AASCOM REFLECTIVE NOTES

(SEC- B)
By Shekhar Suman (0330/50)

Group 1: Social media

Points for content: 6/9
Points for delivery: 8/9

Justification
The group was entertaining in terms of its presentation because of the style of delivery of most
of it. It was done through two acts and followed up by some explanations and examples.
Though it also means that they covered less content because a large chunk of it went to the
acts that they did during the presentation the content of which could have been covered in
much less a time.
Another thing that I liked about the presentation was that the acts were not one sided. Both
owners and consumers (represented by the lawyer) points were put across in both the acts.
Though the acts could have been presented in a much better fashion than how they were
presented. At times it was obvious to the one watching the presentation that the actors were
making up a lot of it on the go.
Another thing I noted during the Julian Assange act was that the content part of its form vs.
content did not contain much relevant information as it should have. It was not able to
communicate effectively that how the form is very different from the content. It just showed
the problems with the existing form.
In the later part of the presentation they talked about a chat room of traders as their
managerial parallel. This is irrelevant to the topic of social media as chat rooms are not really
form a part of it. Post this example, the presenters gave an example of google. They talked
about how google is using its various platforms to serve its purpose. These platforms, specially
the google search that they talked about, do not really form a part of the social media.
All in all it was a good presentation with a very interesting style of delivery. It started with a
brief introduction of the topic and then the two acts which were carried out reasonably well.

The presentation then moved to google which was a bit irrelevant. Finally the hypothesis drawn
out reasonably well. They sacrificed on content to make sure that their presentation is
interesting and so delivery I am awarding them 8 points and for content I am awarding them 6
points.

Group 2: Corporate
Points for content: 7.5/9
Points for delivery: 8/9

Justification
This group chose a very interesting style of opening up the presentation. They opened with a
very famous dialogue from the movie matrix which was executed very well and I found it well
connected to the theme as well. They used a very distinctive style of narration in third person
which made the dialogues and the act really fun to watch. While they were doing all of this, and
even after that, they kept using the metaphor throughout their presentation which made sure
that they are on track all the while.
One thing I found typically confusing in the PPT was how the same person played the role of
farmer as well as the companies which made the presentation a bit confusing.
Content build up was very well in the presentation and it all seemed to flow like a story. In
other words, the presentation was well structured, especially the part where they explained the
reason of existence of a corporation and the benefit of working in a group.
The presenters were well researched as there were three contemporary examples of Africa,
Garment industry and media houses.
Their contemporary dialectical case analysis showed the garment industry and exploitation of
women in the working class in that industry through expectation of reduced price simply by
using clout of being a large company.
In their presentation they also tried to show how women are exploited more than women. The
presenters also talked about the fact how women cant unionize because they cant raise their
voices.
Through their presentation, they tried to emphasize the power of the buyer and how important
a role they play in the entire picture.

Group 3: Banana
Points for content: 7/9
Points for delivery: 6/9

Justification
The group was well researched in terms of what they presented to the entire class. Their
presentation was very content heavy and they had done a very good analysis of differences that
are present between the act and the reality of events.
One thing that I did not like in the presentation was that the form vs. content started much
earlier in the presentation without it being acknowledged. They talked about it for quite a long
time with a lot of examples without really saying what they were talking about. Eventually
when they came to the slide where they had explained their form vs. content, most of what
they wanted to say was over.
Also, another thing that I did not like in the presentation was that the form vs. content that
they presented was not presented in a very impactful manner. They could have easily done that
by segregating between the form and content which they did not do and present it all on one
slide leading to a lot of confusion regarding what they were trying to say.
They drew a good managerial parallel and they were able to communicate it very effectively as
well. Specially compared to how their delivery had been earlier during the presentation.
They showed a number of videos as well, which was explained well and was relevant to the
topic at hand which made the presentation more interesting. Specially the final advertisement
shown in the end with the animated banana was good and showed what they were trying to
convey in the presentation.

Group 4: Ringtone
Points for content: 6/9
Points for delivery: 6/9

Justification
Their presentation was interesting though their technique of dialectic applied by them to reach
their analysis was not very clear. From how they have presented it, it becomes evident that
ringtones have played their part in each of the examples and instances that they have covered.
What is not clear is how the ringtone, as an idea, metaphorically maps to it.
Another thing they have failed at is they have not established the role that the metaphor
played in their analysis, before moving on towards establishing form/content and larger ideas
to be mapped.
This part, especially regarding the structure of the presentation could have been given more
time so that the presentation could have been more flowing and the analysis could have been
more meaningful.
Delivery of the presentation was somewhere around average and it was evident from how the
presenters kept looking at the slides about how less prepared they were for the presentation.
The presenters were constantly looking at the content that was there on their slides and even
some of the examples that were presented which could have easily been remembered were
read from the slides partly.
There was too much text on the slides. They were too content heavy and were hard to look at
and understand in one go.

Group 5: Business Education

Points for content: 6.5/9
Points for delivery: 6/9

Justification
This group were clearly underprepared when they came on stage. They started will with an
example that everyone could connect to and it was interesting in the beginning. Though what
took my concentration away that the slides looked really unfinished.
Another thing I noticed was that there were grammatical errors and spelling mistakes
happening throughout the presentation.
The group was very less on content and they could have delved deeper into some of the areas
to have a better analysis of the entire topic and the reading that was given to them. The topic in
itself was very relevant to the kind of environment we live in so it was easier for this group to
connect to the audience. Though there was an equal chance of not finding something really
new and that is where these people failed.
Most of what has been discussed in the presentation was very evident from the topic itself.
There was not much research or new information in the presentation. There were a few good
examples but overall it was evident from the presentation that the content that these people
had was very less.
One thing I really liked about their presentation was that their slides were minimalistic on text
and they were giving examples from what they had memorized. This made the presentation
and their delivery more interesting.
Also, the act that they did at the start, by virtue of being very relevant to our existence here,
was able to gauge the interest of the class.
The content was less and so at times it was felt that what the presenters were trying to say was
repetitive. I also found the hypothesis to be less researched and very straight forward.

Group 6: Fake
Points for content: 8/9
Points for delivery: 8/9

Justification
This group started with a skit showing dialectic which was well written and well divided among
the presenters. They made it even more interesting and kept everyones attention by asking the
audience questions that were relevant to what they were trying to convey. The presentation
was well structured and had good amount of well researched content on it.

To keep on track through their presentation and keep it around their motif, they were
consistently using the metaphor throughout.
They represented the dialectic that was in the text really well and made it come out through a
story which was pretty interesting. It was about how someone who wishes to fake charity ends
up actually doing a lot of good for the society. During the course of the presentation, there
were enough examples to substantiate their point and these examples were well placed also.
Their form vs. content was well put across. They also talked about gradations in fake and how
what is a very good fake can be as good as really bringing out the question of originality. This
brought out a very important point of how brands today work more as fetishes than anything
else.
Content build up by them throughout their presentation was also pretty well done. They used
the example of spoof movies: Meet the Spartans vs. 300.
They also gave the example of the WWE (World wrestling entertainment) and how most of the
stories that come up on that show are fake.
Their managerial example about CSR in corporate institutions was also well thought out.

Group 7: City
Points for content: 7.5/9
Points for delivery: 7/9

Justification
The group seemed well prepared and they had tried to make the presentation interesting and
informative by using the right mix of videos, cartoon strips, songs and examples. They had good
amount of content on their presentation and they kept using their motif during their entire
presentation to make sure that they remain on track.
Their analysis was also pretty interesting and the structure of the presentation was well
thought out. Their hypothesis was well researched and it required you to think and was not
very obvious and straight forward.
One thing that I did not like in the presentation of this group was regarding the choice of some
videos and their length and content. Especially the video on Raj Thakre which was based on
their concept of Marathi Manoosh was not only too long, it was not really a good managerial
parallel as it is not really in the managerial domain.
As far as the managerial parallel is concerned, they could have looked into some other example
and drawn a managerial parallel which was a little more relevant.
I also did not like the amount of time allotted to various sections. Some really obvious sections
were given a lot of time to explain making the presentation a little repetitive at times on
content. While some other sections which were fairly complex were not given enough time to
understand the gist of the matter.
In a nutshell, what I liked in their presentation was that their delivery was really well structured
and thought out and it was evident from the content on their slides that the presentation was
well structured. What I did not like in their presentation was their managerial parallel and how
they connected it to the motif that they were given i.e. city.

Group 8: Codification
Points for content: 7.5/9
Points for delivery: 7.5/9

Justification
The content and analysis that the group had done was performed really well. Though they only
looked at the Indian context and they could have borrowed some from the European history to
make the analysis a lot better and complete but the relationship between the hypothesis and
their analysis that led to it was done in a well-structured manner.
The relationship between form and content was established clearly in the presentation using
the independence struggle. The analysis also successfully established how the thesis
(codification of laws for the general masses) led to its antithesis (concentration of power with
the rulers).
The presentation delivery was also done quite well. They were able to put forward the
metaphor at the start of the presentation but some context to it would have made the
presentation really good.
It was evident from the way they delivered their presentation that they were well rehearsed. At
times they had to read some content from the presentation but that was very infrequent and it
showed the level of preparation they had for their presentation.
Another thing I noticed in their presentation was that they were always behind the table. Even
when one of the team mates was there to change the slides, the other did not come in the
front to communicate more effectively with the viewers.
The slides as well as the content on them was well structured. The presentation had a logical
flow to it and they were confident while presenting what they had on slides.
The slides had text only to guide the discussion and it was not very content-heavy showing that
the there was some effort that was put in that regard as well.

Group 9: Speech
Points for content: 6/9
Points for delivery: 6/9

Justification
This group was not very structured in terms of the content as well as delivery in their
presentation. I found the speech to be average and not inspiring. It was evident from the way
they kept coming back to earlier slides, and were sort of confused saying they forgot something
to add, that they lacked practice.
I liked the fact that this group tried using the blackboard. Though it seemed more forced and
haphazard, and there was no value add to it.
They also used the metaphor throughout their presentation which kept them on the track. They
used the Roman Empire to represent the dialectic in the given text. They have proposed that
the entire Roman Empire ran on speeches and that there was little to no action in that context.
The elites were the owners and common public was the working class at that time. They have
proposed in their presentation that speech was used only by elites and that they frequently
used it as a tool of subjugation.
The content build up follows a flow and contains examples from the Roman Empire and details
of the dialectic.
To make the analysis more interesting, they drew a parallel to the famous TV series Boston
Legal which was ingenious. Their form vs. content was well formed and there was some
thought put into it.
The group tried to relate the motif to Hitler as well as Mumbai attacks which made the analysis
very interesting. Though even after all this analysis, what I felt was that there was very less
content in their presentation as well as in the content of their speech. This was evident from
the fact that at most times their content seemed repetitive.

Overall, it seemed that they should have put in more effort and researched the topic better for
a better analysis of the motif given to them. Also, they should have rehearsed the presentation
before coming to the presentation to make sure that there is no reading done from the slides.

Group 10: Piracy

Points for content: 6/9
Points for delivery: 6/9

Justification
This group had a very interesting topic and they were able to pull it off pretty well. Though at
times it seemed more like a one man show than a group effort as afar as their delivery is
concerned.
They used satire in their content to make the presentation to make it more interesting and
engaging for the viewers. They have used the metaphor consistently as well.
The dialectic used by the presenters is using bourgeoisie as owners and pirates as workers. They
have built up on the content by legitimizing the act of piracy by elaborating on the Piracy Ecosystem and
letters of marquee given to the pirates.
They have delved deeper into the topic and tried to explain various forms of piracy. They have tried to
give an example of Somalia and US and tried to connect it with the topic legitimizing piracy in the
process.
They have also talked about how piracy has evolved over the years and how it is more organized and
networked as opposed to the opportunistic piracy done earlier.
The presenters have given other examples from China including the physical as well as online model of
piracy (hacking).
In a nutshell, the content was well researched and structured during most of the presentation and they
were able to put across their point very well while keeping the audience engaged. Though most of it was
achieved by only one of the two speaker who utilized his communication skills to the advantage of the
group.
Also, the delivery of the presentation shows that the presenters had come prepared to face the
audience as there was structure and logic in their thought process.

Group 11: Foreign Relations

Points for content: 7.5/9
Points for delivery: 8/9

Justification
This group had a unique and very interesting delivery style. They presented their entire idea as
news presenters who were having a sort of animated dialogue between them for a specific
news channel. Unlike other presenters and their acts, they continued the act from the start of
their presentation to finish while still maintaining a level of quality in terms of content which is
quite difficult to manage.
In terms of content, they started with a very interesting example of George Clooney and him
being the brand ambassador of US to China to gain acceptance via glamour and representation
of American dream and culture. The content was structured and had a flow and a logic to the
entire discussion. They also seemed decently comfortable while having the dialogue between
them which showed that they were prepared, had a clear thought process and were wellpracticed to present in front of an audience.
One thing which I noticed in their presentation was that they did not present a hypothesis
explicitly. Though it was not difficult to gauge their hypothesis from the content that they
presented, it was not presented explicitly.
The presentation was made interesting with the use of properly placed videos, images and
examples throughout the course of the presentation. Slides also were well thought out and had
minimal text on them which was present only to guide the direction of the discussion. The
presenters were well versed with the presentation and were comfortable while switching
between the slides showing their preparedness.
In a nutshell, the group did well in terms of delivery and content. Though they did not explicitly
mentioned the hypothesis, it was quite easy to understand from their logic and content that
they had presented.

Group 12: Free Market

Points for content: 7.5/9
Points for delivery: 7.5/9

Justification
This group had a very structured and logical flow to their presentation. It was quite easy to
follow their presentation as the slides and the content were well thought out. The metaphor
was understood and explained by the presenters quite well. Because of their clarity of thought,
they were able to establish form vs. content quite well. Though the part and whole analysis
could have been done better. It was clear that free market was the part but the whole was not
very clear from their presentation.
Another feature that I noticed in their presentation was that multimedia (videos, images etc.)
used in their presentation was relevant to the topic, but did not do much help in adding any
value to the analysis that they had done.
The delivery of the presentation was well executed. It was evident from how the presenters
were so calm and composed during their presentation that they were prepared with the
content. Their slides followed a proper structure and their content delivery had a logical flow to
it. Because of all of this, they were able to keep the attention of the viewer for quite a long time
in the duration of the presentation. The content was well researched and had enough points on
each slide to put the point across well without making the slide look cluttered.
Making the presentation on Prezi was something that only this group attempted but it was
evident from the presentation that they were not very comfortable with the software as they
had to switch back and forth a few times during the course of presentation.
Overall, the presentation was good on content and delivery and well-rehearsed as well. The
choice of videos could have been better and they should have been more conversant with the
software.

Group 13: Oil

Points for content: 5.5/9
Points for delivery: 6/9

Justification
This was one presentation that I found quite confusing. The dialectical analysis is not very clear
in terms of their analysis of part and whole. It is clear that oil is their part, though what is their
whole is something that they leave to the understanding of audience which makes it confusing
when their structure of thought and content is not very clear in that regard. In other words,
they could have been more thought out in terms of their content and their structure and logic
of dialectical analysis.
Their logic behind their analysis of form vs. content was also not very thought out as the logic
that was used to establish the relation between the two was not very convincing. In short, the
content was not researched well and could have done better with a little more effort put in
their analysis.
The lack of content has had a visible impact on the delivery of the presentation as well. The
slides are heavily loaded with text and at times you can easily catch the presenters reading
directly from them.
The slide deck, as has been said earlier has a lot of text without having a lot of content. That
means at times the presentation becomes repetitive and boring with the presenter repeatedly
trying to say the same thing in different words.
The lack of proper structure and the repetition of content makes the entire presentation seem
more like it has been finished in a hurry. The content though is unstructured but some of it is
thought out. So if there is structure put into the entire presentation, it will not only make more
sense, but will be easier for the presenters as well to communicate with the audience in a much
more effective manner.

Group 14: Corporate Responsibility

Points for content: 5.5/9
Points for delivery: 5.5/9

Justification
Another group that could have done better with a bit more of preparation in terms of their
content as well as delivery. They had a good structure when they started with the history of CSR
and how it has evolved through the years.
Their content seemed thought out in the beginning though soon it became evident that it
lacked substance. From their logic, to the examples that they gave, reiterated on the same
point and none of them built upon the other to make an interesting premise.
Their conclusion hypothesis revolved around the idea that there is a continuous transfer of faith
of people and power is generally derived from the balance in the belief that exists between the
two of them. The hypothesis was interesting and thought out but there was not build up which
was leading to it, if you dont count the out of way explanation that the presenters tried to pull
off at the very end.
They also had no explicit mention of form vs. content and neither any explicit use of a
metaphor to make their analysis more interesting.
In terms of their delivery, they had a very standard PowerPoint presentation loaded with text.
This meant that rather than using the presentation as a guide for the discussion, the presenters
were caught reading directly from the slides at times. This hampers the interest that the
audience has in the speech of the person as well as the topic and makes the entire presentation
seem rather boring. There was very less flow of thought in the presentation and because of the
lack of structure, the transition from one topic/slide to the next was not very smooth.
The communication was also rather hesitant, and lacked the flow that comes when you know
the content on your presentation well. The presenters were taking a lot of pauses while

presenting to structure their thought. There were not many videos/images to keep the
audience interested as well.

Group 15: Document

Points for content: 7/9
Points for delivery: 7/9

Justification
The group was well researched in terms of what they presented to the entire class. Their
presentation was very content heavy and they had done a good analysis of form vs. content as
part of their presentation. The group had a fairly good number of examples from the Indian
context as well and their managerial parallel also seemed well thought out adding to the
structure of the content.
They started with talking about the Sharia law and how it lead to the formation of Kanoon-eUsmani during the Ottoman Empire. They had structured their presentation well though the
metaphor was not very well established during the course of their presentation.
They drew parallels from the Sharia law to NREGA, AFSPA and CSR which was quite logical and
added to the flow of the entire presentation. They proposed their hypothesis as documented
laws and democracy are just ways to subjugate and suppress the suppressed class and maintain
hegemony.
Though they had a good structure and logic to their entire presentation with good examples
from the Indian context, they did not seem to have much substance in terms of the content
derived from the original reading. Also, there seemed a lack of substance in terms of research
done in terms of examples that they gave during the presentation.
They had a standard PowerPoint presentation but effort was put to make sure that it did not
look cluttered. They used well spread out images and videos to keep the audience interested. In
terms of their communication, they were fluent and were able to put across their point to the
viewer well and seemed prepared enough to use the presentation only to guide the discussion
and not to read directly from it.

Group 16: Dream

Points for content: 8/9
Points for delivery: 7.5/9

Justification
This group was well prepared with their presentation in terms of content as well as delivery.
They had a good number of examples which were relevant to their case and their logic in terms
of their content was also well thought out. They used an act during their presentation to put
their point across to the audience in a relevant and interesting manner.
They named each technique explicitly before using it during their presentation and the clarity of
thought was evident from the way they were able to apply the technique to help their cause.
They touched upon a number of issues in the course of their presentation, comparing the image
of American Dream and how it is perceived. They also talked about how Walmart portrays itself
as compared to how their policies are in real life. Their hypothesis was that dreams are fulfilled
at the cost of all the workers which seemed well thought out.
They used metaphor and imagery very explicitly during the course of their presentation.
Presence of a very clear hypothesis linked well to the metaphor and imagery added to the flow
of the content which was presented in a very clear cut and to the point manner.
They had videos, images and examples well laid out during the presentation to keep the
audience interested which together with the fluent style of the presentation made it quite
interesting and engaging for the audience.
Their speech was fluent and they used the metaphor constantly while presenting to make sure
that they were on track and relevant to the discussion and motif that was given to them. The
videos used were relevant to their analysis and added value to the discussion. The initial video
of Walmart employees was shown in the beginning which worked well for them by catching the
attention of the viewers.