"If you don't need the sheepskin, don't enroll"

 

This post is a continuation of my review of the book titled The Personal MBA by Josh Kaufman. The title of this post is a quote by the author in which he discusses the cost of obtaining an MBA degree. 

In India, the MBA program at top-tier colleges like IIMs (A, B, C) costs around Rs. 25 lakhs. The newer IIMs are charging less than Rs. 20 lakhs. Check this article for more details: https://www.shiksha.com/mba/articles/iim-mba-fees-structure-blogId-19877.

If you omit the IIMs and look at the fees for the next set, XLRI Jamshedpur, SPJIMR Mumbai, FMS Delhi, etc., the fees range from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 58 lakhs depending on the subject of interest. A B-School like ISB Hyderabad charges around Rs. 41 lakhs as fees. 

How does one get into the top colleges? For starters, one will have to write the CAT or the Common Admission Test which is conducted annually. You can search the internet and get more details on the CAT.

Coming back to the book, what Josh Kaufman says is that while the MBA program has benefits, the price to pay to be a part of this cohort is huge. The two-year time spent on the course plus the high fees to be part of this network is not worth it according to him.

He quotes a study by Jeffrey Pfeffer of Standford University and Christina Fong of the University of Washington in this regard. Their paper titled "The End of Business Schools? Less Success Than Meets the Eye" analyzed forty years of data to look for evidence on whether business schools make their graduates more successful. 

The study brought out some startling insights that are relevant even today: 

1. What is taught in class is not exactly what happens in the real corporate world. Theory is different from practice. B-schools emphasize theoretical/abstract models that have very little practical value in the real-world life of a manager. 

2. Getting an MBA degree does not guarantee career progression or better performance. The study found little or no evidence linking the degree with success on the job (salary, promotion, job performance). Many business leaders do not have this degree and therefore, it is not essential. 

3. B-Schools are more focused on research and less on teaching once again proving that the degree has very less real-world relevance. Professors are rewarded based on the number of papers they publish and not how they teach their students or how useful their insights are for managers. From my own experience teaching at a B-School, I can tell you that the emphasis is so much on publishing in academic journals, that often the topics chosen are irrelevant and add no value to practicing managers.

4. The degree is a status symbol or a badge and is not an actual toolkit for leadership. The MBA degree is perceived as valuable and serves more as a credential not at all indicating whether the person holding the degree has any managerial expertise.

5. The Purpose of B-Schools is unclear. Do they want to be professional trainers or do they want to teach and be an academic institution?

6. Soft Skills like Empathy, Communication, Leadership, Ethics, etc. that are more important for running a business, are not taught at B-Schools and instead they focus on quantitative analysis, data modeling, finance, etc. This leads to having managers who are smart but not necessarily effective. 

In the end, the authors of the study suggest that B-schools need to evolve:

1. To reflect real-world challenges. 

2. Focus on teaching and providing practical insights along with research

3. Faculty must have both academic rigor and industry experience

4. Learning outcomes have to be prioritized rather than just the ranking of the school.

Imagine paying such high fees and not getting it's worth! And less said the better if one gets an MBA degree from a Tier-2 or Tier-3 B School that is at almost every nook and corner in major cities in India. 

Josh Kaufman quotes the above study and makes a point on how getting the MBA degree might put you in debt for which you will have to work a decade or more just to break even. Interesting! Isn't it?

Would you like more insights like these from the books I read? Or are you feeling that you are not sufficiently equipped with skills to further your business? Let's change that! I offer personalized coaching and soft skills training for professionals and small entrepreneurs who want to lead with confidence and clarity.

Get in touch with me: hustellebyanupama@gmail.com

Is it important to have an MBA degree to be a successful entrepreneur? A new book that I'm reading - The Personal MBA

 

Hello all! It's been a while since I posted. I've been busy reading a very interesting book by Josh Kaufman titled "The Personal MBA...a world-class business education in a single volume". 

This is just the book for those who are in business or planning to go into business but do not have an MBA degree. And this book came at a time when I was actually thinking about writing a post on the same subject after I remembered a conversation I had had with students in one of my classes. Having taught at a B-School and worked with entrepreneurs, this was an interesting subject to talk about. 

I will write a detailed review once I'm fully done. For starters, this book is like a 'crash course in business'. It is about having experience as a teacher. 

For those of you wondering whether you need an MBA to be a businessman/woman, here's what Josh says very early in the book "Skip business school. Educate yourself" 

He lists three problems with Business Schools:

1. MBA is expensive and ROI is questionable

2. Many of the things taught in an MBA program are outdated, he even calls it worthless as it doesn't teach how to start or improve a real operating business, which means working knowledge is not there.

3. Having an MBA degree does not guarantee a high-paying job and nor does it make one a skilled manager or leader.

His advice - "instead of spending huge sums of money to learn information of questionable value, you can spend your time and resources learning business concepts that matter"

Stay tuned for more as I continue to read. Will keep posting small snippets from the book as I go. 

Here's a link for you to pick up the book if you are also a reader:

https://www.amazon.in/Personal-MBA-World-Class-Business-Education/dp/0670919535

My product is excellent. Now customers will come swarming through the door

 

What is this concept all about?

One of the first few concepts in marketing, The Product Concept focuses on having the best quality products, performance and features and assumes that customers will favor products them. It advocates businesses to focus on making superior products and improving them over time. Assumption is that customers prefer these qualities in a product and will come to buy them.

Known as the "Better mousetrap" fallacy, many entrepreneurs believe that they have the best product and customers will do anything to buy it. And in addition they may feel that marketing is not required, product will sell itself. 

What does this concpet focus on?

• Product features - continuous improvement on these features
• R&D (Research & Development) led business
• Assumes consumers only look at good product and nothing else

How is this different from the previous Production Concept?

Production Concept is all about scale and mass production aiming to reduce costs and assumes customers want products that are affordable and easily available. The Product Concept, on the other hand focuses on quality, features and innovation and assumes customers are looking for better and improved products. 

You may be thinking that isn't this what all of us as consumers really want? Yes, but only if:

a. The product is niche and you are willing to pay a price for owning that kind of product

b. It is disruptive or game-changing in the market

c. In industries that are all about innovation

What could possibly go wrong? 

Falling in love with your product is the biggest trap in the case of the Product Concept. And, what is wrong with that? Think of what loving someone actually makes you do. It means that you ignore the possible faults of that person, ignore good advice by well-wishers, become completely dependant on that person for everything, forget what is happening around you, do irrational things that might end up causing more stress/anxiety eventually. A similar thing happens when you fall in love with your product and this is Marketing Myopia.

Is Product really The King?

With the ever-changing consumer preferences and trends, can a company survive only with great product? When we think of examples of great products that have been very successful over a period of time, brands like Apple, BMW, Google, Nike, Coca-Cola, etc. etc. come to mind. But it is important to remember that these companies not only have great products but also great marketing that is able to keep up with the times and continue to rule the category they operate in. 

There are many examples of brands and companies that have fallen into the trap of having good products and assuming consumers will continue to support them but have actually vanished from the market. 

Here's a case:

Kodak 

Eastman Kodak Company was founded in the year 1888 in New York, USA. It was the company that invented digital photography through their cameras. Their mission in the early 20th century was to make photography accessible to all. As George Eastman said "You press the button, we do the rest." 

They invented the roll film and literally controlled the film (85% Market Share and photo print market (90% market share). They became so popular that when one thought of photography, one only thought of Kodak and were global leaders due to their superior design and quality of the films.

Advertising campaigns:

One of the most famous ones was the "Kodak Moments" campaign, which became part of pop culture, was launched in 1993 aimed at encouraging people to capture life's precious moments. Through emotional storytelling, the ads often showed family occasions, travel memories, and sentimental events. 

"Share moments. Share life." was another campaign released in the 1990s promoting Kodak film and digital products, including their photo CDs and early digital solutions.

Then came "Take Pictures Further" in the 2000s where both digital and regular products were promoted. 

Some of their ads that I found on the net:

You can watch an ad on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqeeM9Ranww&t=1s

I also found some old ads that were released in India. Here's the famous Kodak Girl ads released in Times of India in the 1920s:

I found it very interesting to see and learn that a lot of work was done in promoting the product and its usage. So, what could have gone wrong? Where is Kodak today?

1. Kodak focused exclusively on films, their quality, technology etc., that they missed the entire digital trend.

2. While they seem to have invented the digital technology, they didn't cash in on it commercially. That is really strange!

3. All their focused a lot on the emotional value of films but didn't incorporate the digital behaviour of customers once the digital trend took over.

4. The focus on high quality prints was made under the assumption that consumers were only looking for this aspect while actually consumers were more focused on instant sharing rather than film quality. 

By 2000s, both digital cameras and smartphones became more popular and with smartphones focusing on cameras, Kodak's revenues from film went down drastically. Their competitors like Canon, Sony, HP included, focused on digital imaging. While Kodak, like an afterthought, tried to enter the digital imaging space, they were unfortunately too late. They finally filed for bankruptcy in 2012. A sad end to such a great company. 

Here are a couple of news articles on the same:

https://www.financierworldwide.com/eastman-kodak-finally-exits-bankruptcy

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-16625725

What can we learn from this debacle:

1. Don't be so proud of your product that you fail to recognise what's happening around you. Don’t fall in love with your product.

2. People change, keep your eyes open. In Kodak's case especially, consumers were looking for instant sharing and convenience, not just print quality. 

3. Marketing must lead innovation. While one can invent a great product, but without the right marketing, it won’t survive.

4. The brand story needed to keep up with the times. While the “Kodak Moments” worked in the print era, in the digital age, the message needed to shift.

There are many other brands that have been caught in a similar drift. Blackberry, Polaroid are other examples. 

These brands/companies have realised it the hard way, that one also has to take into account pricing, advertising/promotional activities, distribution, sales, etc. in order to be able to be successful and long-lasting.

Would love to hear your thoughts. Do share any other brands that you have come across that fall into this category. 

References:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/t/tap/7977573.0009.107/--finding-family-in-the-times-of-indias-mid-century-kodak-ads?rgn=main;view=fulltext

https://hbr.org/2016/07/kodaks-downfall-wasnt-about-technology

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/9025492/Kodak-moments-a-history-of-Eastman-Kodak-in-pictures.html?image=10

https://www.businessinsider.com/these-were-the-gorgeous-kodak-ads-that-made-photography-popular-2012-1#-10

https://adage.com/article/ad-age-encyclopedia/kodak/98606

https://www.youtube.com/user/Kodak

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-kodak-failed-2012-1

https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2104567,00.html

https://hbr.org/2004/07/marketing-myopia