Tag: advertisements

  • Trai issues format for submission of ad duration details on channels

    NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) Wednesday issued the format in which broadcasters will have to provide information about ad duration on a quarterly basis.

    As per the format, every television channel will be required to provide details of commercial ads, self promotional ads, and public service ads, where no revenue accrues to the broadcaster, broadcast on a clock hour basis for all 24 hours of the day.

    According to Trai, the said information will have to be reported on first Saturday and Sunday and the last Wednesday and Thursday of each month of the quarter. For all other days of the quarter, the broadcasters will have to specify maximum duration of the advertisements in any clock hour for each day of the quarter reported upon.

    Under Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisements in Television Channels) Regulations 2012, every broadcaster has to submit information about ad duration on their respective channels in a set format within fifteen days from the end of a quarter.

    The Trai had on 22 March notified the Standards of Quality of Service (Duration of Advertisement in Television Channels) after watering down the amended version of the ad regulation. The main regulation was issued on 14 May last year but had to be amended after it was challenged by broadcasters in Tdsat.

    The amended ad regulation has done away with contentious clauses by keeping standardised ad duration at 12 minutes on clock hour basis for all channels as stated under the advertising code of the Cable Television Networks Rules (CTNR) 1994.

    As per the advertising code, no programme shall carry advertisements exceeding 12 minutes per hour, which may include up to 10 minutes per hour of commercial advertisements, and up to 2 minutes per hour of a channel‘s self-promotional programmes.

  • Trai issues notice to broadcasters to implement ad cap

    NEW DELHI: Even as it has sought clarity from the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on its powers in acting against violators, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has issued notices to broadcasters to adhere to the 10+2 ad cap fixed by it in May last year.

    And even as broadcasters are unsure of Trai’s powers in implementing these regulations, the Authority has asked all broadcasters to give reasons by 10 March for not implementing the ad cap limit.

    Trai had stated that no broadcaster shall carry advertisements exceeding 12 minutes in a clock hour in a programme. The clock hour commences at 00.00 of the hour and ends at 00.60. Any shortfall of advertisement duration in a clock hour shall not be carried over. Advertisements included not only the commercials, but also the channel’s own promotions for its shows or for the channel per se.

    Broadcaster bodies had at that time opposed the suggestions citing ground realties in implementing them and the fact that the duration and number of ad breaks should be decided by market forces and not by regulating authorities. It is also felt by the broadcasters that this will hit their annual balance sheets.

    Broadcasters bodies Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and News Broadcasters Association (NBA) have been asked by the broadcasters to take a call on the issue as enforcement of the Trai rules may affect their viewership as well as their earnings, particularly in a scenario where the channels are still dependent more on commercial revenues than on subscriptions.

    A consultation paper in March 2012 had stated that there was a precedence of a Supreme Court ruling which had held that the restriction on advertising space in newspapers would lead to reduction in their revenues which was in violation of Article 19 (1)(a). The same rule should also apply to television.

    It was stated that the regulation also contradicts Trai’s own ruling of 2004, which had stated that there should be no regulation on advertisements – both on free to air and pay channels.

    Trai, upset over inaction on complaints against broadcasters, had asked the Ministry earlier this month to clarify if it is empowered to enforce rules on duration and format of TV advertisements if it wants to avoid possible “embarrassment” and litigation.

  • Old question, new perspective: celeb vs non-celeb ads

    Testimonials by celebrities “are below average in their ability to change brand preference. Viewers guess the celebrity has been bought, and they are right…. Viewers have a way of remembering the celebrity while forgetting the product,” quoth David Ogilvy in Ogilvy on Advertising (1983).

    Much ink has been spilt over the in/efficacy of using celebrities in ads. Even David Ogilvy, “the father of advertising,” did not spare the issue a good whipping. From Kapil Dev‘s Palmolive ka jawab nahin in the eighties down to Shah Rukh Khan‘s recent endorsement of Nokia – almost all the ads on TV, radio, print and the internet are accompanied by the physical presence or voice of some celeb. It is also true that we all liked the Palmolive ad and of course still remember it in spite of Palmolive no longer being the only lajawab shaving cream brand in the market. Indeed, advertising is just as competitive as the business of selling a product or service.

    But one thing is sure – that a memorable ad has the power to render a product memorable by making it a generic byword for all products in its category. As asianmarketresearch.com says, “The first recalled brand name (often called ‘top of mind‘) has a distinct competitive advantage in brand space, as it has the first chance of evaluation for purchase.” The “Got milk?” campaign in the US that put life back into milk sales nationwide after a 20-year slump, the Dhoondte rahe jayoge ad of HLL‘s Surf Excel that was meant to be an entertaining rejoinder to P&G‘s Ariel, the “Sunil Babu” ad of Asian Paints – are examples of memorable commercials that definitely aid in the brand recall. But how many of us can recall the ads (if there were any) of Ariel and Berger from that period? Too few, I am sure.

    Moreover, in view of Forrester Research‘s recent report that ad agencies of today are not well-structured to tackle tomorrow‘s marketing challenges and that consumers increasingly do not trust marketing messages, this old “effectiveness” debate between celeb ads and non-celeb ads ultimately boils down to the debate between ads and no-ads.

    The difference between a celebrity and a non-celebrity is obvious. A celebrity is a person who is publicly recognised and who uses that recognition to further the goals of marketers by appearing in advertisements directed at consumers. Similarly, a non-celebrity is a person who, prior to placement in the campaign, has no public recognition but appears in an advertisement for the product.

    Network 18 Group‘s network creative director Zubin Driver places importance on the script of an ad. He says, “The effectiveness of an ad depends on the script. I think it‘s a creative mistake to use a celebrity when the script is weak. There‘s also the question of execution – how the idea behind the whole project is being executed. A good idea, coupled with an original script and good execution, makes all the difference.” He adds, “There should always be an association between the image of the endorser and the product/service being endorsed. These days, celebs are being overexposed in ads. People are being confused and bored.”

    For an ad with a non-celebrity spokesperson, credibility is highly correlated to advertising authenticity, which is in turn correlated to purchase intentions. For example, we can take a recent Canara Bank TVC where a middle-aged South Indian lady learns Punjabi to welcome her son‘s Punjabi fiancé into the family. Capturing every detail and nuance of a Kannada household, the TVC lends believability to the locale and situation. In other words, the ad makes viewers feel “at home”.

    However, researchers also found that under high-involvement conditions, arguments but not celebrities influence attitudes, whereas under low-involvement conditions, celebrities but not arguments influence attitudes. This suggests that celebrity influence may be related to the nature of the product rather than the person.

    Since celeb ads are expensive, the question arises whether such ads pay in the long run. It is relevant to note here that according to media reports, Shah Rukh Khan‘s “income from endorsements fetches him Rs 1.5 billion ($38 million) a year, the highest for any Indian advertising ‘model‘.”

    Driver agrees and adds, “Like celebs, cricket is also being overexposed and overused. Everyone‘s trying to cash in on the popularity of cricket. As I said earlier, without an original idea, cricket as a background in ads doesn‘t work.”

    According to Ogilvy & Mather‘s executive creative director Abhijit Avasthi, it is wrong to say that celebrity advertising is a shortcut method but certainly not a creative way to reach out and better brand recall.

    “I‘ve worked with Abhishek Bachchan in the Motorola ad, which is a very successful ad. If a strong idea is executed well, celeb ads definitely work,” he says.

    It is also true that celebrity endorsements in India and abroad are different. In the west, celebs endorse brands that are associated with their image, fun, sports, etc. One remembers St John‘s ad with Angelina Jolie, Louis Vuitton ads with Catherine Deneuve and Scarlett Johansson, and the ads of VISA featuring Pierce “Bond” Brosnan.

    Avasthi says, “I don‘t think that there should necessarily be an association between the celeb‘s image and the product being endorsed.”

    But is Amitabh Bachchan in a Reid & Taylor ad just as effective as Amitabh Bachchan in a Navratna oil ad?

    Avasthi defends, “Celeb ads of lifestyle products are always effective because of the presence of the celebs. People tend to use such products. The celeb factor may not be a necessary component of the ad – his/her presence may be natural. Amitabh Bachchan is one of the greatest actors of our time. Since an ad is like a film, having Mr Bachchan act in an ad pays doubly.”

    Indeed, people can relate to the celebrities very easily. They talk about Amitabh Bachchan and Shah Rukh Khan in such a way as though they were members of their family. They know about the celebrities more than their own close relatives!

    There is also the matter of trust. If one sees an unknown face in a commercial for a new product he or she will not be buying it very easily unless the person concerned is an early adapter and is obsessed with that product. On the contrary, if a person sees some known face with whom he can easily relate, the trust will come automatically.

    For sure, in the successful “Got milk?” campaign, believability, knowledge, appearance and liking for the celebrity were highly correlated to each other and also with purchase intentions.

    Thus, an ad has to bring in the right person for the product. If Aishwarya Rai is made to advertise for some sport material that ad will not be as successful as those projecting her as a beauty icon.

    As McCann-Erickson‘s regional creative director (South & South-East Asia) Prasoon Joshi says elsewhere, “Celebs should be used as messengers, not the message.”

  • Government lifts ban on AXN after apology

    Government lifts ban on AXN after apology

    MUMBAI: The government has cleared the decks for the return tomorrow of Sony’s action channel AXN, which had been banned on 17 January charged with showing “obscene programmes”.

    The information and broadcasting ministry declared today that effective 1 March, it was lifting the ban order it had issued against AXN. The decision follows an apology tendered by the channel as well as a commitment to put in place a significantly improved and more effective system of self-regulation in order to ensure that programmes and advertisements telecast on it “do not create further problems in the future.”

    It was on 17 january that the government slapped a two-month ban on the channel for telecasting programmes such as ‘World’s Sexiest Advertisements’ that according to the ministry “were against good taste or decency and were likely to adversely affect public morality.”

  • Ofcom to phase out junk food ads targeted at children

    Ofcom to phase out junk food ads targeted at children

    MUMBAI: UK content regulator Ofcom is going ahead with its earlier announced intentions to restrict television advertising of “junk food” targeting children under 16.

    Television advertising that promote food and drinks high in fat, salt and sugar directed towards children will be phased out in a phsed manner from 1 April onwards.

    To start with the rules will apply to the under 10 year old category with effect from 1 April, while ads targeted at the under 16 year old segment will be implemented after 1 January 2008.

    The three phases will flow out as follows:

    – From 1 April 2007, HFSS advertisements will not be permitted in or around programmes made for children (including pre-school children), or in or around programmes that are likely to be of particular appeal to children aged 4-9;

    – From 1 January 2008, HFSS advertisements will not be permitted in or around programmes made for children (including pre-school children), or in or around programmes that are likely to be of particular appeal to children aged 4-15.

    – As set out in the November Statement, children’s channels will be allowed a graduated phase-in period, with full implementation required by the end of December 2008.

    Ofcom’s co-regulatory partners, the Broadcast Committee on Advertising Practice (BCAP) and the Advertising Standards Authority, are responsible for implementing the new scheduling and content rules and securing compliance respectively. The new rules will form part of the BCAP Television Advertising Standards Code.

    New content rules come into effect immediately for new advertising campaigns. Existing advertising campaigns or those in the final stages of creative execution can be broadcast until the end of June 2007. However, from 1 July 2007 all advertising campaigns must comply with the new content rules, adds the release.

  • Cinemax sets IPO price band at Rs 135-155

    Cinemax sets IPO price band at Rs 135-155

    MUMBAI: Cinemax India Ltd, which runs a chain of exhibition theatres, has set a price band of Rs 135 to Rs 155 for its forthcoming 8.9 million-share initial public offer (IPO).

    The issue, which constitutes 31.86 per cent of the fully diluted share capital of the company, will enable Cinemax to raise Rs 1.38 billion at the top end of its price band.
    “We will be using the IPO proceeds to widen our presence from 33 screens in 10 properties to 141 screens at 42 locations by FY09. We will have a pan India presence, though our focus will be in strengthening our position in the northern and western regions of the country. We currently have a presence in Maharashtra,” Cinemax chairman Rasesh Kanakia said at a press conference.

    The company owns 8 of its properties while two are leased. “This is a major differentiator from the other theatre operators. But moving forward we would look at the rental model to ramp up the numbers. Our locations are at high catchment areas in affluent and middle class neighbourhoods,” he said. Inox is the other theatre exhibitor which has a predominantly ownership model.

    Cinemax plans to set up a eight-screen multiplex in Chandigarh and have seven gaming zones at its new locations. The company earns 76 per cent of its revenues from ticket sales and five per cent from advertisements, Kanakia said, adding that the company enjoyed leadership position in Mumbai with a 33 per cent market share.

    For the first half of the current fiscal, Cinemax posted a revenue of Rs 347.32 million and a net profit of Rs 21.39 million. In the previous year, it reported a turnover of Rs 438.6 million while its net profit stood at Rs 75.05 million. The company had 2.73 million patrons in the first half of this fiscal as against 3.67 million in FY06.

    Pyramid Saimira Theatre Ltd, which is also into the cinema exhibition business, recently raised Rs 844.4 million through an IPO and ended trading at the BSE on Wednesday at Rs 189.95.

  • UK regulator institutes total ban on junk food ads around kids shows

    UK regulator institutes total ban on junk food ads around kids shows

    MUMBAI : Indian broadcasters riled that India is moving too fast from “unregulated to over-regulated”, might consider trying to digest this piece of news. UK’s broadcast regulator Ofcom has announced a total ban on junk food and drink advertisements in and around all programmes of particular appeal to children under 16, broadcast at any time of day or night on any channel.

    The “significant restrictions” Ofcom is planning to introduce in Britain is intended to limit children’s exposure to television advertising of food and drink products high in fat, salt and sugar.

    The new rules would come into effect from the end of March 2007. Restrictions would be phased in over 24 months to the end of 2008. Ofcom will review the effectiveness and scope of new restrictions in autumn 2008.

    In addition to general content rules requiring responsible advertising to all children at all times, Ofcom has also put forward new rules on the content of advertisements targeted at primary school children. These rules would ban the use of celebrities and characters licensed from third-parties (such as cartoons), promotional claims (such as free gifts) and health or nutrition claims.

    All restrictions on product advertising will apply equally to product sponsorship.

    The restrictions would apply to all broadcasters licensed by Ofcom and based in the UK, including international broadcasters transmitting from the UK to audiences overseas.

    Ofcom has estimated that the impact on total broadcast revenues would be up to £39m per year, falling to around £23m as broadcasters mitigate revenue loss over time. The commercial public service broadcasters (ITV plc, GMTV, Channel 4, and five) could lose up to 0.7% of their total revenues. Children’s and youth-oriented cable and satellite channels could lose up to 8.8% of their total revenues; up to 15% of total revenues in the case of dedicated children’s channels.

    While TV and advertising industries have called the new rules draconian, consumer groups have slammed Ofcom as having “caved in to the powerful food and advertising lobby” and not going far enough on the matter.

    Sustain, an alliance of over 300 organizations in the UK that campaign for better food, have said a 9 pm watershed for junk food advertising was the “only way” to tackle childhood obesity.

  • US radio station owner Clear Channel sold for $26.7 billion

    US radio station owner Clear Channel sold for $26.7 billion

    MUMBAI: Clear Channel Communications which is America’s biggest radio station owner, has agreed to be acquired for about $18.7 billion by an investment group.

    Clear Channel owns or operates 1,150 radio stations. It also owns a majority of Clear Channel Outdoor, an operator of billboard and bus-stop advertisements.

    The group that has bought Clear Channel is led by Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners. Under the terms of the agreement, Clear Channel shareholders will receive $37.60 in cash for each share of Clear Channel common stock they hold, representing a premium of approximately 25 per cent over Clear Channel’s average closing share price of $29.99 during the 30 trading days ended October 24, 2006, the day before the Company first acknowledged that it was evaluating strategic alternatives.

    Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank as well as Credit Suisse, RBS and Wachovia are acting as financial advisors and providing firm financing commitments to the private equity group. Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and RBS are also providing equity commitments.

    Clear Channel CEO Mark P. Mays said, “We are very pleased to announce this transaction which provides substantial value to our shareholders. We look forward to working with Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital Partners to continue our business plan to provide exceptional programming to our audiences and value to our advertising partners.”

    Clear Channel also plans to sell 448 of its radio stations in markets outside the top 100 – Madison is in the top 100 – as well as its 42-station television group, which also are located in smaller markets. Collectively the properties made up less than 10 per cent of the company’s revenues last year.

    Thomas H. Lee Partners co-president Scott Sperling said, “Clear Channel is one of the nation’s truly great companies that has the finest collection of outdoor and radio assets in the industry. We are extremely pleased to be partnered with the management team led by Mark and Randall Mays and to have the opportunity to work with them and to grow this company that was created by its chairman and founder, L. Lowry Mays. Clear Channel has tremendous long term growth opportunities in both the radio and outdoor businesses and we look forward to partnering with Mark and Randall to create value in the years ahead.”

    Bain Capital MD John Connaughton said, “We are very impressed with Clear Channel’s strong management team and the company’s leadership positions in a variety of markets and media formats. Clear Channel is an exceptional media franchise that is well-positioned to grow thanks to the solid foundation the Mays family has created. We look forward to partnering with Clear Channel as it continues to innovate in meeting the changing needs of the audiences and advertisers it serves.”