MxMIndia

Tag: Shailesh Kapoor

  • Bollywood may not admit it, but the dance revolution started by television has impacted it too. Viewers are looking at dance steps with a critical eye, expecting the next level, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: 2008-2013: The Great Indian Dance Revolution

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Three dance reality shows are currently vying for viewer attention on the weekends. Last week, Zee TV aired ABCD – Any Body (sic) Can Dance, India’s answer to Step Up. Backed by some innovative promotions featuring the channel’s homegrown stars, the film scored higher than biggies like Race 2 on the (much-maligned) rating charts.

     

    Circa 2008. India almost didn’t know what dance was about. It was a fancy Western idea restricted to the upper echelons of the society, such as the celebrities in Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa, or a boring old-fashioned tradition of the Indian classical form. Bollywood had been using dance liberally for years. But unlike some of the other Bollywood inspirations, most famously the hairstyles, filmi dance didn’t make it to the mainstream.

     

    But we are a country of celebrations. Wedding functions often involve girl gangs performing to Bollywood hits. And as we got more liberal (relatively, of course), wedding dances became an important expression of an Indian woman’s desire to be free.

     

    The stage was, therefore, set in 2008-09, when two television shows, none boasting of big budgets or high profile launches, brought in a revolution. Nachle Ve With Saroj Khan has arguably been the most under-rated show on Indian television if you look at its social impact vis-à-vis its media buzz. The show made “learning dance” legitimate, even cool. Simple, middle class girls and boys would watch this incredibly deglamorized show to prepare for their next wedding sangeet performance. There was nothing inaccessible here. It was as mass as ‘infotainment’ could get.

     

    Then came Dance India Dance (DID), which brought fancy foreign words like Hip Hop, Popping & Locking and Slow Motion to Indian parlance. DID gave wings to the aspirations of a small-town India, which was enthralled seeing three average-looking judges encourage young talent from across the country.

     

    I’m not sure if someone has exact statistic on the increase in the number of dance academies in India over the last five years, but some crude estimates peg it at 400 percent.  In researches, we now hear mothers and daughters dancing together to Bollywood songs at their homes, and for some curious reason, “in front of the mirror.”

     

    Bollywood may not admit it, but the dance revolution started by television has impacted it too. For one, the quality of commercial dancing has gone up several notches. But even more importantly, viewers today are looking at dance steps with a critical eye, comparing them to what they have seen on TV, expecting the next level. It’s a win-win-win, as the viewers, the TV industry and Bollywood have got into an effortlessly symbiotic relationship here.

     

    Yet, we have certainly not seen it all when it comes to dance. ABCD came almost three decades after Mithun Chakraborty’s Disco Dancer and Dance Dance. It remains the only dance-based film in our contemporary cinema. ABCD 2 or EFGH (Every Friend Goes Hip-Hopping) should not be a bad idea. And DID is still discovering new pastures, with its superbly executed Supermoms show that’s doing very well currently.

     

    So be prepared for more, because the Dance Revolution is well and truly here. All it took was five years!

     

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

     

  • If the ratings system is going to influence the size of advertising revenue that it does, it has to be credible in absolute terms, writes Shailesh Kapoor.

    Shailesh Kapoor: If You Had To Choose: Bad Ratings or No Ratings?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    It’s been an eventful week for the television industry, the unfolding of which has been nothing short of a taut Hollywood thriller that promises to keep you on the edge of your seat. The backstory started with NDTV’s lawsuit against TAM last year, but the real action began last week when a top broadcaster (MSM) decided to hit TAM where it hurts the most, by simply pulling the plug. Times Television and a few others have followed suit. And the second act has not even started.

     

    There have been many points and counterpoints, both from the broadcasting and advertising fraternity. BARC’s ratings design is not going to see the light of the day before 2014, and hence, there is a sizeable time window to handle.

     

    The real question that should define the framework for this debate is: “Are the current ratings credible?” For me, the question is that and only that. Credibility is not graded. Here, there is no concept of “mostly credible”, “more credible than others” or “perhaps credible”. If the ratings system is going to influence the size of advertising revenue that it does, it has to be credible in absolute terms.

     

    Anyone who follows ratings closely (many people) and understands statistics (only a handful) will agree that the current ratings system has error margins which lack statistical robustness the moment you begin to look at markets or segments which are narrow, e.g. C&S 25+ SEC A Males in 5 metros. The error margins could be as high as 30% in such segment, which means that a rating from 2.1 to 3.9 may in reality represent the same viewership, i.e., 3.0%. Now imagine doing the same for C&S 25+ SEC A Males in Bengaluru. The error margins would cross 100%.

     

    In a way, TAM may have shot itself in the foot by reporting such data and allowing it to be analyzed. This attitude towards error margins could definitely not have been a result of ignorance, given the company’s rich heritage. But it seems to be a result of over-confidence, even arrogance, resulting out of being a monopolistic player in the television currency research space.

     

    Understandably, you cannot install more meters because your business model prohibits the same.But is that a justification to report data that could statistically be a result of pure chance, than a reflection of reality?

     

    The television industry has perhaps been guilty of going soft on the issue in the past, taking tough stands only on occasions that suit their business. Over a decade, I’ve been hearing the fig-leaf argument, i.e., “in the absence of anything else, TAM at least gives an indication”. Now that’s a compromise on the principle of credibility. That argument should have never been admissible in the first place.

     

    What’s the solution, then? It’s surprisingly simple. TAM should define an “error margin” or “confidence level” at which it will report data, e.g. maximum error of 10%. It should communicate the same to the entire industry, and then report only the data that clears this filter. If this means that certain markets and audience segments cannot be analyzed, then so be it. Some channels, especially English channels, may find the results irrelevant because they won’t be able to look at certain desired TG cuts, but it’s better not to look at error-laden data in any case.

     

    This may understandably result in much lesser “data” in the system, but less data of good quality should win over more data of bad quality any day. Of course, in doing this, TAM will have to admit that their error margins have been rather abysmal in the past. But the taste of a humble pie is not that bad, is it?

     

    Yes, a ratings-less system will create confusion. But if I had to do the ranking, I’d say: Good Ratings > No Ratings > Bad Ratings. For those suggesting Bad Ratings > No Ratings, a masterclass in statistics is highly recommended.

     

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

     

  • In a decade from now, the star news anchor woud acquire cult or superhero status, writes Shailesh Kapoor. To borrow from cinema, he may evoke reactions like: Do your job honestly, nahin toh Arnab aajaayega.

    Shailesh Kapoor: Arnab Goswami: The Superhero We Need

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    I have to admit that my only serious weekdays appointment viewing these days is Arnab Goswami’s Newshour on Times Now. Earlier this week, I watched more than 90 minutes of one such Newshour show entirely focusing on the IPL spot-fixing scam. As I surfed out at the end of the show and started watching news programming on some other English channels, the contrast was unmistakable. It was like walking straight out of a rock concert into a classical musical one. Everything seemed to move in slow motion and I had to raise the volume considerably, probably because I had kept it at a lower level for the last 90 minutes!

     

    I felt a similar contrast when I watched Iron Man 3 and Aashiqui 2 back-to-back about five weeks ago. The worlds of the two films had nothing in common. But you can like both, as I did. But in the case of Newshour, there are reasons to like the show more than most other prime time options on English news channels; reasons that get adequately amplified when a story of “national interest” gathers momentum for about a week or two, like the current IPL controversy.

     

    In his opening remarks at a recent event, Arnab Goswami candidly admitted: “I tend to forget that I’m an anchor. I have assumed the role of an analyst much too often.” This contrasting approach to anchoring is what makes him stand out, both in a good way and a bad way. Almost all Newshour debates start with Arnab’s position being defined loud and clear. The show, then, is about him playing the captain of one of the teams in a debate competition, who has been given the advantage of moderating the debate too.

     

    In classical journalism, such as approach, evidently biased as it is, may have no space. But we don’t live in a classical world, do we? We live in a world of scams and bad governance, where newspapers and news channelsoffer little to cheer about anyway. As a result, television news today has gone beyond being an information source to delivering more inclusive benefits, like that of becoming the voice of the ‘common man’, who has been watching one scam after the other unfold, with a sense of helplessness and cynicism.

     

    As many of us watch the champions of scams and bad governance being grilled on Newshour every night, we feel a certain sense of empowerment. There’s someone asking the tough questions. There’s someone who has the gall to talk them condescendingly, even insultingly at times. After all, they deserve all the insult they can, if how our mind justifies it.

     

    I have always wondered why certain guests, especially those from Pakistan, even agree to feature as guests on Arnab’s show, given the consistent track record of being spoken down to. Perhaps because they want to better their Newshour performance from last time? Alas, they never succeed!

     

    I don’t have the slightest doubt in my mind that a decade from now, Arnab Goswami would have acquired a cult, near superhero status in Indian media, when his reputation of a feared anchor would have spread itself wide and across in the inner corridors of power. To borrow from cinema, he may evoke reactions like: Do your job honestly, nahin toh Arnab aajaayega. Or: Zulm mitaaneko ek maseeha nikalta hai, jisey log Arnab kehte hain.

     

    This iconic status, which is well on its way of getting formed already, may not meet the gold standard of “good journalism”, but most superheroes are flawed and therefore interesting, right? But once you get used to liking them, you like them unconditionally.

     

    Yes, it may take you a while to like Arnab Goswami and his show. Newshour is acquired taste. But then, so is 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

     

  • 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

     

  • 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

     

  • 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

     

  • 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

     

  • Media insights firm Ormax Media announced the launch of OWA, India's first scientific launch viewership forecasting model for Hindi GECs. OWA stands for Opening Week Average

    Ormax to forecast Hindi GEC launch viewership

    By A Correspondent

     

    Media insights firm Ormax Media announced the launch of OWA, India’s first scientific launch viewership forecasting model for Hindi GECs. OWA stands for Opening Week Average. The model forecasts the opening week average viewership of all weekday launches across six Hindi GECs (Star Plus, Zee TV, Colors, Sony, SAB & Life OK) from two weeks before launch till the week of launch.

     

    The OWA model takes into account a series of input parameters. These include inputs from Ormax Media’s Hindi GEC awareness tracking tool Ormax Showbuzz, which tracks the performance of new Hindi GEC launches for more than four years now. Ormax Showbuzz covers 14 cities across India, with an annual sample size of over 42,000 Hindi GEC viewers. Other OWA model inputs include slot competition, audience profile and channel equity, on which normative data has been built by Ormax Media over the last five years.

     

    Shailesh Kapoor

    Speaking about OWA, Shailesh Kapoor, CEO, Ormax Media said: “The forecast will be available upto two weeks before launch, giving the broadcasters enough time to take corrective action in their creative and media strategies. The forecast model that has self-learning built into it, guaranteeing progressively better results with time.”

     

  • Even as original content struggles, genres led by secondary content, such as Hindi movies, continue to flourish on the weekend. However, even here, the weekend to weekday ratio of viewership is not as high as it used to be a decade ago, writes Shailesh Kapoor

    Shailesh Kapoor: Weekend For Everyone, Weak-End For Television?

    By Shailesh Kapoor

     

    Weekend. End of a long, often tiring, week. Those two days (only one for many, though) that everyone looks forward to. That time of the week when you want to relax and rejuvenate, before another long, often tiring, week begins.

     

    Weekends seem to be tailor-made for television. After all, entertainment and rejuvenation options are fairly limited for audiences at large in India. Only about 15 percent of urban India visits theatre even once in three months. Mall picnics are not a luxury everyone can afford in equal measure either. Good food and good television are therefore the two pillars on which a typical urban Indian’s rejuvenation plans should logically stand.

     

    The food part holds good, but as far as television is concerned, far from it! Weekends have proved to be the bane of television channels for more than a decade now. Very rarely do weekend shows touch the viewership highs of the weekday hits. What makes it more complex is that these shows (mostly celebrity-based reality formats) are several times more expensive than their weekday counterparts.

     

    Even as original content struggles, genres led by secondary content, such as Hindi movies, continue to flourish on the weekend. However, even here, the weekend to weekday ratio of viewership is not as high as it used to be a decade ago.

     

    So what gives? It’s the F-word that can be used to explain many trends in the television business today – Fragmentation. In this case, it’s not just the fragmentation of the audience but also a fragmentation of content.

     

    As a viewer, I have struggled with weekend viewing for a while now. Channels seem to lose their core identity (often for the right reasons, it can be argued) on the weekends. Fiction-led housewife-targeted brands suddenly target males and kids with their marquee reality formats. News is trying to talk to a younger, more flippant audience on the weekends. Youth channels unleash an onslaught of reality shows that will then repeat more than a dozen times during the week. It’s all happening everywhere, but the pattern is not easy to map.

     

    The audience fragmentation is another challenge in itself. The remote control patterns are disturbed. It would have been much simpler if the remote simply shifted to the men. But even that’s not the case. It keeps shifting between various family members through the day, and in no structured pattern that can be replicated across the country. Every market, in fact every household, seems to behave differently. The homogeneity of weekday viewing patterns is replaced by daunting complexity that the heterogeneity of weekends offers.

     

    The popular myth that people are not at home on weekends is of course not true. Even the TV viewership levels don’t reflect that. It’s the choice of content that makes it the weak-end broadcasters would much rather not have on their FPCs.

     

    However, there is a formula that has passed the test of time. It may not apply for relatively niche genres, but for mass genres like GECs and movies, it works beautifully. Targeting the 14-15 year old kid in the family, with content he/ she can enjoy with his parents, is the key. In many ways, the complexity of weekend television can be succinctly handled by narrow-targeting this segment.

     

    Zee TV has mastered this art over time, with various reality shows. CID has been a long-running success on Sony on the same lines. Remember, targeting 14-15 year olds does not mean the protagonists have to be of that age. It’s more content tastes that I speak of.

     

    The danger, like always, lies in over-simplification and stereotyping this audience, and treating them as “kids”. I chose the age carefully when I said “14-15”. 11-12 will be too young and 17-18 too old.

     

    But if a mass channel can deeply understand the viewing mind of this in-between TG (which no one researches because it’s on the cusp of two TAM segments), it will open new doors packed with opportunity goodies for a weekend feast!

     

     

    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

  • Media insights firm Ormax Media has augmented its research team with the appointment of Venugopal Bhamidipati as Insights Head – Print, Radio & Branded Entertainment

    Venugopal Bhamidipati joins Ormax as Insights Head

    By A Correspondent

     

    Media insights firm Ormax Media has strengthened its research team to meet the growing needs of the business. Venugopal Bhamidipati has joined the firm as ‘Insights Head – Print, Radio & Branded Entertainment’.

     

    Mr Venugopal comes with six years of research industry experience, having worked with IMRB International, Nielsen and Hansa Research Group. In his last assignment, he worked as Strategic Planning Director at Publicis Capital. He will be based out of Mumbai and will be reporting into Ormax Media’s CEO Shailesh Kapoor.

     

    Speaking about Mr Venugopal’s appointment, Mr Kapoor said, “Our print and radio work has seen significant growth over the last two years. In the area of branded entertainment, we have been doing extensive work on evaluating the effectiveness of sponsorships and media associations for brand and their media agencies. With Venugopal’s diverse experience, we are ready to tap the true potential of these domains.”

     

    Speaking about his new assignment, Mr Venugopal said, “Ormax Media offers the best of both the worlds, consumer insights and media expertise. I look forward to working with the team at Ormax in these exciting times for the media & entertainment industry.”

     

    Ormax Media is conducting Ormax Trac20, the biggest syndicated research for IPL sponsorships evaluation this year, as a part of their branded entertainment initiatives.