I saw Aishwarya Rai speaking about her comeback films in completely fake accent with convoluted pronunciations on CNBC TV18. Her desperate attempts to “prove” her class through her “polished” language was obvious. A lot of Bollywood divas and hunks indulge into faking this contrived personality facade.
Here the channel was English, but I have always found it amusing watching Bollywood actors speaking English on Hindi TV interactions or in award functions. They somehow manage to fake accent, but their shallow vocabulary gets exposed when they have to explain their thoughts with “You know” and “I mean” after every few words, obviously because of loss of words.
I don’t understand why can’t they speak in Hindi on Hindi channels when they have to struggle hard to get it right in English? Is it their desire to belong to some higher class?
When a newcomer is trying to enter filmdom, he/she wants to anyhow belong to the Bollywood fraternity, which is a motley group of all types of artists. By hook or by crook, they want to belong to Bollywood, at any level.
And then, once they are in, they wish to upgrade their class, they seek distinction and aspire to belong to the “higher” class of actors who are fluent in English. They want to rise above the ordinary and want to belong to a higher class. They wish to appear “different” from those Desi actors who can’t even speak English.
Junior actors or veterans, stars or wannabes, all want to belong somewhere.
So do we all.
We all crave to belong somewhere. There where we are not.
This is one proof of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. And that is where a huge untapped market lies.
“I mean. You know?”
One rich woman in Mumbai goes to Starbucks in South Mumbai with two daughters. The daughters accidentally spill water in washroom. Another rich woman sees this and forces the girls to wipe the floor. The daughters inform this to the mother. The rich woman makes a big issue out if this and lodges a complaint in the police station.
On 6th January 2015, The Times Of India published ‘news’ about this incident on page 3 of its Mumbai edition, rather prominently. See the link here.
Both the rich, arrogant women may have nothing better to do in life than making disproportionate issues out of everything. That could be helpful in pampering their inflated ego. But, I don’t understand why Times Of India gave such a huge importance to this. Did this incident matter such a disproportionate exposure on the pages of a national daily?
Was this incident so vital that “the nation had to know” about it?
Or is it in their business interest to dance to the tunes of idiosyncrasies of the rich and the powerful?
Whatever may be the reason, I think it is a disappointment. A let down from a powerful media icon. A responsible media should exercise rationality in giving importance to the issues which are reported to it.
Let us hope for better, impartial and more sensible Times.
The following are the reasons behind the ridiculously high prices of food items inside multiplexes and theaters.
1) The charge is not for the food, it is for WHERE you buy them. Popcorn priced at Rs 5 at railway stations, suddenly becomes worth Rs 50, because the customers who come there are believed to be the ones who don’t look at the price. The multiplex owners understand that the people who can pay Rs 300-400 for a movie ticket won’t mind paying few hundred rupees for snacks. This is based on the understanding of consumer behavior.
2) The prices of the movie ticket and the snacks in the multiplexes are also kept high to encourage only those customers who can pay that much.
It is an example of market segmentation.
3) The business model of multiplexes includes sale of food and beverages as a revenue source. Generally, this is outsourced to some third party contractors. These contractors have to pay very heavy charges to the multiplex owners for getting a space inside the multiplex, so they have to recover it from their sales, leading to exorbitant prices.
4) In the long run, the illogically high prices of food and beverages (and also the movie tickets) lead to customers looking for alternatives. Till there is no competition, the mutliplexes may get away with such loot. Once, they face competition, they may come down on the earth.
5) People go to movies not very often. So they may ignore such discrepancies in prices because it affects them very rarely. So, the price burden gets distributed among a large number of customers.
The prices will remain high, till there are customers who are ready to pay. This is market economy. It is ruled by demand and supply.
निम्न लिखित सवालों के जवाब आप को पता हैं?
१) शाम को ओफिस से छूटने के बाद टाई पहननेवाले कुछ लोग अपनी टाई निकालकर शर्ट की जेब में रख देते है, उस में टाई का थोडा हिस्सा बाहर से दिखे ऐसे रखते है | अब पूरी टाई शर्ट की जीस जेब में चली गई, उसी जेब में टाई का अंतिम छोटा सा हिस्सा सब को दिखे ऐसे बाहर रख के यह लोग क्या दिखाना चाहते हैं?
२) “होंगकोंग एअरपोर्ट के वेइटींग एरिया में फ्लाईट का इन्तज़ार कर रहा हूं” ऐसा फेसबूक पर सब को बतानेवाला कभी फेसबूक पर ऐसी पोस्ट क्यों नहीं करता कि मलाड के प्लेटफोर्म पर लोकल ट्रेन का इन्तज़ार कर रहा हूं ?
३) 300 ml की कोल्डड्रीन्क की बोतल में बचा अंतिम 15-20 ml (खुद के पास बैग होते हुए भी) हाथ में ले कर सब को दिखे ऐसे ले कर घूमनेवाला क्या प्रतीत कराना चाहता है?
४) शताब्दी या राजधानी ट्रेन में सफर करनेवाले कुछ लोग फोन पर बातचीत करते वक्त अचूक यह बताते हैं कि “मैं शताब्दी (या राजधानी) से सफर कर रहा हूं |” वह सामान्यत: किसी सीधी-सादी ट्रेन में सफर करते वक्त उस ट्रेन का नाम क्यों नहीं बताते?
५) ५००० की ट्राव्हेल बैग खरीदते वक्त १०० रुपयों के डिस्काउन्ट के लिए नोंकझोंक करनेवाला उसी कीमती बैग को ट्रेन की शेल्फ पर बेरहमी से पटककर उस कीमती बैग को अनेक गुना ज्यादा नुकसान करानेवाला क्या दिखाना चाहता है, की उसको ऐसी महंगी चीज़ों की दरकार नहीं है?
यह सारे सवालों के जवाब नुझे नहीं पता लेकिन इतना पता है कि लोगों की हजम करने की शक्ति कम हो रही है |
कायम चूर्न और उस के जैसे चूर्न बेचनेवालों का बिझनेस बहुत अच्छा चलते रहनेवाला है, क्यों कि कुछ लोगों को हजम ही नही होता…|