Bisleri - Purity Personified

Basic Facts

Let us revise some facts learned way back in school:

1. 1. Water is indisputably the second most required resource after air for living beings. With about two-thirds of the planet covered with it and the human body being 70% composed of it, its importance can never be over-emphasized.
2. 2. Its use pervades every aspect of human life, be it personal like consumption and washing or professional like agriculture or industry.
3. 3. With fresh water, that in rivers, lakes and ponds, forming about 0.6% of total water on earth, potable water is indeed a scarce resource.
4. 4. About two-thirds of the Indian population still lives in rural areas where groundwater is directly used for consumption without any sort of filtering or purification. The rainy season in particular plays havoc with rampant spread of water-borne diseases like typhoid, cholera, hepatitis A, dysentery and many more.

Bisleri – 1969 to Now

Bisleri was bought by Parle in 1969 from an Italian entrepreneur Signor Felice Bisleri. With the concept of bottled mineral water largely non-existent in the Indian mindset, Bisleri had to put in a lot of efforts in bringing the product category into the mainstream. Since bottled water was colorless, tasteless and odorless, advertising it was not a simple nut to crack. The PVC packaging that Bisleri introduced in early-to-mid-eighties and the switch afterwards to PET bottles did the trick and gave the much-needed boost to the sales and the brand as a whole. As has been stated, Bisleri had a golden chance of capitalizing on building the market for bottled water as the quality of water available for drinking was extremely poor at that time. Strategic innovation in terms of packaging size, which increased the sales by 400%, and setting up of extensive distribution network put Bisleri bottles in peoples’ hands everywhere in the country.

Present

The efforts seem to have paid-off well now when one can find people saying ‘Bisleri’ to refer to bottled mineral water. Rarely does it happen when a brand becomes synonymous with the product category. As a result, Bisleri today boasts of a good 40% share in the Rs. 10-12 billion bottled mineral water market in India.

The Cause of the Effect

What led Bisleri to such astounding success? Why is its brand recall probably the fastest among brands in other product categories in India?

The answer is simple. Trust. It is the impeccable confidence that Bisleri has built over the years in the mind of the Indian consumer that gives it the edge, confidence that ensures that every drop of every bottle anywhere has the same level of purity, and that it is absolutely healthy to consume it.

But what is it that Pepsi’s Aquafina and Coca Cola’s Kinley didn’t have or haven’t been able to achieve?

Again the answer is simple. Hope. Bisleri was the forbearer of ‘Hope’ of providing pure, potable water conveniently when people didn’t have any. It was the answer to the need of the masses.

Continuing Efforts

Bisleri has been doing everything a good corporate citizen must do. It runs a massive water replenishment drive, uses recyclable packaging and contributes in every which way possible to the good of the society (more on which will be described in my later posts)

Something to Ponder…

What lessons can be learned from the illustrious journey that Bisleri has had till now? Is the model that Bisleri followed replicable or even applicable to other industries or product categories?

Films like Slumdog Millionaire - Do They Damage India's Image?

Image is nothing more than a perception, an interpretation or an opinion formed about the entity under observation by the various encounters the observer has had with tidbits of information about the same. Formation of opinion depends on factors great in number, each very complex in itself and totally dependent on the psyche of the observer, because after all it is the latter who is at the receiving end. Thus what image has a particular entity in the mind of an observer is, in all totality, dependent on the latter. But if the observer is constantly bombarded with a lopsided view of a particular object or context under observation, he/she is bound to follow the general perception, however jaundiced it might be. This is a basic human tendency, that of relying on others' observations and following a herd mentality.

Mass media in present times are a very effective tool to mobilise popular support for a cause, albeit for a short term. But if the audience is bombarded with various pieces of information, viz. the incessant news or the various movies, having the same undercurrent, it is more likely that an unintended libel gets propagated. The case under observation in this piece pertains to the hitherto untalked of topic, the disproportionate depiction of Indian poverty in popular entertainment.

Here comes a film from a British director, Danny Boyle, who was until now unheard of, about a subject, the widespread destitution in India, that had been portrayed by previous filmmakers several times to gain one of the most prestigious awards this world has to offer, the Academy Awards, or more commonly known as the Oscars. Slumdog Millionaire beat masterpieces like The Reader, Frost/Nixon, Milk and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to grab that 34 cm long, 3.85 kg heavy, golden statuette of a knight holding the crusader's sword on a film reel having 5 spokes originally representing the five major branches of the Academy, viz. Actors, Writers, Producers, Directors and Technicians.

Unlike Mother India or City of Joy, which have been earlier entries to the Oscars from India, this movie, being directed by a Brit, had the privilege of getting into the race for the ultimate trophy and not just having to contend with flapping wings on the banks. But the underlying theme has been the same in all the three. The times were different when Mother India was made. It can be construed to be a depiction of the actual prevalent conditions then. While City of Joy was again more a story of Human Spirit rather than of abject poverty. But Slumdog doesn't seem to concern itself with either the true picture or the spirit of humankind. There is a stark contrast between the general standard of living of 1950's to that of the present 21st century. It is not as if all is hale and hearty but one just cannot ignore the fact that these days India is just not a home to a billion of shanty-dwellers, but is a country where one city has got more of the 'Richest People of Earth' than all the Nordic Countries combined together. This is not a negation of the fact that there exists wide disparity and hence a large-scale poverty, but that doesn't provide approbation to constantly emphasise the dark shades only. It was a laudable effort on the part of the production team to have closely observed the dejection in the lives of those slum-dwellers, but it was somewhat unbecoming of them to focus on only a part of the whole.

The attendant neologism and coining of 'Slumdog' as an English word are evidences to the effect the movie has had on the people world-wide and movie-going audiences in particular. The most perturbing aspect of this movie winning the Oscars for the Best Motion Picture Award is the innate haughtiness towards and pity for India, reassuring their beliefs that India is no close to becoming a superpower, and all that is just hype and hoopla. One particular scene, whereby the lead in his tweens is beaten up by the cab-driver and rescued by the American tourists who extend a $100 bill to him saying "This is real America" is particularly indicative of the subliminal predilections that the people outside seem to have about India.

The resistance is not to the idea of making such a film, but to the fact that it is made with an intent to stoke popular emotion which is not favourable towards India. It would have been better had there been movies that would depict the advances that India has made in other sectors and other achievements in the fields of Science and Technology that it has earned. Because at the end of the day, the movies are the eyes through which the common masses view each other.

On the other hand, it would be wrong on the part of the Indians to make a song and dance about the portrayal of an instance of reality. One has to accept the complete failure of not just the government but also of the people of India, who have done very little to pull the masses out of their deplorable conditions. Denial never solves the problem, it more often than not only complicates it. Raising a furore over a piece of art that brings a systemic problem to the fore will not serve any good to the society, but create the perception that Indians are intolerant and hence ignorant or backward or whatever else that we feared to be called in the first place. The only way to solve this problem is not to raise a hue and cry whenever such depictions come to the limelight, but to strive to eliminate the basis of such a situation, the widespread poverty. It will be possible to have the dream of an India Shining come true when the people get whole-heartedly committed to the cause. Every miniscule act towards the greater good will reap benefits, may not in the immediate term but over the longer period. So instead of getting outraged by a work of fiction it is expected that people should try to learn from the movie and resolve to eliminate the re-occurrence of such a situation whereby such works should exist to hurt the sentiments of a billion people.

Thus, as it was concurred earlier that perception or image is completely a property of the observer, there also lies a moral obligation on the Mass Media to present an objective view of the situation and not just let eclipsed versions of situations getting propagated at the cost of many for the benefit of a few. They should remember that 'Beauty lies in the eye of the observer', but only if he has seen the beauty in the first in the first place. Presenting ugliness and expecting beauty is never going to happen.