top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 8:58:38 am

She Knew In Three Lines

She knew within the first three lines. The message was polished, well-structured, and covered all the right points. But there was something about it the cadence, the phrasing, the absence of anything specific to their previous conversation that felt assembled rather than written. She read it twice. And then she made a quiet decision. Not a dramatic one. Not an angry one. Just a small, irreversible recalibration about who this person actually was and whether she wanted to continue the...

She Knew In Three Lines

She knew within the first three lines. The message was polished, well-structured, and covered all the right points. But there was something about it the cadence, the phrasing, the absence of anything specific to their previous conversation that felt assembled rather than written. She read it twice. And then she made a quiet decision. Not a dramatic one. Not an angry one. Just a small, irreversible recalibration about who this person actually was and whether she wanted to continue the conversation. She never said a word. She simply moved on. This is happening in boardrooms, inboxes and WhatsApp threads across every industry right now. Founders who have handed their voice entirely to an algorithm and called it efficiency. Responses that arrive with perfect grammar and zero personality. Follow-ups that reference nothing specific from the last conversation. Proposals that could have been written for anyone. And on the other side of every one of these interactions, a human being who notices even if they cannot immediately name what feels off that there is nobody home. AI is not the problem. Let that be said clearly and without ambiguity. The founders who are using AI well as a thinking partner, a drafting tool, a research assistant are gaining a real and meaningful advantage. The problem is the founder who has outsourced their presence entirely. Who lets the algorithm speak on their behalf without adding a single word of their own. Who has confused efficiency with identity and does not yet understand that they are not the same thing. Here is the personal branding consequence that almost nobody is talking about honestly. When you let AI represent you without your voice running through it, you are not saving time. You are erasing yourself. The warmth, the specificity, the particular way you think and respond and engage — these are not decorative qualities. They are the substance of your personal brand. They are what makes someone choose you over the equally qualified person they also met last week. Strip them out and you have not streamlined your communication. You have quietly removed the reason someone would want to communicate with you specifically. Deals are being lost this way every single day. Not loudly. Not with feedback. Just quietly, in the moment someone reads a message and feels the complete absence of a person behind it. They do not reply with "this feels AI generated." They simply stop replying. And the founder never connects the silence to the message that caused it. The most powerful personal brands I work with use AI the way a skilled writer uses an editor — to sharpen what is already there, never to replace what never showed up. They use it to organise their thinking, improve their structure, catch what they missed. And then they put themselves back into it. One specific observation. One genuine reaction. One sentence that could only have come from someone who was actually present and paying attention. That one sentence is the difference between a message that converts and one that gets filed under "probably AI, move on." You cannot build a human brand through a machine. You can use the machine to build faster but the human must always be driving. Always thinking. Always present enough in every message, every response, every interaction to remind the person on the other side that there is a real person here who sees them, values them and chose to engage with them specifically. That is not a workflow. That is a brand. If this landed somewhere uncomfortable, a Founder Brand Audit is a focused consultation call where we examine what your brand is currently communicating and where the human has quietly gone missing from it. This is a specific and intentional investment in yourself, not a free conversation. Five slots open each week. Book your call here: https://www.calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founder-brand-audit (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Clever seat selection helped BJP to secure historic win

The party won 65 seats against Congress, 37 against NCP (SP) and 29 against Shiv Sena (UBT)

Clever seat selection

Mumbai: The BJP’s strategic seat sharing with the allies has proved beneficial for the party. An analysis of the Assembly election results show that the BJP has scored over its main rival, the Congress, in a big way because of the direct fights.


The analysis shows that BJP defeated all three constituents of the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) – Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT) and NCP (SP) – in the direct fights. This is attributed as one of the reasons for the BJP’s historic poll success.


The BJP contested 147 out of 288 seats. In 76 constituencies, it faced Congress. BJP secured victory in 65 seats and lost only 11 seats, making it a whopping 86 per cent of the total direct fights. This was followed by an even stronger performance against NCP (SP). Of the total 39 fights with Sharad Pawar’s party, BJP captured 37 seats making it 95 per cent of the total fights with NCP (SP). BJP and Shiv Sena (UBT) were head-to-head in 32 constituencies, of which BJP emerged victorious in 29 seats, making this 91 per cent of the total direct contests.


According to a BJP strategist the party had bargained hard with its allies, Shiv Sena and NCP to get the desired constituencies in the seat sharing formula. “We had studied to potential candidates of the MVA. That helped us in choosing the seats where we can register comfortable victories,” the strategist said.


BJP spokesperson Niranjan Shetty attributed the success to all the party workers who worked hard to boost development, infrastructure in the state. He gave credit to Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis for his contribution to the party’s success.


Shetty pointed out that in 2019, Uddhav Thackeray had stalled all the “novel” and “legendary” projects that Fadnavis had started when he had taken over as CM, making it very easy for the people of Maharashtra to strike a comparison between both the leaders and the potential they had for serving the people. “Devendra Fadnavis gave up his post very easily for the larger good. There are many such examples like Venkaiah Naidu who was BJP National President and later worked as the Vice President of India because that was the need of the hour. We seldom care about our posts,” Shetty told The Perfect Voice.


Congress spokesperson Atul Londhe refused to call the election results as the people’s mandate. “This is not at all a Janata mandate. Despite Maharashtra struggling with so many basic social issues, how can BJP acquire such a huge mandate is the question. If a student copies and fails with just passing marks, it can go unnoticed, but if a student copies and bags the number one position, something is fishy. Why is the BJP scared of ballot papers?” he said.

Comments

bottom of page