs to the 6 that they already added, just because Sreeshanth broke into a jig that one only witnesses the Delhiites do at typical “Chom” Delhi weddings. But the impact of such an “in-your-face” antic was visible from the way the team fielded after that. Such a public display of emotion stirs the other team-mates up into believing that all is not lost and in fact, what seemed insurmountable moments ago can be conquered!

Just a small reality check though, which the sport itself will keep providing from time to time to budding and to use a rather strong word, mediocre players (Sreesanth still has a long way to go, as opposed to the sudden revelation to the two “Chom” Sharmas- Yashpal & Chetan who will go back to their irritating, morose and populist comments as soon as Mr. Sreesanth gets back to his wayward, short & outside the leg stump, in other words- Ajit Agarkar ways); that such display of style should be backed by substance- and at least for today the Mallu- boy deserves every sticky-eyeball (Am habituated to using that term, thanks to the industry that I am in) that he got on our 40 odd national news channels. Truly, in the words of John Dryden- None but the brave deserves the fair! And as once Mr. Arun Shourie quoted on national news related to the Kashmir issue, our response to a piece of aggression need not really be as impulsive and clichéd as a “tooth for a tooth, and an eye of an eye”. In situations with one’s back to the wall, it needs to be “both eyes for an eye, and for the tooth, the whole jaw”! And for over-confident buggers like Andre Nel & Graeme Smith, perhaps the skull too!

Mr. Sreesanth- I blame your frolic for once again killing the rational sports lover in me, even if for a few days and for once again bringing out the xenophobic & jingoistic Indian in me, a label that we so shy away from displaying, often in an attempt to appear so prim & correct and paradoxically, so English!

To witness the moment, watch the video on

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3454538612898135067&q=sreesanth

100 Rupye Ki Baat!

Disclaimer to start with – This post is as random as it gets. This is about the number “100” that is a great source of amazement & mystery to me! There is hardly an object, concept or theory that carries almost the same meaning across so many disciplines. And there is definitely no "number" that signifies the same across so many aspects of life. Figure this out:

-The distance seems really long if it’s beyond 100 kilometers!
-The speed feels too high once you throttle your vehicle above 100 kmph!
-The company is huge if it has 100 employees!
-You have done well as a batsman if you’ve scored a 100!
-You are a bowler to be reckoned with if you’ve taken a 100 wickets in a season!
-You’ve lived a healthy life if you trot along till you’re a 100 years old!
-100 goals in a career – Boy, that’s some striker!
-The team scored a 100 points in a basketball match…that’s high!
-100 television channels to choose from – that’s some choice for the viewer!
-The building is sky-high if it has a 100 floors!
--A 100 minute movie - Ideal by Hollywood standards!
-Bowling at 100 mph? – Jeff Thompson almost managed it!
-Congratulations – you’ve just won yourself a grand prize of a 100 thousand dollars!
-The movie is a hit – just completed 100 days at Maratha Mandir!
-A 100 marks – I never got ‘em in any exam (One example from personal experience… err…I mean the lack of it)

- And then there are opinions! - “That obese lump of lard weighs must weight at least 100 kgs”, "You know the guy is such a con – he can come up with 100 excuses for everything", "The dude is a casanova– must have slept with a 100 women"

The history provides sufficient proof of the fact that the concept of number was born directly from observations of real phenomena exhibited by the natural forces. But this number 100 seems like a number around which the man has fostered his life.

Why did this particular number gain so much significance? Is it just because it’s the first three digit number that appears after a big list of 90 two-digit numbers? I read this wonderful quote that “mathematics arises wherever there are difficult problems that involve quantity, space or change”. And it surely seems to me, that in lots of cases wherever man wanted to impose a numerical limit to something that seemed like an excess, he’s used the number 100.

But my question is why only 100? Why did we end up having the fraction system based on 100? Why not a number like 96, 90, 84, 72, 60, etc. that have more factors than 100?

The logic here, as many of us would already know is that the metric system or the decimal based system is based on the “metre” & “gram” and is the most widely used system in the world recognized by International System of Units, the benefit of the system being that it has a single base for each physical quantity and all other related units are multiples of 10 of this base unit. The actual history is interesting too– Post the French revolution in 1789, this system was devised in France when Louis XVI ordered the mathematicians to develop a unified measurement system as a replacement to the multiple & incongruent systems in prevalence then.

Keeping history aside, it still beats me as to why this number signifies the height or excess of something across so many measurable & even figurative areas (Right from having a vision to own a 100 companies to having the urge to slap that dimwit Fardeen Khan a 100 times). The above examples and am sure many more that we will keep encountering around this beautiful number will reinforce & vindicate the point that numbers and particularly the number 100 belongs in the mind rather than in the empirical world!

Battle of Sexes!

Okay…this post required the most amount of effort from my side in terms of compiling information. And it has to rank right up there in terms of satisfaction of the output too. Hate this, but one is actually more satisfied about any result that comes out of an excel sheet and fancy charts rather than a word doc alone!

The idea, (besides trying to a prove a point thru charts) is to draw an inference for the reason behind women’s tennis having generated lesser interest than the male version during most of years post the open era (I mean another reason besides the slow pace of the game as compared to men’s tennis) and the reason for the hike in interest levels in recent years for the female version.

The chart below depicts that amount/intensity of competition at a half-decade level post the Open-Era in 1968, with the intensity of competition defined as number of unique players that won grand slams (close to 20 every five years) in these 5 year periods.

You will notice that the trend line for men (unique grand slam winners for each 5 year period) has mostly been above the line for women. The last two 5 year periods have marked a quantum shift in the women tennis scene, especially after the exit of Graf and Hingis. This is also the period where the number of equally matched opponents has grown for the female version. Let me get into the detail of how numbers can at times paint a completely wrong picture…look at the last bar point in trend line for males – a number of 11 means that so many different guys have won a grand slam or more in the last 5 years!...but the truth becomes apparent in the chart below.

Federer has won 9 out of the 19 grand slams played in the period. The next guy with the most slams is Nadal with just 2! The rest of the unique winner list includes names such as Costa, Ferrero, Gaudio, Johansson, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin – all probably one-time wonders apart from the last three who might be restricted to 3 or 4 time wonders at most, courtesy Federer!

The point again centres around my earlier blog on the extent of competition in the sport – We would all agree that the best times for Men’s tennis were the ones featuring McEnroe, Borg and Connors battling it out and the period where you could place your bet on anyone amongst Becker, Edberg, Lendl or Wilander to emerge triumphant in a grand slam. While it is a tennis lover’s dream to watch Federer play like god, it takes away from the sport the very emotion that fuels it – thrill, suspense & anti-climax and till the time that the men's game is fortunate enough to get two or three players that can rival the Swiss Mister, the sport will always lack on this count!

Just compare this with the female version of the sport, where the average number of unique winners per five years has been around 7, much lower than the average of 9 for men. A possible explanation for the women tennis inviting lesser viewer interest that the male version?

The escalation in interest for women’s tennis is clearly evident from the above chart. Just have a look at the bars for 97-01 and 02-06. About 10 unique winners per five year interval with near equal competition from worthy adversaries like the Williams sisters, Henin, Clijsters and the new Russian brigade of Sharapova, Myskina, Kuznetsova and the likes. Another example of near equal competition leading to a hike in spectator interest! No wonder why the women’s tennis scene was so boring immediately after the open era were Margaret Court and Billie Jean King smashed every other pedestrian opponent that came their way and a similar phenomenon ensued with Christ Evert and Navratilova taking their place in their next decade. The memory of decade post has been filled with Graf smashing Sanchez, Capriati losing it, Novotna crying & many others just wilting away under some severe Steffi style serve & volley!

I hope this comparison would go some way in explaining the reason behind the surge in spectator interest for women's tennis (besides the entry of a slew of Russian Glam-dolls) and the catching up, so to say, with the male version in the recent times!

Chillaao Mat!!!

In any meeting, if you feel overshadowed by domineering, overweight and louder peers with 5251165% SOV more than yours, then don't be distressed or distraught! All you got to do is wait for everybody to finish. Just summarize the discussion by agreeing with everybody and you will scape thru the meeting. This strategy can also be used if one's just pure dumb and cannot contribute to a discussion with a valid point of view.

You can do this in a polished manner, taking pauses at the right places, and enunciating with conviction on words like "Guys", "People", "We GOT to", etc. On the other hand, you can also appear very innocent & modest (to hide your dumbness) by starting with a phrase like, let's say "Wait a minute, if I get this right what you guys are trying to say is" or just be a good samaritan acting as an empathatic soundboard by saying something akin to "I believe what you guys are getting at is..." or a plain and simple "I believe both of you are right"...This one is a killer! (I mean, consider that as an original point of view). You will emerge as the good guy cos you're not taking sides and your boss will love you for it too!

Rivalry - Essential ingredient to spice up any sport!

Any sport is best enjoyed when the adversaries are equal in might. But for a combat, where the lesser-known minnow upsets the much-reputed champion (which seldom happens), a duel between two well-matched opponents is as much delight for the spectators as it is for the competing sportsmen themselves!

Looking at a few such periods in the history of sport, where the interest in a particular sport was fuelled/rejuvenated by two near-equal rivals...

Boxing, as a sport reached its pinnacle and got world attention really for the first time when Joe Frazier laid his claim to a throne that Ali believed was his birth-right. In his first big fight after being convicted in ’67 for refusing induction into US Army to punch the Vietnamese, Ali’s first big moment to use his fist again came in 1971. And in spite of miles of footage and kilomemetres of verse from the multi-talented Clay claiming that he would punch Joe’s face to pulp, Frazier won the first bout that went into 15 rounds. This was one moment that gave world boxing two superstars! In ’74, Ali regained his lost prestige by doing what Frazier did to him 3 years back, getting a unanimous declaration by the judges. The 5 year long peak for the sport of Boxing finally culminated with “Thrilla in Manila”, ironically a day before Gandhi’s birthday, where Ali proved why he was indeed God’s gift to Boxing. At the end of the fight where Frazier’s coach wouldn’t let Frazier off the bloody stool, Ali summed up the fight and in a way the 5 year long rivalry in typical Ali style saying “That was as close to dying as I have ever come”!
The Tyson-Hollyfield rivalry had the potential of a similar kind of revival for the sport till the time that the following joke originated “The subtle difference between a married Indian woman and a Tyson match is this- An ear with rings vs. a ring with ears”. The interest has now largely faded away with the sport struggling to find even one marketable champ (after Andrew Golota who could have modeled for Huggies after Tyson kicked his butt in precisely 50 seconds)!

Formula-1, a sport largely dominated by drivers for decades is another case in point where the last decade led to boredom in the sport again because of the presence of one champion and loads of lesser mortals. With M. Schumacher reducing 18 days every year for seven years to a joke with a superior machine and exceptional skills, the arrival of a fitting rival like Alonso took years coming. And when he did, the results are there to see. You see a lot many people waiting for the Sunday where nothing is expected any more. I mean it is still expected, but its “Schumi or Alonso?” as opposed to “Its going to be Schumi again”. Several other, albeit shorter testimonies of the “rivalry fuelling interest” surfaced in the sport when the Flying Finn Mika did give the champ a scare or two in 2001-02, and then again with Montoya’s maverick yet unsuccessful attempts to dethrone the champ, even if for one or two races, here and there. One just hopes now that the old champ’s exit from the sport does give the new champ an apt rival to keep the interest in the sport alive.

Track- 100 meters, a sport that defies science and typifies the spirit of man to go beyond limits imposed by nature- again used to be a sport where one champion would emerge on the scene, create a record that would stay for (for the lack of another common number) 5 years till the time that the process would continue in arithmetic progression. From Armin Hary, the first one to break the 10 sec barrier, there have been many Americans (Carl Lewis in ‘91 with 9.86, Leroy Burell in ‘94 with 9.85, Donovan Bailey- a Canadian with 9.84 in ‘96 and Maurice Greene with 9.79 in ’99) and some tainted, drug-assisted sprinters like Ben Johnson who clocked 9.79 in Seoul ’88 and more recent Tim Montgomery with a 9.78 in ’02). But the point is that seldom have there been really strong rivalries between two sprinters at the same time. But now, for the last couple of years or so, there is Asafa Powell from Jamaica (with the current WR of 9.76), Justin Gatlin from USA (now drug tainted), and Francis Obikwelu (from Portugal) who have ensured that bookies turn to this sport as well. The spectator interest has also come alive with records being challenged in virtually every track event! By the way I would love to know what our own sprinters ala Paramjeet Singh and KM Beenamol’s younger bro (can’t remember his name now) can do with 10 times the drug dosage that Ben Johnson took- nothing sarcastic about it, just curious what is the best that we can do!

Tennis is another sport where the highs in spectator interest have time and again been spurred by rivalries at the top bracket. Rod Laver-Ken Roswell immediately post the open era, a rare triumvirate rivalry of ice cool Borg and hot-headed Connors & McEnroe through the 70s, Edberg-Becker in mid and late 80s with an occasional scare from Wilander, Lendl and likes. The 90s inspite of my hero Agassi’s mercurial rise and extra-mercurial comeback will always remain as one of the most boring eras of tennis (especially between 1992 and 1998) when Agassi fell in love, got married, fell in love again, broke his back, fell in love and married again (Same applies to Kambli as well, in the same period) And the culprit is the boring Sampras this time around. Pardon me, I hate the clinical approach that guys like him and McGrath bring to any sport that reduces the spirit and style of sport to academic and text-book perfection. Post 2002- take out Sampras and put in Federer (but surely with greater class, style and panache) and you have a similar scenario till Nadal came into “clay-court” tennis. Still way to go before Rafael can do the same on hard-court and grass inspite of having reached a Wimbledon final already. Roddick and Safin amaze and deceive at the same time and Hewitt seems to have accepted forthcoming history. Blake might not do an Arthur Ashe but a Malavia Washington, may be! On the other hand, the women’s edition of the sport has been marked with far lesser rivalries with fewer champions dominating across decades.

My next blog will explore this “male vs. female” rivalry in the sport of Tennis post open era and try and bust a few myths that many of us have!

To sum it up, what we need for any sport is equally matched talent at the top bracket, at least; not a scenario like cricket for instance, where Australia reaches every major final and then beats the shit out of second best…that is no fun for the viewing public and fans and is detrimental to sport!

Does quality content need to be promoted?

The most vociferous debate in the media circles after the Star-Zee duel, the Tanaaz-Bhaktyar/Shweta-Manav and the Mika-Rakhi debate is the discussion on the old, yet constant adage “Is content more important that marketing” debate!

A parallel from the Bollywood industry here, which in my understanding does not work very different from the television industry in the sense that the need gap fulfilled for the consumer (apologies for using marketing jargon) is that of entertainment. The past one year has been replete with cases of movies that have gone overboard shouting in a bid to generate initial walkins to the theatre. But is high-decibel marketing the foremost criterion to ensure BO collections? Let’s try to work out a case here with the aid of nine of the biggest Bollywood hits in the last year…

Bluffmaster – A UTV/Ramesh Sippy Films production that went berserk on the marketing front, where the Abhishek was co-branded with categories as varied as petroleum and retail…in terms of the content appeal to the audience, I would say lukewarm…and in terms of Box-office collections, a hit by Boxoffice standards! Collection – 17 crores after 10 weeks of playing
Rang De Basanti – A cult by any standards, the movie rode on the initial publicity gained through “WOM” and deservedly do…the movie gained from marketing really after release as the pre-launch hype was essentially centred around Aamir Khan who was making an appearance on the silver screen after a rather long hiatus – 51 crores BO collections, as was reminded to us by Mr. Ronnie Screwalla in the ads that was a source of ire to many of his counterparts in the producer circles
Taxi No. 9211 – Again a UTV/Ramesh Sippy production that rode on the pre-launch marketing blitz with John Abraham and Sameera Reddy in the cast along with the violent Nana Patekar who was making a re-appearance after a long break and some lively-but-repetitive music by Vishal Shekhar. Hit by BO standards – 20 crores after 10 weeks of release
Malamaal Weekly – A Sahara One production; Again, hugely promoted through on-air-promos and off-air support in terms of hoardings and the related hoopla, the movie was keenly looked forward to, being a Priyadarshan movie (albeit it came after fairly pedestrian movies like Hulchul and Garam Masala post a brilliant Hera Pheri), but to re-iterate hugely promoted to catch the moviegoers’ attention – 25 crores in collection after 10 weeks of release
Fanaa – Aamir Khan has his own way of creating hype for his movies, a typical Classical Economics situation where constrained supply hikes demand; Besides Aamir’s appearance, the movie also rode on aspects like Kajol’s first movie post “Nysa’s” (only an illiterate wouldn’t know her and Maddox’s name) birth, huge outdoor/TV promotions and Yashraj’s muscle at the distributors’ end; all-in-all a typical brand-like marketing blitz accompanied by in-the-face tactics like special features on NDTV..oh yes, it was Kunal Kohli’s third movie after “Mujhse Dosti Karoge” (surprised???) and a brilliant “Hum Tum”…sad that he’s remembered more for Hum Tum and Nach Baliye now! – Astounding 53 crores of BO collection
Krrish – Raakesh Rroosshhan at his very best at creating a 3 ½ hour mega-advertisement traversing across product categories as varied as Milk Food Drinks, Cellular Phones, Fabric Wash & Motorbikes with branded segments for (don’t be alarmed and appalled) Tide, S-Kumars, Samsung Mobile phones, Vicks Inhaler, Bournvita, Star TV, Star News and Hero Hoinda Karizma…oops I was talking about a movie; With the on-air-promos coming out of even a non-TV-households’ ears, this was sure a case study for promotions being taken to the height of heights, and whoa…did it result into BO results (I’m not talking about the sub-standard performances in the movie) – a whopping 65 crores of BO collections
Omkara – An artistic masterpiece written, screenplayed (am not sure if that’s correct English), musically rendered (even sung) and directed by Vishal Bharadwaaj, it was a movie’s critic delight with stellar performances from the cast (minus Ajay Devgan’s tilted neck, clichéd, sick acting), probably a movie that became a hit post release riding on content, albeit supported by a bit of marketing and promotion with Saif’s new bald look (Yes, Mr. Bharadwaj, we heard about Saif’s sacrifice of his hair enough number of times of Aaj Tak and on Mumbai/Delhi times) - 23 crores of BO revenues
KANK – Dharma productions (yuck, i want to puke again) I don’t want to talk about it and I hope that my future family doesn’t talk about it either. Filmy and illogical and stupid is my verdict! Enough promos with the pansy director from coffee with karan to chai with chuuu…or whatever, but the fact is – BO collection of 46 crores

...The point that I’m trying to make is that all of the above 8 Bollywood hits banked on marketing to deliver the result and pass the ultimate litmus test, that of Box-office collections!....but let me prove the conventional movie (and to an extent brand) marketing model wrong by giving you an example of movie that delivered the best result of the year and probably the decade by NOT marketing and NOT divulging the content and NOT doing in-the-face features on the news channels till a day after release...Lage Raho Munnabhai

Lage Raho Munnabhai – The best movie of the year, after RDB where the producer and the director had the conviction that audience would trickle in post the release, based on the one and the most important factor for the success of a product, QUALITY AND WORD OF MOUTH…the movie became a roaring success post release and not pre-release as in the case of a lot of aforementioned marketing gimmicks! The Gandhi angle was intentionally kept of media and what returns the movie got will be a part of history even 20 years down the line. A disclaimer here - This risk can and should be taken however, if and only if the creator truly does know his audience and understand the viewers' palate!..what do we say further - BO collections of 70 crores post 10 weeks of release, the movie is still going strong!

A clear case study for marketers where keeping the product in seclusion and out of the media blitz before release does pay handsome dividends (but with a high quality product.story)…Is there an apparent learning for a lot of us in the TV industry here also...from the Bollywood industry where the old maxim is being proved true again; The returns from quality content can be matched by high noise marketing to an extent but ultimately, for transcending a piece of creative from a hit to a superhit to a cult, the primary and foremost ingredient in content!...the logical conclusion sadly, from this corollary is also that most of us Indians as indeed regressive or at least like to watch regressive content on TV…how else would Ekkkkta soaps still reign supreme on TV!

Ricardo speaks - for the 'Un'common Mumbhai!

Ricardo speaks - for the 'Un'common Mumbhai!

The famous marginal utility theory has its origins in Ricardo’s theory of land-rent which propounds that price of a given piece of land is dependent on the returns from the least productive piece of land in cultivation. Now, carrying forward this to the Mumbai real estate scene, one can conclude that as long as there are idiots like us who are willing to buy real estate in god-forsaken areas like Bhayandar & Ambernath, the prices of house in Colaba and Bandra would continue on the upward binge. Wait a minute; what we’re really saying is that a price increase for a house in the least attractive area (the marginal land according to Ricardo) will push up the prices for the houses in the most attractive areas even higher. Now, let us look at the real reason behind people settling with an option of living in remote corners of the city, and this pertains to many of us really (not me thankfully) who choose to reside in areas as distant from the workplace (Lower Parel & South Mumbai in most instances) as Kandivali & Dahisar. The reason is this – Accessibility or the ability to commute such long distances. With the road traffic being the way it is, I don’t think it is practical for a car-owner to put his hard-earned asset to use unless one’s boss is alright with 3 working days per week. On a normal evening with normal potholes, very normal traffic jams caused by lane-changing buffoons and absolutely normal accidents on the middle of the road, a person takes close to 3 hours to travel from South Mumbai to Kandivali (and I’m not even stretching the city to its fullest extent right now). Now this ease of commuting is really for whom? It’s for the guy who is willing to travel on a train, not for the guy who owns a car.

Let me give a parallel here from a book that is a fab read – The Undercover Economist. Tim Harford mentions about the green belts being mandated in the city of London where it’s not legal to construct residential or official enterprise. The artificial scarcity for land being created by the Government through these green belts had been the real reason for the steeper property prices increases in London as compared to other cities like New-York and Sydney. The real estate prices began to increase around the distant parts of the city even more once the conveyance ease was increased through the introduction of tube trains. A guy could now live far-off from work but could still commute to work! Goes with the Mumbai story too- where the train connection to far-flung places has made sure that travel is possible, but again for those people who are “willing” to take train travel, not for the guy who has a car or desires to own one!

What about people who do not want to take train travel & can’t afford the time and cash that a cab from office to home involves? I guess I belong to that category and so would many of us. It is easy to shrug the argument off by saying that only 5% of the residents in Mumbai own a car. But the other side to it is that the wonderful size of the amazing city ensures that the 5% number works out to little over 6 lac people! Now, a very big proportion of this population segment makes Mumbai stand for what it does; it represents the lower, middle and top management cadre of the companies that have set up base here; it really comprises of people without whom Mumbai would not be the progressive, cosmopolitan & modern city that we know it as. It’s only logical that people who make money in this city would want to upgrade from train travel and buy a car sometime. Once they buy a car, they should also be in a position to drive down from work to their place. Buying a house in South Mumbai is not an option that many of us would have unless we also double up as dancers in the banned dance bars in Mumbai. So what do the companies do to retain employees in (apologies to all Mumbhais) this crowded & filthy city? Logically they have the following options

- Shift their head offices to all these suburbs, something that HLL has already done. Great that they have a vision of the world beyond soaps and toothpastes!

- Allow employees to work from home – very possible for a lot of enterprises in the service sector, especially BPOs to use technology and enable this option. But that will firstly ruin the concept of an office where people meet and have fun, I mean work and secondly make sure that people like "us" (Using “me” here would have been a correct but I assume that likeminded people visit my blog) who need a stick behind their ass to work just won’t work. So all in all, not a very practical option really.

- Expect employees to stay back in office and never let them go. True again of many service industries where a lot of “US” are employed. Jokes apart, not practical again

- Just move out of Mumbai! That seems to be the most logical thing to me. With the time taken to travel and the scarcity & price enormity of residential options near most offices, this seems like a given to me after a few years as the state Government is bound to take populist actions that will benefit the common man. And no, somebody who has the propensity to buy a car is not very common! So for all you guys who own a car – either look for accommodation close to work NOW and never quit your job or QUIT your Mumbai job now and look elsewhere!

Given the current scenario where the Worli Sea Link, Metro Trains and some Government sanity will take about a decade to arrive, unless the ball (a lot of balls really) is put in motion soon to ease the transport nightmare of the working class in the middle & higher income bracket (with a car), this city may lose the people who are at the best position to make this city better!

Give me my space for 150 bucks please!

The retail boom and the multiplex boom in Urban India have coincided alright, but it's rather evident that the former hasn't benefited the latter. I mean why is there no, and I repeat no movie theater where you can walk through the isle without intentionally, err unintentionally feeling up the backside of other space constrained movie watchers. It's a place that only aggravates the sense of social stigma for those men who 'can' walk through the isle without butt-brushing against the knees of the seated fellows and the women who 'cannot' manage to sneak into their seats without doing the same! I would not like to believe so, but the thought of homos around me who come to movie theatres to get a butt-rub in the garb of a Friday night movie really does scare me! I mean, please give a break to the "Enter the Dragon" loos, "Gate Way of India" entrances and "Brindavan Garden" musical fountains. All I expect for a 150 bucks ticket is merely 6 inches more space between 2 rows of seats. And what is with the 55 bucks popcorn and the 60 bucks cola? To sound Seinfeld'esque, I really beg to differ with the box office experts here. If not for the popcorn and cola, I'm sure the Bollywood industry would be running losses!