Category: SHAILESH KAPOOR

By Shailesh Kapoor

 

2013 is drawing to a close soon. In what would have otherwise been a fairly regular year for content on Hindi GECs, “innovation” has come in the form of a genre that has taken the front seat like never before – Period Dramas.

 

Life OK’s Mahadev emerged as a success story in 2012 – and continues to be so – propelling other channels to give more attention to the mythological and historical genres. Zee TV’s Jodha-Akbar has met with phenomenal success. Sony’s Maharana Pratap is the top weekday show on the channel. Star Plus’ Mahabharat was the biggest weekday launch on Hindi GECs in three years.

 

With half a dozen launches, most of which have met with success, is it safe to call period dramas a “trend” that has emerged in the Hindi GEC category in 2013? May be not.

 

It is important to distinguish a trend from just a serendipitous occurrence. It is important to distinguish the symptom from the real cause. And that’s my attempt in the rest of this piece.

 

Think of it. Why would period dramas suddenly come of age in India? There has been absolutely nothing of note that has happened in our society or nation in the last decade to suggest that our love for historical and mythological content would show this dramatic surge. There is no subtext here. In fact, in many ways, a young and evolving India watching period content is counter-intuitive, if not inexplicable.

 

The reason for the emergence of this quasi trend is very direct – fatigue. I wrote about this a few weeks back, that viewer fatigue is fast building up in the category. The sameness of content, coupled with slow pace and dragging perceptions, have meant that the overall category satisfaction index of the genre is at an all-time low since 2009. Cynicism and disillusionment are prime emotions that many core viewers are associating with weekday fiction on GECs.

 

Of course there are exceptions like Diya Aur Baati Hum and Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. But a handful of shows can’t compensate for the negative imagery created by more than 30 programmes collectively.

 

As a result, we are in a phase when anything unique will stand out and get its more-than-fair share of attention, as long as it passes the basic relevance cut. Jodha-Akbar does that the best, by focusing on a love story, making it come across like a contemporary story with only the setting being ‘period’.

 

The question to really ask is: Has there been any other launch in the last year or so that has passed the ‘unique yet relevant’ filter? You will find it tough to isolate even one program outside the period drama genre that fits the answer here.

 

Hence, the rise of the period dramas is more a ‘default’ phenomenon, symptomizing dissatisfaction, than emerging as a true, stand-alone need gap.

 

If GECs mistake this to be a trend, they may be tempted to find more concepts in this genre. Two things will invariably happen then. One, the genre will lose its uniqueness if 3-4 more such shows launch, and this will shake the foundation of why it’s working to begin with. Two, in the effort to follow a ‘trend’, channels may pick up concepts that are not entirely ‘relevant’ in the first place.

 

The need is to look elsewhere. Surely, in a country as diverse and culturally rich as ours, there can’t be a dearth of unique cum relevant stories that lend themselves well to weekday fiction content.

 

The real emerging trend is ‘fatigue’. Period dramas are the red herring everyone should be wary of. You have been cautioned!

 

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

 

By Shailesh Kapoor

 

“What is the one thing about this role that interested you so much that you applied for it?”

 

Over a decade now, having met more than a hundred ‘candidates’ (I prefer the expression ‘potential team members’, but it is a mouthful) for various positions, first in the television industry and now at Ormax Media, I have found this to be the one question that does half the job.

 

Many candidates speak about the company’s credentials in their answers, in which case, being a true researcher now, I reiterate the “you” in the question. After all, why would a company’s credentials interest you, unless there was something in it for you?

 

Some young people use the “growth and learning” plank for an answer. Most times, I am disappointed with their understanding, let alone articulation, of these two words. Both growth and learning are deeply proactive as concepts. To say that you will learn a lot in the company makes it seems like the company is some kind of an incubator with the responsible of ‘hatching’ you. The truth is, the company doesn’t even know at the interview stage if you are a good egg or a bad egg. The interview is about that itself!

 

But the word that features the most in the answers, across younger and more seasoned candidates, is the P-word: Passion. “Because I have a passion for television…”, “Because media industry fascinates me…”, “Because I love research…”

 

Let’s focus on the ‘passion for television’ for now, though you can replace the word with ‘films’ or ‘media’, and still read on. I have taken great pains in some of the interviews to understand what candidates actually mean when they say it.

 

The first level of detail often given is: ‘I watch a lot of TV’. Television is a household thing. Everyone watches it, in varying degrees. So, “I watch a lot of TV” makes you no better suited for the job than a 33-year old mother-of-two in Indore!

 

When I probe further, many are at a loss explaining their ‘passion’ as a mental thought. All they can explain is behaviour. I watch TV, I read about TV, I discuss TV, etc. If behaviour was all-important, half of Mumbai will be passionate about local trains.

 

Here is a little passion-test I have developed over time, which goes beyond behaviour and evaluates the mindset. It will more applicable to ‘non-creative’ roles or to first-timers in the industry:

 

1. Watching vs. consuming television: Everyone watches TV, but the truly passionate ones ‘consume’ it, at an overall category level. They build their thoughts based on what they watch, discuss them, have a view on them. An easy way to judge this by asking the candidate what her favorite show on television is, and what makes her like it. A ‘watcher’ will talk like a housewife. A ‘consumer’ will talk from inside the watcher’s mind.

2. Watching breaks and promos: If you surf channels the moment a break starts, your passion for television is highly questionable. Being passionate about an industry includes being passionate about all aspects of it. The most fascinating things happen on TV channels in breaks. Those who are truly passionate have noticed them and can intelligently speak about them.

3. Deciphering trends: A seasoned guy with a passion for TV will speak the language of trends in an interview. He will instinctively and effortlessly compare the program or channel being discussed to past successes or failures, some of them dating back to more than two decades.

 

Passion is instinctive. You can’t prepare for it. And you don’t have to work hard to communicate it. If you are truly passionate, it reflects in your identity.

 

Back in 1997, when I was graduating out of IIT Delhi, an anecdote about one of our seniors was doing the rounds. He had taken up a course on Corrosion Engineering as an elective. It was a post-graduate course and very few B. Tech. students opted for it. He had probably taken it because the faculty was “cool” and it seemed like an easy course to pass. In the first lecture, the professor asked him why he took a course as eclectic as this. His reply, and I kid you not, is a part of the folklore: “Since my childhood, I was always interested in rust and corrosion.”

 

It was an intentionally irreverent answer. But when candidates try to pass the same ‘interest’ as genuine in interviews, it doesn’t fly.

 

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

 

By Shailesh Kapoor

 

The recently concluded India-West Indies Test series, better known as Sachin Tendulkar’s farewell series, recorded some of the highest ratings for Test cricket in recent times. The second day (when Tendulkar came into bat in the morning in what many hoped will be a century effort in his final Test innings) and the third morning leading upto his farewell speech, rated at par with regular ODIs, a rare occurrence over the last two decades.

 

What interested me more about the ratings was the Hindi to English viewership ratio, which ranged from 2 to 6, on various days. Some of this variation is explained by which channels Star Sports may be pushing on the last mile, and the fact that for the second Test, they had two channels showing the English feed vis-à-vis one showing the Hindi feed, which is when the ratio dropped.

 

The fluctuation of ratio apart, all indicators tell us conclusively that Hindi sports broadcast is the future in the non-South markets in India. That’s what the viewers will increasingly shift to, and that’s what the broadcasters and MSOs will push with greater confidence in the months to come.

 

Hindi commentary attempts are not new to Indian cricket, but the Star Cricket campaign last year (Jo baat Hindi mein who kisi aur mein nahin) was the first serious communication attempt in this direction.

 

It can be argued that the language doesn’t matter in cricket. But that’s far from the truth. High language comprehension can enhance viewing experience and get irregular and light viewers to watch more. These are a large section of viewers who watch only India World Cup matches or select parts of exciting ODIs and T20s. Getting them to watch more matches for more time is the only real growth opportunity in cricket viewership today, and there can’t be a better growth injection for this than Hindi commentary.

 

The criticism on the quality of commentary in Hindi has existed for decades now. But it has been primarily fuelled by Doordarshan and All India Radio commentary. Some unintentionally comic moments notwithstanding, Star Sports’ Hindi commentary this season has been well above the mark, both in terms of the choice of panel and the execution. The ‘elite’ audience who compare the two languages don’t really count. It’s more like The Big Bang Theory audience commenting on Balika Vadhu.

 

If you are an ‘intersection viewer’ like me, who understands both languages equally comfortably, there is a good chance that you will still prefer English commentary. My two main reasons for this choice are the comfort level built with English commentary over three decades, and my preference for international commentators versus the Indian ones. The latter has nothing to do with language. Our lead commentators are generally not as articulate and opinionated as their counterparts in Australia and England.

 

But most viewers are not intersection viewers. Comprehension of English ranges from nil to poor to barely-there in most households in India. Then there is the additional issue with foreign accents. We are perhaps the only country to subtitle all English entertainment content on TV in English itself!

 

For this section of audiences, the Hindi broadcast is a lifeline. It has taken some time to come, but come it has. As time passes and generations change, the habit (my first reason above) will die too, and we will see the Hindi broadcast gain even more momentum.

 

IPL too introduced Hindi commentary this year. They should be encouraged with the Star Sports performance and invest more in it in the coming year, with a stronger panel and better reach and marketing. IPL, in many ways, is the defining cricket tournament on television today, and it has the ability to set and fuel trends.

 

So, well done, Star Sports. It would have been even better if you put your Hindi feed on Star Sports 1 and English feed on Star Sports 3, than the other way round. Would have been a nice, symbolic gesture!

 

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

 

 

By Shailesh Kapoor

 

You would normally not associate positive emotions with the word ‘noise’. It’s generally assumed and accepted that noise is bad. In context of television too, the media has propagated this notion for a while now. But there is very little real evidence to accept this belief. In fact, there is telling evidence to the contrary.

 

For many of us, the first association with noise on Indian television would be Arnab Goswami. His rival channels even start their bulletins (the 10pm news on NDTV, for example) with the line ‘where you get news, not noise’. Yet, the high viewership of Arnab’s show speaks for itself. In the noise and the cacophony lies a sense of power the viewer feels. When you see the privileged political class being put in the docks and spoken to like they are criminals (words like hypocrite and hooligan are routinely used by Arnab to describe his guests), you feel empowered by proxy. And that would be impossible without the noise.

 

Gauhar Khan is by far the most popular contestant on Bigg Boss 7 (Source: Ormax Characters India Loves). But she’s not someone who will die wondering. She’s out there, raising her voice, which gets rather shrill at times, at the slightest excuse. But like Arnab, her ‘noise’ comes from her conviction. And conviction is an unequivocal sign of strength.

 

One of the top-rated shows on television for the last five years is what you would classically label ‘a loud comedy’. Yet, Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah, with all its executional hyperbole, continues to enthrall audiences, especially in Western India. I haven’t seen anyone who even remotely resembles the serial’s female lead Daya in mannerisms and talking style. A relatively moderate husband (Jethalal) provides a good contrast and the couple has been the most popular ‘jodi’ Indian television for a while now.

 

There are many other examples across genres where one can sense that the mellow and the soothing is finding it hard to seek attention, while the noisy and the high-pitch manages to get viewership and media talk. One of the biggest successes of this year, Comedy Nights With Kapil, is a fairly loud show itself, even though it incredibly manages to keep its aesthetics consistently in place despite the noise. And the consistent performance of slapstick comedies and dubbed South action films on Hindi movie channels further propels the noise-works theory.

 

Sometime earlier this year, I made the mental shift to accept that on Indian television, ‘noise’ and ‘loud’ are not undesirable, negative terms. Here, the viewer equivalent of what the US audiences will call ‘noise’ is ‘over’ (as in, “bahut over dikhaya hai”). ‘Over’ stands for over-acting or screenplay exaggeration. But ‘noise’, when not ‘over’, is perfectly desirable.

 

In several discussions within the industry on this topic in recent years, the most interesting reason on why this should be the case goes as follows. There are more than 100 channels on an average consumer’s TV today. Even though she may watch only 8-10 of them regularly, the idea of multiple channels is still intimidating to the Indian audiences. So, the ‘surfing experience’ is still a stressful one, whereby the viewer is trying to come to terms with the plethora of choice available to her, often not knowing where to stop. With the number of channels on a perpetual increase, this intimidation is not going away anytime soon.

 

In this context, in a ‘surfing’ scenario, a channel gets only about 5-10 seconds window to ‘attract’ the undecided viewer. This is where ‘noise’ comes in. It’s like a sales pitch or the good old Aussie art of ‘spruiking’, whereby you sell through showmanship of speech.

 

There may be other reasons too, but ‘noise’ is in for sure. Let the drum rolls begin!

 

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

 

By Shailesh Kapoor

 

In more than 30 years of active television viewing, no content has fascinated and captivated me more than live election results coverage. It’s the biggest reality show ever, unfolding in real time, with aftermath that can last for years, if not decades. One such reality show will play out this Sunday. And then there will be an even bigger one some time in the summer of 2014.

 

In the good old Doordarshan days, General Election results were four-day long affairs, interspersed by Manoj Kumar films. When the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were introduced in 1999, it meant that four days of excitement would crash into about four hours. Initially, I detested the EVMs for doing this to me. But over time, I have grown to love this new rapid-fire, T20 format of election results.

 

Election results coverage is now all about thinking on your feet. As new data flows into the system in real time, it is impossible to rehearse this coverage out. From shifting between politicians and experts on one hand and between various states on the other, the anchor of such a show can find his plate too full for his own liking. Hosting live election coverage has to be the most challenging camera-facing job on TV today. The post-analysis leading upto government formation, which may last anything from one day to upto two weeks, is the more familiar news part, albeit nail-biting at times.

 

Much as I enjoy it immensely, I have two pet peeves related to live election coverage that I hope are addressed soon. The first one is about the use of technology. There is just too much focus on portraying the technology as the hero of the coverage. Many channels run promos of their election results shows highlighting how their touchscreen-based technology or their graphics software are the best in the business.

 

I fail to see the point. Good technology, unless it is a technology program we are talking of, should always be invisible. It is meant to seamlessly enhance the viewing experience, than become the star in the room. Live sports do it so well. Perhaps, they get more practice. And with so much talk about ‘high-end’ technology in live results coverage, if you still can’t ensure basics like your cameramen are not visible all over the show, you haven’t done your technical rehearsals right!

 

My second pet peeve is more psephology-led in nature. With 63 years of elections history behind us, out of which about two decades have involved active use of computers, one would have expected news brands to have created some concrete metrics and indices to capture insights in a more structure and predictive form. This has not happened, and as a result, rarely are learnings from past elections used to analyze current results, except an odd anecdotal comment by an expert, which is often biased to lead to a pre-decided conclusion in his mind anyway.

 

Psephology is a science before it’s an art. Yet, it unfolds on our television more like the latter, with wordsmithery being its primary form of execution, instead of any robust data-led indicators. In fact, such indicators, and not technology, can become true differentiators of a news channel’s election results coverage.

 

But these are only minor irritants in what is the most enthralling television content for me. Come Sunday, and I shall be all eyes and ears from 7 am onwards.

 

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

 

 

By Shailesh Kapoor

 

On Koffee With Karan last weekend, a seemingly innocuous question left Varun Dhawan and Alia Bhatt stumped. When asked to name the President of India, their answers were Manmohan Singh and Prithviraj Chauhan respectively. If they were made to sit and watch news channels for a week as punishment, their answer would have probably changed to Arvind Kejriwal.

 

Why just Dhawan and Bhatt? The way our news channels are covering Kejriwal these days, even the aam aadmi can be excused for believing that Kejriwal has replaced Manmohan Singh as the Prime Minister of India.

 

2014 has arrived. We are in the year of the General Elections. Every political news story, across channels, is invariably trying to find a link with the General Elections. The news media have three poster boys in this pursuit: Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal.

 

Narendra Modi’s speeches are interesting, bordering on mild entertainment, and hence make for good live coverage. Rahul Gandhi makes news for leaving his party wondering if he’s on their side. His “personal” views may be heartening, but they come across as pontification at most times.

 

Faced with entertaining but stereotypical competition, Arvind Kejriwal has managed to create a league of his own. A new style of governance is on display. It’s like Anil Kapoor’s Nayak playing out in real life. Even Salman Khan is creating aam aadmi songs against corruption. Idea created a commercial within days of AAP going to the people of Delhi for a referendum on whether they should form the Government in the capital. ‘What an idea, Sirji’, it acknowledges.

 

It is easy to understand why Kejriwal and AAP have caught our fancy. It’s a radical departure from the politics we have all seen for years on end. From politics of greed, arrogance and corruption, we are now seeing the virtual other end. We would have been excused for thinking this happens only in movies. Till about a month ago, that is.

 

The Delhi Government is getting coverage even the UPA Government at the Centre has rarely got. In the debate on the trust vote, Dr Harshvardhan, whom Arvind Kejriwal certified as a good man in the wrong party (BJP), commented on how even he has taken the Delhi Metro several times, but has not used it as a photo-op.

 

But isn’t that precisely the point? What’s a “photo-op” to Dr Harshvardhan is “innovation” to the rest of the country. Tokenism and symbolism may come across as shallow words, but they hold so much relevance in this context. By traveling in his Wagon R and declining a luxurious bungalow, Kejriwal is giving messages, however symbolic, that may have far-reaching consequences in the shaping of the history of our polity.

 

AAP is in a honeymoon phase with the media right now. It is difficult to fault their intentions. Their ability to execute will be realistically known only in six months or so, assuming the Congress doesn’t pull the plug. In fact, how openly AAP ridicules Congress even now, after having their outside support, itself makes for delicious copy.

 

We needed the Aam Aadmi Party. We needed Arvind Kejriwal. Not just as citizens of India, but as media houses and media consumers. The political news on TV and in the papers was getting way too predictable of late. But here’s the man with the twist. If he can manage to translate even 20% of this euphoria into results in the General Elections, and win about 50 seats, I can assure you we are in for a rollercoaster ride on the political news front for several years ahead.

 

Meanwhile, Alia Bhatt and Varun Dhawan may as well declare him the Prime Minister of India right away.

 

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

 

By Shailesh Kapoor

 

The words that best describe the TV ratings scenario in India over the last year are confusion and uncertainty. TAM has been under constant attack, for mostly right and some wrong reasons, for the last two years in particular. BARC has been moving ahead at good pace to bring in a neutral, more robust ratings measurement system in India, which we hope sees the light of the day before 2014 ends.

 

With BARC round the corner, TAM is virtually on a time bomb, in the last leg of what has been a rollercoaster ride of almost two decades. Trust TRAI to add to the confusion. The regulatory body has come out with guidelines for ratings agencies in India, to ensure fair and accurate measurement.

 

You can’t fault the intent behind most of the TRAI guidelines. They seem designed to address the concerns of broadcasters and advertisers in all earnestness. But wasn’t BARC created towards exactly the same purpose? Surely, TRAI should be aware of what BARC is hoping to achieve and how the progress is going. The guidelines, while well-intended, have a “meddling” feel to them, which I fear may slow down BARC’s progress.

 

Take the point on sample size for instance. TRAI guidelines say that the minimum panel size should 20,000, and should be increased by 10,000 every year till it reaches a figure of 50,000. Correct as this may sound, this guideline challenges the idea of a free market, where the panel size would be an outcome of what the stakeholders are willing to pay for the service. Will TRAI subsidize the balance panel if the industry is willing to pay only for 30,000-40,000?

 

Then there are some micro-level points that TRAI could have easily stayed away from, such as defining the panel rotation rate at 25% per annum. If they were indeed stepping into the domain of research design, they would much rather have put down the most glaring gap that exists as of now, whereby error margins are not reported or published.

 

There is a guideline that suggests that I&B ministry and TRAI can audit the systems of a ratings agency at any point of time. I don’t need to spell out how this can fast turn into a bureaucratic tangle, and encourage corruption.

 

Another vaguely-worded guideline says ratings should be “technology neutral”, in that they should be able to address delivery platforms like cable, DTH, terrestrial etc. Never before has an “etc” interested me so much. Does it include Internet, mobiles and DVRs? If yes, we are in for a challenge for another degree altogether.

 

The “toll free number for complaint redressal” is the comic relief in the guidelines. Imagine a Thursday morning when your show opens below your expectations and you get a research executive to call the toll free number to “complain”. That’s a phone call I’d love to hear!

 

Dear TRAI, take it easy. TV Ratings is a private affair after all, and the market will find its answers.

 

Dear BARC, come soon now. And till you come, keep the announcements going. There is a whole industry waiting with bated breath.

 

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