Juan Tjiong is a current student at the University of Sydney Business School and participant in the 2015 New Combo Plan (Jakarta), an
Australian Government initiative which aims to expand knowledge of the
Indo-Pacific in Australia and strengthen institutional relationships
through study and internships undertaken by Australian undergraduates in
the region.
The second week of our field school was more centered towards our faculty. The business students had the opportunity to visit several companies in Jakarta. These companies included: Lowe Indonesia, Sinar Mas, Unilever Indonesia, Garuda Indonesia, MarkPlus Institute and Nielsen Indonesia. During these visits, we had the opportunity to learn about how each respective company uses marketing tools and strategies. We were also exposed to how consumers behave in Indonesia.
However, there was one company that intrigued me instantly. This was Garuda Indonesia. Garuda Indonesia is a service airline that values being efficient and effective, loyalty, customer centricity, honesty and integrity. Moreover, Garuda seeks to promote national economic development by delivering professional airline services to the world.
Given their past, this company visit gave me great insights about their present market position in both the domestic and global market. Despite this, it is important to appreciate that Garuda experienced many obstacles in its past. During the 1996-97, Garuda suffered two major accidents- one of them being Indonesia’s worst aviation disaster. Moreover, the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 also hit Garuda very hard, resulting in them reducing flights and suspending certain flight routes.
Subsequently, in 2009 Garuda announced a major five-year expansion plan called the ‘Quantum leap’. This expansion involved image overhaul, including a change in the airline’s staff uniform and logo. Reflecting now, it is evident that their expansion plan was successful.
The success of the ‘Quantum leap’ has given Garuda a solid platform. For instance, Garuda is currently the market leader in its domestic market for middle-high income earners. This market stance has also been supported by Garuda’s reputation of promoting safe flights, loyalty to its customers and great customer service.
Moreover, Garuda has also successfully addressed its present challenges in its domestic market. Their major challenge is to be able to compete with budget airlines such as Sriwijaya Air, Batavia Air, etc. This has been primarily addressed in its focus of Citilink. Citilink is a low-cost airline subsidiary of Garuda and seeks to cater for the lower-middle income earners.
In spite of this, one aspect of the company visit that I found interesting was when they told us how Garuda differentiates itself from its international competitors. Garuda attempts to differentiate from its competitors through “Garuda experiences”, meaning that they develop products in relation to Indonesia’s culture. For example, in their entertainment, Garuda has a section dedicated to only Indonesian movies and music. Reflecting now on our company visit to Garuda, I feel extremely grateful and blessed to have been given the opportunity to learn more about Indonesia’s leading aviation airline.
But more importantly, I feel extremely blessed to have been able to visit Jakarta for the past fortnight. I have learnt to not just compare Jakarta with Sydney, but to appreciate the beauty of Jakarta and distance myself from comparing the two together. I already miss Jakarta. I miss the people, their smiles of happiness. I miss the company of my peers every night. For sure, the two weeks here in Jakarta will be in my memory forever.
This blog was originially published on Sydney Life: Student experiences at the University of Sydney.
Showing posts with label Indonesia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indonesia. Show all posts
20 February 2015
19 February 2015
Beauty in Jakarta
Miles Tycho Hugh is a current student at the University of Sydney Business School and participant in the 2015 New Combo Plan (Jakarta), an
Australian Government initiative which aims to expand knowledge of the
Indo-Pacific in Australia and strengthen institutional relationships
through study and internships undertaken by Australian undergraduates in
the region.
In 2002 Dove attempted to redefine the notion of beauty in their ‘Real Beauty’ campaign. Dove claimed society’s concept of beauty was informed by highly unrealistic images of supermodel size zeros who showcased the world’s leading beauty brands. They featured high cheekbones, toothpick legs and chins so sharp they could cut through steal. Recognising this, Dove released a series of campaigns featuring more realistic representations of the womanly figure, communicating that beauty was natural and accessible.
Most importantly, Dove recognised that powerful brands were symbolic resources of meaning, which individuals use to construct or extend the self. Thus, consumers who agreed in the morality of Dove’s attempt to liberalise society’s perception of beauty would express or confirm their morality by purchasing Dove products, empowering the consumer. The consumer was engaged in a social movement where Dove formed the connective tissue.
Yet, this unitive outcome did not emerge when Unilever brought the US campaign to Jakarta.
According to Unilever Indonesia’s prior head of Sunsilk, the Indonesian consumer wouldn’t have a bar of Dove's safe and accepting proposal of what the beauty-world was like. She said, “in Asia, appearance is everything.” Extrapolating from this, the Jakartan consumer seems to subscribe to a notion of beauty shaped by the physical exterior. The Jakartan concept of beauty seems exacting in its application, focused on what can be confirmed easily (skin, bones, hair), rather than seeking to somehow divine the individual’s inner, 'spiritual' qualities and detect the glowing radiance which miraculously emanates from the models presented in Dove’s Real Beauty campaigns. There seems to be very little room for shades of grey in Jakarta’s definition of beauty.
I can’t pretend to know what cultural undercurrents contributed to this viewpoint. However, I can’t help but think that Dove’s presentation of beauty is born out of luxury. To be able to take the time to get to know someone, to see through a lens that is not on guard, and instead embracive of the outside world. To be able to feel comfortable engaging with anyone without judgment or concern for how they might react (potentially dangerously) towards you. These are all indulgences attributed to a gaze from a position of power.
In Jakarta, many are not provided with such luxury. Without wanting to seem melodramatic, the city is dangerous. I witnessed multiple motorcycle crashes, and just driving in the haphazard and uncoordinated traffic keeps one constantly on edge. While aboard the TransJakarta bus we were all searched after claims of pick pocketing, and women I spoke to only began catching the bus after womens' carriages were installed, citing previous experiences of physical abuse.
Moreover, the State seems to have limited capacity, or willingness, to enforce the rules and regulations designed to protect its citizens. The police and other law enforcement agencies seem to have little presence in Jakarta, contributing to a perception that one can commit offences without consequence. Moreover, the application of the law seems to be flexible depending on the status and wealth of the offender's family. This is indicative of a corruption systemic within the state’s bureaucracy, and thus its opacity and unpredictability. This also gives reason for Jakarta's citizenry to be ‘eternally vigilant’ and mistrusting of the state's internal workings (promises), and to only deal with outcome: the physically visible. Could these factors derive ways of thinking, and of seeing the world, which spill over into the way individuals conceive beauty?
Though Jakarta's physical-centric image of beauty may seem superficial compared to the ‘real beauty’ image Dove stands for, I’d argue that Dove’s previous campaigns have promulgated an image of beauty based on physical appearance. Disguising it has been their genius. Yes, their advertisements feature diversely proportioned women posing without make up, but they look stunning regardless! Most are naturally beautiful. Yet most people aren’t blessed with the ‘Yes, I-woke-up-like-this’ look.
Thus, Dove seems to have only re-framed beauty as: physically attractive without the help of makeup. I would posit Dove has actually raised the bar higher, implying beauty forbids cosmetic assistance. Ironically, this means Dove’s differentiating position depends on the cosmetic industry to continually enforce this ‘fake’ perception of beauty. It seems then, that perhaps the pragmatic and guarded perception of the Indonesian consumer may have saved them from becoming subservient to an even more demanding and commercially lucrative version of beauty. To let one’s guard down is a luxurious state of being, taken for granted by the world’s elite.
This blog was originially published on Sydney Life: Student experiences at the University of Sydney.
In 2002 Dove attempted to redefine the notion of beauty in their ‘Real Beauty’ campaign. Dove claimed society’s concept of beauty was informed by highly unrealistic images of supermodel size zeros who showcased the world’s leading beauty brands. They featured high cheekbones, toothpick legs and chins so sharp they could cut through steal. Recognising this, Dove released a series of campaigns featuring more realistic representations of the womanly figure, communicating that beauty was natural and accessible.
Most importantly, Dove recognised that powerful brands were symbolic resources of meaning, which individuals use to construct or extend the self. Thus, consumers who agreed in the morality of Dove’s attempt to liberalise society’s perception of beauty would express or confirm their morality by purchasing Dove products, empowering the consumer. The consumer was engaged in a social movement where Dove formed the connective tissue.
Yet, this unitive outcome did not emerge when Unilever brought the US campaign to Jakarta.
According to Unilever Indonesia’s prior head of Sunsilk, the Indonesian consumer wouldn’t have a bar of Dove's safe and accepting proposal of what the beauty-world was like. She said, “in Asia, appearance is everything.” Extrapolating from this, the Jakartan consumer seems to subscribe to a notion of beauty shaped by the physical exterior. The Jakartan concept of beauty seems exacting in its application, focused on what can be confirmed easily (skin, bones, hair), rather than seeking to somehow divine the individual’s inner, 'spiritual' qualities and detect the glowing radiance which miraculously emanates from the models presented in Dove’s Real Beauty campaigns. There seems to be very little room for shades of grey in Jakarta’s definition of beauty.
I can’t pretend to know what cultural undercurrents contributed to this viewpoint. However, I can’t help but think that Dove’s presentation of beauty is born out of luxury. To be able to take the time to get to know someone, to see through a lens that is not on guard, and instead embracive of the outside world. To be able to feel comfortable engaging with anyone without judgment or concern for how they might react (potentially dangerously) towards you. These are all indulgences attributed to a gaze from a position of power.
In Jakarta, many are not provided with such luxury. Without wanting to seem melodramatic, the city is dangerous. I witnessed multiple motorcycle crashes, and just driving in the haphazard and uncoordinated traffic keeps one constantly on edge. While aboard the TransJakarta bus we were all searched after claims of pick pocketing, and women I spoke to only began catching the bus after womens' carriages were installed, citing previous experiences of physical abuse.
Moreover, the State seems to have limited capacity, or willingness, to enforce the rules and regulations designed to protect its citizens. The police and other law enforcement agencies seem to have little presence in Jakarta, contributing to a perception that one can commit offences without consequence. Moreover, the application of the law seems to be flexible depending on the status and wealth of the offender's family. This is indicative of a corruption systemic within the state’s bureaucracy, and thus its opacity and unpredictability. This also gives reason for Jakarta's citizenry to be ‘eternally vigilant’ and mistrusting of the state's internal workings (promises), and to only deal with outcome: the physically visible. Could these factors derive ways of thinking, and of seeing the world, which spill over into the way individuals conceive beauty?
Though Jakarta's physical-centric image of beauty may seem superficial compared to the ‘real beauty’ image Dove stands for, I’d argue that Dove’s previous campaigns have promulgated an image of beauty based on physical appearance. Disguising it has been their genius. Yes, their advertisements feature diversely proportioned women posing without make up, but they look stunning regardless! Most are naturally beautiful. Yet most people aren’t blessed with the ‘Yes, I-woke-up-like-this’ look.
Thus, Dove seems to have only re-framed beauty as: physically attractive without the help of makeup. I would posit Dove has actually raised the bar higher, implying beauty forbids cosmetic assistance. Ironically, this means Dove’s differentiating position depends on the cosmetic industry to continually enforce this ‘fake’ perception of beauty. It seems then, that perhaps the pragmatic and guarded perception of the Indonesian consumer may have saved them from becoming subservient to an even more demanding and commercially lucrative version of beauty. To let one’s guard down is a luxurious state of being, taken for granted by the world’s elite.
This blog was originially published on Sydney Life: Student experiences at the University of Sydney.
14 February 2015
A difficult balancing act
Thomas Cleary is a current student at the University of Sydney Business School and participant in the 2015 New Combo Plan (Jakarta), an
Australian Government initiative which aims to expand knowledge of the
Indo-Pacific in Australia and strengthen institutional relationships
through study and internships undertaken by Australian undergraduates in
the region.
Students from the University of Sydney Business School had an opportunity visit Sinar Mas, one of the largest conglomerates in Indonesia, which has subsidiaries in pulp and paper, agriculture, financial services, property, telecommunications, energy and infrastructure. Interestingly, the visit came about through a chance meeting a one of our transport academics had with an employee at a bus station. The company is the largest producer of palm oil in Indonesia (accounting for roughly 10% of total production) and the second largest globally (Sinar Mas, 2015)
So why is this an issue?
Palm oil can only be successfully grown in tropical regions along the equator, meaning deforestation for the purposes of palm oil often occurs in areas rich in biodiversity. The expansion of palm oil poses a serious threat to a number of species, including the orang-utan, Sumatran tiger and rhinoceros (World Growth, 2011). Sinar Mas has been in a constant battle with environmental groups. The company was criticised in 2010 when it began cleaning land for plantations without receiving approval, and more recently, for hazing operations across the Raiu plane of Sumatra, which caused significant pollution in Singapore (Guardian, 2013)
The economic argument
In 2013, palm oil accounted for 11% of Indonesia’s total export earnings, generated $5.7 billion in taxation revenue and employed an estimated 3.5 million people, particularly the rural poor living in Sumatra (Guardian, 2013). Globally, the demand for palm oil is expected to increase, given it is used in the production of popular cosmetics, soaps, pharmaceuticals and retail foods. To meet this demand, the Indonesian government plans to increase palm oil production to 40 million tonnes annually by 2020 (World Growth, 2011). This raises a number of questions about the prioritisation of economic interests over the sustainability of natural resources. Moreover, there seems to be reluctance on behalf of purchasers to buy palm oil certified by the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Unilever purchases 100% of their palm oil from certified producers, whereas other multinationals such as McDonalds (13%) and PepsiCo (17%) are seriously lagging behind. (Guardian, 2014)
So what is the solution?
I don’t think there is one. With Indonesia so dependent on palm oil as a source of revenue and provider of jobs, it’s hard to foresee any serious change. Environmental groups often urge consumers to boycott brands – but an individual’s brand loyalty can often override their environmental conscience. Is a consumer really going to boycott Garnier Fructis shampoo for containing palm oil when the majority of its competitors do as well? Are people really going to boycott McDonalds or the myriad of products owned by Proctor and Gamble? The marketing power of FMCG companies will always outweigh that of environmental groups. I think the way forward is for changes to be made to the Indonesian regulatory environment, to ensure that companies purchasing palm oil are doing so from the 40% of Indonesian producers that are certified by the RSPO - this way the responsibility is shifted from the consumer toward the companies actually purchasing the product.
References
Balch, O. 2014, ‘Palm oil: WWF name and shame top global buyers’, The Guardian, 28 January, viewed 5 February 2015
McClanahan, P. 2013, ‘Can Indonesia increase palm output without destroying its forests?’, The Guardian, 11 September, viewed 6 February 2015, < http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/11/indonesia-palm-oil-destroy-forests>
Sinar Mas 2015, Agribusiness and food, Indonesia, viewed 6 February 2015, < http://www.sinarmas.com/en/agribusiness-and-food/>
World Growth 2011, The economic benefits of palm oil to Indonesia, viewed 4 February 2015, < http://worldgrowth.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/WG_Indonesian_Palm_Oil_Benefits_Report-2_11.pdf>
This blog was originially published on Sydney Life: Student experiences at the University of Sydney.
Students from the University of Sydney Business School had an opportunity visit Sinar Mas, one of the largest conglomerates in Indonesia, which has subsidiaries in pulp and paper, agriculture, financial services, property, telecommunications, energy and infrastructure. Interestingly, the visit came about through a chance meeting a one of our transport academics had with an employee at a bus station. The company is the largest producer of palm oil in Indonesia (accounting for roughly 10% of total production) and the second largest globally (Sinar Mas, 2015)
So why is this an issue?
Palm oil can only be successfully grown in tropical regions along the equator, meaning deforestation for the purposes of palm oil often occurs in areas rich in biodiversity. The expansion of palm oil poses a serious threat to a number of species, including the orang-utan, Sumatran tiger and rhinoceros (World Growth, 2011). Sinar Mas has been in a constant battle with environmental groups. The company was criticised in 2010 when it began cleaning land for plantations without receiving approval, and more recently, for hazing operations across the Raiu plane of Sumatra, which caused significant pollution in Singapore (Guardian, 2013)
The economic argument
In 2013, palm oil accounted for 11% of Indonesia’s total export earnings, generated $5.7 billion in taxation revenue and employed an estimated 3.5 million people, particularly the rural poor living in Sumatra (Guardian, 2013). Globally, the demand for palm oil is expected to increase, given it is used in the production of popular cosmetics, soaps, pharmaceuticals and retail foods. To meet this demand, the Indonesian government plans to increase palm oil production to 40 million tonnes annually by 2020 (World Growth, 2011). This raises a number of questions about the prioritisation of economic interests over the sustainability of natural resources. Moreover, there seems to be reluctance on behalf of purchasers to buy palm oil certified by the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Unilever purchases 100% of their palm oil from certified producers, whereas other multinationals such as McDonalds (13%) and PepsiCo (17%) are seriously lagging behind. (Guardian, 2014)
So what is the solution?
I don’t think there is one. With Indonesia so dependent on palm oil as a source of revenue and provider of jobs, it’s hard to foresee any serious change. Environmental groups often urge consumers to boycott brands – but an individual’s brand loyalty can often override their environmental conscience. Is a consumer really going to boycott Garnier Fructis shampoo for containing palm oil when the majority of its competitors do as well? Are people really going to boycott McDonalds or the myriad of products owned by Proctor and Gamble? The marketing power of FMCG companies will always outweigh that of environmental groups. I think the way forward is for changes to be made to the Indonesian regulatory environment, to ensure that companies purchasing palm oil are doing so from the 40% of Indonesian producers that are certified by the RSPO - this way the responsibility is shifted from the consumer toward the companies actually purchasing the product.
References
Balch, O. 2014, ‘Palm oil: WWF name and shame top global buyers’, The Guardian, 28 January, viewed 5 February 2015
McClanahan, P. 2013, ‘Can Indonesia increase palm output without destroying its forests?’, The Guardian, 11 September, viewed 6 February 2015, < http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/sep/11/indonesia-palm-oil-destroy-forests>
Sinar Mas 2015, Agribusiness and food, Indonesia, viewed 6 February 2015, < http://www.sinarmas.com/en/agribusiness-and-food/>
World Growth 2011, The economic benefits of palm oil to Indonesia, viewed 4 February 2015, < http://worldgrowth.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/WG_Indonesian_Palm_Oil_Benefits_Report-2_11.pdf>
This blog was originially published on Sydney Life: Student experiences at the University of Sydney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)