I attended an Indian Classical & Fusion concert at Carnegie Hall earlier this year. A review of a concert in the series can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/arts/music/01huss.html
My reaction to the concert: I was blown away.
I will admit to being a little starved of good classical performances of any sort for while, let alone live Indian classical. For someone with an untrained ear, I was really counting on flashes of brilliance from the performers to (re)capture my interest. A bit like a how an impossible volley at a crazy angle reminds you how much fun watching a Wimbledon final can be. Based on the names performing, I knew there would be at least a few flashes of brilliance.
The concert was all brilliance AND class. It was like being touched by God. It displayed Masters on top of their game, completely immersed, and reveling, in their trade. It was humbling, as all great displays of skill are, but I felt more like a wide eyed kid in a candy store.
The power of music! The patterns within a musical piece! The patterns within the music of the individual performers! The story that the interplay of instruments in a piece tell you and the story that a sequence of pieces tell you! Wow!
Like a little piece of art you like a little more than others, it even found a little bit of me to connect with. All this coming from an ear as untrained as mine.
I blame it all on the performers.
My jaw still drops (scrapes the floor, really) every time I think about the evening.
Showing posts with label Music. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Music. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Conference Panel: Healthcare in India
Before stepping into the panel, I had a pretty linear approach to the Indian healthcare business:
1> Regulatory frameworks -> IP, constraints.
2> Industry-> market structures, services, and maturity of symbiotic players.
3> Consumers and Markets-> segmentation.
4> Companies-> Revenues-> Products and Services; Costs -> Manufacturing, Distribution, Licensing.
5> Distribution models.
Listening to the panelists from Pfizer, a healthcare company (Apollo Hospitals), a generic drugs company (Dr. Reddys) and Carlyle, I began to focus on 2 takeaways:
1> Healthcare Framework and Policy Innovation: The parallel here is the effort in the Indian Financial Services sector to develop frameworks given the results in the US financials "market". Another parallel is the U.S. music and film industry.
2> Business Model Innovation: Focused on access to healthcare services and drugs. Access equates not just to distribution, but also to price points. The parallel here is the U.S. (global?) music industry.
Healthcare Policy Framework Innovation
1> The "Access" Case for Policy Frameworks:
Amit Patel from Dr. Reddy's made an interesting point that bringing down price points in drugs, patented or otherwise, may bring about increases in revenues, due to increases in volumes of users. He carefully avoided talking about elasticity, but he was effectively driving at segmentation and managing the segments.
How is this thought process relevant in the Indian Healthcare context? Unlike in the U.S.- given the context of healthcare insurance in the US- the price of a drug effectively forms an access barrier to those who need it. Healthcare in India invariably involves a large out of pocket expense component.
These access issues roll up into a need for policy frameworks that develop multiple markets and multiple market entities that collaborate to serve unmet demand.
2> The IP Case for Healthcare Frameworks:
Again, the panelist from Dr.Reddy's pointed out that a patent regime is an outcome of a particular economic environment and necessity. The U.S. music industry is coming to grips with markets evolution driven by technology. Do the U.S. music and film industries need to rethink how they look at IP and its enforcement? Would they have to take another look in the future?
3> Policy Roadmaps:
How about applying an idea, similar to product roadmaps for agile development, that I suggested here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/03/conference-panel-infrastructure-in.html
Business Model Innovation
On distribution, the value chain, and operations, I find parallels between the music industry and the healthcare industry. Supply needs to innovate to stoke Demand.
More about this as I add to this blog.
1> Regulatory frameworks -> IP, constraints.
2> Industry-> market structures, services, and maturity of symbiotic players.
3> Consumers and Markets-> segmentation.
4> Companies-> Revenues-> Products and Services; Costs -> Manufacturing, Distribution, Licensing.
5> Distribution models.
Listening to the panelists from Pfizer, a healthcare company (Apollo Hospitals), a generic drugs company (Dr. Reddys) and Carlyle, I began to focus on 2 takeaways:
1> Healthcare Framework and Policy Innovation: The parallel here is the effort in the Indian Financial Services sector to develop frameworks given the results in the US financials "market". Another parallel is the U.S. music and film industry.
2> Business Model Innovation: Focused on access to healthcare services and drugs. Access equates not just to distribution, but also to price points. The parallel here is the U.S. (global?) music industry.
Healthcare Policy Framework Innovation
1> The "Access" Case for Policy Frameworks:
Amit Patel from Dr. Reddy's made an interesting point that bringing down price points in drugs, patented or otherwise, may bring about increases in revenues, due to increases in volumes of users. He carefully avoided talking about elasticity, but he was effectively driving at segmentation and managing the segments.
How is this thought process relevant in the Indian Healthcare context? Unlike in the U.S.- given the context of healthcare insurance in the US- the price of a drug effectively forms an access barrier to those who need it. Healthcare in India invariably involves a large out of pocket expense component.
These access issues roll up into a need for policy frameworks that develop multiple markets and multiple market entities that collaborate to serve unmet demand.
2> The IP Case for Healthcare Frameworks:
Again, the panelist from Dr.Reddy's pointed out that a patent regime is an outcome of a particular economic environment and necessity. The U.S. music industry is coming to grips with markets evolution driven by technology. Do the U.S. music and film industries need to rethink how they look at IP and its enforcement? Would they have to take another look in the future?
3> Policy Roadmaps:
How about applying an idea, similar to product roadmaps for agile development, that I suggested here:
http://randomjunkyramblings.blogspot.com/2008/03/conference-panel-infrastructure-in.html
Business Model Innovation
On distribution, the value chain, and operations, I find parallels between the music industry and the healthcare industry. Supply needs to innovate to stoke Demand.
More about this as I add to this blog.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Music Industry, Technology, IP and Piracy: Is there anything in common? Really?
Multiplicity of Approaches.
News articles on the music industry below, indicate a mutiplicity of approaches (could it be serendipity?) being followed by firms to deal with flagging "old media" revenues:
1> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/technology/04myspace.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=7e63eb66cebb344e&ex=1207454400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
2> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/cncarphone106.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
3> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/ccemi106.xml
The article, and my own experience in Technology Intellectual Property (IP), got me thinking again about the music industry's woes.
My contention is that any firm considering developing IP in emerging markets must think of the markets as hypercompetitive, where they compete with their own shadows. This might dovetail with the experience of some Venture Capital firms in Asia and Africa.
Allocate resources toward making money.
As some one who has created IP, in technology, in an emerging market, my generic stand (and I know this is likely to spark controversy) in that context is that protecting IP is subservient to growth- marketshare, ramping up revenues quickly, etc. Marketing muscle- either the company's own distribution strength, or the company's ability to create a network of stakeholders in its success- is critical towards finding a defensible niche where the company can build customer relationships/ stick. Allocate resources toward making money, instead of fighting a losing battle.
So What? How does this apply?
While the developed economy context is not the same, the first two articles seem to be a sign of parts of the value chain seeking to control the supply chain.
The third article seems to indicate a deepening of a pragmatic approach in the industry. An approach that focuses on developing models for making money off an economic reality, as opposed to fighting an (apparently) losing battle. For project management, I tend to advocate a multiplicity of approaches toward a more robust critical path. However, there are times when a multiplicity of approaches only serves to muddy waters.
Over the past few years, I have faced some flak for flatly advocating the pragmatic approach. What do you think?
News articles on the music industry below, indicate a mutiplicity of approaches (could it be serendipity?) being followed by firms to deal with flagging "old media" revenues:
1> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/technology/04myspace.html?_r=1&ei=5087&em=&en=7e63eb66cebb344e&ex=1207454400&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
2> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/cncarphone106.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox
3> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/06/ccemi106.xml
The article, and my own experience in Technology Intellectual Property (IP), got me thinking again about the music industry's woes.
My contention is that any firm considering developing IP in emerging markets must think of the markets as hypercompetitive, where they compete with their own shadows. This might dovetail with the experience of some Venture Capital firms in Asia and Africa.
Allocate resources toward making money.
As some one who has created IP, in technology, in an emerging market, my generic stand (and I know this is likely to spark controversy) in that context is that protecting IP is subservient to growth- marketshare, ramping up revenues quickly, etc. Marketing muscle- either the company's own distribution strength, or the company's ability to create a network of stakeholders in its success- is critical towards finding a defensible niche where the company can build customer relationships/ stick. Allocate resources toward making money, instead of fighting a losing battle.
So What? How does this apply?
While the developed economy context is not the same, the first two articles seem to be a sign of parts of the value chain seeking to control the supply chain.
The third article seems to indicate a deepening of a pragmatic approach in the industry. An approach that focuses on developing models for making money off an economic reality, as opposed to fighting an (apparently) losing battle. For project management, I tend to advocate a multiplicity of approaches toward a more robust critical path. However, there are times when a multiplicity of approaches only serves to muddy waters.
Over the past few years, I have faced some flak for flatly advocating the pragmatic approach. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)