“If a man write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mouse trap than his neighbour, tho’ he builds his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door”. R W Emerson
Ambi Parameswaran’s book, For God's Sake is an attempt to connect God and religion with buying and consumption habits of Indians. Ambi, a good columnist and former CEO of Draft FCB Ulka, a respected advertising agency, appears to have combined his over three decades of advertising experience with his PhD. in Religiosity to produce a mishmash. He has probably borrowed a lot from his dissertation to give the reader a fairly good bird’s eye view of the origins of religion in India, covering most faiths, their habits, customs, rituals, beliefs and behaviour. The trouble is when he tries to connect these with the way they approach a buying decision and how marketers use these insights to sell their products/services. There is another remarkable coincidence. The fact that his second name literally means God.
The book is replete with stereotypes that is the hallmark of most advertising practitioners from South Mumbai (the epicenter of which has now moved to Central Mumbai). I do not mean this in any disrespectful sense, but the days of putting the people of this country in tightly secured silos has come to an end.
The three most common symbols of traditional Indian women, the sari, the bindi and the mangalsutra are the three predominant symbols of Indian traditionalism. Their use in Indian advertising according to the author has almost vanished as the archetypal Indian woman has “evolved” and is now depicted in more neutral attire and appearance. If we go to any middle level shopping mall today and just watch women; the way  they are turned out, their outfits, makeup, accessories and body language, it would be obvious to the meanest of intelligence that they have transformed considerably from their mothers. Why can’t we just put this down to a natural process of modernisation without making too fine a point about it? 
Ambi writes about how banks (by this I suppose he means the banks of Indian origin) believe that the sari epitomises a meeker, less aggressive woman than a skirt or trouser wearing one. A sari is quite ubiquitous in the hospitality sector as well. These are insights bordering on the banal. The hedonistic fun-loving woman with a revealing dress is less hospitable than a sari wearing or for that matter a kimono clad Japanese woman, is highly debatable. The world has dramatically changed, especially in the last decade and in all probability, the sari wearing woman is more hedonistic than a trouser wearing one. Of course, it also depends on how the sari is draped. There are many instances of women with backless cholis, draped in skimpy saris that could look a lot more intimidating and aggressive than a trouser wearing one.
Then there is the matter of the bindis. If a bindi wearing girl is considered a “behenji”and is advocating a brand of skin care cream, then this will not cut ice with the real bindi wearing consumer who subliminally believes that wearing a bindi is so uncool. Hasn’t the Sati Savitriri of yesteryears Hindi cinema metamorphosed into a vodka drinking babe?
According to Ambi, women pray more than men do. By and large they are second class citizens in India and their inferior status drives them to turn to God. They are inclined to find solace in the worship. Although I doubt if this is true, even so, this hardly gives any earth-shattering insight for a marketer.  According to me, the thin line between man and woman is blurring rapidly. As a result, you will increasingly find women playing the dominant role of the main earner of the family and in the near future, men may find the satisfying vocation of becoming house-husbands. 
Weddings undoubtedly have become a mega business in India and many advertisers and film makers have focused their themes to considerable success. The big fat Indian wedding, with its obscene budgets, ostentatious functions, elaborate Sangeets, destination celebrations, et al is in perfect harmony with the matching of Kundalis, search for auspicious dates, numerology, Vastu compliant habitats etc.  Why not?  Mankind is remarkably superstitious across nations. You will not find any 13th floor in most New York skyscrapers.
The author also talks about the significance of festivals and how marketers use these to connect their products with them. Thanksgiving is celebrated in America for the same reason as Ugadi, or Baisakhi or Pongal: Simply because human beings have for centuries been an agrarian society and celebrated a bountiful harvest.
The luxury goods industry has often designed their products around the image of God in various forms. There seems to be a strong affinity between the super rich and God with products by Swarovski and Lladro using a variety of Gods like Lord Venkateshwara, Ganapathi in 18 carat gold set in diamonds, rubies and emeralds
Ambi has presented quite a few examples that establish the fact that behind every successful marketing campaign there is invariably a diabolically simple idea based on an insight. Sadly, he has cited a few dated cases from the 1990’s that unfortunately seems quite out of place in this age of cloud computing and nomadic connectivity. The examples of Jaslok Hospital in 1990 and WorldSpace in 1995 are both passé. He laments the disappearance of WorldSpace and rightfully so. In fact, it was the MP3 and the Internet that rang the toll bells for WorldSpace.
For God’s Sake is positioned as a book on the business of religion but that is exactly what Ambi has not covered. The millions of dollars that the “saints”, the sadhu’s and self-styled god-men make giving gyan on religiosity to a wide cross-section of people that includes spirituality, meditation, blessings, pujas, havans and more. 
In a couple of places, Ambi mentions a belief that is vanishing rapidly: the presumption that consumerism and religion are two opposite ends of the spectrum. This means that a religious (or spiritual) person is one who is alienated from material things and shuns them. Why should there be a dichotomy between a deeply spiritual being and his penchant for fashionable couture and indulging in material acquisitions? In other words, why should the monk sell his Ferrari? The almighty never said that man must lead ascetic lives in order to be close to him. 
If the Devil can wear Prada, God will wear Gucci.