Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 August 28

= August 28 =

Success stories like Dilmah
I'm curious about this company and wonder if there are similar success stories. Dilmah is a tea brand established in Sri Lanka. It's a common complaint in the third world that as producers of commodities especially agricultural ones, it's the first world brands that make by far the most money selling to retailers while the third world producers get a raw deal just supplying the commodity. So a home-grown brand like Dilmah with worldwide retail links seems like the answer to this common complaint.

Are there any similar companies to Dilmah? By similar I mean a 1) recognized brand 2) from the third world and 3) in a sector where typically the same third world country is the producer but not able to capture much of the profits along the chain. There are other third world business success stories like Cemex, a multinational cement company originating from Mexico, but this doesn't fit the criteria although it's a brand from the third world, their business is to manage cement plants all across the world (the limestone for the cement is dug up locally from all the countries where Cemex operates).

Muzzleflash (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well there are other successful Sri Lankan brands, Indian brands and so on, and because of the way Wikipedia works most of those articles are written as though they are "success stories".--Shantavira|feed me 08:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * List of Mexican brands is helpful. Being next to the US and part of NAFTA has allowed them to tap into the huge US market, as well as the rest of the Americas.  However, the name of one of them, Kyoto Electronics, hints that they may be fighting a problem of perception as low quality by pretending to be Japanese (yes, they found a way to claim it's a Mexican name, but it looks to me like they intentionally chose a name that would be mistaken for Japanese).


 * One type of company to look for is local food producers. They may start making a local food for the local population, with large multi-nationals ignoring that product.  Then, if that product does catch on in other nations, they would have a head start on the competition.


 * Nations with money from other sources, like Gulf Arab nations with oil wealth, have the starting capital to compete on the world stage, such as Al Reef foods: . StuRat (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * [Copying comment by Muzzleflash from query below where it had clearly been placed mistakenly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.180.96 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)]
 * I can think of brands in India and China that can be considered examples of third world countries making an impression on the international stage but they don't exactly fit the criteria I've set up. For example the Indian conglomerate Tata Group has purchased a number of assets in the first world and operates them like Jaguar Land Rover, but that doesn't have much to do with India other than the brand being purchased by an Indian company. Chinese telecom equipment manufacturer Huawei is a leading example of a Chinese company developing the technology and manufacturing the high tech product it developed and then selling directly to first world markets, but I'm thinking of brands for selling commodities rather than technology companies. Anyways this discussion might prove what I've suspected, Dilmah is quite unique and is a unique model for addressing a commonly spoken of problem in the third world. Muzzleflash (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In a sense I suspect Dilmah also does not fit the mould you have in mind. Dilmah's "success story" really only began when it became, essentially, an Australian importer of Ceylon tea, although more vertically integrated in Sri Lanka than most exporter-importers.
 * Conceptually, I don't think its business model is much different from, for example, the US-based Deckers Corporation, which (mostly) exports Chinese sheep's wool products around the world under the brand "UGG Australia". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk)
 * While Dilmah got it's big break working with an Australian distributor, I disagree that at this point it would be dependent on this distributor as it sells its tea under its own brand. Local distributors at this point would be interchangeable for Dilmah as its the Dilmah name that carries the product forward. That's quite different from Chinese wool textile manufacturers selling to a foreign trading company that markets the product under a foreign brand. If the foreign trading company decided to source from somewhere else the Chinese wool textile manufacturers would be out of luck and as of now only collect a fraction of the profits along the chain of distribution. So Dilmah would in terms of share of profits and control over the distribution of its products globally be conceptually different from your wool textile example. And that's why I think Dilmah is worth studying. It's the solution to a common complaint but only Dilmah seems to have figured out the solution. Muzzleflash (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not quite my point - I'm not comparing Dilmah to a Chinese sheep farmer, I'm comparing it to the company that manufactures the ugg boots and exports it around the world. Specifically, Dilmah buys Sri Lankan tea, processes it and exports it to Australia (and now elsewhere); Deckers Corporation buys Chinese sheepskin, processes it and exports it around the world. Conceptually, it's the same business model. My point is, Dilmah started becoming a success story when its sales arm became essentially based in Australia (even today, it does not have a major domestic sales operation). That is, by developing that business arm it became something different from a mere Sri Lankan tea producer.
 * If you are thinking of Dilmah as a third world tea manufacturer that somehow made it big, then it made it big by becoming a first world importer. And the fact that it remains owned by a Sri Lankan family I think is neither here nor there, economically speaking. They certainly aren't poor tea farmers any more than the owners of the Deckers Corporation are poor sheep farmers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm having difficulty in following your first point in relation to my original point. You point out in both cases there is a producer (tea grower or wool textile manufacturer) and a trading company that holds a brand (Deckers or Dilmah). If Dilmah did not own any tea plantation then the basic similarity of business models is a given but I am not talking about basic business models. The crux of my discussion is about national identity of parties. From the start I don't think my point had to do with claiming Dilmah and the tea it sells breaks the mold of a producer and trading company relationship. It seems clear that what I wanted to discuss was local v. foreign ownership of a brand under which a commodity was sold. If my original question seemed to blur the distinction between producer and brand bearing trading company that's just because I've asked a short question focused on local v. foreign ownership of a brand rather than anything else.


 * You make a second point that even if Dilmah is a Sri Lankan owned company it's functionally an Australian company because its sales operations are in Australia. If the local owners of Dilmah were a jet setting bunch and the the dozens of traditional headquarters jobs and key employees were based in Australia then there would be no "here or there" to Dilmah being Sri Lankan owned. I don't know much about the company beyond buying some of their tea and reading the NYT article linked in the wiki article. However, the article conveys the impression of a family run business based in Sri Lanka with business interests in Sri Lanka including a tea plantation. If the key personnel (ie family members) are based in Sri Lanka that implies the dozens of traditional headquarters jobs are also in Sri Lanka. So Dilmah would be local in a meaningful sense. Muzzleflash (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I get that you are looking at this from the angle of economic development in third world countries. You seem to distinguish Dilmah and other companies with a similar model based on three criteria (or have I missed something?):
 * 1. The nationality of the owners. Whether Dilmah is owned by a Sri Lankan family or a Swiss family should in itself make only the tiniest of differences to the national economic wellbeing of either Sri Lanka or Switzerland. The wealth of one family, even if it is huge compared to other families, is still tiny compared to the national economy. So I think the nationality of the owners is economically irrelevant. Or do you think that's important?
 * Response: I've mentioned if the Sri Lankan owners were jetset types spending more time living in say Switzerland than Sri Lanka, from a development perspective, it wouldn't matter whether the owners are national or foreign. However, in the case of Dilmah it appears the owners are based locally and in general if owners are nationals who spend most of their time locally that likely has a positive effect on the national economy. High net worth individual tend to make more investments in familiar local terrain. The Times article about Dilmah illustrates this. The Dilmah owners appear to have invested dividends from Dilmah in a local tourism venture connected to tea growing. The argument of whether one family makes any difference is a strawman and certainly not an argument I've tried to make. It would require many other businesses in Sri Lanka to emulate the success of Dilmah to make a dent.
 * 2. Dilmah owns tea plantations. I don't know whether Deckers owns the sheep farms that produce the sheepskin used in its products, but does that make a fundamental difference? If market conditions are the same, wouldn't the same sheep/tea farmer still earn the same wage? Or do you think a vertically integrated business would pay its employees more? In any case, Dilmah is not unique as a vertically integrated producer-trader business.
 * Response: Whether the brand owns the production hasn't been a concern in my original question and I don't view it as one of importance for development. However, ownership of tea plantations by the owners of Dilmah could be another illustration of the positive effect I described in point 1 of the tendency of local high net worth individuals more likely to plow back profits into investments in local assets compared to foreign owners.
 * 3. Dilmah has "dozens of traditional headquarters jobs" in Sri Lanka. The Dilmah trading business started in Melbourne, and while according to press reports at 25% of the sales Australia is no longer their dominant target market, I don't know how much of the "traditional" headquarters is based in Sri Lanka beyond the administrative infrastructure necessary to support the manufacturing operation. Deckers also has an administrative infrastructure in China to suppor the manufacturing. Let's say for argument's sake that there are dozens of Dilmah headquarters jobs in Sri Lanka that someone like Deckers wouldn't have in China, is that the economically significant distinction you see?
 * Response: By traditional headquarters jobs I mean those managerial and administrative jobs that exist at the parent level. Since the key personnel (i.e. family members leading the company) are in Sri Lanka, it makes sense to assume dozens of traditional headquarters jobs would also be located where the key personnel are as these jobs have much interface with the company's leadership. Again it's a tiresome strawman to suggest my argument is one company's success changes a national economy. However, if many companies enjoy similar success it would add up to something meaningful.
 * I know I've led this thread astray, and please don't feel obliged to answer the questions I've posed above. I just don't quite see the economic significance of the differences you have identified between Dilmah and other trading businesses. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to each point below your text to make it easier. Muzzleflash (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Architecting or Engeniering
Cost of: 1) bricks, 2) rods, and 3) cement, 4) and so on.

A step by step guide in how to make a building using one self is desired please e.g., the tools and equipments that you need along with the materials. Hope you understand what I mean.

P.S: I’ve received a project, to refurbish a broken house. It requires the usual things like, doors, windows, toilet and things that goes along with it to make it a whole, e.g., joints and locks to hold the windows and doors, grills to make it safer along with nuts and bolts, toilet with sitting place and flushing box, shower and its equipments, and so on. A complete guide on how to make a house or a building will give me a rough idea to take the steps…

116.58.200.57 (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of self-build manuals around. Get one for your own country, as techniques, climate and regulations do vary.
 * This sort of quantity surveying is a difficult task. It's often the cause of projects failing, even by competent professional builders. It is fairly common for a good builder faced by a large or unusual project to outsource that work to a professional quantity surveyor. The cost isn't cheap, but the risk of not doing it is enormous.
 * It is quite rare for any one person to be a competent builder for all aspects of a building job, may not be legally possible in many countries (gas or electricity, maybe water, may need certified tradespeople) and it's very unusual for that to be the most efficient way of working. I'm a good carpenter, but a terrible bricklayer, so I always have someone else do my wet trades. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's why most building projects are managed by a general contractor. Some general contractors will directly employ specialists such as all those listed above, but many times the general contractor will only handle the management, and will subcontract some or all of the actual construction to specialty firms.  -- Jayron 32 18:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There can be some down-sides to that approach. The subcontractors may also contract out their work, etc., so you get a lot of money being taken by middle-men with little making it down to the workers, and "you get what you pay for", so you get third rate workers.  Also, if things don't get done right, or done at all, you find every level blames the other levels, and it's not clear who to believe.  So, individually contracting each worker avoids some of these pitfalls, but of course it's more work. StuRat (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note that architecture, for the design of a building, is not needed here if the intent is to keep the building the same as the original. Same with engineering, assuming the intent isn't to actually design a toilet, etc., but just to buy an existing one.  The skills needed are those of home repair. StuRat (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have a question (about video game characters being "buff")
I've got a question

I'm playing the game wolfenstein and the story is kind of wierd because the guy you play is really buff and strong like a body builder but you get to a bit where he basically nearly gets killed and basically he falls off like a castle or something into the water then he hurts his head and you wake up in the hospital place where this nurse cares for you and stuff and then you stay there for like 14 years basically and then the bit comes where the bad guys start killing everyone and stuff and you get up and defend the ppl well a lot of them die actually but why is he still really strong and like buff hes been in hospital for like 14 years but he looks like he has been working out lol its really wierd i dont know why wouldnt he be really skinny or somethiing theres no gym even lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.54.105 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a video game, that's why. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And apparently not an Indian movie, oddly enough. —Tamfang (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Physical therapy ? It's even theoretically possible to wake up from a long coma in muscular shape, if they did sufficient electrical muscle stimulation. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This question looks like it was written by a 12 year old? Don't we have an age limit on here? 80.195.5.225 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've seen a lot worse sentence structure and spelling from so-called adults. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Geolocates to Japan. μηδείς (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP 80.195.5.225 was blocked for a week, earlier this month. He might be about due again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see no reason not to answer Q's from kids. StuRat (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, in case he is reading this, the OP might want to learn a number of useful symbols, called punctuation. --Lgriot (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * They probably just gave his some of the health kits. (You know, the ones that can instantly restore you to full health having been shot almost to death). Iapetus (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)