MxMIndia

Category: TV

  • IPL is cricket-based primetime entertainment controversies are like tabloid gossip which people consume for voyeuristic pleasure and purely as entertainment, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: IPL: Credibility vs. Viewership

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    The last week has been an infamous one for the Indian Premier League (IPL), and from what it seems, we have certainly not seen the end of the controversy the league finds itself in. Newspapers and news channels have prominently covered what obviously qualifies as news of great “national interest”.

     

    There is a strong sense of deja vu here. In 2010, Lalit Modi was ousted from his position as the IPL Commissioner in the week leading upto the finals. I remember how several “experts”, including cricketers themselves, were busy debating the issue on various news channels, even as Chennai Super Kings were playing Mumbai Indians in the all-important match. Wonder which viewers was a news show such as this targeting!

     

    Any issue with legal ramifications needs to be handled by the investigative and legal machinery available for the same. But the part that interests me here is how the media has handled this situation.

     

    The most interesting, even amusing, side of the media’s take on the spot-fixing controversy is an axiom most journalists seem to be operating out of, that “If IPL loses its credibility, it will lose its viewership.” However axiomatic this may sound, it is simply not true. And if you miss this point, you are missing the larger IPL story altogether.

     

    IPL is cricket-based primetime entertainment. I find this description of the tournament not only appropriate, but also encouraging. It feeds right back into the material instincts of the young, ambitious India that we all talk about. As Veeru from Sholay famously said: “Iss story mein emotional hai, drama hai, tragedy hai.” It is as real as any reality show can get, complete with its twists like spot-fixing.

     

    Does the viewer care about these controversies? Of course he does. It is fodder for office and college canteen talk, after all. But does the viewer have a strong position on it? Not necessarily. For many, these controversies are like tabloid gossip, which you consume for voyeuristic pleasure, purely as entertainment. To say that the average Indian cricket viewer is deeply troubled by this is a mile away from the truth. The average Indian cricket viewer is an “average Indian” first. He has enough else to care and worry about.

     

    Hence, the linkage between controversy, credibility and viewership begins to break. But from the high horse that many in the media seem to be on, it seems like the most obvious thing ever known to mankind.

     

    I can understand former cricketers and passionate old-time sports journalists getting worked up about the “entertainment” positioning of a cricket tournament. But why do other journalists and guests take a “cricket is a gentleman’s game” stance is not very clear to me. IPL is now in its sixth year. It has never pretended to be championing the gentleman’s-game positioning of the game. It has been unequivocal about its motives.

     

    There have been a few senior cricket journalists who have taken an exception of the idea of the league from way back in 2008. That’s a viewpoint and understandable. But what does not add up is the news channels approach of giving extensive coverage to the league through half-hour daily shows (with repeats), and then taking a moral view on cricket when a controversy erupts.

     

    When a normal political scam runs into 11 digits of monetary valuation, an IPL controversy involving a few million should actually be inside-page news. But let’s face it. Even the newspapers and news channels know that it is “popular”. In a way then, by giving it disproportionate coverage, they are endorsing the power of the IPL, even using it to their advantage. Talk about irony!

     

    Meanwhile, the viewer is getting all set to watch a final on Sunday.

     

    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

     

  • If the 10+2 cap comes into force, many channels will lose upto 60% of their commercial inventory. This itself should have been reason enough to approach the issue in a more inclusive manner, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Is the ad cap a blessing in disguise?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    There has been enough written and spoken about TRAI playing corporate police and setting guidelines that define break durations and other promotional dos and don’ts that channels must adhere to.

     

    I find most of TRAI’s ideas fairly well-intentioned (though some, like not allowing entertainment channels to use on-screen promotions, border on unreasonable extremes). But their execution has a ring of policing, which is never a good idea in any industry, let alone one reeling under the pressure of slow policy-making and implementation over years.

     

    If the 10+2 cap comes into force, many channels will lose upto 60% of their commercial inventory. This itself should have been reason enough to approach the issue in a more inclusive manner. It takes no rocket science to discover that if an industry loses about half its saleable produce to a policy, it will react adversely. Hope we see the end of this policy tangle in months, than in years!

     

    But if I remove the baggage of TRAI and its ways from the discussion, I find great merit in the idea of ad cap. There is a mathematical proof that many have shared, including columnists on this website, whereby the linkage between reduction in inventory and increase in ad rates has been well-articulated.

     

    But my argument comes more in the capacity of being a voice of the consumer. It operates on the simple premise that any pro-consumer move works well for a business or an industry in the long run.

     

    In our researches back in 2008, certain genres had managed to create deep consumer disenchantment because of the poor viewing experience as a result of “too many ads”. Interestingly, over the last five years, this articulation has faded away. Complaint has given way to cynicism, where consumers have taken unreasonable ad time on television in their stride, using the remote as the potent weapon.

     

    What does this do? Many things, including:

    01. Movies (except premieres) are watched by segment. A 15-minute session on a running film is good enough.

    02. Prime time sees dual viewing (of two programmes on one TV set) in many households. There is a “main programme” and a “breakwalla programme”. Heavy viewers are experts on break-matching patterns today, e.g. “Uttaran aur Pyaar Ka Dard ka break hamesha clash hota hai”, said with great dejection, for it robs her of the opportunity to watch two serials in the price (time) of one.

    03. Regular news channel viewers have official break circumvention tips and tricks worked out. They know exactly when a news channel airs content and when it airs ads, so they can ask their wives for the remote at just the right time.

     

    None of these “viewing behaviour” attributes are healthy in nature. They are not based on the essential principal that good television should be engaging and involving. They tend to reduce television viewing to a juggling act, taking the focus away from the content to the actual process of watching it!

     

    A large part of this behaviour is captured in spot ratings dropping vis-à-vis content ratings. However, ratings can’t capture the “mental switch-off” that happens when an ad break starts, even if the channel is not changed. This “mental switch-off”, in turn, reflects as potential non-performance of the medium in the researches conducted by brands advertising on television, leading them to question if it is the best medium to effectively communicate their message after all. This is an argument other media sales executives, especially online and radio, have been using increasingly in the marketplace.

     

    In an environment that’s going to be increasingly subscription-led, it will be prudent to keep the viewer at the core of decision-making. Making them watch TV like they should, is a good starting point.

     

    If we see ad cap in some form in the near future, I have a feeling the broadcasting community will be secretly thanking TRAI a couple of years from now!

     

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

     

  • He may have none of Hrithik’s qualities, yet Riteish Deshmukh is clearly the more enjoyable, more likeable dance reality show judge between the two, notes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Riteish Deshmukh over Hrithik Roshan: It happens only on TV!

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    He’s one of the biggest stars in Hindi cinema for more than a decade now. He gave a huge hit (Agneepath) in 2012, and come Diwali 2013, he will make the cash registers ring with Krrish 3. Yet, when Hrithik Roshan made his television debut in 2011, success eluded him.

     

    On the face of it, there can’t be a better judge on a dance reality show. Hrithik Roshan has redefined mainstream Bollywood dancing in more ways than one, and is one of the reasons dance began to gain popularity across the country, even before Dance India Dance came into existence.

     

    In a recent Twitter poll conducted by Ormax Media on favourite Bollywood dance numbers, Hrithik Roshan’s songs swept the Top 4 spots! It is only apt that Star Plus pitched him as the big idea behind Just Dance. The show, however, failed to achieve even a fraction of Hrithik’s Bollywood success, languishing in the 2-2.5 TVR range for most part.

     

    Riteish Deshmukh has none of Hrithik’s star power or charisma. When it comes to Hindi cinema, they are not even in the same vicinity. Riteish is one of the several second-line heroes trying to make their mark via multi-starrer films. He does not feature in the Top 25 stars in Hindi cinema, as per Ormax Stars India Loves. His comic timing has been appreciated in a few films, but there’s little else he has to offer for cine-goers.

     

    When I first came to know Star Plus had signed Riteish for their new show India’s Dancing Superstar, I struggled to make sense of the information. Riteish is, at best, a no-offence dancer. For him to judge a dance show seemed more like a “budget choice” than a convincing one.

     

    I don’t know how and why the channel stumbled upon Riteish Deshmukh for the show. But when I watched the first week’s content, I couldn’t believe the consummate ease this “non-dancer”, “non-superstar” displayed. He has none of Hrithik’s qualities, yet Riteish Deshmukh is clearly the more enjoyable, more likeable dance reality show judge between the two!

     

    Many TV executives continue to quote parallels from Hindi cinema at the slightest excuse. If you ever need to kill the argument that you can use films to explain anything in the television business, this Hrithik vs. Riteish comparison does that effortlessly.

     

    Though the show is only a week old, it seems certain that Riteish’s simplicity and spontaneity will find favour amongst the audience. His kind of ‘human touch’ works wonders on television; it literally melts the distance between the viewer and the celebrity, while they watch him on the show. For that hour, the celebrity becomes one of them, almost like a family member.

     

    Cinema is supposed to achieve the exact opposite. It is supposed to put the hero on a pedestal, so that you can only hope to touch him, never quite managing to succeed in the attempt. Very few like Amitabh Bachchan and Salman Khan have managed to make the transition from aspiration to relatability, in their journey from the big screen to the small screen. For others like Hrithik Roshan, the trappings of superstardom have been too limiting for their own good.

     

    Riteish Deshmukh is certainly not aspirational. On television, that’s his biggest differentiator. Only time will tell whether India’s Dancing Superstar will deliver viewership numbers higher than Just Dance. But at probably less than 20% of the latter’s talent cost, it is already the more profitable of the two shows. And dare I say, by far the better one too, both in terms of the content and the jury.

     

    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

     

  • Shailesh Kapoor offers five tips that he believes are still relevant for young television executives, in their first 3-4 years of working

    Shailesh Kapoor: Five Tips For Young TV Executives

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Last week, I completed 14 years in the media and entertainment business. Much as I’d still like to call myself “young”, the generational shift over these years is apparent. I was extremely fortunate to find the right mentors in my early years. Life was simpler too. There were only a dozen channels, and hence, ratings were not an obsession like they are today. It was also the time of desktops, and hence, work-free late nights and weekends.

     

    Archaic as the “era” may sound, it had some wonderful advantages. It allowed a young executive time to invest in his professional growth. Here are five tips that I believe are still relevant for young television executives, in their first 3-4 years of working.

     

    1. Watch TV: It is amazing how many television executives, especially in departments outside programming, believe that they can do their jobs well without watching television. The fallacious argument I’ve heard is: “Male brand managers can market sanitary napkins and teetotalers can market liquor, so why does a TV exec need to watch TV?”

     

    The crucial difference, of course, is that in television, the product (content) plays the dual role of product and advertising. Each programme communicates certain brand attributes to the consumer, building the channel brand in turn. Not watching television is therefore like not watching the advertising of your brand and its competitors. Now imagine a Whisper brand manager doing that!

     

    One of the common “errors” in watching habits is the excessive time spent on watching your own channel, including repeats, and practically no time spent on watching competition. This creates a tunnel vision over time, where you begin to lose category perspective altogether, stereotyping competition dangerously as a result.

     

    Do watch as much variety as you can, not just in your genre but across genres too. The long-term results will be more than worth the time.

     

    2. Be Curious: There is a world at work, beyond your assigned work, that is, the show or the client or the campaign you are working on. Seek learning from that world. Talk to people in other departments, ask them questions, find your “intrigues” and then find answers to them. Learning never stops, but there is no real, sustained learning unless the mind is curious. And curiosity can be deceptively under-rated concept. Make it your big idea.

     

    3. Read More Views, Less News: Back in 1999-2000, we did not have too many “trade websites”. Hence, curiosity, leading to asking questions, was the only way to learn more about the industry. Today, there is an overdose of material online. I see many young executives spending a fair amount of time reading up such material. But most such reading is purely informational in nature. Opinions and views are less popular, probably because they are more “complex” to read. But make an attempt. Real learning comes from them. A good “views” article will implore you to think, and disagree and debate on many occasions too, and widen your sphere of understanding.

     

    4. Master your craft: The ‘10,000 Hour Rule’ says it takes a human being 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to master a skill. For a full-time TV job, this translates into four years of working. So, be patient. It’s easy to believe you know it all. But when you reflect back a few years later on how little you knew when you thought you knew it all, you’ll be amused. Master the craft that you have chosen for yourself by clocking in the practice that it needs. There are no shortcuts in such matters.

     

    5. Just Ask: In the words of the celebrated Carnegie Mellon professor (late) Randy Bausch, “the most magical things happen if you just ask.” I discovered the power of asking at my first job itself. I wanted to be a part of script narration meetings with production houses. Being a marketing executive, it was not connected to my job description at all. It didn’t even seem “necessary” in any way. The desire was more out of personal interest.

     

    I was working on four running shows that time, and I had to ask four different executive producers if I could sit in their narration meetings. I asked, and incredibly (or maybe not), all of them agreed, and gladly so. That was the time of weeklies, and the writer and the director narrated complete screenplays in person, 2-3 episodes in a meeting. Within a couple of months, I was being invited for narration meetings, having now become a part of that team. If I hadn’t asked, I’d missed out on one of the most powerful experiences of my life.

     

    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 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