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.)

Lingua Pragmatica

Correspondent
Mar 19, 2025
3 min read

Updated: Mar 20, 2025

As Southern leaders like M.K. Stalin rage against Hindi, Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu offers a model of pragmatism over parochialism.

Chandrababu Naidu
Andhra Pradesh

Amid the cacophony of opposition in southern states to Hindi, Andhra Pradesh CM N. Chandrababu Naidu has taken a markedly pragmatic stance by remarking recently in the state Assembly that there was no harm in learning other languages. Hindi, Naidu noted, was useful for communication across India, particularly in political and commercial hubs like Delhi. His remarks, though avoiding explicit mention of the NEP, were widely seen as an endorsement of multilingualism and a rebuke to the linguistic chauvinism that has gripped parts of the South.


Few issues in India stir political passions quite like language. It is not merely a means of communication but a marker of identity, a relic of colonial resistance, and a source of political mobilization. In the southern states, where anti-Hindi sentiment has long been entrenched, the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its three-language formula have reignited old tensions. No state embodies this defiance more than Tamil Nadu, where the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) led by M.K. Stalin has framed the policy as an assault on its linguistic autonomy.


Naidu’s words, welcomed by his ally and Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, mark a sharp contrast with the DMK’s position. Tamil Nadu’s hostility towards Hindi dates back to the 1930s, when C. Rajagopalachari’s attempt to introduce it in schools met with fierce resistance. The anti-Hindi agitations of the 1960s cemented the DMK’s ideological stance, with its first Chief Minister, C.N. Annadurai, famously warning that Hindi imposition could push Tamil Nadu towards secession.


The question, however, is whether this rigid opposition serves Tamil Nadu’s interests. While Stalin, with an eye to the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly polls, has been relentlessly portraying Hindi as a threat to his state’s regional identity, Naidu, a partner of the BJP-led Centre, is framing it as a tool for economic mobility. His argument is not that Hindi should replace Telugu or English but that it offers a competitive advantage.


The economic case for multilingualism is compelling. Indians who speak multiple languages tend to have better job prospects, higher earnings and greater geographic mobility. Andhra Pradesh’s Telugu-speaking diaspora is a case in point. Telugus make up a significant proportion of Indian-origin professionals in the United States, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia as Naidu pointed out, hinting that this success story was built not on linguistic rigidity but on adaptability.


In a country where inter-state migration is rising and where Hindi remains the most widely spoken language, refusing to learn it amounts to self-imposed isolation. Tamil Nadu’s approach, by contrast, risks limiting its youth. The DMK government has refused to implement the three-language policy, keeping schools strictly bilingual with Tamil and English. Its justification that Hindi is not necessary for global success could be true in a narrow sense but ignores the domestic context. If Tamil filmmakers can dub their movies into Hindi to expand their audience, why should Tamil students be denied access to the language that could open more doors for them within India?


The DMK has accused successive central governments, particularly under the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), of pushing Hindi at the expense of regional languages. Yet, rejecting Hindi outright is an overcorrection. The reality is that Hindi is an important language in India’s economic and political landscape. Naidu’s position, one of accommodation rather than confrontation, offers a middle ground that other Southern leaders would do well to consider.


Some states already recognize this. Karnataka, despite its own history of linguistic pride, has allowed Hindi to be taught as an optional language. Kerala, whose migrants work in Hindi-speaking regions and the Gulf, has been less hostile to Hindi education. Naidu’s model, balancing regional identity with practical necessity, offers a way forward. Languages should be embraced, not politicized. Southern leaders would do well to listen to him.

Comments

bottom of page