The evening tea-time here at the Indian Statistical Institute often witnesses the heat of intellectually-involving debates, many of which, owing to the paucity of time, end in open-ended questions. One such question arose during the last cricket triangular series between India, Sri Lanka and the West-Indies. The question was: Why is cricket coming to be known as the batsman?s game? Interesting enough to switch on the light of cognitive ability, this question kept me occupied for a while past tea-time. Now, as it turns out, the answer is simple: There is a maximum limit to the number of wickets (20 in test cricket and 10 in the one-day format, the latter being of primary interest here) that can be taken in a game. But that isn?t the case, as has been observed so far, with the number of runs scored (at least relative to a theoretical maximum based on reasonable, yet ambitious prerequisites, say for example, scoring 600 runs in a one-day international?ODI). Once you?ve observed the fall of 10 wickets (i.e. when a team has been bowled out) in an ODI, you do not expect any team to top that in the future. But, even after the epic match in which South Africa successfully chased down Australia?s 434, you were still open to (and in fact, hopeful about) seeing some team topping that.
Sports entertainment is often accompanied by the thrill of witnessing new records on the field. I was personally overwhelmed to witness Sachin?s record-breaking 35th test century at the Feroz Shah Kotla stadium. Since, for the reason already mentioned, new batting records have been hitherto more frequently observed than new bowling records, the cricket-audience has formed its expectation accordingly. The batting side gives the audience more than the bowling side to look forward to. Now, a question that immediately follows is: What would a bowlers? cricket look like? Someone not fain to invent meaningless reasoning would immediately observe that winning, in the existing form of ODI cricket, is about scoring more runs in a limited/fixed number of overs/deliveries and wickets (subject to certain rules). It, therefore, logically follows that there should be two different forms of bowlers? cricket?first, where winning will be about taking more wickets, subject to a limited number of runs (say 200); and second, where winning will be about bowling more deliveries subject to a limited number of runs. In a nutshell, each team bats till it scores 200 runs?and the winner is the one to do so in the lesser number of deliveries or with the lesser number of fallen wickets. A team like Pakistan would almost certainly be at the top in such an ODI format (too bad, the West Indian team of the early 1980s missed out). If I may add, South Africa, when witnessing some faculae of luck, could shine on the strength of Dale Steyn in a world cup of such a format.
The idea above was to explore the ?other sides? of what we generally observe and experience. I now come to the main focus of this article: marketing. While the basic idea is brilliant, some firms have taken it just too far. With frequent text-alerts and telephone calls, even in the most odd hours, what we have here is a situation of not aggressive but desperate marketing. They?ll call you when you?ve availed of the do-not-disturb facilities, or when it is lunch time, and even when you?re on roaming. In the odd hours, however, most of them are courteous enough to only leave texts with contact numbers of representatives they?d want you to get in touch with. The end result: you get irritated with the sheer frequency of such forms of marketing. The key takeaway is that advertisers irritate customers. So why not simply shift this system to one where customers irritate advertisers? Yes, let us look at this other side which involves your act of throwing random questions at the advertiser. If it?s a call in an odd hour (say when you?re having lunch), just play along. An example of a conversation would be:
Advertiser (A): ?Hi I am calling from XYZ Bank and would like to tell you about our credit card.?
You (Y): ?So, what did you have for lunch??
A: ?Excuse me! I?m calling from ? and wanted to know if you?re interested ??
Y: ?I got that, but I first want to know what you had for lunch.?
A (gives in): ?I haven?t had lunch so far.?
Y: ?Then tell me what you?ve had for breakfast today.?
A: ?I just called to know if you?re interested in ??
Y: ?I understand, but see ? you have your curiosities and I have mine. Why should yours be satiated first??
(If A disconnects, congratulations! Else go on increasing her bill till she does.)
Now imagine what will it be like when every customer reads this article. Those who only receive texts may, similarly, want to leave a completely random text (like ?Up! Up! And away!? ? I?d recommend something gibberish though) on the number(s) provided. Stay assured, someone will call, and a typical conversation should be like:
A: ?Hi. I got a message from this number.?
Y: ?And what am I supposed to do of that??
A: ?I got it from your number. Could you please tell us why you texted??
Y: ?Why? What?s the problem with the text??
A: ?Of course there is a problem ? how can you text me when you don?t even know me??
Y: ?Well! It is nothing different from what you?re doing all the time.? (It is a good time for you to now provide the details of the text you?ve received.)
A: ?Okay. I see. What I meant was ? why did you text me if you?re not interested??
Y: ?Well. Aren?t you texting those who are not interested??
A: ?But that is our way of knowing if you are interested in buying our product.?
Y: ?Well, congratulations. Now you know that I don?t want to buy your product.?
(The phone should get disconnected here, else ? well! use your imagination.)
In a regime of desperate marketing, someone will call back when you text. If every customer were to act according to what I suggest, then the costs to firms of advertisement will immediately shoot up (reflecting in high phone bills) and telephonic marketing will eventually not be seen as cost-effective. Even if firms stop calling back, the sheer volume of texts they?d receive would fill up their inbox frequently enough to irritate them. What do you get out of it? Entertainment?it is known to mitigate the effects of irritation and stress. The key takeaway for the management student: When firms advertise, it is subsumed in marketing; when they compete against each other for greater market shares, they indulge in aggressive marketing; when they go to the extent of personally reaching out to consumers, it is called desperate marketing; and when consumers finally retaliate, it?s called anti-marketing. The Indian consumer just needs to look beyond what he observes. The other side normally has the answers.
The author is a research scholar (PhD Economics) at the Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi. He is also committee member, American Statistical Association; and member, Royal Economic Society of England. Views are personal