top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 8:58:38 am

Being Liked Is Not Branding

AI Generated Image Think of someone specific you met in the last six months who seemed genuinely interested in connecting further. The conversation was warm. There was energy in it. They said all the right things — let us stay in touch, I would love to explore this further, I will reach out next week. And then they did not. Not because they were rude or dismissive. Not because something went wrong. But because by the time next week arrived, you had simply faded. This is one of the most...

Being Liked Is Not Branding

AI Generated Image Think of someone specific you met in the last six months who seemed genuinely interested in connecting further. The conversation was warm. There was energy in it. They said all the right things — let us stay in touch, I would love to explore this further, I will reach out next week. And then they did not. Not because they were rude or dismissive. Not because something went wrong. But because by the time next week arrived, you had simply faded. This is one of the most quietly expensive things that happens to accomplished founders — and almost none of them know it is happening. Being liked is not the same as being remembered. Being remembered is not the same as being recalled at the right moment. And being recalled at the right moment is the only version of any of this that actually creates business. The gap between a pleasant first impression and a phone call that begins with "I immediately thought of you" is not filled by warmth or competence or even a genuinely great conversation. It is filled by a personal brand strong enough to occupy a specific, distinct place in someone's mind long after the meeting has ended. Here is what most founders are not told. When someone leaves a conversation thinking "what a lovely person" they have given you a compliment. When they leave thinking "she is exactly the person I would call if I ever needed to solve this specific problem for someone I care about" they have given you a business. The difference between those two outcomes is not how much they liked you. It is how clearly they understood what you stand for and who you are for. Most accomplished founders are genuinely likeable. Many are impressive. Very few are specific enough to be recalled at the moment an opportunity arises. They exist in the minds of their network as pleasant, capable, talented — and entirely interchangeable with the other pleasant, capable, talented people those same contacts met last month. That interchangeability is costing you more than you realise. Every time someone in your network encounters an opportunity that should be yours and instead recommends someone else — not because they like that person more, but because that person's name surfaced first and most clearly — your brand has failed at its most fundamental job. The founders who get called first are not always the most qualified. They are the most memorable. Not memorable in the sense of flashy or loud or relentlessly present online. Memorable in the sense that when a specific need arises, a specific face and a specific name and a specific value proposition surface together, clearly and immediately, without the contact having to work to reconstruct who you are and what you do. That kind of memorability is not an accident of personality. It is the result of a personal brand built with enough clarity, consistency and intention that it leaves a distinct impression rather than a pleasant but general one. It is the difference between being someone people enjoyed meeting and being someone people think of when it counts. Think about your own network right now. When an opportunity arises that is perfect for you — do the right people think of you immediately? Or do they think of you eventually, after they have already recommended someone else, and feel a pang of recognition that they should have called you first? If it is the second — your brand is not broken. It is just not specific enough yet. And that is entirely fixable. I work with founders on exactly this — building a personal brand clear and consistent enough that the right people think of them first, not eventually. If you are ready to stop being the person people liked and start being the person they call, book your consultation call with me on this link: https://www.calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founder-brand-audit — Divyaa Advaani, Personal Branding Strategist (The author is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Dangerous Departures

Correspondent
Oct 29, 2024
2 min read

Updated: Oct 30, 2024

Dangerous Departures

In yet another shocking incident adding to Mumbai’s infamous tryst with stampedes, chaos erupted at Mumbai’s Bandra Terminus following a weekend stampede that left at least ten persons injured, two critically so. A crowd surged toward the Gorakhpur-bound train with nearly 1,500 people vying for seats in 22 unreserved compartments, leading to the stampede. Several others narrowly avoided tragedy, with some even pushed onto the tracks. This is not a unique episode but rather a recurring theme in Mumbai’s bedevilled crowd management, one that has haunted the city’s public spaces, particularly as festive seasons magnify the crowds.


Mumbai is no stranger to stampedes. A horrifying incident in 2017 at Elphinstone Road Station left 23 people dead and nearly 50 injured. The cause was a familiar one: an overwhelming crowd confined to a narrow footbridge during peak rush hour. The tragedy sparked an outcry, with promises from authorities to upgrade infrastructure and enhance safety protocols. Yet seven years on, crowd-related incidents continue to be a constant danger. Today’s incident reveals a similar lapse—a lack of foresight in managing the thousands who gather on platforms ahead of Diwali, eager to return to family. That the Gorakhpur Express was unreserved and heavily crowded was predictable.


The issue lies beyond simply crowd density; it is emblematic of deeper systemic negligence. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), responsible for local public safety, along with the Railways Ministry, bear responsibility for ensuring order at such high-risk hubs. Although the BMC acknowledged the “festive rush,” it appears little was done to pre-empt it. Swift action could have been taken to either disperse the crowd or reroute passengers. Instead, chaos prevailed.


Political reaction has been swift but uninspiring. Aaditya Thackeray, son of Uddhav Thackeray, launched a scathing attack on the Union Railways Minister, Ashwini Vaishnaw, branding the incident a result of the minister’s “incapable” leadership. This hardly addresses the immediate need: a substantive plan to manage crowds and prevent similar incidents.


Mumbai’s transport infrastructure remains sorely outdated. Platforms are undersized, signalling systems frequently falter, and crowd control mechanisms are grossly inadequate. Despite repeated accidents, there has been little investment in comprehensive crowd management systems or the deployment of personnel trained in emergency response. While railway footbridges were widened after the Elphinstone tragedy, Bandra’s incident demonstrates that such incremental changes are insufficient. Mumbai, which sees a swelling populace during festivals, demands a robust strategy to address its vulnerabilities. This should include technology-driven crowd monitoring, clear communication channels to inform passengers of platform conditions, and additional security and medical staff on high-demand days. It is essential that crowd management training for personnel becomes a priority rather than a reaction to tragedies.

Comments

bottom of page