MxMIndia

Category: SHAILESH KAPOOR

  • The ability for non-fiction programming to get new audiences to a channel, and its ability to create excitement in the advertiser community, are reasons enough for channels to invest in this category of content aggressively, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: 2014-15: Time for Hindi Non-Fiction Overhaul

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    While fiction has driven the core viewer base of Hindi GECs over the last two decades, non-fiction programming has gained increasing importance over time. Being celebrity-centric, non-fiction content in India is expensive. But its ability to get new audiences to a channel, and its ability to create excitement in the advertiser community, are reasons enough for channels to invest in this category of content aggressively.

     

    But 2013 has not been the best year for non-fiction content. Many heavyweight shows have struggled to perform, despite being successes in their previous seasons, some as recently as 2012. Shows that had seasons averaging 2.5-4 TVR have struggled to cross the 1.5-2 TVR mark in 2013-14.

     

    Examples can be found in plenty. KBC didn’t deliver in its seventh season. Currently on-air shows NachBaliye and Dance India Dance have been at viewership levels of about half their previous seasons. Sa Re Ga Ma Pa, a pioneering non-fiction format, struggled to make any impact whatsoever in its last season that ended in Jan 2013.

     

    Some of the relatively younger formats (in terms of their on-air existence) such as India’s Got Talent, have done better. But otherwise, the writing seems clearly on the wall. Traditional non-fiction formats may not be here to stay.

     

    You can attribute the failure of one season of a successful format to content execution. There have been non-performing seasons of Sa Re Ga Ma Pa in the past too, where the issues were evident at the jury composition level itself. But the show could bounce back in the following season after making corrections.

     

    But the non-performance of the big daddies over the last year is certainly not attributable only to content. NachBaliye, for example, has the same format, anchors, jury and treatment style as the last season. Yet, it is rating 40% lower this time, on the same platform in the same slot.

     

    So what’s changed over half a decade? The answer is: A generation. It is well-researched that non-fiction’s core audience are the youth (though KBC has stood out as an exception to that). If we take 20 as a reasonable age of the bull’s eye audience of most non-fiction formats, and juxtapose it with the marriageable age in India, we get this fascinating piece of insight: That many early adopters of non-fiction shows that went on-air in India in 2006-09 would have got married in the last two years. (In case you are unaware of the dramatic impact of marriage on TV content preferences of an Indian viewer, I urge you to explore this fascinating subject).

     

    The new core audience of non-fiction programming today is someone who was a teenager (13-16) when these formats first went on-air. These teenagers are now into college, and how many college students cling onto what they thought was cool in their school days?

     

    Why would it suddenly all show up as an issue in 2013? Difficult to say, but the idea of 2013 being a tipping point is plausible.  After all, non-fiction content really gathered steam in India in 2006, and hence, the seven-year generation rule would suggest that 2013 was set to be the critical, watershed year.

     

    I’m sure the leading channels will find the solutions over the next year or two, with a mix of new formats and refurbished versions of the existing ones. The one who does it the best will have a lot to gain.

     

    A chapter of non-fiction content in India has closed, and a new one is opening up. Let’s now wait to find out who the authors are.

     

    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

     

     

  • While content and marketing teams may still survive it, the real problem will be for media planners and buyers, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Ready for a ratings-dark year?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The threat, and I use the word carefully, that we may end up being in the middle of a fairly long ratings-dark period in 2014, is now a real one. Kantar has taken the Indian government to court over the cabinet guidelines for TV ratings agencies. The guidelines have a shareholding pattern clause that would make TAM (in which Kantar, a WPP company, has a 50% stake) an ‘illegal’ ratings provider less than a month from now.

     

    I wrote two weeks ago on why I’m no fan of TRAI or I&B ministry interfering in the broadcasting ecosystem on the topic of ratings. But now that they have, if Kantar’s case is dismissed, we may have a situation unlike anything seen before – a running, sprawling industry will have no viewership measurement. In effect, it will have no currency to sell in.

     

    This is chaos of a magnitude far higher than what happened in 2012, where ratings were held back for nine weeks, but were still being recorded, and hence, eventually released. Here, we are staring at a no-measurement situation, not just a no-reporting one!

     

    We are in that part of the year when a lot of annual deals are signed. Typically, data from April 2013 till date can be used to arrive at cost benchmarks for these deals. The real challenge will be post-evaluation of actual deliveries. There could be nothing to evaluate at all.

     

    But the big element of chaos will come via specials and new launches. Sporting events like the IPL, the T20 World Cup and the FIFA World Cup are scheduled between March and July this year. We are also likely to have a General Election without measurement. How’s that as an idea to call a ceasefire in the news channels war? I’m not even getting into the innumerable fiction and non-fiction show launches that happen every month across 100+ channels.

     

    How will the broadcasters respond if this reality of no-ratings dawns upon them? I’d like to assume that most would want to keep a close eye on their performance through alternative methods, with the understanding that no magic is going to happen overnight when the BARC ratings start later this year.

     

    Putting monitoring mechanisms is not very difficult. Tracking day-after recall is a good indicator of directional movement of consumption of any channel or show. Many broadcasters used it effectively even during the nine-week ratings hiatus in 2012. For example, Madhubala’s recall doubled from 5% to 10% over that period. The rating averaged 2.5 TVR before the blackout, and 4.3 TVR in the week after the blackout. Hence, an accurate sense of significant positive movement was captured during the blackout.

     

    So, I believe the content and marketing teams can still survive this period, albeit with a dash of trepidation. The real issue is on the buying side. Media planning solutions are more complex than just programme and channel sampling measurement. And a currency research can be replaced only by a currency research. This is where I fear all hell may break loose. Though, it may also mean that we have the classical buyer-seller market, where negotiation skills and enterprise become the deciding factors.

     

    I’m still hoping a solution is worked out, either in the court or outside court. I&B has been making some fairly strong comments on why they needed to do what they did, without having to wait any longer. The question they should also ask is: At what cost?

     

    Whatever happens, be assured that there will never be a dull moment over the next 12 months. Fasten your seatbelts!

     

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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 you have nothing specific to say, Arnab Goswami is the last person you want around you, writes Shailesh Kapoor on the Rahul Gandhi interview on Times Now which "dominated the news landscape this week"

    Shailesh Kapoor: Rahul Gandhi and We, the Interview-Starved Nation

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Rahul Gandhi’s interview on Times Now, telecast first on Monday, has dominated the news landscape this week. Rival channels too were forced to cover the interview extensively (without video footage), given its importance in the year of the General Elections and also the reactions some of Gandhi’s comments evoked, especially those on the 1984 and 2002 riots in Delhi and Gujarat respectively.

     

    Much has been written about how dysfunctional the interview was, given that most answers did not match the questions they were answers to. As an exercise, I read the transcript, published in The Times Of India on Tuesday, in a read-a-random-question-and-then-read-a-random-answer way, and it made no less sense than the original transcript read in sequence.

     

    It would have clearly been Rahul Gandhi’s decision to do a big TV interview. I think he was ill-advised about the journalist he should choose for it. When you have nothing specific to say, Arnab Goswami is the last person you want around you. With no room given to explicate, Gandhi’s ideas came across as inward and theoretical, than pragmatic and action-oriented.

     

    But what has fascinated me about the interview is the ability of one interview to generate so much commercial media and social media talk, especially when nothing new was said in it anyway. It is not difficult to understand the frenzy. All you need to think is: When did I last see a proper, classical interview on television in India?

     

    My attempt to answer that question was rather embarrassing. All I could think of was Koffee With Karan interviews, Bollywood interviews on a dozen Zoom-like channels, sportsperson interviews and Arvind Kejriwal. A few corporate bigwigs (Ratan Tata) and foreign leaders (Aung San Suu Kyi) from recent times then came to mind. And that was the end of my interview recall.

     

    Most Bollywood interviews are not even interviews. They are casual chats, often with a limited purpose, like promoting a film. The reluctance of the political class to give interviews (not counting short chats with journalists used to clarify their position on an issue) is well known.

     

    In 2012, Narendra Modi walked out of a Karan Thapar interview in the first three minutes, unhappy with persistent questioning on the 2002 riots (Video). Prabhu Chawla, one of the most seasoned journalists of our times, had a tough time getting political heavyweights on his immensely popular show Seedhi Baat, and had to resort to entertainment celebs (all the way to Rakhi Sawant) to keep the show running.

     

    The reluctance of the political elite here seems to be a curious mix of arrogance and insecurity. Arrogance that makes them feel they are not answerable to people at large, and insecurity arising out of lack of confidence, in their work or speech or both. That it has happened over almost three decades now is another testimony to the well-accepted fact that we don’t have visionary leaders anymore.

     

    Much as Rahul Gandhi made a joke of himself on the interview that he was hoping to use to build his image, some credit must be given to him for at least exploring the idea of an interview.

     

    Many channels have been sending covert and overt feelers to political parties for a US-Presidential-style televised debate ahead of the General Elections, between Modi and Gandhi. It’s just wishful thinking. Even if we get Modi to give an 80-minute interview like Gandhi, we would have come a long way in breaking the tradition of media snub that senior politicians have mastered in this country.

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • It's a question that's been bothering many since the IRS 2013 was released. Esp given the impact on business, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Currency Research Crisis: IRS Today, BARC Tomorrow?

     

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The new IRS results have thrown the print industry in a tizzy. The change in research design, and a fundamental one at that, has led to drastic shifts in results, in turn influencing potentially drastic shifts in ad revenues over time. While some of the concerns expressed by the print industry areabout the credibility of the data, almost 80-90 percent of the concerns can be answered by the way of change in the research design.

     

    But print companies (at least the publications impacted negatively) are right in saying that the research design change is not their problem. For them, IRS is IRS is IRS. If MRUC decided to refurbish its research design, and that led to a sea change in results, are they implying that the earlier results, which have been used as currency all these years, were “inaccurate”?

     

    Seeming “anomalies” like Hindu Business Line showing higher readership in North-East than Chennai weaken the MRUC argument considerably, by creating a sense of “flaw” around the execution of the design on field. But the real issue still revolves around a fundamental design change.

     

    In six years of extensive media research, I have realized the futility of even attempting to use one research to forecast the results of another research. The error margins can multiply like rabbits, and before you know, you are handling senseless data in an attempt to achieve research-to-research parity.

     

    For example, there are channels whose viewers we just don’t find in field research. But their viewership data suggests they exist in sizeable numbers, much more than some competition channel’s viewers, who are much easier to recruit on field. Like a radio station in Delhi is rated high by RAM, but in extensive radio research in the market, finding its listeners has always been a challenge.

     

    Every research has its design, based on certain underlying assumptions. And this design has a large role to play in how the results play out. There is a fairly strong element of “lottery” when the design changes. Some players are bound to benefit and some bound to lose out. Who’s on which side of this lucky dip is anybody’s guess, till the first results of the new design come out.

     

    When the first BARC data is released later in 2014, this situation is bound to repeat. Some channels are bound to gain and some bound to lose vis-à-vis their TAM performance. It will be easier for BARC for two reasons. One, the TAM design has been under attack anyway, so even broadcasters who show a loss of viewership will be cautious in protesting. Two, BARC is industry-backed in the true sense, and hence, voices of dissent may be handled behind closed doors in most part.

     

    Yet, overnight shift in numbers can create sufficient market disruption and loss of morale in the ill-affected companies. To that extent, a ratings-dark period can provide a silver lining. If new data shows major shifts after a six-month blackout, it will be difficult to isolate the impact of the shift as a result of research design change vs. a real shift in the viewership of the research universe.

     

    Currency research has widespread business impact and should always be packaged with a ‘handle with care’ board. Perhaps this is where MRUC went wrong. This is where TAM certainly went wrong.

     

    A lesson for BARC to learn?

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • The majority, and the top success stories amongst Hindi GEC shows, have worked on the opposite premise – that of progress and change, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Fact Check: Daily Soaps – Regressive or Progressive?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    For the last 15 years, a word has been used ad nauseam to describe weekday fiction programming on Hindi GECs: regressive. I’m not sure who started this usage. Perhaps it was the English print media. But over time, it’s become a part of popular lingo, not just in the media but within the industry too.

     

    A condescending description of GEC programming, with a casual use of the word “regressive”, is a common occurrence in a niche channel or a media agency interaction. Implicit in this description is the assumption that the women who watch daily shows on Hindi GECs are regressive in their thinking and actions.

     

    Nothing can be more away from the truth. There are some shows (about 30%) that may portray a regressive mindset, but they are the low-performing ones. The majority, and the top success stories, have worked on the opposite premise – that of progress and change. And that also describes the need they fulfill for their target audience – to evolve and progress with the changing times.

     

    Let’s take the top two shows of the current times, for example. Diya Aur Baati Hum is the story of a fairly conservative family in a Rajasthan village. Watch the show passingly for five minutes (which is how non-GEC industry folks watch GEC fiction) and you may end up ascribing the words “rural”, “regressive” and “old-fashioned” to the show. But you are reacting only to the setting, not the story.

     

    The story of Sandhya’s journey to fulfill her dream of becoming an IPS officer, and her almost-illiterate husband supporting her in this journey, oozes of progress and change. After two years of struggle, Sandhya is now undergoing IPS training. The out-of-home episodes, playing out currently, are touching new viewership highs.

     

    Jodha Akbar is a romance set in a period era. But it is essentially a Taming Of The Shrew story, where Jodha, the most popular character on Indian television for the last two months, is playing a fearless heroine who stands for the truth. Her ‘historical’ character is loaded with 21st century aspirations. Confidence and self-respect are strong values her character drives amongst viewers who are seeking both these values in their personal lives too, more than ever before.

     

    Even in the past, from Tulsi to Anandi, strong and progressive women have been the backbone of blockbuster shows. How is the idea of “regressive” justified, then? Evidently, those who use that word use it because it is fashionable. For me, any usage of “regressive” is a cue that the person on the other side does not have enough knowledge of GEC fiction content in the first place.

     

    I’m certainly not suggesting that all is hunky dory with GEC fiction. There are several issues. Stories dragging and slowing down in pace is an issue of epidemic proportions. The look-feel has not progressed much over the last six years, barring Mahabharat, which is in another production league altogether. And I agree with what Anurag Kashyap said in a panel discussion about a year ago: “My problem with TV serials is that everything looks so scripted.” Essentially, he points out bad direction and unimaginative execution, in terms of acting and treatment. I have to agree at least 50% serials suffer from this issue.

     

    There may be enough and more issues, but the “regressive” tag is a big scam our elite media managed to pull off. India is a country of 1.2 billion people. TV has played a proven role in the progress and evolution of Indian women at large, over the last two decades. Undermining this achievement is nothing short of misrepresentation of facts.

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • In its first season in 2012, the show made a sizeable impact on the socio-political environment but there was a sense that it had become a blind spot in its second leg, recalls Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor:Getting ready for Satyamev Jayate 2.0

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Aamir Khan’s labour of love (but one that comes with a hefty paycheck too), Satyamev Jayate, makes a comeback this Sunday. In its first season in 2012, the show made a sizeable impact on the socio-political environment. In the process, it managed to become perhaps the only television property in the last twenty years whose success of not measured entirely or primarily through its viewership ratings.

     

    We are in the election year, and coming with short, monthly seasons of 4-5 episodes each, starting with one in March, seems to be a good move. In the last season of 14 episodes, there was a sense that the show had become a blind spot in its second leg. There’s only so much awakening and inspiration one can take at a time, after all.

     

    I have to admit I’m a tad disappointed with Sunday 11 AM continuing to be original slot for the show. While there may be a valid ‘feel’ argument, a property of this nature needs a wider available audience. 8 or 9 PM would achieve that better. Even at a feel level, noon will deliver a higher reach without compromising on the feel. I’m sure Aamir and Star Plus had their reasons.

     

    Satyamev Jayate continues its tradition of not using show footage in the launch campaign. This season’s campaign, built around ‘Jinhein Desh Ki Fikr Hai’, stands out for its exceptional clarity of message and its consistent tone across ads. Rarely do we see TV show launches executed as ‘ad campaigns’. In fact, even in channel parlance, they are called ‘launch promos’ and not ‘launch ads’. Just nomenclature, or a deep-seated issue?

     

    When I see a good campaign based on atypical viewer segmentation, my eyes light up. The researcher in me has been wondering: What percentage of our TV audiences are the ones who have a sense of ‘fikr’ about the ‘desh’? And how does one measure this accurately, without relying on claims? For example, do most viewers of Arnab’s show (in whose breaks the Satyamev Jayate campaign is running on very high visibility) care for the country? But we digress.

     

    Despite the good campaign, the show is set to have a modest start from a viewership perspective. There are bound to be format tweaks that create a sense of freshness and build on learnings of the first season. For example, there is a definite hint of higher viewer interaction this season in one of the ads.

     

    In the pre-satellite television and pre-measurement days, there was certain diversity in television content. TV ratings are needed for transaction. But the biggest collateral damage they have caused in India is homogenization of content.

     

    Thank you Star and Aamir Khan, then, for challenging that status quo in 2012, and now coming back with a new season well knowing that blockbuster ratings are out of reach here.

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • It's Women's Day tomorrow and Shailesh Kapoor presents his list of 5 women who have created a strong impact on Indian television

    Oh Womaniya: From Salma Sultan to Rakhi Sawant

     

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s Women’s Day this Saturday. The importance of women characters on Indian television is well understood, especially over the last two decades. Last month, I wrote about our daily soaps being unfairly branded as “regressive” (Read here), especially because the lead women characters in these serials are, in fact, strong and progressive.

     

    But there’s a world of Indian television beyond the daily soaps and their characters. Here’s my list of five women who created a strong impact on Indian television. The list, presented in chronological order, does not include women whose impact largely came via specific characters they played. Also, it does not include women behind the scenes, which is perhaps a much easier list to generate, and a longer one too, albeit with Ekta Kapoor firmly on top.

     

    Salma Sultan: If you are old enough to have watched Indian television in the pre-satellite era, the image of Salma Sultan reading news on Doordarshan is likely to be still fresh in your mind. Doordarshan had many newsreaders, but Salma Sultan brought with her a combination of grace and glamour like no other. Her sense of style, marked by the rose and the saree drape, inspired fashion choices till at least the mid 90s. More importantly, she encouraged several young women to take up newsroom jobs in a conservative Indian back in the 80s.

     

    Neena Gupta: All other female actors, ranging from Smriti Irani to Sakshi Tanwar, are known for only one or two iconic characters. Neena Gupta, the only soap star in this list, broke that ceiling. Her identity today goes beyond any one or two serials she acted in. Ketaki in Khandaan or Priya in Saans or the reluctant host of Kamzor Kadi Kaun may eventually be forgotten, but the stamp of Neena Gupta on Indian television is indelible.

     

    Simi Garewal: The ‘Lady In White’ hosted a show that was loved and hated in equal measure. Celebrities sharing their deepest secrets and crying on Rendezvous With Simi Garewal was not an uncommon occurrence. Speak, so I can see your soul, the show’s theme song aptly said. With time, Garewal lost relevance, with the new generation audience looking for more spice than aspiration in celeb chats (a la Koffee With Karan). But till about a decade ago, her stature and her success were unmistakable, as apparent in the exclusive party she threw to celebrate 100 episodes of her show back in 2004 (Watch here).

     

    Rakhi Sawant: If there were a ranking on ‘class’, Simi Garewal and Rakhi Sawant would fall at the two ends. But with her inimitable style and a carefully cultivated art of sounding stupid, Rakhi Sawant managed to enthrall audience show after show. An episode in the first season of Bigg Boss, where she cried to the point of fainting because her ‘favorite mug’ was broken accidentally by another housemate, remains one of most dramatic Bigg Boss episodes till date. She could do crazy things like walk out of a reality show finale (Nach Baliye) if she did not win. Rakhi Ka Swayamwar remains the high point of her eventful TV career.

     

    Gauhar Khan: Gauhar Khan’s true impact on Indian television will be known in a few years’ time. But she makes it to this list for being topical. She exuded immense confidence and personal character in the recently concluded Bigg Boss season. She could take on Salman Khan and even come out as the more reasonable person in the argument. The shrill voice and non-stop chatter may have put off some viewers, but Gauhar Khan made an impact because she emerged as the face of the modern urban Indian woman in this digital generation. She remains the only Bigg Boss contestant across seasons to have crossed Salman Khan’s popularity (Source: Ormax Characters India Loves).

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • The male viewers are increasingly wielding more power while controlling the remote, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Elections, Cricket& More: The Year of Male Viewership?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    A little television trend has been developing over the last two years, of which (I suspect) the current TV ratings system has no solid evidence. It is about the increasing power male viewers are wielding while controlling the remote.

     

    Multiple factors have contributed to this slow but definitive shift over time. The socio-economic aspect is perhaps the most intriguing, but also the most arguable. As gender inequality becomes less stark in urban India, because of higher literacy rates in the new generation of women and growth in the still-miniscule population of working women, female viewers are beginning to access more avenues of engagement and entertainment. As their dependence on television, currently too high to be termed healthy, reduces, so will their desire to control the remote at all times.

     

    It must be mentioned that there is currently no quantification available for the trend above, and hence, the speed of this change is difficult to ascertain. But signs of change are evident, especially in post 9pm consumption behaviour. That the daily serials (barring a couple) have not managed to reinvent at the desired pace has contributed significantly to bringing in this change as well.

     

    2014-15 may just end up being a year where we will see acceleration on this aspect like never before. The T20 World Cup starts this weekend. An IPL is round the corner. There is a busy cricket season round the year, ending with the Cricket World Cup in Feb-March 2015, which India will play to defend.

     

    But the big event of this year comes in the form of the General Elections. Chaos and theatrics are par for the course in what are set to the messiest elections ever in India. News channels have been capitalizing the goings-on well. And we know it’s only the start. If we have a hung verdict, the drama may last well into June, even July.

     

    Cricket and elections, coming together, are going to create unprecedented disruption in viewership patterns. Over three months, this can impact habits enough to create an impact over a long run. New daily soaps of the staple variety have anyway been opening low and struggling to find loyal audiences. The GECs will find it progressively difficult to change that this year. I suspect they are left with little choice but to innovate, on stories as well as story-telling.

     

    Is a gender-balanced viewership a good thing? Definitely. Gender equality is good in everything. Period. And television viewership should be no exception. We are still a few years away from this “equality” in India, but this year can be the watershed in many ways.

     

    So, all you men, hold on to your remotes this season and be a part of the change!

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • Even as the censor board gets liberal with cinema, allowing fairly explicit content, albeit with an A-certificate, our television struggles. And the chances that such a channel will happen soon appear bleak, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Adult Television: A Matter of Time?

    Shailesh Kapoor’s ‘TV Trail’ column appears every Friday. Since he was travelling, the column due to feature last Friday (March 21) appears today. The next ‘TV Trail’ column will appear on Friday, March 28 – Ed

     

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    This week, Sunny Leone starrer Ragini MMS 2 opened to thundering audience response, especially in smaller towns across the country. Mastram, an adult-themed film based on the cult porn publication till about two decades ago, is set to release on May 1. Last year, an under-promoted BA Pass managed to find its audience and even critical appreciation. Sex is thriving in our cinema. Sunny Leone is a bigger star than the likesof Shahid Kapoor and John Abraham.

     

    But even as the censor board gets liberal with cinema, allowing fairly explicit content, albeit with an A-certificate, our television struggles. Star World chose to telecast the Koffee With Karan episode featuring Nargis Fakhri and Frieda Pinto at 11pm instead of the usual 9pm, because of explicit (verbal only) sexual references.

     

    About a decade ago, Zoom had launched Dangerous, a sex chat show at 11pm (again!), anchored by Kamal Sidhu and Sameer Kochhar. I was working with the channel at that time. Legal notices and complaint letters used to come in by the dozen. And then one day, we had to pull the content off air.

     

    In today’s age of the internet, where kids have access to the most explicit porn at the click on a button, adult content is a part of our lives. What could be so unnerving, then, about an adult channel, that stays away from any explicit nudity but covers erotica and sex awareness in equal measure, finding an audience that is currently seeking adult content elsewhere?

     

    The cinema argument is that when an audience goes to watch a film like Ragini MMS 2, they have made a choice by buying a ticket, while on television, you may just end up watching a channel involuntarily. But in today’s day of a la carte packaging, that argument does not hold true. An adult channel can be offered a la carte in the digital environment and cautious parents can exercise control features available with most digital service providers.

     

    But what are the chances that such a channel will happen soon? Bleak, on the face of it. For one, we are a country of protestors and it is easy for moral police to play spoilsport. More importantly, I can’t imagine a government challenging the status quo and belling the cat. It will take a really progressive Government to do that. And a party that supports Article 377 isn’t going to provide that.

     

    So, the idea may remain an idea for a while. But in an age when technology is challenging norms by the day, it’s only a matter of time. If not on the telly, then on the internet, we are sure to see India’s first 24-hour adult channel see the light of the day in the next few years. My bet is: Before 2020.

     

     

  • The sport needs to find its coolness back, writes Shailesh Kapoor. An overhaul may be required sooner than later

    Shailesh Kapoor: Cricket under threat from the Digital Generation?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    There was a time, not too long ago, when India-Pakistan cricket would bring life to a standstill across the country. When India played Pakistan in the World Cup semi-final on March 30, 2011, the country was unofficially shut on a middle-of-the-week working day. A rivalry that started in real measure with the Australasia Cup final in Sharjah in 1986, when Javed Miandad hit that famous last-ball six off Chetan Sharma, has seen many highs over 28 years.

     

    But there are signs that the battle is losing its edge. The recent Asia Cup ODI between the two countries (Sunday, March 2) rated less than what a moderately successful Hindi GEC serial does night after night. The World Cup T20 contest last week, scheduled well into the primetime on a Friday, rated about the level of a regular Diya Aur Baati Hum episode only.

     

    When you begin to look at the ratings of other India matches, like India-Sri Lanka or India-New Zealand, the real reason is exposed. Cricket is not growing. There seems to be an audience that is moving away from the sport completely, irrespective of the format. This audience is the younger lot (12-24 years) in the big cities. This shift may have started happening over the last 4-5 years only, and is now resulting in real impact.

     

    I have written several pieces in this column about the power of cricket in India. Lest I should be misunderstood, it is important to clarify that cricket’s de-growth does not make the sport irrelevant any time in the near future. We are still a one-sport nation, with football being a distant second. Cricket has a huge plus in the patriotic element it brings to the table. That is unlikely to be challenged by any mass sport for a long time.

     

    But when you are the only one, your competition is with yourself. So cricket has to find ways of maintaining its viewer base. The big idea of 2008, IPL, is now under some real threat of disintegrating, because of power-hungry officials who care little about the future of the sport. As the audience that was brought up on cricket in the 1980s and ’90s grows older, they will begin to matter less and less in size. The new generation needs to be coaxed into watching the sport.

     

    Star Sports seems to have understood this better than BCCI. Their online presence has been given the stature of a TV channel, no less. With quality Hindi commentary, they have changed the elitist mindset with which cricket coverage was handled for decades in India. They have the best platforms to market the sport, and the ability to create persuasive messaging to achieve the desired impact.

     

    But when your target audience is a generation that is visibly high on distraction, and perpetually so, the task is a mammoth one. Cricket needs to find its cool-ness back. An overhaul may be required sooner than later. But do those who are running the sport have the will to do it?

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • One would hope that shows like Khatron Ke Khiladi do their bit in making a small difference in creating more exposure for a largely inward-looking populace, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Adventure? You’re in the wrong country!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The new season of Khatron Ke Khiladi (KKK), the Indian adaptation of Fear Factor, went on-air this March. In its fifth season now, KKK was the launch vehicle for Colors in 2008. Barring a forgettable season with Priyanka Chopra as the host, the show has offered top quality production and hosting. Yet, it has met with only limited success on the viewership front. The current season has opened better than the previous ones, and offers more content variety. If the numbers sustain, this may end up being the most successful season till date.

     

    The tough journey of the show does not surprise me. We are not the adventure-loving country where such TV show formats find natural traction. Adventure sports and activities are not only low on awareness in India, even those aware have little inclination to try them. Hence, the experience of any adventure-based TV show is unlikely to be immersive. The adrenalin rush is restricted because of the watch-from-a-distance mindset with which such shows are consumed.

     

    Two other successful television properties use adventure as a theme too. However, they focus more on the human angle to achieve viewer traction. MTV Roadies is about expression of the youth, than about biking. Man vs. Wild is about survival and the human spirit of excelling against all odds. Both are learning and inspiration led, albeit in very different ways.

     

    Go beyond these three shows and you will struggle to recall any other adventure shows in the two-and-a-half-decade history of Indian satellite television. Survivor India, Star Plus’ brush with the genre, was a washout, reinforcing that the success of Roadies and Man vs. Wild is also restricted to a limited audience base, and the wider GEC audience care little about this genre.

     

    Lack of adventure signifies that the market (India) is low on experimentation, exploration and curiosity. We like our lives well planned out, and the focus is on a collective unit (family) than on individual pursuits. This mindset also lowers the appeal of other genres such as travel, food and science, which are led by similar core needs as adventure.

     

    The infotainment genre is the most affected here. To their credit, they have managed to understand the Indian mindset well, and created a steady flow of local programming that is more conducive to the ‘safe’ needs the market caters to.

     

    Over the next few years, one may expect evolution as new generations take over. But with the subject being so inherently cultural in nature, this evolution may happen at snail’s pace, unlike other changes we are seeing around us, e.g. the whole-hearted embracing of technology our country has witnessed over the last decade.

     

    I’m glad Colors has pushed the envelope and kept faith in KKK. Television is a part of the larger pop culture, and one would hope that shows like KKK do their bit in making a small difference in creating more exposure for a largely inward-looking populace.

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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

     

  • IPL has shown over the last four years that it can set new benchmarks in consistency, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: It’s time for the ‘Indian Permanent League’

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s that time of the year again, when the IPL begins to hog media attention. In the election season, the league had a relatively low-key launch yesterday. But don’t be fooled by the apparent lack of buzz. IPL has shown over the last four years that it can set new benchmarks in consistency. Irrespective of any input factor, be it the players, the teams, the venues, the scores, the marketing or the scandals, IPL viewership hits roughly the same sweet spot. And the same 3-4 teams drive this viewership, while others continue to struggle.

     

    As always, the trade media is keen to cover the IPL. The problem is: They are not quite sure about the pegs to take year after year. For the last three years, I am being posed roughly the same questions by various financial papers and trade websites, e.g. Will it do well this year, how will it impact GECs, how will GECs respond to IPL, will movies release during IPL, how will box-office be impacted, etc.

     

    These questions have gone from being relevant to puerile over the time continuum of 2008-2014. From being a novel idea that would grab the attention of the masses by the scruff of their necks, IPL has graduated to being a “fixture” in the real sense. It is now well and truly a part of the annual entertainment calendar. Viewers don’t have to “figure it out” every year. They can decide what to do with it with far greater ease than ever before. As a result, it can co-exist with other entertainment options in a manner far more harmonious than when it started. IPL has, now, become the Indian Permanent League.

     

    Being a fixture is both a sign of strength and a challenge. Sign of strength because it’s a comment on the inherent equity the league enjoys. Arguably, IPL doesn’t need to be “sold” anymore. It comes pre-sold. It only needs to happen. But the challenge comes in the form of the question that bothers many brands: “What next?”

     

    In the Lalit Modi era, innovation was a core value IPL had espoused. In the first three seasons, we saw new ideas being experimented with. Some worked, some didn’t. But in the second half of its seven-season history, IPL has slipped into maintenance mode. Being a fixture, that’s not such a bad thing. But extended lack of innovation can create brand fatigue, though there were no evident signs of this fatigue being very strong till last year.

     

    The next quantum jump in IPL’s equity can now come via only one route – building of team loyalties. Unless there is a strong, passionate fan base at least 3-4 teams enjoy, the league will remain entertainment-led than loyalty-driven. Chennai Super Kings, Mumbai Indians and Kolkata Knight Riders have achieved this to some extent. But it’s only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. There is a long way to go before IPL can ignite passions like EPL, an oft-quoted benchmark, does.

     

    So the IPL continues to exist, to make a mark and evolve, in its own “fixture-ized” way. Now, won’t it be heartening if the media commentary on IPL evolved too?

     

    TV Trails is a weekly column written by Shailesh Kapoor, 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