Bollywood Super Star who is appointed as Brand Ambassador of Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, India"s leading paint manufacturer? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Bollywood Super Star who is appointed as Brand Ambassador of Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, India"s leading paint manufacturer?

Answer: Shahrukh Khan.

Reply

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->Bollywood Super Star who is appointed as Brand Ambassador of Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, India"s leading paint manufacturer?....

QA->Which country"s leading decorative paint brand is French White?....

QA->WhichIndian Bollywood actress has been appointed as the new brand ambassador forgovernment’s flagship Skill India campaign?....

QA->WHICH BOLLYWOOD ACTRESS HAS BECOME THE BRAND AMBASSADOR OF ASSAM TOURISM....

QA->Bollywood superstar who has been appointed as the good will ambassador of South Korea?....

MCQ-> DIRECTIONS for the following three questions: Answer the questions on the basis of the information given below.

Rang Barsey Paint Company (RBPC) is in the business of manufacturing paints. RBPC buys RED, YELLOW, WHITE, ORANGE, and PINK paints. ORANGE paint can be also produced by mixing RED and YELLOW paints in equal proportions. Similarly, PINK paint can also be produced by mixing equal amounts of RED and WHITE paints. Among other paints, RBPC sells CREAM paint, (formed by mixing WHITE and YELLOW in the ratio 70:30) AVOCADO paint (formed by mixing equal amounts of ORANGE and PINK paint) and WASHEDORANGE paint (formed by mixing equal amounts of ORANGE and WHITE paint). The following table provides the price at which RBPC buys paints.The cheapest way to manufacture AVOCADO paint would cost
...

MCQ-> Answer questions based on the following information: An automobiles company’s annual sales of its small cars depends on the state of the economy as well as on whether the company uses some high profile individual as its brand ambassador in advertisements of its product. The state of the economy is “good”, “okay” and “bad” with probabilities 0.3, 0.4 and 0.3 respectively. The company may choose a high profile individual as its brand ambassador in TV ads or may go for the TV ads without a high profile brand ambassador. If the company fixes price at Rs. 3.5 lakh, the annual sales of its small cars for different states of the economy and for different kinds of TV ads are summarized in table 1. The figures in the first row are annual sales of the small cars when the company uses a high profile individual as its brand ambassador in its TV ads and the ones in the second row are that when the company does not use any brand ambassador in TV ads, for different states of the economy. Table 1:

Without knowing what exactly will be the state of the company in the coming one year, the company will either have to sign a TV ad contract with some high profile individual, who will be the company’s brand ambassador for its small car for the next one year, or go for a TV ad without featuring any high profile individual. It incurs a cost of Rs. 3.45 lakh (excluding the payment to the brand ambassador) to put a car on the road. When the company’s profit is uncertain, the company makes decisions on basis of its expected profit. If the company can earn a profit xi with probability pi (the probability depends on the state of economy), then the expected profit of the company is $$\sum_1XiPi$$The maximum that the company can afford to pay its brand ambassador is
...

MCQ-> The table below presents the revenue (in million rupees) of four firms in three states. These firms, Honest Ltd., Aggressive Ltd., Truthful Ltd. and Profitable Ltd. are disguised in the table as A,B,C and D, in no particular order.

Further, it is known that:[list][*]In the state of MP, Truthful Ltd. has the highest market share.[*]Aggressive Ltd.’s aggregate revenue differs from Honest Ltd.’s by Rs. 5 million.[/list]What can be said regarding the following two statements?Statement 1: Profitable Ltd. has the lowest share in MP market.Statement 2: Honest Ltd.’s total revenue is more than Profitable Ltd.
...

MCQ->Mr. Raheja, the president of Alpha Ltd., a construction company, is studying his company’s chances of being awarded a Rs. 1,000 crore bridge building contract in Delhi. In this process, two events interest him. First, Alpha’s major competitor Gamma Ltd, is trying to import the latest bridge building technology from Europe, which it hopes to get before the deadline of the award of contact. Second, there are rumors that Delhi Government is investigating all recent contractors and Alpha Ltd is one of those contractors, while Gamma Ltd is not one of those. If Gamma is able to import the technology and there is no investigation by the Government, then Alpha’s chance of getting contract is 0.67. If there is investigation and Gamma Ltd is unable to import the technology in time, the Alpha’s chance is 0.72. If both events occur, then Alpha’s chance of getting the contract is 0.58 and if none events occur, its chances are 0.85. Raheja knows that the chance of Gamma Ltd being able to complete the import of technology before the award date is 0.80. How low must the probability of investigation be, so that the probability of the contract being awarded to Alpha Ltd is atleast 0.65? (Assume that occurrence of investigation and Gamma’s completion of import in time is independent to each other.)...

MCQ-> The painter is now free to paint anything he chooses. There are scarcely any forbidden subjects, and today everybody is prepared o admit that a painting of some fruit can be as important as painting of a hero dying. The Impressionists did as much as anybody to win this previously unheard of freedom for the artist. Yet, by the next generation, painters began to abandon tie subject altogether, and began to paint abstract pictures. Today the majority of pictures painted are abstract.Is there a connection between these two developments? Has art gone abstract because the artist is embarrassed by his freedom? Is it that, because he is free to paint anything, he doesn’t know what to paint? Apologists for abstract art often talk of it as Inc art of maximum freedom. But could this be the freedom of the desert island? It would take too long to answer these questions properly. I believe there is a connection. Many things have encouraged the development of abstract art. Among them has been the artists’ wish to avoid the difficulties of finding subjects when all subjects are equally possible.I raise the matter now because I want to draw attention to the fact that the painter’s choice of a subject is a far more complicated question than it would at first seem. A subject does not start with what is put in front of the easel or with something which the painter happens to remember. A subject starts with the painter deciding he would like to paint such-and-such because for some reason or other he finds it meaningful. A subject begins when the artist selects something for special mention. (What makes it special or meaningful may seem to the artist to be purely visual — its colours or its form.) When the subject has been selected, the function of the painting itself is to communicate and justify the significance of that selection.It is often said today that subject matter is unimportant. But this is only a reaction against the excessively literary and moralistic interpretation of subject matter in the nineteenth century. In truth the subject is literally the beginning and end of a painting. The painting begins with a selection (I will paint this and not everything else in the world); it is finished when that selection is justified (now you can see all that I saw and felt in this and how it is more than merely itself).Thus, for a painting to succeed it is essential that the painter and his public agree about what is significant. The subject may have a personal meaning for the painter or individual spectator; but there must also be the possibility of their agreement on its general meaning. It is at this point that the culture of the society and period in question precedes the artist and his art. Renaissance art would have meant nothing to the Aztecs — and vice versa. If, to some extent, a few intellectuals can appreciate them both today it is because their culture is an historical one: its inspiration is history and therefore it can include within itself, in principle if not in every particular, all known developments to date.When culture is secure and certain of its values, it presents its artists with subjects. The general agreement about what is significant is so well established that the significance of a particular subject accrues and becomes traditional. This is true, for instance, of reeds and water in China, of the nude body in Renaissance, of the animal in Africa. Furthermore in such cultures the artist is unlikely to be a free agent: he will be employed for the sake of particular subjects, and the problem, as we have just described it, will not occur to him.When a culture is in a state of disintegration or transitions the freedom of the artist increases — but the question of subject matter becomes problematic for him: he, himself, has to choose for society. This was at the basis of all the increasing crises in European art during the nineteenth century. It is too often forgotten how any of the art scandals of that time were provoked by the choice of subject (Gericault, Courbet, Daumier, Degas, Lautrec, Van Gogh, etc.).By the end of the nineteenth century there were, roughly speaking, two ways in which the painter could meet this challenge of deciding what to paint and so choosing for society. Either he identified himself with the people and so allowed their lives to dictate his subjects to him or he had to find his subjects within himself as painter. By people I mean everybody except the, bourgeoisie. Many painters did of course work for the bourgeoisie according to their copy-book of approved subjects, but all of them, filling the Salon and the Royal Academy year after year, are now forgotten, buried under the hypocrisy of those they served so sincerely.When a culture is insecure, the painter chooses his subject on the basis of:
...