Craftsmanship is the cornerstone of the luxury goods industry. The obsessive focus on the art, the cultural roots, the societal context and the history not only preserves and enhances the heritage, but also helps tell a unique story and find markets for luxury goods, increasingly in countries far from home.
However as emerging markets not only demand goods as consumers but also slowly develop their own brands in luxury, how does the slow and steady pace of craftsmanship reconcile with the speed of globalisation?
The answer is deceptively simple: the historically well-established brands become evangelists for craftsmanship.
The craftsmanship and long heritage distinguish some of the most coveted luxury marques from the luxury upstarts. Such evangelism manifests variously: from Tod’s commitment to La Scala for the special project titled The Italian Dream, to Bottega Veneta’s opening of Scuola della Pelletteria to train the future generation of master leather craftsmen.
Is this bad news for emerging markets and emerging market brands?
Well, not really.
It does, of course, benefit immensely and strengthen the European luxury brands with a long heritage to showcase. But it also potentially levels the field, somewhat, for emerging markets — notably those with a rich history and creative treasures that are underexplored as sources of inspiration.
Think about what a Chinese brand could do drawing upon the history of the Tang dynasty to create beautiful products!
As some of you know, I am also a co-founder of the British jewellery brand, Livyora. At Livyora, we created our Overture Collection by drawing upon Mughal Art and Architecture, that can be seen in India’s capital city and surrounding regions. We abstracted a visually stunning artifact of Indian heritage, to create stunning, handcrafted pieces in gold and precious stones. A wonderful story could once again be retold.
Craftsmanship still rules. All that is required is a new lens to look beyond the luxury marques of yore.
“TAG Heuer congratulates its beautiful rebel – MC Mary Kom into the Semi Finals of the 2012 London Olympics.
The glamorous TAG Heuer Woman shares Mary’s restless and rebellious nature. Like her, she excels at her game, knows how to win, and how to celebrate. Creative, confident, always plugged in, she never stops building on her achievements and pushing herself to be better, but she also knows how to relax and have fun.”
Says the TAG Heuer brand page on Facebook.
This is Mary Kom, who now needs no introduction. Do click on the link to see Ms Kom looking beautiful and resplendent indeed.
Did you do a double take on seeing that photo? If so, join the very large club. To feature as a TAG Heuer ambassador, Mary Kom has to be airbrushed to look like someone she is not. Yes, being adorned and looking gorgeous is a woman’s right and privilege. But when that adornment makes Ms Kom’s appearance and not her performance or character the centre piece, one has to wonder about the O word in brand marketing. Objectification.
Objectification is central to “celebrity endorsement” in brand marketing. Picking a person to represent a brand’s abstract, often fuzzy, promise is the purest form of objectification. It also happens to be, in my view, the epitome of laziness and paucity of creativity in brand marketing. That is how TAG Heuer, that uses film actor Shahrukh Khan as a brand ambassador in India, now thinks Mary Kom is a fit for their brand. Yes, it is ok to take a few moments to get one’s head around what Shahrukh Khan has in common with Mary Kom.
Mary Kom wasn’t entirely an unknown before the Olympics. Even if women’s boxing isn’t your thing, heck, the Intelligent Magazine did a superb piece on her stardom before the Olympics. Did the five-times World Champion Mery Kom not strike TAG as a woman who “excels at her game, knows how to win“? Or was her life story not an example of her “pushing herself to be better“? Her close shave with poverty can’t have been much about how to “have fun” but TAG could have eased all that by promising her support before she became famous. Instead of sponsoring her when she needed help, the brand now wants to ride on the coattails of her success.
Of course, emerging markets are less about brand building and all about reaping the rewards from the “markets” overnight. Aren’t they? Investment? What investment?
(Long post alert!)
The meme is old but the current phase may well have started with Tereza’s idea of starting an XX Combinator, an incubator for women entrepreneurs. New York based VC, Fred Wilson gave the idea wings on his blog. He was then quoted in a now-widely discussed Wall Street Journal article, in which Rachel Sklar criticised TechCrunch. That riled TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington who wrote a post arguing why women mustn’t blame men for their relatively scarce numbers in the tech entrepreneurs community. In my view, Arrington highlights a key point about women not putting themselves forward enough. It is borne out by many people’s experience, including people like Robert Scoble’s, who invite women and are open to approaches, but have seen few women turn up or promote themselves. A more specific – and actionable – point was made by Alan Patrick, who says that at the moment the low numbers of women may be a flowrate problem. Spoken like a true engineer, I say. Now before you point out that I have overwhelmingly quoted men’s point of view on the issue so far, here are some other views. From women. Cindy Gallop says nobody is blaming men, and that systemic solutions are needed. Jamelle Bouie writes “try harder” is not the answer, adding another voice to the chorus calling for systemic solutions.
So far so motherhood-and-apple-pie. Don’t we all know that systemic solutions are needed? We do. Don’t we all know that women are different from men – no implied normative labelling there – and therefore different approaches may be needed? We do. In all the widely read and most shared posts I cite above, we hear only three creative ideas: Scoble and Arrington asking women to come forward, and Tereza proposing an investment fund for women. I like Tereza’s idea, but as a minority myself, I am no fan of ghetto solutions or “specialist” offerings. I do not believe that positive discrimination of any kind helps women. Nor does positive discrimination or special dispensation of any kind help promote the cause of inclusiveness, going beyond gender segregation.
I also believe that “systemic solutions” have their place but can we really afford to sit around for another 25-30 years for these solutions to take effect? Calling for systemic solutions is also a get-out-of-jail-free card of sorts. Like the trolley problem, it makes it possible for us to distance ourselves from the myriad of moral dilemmas and the choices we make in our daily lives. What is needed is for us to take steps – in our families, in our neighbourhoods, in our communities – to ensure we capture the attention of young girls and attract them to science and maths for careers in science and technology.
Here’s my take on the issue. Most of it is borne out of my own experience as an engineer who diversified and has run her own business focusing on technology-led businesses for a decade now. All of the following requires us – who are upset by the state of “women in tech” – to make different decisions in our lives.
Agree on Definitions. And avoid self-limiting boundaries.
“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms”, said Socrates. Yes, another man, I note. One of the egregious things about this debate bubbling at the moment is that “women in tech” is mostly being narrowly interpreted as “women entrepreneurs who start companies, typically in the USA, and seek venture funding”. Isn’t that too limiting?
There are, for instance, numerous women biologists and with much innovation happening at the cusp of disciplines, physicists and engineers will find themselves working with these biologists with their special expertise. Are these not “women in tech”? An estimated 30% of engineers employed in India’s private sector are women. Granted not all of them start companies, but are they not “women in tech”? What about women leaders of science and technology driven businesses? Some, it may surprise you, did not have degrees in science at all. Are they not “women in tech”?
While the lament of women being relatively fewer in science and technology is not misplaced, the dimensions of that lament can be put in perspective, if we define “women in tech” more broadly. The broader perspective will also lend itself to more creative and wide-ranging possibilities for addressing the issue.
Oh, by way of some data, here are Fierce Biotech’s top 10 women in biotechnology – a “tech industry” that needs a solid grasp of science as well as of business cycles. The list does not include one of my picks for most inspiring women in tech: Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, founder CEO of Biocon, an Indian biotech behemoth.
Eschew early gender stereotyping.
In the 18 years since I graduated from engineering, many of my friends have had children. I have had the chance to observe the children closely. With some stellar exceptions – and I have a working hypothesis for that, which I may write about another time – most of my well-educated, professional friends have proceeded to imbue gender stereotypes in their children pretty early on. Girls are co-opted into baking, while boys are given errands including things like fixing their sisters’ bikes or polishing shoes. What’s wrong with baking? Well, nothing – I bake most weekends – since baking is a highly controlled chemistry experiment. But also one, where one pays a heavy price for tinkering and taking risks with the recipe. What has that got to do with girls in science? Well, research suggests that girls not being encouraged to tinker is directly linked to their not choosing science, maths and engineering subjects.
Now think of all the activities that are stereotypically considered “girlie” and “boy stuff”. Baking, cooking, sewing, knitting and most care duties, while allowing for some creativity, are not about tinkering. But computer games, opening and mending things, fixing bicycles, repairing fuses etc all require a lot of tinkering. Early gender stereotyping in bringing up girls does them no favours, if we are to address the “flowrate” problem of girls in science and technology.
What about my own experience? I didn’t tinker much as a child, but I was always allowed to be an apprentice to my father, who did tinker an awful lot. I learnt much by observing and then much more when I started living away from home at age 17. I have learnt to curb some of my desire to open things up but I can confidently say that I know intimately the insides of my car as well as my piano thanks to my fiddling and tinkering. I tinker with complex problems and issues in my mind longer than most people which may explain why I do not churn out posts on “hot topics” while they are hot!
Do we need role models? If yes, think laterally.
I started studying engineering in 1988. In India. About 18% of my class was made up of girls. Barring 3, who then proceeded to read for an MBA, all have remained in the workforce in “tech” careers in engineering, and in research and teaching. Most are in Silicon Valley, some are in India. Most studied for second and third degrees, many after their marriages, some while bringing up their children and managing their careers. Nearly all have children. On first glance, all odds were stacked against the emergence of this longitudinal pattern. But it is there for us to see.
I have never sought or cared for role models but if I had to pick, these women would be my role models. They remain committed to science and technology not only in their careers, but also take an open-minded approach to other pursuits they have undertaken in their lives. These, to me, are “women in tech”. Because they show how it is possible to be one. They can, and I have no doubt, do influence young girls around them positively.
For my part, I decided I wanted to be an engineer when I was about 8. I had, of course, been tinkering as an apprentice to my father. But more to the point, I followed the example of an older male cousin. He is everything I wanted, and still want, to be: an engineer, a sharp brain-box, a gifted cook, a whiz with a sewing machine (!), a talented musician. He now has two girls of his own – both are “women in tech” via engineering and medicine. One has recently started her own business in Canada. I find them inspiring and consider myself fortunate that I can mentor them and participate in their journeys.
Role models needn’t be far-away exotic characters about whom we read in magazines. They need to be picked from our lives. For their ability to show what is possible, and for their ability to mentor and guide young girls. The gender of the role model, I believe, is less important than what a young girl can learn from the role model.
Negotiate better to remove barriers in adult life, aka men and women need to cooperate.
I am not making this up. Women scientists do more housework than male scientists. But it is also true that male scientists regret limiting their parenthood choices than women scientists do. Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s research has found that at 40, 31% of men are childless. Her earlier research had found that 40% of successful women at 40 were childless. “So what?, I hear you ask. Well, perhaps women need to understand and respect that life for men in science and technology – and business – isn’t a bed of roses either. They make sacrifices too. In other words, there are some common pain points for men and women, and sustainable change can be better effected if solutions to these pain points are sought jointly.
For women already in the workplace, it is important to recognise that before we can negotiate harder and better deals for ourselves at work and outside our homes, we first need to negotiate better and fairer deals for ourselves at home. With the men in our lives. If we are lucky, we already have relationships and friendships based on common values. These relationships give us advice on and insight into complexities and motivations of people we meet in work situations.
In other words, women need to cooperate. With men. Women need sponsors and champions. To invest their time, money and social capital into our ideas. And to avoid the negative vibes that sometimes dominate women-only groups.
Accept that men and women are different. Life is better for it. Now let’s enable the choices these differences foster.
In a conversation with Alan Patrick (whom I mentioned earlier), I said to him: “Women have lives, men have jobs. Fact.” While I readily admit to the shade of hyperbole in that statement, it does contain much truth. Most women I know – including those in science and technology – seem to have rich lives. They have fulfilling, if sometimes challenging, work lives; they have relationships and families; they have rich social lives; they have outside interests such as culture or sport. Most men however have relatively simplified lives where work and weekends feature heavily. It is not because men don’t try. But my working hypothesis is that it is because men are worse victims of gender stereotyping than women are. It must be tiring for men to live up to these negative stereotypes.
May be to enhance the numbers of “women in tech”, we need to show them the possibility of a rich tapestry of careers. And we need to work to create structures – investment funds, mentoring programmes, whatever it takes – to enable such possibilities. These possibilities may not necessarily follow a set pattern but must allow for women’s different priorities. As life goes, women’s fertile years coincide with their early career years too. It makes sense, where possible, if women wish to start companies or businesses later in their lives, perhaps in their 30s or 40s.
I recognise that not all of these ideas will prove popular. But as a person who sees possibilities in cusps, confluences and convergences, I believe sustainable solutions to the “women in tech” problem will require us to take conscious, mindful, sometimes difficult decisions every day. For a long time. Now would be a good time to start.
Late edit: some excellent articles by women – and men – I found after publishing (I don’t have to agree with all I list below/ disagreement sharpens thinking!):
Stubbornella on Women in technology
Aparna on Empowerment begins at home
Leah Culver on Is there a gender divide in start-ups?
Jon Pincus gives some actionable advice to Arrington
JP Rangaswamy muses about inclusion in technology and discusses anchoring-and-framing
Rachel Sklar’s post on the current wave of the meme
Suzanne Lucas on taking responsibility
Geoff Livingston on mindfulness to find female speakers
“Give me a place to stand and I will move the earth”, said Archimedes. He was of course illustrating the principle of leverage, a word that is now an unutterable, thanks to the mega-banks disaster and the resulting credit crunch.
Engraving from “Mechanic’s Magazine”, cover of bound Volume II, (c) Knight & Lacey, London, 1824
Yet never does one need leverage more than in tough economic times or under tight operating conditions.
It is not a secret that the credit crunch in the western economies has put paid to a vast amount of investment related activity. Yet small and creative businesses do not simply cease to exist. Indeed the small-to-medium sized biotech and the communications technology firms that I am working with at the moment are forging ahead. Will they outlast the recession?
Obvious as it is, it helps to be in the right business, one that is not seen as a luxury and that can adapt rapidly to serve changed needs. Luxury brands such as Christian Lacroix and Tiffany have borne the brunt of the recession whilst supermarkets such as Sainsbury’s (UK), Tesco (UK) and Ahold (NL, US) are reporting strong profits by being able to serve families’ need to eat-in more. This, I realise, isn’t something that can be changed overnight. My biotech clients can scarcely enter the food business to keep cash flowing in. But being in the right business does increase the chances of one’s survival.
A core strategic advantage lies in owning IP, the asset that can be used as leverage to open doors that may have been blocked by queues in happier times, when money was flowing like water. This, too, cannot be created overnight but if it exists, it can strengthen a company’s prospects.
With these two conditions met, here are some other things my clients are doing to survive and outlast the recession.
Some are seeking investment but when faced with eye-watering demands for equity in return for capital, most are deciding to bootstrap instead. Their main tool? Cutting costs where they can without damaging the revenue, such as founder executive and/ or senior executive salaries. This requires creativity, commitment, and laser-focus on ensuring the business stays afloat and on sales.
There may not be much capital flowing but there are still opportunities to make alliances, partnerships and other deals. Owning protected assets and the ability to deliver added value help. A great deal. Many conversations are going ahead as I write and I am happy to leverage my networks to help my clients.
Owning assets is also useful in exploration of new markets in search of growth and profits. After all Ahold, the Dutch group, is lifted by its performance in the US, whereas Tiffany’s sales did not drop in Asia as precipitously as they did elsewhere. I am working with a few companies – both biotech and software – on helping them enter new markets.
While smaller businesses cannot do some things as well as their larger, wealthier counterparts, their size gives them a great advantage in being able to change priorities more easily, to adapt quicker.
Being in the right business and owning IP gives small businesses that ‘place to stand’ from where they can, if they so wish, ‘move the earth’.