Whose team is it anyway ?

Who is bigger ? Owner or the team ? .. If the ongoing KKR saga is anything to go by, its clearly a case of owner's megalomania. Any sensible businessmen would invest in a business only if his expected returns are higher that his opportunity cost of capital. If Shahrukh has a personal appeal , so does Cricket as a game, Sourav as a star and Kolkota as a city. If reality shows like Indian idol, Dance India Dance over the last few years are anything to go by, regional loyalties of Bengal and north eastern states are the strongest. Sourav has the strongest regional fan following, not even Dravid or Tendulkar had fans crying hoarse/ protesting in streets when dropped from the national team.

I am reminded of a lesson in brand management about value proposition. It talked about three different benefits - Functional benefit, Emotional benefit and Self Expressive Benefit. While tough game of cricket played and match won is an functional benefit, the emotional benefit comes from the fans associating themselves with Kolkota as well as the support for Sourav as the bengali representative. Shahrukh khan represented the self expressive benefit. All fans identify with Shahruskh, they want to be like him, they love seeing him on TV, but you wont miss him if he not there.

The fancy team dress and the hummable team song in bengali was excellent symbolism. While the performance of KKR in IPL 2008 wasn't great, it still was not as miserable as say RCB or DC. But that was not enough for Shahrukh. He started believing that KKR appeal extended across the country, across age groups. The glitz and glamour would haze out the raw passion of Eden gardens crowd cheering for their favourite bengali cricketer. Like EPL clubs, he thought a top ranked coach would dramatically turnaround the fortunes. An array of sponsors and a profitable first year, just added to the over confidence.

What he did not realise that, the ManUs and the Liverpool's of the world have been around for decades and have loyalties which transcend generations of players, viewers and fans. IPL is still in its infancy and KKR is still being evaluated by the audience. Niether IPL nor KKR can take the loyalties for granted. By rubbing sourav the wrong way, squabbling with bengal cricket association besides suffering the ignominy of being bottom placed team, KKR's business plan is in a complete disarray. Mere symbolism can't sustain the appeal of a brand.

Its high time KKR revisited its communication strategy, if it plans to retain any of its sponsors/supporters. First, get dada back at the helm. Bengalis love his mis fields , they adore the fact the he runs his opponents out, they can forgive his low strike rate. Instead of getting the local boys to warm the bench, get them a few games and a little more publicity. Any amount of good PR will only help salvage some pride, badly hurt by the fake ipl player blog.

As far as team performances go, they have been brave losers in many close matches, unlike RCB and DC last year. The fighting spirit has its own charm. Goran Ivanasevic or Jana Novotna were players better known for their brave losses than victories.

Will we see a reborn KKR next IPL ?. Anybody's guess..

PS: Is it sheer coincidence that Mumbai team was named Indians and the team blue jersey resembles the national team's colour the most?. May be its clever branding or just that RIL never had any mass consumer brand to advertise. Thankfully, the Maratha factor has also been underplayed.

PPS: Why have owners of the Delhi and Chennai teams keeping a low profile ?. No owners/No stars to be seen around to cheer the teams.

whatz in the game ?

A recent article I read somewhere said that Football is the most played/watched sport with a following of over 3.5 bn people. Unsurprisingly, Cricket comes second with a following of 2.2 bn. Hockey, Tennis are other games with following of over 1 bn people. I always wondered why some games are more popular than others and why some regions love specific sports more than others. Team sports naturally have bigger following than individual sports as the loyalties and association(nation,club) surpasses the glory of individual achievers, who are limited by their own individual frailties and span of their career.

Cricket was definitely not the most popular sport in India some 50 years ago. A game played by the elite, complicated rules and little spectator involvement, while being stretched over 5 long days. Hockey was sport of choice for long, inspired by the unending streak of gold medal winning performances. For a brief period in 50s, Indian football team did raise the hopes of many in the country. What about individual sports? .. Tennis .. Wrestling .. Badminton, these are largely based on individual skills. It was mere serendipity, that right talent was provided the right opportunity and the right support, while nursing an extraordinary hunger for sporting glory. But individual sporting achievements can never generate the mass interest that team sport generates.

A few would say, the the success of Indian cricket is because of its sporting legends in the 70s and 80s, who brought the game to the common man. If one world cup victory could do that, then why couldn't 8 consecutive gold medals didn't do the same to the game of hockey in India ?. While football continued to have a global appeal, why was the interest in India pushed to the corners of kerala and west bengal only.

I feel there is more to the story. Cricket's uniqueness lies in the fact that, its a game that relies on hand- eye coordination for batting and fielding and a strong shoulder for bowling. While every other team sport, depends on strong overall physical fitness, which I must confess Indians lack big time. While the rest of world, witnessed declining interest in cricket due its lack of physical exertion and spectator involvement, Indians took to it like fish to water. Personally, I would have loved to play football or hockey. While I lack the stamina to run around for 90 minutes, hockey brought in an additional issue for being an injury prone game and the game being not adaptable to being played in any available ground. While interest in cricket as a player is justified, I should say that despite being a hard core fan of the game, my attention span in test cricket never lasts beyond 10 minutes. Then why would spectators pay a few hundreds to waste their time on the ground for 5 full days.

That brings me to T20. While reducing the game's duration to 180 minutes, the excitement and the convenience is comparable to any other easily accessible recreation/ entertainment option. A movie, a football game or a dinner. Now the question .. what appeals to the spectator most, is it bowling, batting or fielding ? Honestly, Bowling is fun to watch only on TV not on ground with all the camera angels and replays. Batting is as much on Ground as on TV mostly because of the anticipation from the pavilion. But to me fielding would generate the maximum spectator involvement. But in the rules of the game, fielding is relegated to a support activity, where the reward is not commiserate to the effort. I would like reformed game of cricket, where each of the activities are equally rewarded without the unwarranted bias towards batting.

Another way to get more people in non playing nations to take to the sport is to simplify the adaptability. Why not popularise, tennis ball cricket in these countries ?. Simplify the rules. I guess over 50% of the people across the world who play football barely understand the offside rule, while still continue to play the game.

Cricket has one big advantage over football or other like games. In its very nature of scoring, the game has provision for some amazing twists and turns of fate, which offers excitement unlike the simplistic goal scoring nature of football. You are welcome to disagree on this :).

One thing I have failed to understand all these years, what draws people to watch formula one. Publicity/Push strategy can generate initial interest, but it can be sustained only through some peculiar aspect of the game.

hmm .. some food for thought