MxMIndia

Category: SHAILESH KAPOOR

  • Love him or hate him, you can't ignore the fact that Imam Siddiqui was the big idea for the show this time. Shailesh Kapoor reasons why he didn't win

    Shailesh Kapoor: Why Imam had to ‘lose’ Bigg Boss 6

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    He came across as arrogant flashy, unstable and repulsive on some occasions, and creative, entertaining, knowledgeable and noble on some other ones. The sixth edition of Bigg Boss will undoubtedly be remembered as Imam Siddiqui’s season. Almost half the footage in the show seemed to revolve around him, since his entry in the middle of the season. Love him or hate him, you can’t ignore the fact that Siddiqui was the big idea for the show this time.

     

    Yet, he didn’t win. Soap star Urvashi Dholakia made it a hat trick for TV heroines, after Shweta Tiwari and Juhi Parmar. Why would the “entertainer” not win the title? Why would audiences not vote in plenty for someone bringing them back to the show night after night?

     

    As the tagline of Aamir Khan’s last release went, the answer lies within. Imam Siddiqui not winning Bigg Boss is a fair and accurate reflection of our society’s moral response to television today. To understand this, we need to start at the very beginning.

     

    Back in the ’90s, in the nascent years of satellite television (and even before that in the DD days), edgy content was available in plenty. A lot more serials covered business settings, where malicious characters schemed to twist big deals in their favor. Women were often working in these serials, or were at least social butterflies doing the kitty party circuit. Yes, there were positive, idealist characters too. But the layered characters (like Neena Gupta playing Ketaki in Khandaan) got the audience rooting for them.

     

    Over years, the ambitious Air Hostess (Kitu Gidwani) and the beer-guzzling Tara were replaced by Tulsi, Akshara and Priya. These are strong characters in their own right, but outright positive ones, with no shades of grey at all. During this period, the villains became even more menacing and unidimensional, scheming and plotting all the time. Television, over the last 15 years, has separated the black from the white, the way our cinema did in the ’70s and the ’80s. Only an odd “grey” character made an impact, such as Dadi Sa (Balika Vadhu) in her earlier avatar.

     

    With such consistent segregation of the good and the bad being dished out to them over decades, the audience too got conditioned to responding to TV characters in binary forms: Good or Bad. They lost touch with the grey. At any point of time,  a character had to be either 100% good or 100% bad.

     

    This slotting today cuts across all television. Imam Siddiqui is “good to watch”, but that doesn’t make him the positive-type good. He was clearly the villain of Bigg Boss. A villain, who may display his soft side once in a while, but remained a villain nevertheless. Imam Siddiqui was “bad”. Probably 200% bad.

     

    You can enjoy Kancha Cheena for his antics and his menacing characterization. If the director decides to kill Kancha Cheena at interval, you will be mighty upset, and if you could, vote for him to stay till the climax. But will you want Kancha Cheena to kill Vijay Dinanath Chauhan and prevail in the end?

     

    Victory of good over evil has been a truism in our culture for centuries now. We may deny it, even contest it, but we’ll never want to obliterate it.

     

    And hence, Imam Siddiqui will never win Bigg Boss.

     

    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

     

  • When it comes to failures, the general tendency is to move on. A key aspect of failure analysis is ascertaining a "cost of failure", writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: The Science Of Failure Management

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Studies from across the world suggest that 70 percent of product launches end up as “failures”. In the entertainment industry, the failure rate is even higher. Only about 20 Hindi films in a year manage to rake in profits, out of more than 200 films that are produced every year (many of which don’t even get a release). About 40 fiction programmes launched in the Hindi GEC category in 2012. Of these, 21 are already off-air, and at least six others are scheduled to go off-air in the next four weeks. Among the remaining 13, only eight can be considered as having contributed anything significant to their respective channels – a success rate of 20 percent only.

     

    “Failure” is a grossly under-rated concept. We analyse “successes” in great detail. Why did this work, what clicked, what was the big insight? Learning from one success, and using that learning to create another, is an age-old method. A significant amount of our television research work involves channels commissioning us for an understanding of their competition’s successes.

     

    But when it comes to failures, the general tendency is to move on. Diagnosis of a failure is not a happy task. And I don’t say this from a research perspective only, but at a wider, business level. A key aspect of failure analysis is ascertaining a “cost of failure”.

     

    Let’s say a channel launched a new daily serial in a slot that was delivering 3 TVR at its peak about one year ago, but subsequently had slid to less than half of that number, warranting content replacement. Suppose the new show “fails”, settling at less than 1.5 TVR about two months post launch. The channel would have started considering a replacement already, even though they may give the new show another few weeks – one last push.

     

    Assuming that the ‘one last push’ doesn’t deliver, and the show is taken off-air around six months from launch, what is the cost of failure?

     

    There are various components to this cost, depending on how you look at it. These components are not “additive” in nature, i.e., some of them may represent the same monetary consideration as another, but are conceptually different.

     

    1. Revenue loss: if the prime time average TVR on the channel is 2.2 TVR, then the new show operating at 1.5 TVR will operate at a 32% lower revenue number, in turn affecting the channel’s revenue by a potential 2%.

     

    2. Production cost: A straightforward cost of producing the programme. For six months (130 episodes for a Mon-Fri fiction daily), this can be upto Rs. 26 crore. Of course, similar investment would be required to produce a successful show too. But then, the investment would give returns there.

     

    3. Marketing cost: The 5-15 crore spent on the programme’s launch is direct sunk cost if the programme fails.

     

    4. Human Resource cost: At least 3,000 hours of human resource would be invested in a programme that runs its course over six months, across departments. A large part of this time would be senior and middle management’s, who would have rather used it for quality work in the strategy or brand area.

     

    5. Morale cost: Nobody speaks about this much, but there is a huge confidence dent a failure can give. It works at two levels – personal and collective. At a personal level, programming executives are likely to be most affected, being in charge of the content hands-on. But at a collective level, everyone will tend to face the low, especially the department heads. My empirical research suggests that almost 80% of department heads who quit (or being asked to quit) in the last three year in the television industry in India did so within two months of a major failure (or a string of relatively minor failures).

     

    How does one put a number to the morale cost? It’s not easy, but for me, six-months pay cheque of the entire department whose head quits is a good idea. That’s what it can take for them to bounce back and work at full potential again.

     

    6. Equity erosion cost: This is the most under-rated and yet the most important component of the cost of failure. And evidently, the least analyzed too. A failure, especially when it follows another one, can lead to confidence attrition amongst consumers (also the advertisers to some extent). Channels work hard to earn a loyal base of viewers for themselves. Over time, failures can disillusion these viewers and make them question their loyalty for the channel, albeit in sub-conscious ways. Unless the trend of failures is reversed, it can escalate very fast into brand rejection, when even good content stops delivering because consumers have rejected the platform at large. Imagine the opposite – when everything works so well that even an odd failure is given a generous ‘it-happens’ pardon by the viewers!

     

    Benchmarking models in brand studies can convert equity scores into viewership, and hence, turnover estimates. A drop of 1% in equity can potentially cause a drop of upto 2% in the turnover over time, but also vice versa.

     

    Put all this together and you realize that the cost of failure of a program is a lot more than physical cost of production or marketing. Building failure evaluation metrics can change the way we look at our failures. And hence, at our successes too!

     

    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

     

     

     

  • To divert a serious, purposeful discussion on rape and sexual assault to item numbers, vulgar lyrics and portrayal of women in serials, is simply a case of misplaced priorities, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Misogyny or just entertainment?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    We are all aware, and I assume, deeply hurt by the events that have unfolded over the last three weeks. The much-bullied media has played a pivotal role in keeping the pressure going, and that should lead to steps that serve us better in the years to come.

     

    However, in this age of information and opinion overload, we tend to generalize things way too easily. Over the last seven days, there have been several media debates, across television, print and the Internet, on the role of entertainment in “promoting” sexual assault against women, by portraying women in a way that’s essentially misogynistic in nature.

     

    I am all for sensitizing the country at large, and media is a key stakeholder in this process. But to divert a serious, purposeful discussion on rape and sexual assault to item numbers, vulgar lyrics and portrayal of women in serials, is simply a case of misplaced priorities. More than anything else, it is damaging because the core issues tend to get swept under the carpet in the process.

     

    There are a few examples that I find worth highlighting here. The first was about the Honey Singh song that sprung out of nowhere on December 30. The lyrics are outright pornographic, and will never make it to the mainstream, e.g. a live concert, a music channel or FM radio. Yet, there was a moral-police type of call to prevent Honey Singh from performing his routine playlist on New Year’s Eve.

     

    Who are we kidding here? Pornographic songs, often created by parodying popular Bollywood songs, are an age-old phenomenon. It’s content, that’s up for rejection or acceptance, within a legal framework that would prevent its public display anyway. Two nights ago, a film critic on a TV debate moved from discussing Honey Singh to lamenting about how our music has moved from calling a woman “Chaudhvin Ka Chand” to calling her “Fevicol”.

     

    Fevicol is not what Kareena Kapoor is called in the song. But if a girl were indeed called “Fevicol”, I’d argue strongly that it’s at least more empowering than stereotyping women based on their beauty, by calling them “Chaudhvin Ka Chand”.

     

    “Item numbers have a negative impact on our society” is the second example of misplaced agendas over the last week. Someone in another television debate spoke about how ChikniChameli portrays Katrina Kaif’s character as a “woman who gets drunk and flirts with men.” And guess how that could possibly help propagate sexual crime!

     

    Unbelievably so, a section has also attacked television serials for being responsible for our society’s attitude towards women. The beaten-to-death “regressive” argument was back in the mainstream again, where daily soaps were blamed for promoting that “women should not step out of their homes”. At least seven out of the top 10 daily serials today are basedon strong, free-thinking and progressive female protagonists, of the kind we would want our women at large to become!

     

    About a decade ago, I wrote a short presentation on the relationship between reality and television. The well-researched document ended with: “Television mirrors reality once in a while, but more often, it excludes reality, i.e., it gives us what we aspire to have but can’t get in the real world.”

     

    The genesis of this thought is the matter of another piece altogether. But in times that call for serious action, I wish we stopped getting distracted and targeting everyone’s favorite punching bags – television and films.

     

    Time to shift attention back to root causes.

     

    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 a recap on the television sector, Shailesh Kapoor looks at the ten things that defined the year

    LookBack 2012: Shailesh Kapoor on 10 Things that Defined 2012 for Television

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s been more than an eventful year for the television industry in India. Digitization in the four metros is finally a reality (almost), and this sets the ball rolling for the nationwide digitization that we all eagerly anticipate. It was also the year of tussle on the measurement side, with the NDTV lawsuit setting the cat amongst the pigeons. I hope 2013 is remembered as the year of BARC, where we see a new, more robust currency research being set up by our industry bodies.

     

    But besides these two key areas of activity, 2012 was also a year of a lot of action on the content and marketing front. Here is my pick on the top 10 events or trends of the year, which may have a lasting impact on the industry in the times to come.

     

    10. Regionalization of West Bengal: From once being a prime Hindi market, West Bengal (WB) has gradually moved to being a part regional market over the last decade. This year saw even more action on this front, with the launch of Zee Bangla Cinema and Jalsha Movies, making WB a fully regional market in effect. Recent successes in the Bangla film industry seem to have spurred broadcasters. To me, it’s a matter of time before WB, including Kolkata, is dropped from the traditional definition of “HSM”.

     

    9. Mahadev rewrites mytho rules: Almost all the success our television has seen in the mythological space has been ‘calendar art’ in nature. With its more atypical yet extremely entertaining treatment of Mahadev, Life OK ushered in a new trend. The programme managed to build popularity as the year passed, and this, in turn, should encourage other channels to break the stereotypical mytho mould, starting with MaaDurga on Colors. After the failed experiment in Mahabharat on 9X, Mahadev has proven that some of the holy cows of the mytho genre are overrated.

     

    8. The rise of the crime genre: I wrote about this in a TV Trail recent post too. Between Crime Patrol and CID itself, the success story of the crime genre on our television is a worthy one. 2012 saw Arjun, Savdhaan India and Shaitaan, as broadcasters tried to identify different ways of milking a lucrativegenre. Whether this proves damaging for the genre in the long run, only time will tell. For now, crime is cool, but only on TV!

     

    7. Khamoshiyan – The nameless launch: For me, the unique launch of Star Plus’ new show Khamoshiyan was the standout programme marketing story of 2012. Using a news approach where ‘missing ads’ were used to promote the lead character Gauri Bhonsle and her story, Khamoshiyan became the first programme on Indian television to launch without the programme name being revealed! The dare-devilry seemed to pay off, with a 4+ TVR on the launch day. But even if it didn’t, I’d have said: Full marks for trying.

     

    6. The Dirty Picture – One night stand:A much promoted television premiere of a much hyped Bollywood hit was stalled, just the night before its scheduled telecast on April 22. Despite 59 cuts and a U/A certificate, I&B ministry directed Sony to drop the afternoon and primetime airings. This created a sense of outrage in the film industry, especially given the ambiguous and ad hoc nature of the directive.

     

    5. Bollywoodization of television: It’s not a new trend, but this year, Bollywood integrated with television like never before. Last year, Vidya Balan had made an appearance in Bade Achhe Lagte Hain to promote The Dirty Picture. This year, Salman Khan featured in Diya Aur Baati Hum to promote Dabangg 2. Aamir Khan shot for a two-part special for CID. In Jab Tak Hai Jaan, Anushka Sharma played a character working for Discovery Channel. Stars were also seen promoting their films on primetime news, not just on GECs.

     

    4. Kids – Entering the mainstream: The much undervalued kids genre had a good year. Sonic had launched in end 2011, and this year saw Nick Junior and Discovery Kids adding to the genre. Indian animation made its presence felt even further, as Nick launched a series based on comic characters Motu Patlu in October. SAB TV also experimented with kids-inclusive programming in Baal Veer and Jeanie Aur Juju, and if early trends are an indication, the experiments have worked well. And of course, the biggest reality show success story of the year was driven by kids – DID Li’l Masters.

     

    3. Education – Theme of the year: Over the last five years, there has been much talk of serials which highlight “social issues”. An issue that has emerged a clear frontrunner in this context is “education”, especially women’s education. The top-rated programme of the year, Diya Aur Baati Hum, brought the education theme alive. But there were other stories too, such as Afsar Bitiya and even the education track that started last year in Saath Nibhana Saathiya. Unlike other social issues that may gather only fleeting interest, the education theme is here to stay.

     

    2. The news revolution: Our much maligned news channels continued to play an instrumental role in bringing about social change. The recent public outcry against sexual assault on women is a prime example of the role news channels played in creating a movement. The eagle eye of news cameras continued to stare those in power, more than ever before. But for the news revolution, our democratic credentials would have come under the scanner sooner or later.

     

    1. Satyamev Jayate: There couldn’t be a more deserving candidate for the top spot. Aamir Khan showed that there is room for television that goes beyond the hullabaloo of ‘mass entertainment’ programming. Barring the odd jugmental episode (especially the one on organic farming v/s pesticides), Satyamev Jayate brought some rare qualities to our television – compassion, grace and impact. And no ratings can capture this side of the television story of 2012.

     

  • Shailesh Kapoor on the 'mother-in-law research' and the tendency to generalize personal experiences to a larger TG

    Shailesh Kapoor: It’s All About Hindi Vindi

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    If we had to make a list of the most common fallacious arguments in the corporate world, one that will definitely make it to the list will be the tendency to generalize personal experiences to a larger target audience. Executives, being human beings after all, tend to extrapolate their own, their family’s and their friends’ experiences to the general population. Informally, you can also call this method ‘mother-in-law research’.

     

    In the entertainment business, this tendency is bound to be even more dominant, given that there is a passionate entertainment consumer in all of us. To separate personal likes and dislikes from business decisions may not be always possible. Also, it can be argued, and rightly so, that in a business as dynamic as this, personal judgment does play a key role. Those who manage to use personal judgment and yet draw a line between that and mother-in-law research are in the best seat.

     

    There are various aspects of this syndrome that we encounter regularly, each worth a column in itself. Here, I focus on one such aspect: The language bias.

     

    English is the business language of the industry. Surely, no one can be complaining about that. But when business language meddles with the communication language for mass consumers, it can be a cause of concern. Let’s look at some examples:

     

    1. More than 75% of Hindi channels have brand logos in English. In fact, the percentage would have been higher than 90%, but for Hindi news channels, which have been more prudent in this regard. It is well understood that a logo works as a symbol, and the textual content of the image is not seen in isolation. But that happens over years. For a new Hindi channel, a brand name that can’t be read by more than half of the literate target audience, because it is in a language they are not familiar with, is a luxury such channel can only ill afford.

     

    2. This obsession with English extends to channel packaging and taglines. There are two strong stereotypes at play here. One says: In the metros, English is now widely used, and hence, can be the main language of communication. This is classic mother-in-law research (or my-friends-circle research) at play. In cities where slow-paced songs are called ‘silent songs’ and horror movies are routinely referred to as ‘horrible movies’ (by the youth, no less), using English for brand communication of a Hindi channel is pure futility at display.

     

    The second stereotype involved is: English is aspirational. Hence, even if it reduces audience comprehension just a wee bit, the aspirational layers more than make up for it. Yes, English is aspirational. But there’s a difference between sending your children to English medium schools and trying to crack communication puzzles in English on television. The context decides the value of the aspiration. To see Dove and a TV channel brand with the same lens may not exactly be wise!

     

    3. Show logos and packaging for serials has moved to Hindi over the last few years, though most reality shows continue to be packaged in English – another stereotype. What amuses me no end is the to see Hindi credits in serials, where designations like ‘costume designer’, ‘cinematographer’, ‘creative head’ and ‘associate producer’ are written in Devnagiri, without translation.

     

    4. The most dangerous of all – English promo supers. So many promos across Hindi GECs and Hindi movie channels use English language for supers to communicate their message. We have built conclusive evidence over the last few years to prove that English supers are nothing but blind spots, rejected en masse because of lack of effortless comprehension.

     

    I have no personal preference for Hindi. It used to be my first language for more than 25 years. But over my early years of working, I realized that my ‘thinking language’ has shifted to English. Personal language choices should be a matter of comfort and convenience. But the consumer needs to be spoken to in his/ her language of expression. And without a sense of reluctance or apology at the communicator’s end.

     

    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

     

  • Besides a few examples, the TV-to-films transition has been limited to 'character actors' such as Alok Nath. Until this year, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Bollywood dreams for TV stars… The Ayushmann Effect

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s not a new thing, but it’s making a real comeback. 22 years after Shah Rukh Khan broke the barrier by making a successful transition from the small screen (Fauji, Dil Dariya) to the big screen (Deewana, Raju Ban Gaya Gentleman, Baazigar), the trend has finally resurfaced.

     

    Over the last two decades, it seemed this trend had died a natural death. Gracy Singh (Amaanat) made a transition, but her film stint was short-lived, though she managed to star in two iconic films – Lagaan and Munna Bhai MBBS. More recently, Rajeev Khandelwal flattered to deceive, with his film career failing to take off after a promising start with Aamir.

     

    Vidya Balan also had a brush with television, but her film career started more than eight years after her sole TV show (Hum Paanch), making it less of a transition in the conventional sense. Raghu Ram (Roadies) tried his luck with cinema, but poor choice of films (Jhootha Hi Sahi, Tees Maar Khan) let him down.

     

    Besides these and a few other relatively inconsequential examples, the TV-to-films transition has been limited to ‘character actors’ like Alok Nath, making SRK’s fantastic story look like a clear aberration. Until this year!

     

    Only time will tell how big a star VJ-cum-anchor Ayushmann Khurana turns out to be. But with Vicky Donor, he has managed to create a mark many of his colleagues from television couldn’t. Not conventional ‘hero material’, Khurana’s talent, including singing and lyric writing, holds him in good stead, with Rohan Sippy’s Nautanki Saala coming up next. His co-star Yami Gautam too made the transition from Yeh Pyar Na Hoga Kam to Vicky Donor. But how her film career shapes up remains to be seen.

     

    2013 will see action heating up, starting with Sushant Rajput, the much-loved Manav from Pavtira Rishta, debuting with Abhishek Kapoor’s Kai Po Che. Barun Sobti left his lead role in the popular romance Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon for a film that doesn’t seem like a good launch pad – Main Aur Mr Riight. The immensely talented Manish Paul is also set to make the transition in a film titled Oye Mickey.

     

    Ram Kapoor has been making a sporadic impact in cinema over time, including his pitch-perfect role in Udaan. But with Mere Dad Ki Maruti, television’s most popular male star will finally play the lead in a Hindi film.

     

    You can be rest assured that the list won’t end with these names. Several film studios are aggressively chasing TV stars for their medium budget ventures. Established film stars come with their baggage and price tag, and not more than half a dozen of them can ensure a good opening anyway. The economics of a good script begin to fall in place much better when you cast a ‘newcomer’. Like theatre was in the 70s and the 80s, television is the lead medium to identify such talent today.

     

    However, it is known that most producers and directors in the film industry don’t watch too much television. In fact, there is a certain condescending view of the TV business that majority of them hold, especially when it comes to daily soaps. But with the media becoming increasingly inclusive, it is not very difficult to find out about new talent on television. It’s only a matter of time that promising talent like Drashti Dhami (Geet & Madhubala) is lapped up for plum film roles.

     

    Of course, everyone can’t make the cut from TV to films. Acting is not necessarily the foremost qualification while casting for a TV serial, because you can ‘learn’ to be a character that you will eventually play over 500+ episodes. But those who can actually act have the opportunity of getting noticed in the more aspirational medium of cinema today.

     

    But most young TV stars are not the best marketers of their own talent. They are not represented by professional talent agencies, and generally end up taking career decisions on their own, or (arguably) even worse, with their parent’s help! The fascination with cinema exists across their tribe, and if left unguided, they can commit the mistake of taking up the first offer that comes their way.

     

    The opportunity is bigger than ever before, as a new age, liberal Bollywood is set to embrace television stars. Ayushmann’s success has provided the much-needed impetus to this trend, so much so that I’d like to call this new wave ‘The Ayushmann Effect’. Producer John Abraham deserves full credit for making the right choice and accidentally sparking off a wave.

     

    I only hope that the young guns choose their offers carefully. If that happens, you can be assured that 2015 will be see a fair share of cinema led by TV stars of today.

     

    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

     

     

     

  • As TV ratings are scheduled to make a comeback on December 19, Shailesh Kapoor writes lists four critical things that ratings don't tell us

    Shailesh Kapoor: Four things TV ratings don’t tell us

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    After a hiatus that was received by the television industry with excitement and skepticism in equal measure, TV ratings are scheduled to make a comeback on December 19. Expect a chaotic fortnight of data crunchers working overtime at broadcasting companies and media agencies. Also expect trade promotions based on claims and counter-claims, including those that proudly declare how some channel is no. 1 in its genre among males in the 25-34 year old age segment in SEC B in the UP-MP market. All par for the course!

     

    TV ratings, in their different avatars, are the media buying currency worldwide. However, smart marketers have figured out over time that ratings tell only one part of the television audience’s story. A very important part all right, but still not the complete story.

     

    Here is my list of four critical things TV ratings don’t tell us:

     

    1. Active v/s Passive Viewing

    Most television shows show a gender split between 50:50 and 60:40, in favour of either gender. That would imply, for example, that a primetime daily soap is as much a media vehicle for a bike brand as it is for a detergent brand. Now, common sense would tell us this is not the case. That’s where the biggest limitation in any passive audience measurement system lies. It does not account for the audience’s involvement in the content. If the housewife turns on her favourite programme and the husband and the kids merely watch along, often multi-tasking during that time (for example, reading the newspaper, browsing on their mobiles, etc.), they are all counted at par, as equally valid audiences.

     

    So, a programme like Balika Vadhu may show a fairly balanced gender profile on ratings, but its day-after recall is skewed 75:25 in favour of women. The day-after recall of Hindi movie channels is skewed so sharply towards the 10-34 year male audiences that targeting any other audience type through these channels is worth questioning. ‘Active viewership’, which is what a broadcaster should be basing its marketing plans on and an advertiser paying for, needs a filter beyond the ratings.

     

    2. Satisfaction Levels

    Is the consumer satisfied with my content? For any broadcaster, that is a key question, especially given the volatility in content and the ever-decreasing loyalty levels. In our work over the last year, it has been conclusively proven that drop in satisfaction levels of daily programmes (across genres) lead to a drop in ratings, but with a lag of about 3-4 weeks. Hence, measuring satisfaction levels of channel and programme brands can lead to far more purposeful actionables for both the channels and the advertisers backing them.

     

    3. ‘Aural’ Viewing

    It’s an oxymoron, but it’s happening. Increasingly, a lot of television is being heard, not watched. Kitchen work, homework, office work, mobile, Internet and many other such activities are being ‘managed’ while watching TV. The proportion of ‘aural’ viewing increases significantly during ad breaks. Ask an advertiser if he wants his ad to be only heard, not watched! Ratings clearly don’t tell this part of the story.

     

    4. The Surround

    In a convergence-driven world, looking at television in isolation will be foolhardy. The surround or the ambient noise a TV channel or program manages to create is important to quantify. This may happen through social media and the Internet, or through traditional media like print articles, not to mention the extremely powerful word-of-mouth effect. As BARC gets set to redesign the norms of audience measurement in India, this should be an evident area of focus for them.

     

    TV viewing is a jigsaw, and the ratings certainly don’t complete the puzzle. Full marks to advertisers and broadcasters who have recognized this reality and have built additional metrics to address it. For others, it’s the age-old adage that comes to mind: Better late than never!

     

  • Whats-On-India's TV Trends ratings for Week 47 are out for Hindi and Engish entertainment and movie channels

    Bigg Boss, OMG top Whats-On-India’s TV Trends

    By A Correspondent

     

    Given the popularity of our report on the TV Trends weekly report that we carried last week (http://www.mxmindia.com/2012/11/in-tams-absence-whats-on-india-search-rankings-show-some-trends/), we bring you Whats-On-India’s weekly TV Trends report for Week 47 (November 18-24, 2012).

     

    TV Trends has been built using specialist and proprietary algorithms that collate, analyze and compute millions of observations across multiple platform. It provides cues and powerful insights on the potential consumption and intention-to-view of content by Indian TV viewers.  The sources from where observations are aggregated include What’s On India platforms like:  Web, Mobile portal, Apps (Android, iPhone, iPad, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Nokia Ovi), EPG-on-the-Cloud (MobileTV and IPTV).

     

    It’s been a little over a month since TAM Media Research stopped releasing its weekly ratings following a decision taken jointly by broadcasters, advertisers, advertising agencies and TAM, that the release of the data will be held back until December 19 given that it would take some time for the mandatory digitization process to settle down.

     

    The report gives the Top 5 Programmess of the Week for the following genres:  English Movies, Hindi Movies, English TV Shows, Hindi TV Shows, Regional TV Shows, Regional Movies, Sports and Kids, Documentaries, Lifestyle & Food.

     

     

     

  • There's much action in the crime genre as shows that are seemingly dark and not for everyone in the family work better than comedy, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Crime genre makes a killing

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Fifteen years ago, when Sony launched CID, it would have been just another television show. Today, it is one of the centerpieces of the big story of our television – crime programming.

     

    While CID is entirely fictionalized, India’s Most Wanted on Zee brought in the crime reality genre, where a crime story was told through a combination of anchor narration and dramatized reconstruction. News channels followed suit, with their own versions. Sansani on Star News (now ABP News) was a success story that even went onto inspire spoofs, both on television and in films.

     

    There were several attempts in the fiction crime genre, such as Sony brining the cult series Karamchand back a few years ago, the more recent Adaalat on the same channel and the latest entrant on the block, Arjun on Star Plus. None of these properties have managed to achieve CID’s success. It is not easy to match iconic characters built over 15 years. Arguably even more so when they are comic-book in nature!

     

    But the real action has happened in the crime reality genre. Crime Patrol, easily one of the best-produced shows on Indian television today, has found success that even its makers would not have imagined. A seemingly niche concept (and launched as such) has acquired mass proportions over the last few years. It is gritty. It is topical. It is even edgy. And its anchor has the job with probably the most favorable fame to effort ratio in the industry today.

     

    Channel V runs the very popular youth property Gumraah, which also occasionally repeats on Star Plus. Life OK launched Savdhaan India, and now Colors is out with its piece in the genre, called Shaitaan. Between the four programs, crime reality is a category in itself. Of course, there are regional versions too, of which Panchnama on Star Pravah has found good appreciation amongst the audiences.

     

    What sparked this trend? Why would shows in a genre that’s seemingly dark and not for everyone in the family work better than comedy, for example?

     

    A part of the answer lies in news headlines. In a trend that can’t be dated back to more than 10 years ago, the proportion of crime headlines in our newspapers has gone up significantly. Print editors figured out that such stories tend to get their reader’s attention. Over time, they moved from Page 5-6 to the cover page. It is now well understood that the benefit drawn from reading such stories is more vicarious than social. But the social layer helps. It comforts the soul and convinces you that reading such a story is a good thing after all.

     

    The argument is not very different for television. In fact, the content becomes more interesting and vicarious with visual support. The reassuring social factor gets amplified too, with an anchor sharing his pearls of wisdom at appropriate points in the episode.

     

    What makes crime reality immensely engaging is that it offers genres within the genre. There are stories that rely purely on suspense, that is, the whodunits. Then there are those where the viewer is in on the plot right from the first scene. There are some with a gut-wrenching, emotional theme, while others that are more macro-social, covering issues such as political corruption or female foeticide in hospitals. You almost never know what to expect. The intrigue that most of our serials lack, because being predictable is first nature for them today, comes alive in crime shows.

     

    I find the campaign for Shaitaan interesting in this context. There is no social story here. It is entirely focused on the “thrill” of the crime. The premise of a man who killed his wife and then kept her body in a refrigerator for five years managed to shock even a veteran crime show viewer like me. But you can rest assured that there will be a veneer of social sanction that the anchor Sharad Kelkar will bring into the actual show.

     

    Crime never pays, Anoop Soni says repeatedly in Crime Patrol. Ironically, for television channels in India, it’s paying off very well!

     

    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

     

     

     

  • The research function in the television industry has grown significantly in its importance over the last decade, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Researching The Research Department

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The organization chart in our television industry has been through its share of evolution. When satellite television first came to India, it was all about “programming” and “ad sales”. All other departments were more like support functions, enabling creation and selling of content. As time progressed, some other functions came into prominence, viz. marketing, distribution and research.

     

    The research function has grown significantly in its importance over the last decade. As the viewership data got more complex, with more market coverage and more frequent reporting, the need to analyze it with more complexity also surfaced. Hence, from one or two executives handling all the viewership analysis needs of a channel to three or four, was a natural progression.

     

    But the key trigger that boosted the research department was the growth in competition. More competition meant more chances of failure. In most companies, across sectors and countries, research is often a reactive response to failure, either post-failure or (the smarter version) pre-failure. When there were only about 20 channels on television, chances of failure were minimal. You could “succeed” to some extent at least, purely because you were being beamed. As the number of channels increased, this ceased to be the case. Programme and channel failure rates increased. And the research department came into prominence for prognosis and diagnosis.

     

    Having interacted with the research departments across at least 40 different channels over the last four years, one knows that there is no defined “research executive type”. Every research executive thinks differently from each other, with no real pattern at large. Put the same material in the hands of research heads in five competition channels and you will see five different stories unfold altogether. This is a reverse problem to the sales department, where most executives across the industry think alike. At most times, too alike for their own good.

     

    Here are two facets about the research department that I find interesting to share. In a follow-up post in December, I’ll share some more.

     

    Researcher v/s Research Executive

    There is a difference between a researcher (someone like Ormax Media) and a research executive. It’s the same difference as that between a line producer and an executive producer on a film. The skill sets are different, as is the job description. Good research executives realize this. They would never burden a researcher with questions like: “How will you find these respondents”, “I have often seen that people say one thing but mean another, so how do we handle that”, “I think this question can be phrased differently”, etc.

     

    The point is this: If you didn’t trust the researcher, you shouldn’t be working together in the first place. But if you do, leave their job to them. Channels have not done themselves a great favor by hiring people from the research industry. A researcher becomes a research executive, but is never trained to handle the change in his role. He continues to behave like the backroom researcher in the research agency he came from, while in fact, he should be focusing on getting his key take-outs to the boardroom.

     

    Some of our best and most stimulating work at Ormax has happened when we have been given the mandate to do it the way we feel is right. Often, such carte blanche comes only from senior management, who are more interest in results than the process. At junior levels, there is an apparent need to justify a job, and hence, an intervention into the process is a natural outcome. Having said that, there are a handful of executives at middle and junior level who are result-focused than process-focused, and I have great respect for these people. I hope and believe that they will grow to become powerful people in the media business in the years to come.

     

    Quantitative v/s Qualitative Research

     

    The understanding of quantitative and qualitative research is different across research executives. Invariably, most have higher comfort levels with one over the other. This is not surprising, given that this disposition has been researched in the first place to be personality-linked. But when an executive is put in an unfamiliar situation, it’s like a fish out of water.

     

    At times, the only right way to get an answer to a business question is a statistically robust quantitative research design. But some research executives are “born and brought up” on focus group discussions. They would rather take qualitative feedback of eight groups of respondents as a decisive go or no-go decision on a new programme being tested, than test it with 400 respondents in a way that throws up a statistically valid result for the go or no-go question, as well as a viewership forecast.

     

    The reverse happens less often, where executives insist on quantitative research when the right technique should be more qualitative (e.g. content development). That’s because qualitative research is generally better “understood” than quantitative research. But to anyone who asks “how many people in the group discussion said this” or “this was said by only one person, so it should not be in the presentation”, I have only one advice – read the marketing research textbook again.

     

    In our work, there is great satisfaction in being told: “We have a business question. But you are the experts. You decide what’s the best way to answer our question.” I hope to hear more of this in the times to come.

     

    PS: I’ve clearly not finished yet. So watch out for Part 2 in December!

     

    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

     

     

  • Shailesh Kapoor on how the television industry handles kids – as audience and as talent

    Shailesh Kapoor | Kids & Television: No Child’s Play

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s Children’s Day, and if I were looking for an excuse to postpone this piece on ‘kids and television’ yet again, this is certainly not the day for it. So here goes!

     

    In its 20-odd years, our television has come a long way. An aspect of this progression that has always fascinated me is how our industry has handled kids. This topic has two distinct layers to it – kids as audience and kids as talent.

     

    The first one (kids as audience) is where a lot of action has taken place over the last 10 years. The kids’ channels genre has found its feet over time, and while it remains undersold historically, things have been looking up. Indian (homegrown) animation has taken off well, and it is sure to give additional impetus to the genre.

     

    However, it’s fairly well-known that a large proportion of kids viewing (and here, I speak of only voluntary viewing, not the passive viewing captured by the meters) comes from programmes and channels that don’t target kids as their primary audience. CID and Taarak Mehta are two such examples. Kids also spend a lot of time watching movies on television, and there are specific titles that are quite popular amongst them.

     

    Barring a handful of exceptions over years, it will be safe to say that unlike animation, the live action content space for kids in India remains under-explored. The big culprit is cinema, of course. We just haven’t made enough mainstream films for kids over the last two decades. There have been a few very good films featuring kids, especially Taare Zameen Par. But clearly, ‘featuring kids’ and ‘targeting kids’ are two different things altogether.

     

    Besides Krrish, Ra.One and the very recent Delhi Safari, all other film content targeted at kids has been grossly sub-standard, almost to the point of being apologetic. No wonder then that kids have taken to more “adult” cinema, such as Welcome, 3 Idiots and even Rowdy Rathore.

     

    The live action deficit is evident in primary content on television as well. In Doordarshan days, there were several shows targeted at this audience, such as Vikram Aur Betaal (fantasy), Kachchi Dhoop (drama) and Indradhanush (science fiction). Of course, thrillers (e g Karamchand and Byomkesh Bakshi) had a loyal kids following even then.

     

    But over years, live action entertainment for kids has given way to more mainstream teenage television. At the age of 10-11, Roadies and D3 become real options for them. By virtue of addressing a wider and more consumption-led audience segment, these shows can get higher production budgets.

     

    In the 80s, the Children’s Film Society of India or the state (via Doordarshan) would fund kids content. Today, market dynamics decide what gets made. But in the bargain, the kid is losing out on live action content targeted at him/ her. There’s a correction required somewhere. And initially, the onus may liemore with the GECs than with kids’ channels. SAB has made early strides, with Baal Veer and Jeanie Aur Juju. More shall follow soon, one hopes!

     

    It’s on the talent side that the industry’s learning curve has been a lot uneven. No logical argument can convince me on how children working 5-7 days a week round the year, even for the most handsome pay cheque and with their parents’ approval, does not amount to child labour. It’s not a once-in-a-blue-moon shoot. It’s not a weekend hobby that pays. If it’s a daily job, it should not be justified just because you become famous on TV. In fact, the ill-effects of fame further strengthen the argument against kids being a part of daily shows.

     

    Two years ago, Amole Gupte proudly shared with us his approach towards shooting with kids for his film Stanley Ka Dabba. They would shoot only on the weekends, and it would be like a workshop, where kids would be made to feel at ease with the entire process. Surely, we can emulate Gupte’s vision, at least in spirit, if not literally, for television.

     

    An area where we have made good progress is in handling kids on reality shows. Full marks to Dance India Dance for driving this change over the last three years. Till then, making kids cry on screen, and reprimanding them for a bad performance, was a norm in many reality shows. It makes for good drama, was the word going round. Today, that’s history. There is growing sensitization that kids talent on reality shows needs to be respected, because having made it to the stage itself makes them special. Thank you DID (and more recently, Junior Masterchef) for showing the way.

     

    I always worry that our television will become a 15+ phenomenon in these commercial times. With kids spending less time with books than even before, television can make a telling difference in their formative years. We need to give them the programming they deserve. And if there’s enough collective will to do that, surely there’s enough money in this country to figure the commerce out?

     

    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

     

  • Why almost 20 news channels are unable to put up even one decent programme between them on the passing of a film icon, wonders Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: State of our News Channels: Trite tributes to film legends

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    2011 and 2012 have been years of bereavement for Bollywood. In a short span of time, we have lost four legends, who will remain immortalized by their glorious work. Shammi Kapoor, Dev Anand, Rajesh Khanna and Yash Chopra collectively defined more than an era in the film industry. Pick any memorable film from the 1960s and early 1970s and there’s more than a fair chance that one of these stalwarts was associated with it. Yash Chopra’s career, of course, extends way beyond the 70s, with his swansong releasing this coming Tuesday.

     

    As an ardent fan of cinema in general and these legends in particular, I have been deeply saddened and disillusioned by how the media, especially of the electronic variety, has handled the news of their death. I vividly remember the media coverage of Raj Kapoor’s death in 1988, when we operated in a single channel scenario. Doordarshan literally made you live the tragedy. There was grief and somberness in the coverage, laced with oodles of grace and maturity. Importantly, the coverage went on over almost a week, with news slowly giving way to analysis and then to retrospective tributes.

     

    Things have really changed in the last 20 years. I understand the news channel obsession with ‘breaking news’ and ‘exclusives’ to an extent (and that’s another topic altogether). But to see the demise of a film legend being reduced to breaking news and exclusives is beyond comprehension.

     

    The truth is: News coverage of famous entertainment celebrities passing away has become a ‘byte fest’.The formula is to get other famous people, most of whom have not even achieved half as much as the one who passed away, to speak about the legend. Filters like articulation and relevant credentials don’t seem to matter. It’s clearly a carpet-bombing approach, where you try and contact as many talking heads as possible, and settle for the ones who agree to come on camera and give you a byte.

     

    I can understand listening to Amitabh Bachchan, Shashi Kapoor, Shah Rukh Khan or Sridevi speak about Yash Chopra on such an occasion. But why an audience would like to see a byte from Tanuja or Sanjay Dutt is beyond my comprehension. On occasions such as these, film authors and historians should take the forefront. But for a news channel, they don’t make for good face value.

     

    You can choose to get the wrong people on camera, but you can at least ask them the right questions. Basic research on the background of the person who passed away, and his association with the talking head, is conspicuous by its absence. It’s almost as if the imdb/ wiki filmography has been printed and some notes have been scribbled on it. And what’s with asking: “How do you feel about his death?” Is that even a question!

     

    Even the choice of footage leaves me flummoxed. Certain channels kept playing Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge songs in their Yash Chopra coverage. For a man who has directed 22 films, most of which have been classics or blockbusters or both, why would you choose a film he didn’t even direct! Because you don’t even know who directed it, or you use it knowingly because it is popular footage? And what can I say about calling Rajesh Khanna ‘Babu Moshai’, except: Have you ever watched Anand, dude?

     

    The ‘programme’ names often border on being ludicrous. A channel covered Rajesh Khanna’s death live, under a program called ‘Oopar Aaka, Neeche Kaka’. Looking for alliterations and puns in tragedy is not exactly the most sensitive thing to do, but if you choose to do it, choose words that at least make some sense. The commentary is frantic, almost as if it’s a race against time. After-death is anything but that, both literally and metaphorically.

     

    I have been questioning in my mind about why such mediocrity exists consistently. Why are almost 20 news channels not able to put up even one decent programme between them on such an occasion? Why does the best ‘coverage’ on such occasions come from channels like Sony Mix airing the best songs of the legend, than from a news channel? And what use is the archival footage gathered over years, if you don’t have the right minds to interpret it intelligently?

     

    Part of the answer lies in laziness. Journalism, even by the admission of several senior journalists, has become lazy. Of late, Internet has made it even lazier, where you can pick up a tweet or some wiki information, and just put it out in the media. It’s the easy way out. And it’s apparently enough.

     

    The second part of the answer lies in the quality of talent available in the newsroom itself. Whenever there has been a political tragedy, I have found our coverage fairly acceptable. That’s because most senior and seasoned TV journalists come from a political journalism lineage. In films, the sensible names like Rajeev Masand or Anupama Chopra are limited to a weekly show and an odd interview. In Hindi, even that’s a luxury.

     

    Try and question a news channel executive on their banal coverage of any of these deaths and the oft-repeated excuse comes into play: This is what the viewer wants.

     

    No sir! The viewer wants more, if only you cared to ask him.

     

    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