MxMIndia

Category: BLOGS

  • In India, food television remains peripheral, almost inconsequential. Food channels and food shows are one of the several genres that fall into a huge bucket called "niche television", says Shailesh Kapoor in his weekly column, TV Trail

    Shailesh Kapoor: India’s Unwritten Food Story

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Some eat to live, some live to eat. But everyone loves food. A good meal at the end of a long, hard day can make it all seem worth it. From wedding banquets to celebrations to business deals, food is always around to make its presence felt. Except on Indian television!

     

    A few years ago, ahead of the launch of his channel, leading chef Sanjeev Kapoor had mentioned to us on why he thought a food channel should be in the top 5 channels in India, if not better. He quoted several examples from across the world, of food shows and channels that have surpassed the best of the drama series and reality shows to become the most popular shows in their countries.

     

    Recently, I read this on the Wiki page of MasterChef Australia: The finale of the first season of the show surpassed the previous high for a non-sporting event in Australia since 2001, beating Australian Idol’s 2004 finale. It is currently the fourth highest rated program in Australia ever. It was also the most watched TV show in Australia in 2009.

     

    Food television has made its mark at the global stage, especially when the content has lived up to the standards set by mainstream television. In India, though, food television remains peripheral, almost inconsequential. Food channels and food shows are one of the several genres that fall into a huge bucket called “niche television”. They only get audience big enough to barely keep them going. Not too many of us will notice if they stopped being there on television altogether from tomorrow morning.

     

    We have a fairly strongly food culture as a nation. Our food has managed to make its mark around the world (often in versions that Indians will abhor and disown). Indian food has the variety, the spunk and the uniqueness that makes it stand out. Why, then, does it not work on our own television?

     

    Some argue that our broadcasters haven’t given the genre a fair chance yet. Star Plus came out with two seasons of MasterChef India. They met with moderate success. The second season was eminently watchable and got good audience response. But when you compare its performance to mainstream non-fiction like Dance India Dance, it begins to look “niche” anyway. A third season has not been announced yet. After all, there may not be much room for “niche” content on the prime time of the leading GEC of the country.

     

    In my opinion, there are three complexities that make food television a daunting programming genre in India. The first one is our cultural diversity itself. While our rich food heritage should be a positive, it creates a divide as well. You can’t get an average Indian to appreciate food beyond what he or she enjoys eating. Try selling the idea of good Gujarati food to a Punjabi, and you are almost certain to run into a cultural wall. We may be food-loving, but we are not a food-appreciating nation.

     

    This lack of appreciation creates a challenge for food programmers. How do you create content that pleases a Maharashtrian, a Tamilian, a Punjabi and a Bengali equally? There is no lowest common denominator to address here. The segments are mutually exclusive!

     

    The second challenge comes in the form of the aversion to non-vegetarian food in our mass audiences. A large (estimated 40%+) section of India’s population is vegetarian. Even KFC has started an oxymoronic vegetarian menu in this country. Non-vegetarian food is a taboo for many, and hence, a television show that captures any form of meat being cooked or shown (like in the food travel shows a la The Foodie) loses half its audience base instantly. The research response to such shows can often be: “Usmein non-veg dikhaate hain, yeh hamare culture mein nahin hai.”

     

    Having programming purely on vegetarian food is not a solution either. For one, the top chefs don’t like the idea. It defeats the entire purpose of showcasing variety and spreading food awareness. Also, the sizeable non-vegetarian population wants to see chicken and lamb being cooked to perfection on screen. No compromises there either. Yet another case of two mutually-exclusive, hard-to-please audience segments.

     

    But the third reason is the most interesting one. It is rooted in the socio-cultural reality of our country. A reality that dictates that women in our country spend a large amount of their daily time in the kitchen, preparing three meals and the in-between courses for their families, all alone, without any real help. Remember, we are talking of kitchens that are essentially devoid of equipment that saves manual work or time. It’s a grind, literally.

     

    As a result, most Indian women begin to dislike (“hate” may be too strong a word) cooking very early in their lives. They take great pride in their food, because a well-cooked dish at the in-laws is a triumphant moment. But that’s a triumph that’s more to do with the delicate nature of the saas-bahu relationship, and less to do with food.

     

    After exhausting herself in an unfriendly kitchen, the woman doesn’t want to see a glamourised kitchen with fancy ingredients on the TV screen. That’s a world she will never inhabit. A world she is not even remotely familiar with. A world she envies to the extent that she looks down upon it.

     

    Now, how will this change? Social-cultural reality does not change. It only evolves, bit by bit, at its own pace. The challenge for broadcasters in India is to adapt their food content to the realities of the Indian woman. The chefs in plush five-stars may do well with a visit to an average middle-class family kitchen in Kolhapur or Kanpur. That’s the reality of food in India. That has to be the starting point of truly mass food television in this country. It can be glamourised and made aspirational, but only to the point of not being irrelevant.

     

    Food can never be a “niche” genre on television. Anywhere. It is more central to our lives than almost everything else besides relationships. Any country whose television treats food as “niche” has an opportunity waiting to be tapped, however challenging the opportunity may be.

     

    Some food for thought there?

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media & entertainment research and consulting firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

     

  • In this maddening age of weekly ratings, there is a word that is hugely under-rated and way more important than differentiator, positioning and strategy, writes Shailesh Kapoor in the 'TV Trail'

    Shailesh Kapoor | The all-important C-Word

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    There’s never a dull moment in the broadcasting industry. Fortunes fluctuate every Wednesday morning, when text messages and e-mails with weekly ratings do the rounds of senior management across channels. A large part of the organization’s resource during the day is then spent on analysing, slicing and dicing every possible data point to understand how the week-that-was performed. Often, tactical programming decisions (now we even have a word for it – stunting) are taken to improve the prospects of the half-week that remains, and the new week that’s about to start on Sunday.

     

    Some such tactical steps may work. They may give a boost to the ratings next Wednesday, or the one that follows thereafter. Being an ardent supporter of (good) quantitative research, I have never looked down upon the over-analysis syndrome that some channels tend to exhibit. However, it does make me ask myself – To what effect?

     

    Are you making a fundamental change? Is anything “really” changing? Three weeks later, it will be back to square one anyway. And then, you will start all over again. More tactical data crunching, more stunting, more mathematics. The more you try, the more you realize the futility of it.

     

    In this maddening age of weekly ratings, there is a word that is hugely under-rated. A word that hardly gets spoken of, let alone understood. A word that is way more important than (what-have-now-become) clichés like differentiator, positioning and strategy. It’s the C-word. C for ‘Consistency’.

     

    Consistency, in this context, is about doing most things right all the time. Every single time, not just sometimes. Every single time, not just when the pressure of ratings has piled up. Every single time, not just when you can feel the heat.

     

    Our television industry inherently operates on the premise that with creative products, you can’t do things right all the time. It is popular belief that if you launch eight new shows in a year, four or five of them are bound to fail. Or that if you introduce four new anchors, only one may actually make an impact on the audience. And the most important one: If you make ten promos, only two or three of them will do their job.

     

    In most other industries, success rates of this nature will be frowned upon. In television, the concept of failure rate has been slowly institutionalized. Now, I don’t claim to have any magic formula. No one does. But between 25% success rate and 100% success rate, there is still a yawning gap of 75%. Being consciously aware of that, all the time, is what consistency is all about.

     

    Why is consistency important? Because the consumer rewards consistency more than he or she rewards an isolated success story. Would a housewife rather than a channel that has six good programmes, or watch a channel that has one excellent programme and five poor ones? Would you like to watch a music channel that airs good music all the time, or one that airs a few awesome songs interspersed between many not-so-awesome ones?

     

    Lack of consistency manifests itself in various ways in our television business. Some examples that one gets to experience very regularly:

     

    1. The programme was doing very well, so the content head put it in auto-mode, handing it over to a junior executive, taking his own eyes off it in the process. The story begins to drag and the audiences begin to drop out. By the time the ratings paint the real picture of consumer dissatisfaction, it can be upto eight weeks. The damage is done. The programme has now officially entered panic mode. From being a winner that could have been nurtured by ‘consistently’ focusing on consumer satisfaction, the programme is now a problem child no one knows what to make of.

    2. The channel had about 3-4 back-to-back successes. So new formats and slots are opened up in the name of experimentation. Nothing wrong with that, as long as experimentation is not confused with a carte blanche to go wrong. ‘Experimental content’ is launched without consumer validation. In the process of doing it, the 3-4 successes have started losing attention. Back to point 1.

    3. The channel has decided it will run at least two promos per break. Enough analysis has gone into validating the importance of this promo time. Gradual build in viewership can also be seen as a result. Then comes the festive season, and the promo time is cut to less than 30%, to accommodate excess inventory. Once Diwali is over, we will go back to two promos per break, it is said. But in effect, you also go back to day zero, when you put that policy in place.

     

    I will excuse you for finding my tone cynical. But I have found that it is much easier to communicate a complex, non-linear mathematical model, or a layered and nuanced consumer thought, than the incredibly simple idea of consistency. Of course, there is enough intelligence in the system to process this simple idea. What may be lacking is the realization that consistency can win you far more success than isolated acts of brilliance can.

     

    Malcolm Gladwell’s ‘The 10,000 hours rule’ says that in order for an individual to master any complex skill, he or she must put in 10,000 hours of practice. That’s about four years of hectic work. In television, that’s way too much time to wait for. But can you give something you believe in at least 13 weeks, and do it well? Really, really well?

     

    I often dream of entering a television client’s office on a Wednesday morning, when everything is calm enough for it to be a Tuesday. Nobody is panicking. There’s a plan being executed over a year. The plan has been debated, tested and firmed up with inputs across stakeholders. A plan that the leadership believes in enough to back it whole-heartedly. A plan that has a sense of assured confidence, almost cockiness, around it. A plan that is Wednesday-proof.

     

    Possible for this dream to come true? But then, we won’t be Indians, right?

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media & entertainment research and consulting firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • If the market is getting younger, why are marketers succeeding with 'older' shows like Ramayan and Mahadev, asks Shailesh Kapoor in his weekly column, TV Trail

    Shailesh Kapoor: Myth-or-logical?!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    We hear it all the time. That India is getting younger. That we should think of the 13-24 years segment as “screenagers”, not as teenagers or youth. That Facebook is bigger than Star Plus, Zee TV, Sony or Colors for them today. That they would rather watch edgy fiction content on Channel V than (what some believe are) afternoon soaps masquerading as prime time entertainment on television.

     

    Our marketers are obsessed with the young generation. Arguably, they have their reasons. “Consumption” is being increasingly fuelled by the youth, making them the low-hanging fruit for several product categories.

     

    But when it comes to television, there’s another story we need to know. A story that’s in sharp contrast to the oft-stereotyped tale of the screen-agnostic, gadget-happy youth. It’s the story of religious and mythological programmes continuing to succeed like never before. A story that may appear to be counter-intuitive to the young Indian theory, but is actually firmly grounded in the reality of our fascinating country.

     

    Over the last two weeks, the newest GEC on the block, Life OK, has scaled new heights, riding on the popularity of its flagship show Devon Ke Dev Mahadev. The recent ‘shaadi’ track, where Mahadev and Parvati get married, has been a runaway success. Mahadev now features in the top 7 Hindi GEC characters on popularity in our monthly research ‘Characters India Loves’, ahead of iconic characters like Akshara and Archana.

     

    Last Sunday, Zee TV launched the third television adaptation of Ramayan, with a simulcast on Doordarshan. The second adaptation provided a creditable launch pad to NDTV Imagine in January 2008. Sceptics argued that it worked because it came 20 years after the original Doordarshan version. However, that theory has been disproved with the encouraging response to the Zee TV show.

     

    To their credit, both Mahadev and Ramayan are well-produced programmes that manage to engage and entertain. But that’s not enough to explain their wide acceptance, especially in the wake of the young India theory. But there’s another reason indeed.

     

    We conducted a nation-wide study recently to understand the profile of the ‘remote controller’ in single TV households in India. The results were anything but ‘young’. In weekday prime time, the median age of the ‘remote controller’ is… hold your breath… 35 years, with almost 70 percent of them being women. So, from 7-11pm on Monday to Friday, when a large amount of advertiser money is being spent, a 35-year old housewife is the bull’s eye answer to “who decides what plays on TV”.

     

    On weekends, the median age gets a bit younger, but is still 25 years, with a near-equal male-female ratio. Technically, even this audience is outside the stereotypical definition of “youth”. After all, a large section of urban Indian audience (70%+) is already married at the age of 25.

     

    Can you see the chicken-and-egg question here? Do “youth” prefer Facebook and co. to television because they have no control over the remote, or do they lack control over the remote because they have voluntarily given it up? Complex as the explanation may be for this medium, I can safely say that the former is more accurate than the latter. In the way our family viewing patterns have emerged over the last two decades, the all-important remote control has acquired an ownership configuration completely divergent from what the young India theory should suggest. And these viewing patterns are unlikely to change in a hurry, till the multi-TV phenomenon begins to become a significant factor in India.

     

    That brings me back to mythology. It’s content made for the 35+ females segment. These are mothers whose kids are on the verge of entering their teenage. Reinforcement of religion, culture and values is of paramount importance, to both her own self and for her child. NDTV Imagine promoted Ramayan as “Ek Achhi Aadat”. Zee TV is promoting it as “Jeevan Ka Aadhaar”. Both messages aptly reflect the mindset of a 35+ woman who is battling generation gap and upbringing issues around her children. She loves to watch the “mythos”, and also hopes that her child watches along. Sometimes willingly, sometimes grudgingly.

     

    When Ekta Kapoor tried to push the envelope with Mahabharat, the audience rejected her idea of glamorizing sacred material instantly. But give it to them within their values framework, and there’s nothing more potent than good mythology on the small screen.

     

    So, for all the talk of being a young country, the pre-liberalization generation still decides what gets watched on TV. But then, we have always been a dichotomous country. One where Rakhi Sawant and Mahadev can get married with equal fanfare and razzmatazz.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media & entertainment research and consulting firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

     

     

  • Introducing a new weekly column by Shailesh Kapoor, co-founder and CEO of Ormax Media. Mr Kapoor will write on the business (and craft) of television content

    New weekly column by Shailesh Kapoor: Primetime Fiction – Reasons for Seasons?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Of all my client interactions, I enjoy the ones with foreign clients (often from head offices of their Indian companies) the most. There’s a specific reason for it. The amazement and the child-like inquisitiveness with which they react to research based on mass Indian audiences is so gratifying. Our primetime fiction content is beyond the realms of their comprehension, let alone appreciation. I was once asked: “So are you telling me that every single show that comes on weekdays primetime in India is a family drama?” My attempt to explain that ‘family drama’ is an overarching box with about 7-8 genres within it lasted only a few seconds.

     

    However, one of the more relevant and genuinely thought-provoking questions I’ve been asked by broadcasters from outside India is: “Why don’t you have seasons in fiction shows in India? Why does everything go on and on and on?”

     

    We know the stereotypical responses to this, don’t we? Three most common answers will be:

     

    1. Indian audiences don’t know the concept of seasons. It is a foreign thing.

    2. Only one out of four fiction shows actually succeeds, so why give it a season’s break and run the risk of not getting the audiences back.

    3. It’s a drastic idea and we are not in a position to experiment right now.

     

    All these responses are based on a natural tendency to exercise risk aversion. But neither the (ex) television executive nor the researcher in me approves of any of these answers. In fact, I have a robust argument here to prove why a seasonal approach to daily fiction will be a runaway success in India.

     

    Primetime fiction in India is based on the premise of the audience, particularly women, being addicted (and I choose the word carefully) to watching the life of certain ordinary, people-like-us characters unfold in a dramatic, extraordinary manner. All the enduring success stories in the last 12 years have come from this central thought, which our foreign friends simplistically and erroneously classify as “family drama”.

     

    Then why do serials begin to lose audiences? It is popular knowledge that shelf life of serials today is significantly lesser than what is was before 2008. Most successful serials peak within one year, and are well past their prime by the end of their second year. Very few like Balika Vadhu manage to complete four years of a successful run, not withstanding the hiccups on the way. Is addiction so ephemeral?

     

    Serials lose audiences because there is an equally powerful force that counters ‘addiction’. I call it ‘extension’. If you have had the privilege (no other word describes the experience) of attending qualitative research on serials with housewives as the target audience, you will be familiar with two phrases: “Pehle achha tha, aajkal chewing (pronounced ‘chingum’) ki tarah kheench rahe hain” and “Story ko round-round ghuma rahe hain.”

     

    Almost every serial becomes a victim of this ‘extension’ once it completes about 100 episodes. It becomes the proverbial chewing gum, or the vicious circle in which it has trapped itself. Only to come out momentarily before being trapped again.

     

    Even before 2008, serials had extension issues. But at that time, options were far and few. The number of GECs were lesser, the number of TV channels even more so. The consumer was not spoilt for choices. She accepted extension as a part of her TV life. Today, she is exercising her choice and actively rejecting extension. Because she has another serial in the same slot, waiting with a sizeable dose of addiction that is currently free of extension.

     

    We all know why extension happens. Daily serial production, with 260 episodes a year, is a breathless, never-ending assembly line. There is no time to take a break, because there are no episodes in the bank. Anecdotes of content being recorded on the evening of the telecast are so common; no one bats an eyelid when you narrate them, except the foreign friends of course.

     

    It is humanly impossible to ideate at this fervent pace round the year. Even the smartest, most creative brains will operate at sub-optimal levels when consistently pushed against ridiculous timelines. And when that happens, extension, often unknowingly, is their best friend.

     

    My estimate is that about 70% of an executive producer’s time (both at the production house as well as the channel) is spent on operational running of his/ her programmes. Only 30% is spent on ideation and creativity, which incidentally form the bedrock of the job profile.

     

    Now imagine a scenario where a top-rated show comes in seasons – One season a year of about 4-6 months. But the team on the show works round the year to make this happen. Instantly, the extension issues will be solved. There will be scripts in the kitty and episodes in the bank. There will be time to breathe, to ideate and to execute with full strength. There will be no need to stretch the chewing gum or go on a merry-go-round trip.

     

    What about addiction? For me, that’s the best part of it. Seasonal breaks can fuel addiction like nothing else can. Internationally, this has been proven beyond doubt. Common-sensically, if you take away what she is addicted to, she will yearn for it even more. And when she gets it back, she will see it with fresh eyes, with even more excitement than before. As long as the addiction center (read lead character) is unchanged, this will always work.

     

    What’s the flipside? Only one. A seasonal approach requires a higher investment to make it deliver to its full potential, because you need to commit to a team on the show for the entire year, amortized over only about 100-130 episodes, instead of 260. But compare this incremental cost to the investment that’s sunk in a serial that fails, and you know that this is a non-issue.

     

    Is someone likely to try this anytime soon? I will not bet on it for 2013 at least. Our GECs are more cautious and less experimental today, than they were a few years ago. The seasons idea may be too bold to buy into currently, given the musical chairs battle for the top four spots that they are currently engaged in.

     

    But at some stage, the future should be more seasonal. Hopefully.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media & entertainment research and consulting firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

     

     

  • Since ratings of reality shows don't quite leapfrog with film star appearances though they do provide that bump at the box-office for movies, it's time our TV industry reflects on its Bollywood obsession, notes Shailesh Kapoor in his weekly column, TV Trail

    Shailesh Kapoor: Film Stars on TV – Free For All

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The entertainment industry comes alive every time a big budget film releases. It’s one such week. Everyone in the industry is talking about Ek Tha Tiger. Everyone has a view on it. Not just on its content but on its box office prospects too. The “everyone” also includes the television fraternity. Ek Tha Tiger’s fate at the box-office may not concern most of them directly, but it’s a favourite topic of discussion anyway, with a certain ‘coolness’ tag attached to it.

     

    I have always wondered why television has this keen professional interest in Bollywood, but not vice versa. Last year, when I mentioned Balika Vadhu as a recommended promotional platform to a top Bollywood star who wanted to target female audiences for his upcoming film, I may as well have spoken Greek. He hadn’t even heard of Balika Vadhu. I had to subtly tell him that it gets more audience every single day, than the lifetime audience of the biggest Hindi film put together.

     

    The historical argument may be obvious. Because films came before television, they continue to feature higher up in the pecking order. Also understandably, Bollywood has a larger-than-life aura around it, creating aspiration for TV stars. But very few TV executives aspire to work in film studios. Yet many wear their fascination for films on their sleeve.

     

    Things begin to become interesting (not in the positive way) when this fascination begins to influence business decisions. The most common example of this is the appearance of film stars in reality shows (and now even serials). These unpaid appearances are seen as a win-win situation for both sides. You get to promote your film, while our programme benefits from your star power.

     

    But here’s the catch. The situation may not be win-win in equal measure. We have conclusive quantitative data to prove that reality show appearances impact the box-office prospects of unreleased films significantly. The Monday-after buzz of a big film always show a sizeable jump, especially if the reality shows are in the top league, a la Dance India Dance. This jump is even more significant when the integration is executed well, than just being reduced to the stars making an appearance that adds little to the content.

     

    Hence, it should make a lot of sense if producers obsess about which reality shows their stars should appear in, and in which week. Some recent conversations with film studios are in the ballpark: “Let’s see what the tracking looks like on Monday, I have got Indian Idol and Jhalak on the weekend.”

     

    But is the reverse true? Does the viewership of a reality show (or a serial) witness a sizeable jump when a star appears in an otherwise regular episode of the program? Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that the answer may be in the negative. Such integrations are no longer novel for the TV viewer, and hence, their ability to influence ratings is becoming increasingly limited.

     

    Then why should a producer, who pays upto Rs 3 million for a print ad, not pay a rupee for getting a wider, more contextual (audio-video and entertainment) medium to meet the same objectives better? Because TV has never asked for it! Because the pecking order is twisted enough for old-school film producers and stars to still believe that they, and not the channel, are the ones extending a favour by making an “appearance”.

     

    Bollywood has always being savvy when it comes to dealing with television. They track ratings and come up with the most tangential arguments to hike satellite prices year after year, pricing their films far more than what a “fair market price” should be. When the top stars are signed for reality shows as hosts or jury, their fees constitute a major portion of the reality show budget, often unreasonably so. Yet, when it comes to using the medium for their film’s promotion, they know how to get it done free.

     

    Someone needs to bell the proverbial cat here. If you can charge a brand millions to put its logo on a reality show, why should a producer, who gets to showcase his promo and his film “in-programme” for almost an hour, not pay? Make them pay, and if they don’t, let them skip reality shows as a medium of promotion. Sooner than later, they will get used to the idea. As they must!

     

    As our TV industry matures, we need to reflect upon our film star obsession. In MasterChef Australia, there are no film stars. In the second season of the Indian version, we didn’t miss Akshay Kumar. In fact, he arguably spoilt the finale of an otherwise well-executed season. We need to see more such case studies. Dance India Dance is indeed a brilliant one, with three unknown judges becoming popular celebrities today, on the back of the show. But we need more than these rare one-offs.

     

    There are an estimated 400 million people in India who have never been to a theatre, but watch primetime GEC content across various languages every night. Like our film star didn’t know what Balika Vadhu is, majority of these 400 million don’t know who Ranbir Kapoor is. So, if he appears on Balika Vadhu to promote his next film, he will be David and she will be Goliath. Not the other way round!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media & entertainment research and consulting firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • If we can develop single platform to track the media consumption habits, it would take consumer-centricity to a new level, writes Ritu Midha

    Ritu Midha: A single media measurement platform, anyone?

    By Ritu Midha

     

    Earlier this week, I had an interesting conversation with a friend who was stuck in traffic in Mumbai’s Western Express Highway. Jammed close to a hoarding of ‘New Woman’ magazine which read ‘She is just like you’, his reaction ‘Only if she (HemaMalini/new woman) knew who she is being compared to…’

     

    Though I found the comparison amusing at that instant, the media journalist in me immediately said, ‘spill over and wastage’.  To be honest, Outdoor has been off my radar for quite a while, and I have no clue how its effectiveness is measured.

     

    However, I’ve been interested in measurement currencies of other media – be it Print, Television, Radio or Internet. And often I find myself wondering if it was possible to measure all of people’s media consumption habits instead of measuring each media individually. The consumer, after all, is the focus of all marketing communication – and key is to reach him/her effectively and cost-effectively – the medium being just the vehicle.

     

    Coming back to various media, the measurement data for each one of them is available digitally, and that is where similarity ends.  Frequency, sample size and delivery platform are completely different. Nonetheless, while currencies for all mediums are different, they are identical in a sense that they target consumers’ media consumption habits and patterns.

     

    A disclaimer here: my blog this week is just an outcome of my curiosity and quest for knowledge, rather than a statement.

     

    Moving on, is it not possible to merge all these currencies together and create a single media consumption currency? What if it could be done at the industry level?  Technology majors like IBM and Wipro are well-equipped to take care of such a system. During my stint with a telecom giant, I have witnessed how various systems on different platforms can be effectively merged together. Multiple data sources and systems are merged into one with customer-centricity as the driving force. Whatever marketing and service delivery could imagine, IT delivered.

     

    An industry body delivering data that reflects the media and product consumption habits of people.  Awesome!!!

     

    Can we find out what the media and product consumption habits of SEC A person in a small town in Uttar Pradesh are on a single platform?

     

    It’s not an easy task, and could see many glitches to start with. But if it can be done, it would take consumer-centricity to a new level.

     

    And most important of all, would it not save several manhours and monies for media agencies?

     

    Ritu Midha is a senior journalist and web strategist based in Mumbai. She is also Consulting Editor and Editor – Special Projects, MxMIndia.

     

  • In Loud & Clear, Ritu Midha laments the lag in mobile marketing, which has not evolved in tune with the promises it heralded.

    Ritu Midha: The second screen… or is it the first?

    By Ritu Midha

     

    Three screens – television, computer and mobile put together devour Indian urban populace’s maximum waking hours. And, then of course, there are tablets and cinema screens.

     

    Television, of course, continues to create maximum engagement – and hence the centrepiece of most marketing strategies. In spite of its measurement currency being marred in controversy at the moment – it would continue to be the key medium to reach us.

     

    Computer as a medium of advertising communication is on the upswing – innovations, interactivity and measurement system all working for it. To add to it, there are learnings from other markets.

     

    Interestingly, it is the third screen – mobile – that is not delivering on the expectations it has raised as far marketing is concerned. Mobile, in my view, is the first or the second screen for many of us – I would define this target group as SEC A B, male skewed, 18+ populace, studying or working. Though they spend considerable time in front of a computer, they are not really glued to it when out of home, and are hardly home.

     

    One has been hearing for more than half a decade that mobile would change how the brands engage with consumers. And how mobile marketing would be the ‘in’ thing shortly. However, one daresay there is not much evolution in mobile marketing. Leave aside marketing, it has not even emerged as a powerful advertising medium.

     

    It is still ‘good morning, I am calling from xyz and your number has been selected for XYZ’. And 99 percent of the time the cold call gets a cold shoulder. In the best of scenarios, mobile advertising is a clone job of television and computer advertising.

     

    And this despite mobile consumption increasing by the day. As per TRAI data for February 2013, there are 861.66 million mobile connections. Add to it the numbers thrown by Nokia Siemens Networks’ MBit Index study, and the picture becomes all the more interesting.mobile data traffic generated by 3G services increased by 196 percent between December 2011 and December 2012, while mobile data traffic generated by 2G services increased by 66 percent over the same period.

     

    On to the smartphone users. As per the recent ‘2013 Internet trends’ report by Mary Meeker, partner at the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB), India ranks the fifth with 67 million subscribers. The four above it are China, the US, Japan and Brazil. However, when it comes to smartphone penetration it is just 6 percent, pushing it to number 30. Whatever be the case 67million is not a small number – specially if you take into consideration 52 per cent yoy growth rate.

     

    Despite the staggering numbers mobile fails to be a unique medium – and can be personalized like none other. Do we believe mobile, after all, is not the right marketing medium? Has it got something to do with the screen size, or lack of efficiencies with the agencies and marketers alike? Or, are we reluctant to experiment?

     

    One of the youngest countries in the world, with more mobile phones than television sets, can definitely do better than agar aapka answer A hae to ekka button dabaen – though one must admit that media owners are doing a far better job of using mobile as the medium of engaging people than others including FMCG behemoths and telecom operators themselves.

     

    Ritu Midha is a senior journalist and web strategist based in Mumbai. She is also Consulting Editor and Editor – Special Projects, MxMIndia.

     

  • In Loud & Clear, Ritu Midha visualizes life without TAM, and sees a murky picture.

    Ritu Midha: If no TAM TAMming, then what?

    By Ritu Midha

     

    Flashback to October 2012. DAS was rolled out in the metros. TAM organised workshops – made quite a few modifications in its universe size and otherwise, so that it could keep pace with the changes brought in by DAS.

     

    LV Krishnan, CEO, TAM Media Research, explained that there could be quite a few changes in television viewing pattern – fall could be seen in the numbers, mainly of big channels. After the initial turmoil – set patterns were expected to emerge again.

     

    We spoke to many a media professionals – everyone was happy about DAS, and in sync with TAM’s readiness for the new universe. Interestingly, a handful of media professionals pointed out the difficulties faced by them due to the number dark period of 30 days – when TAM chose not to release data for certain markets as DAS was settling in. In a world where television is bought and sold based on TAM ratings – it indeed was a difficult scenario to work in.

     

    And now suddenly the media space is abuzz with ‘news’ (newsy gossip) that Sony Entertainment television, Times television and NDTV have bid adieu to TAM, while Star, Zee, Viacom18 and Network18 are all set to do so in the next few days. And if everyone does quit, these biggies will not return to the TAM fold in a hurry. As I understand it, they will not subscribe to TAM data, but TAM will continue to measure them!

     

    To put it in a nutshell, the carpet is all set to be swept from under TAM’s feet this week. The biggest soap opera of the television industry is heading towards a climax.

     

    One might remember there was TAM and there was INTAM. They ran parallel for nearly eight years (throwing different data sets) before they merged. And as for measurement system, It took quite some time for the industry to see the virtues of people meter, complete roll over from diary system to people meter! And now while BARC is asking for a tender for the new television measurement system globally, the new system will not be in place in a hurry. Considering the sheer size of the country, even if it does not require seeding of people meters in every home and for every television set – it still will take substantial time to capture the width TAM is capturing now.

     

    Jumping again to early DAS days, all the constituents – channels, media agencies and marketers found it difficult to manage life with 30 data dark days – how will they then manage till BARC gets the new system in place? While every agency has its own optimising and predicting models – the key currency continues to be the data provided by TAM – and television continues to be the backbone of most media plans.

     

    I distinctly remember seeing ads of competing channels – both claiming to be No 1. And they would be both correct too! TG, markets or some other parameter would be different. Important thing, I assumed (and rightfully) was to prove oneself to be No 1 based on TAM numbers.

     

    Moving to now, whether the channels are right or not – is not under the purview of this piece (and neither do I, by no stretch of imagination, understand the numbers game better than the media professionals on either side of the fence). My concern is how will television be sold? Do the channels have a Plan B? Or, will the channels sell only on qualitative – which will not mean much, unless and until these are syndicated studies encompassing all channels of a specific genre.

     

    Digressing a little, on one side we have print – where quarterly research is considered to be a good option – and till it happens, half yearly numbers too are good enough. Collecting this data is a cumbersome process despite the recent changes – and print really does not change that frequently in content- and one does not have the luxury of changing newspaper by pressing a remote button.

     

    Web, meanwhile, spins numbers real time – and one can track data till previous day on most web tracking systems.

     

    Television, of course, releases weekly data. And with digitization – possibilities of more accurate, micro, and higher frequency measurement are unlimited – out of these frequency, obviously, does not really need to be enhanced. Transparency, cited everyone, was one of the key advantages of Digital Access System – which also implied more transparent and accurate measurement. And it is the same accuracy of data that is being questioned now – culprit, of course, is said to be the methodology or one can say data slicing.

     

    Back to my concern: how will the channels sell in the period between the TAM era and BARC system era:

    1. Projections based on historical numbers: What about the ‘coming up’ and ‘upcoming’ shows? Will the new shows be sold based on the previous shows in that slot?

    2. IRS data: Till the time the new system comes in – dependence on IRS data for television viewing pattern – it is a different issue many a show might have ended by the time the data comes out, or an event be long over – changing the entire paradigm

    3. Yearly deals are already closed – so less worry – only thing is the clients would never be convinced they are getting the value committed till they see numbers in their mailbox at regular intervals

    4. Or, they are just hitting TAM – where it hurts the most. Commercially! As media agencies and marketers will continue to subscribe to TAM – there is no need to worry. And continue they will till the time a better system is in place, and it manages to convince everyone that it is a better system

    5. Ironically, convincing agencies and marketers that TAM numbers do not project the complete picture might be the hardest battle channels would need to fight – unless they have a more plausible proof of their pudding being better than others.

     

    As a parting shot: I believe the most interesting will be the battle of news channels in a GRP-, TRP-, CPRP-free world – the year ahead is going to be the year of news channels courtesy the elections, flip-flopping economy, unfolding mysteries of IPL, and of course the gore! What will it be: my anchor was better than his… or Narendra Modi was on my channel for 30 seconds longer than his channel?!

     

    Ritu Midha is a senior journalist and web strategist based in Mumbai. She is also Consulting Editor and Editor – Special Projects, MxMIndia.

     

  • In Week 2 of her new column called Loud & Clear, Ritu Midha writes on three controversies that have been discussed much in the media over the last few weeks

    Ritu Midha: Thriving on controversies

    By Ritu Midha

     

    Three big events in the recent past became large media events – the IPL of course, Phaneesh Murthy’s office romance gone sour, and, interestingly, the Cannes Film festival- not for what we won, but for what Indian female stars wore at the red carpet!

     

    Though the media tried its best to give Naxal killings a frontbench too – mysteries of a life alive won over the macabre of murder and gore.

     

    Perhaps a nation – tired of mutilated human lives in form of rape and murder- looked for an escape – and media dished out more of what they wanted. As a friend loves to say, ‘you deserve what you get, you get what you deserve!’

     

    And after all, how long can one continue to watch one single genre! 😉

     

    First, the IPL final – the stadium was full, Srinivasan bulldozed his way to give the trophy, and social media was set ablaze with criticism. Chennai lost, controversy won.

     

    Mumbai Indian’s victory lap and dance – looked like putting up a brave front, even Bhajji could not pull it off convincingly!

     

    One wonders if the only option news media had was to cry hoarse about it – and show things-gone-wrong 200 times a day. Wouldn’t a blackout by media send a much stronger message? But then, ratings would be a calamity – and they matter much more than any moral responsibility that we in the media might pretend to have!

     

    And on to the Phaneesh Murthy case. Not to say what he did was right – it definitely was not! And if the corporates are rewriting their code of ethics in this backdrop – they are doing the right thing. But my question is why did the lady in question keep quiet till the time she became pregnant? What was she waiting for? Why can’t we as women create noise when it is truly required? Are we so insecure? If one raises the voice, it is heard – if not the first time, one needs to shout a bit louder second time around. But shout one must – if one doesn’t,one may well be considered a partner in crime. More so, when it comes to well-educated women professionals at senior positions.

     

    Media took a moral high ground here! A massage to female employees of media houses – your organisation is anti-sexual harassment, anti-complying to your boss’s overtures, you can raise your voice – time is now! If the iGate lady (Araceli Roiz ) could do it – why can’t you? Come on… now!

     

    It would be great to see media companies setting an example here, and resolving all such cases in their own organisation. Be the example, and maybe see your brand salience go through the sky. Good CSR is a big audience puller too.

     

    Have no knowledge of what should be worn at Cannes Red Carpet – so would pass it!

     

    IPL would be back next year – too much money riding on it. Perhaps, about time, betting here is made as legal as in horseracing, with everyone betting, everyone would watch it with a hawk’s eye for fixing signals – and help clean it. We already have players are bought and sold in auctions, so nothing really wrong about betting?

     

    Office romances converted into sexual harassment would continue -and media would play the Pope.

     

    As for women at Cannes, it is none of my business – and I kinda enjoy them being rated on what they wear in the biggest film festival in the world, instead of their histrionics in front of the camera! As long as it does not reflect on my organisation’s, my nation’s and my pride, why should I care!

     

    Meanwhile, waiting for the next controversy to break – survival ka sawaal hai!

     

  • In Week 3 of her new column, Loud & Clear, Ritu Midha makes a case for truly surprising newspaper advertising – which does not include the now-ubiquitous false covers.

    Ritu Midha: Off with the false covers!

    By Ritu Midha

     

    To begin with a digression, even as I have print on my mind I mentally think ‘Facebook’ alongside. Facebook has succeeded in conditioning many a mind by the simple questions it asks in its status update field. The new kid on the block – changing consumer behaviour with tiny masterstrokes! But this is just an off-the-cuff observation. On my mind at the moment – really – is print.

     

    What is with the false covers on newspapers! Frankly, now if a newspaper lands on your doorsteps without a false cover – it, err, in a weird sense of way appears nude! Now tell me – if you are 30+, and if I ask you which was the last false newspaper cover that made you take note, and your answer is still Indya.com – Well I already rest my case!

     

    I am sure there must be plenty of customized research proving that noticeability of products promoted on false covers is higher than that on inside pages… and more! But is RoI (whatever be the measurement) directly in proportion to the monies spent on it? Does noticeability mean higher brand recall? Is yes, then what is all this noise about contextual advertising?

     

    One, of course, remembers a few print innovations that had nothing to do with false covers, but worked extremely well. Be it product sampling, a car promotion, first creative innovation for a soap with bubbles on the page (it has become mundane now), or experimentation with aroma!

     

    However, these innovations are increasingly taking a back seat as the false cover syndrome takes over. So much so that on occasion, a newspaper is endowed with not one, but two false covers! If I might add, I would love to understand what spiel do sales guys give for the second false cover to be sold. As effective as the first false cover – but at 50 percent rate? Some research to prove the same would be a big help, please!

     

    Print, at the moment, is in the danger zone. However much we shout from the rooftop, the fact remains. There is an effort on increasing reach and distribution – focus on smaller towns, and one does hope it works well for the newspaper industry.

     

    But does it imply that run-of-the-mill advertising in newspapers (including false covers) will become far more effective? At the risk of sounding risque – one needs to check out fake ads to realize what print advertising can be all about!

     

    It is time print woke up and smelled the coffee! And strove towards creating advertising that is far more effective!! The wow factor has to come back! Indya.com has to cease being the benchmark. The clients have to give right brief, ask right questions and push for right solutions. Let go of the false covers – return to me my newspaper, where the headlines that shocked and surprised stared at me when I picked it up. And I promise to take note of ‘noticeable’ ads in my morning newspaper and all the supplements it comes with.

     

    Ritu Midha is a senior journalist and web strategist based in Mumbai. She is also Consulting Editor and Editor – Special Projects, MxMIndia.

     

  • Are the audiences listening to you, asks Ritu Midha in Loud & Clear, a new weekly blog on MxMIndia which will appear every Thursday

    Loud & Clear. A new weekly blog by Ritu Midha

    By Ritu Midha

     

    I had a delightful experience the other day. My neighbours’ grandchildren are down from Delhi, and as is common up North dropped by to meet me and my ‘family’ (consisting of two small dogs and a maid). As I usually work from home, I am found on my laptop for the large part of the day, and same was the case that day too. The elder one – a ten year old girl had some interesting queries about Internet, however, it was the younger one, a boy about seven-eight years, who bowled me over, “Aunty aap computer pae Internet karti ho?” Me: “Haan beta.” He,”Aur Internet pae?” Me: “sab kuch.” He: “Sabbb Kuchhhhh? You are even crazier than papa!”

    Well!

    Makes me realize that I spend most of my waking time in front of the computer – and more than 70 percent of it on Internet – Googling, researching, mailing (increasingly lesser and lesser – long live smart phones), and the biggest chunk on social media. Some time goes on news websites also – especially to follow up on news I find on Facebook updates, or in early morning newspapers. The biggest calamity is television – and though it sounds ridiculous – barring IPL. I do realise I am an exception rather than a rule – untypical of my age and gender. My being in the digital space for more than 15 years, being an extremely nuclear family and staying in Mumbai, can be blamed for it.

     

    But then, there is another generation – addicted to the Internet.

     

    The irony, however, is that one still notices the ads on television the most – clutter be damned, remote be damned – and even if the creative is not that good, most of the ads I remember are audio visuals. Some print ads too seldom go unnoticed – electronics – when they are full page and offering discounts, and of course, automobiles. Here, I guess, I am more typical of my generation if not my gender.

     

    Coming back to the Internet, what was the last ad you noticed on Facebook – and when was that? Caught you there! A highly involved environment – engagement at its best – but the users are engaged with each other, and not with Facebook. And so, notice what other people are saying much more than what the advertisers are saying there.

     

    If not today, in less than a decade – one would notice that quite a few audience-dense media options are not effective advertising vehicles – and those that are, would suffer from thinning audiences. A catch 22 for advertisers!

     

    Not trying to be prophetic, and predicting doomsday. Just thinking out loud! Are the advertisers and media professionals not realizing this? Am sure the concerns are being raised in many a boardroom. But, sadly, we would keep looking outwards – wait for another region, another country, another market to find a solution – and then adapt it to Indian market.

     

    But this time around it might be a recipe for disaster – we would be the youngest country in the world by the year 2020. And the solutions we need might be mighty different from what other countries are looking for. Is it time to spread media budgets thin – and ‘hope’ to take a person by surprise by being at a place least expected? Or, to go extremely mass once again – at least someone would take note? Or, to really plan a strategy that enables you to reach your target person – and not target group in an effective manner?

     

    The solution lies in making advertising more effective in high involvement environment, and in making effective advertising media more audience-dense. How? If I knew the answer I would be working in a media agency of repute!

     

    Ritu Midha is a senior journalist and web strategist based in Mumbai. She is also Consulting Editor and Editor – Special Projects, MxMIndia.

     

  • The moment a journalist becomes a PR professional, he/she turns into a pariah in the media world, notes Anil Thakraney

    Anil Thakraney: PR kiya toh bhi darne ka!

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    So I was dining with a few senior journalists on the weekend. The issue of Charudatta Deshpande came up, and somebody mentioned how stressful PR has become due to the intense pressure these professionals face from both, the clients and/or their own bosses. Since I have never worked in PR (in fact, my key result area is to undo all the good work they do, hehe), so I have no first-hand experience of this function. But yes, one can easily imagine life must be very difficult for these guys in the world of cut-throat media, I don’t envy them at all.

     

    Some journalists prefer to move to corporate communications after they’ve done their bit in the media. This could be either because they couldn’t cut it in journalism, or they desire a cool, well paying job before they walk into the sunset. The corporates like to hire journalists because of their ‘expertise’ in communications, and because of the belief that having been a part of the media, they will bring with them powerful ‘connections’. This is where the trouble lies. The moment a journalist becomes a PR professional, he/she turns into a pariah in the media world. (Unless that person is a foxy operator like Ms Niira Radia, but that’s another story.) Therefore these so-called connections are of little or no use. A good editor will characteristically keep PR professionals miles away. And when the corporate communications head isn’t able to bring in ‘favourable’ press, it gets the senior executives very disappointed, even angry.

     

    Then there’s a flip side to it. When the PR person promises interesting, inside information to journalists, in order to get them interested in the organization, he/she ends up playing with fire. Because one can never be sure which information is kosher to share and which needs to be concealed. This tight rope walk can be very stressful, one can never be sure where this very thin line lies.

     

    In short, PR nahin kiya toh trouble. And PR kiya toh bhi trouble. No wonder there’s so much anxiety. I think I’ll stick to journalism even though it doesn’t pay as much as corporate communications. I don’t get invited to glitzy parties, I don’t get the perks, I don’t get to hobnob with the rich and the powerful. Chalta hai. At least I get to sleep like a baby.

     

    PS: The TOI has introduced an app called ‘ALIVE’, which helps you download photos and share them with your pals. All very nice. But when they used ‘ALIVE’ on this particular image, it gave me the shivers. The positioning of ‘ALIVE’ makes you think poor Ishrat Jahan is still around. Gasp!

     

    Anil Thakraney is a senior journalist and commentator. He is also Editor-at-Large, MxMIndia. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached via Twitter at @anilthakraney