Category: TV

By Shailesh Kapoor

It has been an action-packed week for Hindi GECs. Three shows launched in the same slot on the same day, earlier this week. Monday, August 18, 2014 saw the action unfolding at 8.30pm, with the simultaneous launch of KBC on Sony, Nisha Aur Uske Cousins on Star Plus and Udaan on Colors. Zee TV had launched a new show in the same slot (Jamai Raja) two weeks ago.

We have had instances of a channel launching upto six new shows on the same day. But three big channels launching new properties on the same day in the same slot has to be a first in the nearly 25 years history of Hindi GECs. In a category where new launches have increasingly struggled to open well, this has to be counted as a very odd happening.

The equivalent of this would be three big movies releasing on the same Friday. Or three cola brands launching a new campaign in the same week. Can you remember either of that happening ever? Probably not. Which brings me to the point of this piece: Are we an under-coordinated industry?

Anyone who knows the way information flows in the Indian television industry would tell you that it needs no spy work to find out launch dates of new shows. The information is available everywhere, at the junior-most levels in channels and production houses. In any case, coming-soon promos for these shows have been running for weeks. That would be enough time to find things out.

Yet, when I see channels taking each other head-on, it indicates a certain insular approach towards the business environment. As it is, getting sampling on new shows is a tough task. If three new launches happen at the same time the same night, all are bound to feel the pinch, though some more than others. Building from a low base of viewership is possible, but lower the base, the more challenging is the build-up task.

There’s a lot of FPC planning that’s going on in GECs all the time. But it’s taking a more tactical form in recent years. Launching head-on against another well-promoted show is a strategic blunder, especially when an extra week would not make any discernable difference whatsoever.

But one can imagine why it’s happening. To understand this, let’s look at the probable outcome next Thursday, when the ratings are out. At least two, if not all three, shows may open below expectations, because of the fragmentation of new viewers in a highly unpredictable slot. However, show openings are marketing and communication KRAs, I understand. And that’s a department that’s likely to have the least say in the decision to launch head-on. In the end, all you can do to resolve this anomaly is a corridor discussion that borders on pontification.

52 weeks a year, six channels and at least eight daily fiction slots in a day gives us total of 2,496 possible launch day-slot options. The number of fiction launches in a year are only about 50. What are the chances even two, let alone three, fall on the same day-slot combination? It’s a version of the classical ‘Birthday Problem’ (visit the Wiki to know more). The answer would be very low, less than 1% for two shows and close to 0% for three shows.

Yet, it happened. Only in India!

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

By Shailesh Kapoor

MC Mary Kom’s biopic releases today. After the success of Bhaag Milkha Bhaag last year, the film, succinctly titled Mary Kom, is hot property in Bollywood trade. After all, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag was the first 100cr film that did not feature a big star in the lead. It was also the most-appreciated Hindi film in terms of audience word-of-mouth since 3 Idiots.

In a different and yet not-so-different world, Sachin Tendulkar will be releasing his autobiography, in November. Co-authored by Boria Majumdar, the book, titled Playing It My Way, is sure to make at least some young Indians read beyond Chetan Bhagat.

Evidently, the impact of sport on other media has increased in the last year or two. Traditionally, “sports” meant restricted live telecasts and news coverage of the same. Everything else around it was strictly ancillary. The only other place where sportspeople featured was the gossip column, when they dated a film star (at times, starlet).

While Bollywood has found sports in its attempt to find new stories, Indian television seems to have ignored this recent development. We are not a sporting country by any means, but that does not mean that we don’t have sporting heroes. Yet, no stories on television have covered them, their lives or the drama associated with sport in general. The last attempt of any sorts was back in 2009, when Sony aired a daily called Palampur Express. The show was based on a fictional character, not a real story, and had severe story-telling concerns, none of which were about “sports” as such. It went off-air within weeks.

In my growing up years, I remember watching the Bodyline miniseries with awe. The idea of recreating real sporting action with such authenticity was fascinating. Hollywood has also captured sporting drama in dozens of films, including the behind-the-scenes action in films like Jerry Maguire and Moneyball.

I understand that the economics of sports channels may not allow them to invest in fiction series around sports. But isn’t sports drama a part of the wider umbrella called “general entertainment”? We dish out talent shows by the day, but there haven’t been any that search for the next potential Indian cricket team member or the next potential Saina Nehwal or Sushil Kumar.

Sports drama can be excellent viewing for weekend audiences. It ticks most weekend boxes – it is male-skewed, it is kids-inclusive, it has a rush of adrenaline, and certainly a big scoop of inspiration.

A big network like Star, with equal interest in both sports and general entertainment, is best aligned today to bridge this need gap. A crackling sports drama or sports reality show can open up a new area of television programming in India. Otherwise, like it took a Richard Attenborough to tell Gandhi’s story, it would take another Brit or American to tell Dhyanchand’s story on TV or celluloid.

Bollywood has taken the first step. It’s time for television to follow and embrace the world of sport outside of live action. Anyone listening?

By Shailesh Kapoor

SAB TV launched a show called Chandrakant Chiplunkar Seedi Bambawala last month. The long, tongue-twister of a name is now the longest show title for an Indian TV programme in my memory (I have discounted inconsequential taglines while considering titles). Star Plus broke its mould by titling their new show Nisha Aur Uske Cousins. At the box-office two weeks ago, a film released with a title that made it virtually impossible for the film to be taken seriously – Raja Natwarlal.

As the environment gets more distractive and options increase, the impact of content titling on its success has started to increase too. A title may not be the most important determinant of a show’s success. That comes from characters, plot and treatment, of course. But a title can be an entry ticket or an entry barrier, depending on how it is perceived.

Very little understanding of what’s a good title is available. It’s one of the least-researched areas in content. Which is odd, given that it’s the first introduction of the content to its target audience. Titling is still seen as a vague creative exercise. It is nothing but that. It is a marketing variable, but one that marketing departments in channels have very little say in.

It’s easy to justify a ‘bad’ title, because there will always be enough examples of shows that worked with a certain kind of title and vice versa. That they worked despite the title and not because of it is a point that’s rarely understood.

There may not be any tenets cast in stone, but there certainly are guidelines for good show titles, that we sense over many years of content and communication research in the Indian market. Here are five of them. Unfortunately, work ethic demands that I stay away from giving examples for them. But you should get the drift.

1. The marriage of simple and catchy: Keep it simple and stupid? In the entertainment business, that won’t necessarily be a recommendation. There needs to be a sense of attractiveness (commonly can “catchy”). But, the catchiness should not come at the cost of simplicity.

2. Avoid homilies and random musings: It’s amazing how some titles can be so “creative” that they communicate nothing. Innumerable TV and film titles fit this category.

3. Enough of song names, please: It may have worked for some shows, more memorably for Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. But the excuse to use a song name for a TV show title is now simply an excuse of being lazy. Songs that were never even popular in their own time are now being used as titles. And in some cases, this “own time” happens to be the 50s and the 60s!

4. Communicate the genre: The biggest marketing task a title can do is to communicate its show’s genre effectively. Choice of words in a title can be critical to communicate the heaviness or light-heartedness of treatment, the emotional tenor and the content bucket the show broadly falls in. I’ve often seen misleading titles being justified by that very standard and very lame explanation: It will be taken care in the treatment of the promos.

5. When in doubt, use character names: In fact, you can make that: Unless in doubt, use character names. Over five years of show tracking (Ormax Showbuzz), we’ve seen that shows with character names (lead or the lead pair) generate 35% higher unaided recall in their pre-launch week on an average, compared to those without one. Importantly, such titles force the promo writer to write character-building promos. For fiction content, that’s pure gold.