Gaining Insight into the "Neutral" Accent

I talked to a "neutral" accent trainer in India this week. It was actually fascinating. I could clearly understand him, yet his accent was not one anyone would recognize.

He tells me that at some point, the decision makers around outsourced call centers in India decided to take the "best" of various accents and combine them - best meaning the easiest to pronounce, and perhaps the clearest.

For example, he mentioned the American /k/ sound is thought to be cumbersome and "too much work," so the British one has been integrated into the "neutral" accent. Likewise, the American stop /t/ in "important" is thought be easier to pronounce than the British equivalent.

It seems to be ( from the cursory phone meeting we had - very brief) that "tense" articulation is also part of the "neutral" accent. The focus was very much on the vowels, which makes a lot of sense. Clarity is key in this pursuit, not authenticity.

I'm planning to have a more in-depth conversation with him to determine exactly what "neutral" accent trainers focus on when working with Indian first-language speakers, (and also, how in the WORLD they can stay up all night just to be on US time and make that work for them long-term).

He mentioned they use my You Tube videos for training purposes, and that was the wonderful. I'm glad they are helpful to people in a remote land.

Cultural Differences - Timing

I'm becoming more and more aware of the cultural differences of doing business in India, especially at this point in regards to timing.

In the US, if a client is interested in something, especially for themselves rather than a full corporate program, the decision making process is pretty short: they sample, they buy or they think about it for a short time and buy, or they have a specific request (like call me in 3 months when my manager says there will be funding).

In India, I find things to be very different: more players, longer deicison making periods (or at least wait times), and less certainty in moving forward. Of course, it makes sense that spending corporate $$$ on training is tighter now and that things have to be looked with greater scrutiny, but the buying patterns are decisively different.

In some cases, they are unpredictable. Clients buy, but you don't see them coming! You may be in negotiation with someone who disppears and resurfaces with an intent to "go forward" unexpectedly or someone who seems on track to go forward may back out at the last minute with little or no explanation.

This can happen in the US, but usually it's related to the company making the sale dropping the ball in the communication or follow through process. With India, it seems to related to something else.

My focus is not on the frustration (although culturally, that is one component!) but rather on the opportunity to learn how Indians buy ... the mental process behind making a decision is culturally different from how Americans making buying decisions. I have a strong suspicion that knowledge in this area would not only help to make the process more comfortable but also would shed light on what to do and say (or not do and say!) along the way.

I welcome any thoughts/comments on this topic!

Cost over Quality

I haven't been blogging for awhile. I admit it. Mostly because I've been focusing on our self-study program promotion and delivery in Silicon Valley. It's been a bit discouraging to approach the Indian market because I'm finding that there is a definite preference for "low cost" over "high quality."

As practitioners, we have to ask ourselves what our priorities are. Of course, we want to move into new markets and create niches for ourselves, and we often have to be creative to do that, but I find myself strategizing how to make it "cost effective" by international standards without compromising quality?

It's understandable that in Silicon Valley (where I live) people are willing to pay for value - they see and experience the difference, have lived here for many years and already tried low-cost options that didn't yield a great result and are ready for something better, but what about internationally where the cost is the driving decision maker (or breaker)?

I found when discussing options with contacts in India that it was all about "price" and not about "how effective is your training? how is it different? what is the value?"

In the US, we take courses around "value proposition" and probably because everyone does, it's an easier concept to relate to and understand. The "cultural barrier" in a sense is conveying the long term potential (in profitability and quality)to the "gatekeepers" who are in the position to choose a more effective solution for their employees.

I'm in the processing of strategizing ways to reduce the "human effort" - which always reduces the cost! - like offering more video and self-learning as opposed to live instruction, especially a blended approach to get the value of both worlds, but the question is: what will finally win the approval of the "decision makers"? How do we make it cost effective without reducing quality?

Still struggling with this concept ... more to come.