ITV

Tag: Facebook

  • Twitter expt jury is out: Snappy brand message or more user insights vs noise

    Twitter expt jury is out: Snappy brand message or more user insights vs noise

    MUMBAI: We have all tried to cram our thoughts into a single tweet, and it’s a pain! You have so much to write about, but the 140-character limit becomes an obstruction.

    You just aren’t interested, and go and use Facebook, instead.

    Twitter has been debating about the increase in the character limit for a long time, and the social media company is now finally testing tweets as long as 280 characters, double the previous limit. However, the feature is only available to a select few at the moment, and is not available in Japanese, Chinese and Korean languages.

    But, the move could backfire as much on Twitter as on brands that market on the platform. The 140-character limit ensures that messages on Twitter are concise and put forth the point in the snappiest and the most distilled way. At present, the platform’s biggest problem is its reputation for unpleasant tweets. This gives the ‘Trolls of Twitter’ an undue advantage, one that may take ‘mean tweets’ to a new level.

    We saw a synergy in the industry on increased word count, and the experts seem to agree that it was a welcome move. Mindshare’s Venkat Shankarnarayan asserts, “The move was essential for Twitter as it has been seeing a declining trend in the number of its followers owing to the popularity of Instagram and Snapchat that have grown exponentially in the last year. “The revenue from ads generated on Instagram and Snapchat is much higher than on Twitter,” he adds.

    All major brands today understand the importance of connecting with the consumer, and creating content on social media platforms. Those witty and compelling branded Tweets that we read are nothing but the products of carefully planned strategies that involve the tone of a brand, relevant content, among other factors. Twitter, as a platform, has always been known for the impact it creates through the crisp content.

    iProspect India national head – social and creative Muddassar Memon adds, “Increase in the character limit for each tweet enables people and brands to interact on the platform with more content per tweet, leading to an increase in the traffic and, in turn, an increase in the effectiveness of brand communication.”

    Twitter has always been more of a conversational platform. EveryMedia Technologies CEO Gautam B. Thakker believes the move will have a 50-50 impact on brands and has its pros and cons. It has come at a time when consumption of content on digital has become more visual in nature and, as a marketing strategy, brands and marketers are putting more thought into writing less and showing more engaging and enticing content. “While for some users expressing themselves will become easier, the 280-character limit is big enough to open up a channel for lot of unnecessary noise,” he adds.

    On a similar note, Dentsu Webchutney creative strategist – general management Pranav Sabhaney mentions that, “Users and brands will make a lot of noise about the upgrade, but that has been the case with all previous updates of Twitter when they decided to add photos and videos. There will be some rants but it will all work out well for the brands in the end.”

    Facebook and Instagram today are largely commercialised with great brand presence and spends on these platforms. According to a report by Pulp Strategy earlier this year, Twitter has been rated the best platform in B2B marketing with nearly 63 per cent of marketers choosing the platform to share the photos videos. Though, each social media platform has its own purpose, the bottomline from a brand perspective is — effective communication.

    Twitter no doubt is known for its crisp posts, brands trying to communicate with their target audience often face a roadblock in terms of lack of expression, which may no longer be the case with the increased character cap. However, on the flip side, “online reputation management on Twitter might get trickier. Instead of warranting precise information, your news feed might become a playground for clutter,” affirms Thakker.

    Muddassar is of the opinion that longer tweets will also improve search within the platform as well as SEO potential. Furthermore, brands will now be able to derive more insights on user behaviour and target them efficiently due to longer tweets.

    Mindshare India senior director – digital Venkat Shankarnarayan says, “The move will impact brands in India as they choose to communicate only in the English language, and so far everything has been crammed on Twitter. This will help brands put their message across clearly and get more innovative.”

    Although the move is still in beta version and only available to a select few, it will be interesting to see how it shapes up the marketing and communication of brands in India whenever it becomes available here.

  • Martin Sorrell on how WPP is combating ad world slowdown

    Martin Sorrell on how WPP is combating ad world slowdown

    MUMBAI: It’s been sometime that we have got to listen to advertising heavyweight and guru Martin Sorrell’s unique insights. For those who have missed him, he’s still at his vintage best. The WPP CEO shared his worldview on what’s impacting the advertising business and how the industry is combating with the slowdown in a fireside chat with Goldman Sachs analyst Lisa Yan at the 26th Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference held last week.

    Sorrell pointed out that the advertising industry has been generally  going through a slow growth-pace for a while now, though it has seen some upward movements for a short period. The reasons: low-economic growth, low-inflation, very little pricing power, and focus on cost, amongst clients. “That’s been tolerable, certainly up until, I would say the end of 2016,” expressed Sorrell. “What we started to see, a little bit of softness…certainly in Q4 of last year.”

    What caused this slowdown? Sorrell gave at least three hypotheses that could have contributed, and could continue to do so, and industry will have to have adequate responses to them.

    The first being consulting firms who have been looking at generating cost savings for bottomline-focused corporations, and the first expense they have been scratching out is advertising.  

    “I think you can build the case, so that consultants, it’s not just an Accenture or Deloitte or BCG or McKinsey or Bain, go into client and say you’re spending too much money generally, your costs are too high, we’ll see if we can do something about it, and that fans out from there,” said Sorrell.

    The second hypothesis is that increasingly agencies and brands have been diverting spends towards Google and Facebook. “Google and Facebook have become significant  destinations… we are the most significant customer with  the two – on behalf of our clients,” he said. “If Google was $5 billion, Murdoch $2.25 billion and Facebook $1.7 billion last year, this year the figures are Google $5.5 billion-$6billion, Facebook $2.5 billion, and Murdoch $2.25 billion.”

    Sorrel labeled the two digital giants as frenemies, though he acknowledged that they have become friendlier than last year, especially Google.

    The third hypothesis – which he called the most plausible reason for the impact this year – “is that in an era of cheap capital, a zero cost — or close to zero-cost capital, there are pools of capital which fund zero-based budgeting approaches or private equity activist approaches that are putting tremendous pressure on particularly packaged goods companies,” said Sorrell. “Their approach has get rid of R&D spending, get reduced marketing spending and its running across sectors…Beyond tech and pharma, top-line growth is very hard to come by. And, I think that’s the central issue. So, as long as there’s cheap capital, as long as there is this very significant pressure of a zero-based budgeting and an activist later, you’re going to see pressure.”

    Sorrell does not expect the era of cheap capital to go away quickly thanks to Hurricane Harvey and the tragedies in Houston and Florida. “The results of this is indices rise, the fed probably is going to keep interest rates down lower longer,” he expressed.

    WPP has been responding to these challenges, he pointed out, through what it calls horizontality – basically integrating the  company in a much more aggressive, seamless, efficient manner.

    The second response has been zooming in on the high growth markets of Asia, Latin America, Africa, Middle East and central and eastern Europe. “That continues. That’s a third of our business; it continues to be a high level of focus,” he said.

    WPP, has got a razor sharp eye on digital which is 40 per cent of its business. “It is very much in the target range that we identified three, four, five years ago. It doesn’t stop at 40 per cent, 41 per cent, which it was in the first half of the year; it has to go beyond that, so probably to the extent where ultimately everything is permeated in one way or another by digital. But that’s some way off, but getting closer,” highlighted Sorrell.

    “Making data, the centre or a significant part of the centre of what we do is critically important, particularly when you have disintermediation in retail from the likes of Amazon or Alibaba or Tencent or JD.com or others where the battlefield will ultimately be about who controls the data,” he added.   He, however, mentioned that the growth of data has not been as good as the industry would like to see it but that doesn’t diminish its importance in relation to horizontality.

    Sorrell expressed his worry that what’s happening in the packaging goods industry could have worrying implications as a whole for the ad business.

    “My hypothesis would be that cheap money is chasing packaged goods and driving up the valuations. And those last three quarters, if you look at revenue growth at 2.4 per cent, it’s mainly price, very little volume. And those of you know how packaged goods companies function know that the moment the volumes stutter and stagnate or even fall, which is the case with a number of packaged goods companies, the trouble starts. If you have fewer consumers, fewer customers,  that’s when the trouble starts. So, I come back to this, and it’s fundamental obviously, it’s our lifeblood, I come back to this thing that investing in innovation and brand is key, and that’s the heart of it,” the WPP chief elaborated.

    WPP has lost out on a lot of business (AT&T and VW) in recent times, and Sorrell stated that competition will always stay but it’s a question of price. “I’ve never heard any of our people say to me it was because we didn’t do a good job, they’ve always said it’s because somebody else discounted and we lost the business on the basis of price. Sometimes, that maybe the case but I think mainly it’s due to the qualitative side of the offer. But, I think we’ve got our act together much better on integration,” he added.

    Google is the biggest destination for WPP’s media spend for their clients. “It is by definition currently the most powerful media channel that you can find, search being the primary product. Boycotting that, not accessing it, I think is a mistake. Working with Google to improve the way that they manage the process is the way to go,” he said.

    Sorrell also mentioned that WPP will be changing its regional management approach encouraging more integration on shared client work across agencies. “Well, with the growth of technology, with the rise of the BRICs — Brazil, Russia, India and China should not be regional reports, they should be direct to the center. Even if that upsets regional managers,” he quipped.

    He said that he saw Amazon becoming a very serious threat to Google on search with 55 per cent of product searches in the US  emanating from it. “Amazon now has a voice activated device. Every one of the Fearsome Five has a voice activated device. What that means for brands is very serious.”

     

  • Star’s Uday Shankar on distribution challenges, IPL, FTA vs. pay TV, innovations, Made in India content…and much more

    Star’s Uday Shankar on distribution challenges, IPL, FTA vs. pay TV, innovations, Made in India content…and much more

    From the thirty seventh floor room, consisting of a table for the occupant to stand and work, some thought-provoking books and a huge TV screen, apart from other knick-knacks, the city life and environs below look scenic. Rather, most of the surrounding sea-facing skyscrapers in between the  green patches of land that could be seen below belie the image that it’s India. Until a Mumbai local train passes by, giving away the address of  Urmi Estate (which houses Star India’s Hq) , it could have been located anywhere in Hong Kong or Singapore for that matter.

    But in sharp contrast to the tranquil view of Mumbai from behind big glass windows of the thirty seventh floor, in most of the other 14 floors occupied by Star India in a tony building in South Mumbai’s Lower Parel business area, there is a sense of urgency — and excitement. And, why not? After all one of the biggest media companies in India — some say it’s the largest in terms of revenues — has many things on the plates of every employee, including the top honchos residing in the top floor. Bagging the global media rights for the  much-coveted IPL  is just one of the many issues engaging Star India’s employees. Though, in all fairness, it won’t be wrong to state that IPL probably could be one of the most important issues presently. Simply because, as the dust settles on the euphoria of this massive win , the difficult task of planning for returns on  the investment of $ 2.55 billion starts now.

    Ushered into the room with a view, its occupant and Star India chairman and CEO Uday Shankar shakes my hand warmly, exuding the same camaraderie that he did almost three decades back when we used to meet as journalist colleagues sometimes in the New Delhi house of one of his early mentors, Siddharth Ray (India’s first general manager  for Star TV  – yes, in the 90s it carried that name officially). Over tea (for him) and strong Espresso coffee for Indiantelevision.com’s consulting editor Anjan Mitra, a wide range of media matters were debated for about 90 minutes. Edited excerpts from a free-wheeling interview follow. Read on:

    How do you view the Indian broadcast and entertainment industry as of today?

    There are two or three things that I feel very strongly about. From a consumer point of view it’s a great time for them because large volumes and range of domestic and global content is being made available to them at increasingly competitive prices. But when it comes to the industry itself, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Though the industry has grown dramatically in terms of the number of players in the last several years, the business case of the industry looks under pressure. When I say business case, I don’t mean just the profit model, which is under pressure for a large segment, but the sustainability itself for the whole industry. 

    I think, the IPL bidding is a very interesting case in point and an indicator of things to happen in future in the media sector.  This is probably the only place and example where for a major content right, the contenders included two very strong media companies (Star and Sony Pictures Networks India), two big telecom companies (Airtel and Reliance Jio) and a couple of global digital/technology companies (including Facebook). And, they all valued the property almost equally as important and almost in the same ballpark.

    So, media is no longer the sole domain of traditional media companies. We have heard this being said for some time now, but it played out for the first time in broad day light here. What is more significant is that such competitive bidding for content has not happened in the UK or the US, which are considered mature and big media markets with good broadband infrastructure, but in a country where the digital distribution of content is of very recent vintage.

    I think in some way we set ourselves up for such high inflation by creating Hotstar, which led everybody to realize that there is a value in that kind of a business model. So, for the industry this is time to wake up and take note.

    Third, while parts of the media and entertainment businesses have leaped forward as has the consumer, the distribution and the regulatory models remain locked up in legacy issues and that’s creating a bit of a mismatch. That’s a challenge that we need to solve together as an industry.

    What are the problems besetting video content distribution in India?

    There are various aspects. If you are talking about it in the digital domain, I think with the launch of Reliance Jio there has been a huge disruption. But access to data still remains limited and expensive. The broadband infrastructure has improved in the last 12 months or so, but is still nowhere where it should be. The number of smart phones has grown dramatically in India, but is still a small percentage of the total mobile penetration.

    On the TV side, the industry has done a great job on many fronts. Still, we have to realize that we are competing with global companies with great resources and scale, and the benchmarks too are global. Whether it is story telling or quality of production or marketing or brand strategy, benchmarks are global. So, we the content industry need to step up our game.

    The competition for Star will not be only from similarly placed media companies in India but will come from technology and other global companies; from the likes of Amazon, Alibaba, Google and Facebook. Are we ready for that as an industry? Individual companies may be ready for such competition, but I am not sure if we are ready as the content industry.

    Part of the problem is because the monetization models haven’t evolved much. We still have regulatory issues, which are challenges, though I don’t want to go into too many details on that aspect.

    Still, the entire TV distribution industry, according to me, has done an amazing job of creating 180+ million connected homes. Now that segment has to make sure each one of those homes is going up the value chain rather than trying to offer them discounts, etc. The stakeholders are competing only on the price front. If you are competing only on the price point, then you are compromising on the consumer experience and soon the consumer will start questioning whether it is worth having a cheap service, minus the experience. So, there is this whole challenge of getting the consumer up the value chain.

    Where do you see Star India placed in the scenario that you have painted where both challenges and the opportunities abound?

    There are things that an individual or a company can do with its own enterprise. Then there are things that all of us can do as an industry. I believe that if the whole industry is not progressing, individual companies can only progress so much. In that context, at Star India, we have done a good job and I am satisfied. Can we do more? Of course we can always do better. But we have managed to create a fairly deep and diverse entertainment platform on television and have leadership in a large number of entertainment markets.

    To give you an example of the enterprise we have shown, take sports for instance. Five years ago we got into sports (management and broadcasting) and have created, perhaps, some of the most exciting franchises anywhere in the world. We have not limited ourselves to the sport that guarantees success (cricket), but have gone and experimented too. We have put our faith behind new initiatives in sports whether they are kabaddi or badminton or hockey or football. Our mission is to try turning India from a one-sport nation to a multi-sport one, while maintaining the pre-eminence of cricket. Some progress in that direction has been made and it’s satisfying.

    Can Star make it a mission to get India the Olympic gold considering its continued investments in sports?

    Star is a media and entertainment company and I would not want to have the arrogance to say we can make India win an Olympic gold medal. All I can say is that we’d be happy to partner with any agency or initiative that is designed to get India closer to the Olympic gold(s). Our job is to make sure that we showcase sports’ growth and breakout stories. I think we have done that job very well. I would like to believe that with Star Sports we are able to showcase the new (sporting) heroes far more prominently today than what we could have done few years back. If national team members of various sports, who were relatively unknown, now are recognized by ordinary citizens, I think we have done our job — in fact we are doing just that.

    That being said, I would like to add that private investment in sports ought to be welcome as it is this investment that helps sporting organizations plough funds into infrastructure, training and facilities, which in turn contribute to sporting success.

    What are the changes on the content distribution front that you have seen and what are the continuing challenges for the industry, considering Star has had limited exposure to the distribution business?

    If you look at how much we have moved in the last 10 years, it’s an impressive story.  The problem is that the process of digitization, which started essentially with DTH, and then picked up steam in 2011-2012 hasn’t delivered the full value.

    Digitization still remains an unfinished agenda though it was meant to have been over quite some time back. It was supposed to have meant that people had access to better content at competitive prices and for good content to get easier distribution avenues. That hasn’t happened. The idea of digitization was also to allow content creators like us to offer integrated services to the consumers. That too hasn’t happened and the story has really not moved. Broadband access may have improved dramatically, but the participation of cable and DTH sector in that is miniscule.

    public://Uday Image--1_1.JPGDigitisation still remains an unfinished agenda. People should have access to better content at competitive prices, and for good content to get easier distribution avenues

    To put it bluntly, a bunch of people, who have got used to the idea of benefitting from an economy of shortages or scarcity, continue to create scarcities or continue to create conditions of scarcities (of content) and benefit. Fundamentally, it hurts the society and the industry. That is the disappointing side of the distribution business.

    Star could have continued contributing by remaining a stakeholder in the distribution business. Comment.

    While we were a minority shareholder (in Hathway) our ability to influence the business was limited. That is why we decided to get out because we were not shaping the (distribution or the company) agenda. We do have a minority investment in Tata Sky, but, again, our ability to set the agenda of that company is limited.

    Will Star review its distribution business exit or its paring down, now that the government has liberalized investment norms for the DTH and cable sectors?

    Government has allowed (increased FDI in DTH and cable companies) only at a headline level. The problem is that we were restricted even before the FDI investment limits went to 100 per cent. I think the Prime Minister has eased the investment norms facilitating more FDI in this sector, but we are hampered by other regulations. Cross media restrictions, which in any case is a discriminatory piece of regulation, has only blocked a company like Star from investing in the distribution sector more aggressively. This restriction is applicable only to DTH/HITS ventures but not to cable or IPTV, which in itself appears to be an arbitrary measure. And, we don’t want to skirt around regulations to create business entities to be in a business. We don’t want to invest and create a value when our say in a company remains locked. In that sense, our ability to invest more in Tata Sky is still restricted.

    Is the business model in India changing for content aggregators and owners like Star? Has it now boiled down to free-to-air (FTA) vs. pay TV?

    I am glad you asked this question. It is amazing how in this country we indulge in polarized arguments where none needs to exist.  Where does the question on pay TV versus FTA arise? Why should it exist at all? In most other countries, there is a place for FTA and pay TV businesses. The problem starts arising when they start competing with each other and that does not need to happen. In this country, a major part of the broadcasting business that developed in the last 20 years was primarily done by pay TV broadcasters. As access to FTA broadcasting, which is mostly terrestrial, was not open to private broadcasters it remained in the hands of the public broadcaster. Until Doordarshan FreeDish came along.

    Now technology has opened up an opportunity creating a space for FTA and pay TV broadcasting.  I personally believe that the two should and could co-exist in this country — pay TV for those who want to pay and have access to a much diverse and richer range of content and FTA platform for those who don’t want to pay as much for all of it but still want to get some basic content.

    Does it happen vice versa too when pay TV content or channel is brought onto a free platform just to botch up the competitor’s business plans?

    I think that should not happen. My public position has been that we should not take pay TV content onto a free platform (like DD FreeDish) because it not only undermines a pay TV consumer, but also a pay TV platform. In my opinion that is a wrong strategy. I personally started a dialogue between platforms and broadcasters to stop such a practice but it has not been too fruitful. We launched Star Bharat on the FreeDish platform, but it has fresh content.

    Q: Will Star Bharat continue to remain a pay channel also as per media reports?

    Don’t trust everything that you read in the media. However, there is nothing that prohibits a channel being available on DD FreeDish and on pay TV platforms. A whole bunch of channels in the past have done this; almost the entire language news category is on pay TV and FreeDish platforms at the same time. A whole bunch of entertainment channels too have followed that practice. So, what you hear about Star Bharat is simply mischievous.

    Q: Please clarify whether for Star Bharat a consumer will have to pay if available on DTH or cable platforms?

    Yes, a consumer of a DTH service or a cable platform will continue to pay for Star Bharat just as he did for Life OK for the time being. We sought permission from the government saying the channel will be rebranded as Star Bharat and would be offered on DD FreeDish as well. So, the pricing issue remains where it is.  Some people have chosen to find a problem with Star Bharat, while being totally comfortable with their own friendly channels. We are the only ones to have fresh original content for a channel on FreeDish like Star Bharat. Quality of production is high on Star Bharat as we are spending the same amount of money per hour or per half hour that we would have spent on Star Plus, which is a premium channel.

    Q: James Murdoch said in an investor call that Star India is on course for $ 500 million EBIDTA for year 2018 and that cricket bids would have to be disciplined. Do you agree?

    (Smiles) If my bosses have said that we are on course, then I would have to follow the directions. However, those statements were made in a responsible manner as we do have a plan and are working towards the goal. If the Indian economy remains on course, we are on course for all that.

    As far as disciplined bids (for cricket rights) are concerned, of course it was a disciplined bid for IPL. Everybody has seen how close it was where the margin of victory was just three per cent. So, what more can I say in defense? Six years ago when we signed up for BCCI rights (media rights to Indian cricket), we paid Rs. 430 million (per match). At that time critics said Star had probably paid too much. It turns out now that we didn’t and that worked out really well for us. Today that (figure) has become the new normal. Now people are saying we are paying too much for IPL (US $ 2.55 billion for a five-year global media rights) only because 10 years ago it went at a much lower price. But then ten years ago the world was different, India was different and IPL was an untested product.

    Q: Would you agree with Indiantelevision.com’s analysis that Star actually got a good bargain for the $ 2.55 billion it bid for IPL rights?

    I don’t understand why people are so excited about it. Hardly ever a sports media rights been awarded at such a close margin. Why are people asking ‘why has Star paid so much’? Clearly there were a whole bunch of people who were willing to pay and it was evident in the bidding numbers.

    public://Uday Image--2_2.JPGEach media company has its strengths. I respect Zee enormously

    As an aside, my personal view is that BCCI (Indian cricket board) lost a lot of value because of the duration of the contract. If it had been for 10 years, the value would have gone up dramatically. And, I am not just saying so because of the length (of the contract). Had it been for a longer period, per year value too would have increased tremendously —shorter the period, lesser is the flexibility. 

    Q: What are your plans to monetize the IPL property?

    These are still early days, so you have to give us time to think through our strategies, which will unfold in due course. But I certainly won’t share with the media what I am trying to do.

    Whether we have bid high or not will be judged by the fans of cricket. All I know is that IPL’s a very powerful tournament and cricket runs really deep in everybody’s bones in this country. To be successful, you just need to work on intensifying and heightening the experience of cricket further.

    I believe that power of sports is such that you don’t need to give it steroids. You just need to be true to the spirit of the game and make sure that the experience for the fans is evolving continuously.  That is where our strength comes in and I would like to believe that as Star is the company that successfully created a few sports franchises that didn’t exist in the public domain earlier. We should be able to do that with IPL too. With cricket it’s not a one shot affair, it’s a process where you need to continuously evolve and we will work on that.

    Q: Will you continue to work on Pro Kabaddi League too and bring it up to the IPL level?

    We have brought PKL already in the limelight. But to be honest, though PKL still has some distance to travel to reach the levels of IPL, its growth has been phenomenal. When we were looking for franchisees for the inaugural edition, it took Anand Mahindra’s personal charm to get people in. This time round, when we added four new teams, there was a problem of plenty — a large number of top corporate houses and individuals were extremely keen to get associated with PKL. So, clearly people believe in what we are trying to do. Look at the Indian Super League (soccer) story, which is in partnership with Reliance Industries. Except a few loyal pockets in the country, football nowhere figured in the country’s psyche or much in public debates. However, we have managed to turn the passion for football into a serious commitment for fans all over the country.

    Q) Is that why you are picking up another indigenous game kho-kho to try its rediscovery?

    Are we? We haven’t taken a decision on that sport yet. 

    Q) Which media company is the closest competitor of Star whom you respect?

    Each media company has its strengths. I respect Zee enormously.  I think it is very strong on discipline and doesn’t get distracted by what others are doing. It works hard to execute a plan it has. Similarly, other companies have their own strengths.

    This is a business where competition is very dynamic and the power lies in the hands of the consumer. One half hour gone wrong can swing things away from you. As we have such a diverse portfolio, it is not about one competitor. Even if we are the leaders in one segment, in some other part of the business we are facing heat. But the entire business, hopefully, will not face heat from any one competitor.

    Q: So Star is in a dominant position.

    I don’t like the `dominant’ word. Especially because I feel this whole idea of dominance in a business — especially a media business — is a spurious claim. Either it comes from a complete lack of understanding of the business or it’s a mischievous allegation. Simply because there is no one product called Star India. For viewers and advertisers, it is a combination of multiple TV channels and each of those channels consist of large number of shows. You may have a show at 8 pm that is chart-busting and then at 8.30 pm you may have a show that nobody is watching, which usually is the case. A show that was doing really well three months ago can go into a total free fall if one artist is not there or there’s twist in the story-line.

    Take sports, for example, again. You go and get rights of a property for a number of years and after that it goes to the public when anybody else can also bid for the rights and participate. On the digital front, the competition is even crazier. So this argument of anybody building dominance, not only Star, is totally mischievous and spurious.

    Q: Let us rephrase the question. Isn’t it a great feeling to continue being a leader?

    In some parts of the business, we continue to stay ahead and that’s because we work harder. We spend more money on our content and are less focused on profits. We reinvest (in the business) more than probably anybody else in this sector in the country. Media and critics have written for the last five years or so that Star was not making profits in sports after investing heavily in sports content and now people are saying otherwise. We have now started investing in Hotstar, a digital platform. I think the one big difference between us and everybody else, and which gives us leadership and a little more of steadiness, is that we are always trying out new things.

    We have tried to explore new horizons and boundaries. Not all such initiatives have been successful, though. I would like to believe that we have pushed the creative envelope in a responsible way far more than what has been done in the past. Are we trying to future-proof ourselves, as you ask? I wish it could have been possible. But, yes, we are investing in the future.

    Q: Critics and some industry players feel that Star India has become so big that it can challenge the sector regulator too. Comment.

    First, we have not taken on any regulator. We have had some fundamental and limited issues, which became sharper in the new tariff order (of TRAI, the broadcast regulator). Our understanding of the TRAI Act says that the regulator has jurisdiction over distribution/transmission of content, but not the content itself, which in our case can be determined only under the ambit of the copyright law of the country. The law of the land gives every aggrieved person the freedom to go to a court for adjudication. And, that’s what we have done. There is nothing like challenging the jurisdiction of the TRAI.

    Q: Is the India market over regulated compared to some other markets in Asia or the west?

    I would not make such a blanket statement. There are parts of the market that are over regulated and there are parts which are not. All I would like to humbly submit is that there are some parts in the existing regulations — especially those dealing in relationships between distributors and content owners — that are debatable. If the proposed regulations were to come into effect today as they are, any new entrant to the Indian broadcast industry would find it a difficult and expensive proposition.

    Q: What more would you like the government and regulator to do to be a bigger facilitator of doing business apart from what they have already done?

    We don’t have to create a shoe to fit every foot as there are different feet sizes. Similarly, there are different needs for different set of people in terms of content. However, let me make it clear that I am not making a case for smut because Star doesn’t do sleazy content.

    TV is a family medium and we should be mindful of that; Star certainly is. There may be families where kids also watch television along with elders, but there are homes where there are no kids. Hence, the need (for content) of the latter family might be different and mature. So, content creators should be allowed to factor in all such diversities and create a spectrum of content rather than just uniform content in a one shoe-fits- all model. TV is an instrument of change and also a huge driver of employment and wealth creation.

    While agreeing there are areas where some restrictions are needed, I would say policy-makers should allow the whole eco-system to come together and be more flexible. Take, for example, the number of people who are dependent, formally or informally, on the TV industry as a category. That number would be around five million if the whole value chain is taken into consideration. I feel the number can increase manifold.

    Q: How do you see the Hotstar growth story now that it has been launched in the US and Canada?

    I find that space very exciting. It’s a market with an affluent South Asian diaspora with huge appetite for Indian content whether sports or drama or movies. They pay high subscription money presently to watch Indian content on American platforms as the structure for getting access to South Asian content is complicated and expensive. We think with Hotstar we can make a difference by offering people living abroad high quality content and world class experience at prices far more competitive than what they are paying now.

    Q: Does Star have a time frame, say 12 months, to rollout Hotstar worldwide?

    I don’t have a hard and fast deadline. For me it is more important to first build a business, stabilize it and then scale it up. We are not playing a valuation or a stock market game. I would like to build things on a solid foundation. So, to answer your question, I think it is clearly not going to happen in one year’s time.

    Q: How closely is IPL’s monetization linked with Hotstar?

    We have got the global rights for IPL and we will explore internally what trade-offs we can do. We would have to examine whether we can get better business value by offering it (IPL) ourselves or we should license it to other companies. The financial case will influence those decisions.

    Q: Is Star still in the lookout for properties to acquire to fill gaps?

    We are not a big M&A company. In my 10 years at Star India, we have acquired MAA TV and before that Asianet (both companies located in South India).  In this company, my bosses, my colleagues and I like to build things ourselves as that way we can shape the business the way we want to. Such initiatives are also more sustainable and self-sufficient and, remember, we have an exceptionally high quality plan execution team.

    However, I would admit there are always gaps, but you need not fill all of them. Also, there are not many quality assets available in the media space presently.

    Q: What about the regional space? No opportunities there?

    There would always be opportunities, but I don’t think we are considering any (M&A) in the regional language side in the foreseeable future and going deeper in the regional markets. We already have much on the plate.

    Q: Would Star like to review an earlier decision and return to news business in India?

    There is no plan to get back into the (television) news business. Moreover, with my limited understanding, news on television globally faces challenges these days as second on second updates are available on one’s hand-held devices. So, what new proposition can one create for people to come back night after night, 365 days on television, to spend some time watching you? Those who had created a brand on news television and are carrying on can continue to benefit from a legacy habit. But creating new news brands on television is lot more difficult today than in the past. People also have access to news on digital platforms as there is so much news available in one form or the other, including professionally produced and user generated. So, at the moment there are no plans to revisit our decision to exit news business in India.

    Q: Hotstar seems to have a special affinity for Republic TV and is it filling Star’s news need?

    (Smiles) In the same way Hotstar offers Sky News, Republic too is offered to consumers. If others are interested, we will give them a platform too. Don’t read too much into the agreement with Republic TV; it’s a simple distribution arrangement.

    Q: Would you agree that because of the audience ratings game, entertainment is becoming news and news is becoming entertainment in India?

    I would, rather, not get into that argument at all. However, since you have asked, I don’t think TRP(s) is a bad word. In the business that we are in, which is called mass media, if you take out the mass there is no business left. If it is mass media, measurement of the masses comes from ratings. The question is: what all would you do to get ratings? The answer lies in each individual and each company’s value systems. At Star, we have decided that we would do certain things and we would never do certain other things to get ratings. Some other people have defined that differently.

    Q: You have said in the past media and entertainment industry is not throwing up young talents because of inadequate human resources R&D. Do you still believe so and what has Star done to counter the inadequacy?

    The industry was not geared for creating so much of output as it is today between films and TV. Look at these small shops that have mushroomed all over.  We have been unable to expand the pipeline of training creative talent whether it is at the MCRC or the FTII, for example. In the meantime, requirement has grown manifold.

    I, generally, believe that our ability to compete with companies that are modern, resourceful and global will depend on the (human) resources and talent we create in the country. In a country where formal institutions are not geared to identify and shape new talent, the industry has to do it. I have been an advocate of that for a long time. Though we need to do this collectively as an industry, a beginning has been made by Star. We have created a big academy where we have got a respected name from Hollywood to be based in India to teach.

    Q: What are your thoughts on Made in India content for the world market?

    We are doing some things on that front by creating products that we can take outside India. We have succeeded in that endeavour with few Hindi films like `Neerja’ and ‘Dhoni’.  Hopefully, we will be able to open up that market more. At some stage, hopefully, some of the sports leagues that we have created, especially kabaddi, will be of interest to people outside India.

    public://60371509.jpg

    Technology has created space for FTA and pay TV. The two could co-exist — pay TV for those who want diverse and richer content, FTA for those who want basic content

    However, I don’t see Indian drama in its current form travelling outside India for a long time. Such shows are culturally too specific and too rooted in our family culture. Moreover, our business model is different that works the best when we offer large number of episodes. When you do that, given the monetization model, limited revenue comes from the investments made in a show with huge number of episodes. Until a totally distribution driven business model for premium content comes along, I think Indian entertainment content would not be competing in the global market.

    Q: What’s your perception on linear TV continuing as a medium in India?

    In this country TV will continue for a long time. I am not one of those who believe that linear TV would disappear in five years time and people would go completely digital. First, in a country where the family values are still strong, TV continues to act as glue for the family to get together. I don’t think, and hope, it would change very soon. Second, TV’s biggest comparative advantage comes from it being very affordable. Despite prices of broadband having dropped, if you take into account the cost of data and content, a digital platform is still way more expensive than TV. For anything between Rs 150-Rs 400, people can get more content than they can ever watch on TV.

    Then there is a long tail of households that is still waiting to get into the television world. The question is: can we create innovative price models for different user groups so it’s a win-win for the creative people and the business too? 

    It is also a mistake to think that television is only competing with television. No. TV also competes with digital platforms and people only have finite time to spend watching shows. Again, are we innovating enough? I think we are not innovating enough for TV to be at the cutting edge of competition with digital.

    Q: In terms of management of Star’s Indian operations some structural changes happened two years ago. Are some more in the offing?

    We created a new structure, as you have said, where we pushed decision making further down. I think Star India is, probably, the most decentralized media company in this country. We have different CEOs for sports, entertainment, digital and South Indian markets, and a head for international business. Not only it is fairly deep, but also diverse and aimed towards creating more entrepreneurship.

    Q: Having begun your career as a print media journalist, you have gone on to head Star India, an entertainment company. What would be the achievements over the last 10 years for the company, people and you?

    We have created a healthy and robust company with a bench of high quality talents across all segments of our business. Not only at Star we have encouraged innovation and entrepreneurship, but have created serious consensus on a whole bunch of issues in the industry ranging from content creation to brands. Personally, I take a lot of satisfaction in driving initiatives like self-regulation in content, etc. Above all, it is a matter of huge satisfaction that we have taken initiatives that have gone beyond the remit of a traditional media company like Star — like create and build sports leagues.

    I keep talking about it (various sports leagues) only because it’s only a matter of time before other companies will also get into it and then the transformation would really impact the country. I would like to see the same transformation in India that has been seen in places like parts of Latin America, Africa and Europe where the power of sports has acted as a social glue to create opportunities for people who would otherwise be totally on the margins of society. Being able to be part of such a transformation has been hugely motivating for me all these years.

    Q: Where do you see yourself five years from now?

    I am typically the kind of person who doesn’t forget his background and my base has been in news where I was extremely focused on tonight’s headlines as tomorrow is another day. So, I am very focused on clarity for today without worrying about tomorrow. I believe that one thing leads to another. Honestly, I have never planned my life, but it has been a great ride till now.

    ALSO READ:

    Major restructuring in Star India; Uday Shankar, chairman & CEO, Sanjay Gupta, MD

    Comment: With IPL rights Uday Shankar gambles audaciously, must plan pragmatically

    TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC

    Jawahar Goel raises alarm of emerging Star cricket monopoly (updated)

    Life OK rebranded as Star Bharat may start from 15 Aug

  • Guest Column: Star India’s IPL deal raises three crucial questions

    Guest Column: Star India’s IPL deal raises three crucial questions

    “Astronomical”, “whopping” and “staggering” were some of the words used to describe Star Group’s consolidated global bid of $2.55 billion for the media rights of the Indian premier League (IPL). Several newspapers described it as the “costliest” cricket property in the world.

    It seems to be an opportune time to look at the truth behind the numbers, and answer a few relevant questions. Was Star’s “all or nothing” bidding strategy exceptionally brilliant or extremely stupid? Does the seemingly-high price reflect the enormous and growing valuation of the IPL? Are IPL’s media rights costlier than those for the Indian national team?

    The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) allowed two kinds of bids – a consolidated global bid for the seven rights, including TV and digital, through a consortium, or individual bids for the specific rights. For example, a company could bid for the TV rights for the sub-continent only or only for the ‘Rest of the World’. Another could bid for two, three or four of the seven rights. A fourth could bid for all the seven rights separately. A fifth could do this, and also put in a consolidated global bid through a consortium.

    All-or-nothing Strategy

    From the information that’s available, Star was the only bidder to exercise the last option – a consolidated bid and separate bids for the seven rights. The others chose to focus on specific rights based on their strengths. Sony, which held the IPL TV rights for the first 10 years (2008-2017), put almost all its budgeted payment – over 99 per cent — on the TV rights for the sub-continent. Facebook, Airtel and Reliance Jio had huge, but single, bids each for the digital rights.

    The second component of Star’s “all or nothing” strategy was to bid really high for its consolidated bid, and fairly low for the specific rights. The idea was simple: make sure that it had a relatively higher chance to bag the composite bid, and ensure that if it got only a few individual rights, it paid much less. This is clear from the bid amounts. Star’s consolidated bid was Rs 163,475 million for five years. However, the sum of its bids for the seven individual rights was only Rs 788,247 million, or less than half of the former amount.

    Take a look at the comparative individual bids by the various players to understand Star’s game plan.

    Its bid for the subcontinent TV rights was Rs 61,969 million or much less than Sony’s Rs 110,500 million. Its price for the digital rights was Rs 14,430 million, or even lesser in percentage terms than Facebook’s Rs 39,000 million, Airtel’s Rs 32,800 million, and Reliance Jio’s Rs 30,757 million. Thus, Star made certain that it wouldn’t overpay for the individual rights.

    But Star was willing to go overboard for the consolidated and overall rights. The reason for this was obvious: BCCI’s tender stated that a combined bid could win only if the amount was higher than the sum of the highest bids in the individual categories. The latter figure, as it turned out, was Rs 158,195 million, or just over 3 per cent lower than Star’s consolidated bid of Rs 163,475 million. It was a lucky break for the winner – if its bid had been four per cent lower, it would have got only a puny ‘Rest of the World’ right that was worth Rs 487.5 million.

    Seeking Synergies

    In the future, the “all or nothing” strategy may turn out to be exceptionally brilliant or extremely stupid.

    This can be explained by two examples. When entrepreneurs opt for mega takeovers, they generally have two kinds of plans. The first is to sell off the various assets as they feel that the sum of the parts will be considerably higher than the whole. The other is to leverage and extract synergies that will result in a higher valuation for the whole.

    Both can work, but will the latter strategy work for Star? The quick answer: only if it knows the art and science of synergies.

    Over the past several years, sports organizers, media rights-winners (bidders) and advertisers have explored ways to take advantage of sport viewers’ habits in the age of convergence. According to a 2016 working paper by the Harvard Business School, some of the organizers, like UEFA (football), have successfully integrated “commercial activities and resources of sponsors into sports events” to improve “audience experience”.

    According to a 2016 piece by Patrick Hanavan, Chief Client Officer, Extreme Reach, a cloud technology platform, “There is increasing evidence that consumers are pairing their TV watching with ‘second-screen’ behaviour on social media….” This provides advertisers with “more opportunities for synergy between their TV buys and video buys… and potentially more cost-effective inventory.”

    public://BCCI_1.jpg

    Given such trends, a rights-holder, who has combined and comprehensive TV and digital rights presence, is ideally-placed to woo a larger set of audience, reach more advertisers, grab more spend from the same advertiser, and work closely with the sport organizer. The global trend is towards a seamless ‘rights’ strategy that encompasses TV, digital, broadband and social media.

    Although it’s not strictly similar, Turner Sports’ handling of the NBA media properties is an example. According to a report, Turner’s handling of the NBA’s digital business became so extensive to encompass “everything from mobile and social to broadband and the NBA’s out-of-market package”. Add TV to this mix, and what you have can be a winning combination.

    Star can easily drive, rather than merely woo, IPL traffic to its different properties. Star owns Indian cricket as it has the crucial rights for IPL and national team (the Indian cricket rights are with Star till first half 2018). It can extract cricket synergies if it innovates and thinks differently. Over time, the IPL viewership can translate into increased audience for non-IPL content on Star’s properties like Hotstar. The net result: higher returns on overall investment.

    Unfortunately, such grand strategies can unwind easily. Star’s attempt to drive traffic internally can drive it away. Seamless integration requires time, and five years may not be enough to translate the objectives into reality. Moreover, the fresh bidding for the Indian team’s rights will take place in 2018, and Star may lose them. It will be left with the IPL rights for a short summer period.

    Crucially, competition will keep nipping at Star’s heels, and may overtake it in the future. Next year, Sony, Facebook, Airtel and Reliance Jio will bid more aggressively. This will definitely happen when fresh tender for the IPL bids are floated in 2022. The story of how the bidding for the IPL digital rights has panned out is an indicator. The last time, Star won them for mere Rs 3,030 million for three years or Rs 1,010 million a year. This time, FB bid Rs 39,000 million for five years or Rs 7,800 million a year. It implies that the annual worth has gone up by nearly 225 per cent. Clearly, the social media network hopes to ride the cricket wave. The next time, Star’s “all or nothing” may come to nothing.

    Worth of IPL

    In 2009, when the IPL rights were renegotiated, Sony agreed to pay Rs 82,000 million for a nine-year period or Rs 9,111 million a year. At a simple inflation rate of 10 per cent, the figure will escalate to Rs 17,311 million over nine seasons. At a compounded rate of 10 per cent, the figure will be Rs 21,483 million. Star agreed to pay Rs 32,695 million per year, or a sizeable over 50 per cent higher than the 10 per cent compounded figure. This indicates that the IPL’s valuation has shot up, or at least the stakeholders think so.

    Of course, if one accounts for the rupee devaluation between 2009 and 2017, the math will be different. In 2009, the dollar averaged Rs 46, and is now just over Rs 64.

    A similar 10 per cent inflationary calculation for the price paid per match for the national team (the contract was bagged by Star in 2012) and IPL (2017 deal) will reveal that the conclusion that IPL is more expensive isn’t correct. If one looks at the overall scenario from a different perspective, IPL’s valuation has come down. A couple of years after the inaugural season, the league’s value was $4.1 billion in 2010. In 2016, Duff & Phelps found that it was still worth the same — $4.16 billion.

    Only this year did Duff & Phelps upgraded the valuation of IPL to $5.3 billion. Even this signifies an increase of 29 per cent over seven years, or less than what you can earn on fixed deposits. In fact, according to Brand Finance, the value of the league has diminished from a high of $4.1 billion to $3.8 billion now, after reaching a low of $2.9 billion in 2012.

    But at the same time, other deals indicate that the stakeholders still have faith in IPL. Recently, IPL title sponsorship was sold for Rs 22,000 million or twice the figure for the Indian team sponsorship.

    Only time will tell whether Star India can convert the opportunities to shore up its bottomlines further, considering its financial clout and business acumen.

    ALSO READ:

    Star bids highest for BCCI’s IPL media & digital rights and is the winner

    IPL has come to the rightful home of cricket in India: Star’s Uday Shankar

     

    public://Alam_Srinivas.jpg(Alam Srinivas, a senior business journalist and Executive Editor of Patriot, has authored two books on IPL, `IPL: Cricket and Commerce’, and `Cricket Czars: Two men who changed the gentleman’s game’. The views expressed are personal and Indiantelevision.com need not necessarily subscribe to them.)
  • Comment: With IPL rights Uday Shankar gambles audaciously, must plan pragmatically

    Comment: With IPL rights Uday Shankar gambles audaciously, must plan pragmatically

    The numbers were close to what we at indiantelevision.com were betting on. In conversations with senior executives from various companies, we had predicted that the telecast rights to the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s (BCCI)’s Indian Premier League (IPL) would fetch it around twice the price that Sony had earlier coughed up. And that too for a rights period which has been halved as compared to Sony’s time.

    Star India’s bid of Rs 16,347.50 crore ($2.56 billion) lived up to that expectation. Sony had last paid Rs 82,000 million ($1.6 billion then) for the rights. In rupee terms that’s close to twice what was earlier paid.

    Of course, the key execs in Star India – led by chairman & CEO Uday Shankar – have good reason to pop the bubbly. They bested a slew of broadcasters, telcos, OTT players and more experienced global sports rights owners to the IPL rights tape with an offer that may appear  mindboggling – nay mind numbing – to many an industry observer.

    Star India, however, got through by what many might say is a thin whisker. The combined highest individual bids for all the rights on offer including India, digital, ROW A,B,C,D, E totted up to Rs 15,8195 million, whereas the 21st Century Fox owned network’s global bid for all rights was Rs 16,3475 million — a difference of just Rs 5000 million. A seasoned industry observer like Kunal Dasgupta, former head of  Sony Entertainment in India, said Star hasn’t bid too high — if one takes into account the combined figure of bids of others.

    Star India led the individual bidding for only one territory – the UK. Elsewhere its rivals bid higher. So, if Star India had not safeguarded itself by putting in a global bid, it well may have been sitting on the losing side with telecast rights only for old Blighty.

    However, it is on the winning side now. And media watchers are questioning whether  Shankar and his team have  bitten off more than they can chew. The network is already anteing up Rs 430 million a match since 2012 for telecast and digital rights to all international cricket that India plays. Thankfully, the Rs 38,510 million deal ends mid-2018 when the IPL-Star era begins.

    But who knows the broadcaster might make its pitch for the same rights once again. If one goes by its hunger to create and own Indian sport, one can expect a spurt in prices for the rights to international cricket featuring India too. So much so that the Rs 550 million per IPL match it is now committed to pay out may look relatively cheap. As things stand today, India cricket rights are cheaper than theIPL’s— and that says a lot about a league that has been valued at a shade over $ 5 billion by an international company.

    That’s for another day. Clearly, new benchmarks have been set with the new IPL deal. For Shankar, it is a calculated gamble that may actually help him raise his stocks within the 21CF family. Star is clearly pulling out all the stops in India. As are his bosses Rupert, Lachlan and James Murdoch. Because it is something they have been used to doing. Up the stakes and keep a stranglehold on sport that viewers cannot do without. Monetising it effectively comes later; remember Kaun Banega Crorepati, the Indian version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.

    In 2015, the UK’s monolith satellite operator Sky (21st Century Fox owns 39.14  per cent of Sky and is seeking to own completely through its December 2016 offer of pounds sterling 11.7 billion) agreed to fork out £4.176bn to keep hold of the maximum possible number of English Premier League matches – 126 – in the new three-year cycle, almost double the £2.28bn it shelled out in 2013. That worked out almost £10.2 million (Rs 844 million per game). So doesn’t Rs 550 million look cheap?

    Sky had signed a cheque of just £191 million for rights to the EPL (60 matches a year) from 1992 to 1997 – a steal at £0.6 million per match.

    In  July 2017, the leading UK DTH player  raised the stakes even further by launching an English Premier League channel, which would air the 126 matches as part of an initiative to revamp its sports channels. Ten of its sports channels were available at £27.50 per month, whereas individual channels could be subscribed to at £18 a month.

    Will Star go for a similar spin-off play in India?

    Will it launch an exclusive IPL Star Sports channel with debates and coverage of what the various teams and team owners are doing?  And biopics around some of the main players in the teams? Can it start a talent hunt to zoom in on cricketers who could play in the IPL? Can it create special programmes, format shows around the IPL? Sure the creative ideas are many, and many of them could end up being money spinners as well as duds. A lot of this has not been attempted before and is new territory for all, but Star India knows how to enchant viewers with its programming. However, one expects a lot more from it then just bringing TV characters and actors from its top shows onto the field for some of the ceremonies – something it did when it was the India team sponsor.

    Or will the network go for a simpler idea— broad base its telecast across its TV channel network with regional language commentary? Will it work with the BCCI to bring in further entertainment or excitement into cricket?

    While some may question Uday Shankar and team’s thinking behind paying out such a fat purse, clearly there’s some arithmetic and growth strategy in place. Shankar admitted to that when at a post bidding press conference he hinted that the winning bid seemed the “right” figure keeping in view the competitiveness of the bidding by others. Star India has displayed what many considered derring-do when it took the path to develop very local Indian sports like kabaddi, not to mention badminton, table tennis, football and other sports in India. But it has had the last laugh; especially with kabaddi that has found traction and is emerging as a money-spinner.

    With the world as his playground and the rights to digital and television globally at his disposal, expect Shankar and co to do magic. In one market the Star India team could sell the rights to a telco for the live feed, in the same market,  it could sell it to a VOD player for a delayed telecast and also sell it to a broadcaster there for pay TV or run a pay TV channel. In the UK, it has got a ready buyer in the Sky Sports cricket channel, which it launched along with  EPL Sports.

    The IPL teams have got representation from several cricket and emerging cricket playing countries; so the interest is bound to be there. And, if it is limited, Star and local partners will work to whip up the excitement.

    Otherwise, it could use the fun and action on the IPL cricket field to seduce subscribers in various countries to opt for its VOD and streaming service Hotstar. It has just about begun its global journey for Hotstar with its launch in Canada and the US a couple of days ago.

    The VOD platform has been blanked out in all other nations apart from these two and India. Viewers in these markets are used to paying – even if it is only a monthly fee of $9.99 to $13.99. In Indian rupees that is a lot of money: around Rs 650 to Rs 800. If Star manages to lure in even five million paid subscribers, at those levels it will generate an average of a whopping Rs 100,00 million annually per three month IPL season. Over a five year period it can expect its total subscription pie to grow to Rs 65,000 million in digital revenues from just Hotstar. Of course, one has to calculate expenses and operational costs. But then it will also rope in ad revenue too for the service.

    It is in India where it will seek to really exploit the IPL magic. Television advertising and subscription revenues,  premium VOD revenues for both live and delayed feeds – as well as ad  commercial sales  revenues on the free basic Hotstar service. Or, it could license the live digital feed to a social media network or a telco. Remember Facebook, Airtel and Reliance Jio bid in excess of Rs 30,000 million for the India digital rights alone. If any of them bite when Star makes them an offer, it would secure the broadcaster’s India’s revenue to some extent at least. Star well might keep the free delayed feed in house and stream it on Hotstar or sell even that to another player. The opportunities are mind-boggling.

    Of course, the big money monster is clearly going to be TV in India for the next five years, and even 10 or more, possibly. And that’s where Star India will go in for the kill.  The Indian cable TV ecosystem is evolving. However, cable TV operators and DTH players have been wary of raising subscription rates as well paying more for the content to broadcast partners.
    Though, through cricket, Star may look at building a walled garden — something that competitors have hinted at — the success or failure of it could only be gauged by a future time. As they say, hindsight is a great teacher.

    ALSO READ:

    Star bids highest for BCCI’s IPL media & digital rights and is the winner

     

  • Star bids highest for BCCI’s IPL media & digital rights and is the winner

    Star bids highest for BCCI’s IPL media & digital rights and is the winner

    MUMBAI: Star India has been investing heavily in Indian sport. And that investment – and promise to invest more – got the vote of confidence from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) when its  offer of Rs 16,3475 million or Rs 16347.5 crore or approximately $ 2.55 billion proved high enough for it to snare the five year global consolidated (telecast & digital) rights for the most lucrative and prized cricket league in the world – the Indian Premier League (IPL). 

    Star India’s offer was about Rs 5000 million more than the consolidated highest individual bid total which stood at Rs 15,8195.1 million.  The bidding rules had made it clear that the global rights  (Rs 16,347.50 crore) bid would get precedence over the individual bids if the latters’ sum total (Rs 15,8195.1 million) was lower than the former.  For viewers, what this means is that they will be watching IPL action on Star India’s sports channel bouquet and VOD platform Hotstar for the next five seasons of the IPL (2018 to 2022).

    Though 24 companies picked up the offer documents, only 14 turned up for the bidding process early this morning, from which BAM Tech was disqualified. Those who took part included:  beIN, Star India., Followon Interactive Media, Sony Pictures Networks (SPN) , Times Internet, Supersport International, Reliance Jio, Gulf DTH, Econet Media, Facebook, DAZN / Perform Group, Yupp TV, Airtel and BAM Tech.

    Star India and SPN India were the only two bidders for the Indian subcontinent TV rights and the latter’s  bid  of Rs 11,0500 million was much higher than Star India’s Rs 6,1969. million.  Facebook India was the highest bidder for digital Indian subcontinent rights with its offer of Rs 3,9000 million. It beat back telcos Jio, which bid Rs 3,0757.2 million, and  Airtel’s offer of Rs 3,2800 million, and even Star India that had bid Rs 1,4430 million. The Rest of World A (Austrailia, New Zealand & rest of world) telecast rights saw a bid of Rs 700.1 million by Followon emerging as the highest offer, ahead of Times Internet Ltd’s  (TIL’s) Rs 533 million and Star at 178.8 million. 

    The beIN bid of Rs 3900 million for the Rest of World B (Middle East) rights  was much higher than OSN’s Rs 2112.5 million, YuppTV’s Rs 1001. million and Star India’s Rs 650 million.

    Supersport came out tops on the Rest of World C (South Africa) rights with its bid  of Rs 1202.5 million as against Econet’s Rs 845 million and Star India’s Rs 617.5 million. The Rest of the World D (UK) rights  had only one bidder: Star India with its offer of Rs 487.5 million, the only territory for which it emerged as the highest  individual bidder.

    The Perform group led the race for the Rest of the World E (US) rights by bidding Rs 2405million leaving YuppTV (Rs 2346.5 million), TIL (Rs 1852.5 million) and Star India (Rs 491.6 million) far behind.  The consolidated figure for the highest bids for each individual right thus worked out Rs 15,8195.1 million.

    Almost all the cricket ecosystem players were cock-a-hoop with delight about the successful global bid placed by Star India.

    Said BCCI acting president CK Khanna in a press release:  “We are happy to announce Star India as our new global media and digital partner. We thank all the bidders that participated in the process. We have ensured that transparency of the highest form was maintained throughout the process. I would like to thank cricketers and franchises for making the league one of the eminent sporting leagues in the world. I would also like to thank all the fans for showing their continuous support for the VIVO IPL for the last 10 years.”  

    Added BCCI acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary:  “We welcome Star India on board as our broadcast and digital partner. Cricket as a sport has evolved over the years, and today’s bids were a reiteration of VIVO IPL’s growing global popularity.”

    Star India chairman & CEO Uday Shankar too expressed his excitement about his company’s successful bid. Said he:  “We are honoured to be selected as IPL’s global media rights partner and we thank BCCI for conducting such a transparent process. The VIVO Indian Premier League is undoubtedly one of the most exciting sporting leagues in the world and this acquisition of media rights reaffirms our commitment to serve cricket fans and make cricket even bigger than it is. We are delighted that in Star, IPL has found its natural home. We look forward to bringing this exciting format to our audiences across the world in a quality that all our viewers are accustomed to both on television as well as on digital on Hotstar.”

    Shankar further added, “At Star India, we believe that Indian sports have barely scratched the surface of its potential. Both the viewership of sports and more importantly participation in sports is something that we would like to grow substantially over the next few years. The acquisition of these rights is symbolic of our commitment to not just cricket but to the growth of a wider sports culture in the country.” Not to let go of a chance like this, Shankar also added that Star would have to come up with solid business proposal to monetise the IPL property over a period of five years as pay TV revenues — read tariffs — were highly regulated in India.

    BCCI CEO Rahul Johri expressed:  “We are grateful to the Supreme Court, the Committee of Administrators and the office bearers of BCCI. We are also thankful to Deloitte and our legal partners Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas for their support in carrying out a fair and transparent bidding process efficiently. We would like to welcome Star India on board as our IPL global media and digital partner.  We believe this is a global benchmark and all the stakeholders of IPL will significantly benefit from this association with Star India.”

    Sportingly, SPNI congratulated and wished Star India all the best in its endeavor to shape the  IPL over the next five  years.  Said the previous rights holder in a press note:  “SPNI  has nurtured the IPL since its inception and within a span of 10 years established it as one of the most popular sporting properties in the world. We would like to thank all those who supported us in curating the lineage and legacy of IPL.  At the same time, we take this opportunity of wishing STAR India the best as they shape IPL over the next five years. With our recent acquisition of the Ten Sports network, the sports network of SPNI holds the broadcast rights to five cricket boards, guaranteeing that our channels will continue to offer a strong mix of programming for cricket fans.”

    Also Read:

    IPL has come to the rightful home of cricket in India: Star’s Uday Shankar
     
    IPL net realisation up, digital ad revenue grew astronomically as compared to TV

    IPL tender submission & result date rescheduled

    IPL chief Shukla recuses from ‘live-streaming’ media rights auction

  • Clove Dental health campaign being released on social media

    Clove Dental health campaign being released on social media

    MUMBAI: “Smile, it is the key that fits the lock of everybody’s heart,” says American writer-author of ‘Inspiration for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students and Their Allies’ Anthony J. D’Angelo.

    People generally seek a beautiful smile, yet they take for granted the teeth that make their smile beautiful. However, as people need a backbone to stand, a smile needs strong teeth to make it more beautiful.

    Dental chain Clove Dental, with more than 160 clinics across 11 states, has launched a digital advertising campaign ‘Clove Your Teeth’ that aims to create awareness about the importance of healthy teeth. The three-month campaign is being released on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn and Pinterest.

    Facebook- https://www.facebook.com/clovedentalindia/
    Twitter- https://twitter.com/Clove_Dental
    Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/clovedentalindia/?hl=en

    ‘Clove Your Teeth’ depicts how loving your teeth is important at every age and stage of life – be it a young couple, a young parent with a child, a teenage girl with her middle-aged mother or a grandfather with his grandchild, sparkling smile reflects happiness and good health. The campaign encourages its audience to visit a dentist regularly because ‘Prevention is better than cure.’

  • Vidooly declares ABP News as the most watched Indian video publisher on Facebook

    Vidooly declares ABP News as the most watched Indian video publisher on Facebook

    MUMBAI: There is a new kingpin in news town. Amidst all the crowing about who’s No 1 in television news, the Hindi language news channel ABP News has been declared as a definitive leader amongst all Indian publishers active on Facebook (FB) by Delhi-based online performance and analytics company Vidooly. The channel notched up 23.50 crore views for the videos it published on its FB page in the Vidooly Facebook Publishers report for July 2017. In the process, it beat back Aaj Tak to the second spot with its 23.45 crore views.

    Since video is an important part of the Facebook experience,the news network came up with a unique video strategy for FB – the first-ever FB Live news bulletin.

    Apart from being one of the preferred destinations for political news with more than three million video views covering politics as a genre, the news channel has also been a thought leader when it comes to TV programming. Video content on Viral sach, Ghanti Bajao, Jan man and Saas Bahu aur Saazish are some examples of its exemplary programming line-up.

    Says the news network’s COO Avinash Pandey: “Since Facebook viewers now watch an incredible million hours of video every day so we intend to continue delivering the most interesting news content with real time update to keep viewers ahead , thus justifying the brand tagline ‘’Aapko Rakhe Aage.’’ We are excited to achieve this number and will continue to lead the charts like always.”

    ABP digital umbrella – ABP Live is even bigger now with the increasing number of fans on FB, YouTube, Twitter thus leaving the competition well behind. There is no doubt that they are now one of the leading content destination online.

    ABP Live,the digital arm of ABP News Network has eight web portals in six regional languages – Hindi, English, Marathi, Gujarati, Bengali and Punjabi. For news on the go, ABP News also has an award-winning mobile application that integrates all their language sites.

    ABP says: ABP News Network is one of the fastest growing digital network worldwide since its inception in December 2013. Its remarkable growth can be gauged by the penetrative reach of 350 million page views and 30 unique visitors as per Google Analytics.

  • Why India expansion makes sense to BBC

    Why India expansion makes sense to BBC

    MUMBAI: BBC is rising to the fact that expansion in India makes logical sense. With the proliferation of news sources, BBC is witnessing a mobile revolution especially in India, Asia and Africa.

    “It would be presumptuous to think that people would come to our websites just because we’ve launched them,”  BBC digital editor for World Service Languages Dmitry Shishkin has said, niemanlab.org reported. Shishkin is responsible for allocation of 319 new digital, editorial hires — from developers to social media editors to producers for new TV bulletins.

    Things like [Facebook] Instant Articles, Google Accelerated Mobile Pages, and light apps for audio listening, he says, are in our plans. The next ‘hackathon,’ he indicated, will be taking place in India. The way we are launching new BBC services impacts in a very big editorial way how we’re running existing ones, he said. (The BBC has also held several hackathons across Africa that have led to implemented pilot projects, and also to local developers joining the BBC’s product development process).

    The BBC World Service already publishes in 28 languages. It plans to make a foray into unusual territory: launching a full-fledged news service delivered in Nigerian Pidgin in West and Central Africa. The BBC groups its language services into six regions — such as growth editors who can analyse data on story performance and make recommendations on how to improve coverage and increase reach.

    Every new language service requires its own justification, its own distribution strategy, and its own evaluation of the target audience’s needs. For many of these countries where the BBC plans to launch its new mobile-focused online news services, limited phone data is an issue.

    The BBC already has an established workflow that facilitates sharing text and video content among its own language services. It’s also developed new tools to ease cross-language sharing, such as this one that automates translations for videos.

    The World Service is changing up how interactives will be produced. Regions will get their own dedicated interactives teams, so instead of pitching ideas to London, they’ll work with their own local teams.

    BBC had realised that seeking someone with several years of professional experience in journalism, who spoke the languages they needed, plus had a digital background, was difficult. BBC had decided to look for people who have professional and personal experiences. This allows people to understand the market, because they are the market.

    ALSO READ :

    BBC Pashto adds arts to its TV offer

    Zee Cafe targets 20-40-yr-olds with BBC First drama

    BBC Academy launches content in five additional languages including Bangla & Spanish

  • Now ‘Watch’ original videos & shows on Facebook

    MUMBAI: FB is excited to see how creators and publishers use shows to connect with their fans and community.  Watching video on Facebook has the incredible power to connect people, spark conversation, and foster community. On Facebook, videos are discovered through friends and bring communities together.

    As more and more people enjoy this experience,  FB has learned that people like the serendipity of discovering videos in News Feed, but they also want a dedicated place they can go to watch videos. That’s why last year  FB launched the Video tab in the U.S., which offered a predictable place to find videos on Facebook. Now  FB wants to make it even easier to catch up with shows you love.

    FB will be introducing Watch to a limited group of people in the U.S. and plan to bring the experience to more people soon. Similarly,  FB will be opening up Shows to a limited group of creators and plan to roll out to all soon.

    Introducing Watch

    FB is introducing Watch, a new platform for shows on Facebook. Watch will be available on mobile, on desktop and laptop, and in our TV apps. Shows are made up of episodes — live or recorded — and follow a theme or storyline. To help you keep up with the shows you follow, Watch has a Watchlist so you never miss out on the latest episodes.

    Watch is personalized to help you discover new shows, organized around what your friends and communities are watching. For example, you’ll find sections like “Most Talked About,” which highlights shows that spark conversation, “What’s Making People Laugh,” which includes shows where many people have used the “Haha” reaction, and “What Friends Are Watching,” which helps you connect with friends about shows they too are following.

    FB has learned from Facebook Live that people’s comments and reactions to a video are often as much a part of the experience as the video itself. So when you watch a show, you can see comments and connect with friends and other viewers while watching, or participate in a dedicated Facebook Group for the show.

    A Platform for Shows

    public://newsroom-hero_final-blue-11_1.pngWatch is a platform for all creators and publishers to find an audience, build a community of passionate fans, and earn money for their work.  FB  thinks a wide variety of Facebook shows can be successful, particularly:

    Shows that engage fans and community. Nas Daily publishes a daily show where he makes videos together with his fans from around the world. The Watchlist makes it easy for fans to catch every day’s new episode.

    Live shows that connect directly with fans. Gabby Bernstein, a New York Times bestselling author, motivational speaker, and life coach, uses a combination of recorded and live episodes to connect with her fans and answer questions in real time.

    Shows that follow a narrative arc or have a consistent theme. Tastemade’s Kitchen Little is a funny show about kids who watch a how-to video of a recipe, then instruct professional chefs on how to make it. Each episode features a new child, a new chef, and a new recipe. Unsurprisingly, the food doesn’t always turn out as expected.

    Live events that bring communities together. Major League Baseball is broadcasting a game a week on Facebook, enabling people to watch live baseball while connecting with friends and fellow fans on the platform.

    FB  thinks Watch will be home to a wide range of shows, from reality to comedy to live sports. To help inspire creators and seed the ecosystem,  FB has also funded some shows that are examples of community-oriented and episodic video series. For example, Returning the Favor is a series hosted by Mike Rowe where he finds people doing something extraordinary for their community, tells the world about it, and in turn does something extraordinary for them. Candidates are nominated by Mike’s fans on Facebook.

    Addressing Cloaking

    public://cloaking_inlinegraphics_0.jpgFB  has always been working to combat the spread of misinformation and the financially-motivated bad actors who create misleading experiences for people. FB is now sharing additional steps  FB ’ve taken to remove even more of them from Facebook, so that what people see after clicking an ad or post matches their expectations.

    Some of the worst offenders use a technique known as “cloaking” to circumvent Facebook’s review processes and show content to people that violates Facebook’s Community Standards and Advertising Policies. Here, these bad actors disguise the true destination of an ad or post, or the real content of the destination page, in order to bypass Facebook’s review processes. For example, they will set up web pages so that when a Facebook reviewer clicks a link to check whether it’s consistent with our policies, they are taken to a different web page than when someone using the Facebook app clicks that same link. Cloaked destination pages, which frequently include diet pills, pornography and muscle building scams, create negative and disruptive experiences for people.

    Since cloaking exists across many of today’s digital platforms, we will also be collaborating closely with other companies in the industry to find new ways to combat it and punish bad actors. Over the past few months  FB  have been ramping up our enforcement across ads, posts and Pages, and have strengthened our policies to explicitly call out this practice.  FB  will ban advertisers or Pages found to be cloaking from the platform.

    How  FB Identifies Cloaking

    FB is utilizing artificial intelligence and have expanded our human review processes to help us identify, capture, and verify cloaking.  FB can now better observe differences in the type of content served to people using our apps compared to our own internal systems.

    In the past few months these new steps have resulted in us taking down thousands of these offenders and disrupting their economic incentives for misleading people.

    How Will This Impact My Page?

     FB sees cloaking as deliberate and deceptive, and will not tolerate it on Facebook.  FB will remove Pages that engage in cloaking. Otherwise Pages should not see changes to their referral traffic.

    ALSO READ :

    Facebook to reduce unintentional ad clicks, announces new metrics

    We are seeing consumption in languages & low-connectivity areas, says Facebook India’s Saurabh Doshi

    Just 11% video viewership is on OTT: Akamai’s Reddy