MxMIndia

Category: SHAILESH KAPOOR

  • 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

     

  • The last decade has been shockingly under-served when it comes to comic television in India, rues Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Who stole our Comedies?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Everyone likes a laugh. Across cultures and eras, ‘Comedy’ has never lost its relevance. In India too, comedy films have a rich legacy, going back to gems like Chalti Ka Naam Gaadi, Padosan, Angoor, Gol Maal and Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro. On television, the ’80s featured exemplary comedy work, none less than Kundan Shah’s Yeh Jo Hai Zindagi.

     

    Television comedy continued to thrive in the ’90s and the early 2000s, with Dekh Bhai Dekh, Hum Paanch, Khichdi, Baa Bahoo Aur Baby, Movers & Shakers and Office Office. You may have missed the nuanced work of Kundan Shah and Basu Chatterjee in some of these, but you certainly couldn’t have complained of quality or quantity in absolute terms.

     

    The last decade, however, has been shockingly under-served when it comes to comic television in India. If we keep aside the launch and the subsequent success of Comedy Central, there’s not much of a story to write.

     

    In 2005, The Great Indian Laughter Challenge made stand-up comedy a mass phenomenon, leading to a spate of clones, till Comedy Circus found a personality of its own, standing out as a unique idea amongst the me-toos. 2005 also saw Sarabhai Vs. Sarabhai, a modern classic in its own right. But as Star One moved away from comedy into romance, they created a vacuum that no one was willing to fill.

     

    Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah launched in 2008 and has been the frontrunner of the comic genre over the last five years. But this has also been a period when other channels have labeled comedy a ‘SAB TV thing’, paying very little attention to it in their core programming strategy.

     

    That it is a case of missed opportunity seems like stating the obvious. Here are 10 reasons:

    1. Comedy films continue to deliver consistent repeat viewing and high ratings on television.

    2. De-stress and relaxation (called ‘Mind Fresh’ by consumers across the country) remains a frontal benefit delivered by television viewing in India. Whenever it has been used well in existing soaps as a device, it has worked wonderfully.

    3. Comedy Nights With Kapil has shown that a good comedy format can beat reality shows with five times its budget on viewer popularity.

    4. Jethalal is the most popular television character on Hindi GECs today, ahead of Anandi, Sandhya, Mahadev and Ram Kapoor.

    5. India is going through a phase of political disenchantment, and time could not be more right for a satirical look at the state of the nation.

    6. General Entertainment Channel (GEC) cannot exclude the most unifying and ‘general’ of all genres!

    7. Some of the biggest Bollywood box office successes in recent years have been comedies.

    8. Rohit Shetty is the No 1 director in Bollywood today, and the only director who can command audience attention like a superstar, purely on the strength of his action-comedies.

    9. There’s liberal sprinkling of humor in the top reality shows, featuring anchors like Manish Paul and Jay Bhanushali. And it works.

    10. Short comedy formats continue to thrive on radio, across big and small towns.

     

    So what gives? Why has comedy become a ‘single-channel + an odd weekend show’ phenomenon? I believe there are two reasons.

     

    One, it is not easy to make the audiences laugh. Writing for a comic show requires special talent, and the writers’ breed thriving today is more of the daily-soap variety. Hence, we have a dearth of good comedy ideas anyway, and those, which may sound good on paper, may eventually falter in execution.

     

    Two, there is an under-estimation of the genre’s potential at the broadcaster’s end. Because not too many comedy shows since Taarak Mehta managed to achieve great success, the genre has been put under question. In reality, it’s the execution that should have been examined. Comedy Nights With Kapil proves that a well-crafted comedy show can achieve mainstream success at par with the best of television.

     

    I hope to see a change, where comedy features as a mainstream GEC genre. The time cannot be more ripe. The need cannot be more under-served. The writing on the wall cannot be more clear. It’s a matter of when and who, than whether.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • As the 2000-2005 generation stars grow older, we may have a genuine dearth of "personalities" and "stars" on our television, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Death Of The ‘Television Star’

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Sangeeta Ghosh, one of the several television stars from the golden era of Star Plus, is back on the telly, in a new Sony show titled Jee Le Zara. In the well-executed launch promo, her refreshing presence creates an unmistakable appeal for the audiences. Ghosh was not one of the biggest icons from the last decade, but she was, and remains, a star in her own right. And her stardom shines through the promo.

     

    But that can’t be said about dozens of other serials that launch every year. Many feature newcomers anyway, but even actors in their second and third serials don’t have a presence that makes them the centerpiece of the communication, and eventually the show.

     

    The last decade was very different. A slew of TV stars emerged as strong real-life personalities, with their appeal going beyond just their character or their programme. This long list includes Smriti Irani, Sakshi Tanwar, Rajeev Khandelwal, Ram Kapoor, Ronit Roy and Urvashi Dholakia, amongst others. They may still be known by their character names, but their appeal extends well beyond that tag.

     

    For the newer lot, their character remains their only identity. Even after doing three shows, some TV actors of today don’t bring even a hint of stardom with them. They are just workhorses who have learnt to play their roles and balance endless working hours in a grueling job.

     

    There are exceptions, none less than Drashti Dhami (Geet, now Madhubala), but only far and few in between. Everybody else is a part of a nondescript crowd, where replacing an actor is only a matter of picking another one from the crowd.

     

    Have we then seen the death of the television star in the last 5-6 years? Evidently yes. And as the 2000-2005 generation stars grow older, we may have a genuine dearth of “personalities” and “stars” on our television.

     

    What led to this? The analysis is not evident, and there are at least two hypotheses I could come up with, which I understand may not be exhaustive. One, it could be about the daily show grind. When Kyunkii and Kahani first started in 2000, daily serials were a relatively virgin idea in India. Actors probably saw them as a creative challenge. The crew was largely from weekly shows and hence operated out of that mindset.

     

    Over time, the mindset seems to have changed to a quick-fix, let’s-get-the-episode-out daily show mindset. The creative challenge is now being found elsewhere, in shows like Nach Baliye and Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa, than in the main acting role itself. Being on the sets everyday is not fun anymore. The rising number of health issues being reported from the industry hold testimony to this change.

     

    Second, I believe most actors in the 2000-2005 period had better training than their counterparts today. Whether the training came through theatre or acting schools, they just seemed more prepared. Today, we literally see young, college kids landing up lead roles. Perhaps, casting has become more about looks and a basic level of dialogue delivery, than about the search for a potential star.

     

    Whatever be the genesis, we have a real issue at hand. What’s needed is casting vision, something with Balaji Telefilms managed to display admirably in the 2000s. Otherwise, we may have an almost star-less television industry five years from now!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • Why should any advertiser, besides at best the title sponsor (that too arguable), buy onto an India-Zimbabwe series, by paying rates that would be at significantly higher CPRPs than most other genres, asks Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: India-Zimbabwe: As Dull As It Gets

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    In my almost 30 years of cricket following, this week has been a new low. India is playing a five-match ODI series in Zimbabwe. Out of sheer habit, I tried sampling one of the games. Within seconds, I was out of it. Dead grounds, players going through the motions and commentators from the B-league… There was nothing on offer at all.

     

    I have written a few months back on ‘Too Much Cricket’ and how pointless cricket creates that perception. But here, the question is even larger. It makes one wonder: Who funds this cricket? And whether indeed any such cricket can ever make money?

     

    In our IPL advertising equity research Ormax Trac20, we found that only about 20 brands managed to attract viewer attention over the course of the 45-day tournament, out of the 200+ brands that associated with IPL or its franchises in various ways. The 2011 World Cup was not very different, where about a dozen brands controlled 80% of the recall share.

     

    So, even in the most high-profile, high-interest tournaments, only the big sponsors and innovators stand out. Why should any advertiser, besides at best the title sponsor (that too arguable), buy onto an India-Zimbabwe series, by paying rates that would be at significantly higher CPRPs than most other genres?

     

    And if indeed no one should, why should such a series be held in the first place? If it were to promote cricket in Zimbabwe, an India A team would have been a good idea too.

     

    This brings me to the larger question of media bias, where media choices of several brands are influenced by individual perceptions. I know of brands who would like to be on cricket, because certain senior executives, including the CEO at times, “feels” cricket is the right choice for them. And if they can’t afford the IPL or an India-Pak series, they settle for whatever comes their way.

     

    In an interesting case a few years ago, I heard about a CMO who bought into cricket series and then planned an extensive travel itinerary for himself, so that he can give out the Man of the Match awards. This, while his new product launch, which was being advertised in the series, should have taken his time and attention at the marketing office.

     

    I wonder if CMOs sometimes buy into such properties to make their CVs more attractive. “Spearheaded the launch of the new handset through the title sponsorship of an India-Sri Lanka series” sounds more attractive than “Delivered the most cost-efficient TV campaign in the mobile phones category in 2012-13”. Maybe not!

     

    In another case, a sales executive at a channel (not a GEC) managed to sign a 30 lac sponsorship deal for a reality show by luring the MD of the brand to be the “Chief Guest” in the season finale, where he will give out the cheque to the winner, and speak about the brand. The MD spoke for about three minutes, and all of that had to be retained in the actual show.

     

    Even as the big agencies continue to grapple with larger questions related to measuring advertising effectiveness that goes beyond just CPRP benchmarking, we have a universe of ad hoc advertisers providing us enough entertainment on the sidelines.

     

    Come to think of it, if you watch the fifth India-Zimbabwe ODI tomorrow like you watch a B-grade film that’s so bad, it’s good, you may end up having a good time anyway!

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

     

  • When a Shah Rukh Khan comes to a reality show, you have, what an Executive Producer will call, a "rocking episode", writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Chennai Express: On A TV Near You

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    You can love him. You can hate him. But you could not have missed him on your television over the last week. Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) was omnipresent on the small screen in the lead upto the release of his new film Chennai Express. From reality shows to daily serials to news channel specials to the innumerable promotional spots on music channels, if you wanted an SRK-less life over the last week, the only real option you had was to turn off your TV sets.

     

    Some may call it overkill, but the blitzkrieg has definitely helped the movie. The film is set to challenge the opening day record held by Salman Khan’s Ek Tha Tiger. And that may only be the start.

     

    Television has fast emerged as not just the lead but also the dominant media for film promotions over the last decade. In a 2012 study conducted by us, television’s impact on the buzz of a film was more than twice that of posters and trailers in the theatres, which emerged as the second-most effective media to drive the buzz for a new release.

     

    By now, most producers, especially the big studios, understand this impact. Hence, TV plans have got more aggressive while other media, especially outdoor, are being used more judiciously in recent times.

     

    But a key component of the TV plan goes beyond paid promos and the music free-play on channels like MTV and 9XM. It is the GEC and the news part that’s more exciting today. The former delivers reach beyond the relatively “niche” music genre, while the latter delivers male audiences, the core theatre-going populace.

     

    But then, every star is not an SRK or a Salman Khan who can make the most of the exposure his film gets on reality shows and news specials. I have been a strong opponent of channels giving free mileage to films through in-programme plugs, in what is an evidently one-sided relationship. But when an SRK comes to your reality show, you have, what an Executive Producer will call, a “rocking episode”. So the relationship is clearly win-win.

     

    But most other stars just make an appearance, not knowing much to say or do that could add value to the film’s campaign or to the programme’s ratings. These appearances do nothing to the rocking-ness of the episodes. There are other extremes too. When Sunil Shetty made appearances to promote his (wrongly-spelt) film Enemmy, the only audience reaction was: “Isko abhi bhi filmein milti hain!”

     

    Coming back to Chennai Express, SRK has been witty, charming and edgy in equal measure, in his promotional appearances for the film. Having seen him promote many films with equal vigour in the past, one can safely say that Rohit Shetty is one of the best things to have happened to SRK. He seemed relaxed and at-ease promoting an outright fun film. The genre evidently suits his persona well.

     

    Come October, things may change and become even more interesting. Most readers will be aware that film producers get heavily discounted ad rates from channels, compared to what an FMCG brand pays, because trailers are seen as part-content. If the 10+2 ad cap indeed sees the light of the day, these discounted rates will be the first ones to go, as channels, short of saleable inventory, will have to shed low-priority advertisers, part-content or not.

     

    We can then expect innovation that goes beyond reality show episodes, where channels and producers co-create content, like the Eid event to promote Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara, scheduled this weekend on Colors.

     

    For SRK, meanwhile, life has come a full circle. The medium where he started his career has now embraced him whole-heartedly as he gets sets to deliver his next blockbuster.

     

    For the sake of television entertainment, wish they made more like him!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • For debates-heavy news programming to be engaging, you need talking heads who can debate – authoritatively and intelligently, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Primetime News: Talking Heads or Headless Chickens?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    In the middle of a heated news television debate, the spokesperson of a top political party asserts: “Can you just give me two minutes to make my point? Then I have to go to another channel.” I was amused the first time I heard this line about two years ago. But over time, it’s become par for the course. Not too long ago, I was switching news channels and found the same spokesperson, sitting on the same seat, on four different news channels within a span of an hour, engaging with the same debate with roughly the same panelists!

     

    Till about a decade ago, news television was about reportage, accompanied by analysis, peppered with bytes that added value to it. NDTV Profit has been repeating old episodes of The World This Week as a part of the 25-year celebration of the group, and the difference between the approach to news then and now is striking, to say the least.

     

    I’m not suggesting that debates-heavy news programming on primetime is bad. In fact, if done well, it can be significantly more engaging than the more passive classical reportage format. But for that, you need talking heads who can debate – authoritatively and intelligently. And the current lot falls short on both counts.

     

    It’s evident to any regular news viewer that the spokespersons designated by the top political parties, the likes of Sanjay Jha, Nirmala Sitaraman and Rahul Narvekar, have no real authority at their disposal. They are foot soldiers, thrown in a hostile situation and left to dodge the missiles being hurled at them. To make themselves heard in the cacophony may well be their only KRA.

     

    Talking heads from regional parties, such as Derek O’Brien from Trinamool, clearly display more authority, though it is another matter that half of the time, he is defending the indefensible.

     

    On intelligence (and I don’t mean IQ here but political acumen), you can sense that parties have relaxed it as a criteria for the choice of spokespersons. From Abhishek Manu Singhvi to Sanjay Jha is quite a big shift, for example. It seems there are too many channels and you need an army to share the “workload.”

     

    In any case, the real voices that matter choose not to come to primetime television shows. Rarely would you see a minister making an appearance in a one-on-one with one of the top anchors. Because they have made themselves so inaccessible, they are treated with near reverence when they indeed make that odd appearance.

     

    Interestingly, the same revering anchors go ballistic with the lesser mortals, read spokespersons. It’s as if the anchors start their show licking their lips in anticipation of the “tough questions” they will hurl at their guests.  Nidhi Razdan’s latest interview with British MP Barry Gardiner proves that the infection to be mean has spread thick and fast. Blame Arnab, of course.

     

    I believe political parties will do well to focus on quality rather than quantity, i.e., present themselves only on 2-3 channels on any given night, but send erudite and articulate talking heads, who can rise above petty out-shouting, to deliver the goods. It will serve the parties well in the long run.

     

    Channels, on the other hand, will do well to limit a debate to 3-4 talking heads. There is no empirical evidence to suggest more talking heads means a more engaging debate or more ratings. A leaner panel will, in fact, encourage quality politicians to participate.

     

    Lest I should be misunderstood, I am not advocating a “reduce noise” recipe. I (kind of) like the noise of primetime television. It is provocative and stimulating in its own right. But if the noisemakers are just headless chicken, the point is lost. We need noisemakers who are also newsmakers!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • Many of us in the media cannot distinguish between a campaign that does not deliver to its objectives, and a campaign that is designed to meet wrong or strategically-flawed objectives in the first place, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: What Do You Mean By ‘I Should Know Why I’m Doing This Campaign’?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    They are omnipresent. They are on TV, in the newspapers, on the radio, on the hoardings, in the theatres, on Facebook, on Twitter. No matter where you go, a launch campaign of a new TV programme, a new TV property or a new (or being-presented-as-new) TV channel will find you out. Across just the national channels, more than 150 such campaigns of various sizes and shapes are executed every year in India.

     

    Everyone has a view on an ad: Bad ad, good ad, stupid ad, clever ad, and so on. It is natural then that TV campaigns are discussed with great interest in the media industry. “Did you see the promo of the new show on Colors”, “What do you think of the &pictures campaign”, “I really like the IBL promos on Star”, “Jee Le Zaraa looks interesting from the promos”, etc.

     

    One of the professional hazards of my work is that I invariably end up being dragged into these discussions. Either a question is posed to me, or an opinion is stated, more like a cue to respond with mine. Yes, like everyone else, I too have a view (sometimes a more confidential one, having “tested” the campaign in question). But I really don’t know what to say at most times, and my attention is focused on finding an escape route.

     

    The reason for my response is not diplomacy but something more direct and relevant to the idea of a “campaign” (or “ad”, for that matter) itself. Any campaign, across categories, should be designed to address certain sharply stated campaign objectives, i.e., the desired consumer messaging or response the campaign aims to achieve. Hence, the measure of a successful campaign is its ability to deliver on the campaign objectives successfully. Hence, how can one even begin to comment on a campaign without knowing its objectives?

     

    Many of us in the media cannot distinguish between a campaign that does not deliver to its objectives, and a campaign that is designed to meet wrong or strategically-flawed objectives in the first place. The latter is not a case of a bad campaign but a bad strategy. That’s a different discussion altogether. But invariably, the discussion gets mixed up and before we know, we are questioning why the brand even exists!

     

    But there is a bigger problem. Most campaign creators in television don’t even set objectives to start with. I have often tried asking the seemingly innocuous question: “What are the objectives of this campaign?” Some of the answers I have got, and I kid you not, have been:

     

    • To promote the show (as against promoting competition?)
    • To get eyeballs (you may as well have said “to make money”!)
    • To create awareness (rudimentary as it may be, it’s not entirely inane)
    • To create buzz (still more acceptable, given the ones above!)

     

    Recently, I met an MBA batchmate who is the brand head of a category in one of the leading FMCGs in India. As I shared my predicament with him, he looked wide-eyed and reasonably speechless, before gathering the courage to say: “I would have been sacked for saying any of that even in my first year of work!”

     

    Setting campaign objectives is not an easy task. It requires discipline and debate. In the earlier working model, ad agencies would own the brand and drive this area. Today, the strategy is reasonably scattered across functions: the brand team, the ad agency, the media agency and the research partner. Yes, there are some channels that are objectives-oriented in their approach towards some campaigns, but those are case studies that are far and few in between.

     

    Next time you have a big campaign coming up, try defining what you EXACTLY want the campaign to achieve. The answer may not be as easy as you think, and like it’s often the case, the God may lie in the detail!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • Television's aversion to all things alcohol is a symptom of the traditional mindset the medium targets at large, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Care For A Drink? No We Are On TV

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The anti-smoking infomercial that precedes film screenings is now an in-joke in the media industry. It can be argued that the government’s obsession with smoking shots in films, however passing, is not entirely misplaced. But the banal and utterly ineffective execution of the now-infamous Mukesh infomercial kills the idea.

     

    Television has no such problems. I just don’t remember when I last saw anyone smoking in an originally-produced Indian programme, fiction or non-fiction. Everyone is clean to the bone. Even when a teenage character goes astray and takes two puff of a cigarette to “try it out”, it happens off-camera, though the ensuing conflict may stretch over two weeks.

     

    Television’s take on alcohol is not very different. Yes, there have been shows where key negative characters are portrayed as alcoholics (including a sisters’ trio in Colors’ now-off-air Laagi Tujhse Lagan). But the stereotyping is striking. They are meant to be bad people because they consume alcohol. Or maybe they consume alcohol because they are bad people!

     

    Except Ram Kapoor and Sakshi Tanwar enjoying their drink in a couple of (and some of the best) episodes of Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, all heroes and heroines squirm at the idea of a bottle being anywhere in their vicinity.

     

    Television’s aversion to all things alcohol is a symptom of the traditional mindset the medium targets at large. And indeed, there may be merit in arguing for their case. In our research across markets, especially non-metros, discussions on alcoholism can touch raw nerves in the housewives community. Many of them face it as a real issue in their lives, where the husband, the father-in-law or the brother-in-law are spending disproportionate share of the household income on booze. And there is a direct linkage between alcoholism and domestic violence, as we all know.

     

    Of course, there is the other side of the argument too, which says that all television is not supposed to cater to middle-class housewives who face such real issues in their day-to-day lives. There is an audience beyond that: The urban elite, the youth, men and women in professional jobs, etc. But these characters are conspicuous by their absence in our serials anyway.

     

    Back in the early ’90s, Amita Nangia played the beer-guzzling Sheena in the much-popular Zee TV weekly Tara. But that was an era of less than 10 million C&S households, with most of them being upmarket metro audiences who were early adopters with a progressive mindset towards new ideas. As television has penetrated deeper, this audience segment has become far too miniscule to interest the broadcaster community. Even niche channels today are targeting SEC BC audiences in towns like Lucknow, Bhopal, Jaipur and Kolhapur.

     

    There are 41 alcohol scenes in Yeh Jawani Hai Deewani. But that did not deter the theatre-going Indians from making it one of the biggest box-office grossers in recent times. In fact, the casual presence of alcohol, albeit a bit overdone, made the film modern and cool in its own way, and that went well with the grammar of the film at large.

     

    I am most interested in seeing how the Indian version of 24, and the upcoming Amitabh Bachchan fiction show on Sony, handle “liquor” as an idea. In a country where having a glass of red wine can get someone to be labeled as a “sharaabi”, it will be good to see mass television influencing a few minds in the right direction.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • Going by the first eight months, 2013 has not been the most exciting year for Hindi GEC content. But the festive season could change that as Shailesh Kapoor highlights what each Hindi GEC is set for.

    Shailesh Kapoor: The Big GEC Quarter: What’s In Store?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Going by the first eight months, 2013 has not been the most exciting year for Hindi GEC content. An overview of the year so far will look like this:

     

    Most launches have been fairly ‘routine’ in nature, and no new show except Comedy Nights With Kapil has really stood out. At a genre level, the consolidation of ‘period dramas’, led by Jodhaa-Akbar and Maharana Pratap, has been an interesting development. The most hyped fiction launch of the year, Saraswatichandra, has not made a lasting impact on the GEC category.

     

    Those are the only worth-mentioning parts on the content side. All the action has happened on the non-content front, with digitization and TRAI orders keeping all broadcasters, including GECs, busy.

     

    But this festive season, September to November, this shall change. And how! Here’s what each Hindi GEC is set for:

     

    Star Plus

    Mahabharat, the ambitious Star Plus project, launches on September 16 in the weekdays 8.30pm slot. No fiction show opens higher than 2.5 TVR these days, so Mahabharat will have to build inch-by-inch over the first few weeks, if it has to emerge successful. Its fate would entirely hinge on how consumers take to Star Plus’ tone and treatment of the epic. An acceptance can widen the gap between Star Plus and competition, while a rejection can potentially allow Colors to overtake Star Plus.

     

    Colors

    Between Bigg Boss and 24, Colors will have its hands full this season. Bigg Boss will give the channel a boost, as it will replace two under-performing dailies. With the mood of the nation increasingly moving towards male-inclusive programming, a well-executed season holds potential to become an unqualified success.

     

    All eyes will be on 24 this October. There are no meaningful benchmarks on how well a show of nature can do among the mainstream audience. But we can be rest assured that Colors will leave no marketing stone unturned to give 24 a fair chance with the viewers. The promos look slick and truly International. Even if it is a moderate success in the first season, 24 can open doors to GECs pushing the envelope by breaking away from homogenous, housewife-targeted content.

     

    Zee TV

    ZEEL’s focus seems more on launching new channels, and there isn’t much striking content lined up on Zee TV, beyond the routine fiction and seasonal non-fiction launches. Sunday morning show Buddha is unlikely to create any ripples, given the weak slot. Currently, Zee TV occupies a No. 3 spot with a sizeable gap on either side, but Sony may be eyeing that spot with the new KBC season.

     

    Sony

    KBC 7 launches tonight, with a new set and a 7cr grand prize. KBC has proven that it has long legs, and those who said Sony is flogging a dead horse by investing in the format have already eaten and digested their humble pie about three years ago. The new look and format should create some freshness that the previous season lacked. And with a host who gets younger with each season, KBC 7 should be on a solid wicket.

     

    Sony’s other fiction launch Desh Ki Beti Nandini seems to explore the political drama space, with a female leader as its protagonist. It’s a genre waiting to be tapped, but a lot will depend on the casting and the narrative style. If the show manages to strike a fine balance between the conventional and the innovative, it should do well.

     

    SAB & Life OK

    Even as the other four channels lock horns with big-budget shows, SAB and Life OK will be consolidating their fiction line-ups to build on the recent momentum both have seen. At much lower content budgets, touching 140-150 GRPs is more than admirable. Life OK will experiment with high-end non-fiction, with Bachelorette India with Mallika Sherawat. Will she get married on TV? Your guess is as good as mine.

     

    PS: This column will be on a two-week break. When I write again on Sep 27, a lot of this action would have unfolded already, and it would be fun to take stock of the proceedings!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor


     

  • Shailesh Kapoor is intrigued by the phenomenon of a young boy laughing his heart out at every joke of 'Grand Masti' with his friends and then watching Mahabharat with his parents at home

    Shailesh Kapoor: Mahabharat at home, Grand Masti outside home!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Two weeks ago, Grand Masti, an adult comedy packed with double entendre jokes (the kind where there you get only the “second meaning”), opened to phenomenal box-office, registering Rs 400 million on its first weekend. This huge opening made Grand Masti the fourth highest Bollywood opener of 2013, ahead of several A-list starrers.

     

    There was little doubt that Grand Masti will open well, but I was personally caught off-guard by the degree of its wellness. Evidently, a population of youth came out in big numbers to watch “sexy jokes”. It’s safe to say that many of them are not even regular moviegoers: The idea of watching verbal porn got them to the theatres as an exception.

     

    Three days after Grand Masti released, Star Plus launched Mahabharat at 8.30pm. The show has opened to very good ratings, with the first week’s average of 3.1 TVR making it in the first instance of any fiction launch crossing the 3-TVR mark in its first week since (at least) 2011.

     

    It’s well-known that TV viewing is largely a family affair in India, and the youth are involved, actively or passively, too. I’m, thus, intrigued by a 19-year something young boy from somewhere in Chandigarh or Indore, who watches Grand Masti on Friday with his bunch of college friends, laughing his heart out at every joke, and then joins his parents to watch Mahabharat on Monday. And probably enjoys that too!

     

    Several media observers and social commentators will label this behaviour as hypocritical. It’s been argued for ages that there is a cultural hypocrisy in India, where we, the second most populous country in the world, can’t just get ourselves to talk about sex comfortably. In turn, it leads to a sexually suppressed population, especially the teenagers and the youth, an audience Grand Masti instantly caters to.

     

    But there’s more to it than just the sexual suppression. The more we study the youth, the more we realize that there home v/s outside separation is a well thought-out one. It has been created by their generation as a legitimate method of functioning in a society where family values are still paramount. And it goes beyond just sexual expression.

     

    For example, more than 80% Indian youth who smoke would hide it from their parents. The number is equally high for those who consume alcohol. And I suspect the number doesn’t change much even when you enter your late 20s and the 30s. Parents, after all, shall always remain parents.

     

    From the appropriateness of language to dressing to habits, everything has a home-version and an outside-version (or friends-version). The former is designed to run the institution of family smoothly (and not grudgingly so, at all) and the latter to have some legitimate fun at the right age.

     

    Now one would expect that as these youngsters grow up and became parents, this dichotomy would perish, as they will be more “open-minded” and “approachable” as parents. No, it won’t. Because it’s not about approachability anyway. It’s about the voluntary adoption of family values, when in a family context. It’s an inbuilt mechanism that triggers off at the right situation, like it does when they are with their family even today. And it will trigger off in its full glory when they get married themselves.

     

    Most of the television success stories (fiction) over the last decade have been created around the importance of the institution of family in India. When Grand Masti is telecast on TV, it will be censored beyond recognition, and then rate poorly. But even if they allowed it to be telecast uncensored, it would have rated poorly anyway. Because the big television rule remains: When at home, do as the home-members do!

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • Secretly, many in rival channels are praying for the success of '24' Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: All Eyes on 24!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    There can’t be another topic for this column today. In what will be eventually remembered as one of the watershed events in the history of Indian television content, the Indian adaptation of popular series ’24’ goes on air on Colors tonight. The channel has promoted the show aggressively over two months now. When the first look broke, its film-like sleek look caught the attention of many in the media. And the interest continues to grow, as we get closer to the first episode.

     

    The million-dollar question, of course, is: Will ’24’ succeed in India, a market grown and fed on traditional family soaps in the name of fiction content? I won’t hazard a guess, but it is worth defining what “success” could mean in context of ’24’. All well-executed onternational non-fiction formats have taken their time to grow over seasons in India, as audience familiarity increases with each season and hence does their comfort level with the format.

     

    I’d expect ’24’ to be no different. To me, the first season will be a testing ground and an average TVR of 2.5-3 should be good enough for the channel to green-light Season 2, which I’d expect then to be bigger. So, we are not looking at 4-5 TVR. That would be unreasonable on many counts, especially the unfamiliar fiction genre 24 offers to a relatively under-exposed audience base.

     

    What if ’24’ succeeds?

     

    If ’24’ delivers to the industry’s general perception of success, we can expect two key changes. For one, you will see other channels getting bolder and more pro-risk in their fiction choices. After all, not too many channel executives actually relate to the content that they have to dish out, and in that sense, find themselves ‘creatively blocked’ by audience demands. ’24’ will allow them to express themselves better, coming out with ideas that they can truly relate to. Like always, you will see outrageously silly ideas too. But that’s a part of the deal.

     

    The second change will be in the talent itself. In the ’80s and the early ’90s, many prominent writers, directors and actors were a part of mainstream television, till daily soaps took over and only the likes of Alok Nath could sustain their interest. With ’24’, and Sony’s forthcoming show by Anurag Kashyap, we are seeing the return of film talent to television content after two decades. The floodgates may open if ’24’ works.

     

    What if ’24’ fails?

     

    This is an option many of us will dread, purely because it will rob us of new and interesting content in the immediate future. Secretly, many in rival channels are praying for ’24”s success, because of this reason.

     

    If ’24’ fails, it will propagate the myth that Indian audiences are not ready for content innovation. The truth is that the audiences may be ready, but there is a difference between being ready and being diehard consumers. The journey from readiness to fan-following needs time, hand-holding and a couple of seasons. One would like to see Colors back this property for at least one more season, even if it doesn’t work this year.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor

     

  • For most of these stakeholders, '24' brings in the hope that our television will change for the better, Alas, it was not to be, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Congratulations! You are too ‘evolved’ to be measured by TV ratings

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    If you were on social media, especially Twitter last weekend, you would have surely encountered glowing reviews about the Indian version of ’24’. The show, that went on-air last Friday, received predominant positive feedback from Twitter, as well as from the television and film industry, including competitors of the channel airing it. The feedback was on the same lines in the corporate community too.

     

    For most of these stakeholders, ’24’ brings in the hope that our television will change for the better, and become relevant to them personally. When I tweeted the following last Saturday, I was hoping to be proven wrong: “Our ratings system will never capture #24India’s real impact. Anything that’s skewed towards upper strata tends to be under-reported in TAM.”

     

    Alas, it was not to be. ’24’ opened to tepid “audience” response, scoring below the 2-TVR mark in its opening week. Evidently, the audience that enjoys Diya Aur Baati Hum and Jodha-Akbar every night decided to stay away.

     

    But are they the only “audience”? As any brand manager of a semi-premium or premium brand would want to know: Are these really the audiences who buy my products? I just picked up today’s The Times Of India (Mumbai) for a quick check: 7 out of the 13 prominent ads in the paper are either luxury brands or brands clearly targeted at an evolving mindset that’s doing more things that watching the same serial every night for the last four years.

     

    No wonder that 5 out of these 7 don’t use TV at all for their advertising. Because the measurement metric just doesn’t factor the reality of their target audience –socially mobile, affluent and evolving consumers who are increasingly going to craft the marketing future in India. Let’s call them “Evolving” for the purpose of this piece, only for brevity.

     

    Are the Elite being measured by TAM? In 2007, TAM made an attempt to set up an ‘elite panel’, perhaps with a similar idea. Within months, the service had to be aborted because the differences between the main panel SEC A and the elite panel were not striking enough. But their definition of ‘Elite’ was based purely on affluence, not on attitudes and mindsets, which often concern brands more.

     

    Since then, we have been in status quo mode. The following five “Evolving” segments are not being captured by the current ratings:

     

    1. Senior industry professionals, e.g. CXOs and HODs

    2. English-speaking audiences who often watch their “TV” on the Internet

    3. Time-shifted viewers, who watch DVR recordings

    4. HD feed viewers

    5. Upmarket housing areas so posh that they are not research-accessible

     

    Crude estimates will suggest that these five will add upto at least 50 million viewers. But if they represent 6% of India’s TV population, they represent at least 15-20% of India’s spending power. But there is no data, none at all, that captures their viewership. No wonder then that many advertisers have chosen to stay off television and taken the print way instead.

     

    We routinely conduct studies for premium brands that sponsor TV programmes, to understand whether the association helped them achieve their marketing objectives. Often, the general brief is: “We have the ratings, but we always knew they will be low on TAM. We want to know whether it actually worked for us in our TG or not.” That “our TG” is not being captured by TAM is an obvious inference to be drawn here.

     

    BARC has been speaking about coming up with a ratings system that’s future-ready. If they have to indeed achieve that, they will need to address this elusive “Evolving” audience. Otherwise, we will just have more sample size of the same type of audience being reported.

     

    For me, ’24’ is the best Indian television has offered on the fiction front in a long time. Today, I feel like a voter who is ignored by the local politician because he does not belong to the caste that controls the vote bank. Or like a resident of the village in Akshay Kumar’s Joker, whose inhabitants realize their village just doesn’t exist on India’s map.

     

    There are many like me who will like to be “measured”. And the implications of measuring “us” are not just commercial, but social too. Today, television is the lead medium in India in terms of its influence on young minds of the country. The programming we churn out will decide the nature of this influence. And something as technical as measurement comes in the way of this process, it will be nothing short of tragic.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor is founder and CEO of media insights firm Ormax Media. He spent nine years in the television industry before turning entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own. He can be reached at his Twitter handle @shaileshkapoor