1 comments Sunday, December 9, 2007

Web 2.0 is here.. Trying to move with the times.

2 comments Saturday, December 8, 2007

Vir Sanghvi has this article about brand-whores. The article is quit convincing, atleast it seems to be so (coz rich females are Bimbos). However the article definitely falls short on research and/or analysis.

Well yes, actually, there is something that is even tackier. And that’s when you buy a designer fake. You buy it even though you know it is bogus and that the quality is far shoddier than the real thing because (a) you have low income in addition to low self-esteem

More importantly, Mr Sanghvi should realise that it is not a crime to be not-rich and yet want to wear/use a designer label. I think its perfectly normal if a lower-middle class Delhiite chooses to buy a fake GAP T-shirt for 100 bucks or for that matter a pair of Reebhoks for 250 (missplet deliberately) from the Karol Bagh/ Sarojini Nagar. Chances are, he would buy the item not with the intention of flaunting it most of the people in the locality would buy their clothes from the same shop. The fact that the item is copied from a designer label confirms that some effort has gone into designing it. This implies, though not necessarily, that it is most stylish thing in that person's reach.

Also, for some, wierd/complicated/unknown reason brand-names = bad-names. A brand gets a good name because has proved itself. In today's competitive market no can last if it doesnt maintain the quality promised by its brand name.

Coming back to falling short on research and analysis. There are many reasons / explanations as to why a person with normal/high self esteem would have no issues buying a designer or fake designer labels.

Most of the brand replicas that are available in the market are actually copied from the actual product which automatically implies a good design, a lot of such material is available at Chandni-chowk(I have never tried it). And, just for the record, most of the designer stuff does NOT have a gaudy brand name printed across the material, the logo is rather subtle. Ofcourse, the product is available at a fraction of the cost at which one could possibly procure.

One of my buddy bought a "fake" Nike Dri-fit T-shirt for 100 bucks. The only reason it is fake is that he bought it for Rs100. I think the T-shirt looked perfectly normal to me. I don't see why I would not want to buy this T-shirt. I would just put it along with my original Nike T-shirts.

Why would I want to wear an expensive brand in the first place? Quality. It is as simple as this: when I go out to buy a 800 Action shoe I feel that the company has not even put in 100 Rs on ensuring the quality of the footwear whereas when I go a Nike store I feel that the company would have put in 300 Rs of worht in ensuring the quality of the 3000 Rs shoe. I guess here it effectively boils down to the abilithy of a person to afford a particular brand and choosing were exactly one wants to be in the price-quality trade-off.

If there must be an issue with using fake labels then it must be encroaching upon a designers right to use his design. I will reserve my view on this for some-other post.

Personally, I do not see myself buying any cloth with the brand name printed right across the chest, I find it way too tacky for my taste. Though, I do not mind buying a nice replica of the Nike T- Shirt my buddy got. Infact I will make it a point to look for a similar T-shirt the next time I go to Daman.


  1. I read this article in Mint. I have grown fond of this newspaper. I recommend.
  2. I plan to write a mail to Mr Sanghvi himself. Will let u know incase i get a response.

4 comments Saturday, December 1, 2007

I have always disliked most of the religious Gurus and God-men for every reason I can. Even then, this is shocking . Art of Living has encroached upon over 6 acres of land in Bangalore and that too around its ashram.

Related Link

I wonder.....is this the Art of Living?


Remeber our old debate????? The one on the moral aspect of staring??

Surprisingly, in India, staring IS illegal.

This brings us to Question number 2. How do you plan to convict people with staring?

I can foresee a million loop-holes in the practical implementation of the law.

  1. Is this law applicable to cock-eyed men?
  2. What about men wearing shades?
  3. On a more serious note, how do these people actually plan to implement something as amibiguous as this?

God knows...

P.S :- Incase the pic is not clear just click on it. This is the pic i could get.


The task of relocating has been partially accomplished.

Regular/irregular will now resume.