No, actually I am thinking about something. Generally every year what forum does is have a single strategy session / anseer writing session so that there is no confusion. Also we don't want to interview or showcase too much students who have secured ranks but are still writing the exam, given that they are still aspirants, and one gotta be in aspirant mode till one is writing the exam.
What I am seeing however is that vjrm is holding hundreds of sessions, some of them even by people who are taking next attempt. And most of the people this year are not even their students. On one hand there is an academic side which says, don't expose your students too much as long as they are writing the exam again. They gotta improve rank / score and this sonehow jinx it. There is a commercial side which says ask every selected candidate to do some talk / webinar etc. even if he is writing the exam again.. or else you will lose market share due to poor visibility and marketing. Just thinking. Any thoughts?
I have realised not promoting or marketing self/ product (which you believe is better) is equivalent to allowing a substandard or below average product or less hardworking people to move ahead of you
This also amounts to denying the consumers a better product. Hence marketing is absolutely ethical. Rather not marketing your better product is a fraud with the consumers.
P.S: I am not endorsing XYZ coaching as a better/poor product
So I was reading this book from zero to one by Peter Thiel . The book hit me hard in one aspect which said that most tech founders / people from tech background think that if the product is good they do not need marketing and distribution channels and they dont focus on it. They always want to work in stealth mode which sometimes may be detrimental to the company. So yeah, giving a thought to that.
However when I look at people who are marketing themselves well, I only see everyone in edTech Space begin with "education should be free" ( Mind you, this is not basic education or primary education they are talking about. They are talking about competitive exam which affects a small minority of the society ) then have billionaire plans. Worse, they use investors money to subsidise their products with the hope that someday they will recover the costs after becoming a monopoly and when that day never comes they exit or go silent.
Also because they plan to teach millions , one edTech founder I met told me their classes are subscribed by 1,20,000 students. I said any selections . They are clear - selections will come another program. Now to cater to the 1,20,000 students the course quality is brought down such that it wont help you clear the exam.
It will however fix your basic school level knowledge base, if you didn study well in school.
Great insights
I can draw an analogy from my legal profession. You must have seen many lawyers who have amplified their practice just by using social media. Some of them have been able create a system within 3-4 years where they are earning in lacs/crore despite being first generation lawyers.
Now, some of these lawyers are at best : AVERAGE. I see much better and competent lawyers working hard in isolation believing that they will make it big SOMEHOW (I don't know how) and that their HARDWORK WILL PAY OFF SOMEDAY.
Well it doesn't work that way. The BCI doesn't allow a lawyer to advertise. I don't know how else can they generate clients.
Further, Relationships including monetary ones are based on trust. Any person before buying or consuming usually makes a quick Google search. A good presence and track record gives them the trust and the confidence to put money on you.
I also believe a good & credible presence also somehow indicates a level of sincerity and professionalism.
Hence marketing self & our products is sin qua non if we want to be successful in a field such as law that is heavily titled in favour of the elite.
One of my lawyer friend recently met a female client who was Sexually harassed but didn't have a lawyer for 2 years. She could afford to pay Rs 5,000 per hearing (which is good for a young lawyer who has just started practice ) . Yet, these competent and young lawyers are NOT VISIBLE. This not only allowed the likes of Sibbals &. Singhvis to charge in crores per hearing but also denied the people (like the lady who was Sexually harassed) proper justice.
Who is to be blamed? It is these young & competent lawyers who should be blamed as they didn't make themselves accessible, visible and available to the needy.
I think this holds true for all the fields. Who is to be blamed when you allow average people to move ahead of you in life despite having all the resources?
