MxMIndia

Tag: television debates

  • Because Satyamev’s content is highly sensational and extremely disturbing, audiences are unlikely to be receptive to the idea of pure commerce in that moment

    Anil Thakraney: Is Satyamev benefiting advertisers?

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Okay, so this is the third time in a row I am discussing Satyamev Jayate. What to do? It’s caught the nation’s imagination, and the show is a total path-breaker. We still have to wait to find the overall TVRs SJ delivers, so its commercial success we don’t know of yet. However, this time I want to bring up the issue of the benefit the show brings to all the brands that advertise on SJ. Does it really work to their advantage?

     

    Here’s a thought: Because Satyamev’s content is highly sensational and extremely disturbing, audiences are unlikely to be receptive to the idea of pure commerce in that moment. I haven’t conducted any market survey to suggest this (and perhaps someone should!) but my own observations tell me that audiences get busy debating the content and the points raised in a particular segment during the ad breaks. In addition, I wonder how many people actually like watching ads in the midst of grim discussions on subjects like female infanticide and child sex abuse. I don’t know exactly how much a spot costs on the programme (though I suspect it’s a lot of money), but is that spend really worth it? Something to think about. By the way, this is one of the reasons some news channels pull all advertising during the coverage of a tragedy. People are in no mood to be sold something at that point of time.

     

    Another thing: What’s most galling is that underwear, baniyan and other such floozy products are being advertised on this show. Shouldn’t these brand managers restrict their choice to a floozy tournament like the IPL? Whatever be the popularity of the programme, does the SJ format work for ALL brands? Should just numbers and hype be used to arrive at media scheduling? Or, this could be happening because the media planner has been killed by the industry. And media space and time is being sold like kanda batata. There’s no one around to tell the brand manager if the content of the show would help the brand in any way.

     

    Would be very interesting if there’s a formal study conducted on this subject.

     

    * * *

     

    PS: A fantastic public service campaign from the UK on how to stop domestic violence. With a simple phone call to the police when the horrifying sounds of violence are heard. But what got me interested even more is that the campaign is being run entirely on radio and very effectively too. A nice lesson for all those copywriters struggling with this wonderful medium.

     

    A word of caution: The ads are embedded in the article. And they are VERY disturbing. So listen to them only if you have the capacity to handle such spine chilling stuff.

     

    Link: http://www.womensaid.org.uk/page.asp? section=0001000100100021&sectionTitle=Call+to+Make+it+Stop+radio+campaign

  • If things don't change, news channels will lose the war to the internet. And lose it much quicker than we had imagined

    Anil Thakraney: Why TV debates have become such an ordeal

    By Anil Thakraney

     

    Quite frankly, I am tiring big-time of television debates and chat shows. It’s become an ordeal to watch these. And if things don’t change, news channels will lose the war to the internet. And lose it much quicker than we had imagined.

     

    Here are five changes I would like to see happen, ASAP:

     

    1. Anchors must remain objective at all times. Their personal biases are easy to sniff out, and this reduces the discussion to a charade. One way to make this happen is for the Delhi journos to stop bonding with politicians. And for the Mumbai journos to stop bonding with industrialists and movie stars. Without the distance, it’s impossible to remain neutral.

     

    2. Anchors must offer no opinions. However tempting that might be. That is the job of the members on their panel. And if the anchors are itching to belt out personal views, that must happen in their newspaper columns (and quite a few senior anchors have that opportunity). Or, they can create special programmes on their channels with the agenda to make themselves be heard. Like ‘Arnab Speaketh’ or ‘Rajdeep Unplugged’. Viewers who value their opinions will patronize such shows.

     

    3. Programming heads must find new voices. And more importantly, relevant voices. The usual suspects cannot be shoved into our living rooms all the time. All the more so because programmers have no option but to invite the same spokespersons of various political parties. Therefore the rest of the panelists have to be fresh faces. Seriously, it’s rather comical to have Suhel Seth, Alyque Padamsee, Shobhaa De, Prahlad Kakar, and so on, shower their pearls of wisdom on us every evening and on every topic.

     

    4. Most TV debates conclude very sweetly with ‘The entire system has to be overhauled’. How priceless is that! Here’s a suggestion, guys: Be ruthless. During a live discussion, demand that viewers be offered fresh insights, don’t take nonsense from your guests. And for the recorded shows, if no new perspectives have emerged, simply trash that particular episode. And redo it at a later date. Much wiser to do that than to air mindless stuff.

     

    5. DO NOT PLAY JUDGE. Not in the news bulletin, not in the chat room, not in the panel discussion. And repeat this ten times in your head. When we viewers want justice, we’ll go to the court rooms. Thank you very much.

     

    * * *

     

    PS: Interesting approach by Old Spice. Believe in your ‘smellf’. Good attitude. If they can milk this property, Old Spice can own the category. A lesson for all those after-shave and male deo brands whose ads feature women mindlessly chasing the studs.