MxMIndia

Category: MEDIA

  • In the absence of "true ratings", the available ratings of a special content channel are often taken as a sign of under-performance, which in turns leads to a series of endless chipping and chopping of content, packaging and even business plans, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Where Are The ‘Niche Channels’?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    For almost five years now, there has been much talk of ‘niche channels’ making it large in India. They were supposed to take Indian television by storm, especially with the projected increase in digital penetration. Carriage fee was supposed to make these businesses unviable, and hence, as we moved to a fairer, more digital environment, such channels were supposed to mushroom in dozens.

     

    The reality today is far from that projection. Barring a few International content-based English channels, there has been hardly any channel launches on the national stage in the last year. Digitization is now on in full swing, and DTH has been here for a while anyway. But the talk about going ‘niche’ has remained more talk than action.

     

    The first level of confusion is with the definition of a ‘niche channel’ itself. In marketing terms, it should refer to a product catering to a specific audience segment (niche) and doing a great job at that. However, it is used in the TV industry in India to collectively brand all the channels that don’t fit into the top four genres, viz. GECs, movies, news and kids. The most outrageous definition I have heard is that “all channels below 50 GRPs in C&S 4+ are niche channels”!

     

    In the true sense, most “niches” are audience segments that go beyond demographics. They are based on special interests (e.g. food, travel, gardening and automobiles), which can potentially cut across age, gender and geographies. Hence, such channels are actually targeting a behaviour-led or an interest-led segment. Unfortunately, such concepts are not recognized by most audience measurement systems. Hence, there is no standardized way of measuring the success of these channels in their intended target audience.

     

    Take the example of Food Food. The channel can arguably be an effective platform for food products to advertise. It is fairly obvious that the common target audience of interest to both the channel and such advertisers is a person with a keen interest in food, including a role in decision making on food purchases. The ratings, however, can only be measured amongst an “approximation TG”, such as C&S 25+ Females ABC. While most housewives have to cook, not all of them are “interested” in food. In fact, those interested are in a minority by a decent margin. Hence, the “true ratings” of such a channel will always be under-reported. After all, a Kissan or a Sunfeast actually needs to reach only the interested minority, and not the larger set of women.

     

    In the absence of “true ratings”, the available ratings of a special content channel are often taken as a sign of under-performance, which in turns leads to a series of endless chipping and chopping of content, packaging and even business plans. More often than not, these are futile exercises, with a downward spiral awaiting them. Many such channels have shut down, or have gone into auto-mode (other word for low-cost) over time.

     

    As subscription revenue becomes more relevant, such channels should ideally have a more robust currency of evaluation of their performance. But in a bundling-led model, the a la carte performance will still not be known accurately.

     

    When you are surfing channels on your TV set aimlessly the next time, like we all often do, ask yourself the question: Do we have more variety on our TVs today than five years ago? Quantity yes, but variety? Highly debatable.

     

    Niche channel boom, anyone?

     

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

     

  • Twitter and Facebook are part of the marketing strategy of mass TV channels, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: The Dichotomy Of Socially Networked Television

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Twitter, Facebook and YouTube bugs are here in full measure. Most marketing-driven companies have now accepted social networking as an integral part of their media strategy. Even more importantly, they are now customizing their creative strategy to the online and social networking space. And it’s not just urban or premium brands that have taken the leap. Social networking has found favour with brands addressing the lowest common denominator as well.

     

    In the television space, none less than Star Plus has been aggressively promoting Twitter contests through front-page ads in newspapers. Facebook-led initiatives are a regular part of many programme launch plans. MTV, the first channel to recognize the potential on social networking for television marketing, is sitting on an envious base of more than 4 million Facebook fans and 0.74 million Twitter followers. In a country where the internet and smartphones are still counted in the list of “big ideas for the future”, these numbers are staggering to say the least.

     

    Interestingly, this social networking wave highlights the dichotomous way in which we look at our television audience universe. The top-rated daily serials have fairly miniscule social networking buzz, though the GECs faithfully continue to push them by posting pictures, polls and behind-the-scenes information.

     

    In contrast, a reality show gets Twitter and Facebook buzzing. But even here, a difference between “mass” shows like KBC, DID and MasterChef (India) and relatively “niche” shows like Bigg Boss and Roadies is apparent. The latter set catches the attention of the online community, while the former set is often looked down upon, for not being cool enough.

     

    Of course, ratings tell a different story. In the real world, the social networking community represents only a small percentage (less than 20%) of the audience base. Most of these 20% are light television viewers, given their work schedules and their propensity to spend more time online instead, and hence, the actual contribution of this segment to television viewership is less than 10%. In the larger scheme of things, it matters only for two genres – English channels and youth channels.

     

    Why are mass channels pushing the envelope on social networking, then? Evidently because they see the potential. The 10% may be 15% in a year and 25% in two years, maybe even more. But there is a larger reason too. Advertisers are more likely to back initiatives that have an active social networking integration built into them. For a sponsor of a movie, reality show or awards show, the opportunity to reach its target audience in non-conventional ways in the online space is often irresistible today. Because for him, the relevant audience covered is probably 60-80%, not just 10%.

     

    Which brings me to my pet peeve. In our mass approach to measurement of viewership, backed by the over-simplified “C&S 4+” reporting of data for the mass channels, we have evidently not looked at segmenting the audience based on their ability and propensity to purchase. The SEC classification used is almost archaic anyway. The current measurement system approaches the universe-creation from a channel perspective (“who watches”) than from a brand perspective (“who consumes”).

     

    Hope BARC has a radical shift to offer, with their new design for audience measurement in India. Till then, divergence, and not convergence, is what the online medium will bring to the television business in India.

     

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

     

  • In its sixth year now, the IPL has managed to court success, controversy and cynicism in equal measure, writes Shailesh Kapoor.

    Shailesh Kapoor: The Many Roles Of IPL

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    “Love it. Hate it. But you cannot ignore it.” This much-used adage seems tailor-made for the Indian Premier League (IPL). In its sixth year now, the IPL has managed to court success, controversy and cynicism in equal measure. But what it has always managed is to stay top-of-the-mind. There is no such thing as ‘low buzz’ with IPL, even when the stadia attendance and viewership is low, as was the case in 2011.

     

    Here’s my list of five things that IPL is and shall always remain:

     

    1. The blame absorber: India’s poor performance in international cricket has a new alibi. Batting collapses, in particular, are easy to explain using the IPL, which supposedly gives players a sense of false confidence that they are good enough to play against world-class bowlers in any conditions. Any series loss and the ‘IPL is against Indian cricket’ debate is reopened. This year’s IPL is thankfully free of this responsibility, given the recent success against Australia.

     

    2. An advertiser’s delight:There has been much talk about the declining IPL ratings over the last three years. Yet, IPL remains a 3+ TVR property. No international cricket series, except select India ODIs like those in the World Cup, average at this level. GEC programs too are increasingly battling fragmentation, and a 3-TVR show is a rare occurrence outside Star Plus today. In recall terms too, brands like Pepsi and Vodafone have crossed upward of 50% spontaneous recall in previous seasons of IPL (Source: Ormax Trac20). GEC brand recall, even for big-ticket reality shows, rarely crosses 25%.

     

    So, IPL offers viewership and more. It offers the opportunity to brand properties, like the stadia & the field, jerseys, tickets, etc. In effect, IPL is the best source of non-intrusive product placements on television in India today. Even more importantly, IPL is the only media property around which brands are weaving their annual marketing plans. Campaigns are being created and executed with IPL (or T20) at their core. This is perhaps the most underestimate achievement of the league.

     

    3. Social media’s favourite dissing subject: Every year, Twitter goes alive with IPL dissing. It’s cool to make fun of IPL. There’s an element of commercialization that works as perfect bait. Of late, this dissing has gotten repetitive. But IPL jokes are, and shall always remain, popular on social media.

     

    4. The retirement plan cricketers never had:It may be a stepping-stone for young cricketers, but IPL is also a retirement plan for cricketing greats like Adam Gilchrist, Rahul Dravid and Ricky Ponting. “Retiring from all forms of cricket” today means “retiring from all forms of cricket excluding IPL”.

     

    5. The primetime disrupter: Understanding the impact of IPL on viewing behaviour at primetime is no easy task. It requires being there with the families so see them juggle between their favorite serials and the cricket. IPL is disruptive primetime programming at its best, though disruption too finds a pattern for itself over time!

  • Too many launches have flattered to deceive in the past and there is an element of cynicism in the viewer response to launch campaigns today, says Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: High-decibel launches, low-decibel ratings

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Look around your city and you will be excused for believing that launching and watching new television programmes is a national pastime in our country. You encounter these launch campaigns on the streets, at malls and multiplexes, in public transport services, and of course, now on the internet.

     

    Indeed, about ten new ‘promotable’ programmes launch every month. Out of these, about half belong to mass Hindi GECs, while others are split across language GECs (including English), youth and infotainment. These campaigns are reaching out to audiences across the country, given the increasing importance of small towns in the viewership mix.

     

    But the opening rating of new launches tells a different story altogether. In 2009, serials like Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai and Laadli would open to staggering numbers, like 5-6 TVR (first week average). Over the last three years, this number has dropped significantly. Today, an opening of even 2.5 TVR (touched in recent past only by Zee TV’s Aaj Ki Housewife Sab Jaanti Hai and Qubool Hai) is considered as more than a positive verdict on the launch marketing campaign of a serial.

     

    The launch ratings for serials are in sharp contrast to movie premieres and big-ticket reality show launches. Several films have rated 7+ TVR over the last two years in their first telecast.

     

    Some of the serials grow to become 4+ TVR shows in 3-6 months of their launch. For instance, Diya Aur Baati Hum launched at 2.0 TVR in August 2011. It crossed the 3-level in October that year, the 4 & 5-levels in December, staying at there ever since, with only occasional dips.

     

    Clearly, the audiences have not lost interest in the content. But the importance they are attaching to serial launches has reduced significantly. The role of ‘Word of Mouth’ (WOM) has increased dramatically as a result. The meteoric rise of Diya Aur Baati Hum from 2 to 5 TVR within four months was aided by smart scheduling and sustenance promotions, but was primarily led by positive audience WOM around the show.

     

    Why are new serials consistently getting lukewarm audience reception? Some argue that it is difficult to compare 2009 numbers to those of 2011-13, but that’s not true. Before digitization and the recent LC1 expansion, the last major panel change at TAM happened in January 2008. For almost four years, the universe has remained largely unchanged. The number of mass channels has remained the same too, with six prominent Hindi GECs vying for audience attention at any point of time.

     

    In an industry study, we saw that channel loyalty levels have reduced over the last two years, and variety-seeking behaviour has gained prominence. Why then does this behaviour not reflect in launch ratings?

     

    The answer is driven by what I call the ‘Wait and Watch Training’. After about half a decade of Star Plus-dominated viewership, our audiences were learning to handle a multi-channel environment from 2005-10. The idea of new launches across platforms was unnerving. What should I watch, what should I skip, what is the family consensus… it was all too complex. It was almost as if there was guilt associated with missing a new programme that was being heavily promoted.

     

    Over time, confusion has given way to comfort and prudence. There is a growing sense of realization that the world will not come to a standstill if I miss the launch week of a new serial. I can probably catch a repeat or two to gauge the serial first. But even more than that, I can rely on WOM to get a verdict that will primarily influence my choice to sample the serial.

     

    In effect, there’s an element of cynicism in the viewer response to launch campaigns today, which triggers this Wait and Watch behaviour. Too many launches have flattered to deceive in the past. Also, many serials promise a lot in the first few weeks, and then eventually lose their mojo. This takes away the premium-ness from a launch. It’s not an event any more. It’s just a new serial, like many others that came and went.

     

    For ‘event launches’, we will need exceptionally differentiated content. Will ’24’ be the answer? Let time decide.

     

    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

    This column was due to appear on Thursday, but due to some technical issues, it could not be published. Our apologies – Ed

     

  • Over the last few years, with an enhanced Bollywood presence, FICCI-Frames has also acquired some "glamour" connotations, apparent from the presence of gossip journalists in the media centre, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor | FICCI-Frames: 14 and counting

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The 14th edition of FICCI-Frames concluded in Mumbai yesterday. I remember attending the inaugural one back in 2000, held at a much lower scale, and if I recall correctly, over two days, instead of the three-day schedule now.

     

    Many such conventions and events begin to fall apart in their second or third year. So, the fact that FICCI-Frames has been conducted for 14 years without a break is no mean achievement in itself. It has arguably got more commercial and less “conventional” over these years, but it that’s what it takes for an event of this nature to keep running year after year, one would gladly accept the commercialization.

     

    The bringing together of the various sectors of the media and entertainment industry, as well as the government and the regulatory bodies, gives FICCI-Frames the stature it enjoys today. However, there is an aspect of the event that may be worth worrying about in the editions to come – that of its positioning.

     

    FICCI-Frames is clearly a “networking” event today, than being a “learning” event. Over the last few years, with an enhanced Bollywood presence at Frames, it has also acquired some “glamour” connotations, apparent from the presence of gossip journalists in the media centre.

     

    Now, I’m not sure if Frames acquired this networking + glamour positioning by accident or design. But I’d like to believe that they certainly didn’t design to remove “learning” from their intended positioning. But learning has idneed become an incidental aspect of the event.

     

    Yes, there are some stimulating panel discussions and keynotes, but those are far and few in between. A lot of discussion tends to scratch the surface, with reasons ranging from choice of panelists to poorly conceived topic to political correctness to (the most common one) unprepared moderators.

     

    There’s another off-shoot of the learning debate, and that’s to do with the nature of the delegates at FICCI Frames. When it first started, Frames attracted a wider mix of executives across levels. Many middle management executives could be seen at the event, with a genuine desire to learn something new.

     

    By pricing the event at more than Rs. 10,000 per delegate, FICCI has effectively made it the events of haves vs. have-nots. I’d like to believe that the biggest convention of the media and entertainment industry should be inclusive in its approach, attracting many more than the 2,500 delegates it currently manages.

     

    But irrespective of the positioning it acquires over the next decade, FICCI Frames has managed what would have been unthinkable back in the 1990s – an industry forum that’s no pushover!

     

    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 social and political intolerance in our country has increased with each passing decade, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor | Censorship Woes: Intolerantly Yours

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    In what must be a world record, the name of a TV programme was changed on the day of its launch this week. Colors renamed its Punjab-based family social from Gurbani to Bani, evidently to avoid religious backlash. For those who don’t know, Gurbani (meaning religious compositions of Sikh Gurus) is the name of the lead female character in the show. Naming a character Gurbani could possibly not connote anything but respect for the religion.

     

    In October last year, Sushma Swaraj picked up the “issue” of the name “Radha” being used in a song from Karan Johar’s Student Of The Year. At a public event, where she was presumably representing herself as a leader of the nation, she spent considerable time wondering why the girl in the song could not have been called something else. The crowd, obviously representing her party’s support, cheered her on.

     

    That the song went onto become one of the biggest chartbusters of the year and continues to still feature prominently on the charts is another matter altogether. I believe Johar just got lucky. Some other day, right-wing groups may have forced him to change or delete the song from the film. Remember what happened to Wake Up Sid (Bombay vs. Mumbai) and My Name Is Khan (SRK’s comments on Pakistan cricketers being a part of IPL)!

     

    Crime Patrol has run into trouble twice this year, when court orders stayed telecast of episodes based on Delhi gangrape and those involving political bigwigs from Haryana. Blogs and social networking accounts are suspended or forced to shut down routinely, often for reasons laughably fragile. And of course, there’s the recent case of Vishwaroopam too.

     

    Today, if I look at some of the content we used to produce in the 80s, I am amazed how that ever got through. But that’s the reality. That social and political intolerance in our country has increased with each passing decade.

     

    What worries me considerably is that none of this intolerance represents any legitimate view. It is not the mass public opinion and it is not a constitutional view either. It is merely the view of a section (often miniscule) of the society, trying to make their presence felt, to gain publicity and further their agendas.

     

    But here’s the catch. If it had been some other media, say newspapers (or even news channels), the legal system would have to approve of it as “freedom of speech”. But when it comes to entertainment, managing to obtain a stay order or sending a threat note (sometimes both come coincidentally on the same day) is child’s play.

     

    Producers and channels are increasingly concerned about this growing phenomenon. Many have Plan-Bs ready as a part of their pre-production, to handle resistance if and when it comes. In effect, the industry is now beginning to administer self-censorship, out of plain fear.

     

    It’s easy to say that broadcasters or filmmakers allow this to happen to them, by giving in. But ask a channel on the Monday of a launch, or a producer on the Friday of his film’s release, and he will tell you that his options are limited to just one in number.

     

    The I&B ministry has to think about moving from a regulatory mindset to a growth mindset for the entertainment business. Otherwise, we should charge them for showing apathy to a key element of popular Indian culture – mass entertainment. And let them get a stay order on that!

     

    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

     

  • Inconsequential matches tarnish the image of cricket, giving it the too-much perceptions and lower ratings, rues Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: The Other Side Of The ‘Too Much Cricket’ Debate

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Back in the 80s, when I first started watching live cricket, there was a certain aura and anticipation each match, however routine, carried with it. Be it waking up early for live broadcasts from Australia, or listening to commentary on earphone-enabled transistor radios in the classroom or, in cases when there was no TV telecast or commentary (e.g. some India tests on foreign soil), being glued to the hourly AIR news bulletins for a score update – Cricket was important.

     

    Memories of the matches I watched between 1984-1993 are still vivid, including specifics like commentary, team details and scorecards. I still watch cricket and that kind of vivid memory exists for key matches like World Cup games or important Test series held over the last two decades. But in between these important games are hundreds of other games that I have pratically no recollection of!

     

    The debate around “too much cricket” indeed seems real. India played a record 43 ODIs in 1999, vis-à-vis an average of about 18 per year in the 1985-1992 period. Of course, T20 cricket, including the IPL, compounds the too-much factor, even though Test cricket levels have hovered around an average of 10-12 Tests per year for a while now.

     

    It’s not wrong to say that an “overdose” of any form of entertainment or leisure can lead to depletion in interest over time. However, there is a key component in the too-much-cricket debate that is never spoken of. The aspect that I call: Too Much Entertainment.

     

    Most of the cricket in the 80s and the early 90s was in an environment free of satellite television. Cricket, when it was telecast on DD, was the only thing to watch. All eyes would focus on a game, even if it was an inconsequential one, such as some of the utterly random tournaments held in Sharjah in the late 80s.

     

    In the 90s, as cable & satellite recruited more audiences, options began to multiply. India was playing a crazy amount of ODI cricket in this decade, peaking to that shocking number of 43 ODIs by 1999. The average for the 1996-2000 period was 37 ODIs a year. Yet, the clutter was never felt or spoken about as much as today, because other entertainment options were fewer in number.

     

    Cricket fans (mostly men) had only about a dozen non-cricket channels to watch, which often carrying content targeted at women audiences anyway. It’s in the early 2000s that the satellite boom really made its impact felt, after KBC and Kyunkii Saas entered our lives in the year 2000. As the medium of television realized its true potential, it also created a problem of plenty. There was too much entertainment all around, and cricket occupied a much smaller share of this offering, only because the offering itself had grown in size.

     

    The average number of ODIs India played in the decade of 2000s was 29, down from the 37 number mentioned above. But ironically, this was the period when the talk of too much cricket really gathered momentum. In reality though, it was not too much cricket, but roughly similar amount of cricket as a part of a too-much-entertainment environment.

     

    The later half of the last decade complicated this matter even further, with the emergence of Internet as a strong entertainment delivery medium for the urban markets. That, along with the launch of the IPL in 2008, means that the too-much-cricket debate is here to stay for good.

     

    Yes, cricket viewership may have dipped over years, but so has the viewership of most other genres. Top TV serials today deliver a percentage viewership (TVR) of less than half of what they used to about five years ago. New fiction launches rarely open at anything above 2.5 TVR, vis-a-vis 5+ TVR upto 2009. In contrast, cricket viewership for key events has shown only a 20-25% slide, and there have been games that have been immune to even this.

     

    The too-much-entertainment environment is here to stay. It means too many films, too many songs, too many channels, too many serials, too many reality shows, too many websites, too many Facebook friends, etc. Too much cricket will always be a part of this list.

     

    But the best in each category shall survive this overdose environment. There may be too many films, but a film like 3 Idiots will find its place in the clutter. Similarly, TV programs like KBC, Balika Vadhu, Taarak Mehta or Diya Aur Baati Hum shall find their place while the lesser ones fight the fragmentation. The rule is not very different for cricket either. The inconsequential matches (none less than India playing Sri Lanka in bilateral series over and over again) are the ones that tarnish the image of the sport, giving it the too-much perceptions and lower ratings.

     

    The only way to counter an overdose perception is to create a perception of consistent quality. Picking the right oppositions and tournaments to play is the key, not the number of games itself. Being the cricketing superpower that we are, that’s the least we can command!

     

    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

     

     

     

  • For the television industry, Women's Day should be even less relevant. After all, the woman is the boss of the television remote, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Women’s Day? TV Needs A Men’s Day!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The celebration and hype around Women’s Day amuses me. I can understand the day being used as an excuse for the government to announce schemes and policies with the objective of promoting gender equality in the country in its truest form. But besides that, the concept reeks of hypocrisy and commercialization, given that it promotes gender inequality through its mere existence, by recognizing women “differently”. Talk about ironies!

     

    For the television industry, Women’s Day should be even less relevant. After all, the woman is the boss of the television remote. Women control what gets watched on TV on weekdays across a majority of households in the country. The female dominance of the remote is a staggering 78% between 7-10pm. It changes only marginally after 10pm, but is still a lopsided 68%.

     

    This data, collected in a pan-India study last year by Ormax Media, is a telling evidence of marginalization of men in the television business in India. Even more interesting is the SEC skew. In lower SECs (CDE), the gender balance is still better, with the 78% and 68% dropping to 68% and 55% respectively. But the upper and middle class audiences (SEC AB) show an even stronger female dominance of the remote (81% and 72%).

     

    There is only one day in the week that’s not a Women’s Day on television – Sunday. Studying the concept of “Sunday” from a women’s perspective can be revelatory. A day we see as relaxing and fun is often her nightmare. This is the day when the husband and kids are home all day, and the woman (read housewife) has her toughest day at office, multi-tasking her way through a ceaseless volley of demands being thrown at her. At times, I wonder if keeping the housewife occupied with Sunday chores is just a conspiracy hatched by the male members of the family to get control over the remote!

     

    In a consumer interaction a few years back, one such woman candidly expressed her disenchantment with Sunday: “Baaki sab ka Sunday hota hai, aur hamari hoti hai waat.” But back to Monday, and it’s another story altogether.

     

    The gender inequality in television evidently has the man as its victim. What we really need is a Men’s Day. A day when a man can watch cricket in primetime without being bugged to change the channel. A day when a man can assert that primetime news debates are the most engaging form of television known to us. A day when a man can watch a South-Indian dubbed film start-to-finish, even as the wife wonders: “Yeh kaale-kaale hero waali picture kyon dekhte rehte ho?”

     

    But on a more serious note, we will be better off with a more balanced gender profile of the remote ownership. One argument says that if you make only women-centric content, you will get women as the primary audiences. However, this is not entirely true, because there have been many experiments to offer male-centric content in the past, and most of them have not enjoyed the success that women-oriented soaps do.

     

    But I believe that these male-centric programmes were only paying lip service to the cause. While they targeted the men, they didn’t do enough to strike a deep chord within their target audience, like the top serials do with women. If there’s a research paper waiting to be written in the Indian television industry, it is the one called “What Men Want”.

     

    Happy Women’s Day!

     

    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

     

  • A limited-inventory environment is an industry-friendly move but the TRAI’s approach to the entire issue is highly misplaced, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor | Inventory Not Found: TRAI Again!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Many of us complain about excessive advertising on television, especially during movies and award shows. In what can be called a pro-consumer move, TRAI mandated last year that channels should carry a maximum of 12 minutes of inventory every hour, including channel promotions. There has been no serious implementation of the guideline, and the heat on this subject is picking up again now.

     

    Personally, I have been a prime proponent of a viewer experience where intrusive advertising is limited. Such an experience does at least two things:

     

    1. The viewers enjoy a more satisfying viewing session, leading to higher affinity for the brand (channel) over time.

    2. In the absence of endless inventory in its wares, the selling team at the channel is forced to consider rate increase and non-intrusive advertising (AFPs, product placements, etc.) as solutions. In particular, a rate increase is what traditionally undersold genres like Hindi movies and kids should be pushing with great conviction.

     

    There are many like me who believe that a limited-inventory environment is an industry-friendly move, not just a viewer-friendly move. In the long run, it will create better monetization of both the advertising inventory and the viewer experience.

     

    A shortfall of supply (inventory) is bound to increase prices over time. Top advertisers can’t afford to ignore popular TV genres such as GECs, movies, news and kids today. There are no substitutes that offer even a fraction of their reach. Hence, a price correction will happen. Just that the short-term impact on the revenue can be unnerving, given the testing times we are in right now.

     

    Having said that, TRAI’s approach to the entire issue is highly misplaced. As a first step, one can rightly argue that a regulatory body has no business deciding how much airtime a channel sells every hour. Market forces should be deciding optimum inventory levels, and if that means that some channels lose out because their competitors give a better viewer experience over time, then so be it!

     

    While I can’t fault the market-forces agreement, that’s not by biggest concern with TRAI’s approach. Where the inventory-cap proposal is breaking down (and will continue to do so) is the policing-oriented mindset with which it has been floated. I’m not even sure if TRAI has really done any mathematics to understand and convince broadcasters of the long-run potential of its proposal. In fact, I’m not even sure if TRAI itself understands this potential deeply and conceptually.

     

    There should have been better engagement with the industry, even if that meant more time. In any case, nothing has been implemented as such, so time has been lost anyway. But a more participative approach would have allowed TRAI and IBF to take a more informed, collective view on the subject.

     

    But the even more fair approach would have been TRAI staying away from the topic altogether. If some channels want to commit hara-kiri by stuffing inventory in their prime time, they should have full freedom to do so. Because logically, the next argument could then be all channels should have equally good programmes, as viewers want good programmes!

     

    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

     

  • Entertainment television seem to have given a pass to Valentine's Day this year, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: TV Wala Romance… Err… Love!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    India “celebrated” a largely incident-free Valentine’s Day this year. In the past, Feb 14 has managed to irk the moral police, who have objected to V-Day on account of its foreign origin, as well as for the public display of affection that comes with it.

     

    But despite (or probably aided by) the protests over years, Valentine’s Day has found its way into the mainstream in India.  For example, over the last three years, box office collections on V-Day increase by around 20%, despite it being a non-holiday weekday. Every year at this time, social media is abuzz with V-Day content, ranging from outright mushy to outright hilarious.

     

    I scanned the telly last night to see if there was any V-Day content being offered. There wasn’t much that I could find. The odd reference or two was strictly in the passing, with no real content being woven around it. Even the most “romantic” serials on television didn’t acknowledge the day.

     

    Contrast this to how television celebrates other special days or festivals. Karva Chauth gets extended coverage in many serials, with highpoints built around the festival lasting a month at times. In January, at least six serials celebrated Lohri, essentially a Punjabi festival, with such enthusiasm you would have been excused for assuming Lohri is India’s Christmas.

     

    However, when it comes to “love”, the response is muted. Our cinema, targeting the college audiences as a primary segment, lapped up the V-Day opportunity many years ago. Yash Chopra filmed an entire song (Pyaar kar) in Dil To Pagal Hai in a V-Day situation back in 1997. But in television, there is little place for the young audiences. It’s ‘family wala pyaar’ that works in prime time, and V-Day doesn’t fit that box very well.

     

    About four years ago, while researching several show concepts for television, I encountered the nuances of the romance genre on television. It started with the genre name itself. The word “romantic” generally inspired giggles in consumer groups, while “love story” was spoken of as a matter of fact.

     

    Over time, it became apparent to me that “romantic” in India has a definite sexual connotation attached to it. It suggests physicality of love – hugging or holding hands in public, kissing and making-out. “Love”, on the other hand, is clean and pure. It is about an emotion attached to a person and a relationship. It is also about adjusting and sacrifice. Hence, two clear sub-genres exist: Romantic and love-story.

     

    Several serials on leading GECs have addressed the love-story genre successfully over years. However, there have been only a few, sporadic attempts at offering romance in prime time. Star One was the flag-bearer of this genre, and that positioning proved limiting for the channel over time.

     

    Housewives, a core constituent of the TV puzzle, are quite dismissive of romance as such, often branding it “outdoor wali love story”. But give them a Ram-Priya, Archana-Maanav or Sandhya-Suraj, and they are at home, literally, with the real thing: the familiar “indoor wali love story”.

     

    Yes, the indoor love stories too get physical, but that’s a rare highpoint in them, than a routine. Back in 2011,about six serials were running in the ‘married but not consummated yet’ stage simultaneously!

     

    We may as well leave the romance to the movies. The home-made love stories are doing just fine.

     

    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

     

     

     

  • Would our lives really change if the ratings "data" arrives at at a healthier 9.30am, asks Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Sleepless in the land of 5am TV ratings!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Wednesday morning will now be replaced by Thursday morning. Actually, make that early morning, or even, very early morning. For the last few years, key members of the TV industry, including its senior leadership, have been waking up at unearthly hours ranging from 4am to 6am every Wednesday. The reason: That’s the time the weekly viewership data (popularly called TRPs) is released. From this week, the cycle changes to Thursday; because of a further inclusion of smaller towns in the respondent mix.

     

    I have been on the other side till 2008, and gone through the drill myself. First, you spend a sleepless night wondering when the “data” will be released. Then, you actually get the information that “data has been uploaded” (or “the data has come”, as if it was a person who rang our doorbells).

     

    So you wait anxiously for another half hour, while a research executive downloads the data files and updates the software, before proceeding to do the relevant runs. These runs are then converted into long text messages (also BBM or Whatsapp messages) and circulated. An entire industry wakes up to this every week!

     

    The question is: Why this early? It’s business after all. And business hours start at 9.30am or 10am across most channels as well as media agencies, the two primary subscribers to the information in question here. Shouldn’t business be conducted in business hours, unless it is earth-shatteringly unavoidable?

     

    Till date, I haven’t got a convincing answer. It seems evident that there is a certain element of “addiction” in this routine. The junior execs may not enjoy it, but the more senior ones approach Wednesday mornings with a mix of glee, nervousness and intrigue.

     

    In one of my channel jobs, the entire senior team stayed up all night once, because the ratings in the morning were supposed to capture the impact of some key launches on the channel in the previous week. Ironically, the guest of the evening (“data”) was late, and by the time it arrived at 7am, most of us were already home, after a long wait.

     

    There is something uniquely Indian about all this. We tend to overwork ourselves, stretching work into non-business hours almost as a matter of pride. But we also spend a sizeable amount of our work time discussing cricket and film stars. We are perpetually working, always handling some crisis or an urgent matter that needs our attention. With the advent of digital devices (starting with laptops, to smartphones, to iPads), the distinction between work hours and non-work hours has blurred beyond recognition.

     

    Every constituent of the TV industry, including stakeholders like production houses and knowledge partners like Ormax Media, should reflect upon this: Are we creating a “healthy” industry for the next generation of television executives in India? Would our lives really change if the “data” arrives at 9.30am, only three hours “late”?

     

    I hope BARC considers this earnestly in their new design for broadcast research in India. In a country that’s trigger-happy when it comes to censorships, this is one type of censorship that I’ll really welcome: putting a ban on early morning uploads of viewership data!

     

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

     

     

     

  • Shailesh Kapoor on the thankless job of a music programmer which appears so easy that anyone can try his or her hand at it, only because who's to tell whether it was done well or not

    Shailesh Kapoor: There’s a music programmer in all of us!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Entertainment tastes vary significantly across individuals. This is evident when we discuss films with our friends and colleagues, and wonder if “something is seriously wrong with them” because they didn’t like a film we simply loved, or vice versa. This applies to television too, where a disagreement over TV serials is sufficient trigger to start a catfight amongst housewives in a research focus group.

     

    Yet, there are unifier movies and serials. It is hard to find someone who didn’t like Barfi or Kahaani. At their peak, Balika Vadhu and Bade Achhe Lagte Hain had no real detractors.

     

    But an area where tastes can vary significantly more than films and serials is music. There are so many distinct factors that can make people like (or dislike) a song. Some prefer fast tempo songs while others tend to like melodies. Some are lyrics-oriented while others are more tune or beat-oriented. Many have their favourite singers and composers, whose work they like instinctively. Then there’s the video of course, which is the “face” to the song and a direct influence on its appeal.

     

    As if all this was not enough, there is a new variable that complicates matters even further: the buzz the song generates. Today, songs are often liked and watched for their “social value”. It is cool to be in the know of what’s creating the buzz. Not knowing the signature step from Fevicol can be social suicide, for example.

     

    Potentially the most subjective job in the entertainment business, therefore, is that of a music programmer. This is the person who decides the song playlist for a music channel or a radio station. This role involves deciding which songs to play, how often and when. A movie programmer who creates the FPC (Fixed Point Chart) for a film channel at least has the support of past ratings. For a music channel, though, the ratings are largely irrelevant, given the short song duration of 2-3 minutes, which makes the ratings highly “chance-prone”.

     

    Having worked closely with several music channels, I have met some very knowledgeable people in the music programmer positions. Invariably, they have sound technical knowledge of music, and have an “expert” view on a song. But incredibly, none of these individuals have the same choices. Their natural preference towards certain types of music reflects in their on-air selection. Barring the latest songs airplay, it is tough to find much in common with the playlists across channels.

     

    These programmers also have to handle some undue pressures at their work. For example, the boss walking upto them and saying: “I have not seen Phir Le Aaya Dil on the channel at all. It is such a lovely song. Why are you not playing it?” Or the exact opposite: “Why are you playing Phir Le Aaya Dil so many times? Young people don’t like these classical music type of songs.”

     

    This is a typical example of the “everyone knows” syndrome – A job that seems so easy that anyone can try his or her hand at it, only because who’s to tell whether it was done well or not.

     

    Ironically though, the consumers do tell, in their own way. Over a period of time, consistent consumer-centric delivery of music can work wonders to the preference created for a channel or radio stations. Of course, achieving this requires investment, commitment and loads of patience.

     

    But in an industry where we live by the week, patience is not much of a virtue today!

     

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