Wednesday, February 9, 2011

The Nokia CEO FULL speech!!

Hello there,

There is a pertinent story about a man who was working on an oil platform in the North Sea. He woke up one night from a loud explosion, which suddenly set his entire oil platform on fire. In mere moments, he was surrounded by flames. Through the smoke and heat, he barely made his way out of the chaos to the platform's edge. When he looked down over the edge, all he could see were the dark, cold, foreboding Atlantic waters.

As the fire approached him, the man had mere seconds to react. He could stand on the platform, and inevitably be consumed by the burning flames. Or, he could plunge 30 meters in to the freezing waters. The man was standing upon a "burning platform," and he needed to make a choice.

He decided to jump. It was unexpected. In ordinary circumstances, the man would never consider plunging into icy waters. But these were not ordinary times - his platform was on fire. The man survived the fall and the waters. After he was rescued, he noted that a "burning platform" caused a radical change in his behaviour.

We too, are standing on a "burning platform," and we must decide how we are going to change our behaviour.

Over the past few months, I've shared with you what I've heard from our shareholders, operators, developers, suppliers and from you. Today, I'm going to share what I've learned and what I have come to believe.

I have learned that we are standing on a burning platform.

And, we have more than one explosion - we have multiple points of scorching heat that are fuelling a blazing fire around us.

For example, there is intense heat coming from our competitors, more rapidly than we ever expected. Apple disrupted the market by redefining the smartphone and attracting developers to a closed, but very powerful ecosystem.

In 2008, Apple's market share in the $300+ price range was 25 percent; by 2010 it escalated to 61 percent. They are enjoying a tremendous growth trajectory with a 78 percent earnings growth year over year in Q4 2010. Apple demonstrated that if designed well, consumers would buy a high-priced phone with a great experience and developers would build applications. They changed the game, and today, Apple owns the high-end range.

And then, there is Android. In about two years, Android created a platform that attracts application developers, service providers and hardware manufacturers. Android came in at the high-end, they are now winning the mid-range, and quickly they are going downstream to phones under €100. Google has become a gravitational force, drawing much of the industry's innovation to its core.

Let's not forget about the low-end price range. In 2008, MediaTek supplied complete reference designs for phone chipsets, which enabled manufacturers in the Shenzhen region of China to produce phones at an unbelievable pace. By some accounts, this ecosystem now produces more than one third of the phones sold globally - taking share from us in emerging markets.

While competitors poured flames on our market share, what happened at Nokia? We fell behind, we missed big trends, and we lost time. At that time, we thought we were making the right decisions; but, with the benefit of hindsight, we now find ourselves years behind.

The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product that is close to their experience. Android came on the scene just over 2 years ago, and this week they took our leadership position in smartphone volumes. Unbelievable.

We have some brilliant sources of innovation inside Nokia, but we are not bringing it to market fast enough. We thought MeeGo would be a platform for winning high-end smartphones. However, at this rate, by the end of 2011, we might have only one MeeGo product in the market.

At the midrange, we have Symbian. It has proven to be non-competitive in leading markets like North America. Additionally, Symbian is proving to be an increasingly difficult environment in which to develop to meet the continuously expanding consumer requirements, leading to slowness in product development and also creating a disadvantage when we seek to take advantage of new hardware platforms. As a result, if we continue like before, we will get further and further behind, while our competitors advance further and further ahead.

At the lower-end price range, Chinese OEMs are cranking out a device much faster than, as one Nokia employee said only partially in jest, "the time that it takes us to polish a PowerPoint presentation." They are fast, they are cheap, and they are challenging us.

And the truly perplexing aspect is that we're not even fighting with the right weapons. We are still too often trying to approach each price range on a device-to-device basis.

The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems, where ecosystems include not only the hardware and software of the device, but developers, applications, ecommerce, advertising, search, social applications, location-based services, unified communications and many other things. Our competitors aren't taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem. This means we're going to have to decide how we either build, catalyse or join an ecosystem.

This is one of the decisions we need to make. In the meantime, we've lost market share, we've lost mind share and we've lost time.

On Tuesday, Standard & Poor's informed that they will put our A long term and A-1 short term ratings on negative credit watch. This is a similar rating action to the one that Moody's took last week. Basically it means that during the next few weeks they will make an analysis of Nokia, and decide on a possible credit rating downgrade. Why are these credit agencies contemplating these changes? Because they are concerned about our competitiveness.

Consumer preference for Nokia declined worldwide. In the UK, our brand preference has slipped to 20 percent, which is 8 percent lower than last year. That means only 1 out of 5 people in the UK prefer Nokia to other brands. It's also down in the other markets, which are traditionally our strongholds: Russia, Germany, Indonesia, UAE, and on and on and on.

How did we get to this point? Why did we fall behind when the world around us evolved?

This is what I have been trying to understand. I believe at least some of it has been due to our attitude inside Nokia. We poured gasoline on our own burning platform. I believe we have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven't been delivering innovation fast enough. We're not collaborating internally.

Nokia, our platform is burning.

We are working on a path forward -- a path to rebuild our market leadership. When we share the new strategy on February 11, it will be a huge effort to transform our company. But, I believe that together, we can face the challenges ahead of us. Together, we can choose to define our future.

The burning platform, upon which the man found himself, caused the man to shift his behaviour, and take a bold and brave step into an uncertain future. He was able to tell his story. Now, we have a great opportunity to do the same.

Stephen

Monday, February 7, 2011

Simple clear & destructive! Now let's bring the cup home!!

So as I write this today is the 7th of Feb. This means that there are 12 days to go for the cricket world cup; crickets premiere showcase event.

As the crescendo for the world cup reaches its pinnacle the chatter surrounding the Indian cricket team will be tremendous.

Why? Because we are clear favorites? Why are we clear favorites?

Many reasons actually (i) we are playing at home & know home conditions (ii) we have a settled captain & one can never discount that benefit (iii) we have SACHIN Tendulkar, need I say more (iv) we have a very settled side & with Zaheer the bowling looks in able hands & (v) lastly we have 7-8 top order batsman, each match winners in their own right!!!
But I believe that for India to do well, one man will have to clearly fire on all cylinders!!! & that name is Viru Shewag!! We know how destructive he can be on his day, we also know that bowlers respect & fear him… Shewag carries & auro today & that’s what we need to capitalize on!!!

What makes India so formidable is that even if SHEWAG does not fire, we can depend on GAUTAM GAMBHIR!! GG in top form will also be difficult to contain. To add to that the big stage of the world cup, GG will be fully fired up for the occasion. I expect him also to go leather hunting right from the word go!! It’s simple, India has that luxury, we should!!

Just look at the top order.. all can score runs & FAST!!! The lineup should bat around sachin (who will play at a run a ball pace & if he goes RAINA is more than able in this role) everyone else, bang bang bang!!!!!

SHEWAG, GG, DHONI, YUVRAJ & YUSUF!!! How awesome can we be on our day!!! And this batting line up in the sub continent, it’s not only dominant it’s intimidating!!!

And that’s why SHEWAG at the top is so important!! He is intimidating!!! He filled with aura that’s intimidating!!! Chances are if he sneezes his snort would be intimidating!! That’s his reputation at the top!!!

If he can go all hell out at the top of the order that’s a clear knockout punch!!! Everyone else will benefit from a clear cascading effect!!

And that my friends is what should be INDIA’s clear & positive strategy!

Bat first, bat big.. & basically just bat the position out of the match!!

Simple. Clear. Destructive. Now let’s go bring the cup home!

PS: please look out for the tweets on the world cup. #mdcwcfocus

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Sizing up the men!!!

If pictures ever said a thousand words.. this would be one of the best blogs written EVER!!! (not that it still cant be)

Below is a compilation of what i think is one of the best & most innovative/ sensual/ arresting forms of advertising EVER invented!!

At a time & place where u cant help but pay attention!!!

Go on.. tempt yourself!!!

Oh! we should take a picture shouldn't we!!!


Seaons greeting!!!



I wanna picture of that!!

Snip snip!!

TV Ratings!!! Who cares!! Ms. Vanita Kohli style!

If the blood pressure monitor shows that you have high blood pressure, would you break the monitor or call the doctor? And if TV ratings show that the silliest shows get the best ratings, would you tackle content issues or shoot the rating agency down?
That in essence is what the ministry of information and broadcasting is planning to do. It has persistently maintained that ratings are the reason for the ills of the Rs 30,000 crore television business. After two committees, it felt the need to appoint a third one, under Amit Mitra of Ficci, to focus on the same issue.

Dr Mitra’s earlier reports on media, notably radio, have been good. This one falls flat. It is not Dr Mitra’s fault. He just doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The 76-page “Review of Existing Television Rating System in India” tries very hard to justify why a committee was formed to examine the currency an industry uses to buy and sell advertising time.

The ostensible reason is falling content standards. Going by that logic, the standards of reportage in many newspapers and magazines have been falling and paid content is a nuisance. But we haven’t seen the government trying to fix the blame on readership surveys and their methodology. Nor has the government blamed the film industry’s obsession with box-office gross and occupancy ratios, in determining what kind of films will be made. Those metrics too can be called dodgy at times.

The point is even if TV ratings are flawed, it is a commercial matter between the buyer and the seller. If the industry is happy dealing with a flawed metric and paying for it, why should the government bother?
The fundamental premise of this committee, that the race for ratings leads to poor content, is flawed. Therefore, its recommendations too are.

Many of them, such as increasing the sample size, putting the methodology through more rigour have been part of the normal grumblings of an evolving industry. The question always has been who will fund it. Dr Mitra suggests a cess on the industry, to be paid to the somewhat defunct Broadcast Audience Research Council or BARC. The fact, however, remains that as the pressure on margins mounts, television companies and advertisers would have sought a more robust metric in any case. And they would have paid for it voluntarily through increased subscription charges to the two main rating firms — TAM and aMap. Why jumpstart the process?

The enthusiasm with which a government that has made no major policy decision on the media business in five years has been pursuing the whole ratings “issue” is curious. One theory is that this is driven in part by pressure from channels which are owned by politicians or their relatives. Since they don’t show up on viewership numbers, they don’t make money or get enough influence with constituents in a state or city. The thinking goes that controlling the methodology, process and operations of the data gathering process will help fix the problem.

Some of this gets credence if you read the fine print of the report. For example, there is one recommendation about making BARC a not-for-profit company, the monitoring, steering body for TV metrics. The board would have Indian Broadcasting Federation and Indian Society of Advertisers nominees to start with. So far, so good. But the report suggests having a high-powered committee of “specialists from various fields” that will oversee the board of BARC. That sounds for a recipe for all kinds of people to meddle in the ratings process, over and above the heads of the stakeholders to whom it really matters.

You could argue that if the report is so bad why bother. It will fall under the weight of its own inconsistencies. It might have in the face of a strong television industry. But till now the men and women running the Indian TV industry have been pathetic at presenting their point of view or speaking in one voice. For an industry that influences 600 million Indians, this inability to communicate with the government is a lethal shortcoming.

Therefore, even as the industry dithers, the report may become policy that sets a dangerous precedent. What next, radio listenership data or Internet traffic figures?

Vanita Kolhi- The business standard

Monday, January 10, 2011

IPL ka Bazaaar!- LIST OF PLAYERS

Seventh session
• Paul Collingwood (England): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 250,000 to Rajasthan Royals
• Subramaniam Badrinath (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 800,000 to Chennai Supper Kings
• Cheteshwar Pujara (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 700,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore
• Manoj Tiwary (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 475,000 to Kolkata Knight Riders
• Callum Ferguson (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 300,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors
• Tamim Iqbal (Bangladesh): Base Price: USD 100,000; Unsold
• Brad Hodge (New Zealand): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 425,000 to Team Kochi
• Eoin Morgan (England): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 350,000 to Kolkata Knight Riders
• Aaron Finch (Australia): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 300,000 to Delhi Daredevils
• Chamara Kapudagera (Sri Lanka): Base Price: USD 100,000; Unsold

Sixth Session
• Ramesh Powar (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 180,000 to Team Kochi
• Nathan McCullum (New Zealand): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 100,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors
• Amit Mishra (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 300,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Murali Kartik (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Unsold
• Pragyan Ojha (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 500,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Ajantha Mendis (Sri Lanka): Base Price: USD 200,000; Unsold
• Ravichandran Ashwin (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 850,000 to Chennai Super Kings
• Piyush Chawla (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 900,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• Graeme Swann (England): Base Price: USD 400,000; Unsold
• Muttiah Muralitharan (Australia): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 1,100,000 to Team Kochi

Fifth Session
• Doug Bollinger (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 700,000 to Chennai Super Kings
• Dirk Nannes (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 650,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore
• Ryan Harris (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 325,000 to Kings XI Punjab

• Dale Steyn (South Africa): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 1,200,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Morne Morkel (South Africa): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 475,000 to Delhi Daredevils
• Brett Lee (Australia): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 400,000 to Kolkata Knight Riders
• Ashish Nehra (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 850,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors
• Praveen Kumar (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 800,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• Ishant Sharma (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 450,000 to Deccan Chargers
• James Anderson (England): Base Price: USD 400,000; Unsold
• Dilhara Fernando (Sri Lanka): Base Price: USD 100,000; Unsold

Fourth Session
• James Franklin (New Zealand): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 100,000 to Mumbai Indians
• Steven Smith (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 200,000 to Team Kochi
• Dwayne Bravo (West Indies): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 200,000 to Chennai Super Kings
• Angelo Matthews (Sri Lanka): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 950,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors
• Abhishek Nayar (India): Base Price: USD 50,000; Sold For: USD 800,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• Stuart Broad (England): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 400,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• Shakib Al Hasan (Bangladesh): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 425,000 to Kolkata Knight Riders
• Luke Wright (England): Base Price: USD 400,000; Unsold
• Ravindra Jadeja (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 950,000 to Team Kochi
• James Hopes (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 350,000 to Delhi Daredevils

Third Session
• David Jacobs (South Africa): Base Price: USD 20,000; Sold For: USD 190,000 to Mumbai Indians
• Mark Boucher (South Africa): Base Price: USD 200,000; Unsold
• Matt Prior (England): Base Price: USD 200,000; Unsold
• Tim Paine (Australia): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 270,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors
• Brad Haddin (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 325,000 to Kolkata Knight Riders
• Naman Ojha (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 270,000 to Delhi Daredevils
• Dinesh Karthik (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 900,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• Wriddhiman Saha (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 100,000 to Chennai Super Kings
• Parthiv Patel (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 290,000 to Team Kochi
• Graham Manou (Australia): Base Price: USD 50,000; Unsold
• Brian Lara (West Indies): Base Price: USD 400,000; Unsold
• David Warner (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 750,000 to Delhi Daredevils
• David Hussey (Australia): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 1,400,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• Saurabh Tiwary(India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 1,600,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore
• Shikhar Dhawan (India): Base Price: USD 100,000; Sold For: USD 300,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Shaun Marsh (Australia): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 400,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• JP Duminy (South Africa): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 300,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Michael Hussey (Australia): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 425,000 to Chennai Super Kings
• Herschelle Gibbs (South Africa): Base Price: USD 200,000; Unsold
• Jesse Ryder (New Zealand): Base Price: USD 100,000; Unsold

Second Session
• RP Singh (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 500,000 to Team Kochi
• Irfan Pathan (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 1,900,000 to Delhi Daredevils
• Chris Gayle (West Indies): Base Price: USD 400,000; Unsold
• S Sreesanth (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 900,000 to Team Kochi
• Brendon McCullum (New Zealand): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 475,000 to Team Kochi
• Daniel Vettori (New Zealand): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 550,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore
• VVS Laxman (India): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 400,000 to Team Kochi
• Johan Botha (South Africa): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 950,000 to Rajasthan Royals
• Robin Uthappa (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 2,100,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors

• Graeme Smith (South Africa): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 500,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors
• Rahul Dravid (India): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 500,000 to Rajasthan Royals
• Adam Gilchrist (Australia): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 900,000 to Kings XI Punjab
• Kumar Sangakkara (Sri Lanka): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 700,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Andrew Symonds (Australia): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 850,000 to Mumbai Indians
• Rohit Sharma (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 2,000,000 to Mumbai Indians
• Jacques Kallis (South Africa): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 1,100,000 to Kolkata Knight Riders
• Cameron White (Australia): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 1,100,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Sourav Ganguly (India): Base Price: USD 400,000; Unsold

First Session
• AB de Villiers (South Africa): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 1,100,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore
• Yuvraj Singh (India): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 1,800,000 to Sahara Pune Warriors
• Mahela Jayawardene (Sri Lanka): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 1,500,000 to Team Kochi
• Kevin Pietersen (England): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 650,000 to Deccan Chargers
• Yusuf Pathan (India): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 2, 100,000 to Kolkata Knight Riders
• Ross Taylor (New Zealand): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 1, 000,000 to Rajasthan Royals
• Zaheer Khan (India): Base Price: USD 300,000; Sold For: USD 900,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore
• Tilakaratne Dilshan (Sri Lanka): Base Price: USD 400,000; Sold For: USD 650,000 to Royal Challengers Bangalore
• Gautam Gambhir (India): Base Price: USD 200,000; Sold For: USD 2,400,000 to Kolkata Knight Rider

IPL ka Bazaaar!

So this is one auction I DONT understand! And that says a lot about me because until now I thought I was a good cricketer & a keen business man!!

Both parameters are curial to ‘BUYING’ an IPL cricketer right! Because unfortunately only cricketing skills will only get you as far…After that it’s all your marketability!!
Take for example my favorite (break dance) the LEGENDARY Sreesanth!!!
Sree at over 4 crores is INSANE. Yes, but people bought him because he not only plays good cricket ( cricketing worth for me is 1.5 Cr) but is also a NATIVE of KOCHI!
SO the man will become the FACE of the team & will be seen all across billboards & station pinups! (But still 2.5cr) premium for him!!! To market him!! That’s a bit much don’t you think!!!
It’s also surprising to see the OLD classics not being picked up!!! GANGULY or LARA per say. So what’s basically being said is that EION MORGAN at 350,000 is a better pick than GANGULY OR LARA at 400,000. That’s like saying that HMT at just a lesser price than TITAN is a better buy!!!
Hold on, what!!! WTF!! How is that ever possible? TITAN is a classic & will also be a pedigreed horse (that’s why Amir endorses it). No matter what happens to HMT & no matter how much the new boys advertise it.. TITAN with all its class & years of finesse will also be the pedigree!! But I guess I don’t know much about pedigree, cricket or brands!!
I’m sure that GANGULY or LARA would have been superb buys; their mere presence would benefit the dressing room enough.

Young players would look upto them, learn from them.. crowds will come to see them bat & if that’s not enough I’m pretty sure that a 50 from LARA would be more talked about that a 50 from MORGAN EVER!!!! SO that’s additional free PR for the team right!!!

The point here is that CRICKET Class alone was NOT the parameter for selection for if it was both these players would have been picked! There were OTHER FACTORS… and what I’m saying is, after including those other factors too, these OLDIES were a better bet!

But I don’t have the money & I guess I don’t know much about pedigree, cricket or brands!! Those 50 wise men & women in that room knew!!!
Only time will tell if they were right!!

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Bowled by a Full Toss- Kolkata Knight Riders’ CEO reflects on how a gullible media was beaten comprehensively when the Fake IPL Player ‘broke’ dressing room news

After 16 months, another ‘insider’ Fake Pakistani World Cup player blog, and a ‘game-changing’ book, the Fake IPL Player finally revealed his identity.

Surprise, surprise. He isn’t someone from Kolkata Knight Riders. He isn’t someone from the Indian Premier League. He isn’t a cricket journalist. And he wasn’t even in South Africa. Turns out, he’s a person sitting in Bangalore, whose only sources of information were the net and newspapers.

I have few issues with Anupam. He wrote racy stuff—called himself the Fake IPL Player, so anyone believed him at his own risk—and generally had a blast tearing his imaginary team apart. As he admitted, he didn’t have the faintest idea that it would become so big. Good for him, though I have a feeling some of those nicknames will not have gone down well. If his revelations get him enough publicity to sell his film script or book or whatever it is that he is planning to peddle, that’s his gain.

My problem, specifically, is with the mainstream media I dealt with in South Africa at the time. In that period, I met journalists from every leading newspaper and most of the channels. Obviously, their one question was who I thought it was. And my stock answer was: he still thought that players in IPL teams had roommates (the Indian team has allotted single rooms for the longest time), that the team played water volleyball in Cape Town, which was freezing that April (also, the water volleyball happened a year ago in Kolkata), and that we had team meetings every other day. Conclusion: this guy was not even on the same continent as the IPL.

I went on to tell them not to believe a word I said but to check the easily verifiable facts. For example, did the team take a flight that morning as mentioned, was there a team meeting in the hotel on a particular day, did the team practise at the nets that day? All these facts were easily verifiable, and certainly not restricted information. Any journalist present there could have found out in half an hour that the blogger was writing absolute rubbish when it came to verifiable details. And if he was wrong about these details, why on earth should they believe him when he wrote about what transpired in nonexistent team meetings?

It has been argued that it was easier and more enjoyable to just follow the blog—whether it was true or not was immaterial. In which case, I have a hard time understanding why there was so much feverish speculation on the identity of the blogger. Obviously, there was a strong belief in the media that there was some inside information.

It didn’t seem to strike a single journalist that it made sense to just check out a few details to see how much truth there was to the blog. There were more than a hundred journalists in South Africa, and not one of them did a background check. Not one editor decided that this was bullshit, and therefore a great opportunity to leave the rest of the media with egg on their face by proving it was a complete fabrication. Most of all, a fabrication by a guy who called it the Fake IPL Player blog. As a friend remarked, which part of ‘fake’ did they not understand?

Sixteen months on, I still do not see a single publication admitting they got taken for a ride. Not one teeny-weeny bit of introspection, or an article or television programme about how they were misled. I would love to know if any editor has lashed out at his reporting team, asking them how they could have been duped so easily. Or is that asking for too much from our media?


The above article has been featured in OPEN- THE MAGAZINE. THIS IS A COPY PASTE EFFORT