Tag: TV TRAIL

By Shailesh Kapoor

The latest phase of ad cap has come into play from July 2013, limiting inventory to 20 minutes per hour for news and 16 minutes for GECs. Come October 1, 12 minutes may be a reality. Discussions and debates on ad cap over the last few weeks lead to a larger point, which we hardly give our due attention to. That television channels are not products but services. In effect, watching a television channel is closer to visiting a restaurant than using a shampoo. You may not be paying per viewing session (at least not explicitly), but the principle still holds.

Those in the service industry, such as hospitality, retail and food, among others, will appreciate that the norms and parameters that apply to service businesses are sharply distinct from those that apply to the product businesses.

Yet, most of the media talk about television is only about content. It boils down to programmes, their cast and crew, and the program ratings. But if we were to detach the product part of the business and look at everything else, we may stumble upon some critical parameters that can shape the way a television channel brand is perceived, consumed and advocated.

Take for instance the breaks themselves. The break duration, length, timing of the break point and packaging (e.g. the countdown clocks) are service parameters. A long break is, in many ways, the equivalent of a restaurant taking unduly long to bring your food to your table. Yet, these are parameters we have only peripherally worried about, till TRAI stepped in.

Similarly, we hear a lot about “picture quality” in consumer research. It is that abstract notion which can be borne out of a mix of production budgets, bandwidth and creative execution. The diagnostics of negative feedback on this aspect generally ends up being technical and theoretical in nature, and hence, un-actionable.

Then, there is a critical service parameter that applies to practically all service businesses: On Time. Television schedules, especially on movie channels and repeats on entertainment channels, are often violated by upto 15-20 minutes. In the era of EPG, and growing viewer education on how to best use the medium, this is simply a case of poor service.

Of course, there’s the channel packaging, particularly relevant to the news genre, where viewers may have to endure multiple tickers to watch their daily dose of news. Even on entertainment channels, screen space being covered by programme promotions is increasingly becoming an irritant for the purist viewers, and it’s a matter of time before more viewers begin to articulate the same. TRAI has tried to step in here too, but ad cap is understandably taking more attention for now.

The list of service parameters will be longer, if one was to sit down and make it. At some stage – and that stage is not too far away – television channels will have to move towards taking a holistic brand view, than a content view. And when they do that, they will have to acknowledge that customer service (viewer service in this case, though advertiser service can also be argued to be important) cannot be an unconscious activity. Especially in genres where the product (content) is not too differentiated (and there are many such genres), service quality can create real differentiation and lead to higher subscription revenues, as we slowly but surely move into a true addressable environment where a la carte or smaller channel packages will be real options for the consumers.

Two bad services back-to-back in tennis are called a ‘double fault’. It costs the player a point, often the game, sometimes the set and the match. Broadcasters may rather have aces up their sleeves instead.

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

By Shailesh Kapoor

Conference room. Set for an important meeting that may have a decisive impact on the future of the channel, and by extension, on the future of everyone who works for it. About two dozen team members from various functions have been called to attend to a research presentation. Around the time of the meeting, they begin to saunter in one by one. There is chatter while they take their seats and wait for their big boss to join us.

In those five minutes, machines are flipped open, one after the other. Some are finishing “urgent” work, while some are checking emails and replying to pending ones. Productive use of time, I wonder. Of course, preparing yourself mentally for a meeting, even if you are just an audience, is supposed to be an old-school thought. There are still others in the room who are on their laptops, but you can see that they are trying to figure out what exactly to do with them. It’s just a medical condition. They have been surgically attached to their machines.

Then the big boss arrives. Sure enough, he/ she comes without a laptop, with full attention and interest in a meeting that he understands the importance of, more than anyone else. As we get set to start, I’m certain that the laptops will be ‘lid-shut’, either out of interest or because of protocol.

Curiously enough, that doesn’t quite happen. Only a handful (mostly the senior lot) keep their laptops aside and bring their full presence to the meeting. Others continue to “multi-task”. For the next two hours! The nature of the tasks has shifted too. Many are now using the laptops for note-taking. What they have taken note of, I’m not quite sure though.

The big boss is not concerned, it seems. He is into the subject material, engaging in discussions that don’t need any technology to support them. He may as well let the geeks carry on.

Then the big boss asks his team for some data or clarification in the meeting. Confusion erupts. At least 2-3 team members dig into their laptops trying to give him the answer. There is an undercurrent of who-comes-first. But it is more of the I-know-how-to-use-the-laptop-better-than-you kind. At the end of this thrilling race, the big boss has still not got the real answer he’s looking for. He sighs politely, and decides to move on.

This is the story of 80% broadcasters today, in varying degrees. It is also the story of many B-schools, I’m told, where students attend lectures with their machines “on them” all the time.

Having started my career in times when laptops were nearly unheard of and an internet connection was available on one shared machine for almost 200 people (which too shall remain mostly unoccupied, as many didn’t know what to do with it besides checking Hotmail), it is natural that I find this phenomenon deeply disturbing.

However, what concerns me a lot more is the weak foundation being built for the younger lot. Evidently, the laptop culture (especially prevalent in non-creative functions) does not put a premium on the importance of having an uncluttered mind to aid stimulating discussions. It also does not promote teamwork, given the inherently personal nature of the device in question.

In the old days, when we had a meeting, we’d “prepare” for it. We will read the relevant emails and documents, carry the necessary print-outs to the meeting, even keep our thoughts ready. Today, the laptop substitutes for all that.

My respect goes to the 20% companies who have managed to stay away from this epidemic. I’m not sure if they planned for it or their culture just ensured they were kept safe. But either way, they have a big advantage to protect!

Others may do well to take a deep look at their meeting protocols. It’s never too late.

PS: The mobile phone is another problem of epidemic proportions. But that’s for another day, another post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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