Tag: Star India

Effies 2012: Ogilvy tops 4th time in a row

MUMBAI: Racing ahead of competition by a humungous margin of 215 points, Ogilvy and Mather retained its title as Agency of the Year for the fourth consecutive time at the Effie 2012 awards. It also landed with the coveted award, the Grand Effie.

Ogilvy India‘s final scorecard read: nine gold, 11 silver, three bronze metals and the Grand Effie. Led again by Piyush Pandey, creative director, South Asia, Ogilvy India, the agency totaled 280 points, bettering its last year record of 195 points with seven gold, six silver and six bronze.

Also retaining its position on the leaderboard, Ogilvy‘s Cadbury India was adjudged the Client of the Year at this year’s awards with 85 points.

O&M won the Marico Uncommon Sense for its campaign ‘Satyamev Jayate – Managing a Billion Expectations‘ for Star India’s Aamir Khan show on social causes. It also won the Lenovo Tech-Doers Award for ‘The Photographs Case‘ campaign it created for Star India’s Fox Crime.

The campaign for Satyamev Jayate won in the Services and Integrated Advertising category, while ‘The Photographs Case‘ bagged the honour in the Digital Advertising and Integrated Advertising category. The Undumb India campaign created for The Hindu won in the Services category. The other gold metal winners were: Vodafone India’s ‘Drive Into the Big League‘ campaign (B2B Advertising), Madhya Pradesh Tourism’s ‘How Madhya Pradesh became Incredible in Incredible India‘ campaign (Best On-going Campaign), Asian Paints Apex’s ‘Yeh Badhiya Hai‘ campaign (Best On-going Campaign) and Fevicol’s ‘The Ultimate Bond – 20 Years and Still Going Strong‘ campaign (Best On-going Campaign).

The agency’s 11 silver Effies came from ‘Have You Felt Silk Lately?‘ for Cadbury India Dairy Milk Silk (Beverages, Drinks, Confectionaries and Food); ‘Tayyari ki Jeet‘ for Bournvita (Beverages, Drinks, Confectionaries and Food); ‘As Aamir Steals Light, Titan Steals a March Over Competition‘ (Consumer Products – Others); ‘Chalta Nahin Daudta Hai‘ for Bajaj Discover (Automobiles, Autoparts, Two Wheelers and Auto related); ‘Aapke Sachce Advisors‘ for Max Life Insurance (Financial Services); ‘Poochne Mein Kya Jaata hai‘ for Tata Sky (Services – Others); ‘The Date Fillum‘ for Cadbury 5 Star (Digital Advertising); ‘Loving ‘em Back‘ for Mumbai Indians (Digital Advertising); ‘The Photographs Case‘ for Fox Crime (David v/s Goliath); ‘Drive into the Big League‘ for Vodafone (Integrated Advertising Campaign); and ‘Seedhi Baat No Bakwaas, Freshology‘ for Sprite (Best On-Going Campaign).

O&M won bronze Effies for its work on the Cadbury Bournville’s ‘Have You Earned It?‘ campaign (Services and Integrated Advertising); Hindustan Unilever’s ‘Swasthya Chetna‘ campaign (Rural Advertising); and Bosch and Siemens Home Appliances’ ‘Bosch: Genetically German‘ campaign (David v/s Goliath).

Second spot winner McCann Worldgroup won three Silver and seven Bronze metals with a total of 65 points. It had to go home without a gold. McCann‘s performance this year was far better as it improved upon its previous year‘s ranking of No. 7 with 30 points.

Lowe Lintas and Partners followed close with 60 points. The agency won three silver and six bronze Effies. Taproot India stood fourth with three gold Effies. Leo Burnett raked in eight bronze metals to stand fifth in the metals tally.

This year the Effies saw the addition of two categories – Direct Marketing and Digital Advertising. This also was the first year when the entire judging process took place online.

December 5, 2012
Tonic Media gets Unmisha Bhatt as director, global strategy

MUMBAI: Unmisha Bhatt has been roped in by Tonic Media as director – global strategy. She will be responsible for driving planning and strategy functions as well as business globally starting with the Middle East.

Bhatt will divide her time between the agency‘s Mumbai and Dubai offices. She will focus on integrating digital effectively with clients overall communication mix leveraging her experience of integrated brand communication.

Prior to joining Tonic Media, Bhatt was with Bajaj Electricals as DGM – advertising and brand development. She joined Bajaj Electricals in September 2010 and led 360 degree advertising across three strategic businesses units; viz, Bajaj Appliances, Bajaj Lighting and Bajaj Fans.

She has comprehensive experience of 12 years in Branding, Corporate Communication and Integrated Brand Communications across all consumer touch points. Her specialities include understanding consumer behaviour, defining brand essence and developing communication strategy accordingly. Her planning and strategic knowledge will add value to following a scientific approach towards digital communication.

She has a total of 12 years‘ experience in the media industry having worked on both the agency and clients‘ side. She started her career as an ad sales executive with Reminiscent India Television Ltd in 2000. After a couple of years there, she moved on to Star India Pvt. Ltd. (Radio City 91 FM) – Mumbai as senior executive ad sales. She then went over to the agency side with Leo Burnett‘s Black Pencil where she worked for a year and a half before moving to Ogilvy and Mather as account director in 2006. In 2008, she moved to Kotak Investment Advisors as associate VP before going back to O&M in 2009 as client services director.

She was also founder and principal consultant at Unified Brand Architect (UBA) which specialises in developing a single brand identity across all mediums thus creating a brand persona and equity.

November 28, 2012
‘We are net positive in our deals with cable TV networks in the metros’ : IndiaCast Group CEO Anuj Gandhi

IndiaCast Group CEO Anuj Gandhi is spearheading an effort to extract bigger pay-TV revenues from broadcast-carriage platforms as TV18 founder-promoter Raghav Bahl searches for growth engines that would propel his media empire to the top league of broadcasters like Star India, Zee Entertainment and Multi-Screen Media.

Known both in the broadcasting as well as the cable TV world as CEO of Den Networks, Gandhi has already turned around TV18’s distribution business in the four digitised markets of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. “We will be net positive in our deals with the cable TV networks in the metros,” he says, after sewing the new commercial deals with the multi-system operators (MSOs).

Gandhi is ready to reap richer harvests for TV18 as India moves towards digital cable TV. “We will be doubling our subscription earnings within three years,” says the man Bahl has spotted to shepherd the growth of IndiaCast.

Correcting that is no mean achievement. For the full-fiscal ended 31 March 2012, TV18 Group paid carriage fee of Rs 3.5 billion against Rs 3 billion earned as subscription income from TV viewers through broadcast-carriage platforms.

Hard bargaining over legacy issues including payment of carriage fees have held up agreements between broadcasters and MSOs with just nine days left for the shift to digital delivery of television channels in the four metros of Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Kolkata. But Gandhi is confident that there will be no shift in the deadline of 1 November for digitisation in the four metros.

“We are entering a new era of television history in India,” he insists, with a smile and a twinkle in his eyes.

In an interview with Indiantelevision.com’s Sibabrata Das, Gandhi talks about broadcasters‘ different nature of commercial deals with direct-to-home (DTH) and cable TV service providers, a drop in carriage fees, the need to correct “legacy loads” and the growth prospects for all the stakeholders in a digitised regime.

Excerpts:

Q. How can you say so firmly that there will be no shift in the deadline of 1 November for digitisation in the four metros?
We are entering a new era of television history in India. The bad news staring at all of us today is losses, distorted business models and bandwidth constraints. If that is going to halt, the turnaround story for all of us will have to evolve around the digitisation script. The good thing is that all the stakeholders realise that hidden value will unlock only if we end the analogue cable regime. The government is also backing digitisation and has taken all the tough decisions. While Mumbai and Delhi are in full gear, we will know about the ground reality in Chennai and Kolkata as we hit the digitisation date.

Q. But aren’t we just nine days away and all the commercial deals between broadcasters and MSOs are yet to be in place?
While all of us are sighting a new dawn, we have a lot of legacy issues to correct. And this takes time. But it is only a few deals that are pending, a few knots that have to be tied. I don’t think this by itself will be a strong force to push digitisation behind. We have gone too much ahead to retreat.

Even DTH had this dark cloud hovering around it in the initial days; Dish TV did not have Star channels when it launched and Tata Sky (a joint venture of Tata Sons and Star India) had to go without Zee channels in the beginning. We will have digitisation by the set date, with or without a few deals.

Q. Is IndiaCast unable to lock the deal with Den Networks because of historic high carriage fees?
I can’t comment on any specific deal. But in some cases there is a revenue mismatch between carriage payouts and the subscription earnings of a broadcaster. This may be due to legacy and involves a lot of negotiations to correct. We have done deals with all the other MSOs except Den (Anuj was earlier CEO of Den Networks). We are confident of sewing a deal with them in the next few days.

Q. What kind of deals are being stitched? Has IndiaCast done more of cost per subscriber (CPS) or fixed fee deals?
After rounds of negotiations, we have been able to work out most of our deals with MSOs on a CPS basis. But we are not stuck on any single formula. We are also signing fixed fee deals in certain cases.

‘There will be no drastic fall in carriage fees. While the TAM towns are rising, the number of channels are also shooting up. But in the digitised markets, we will see a good drop in carriage fees‘

Q. Are CPS deals in IndiaCast’s case easier to ink because subscription revenues have been comparatively lower than the peer networks while carriage payouts have been higher?

It has been easier to strike CPS deals because we have been late entrants. We are also at an advantage because we are the only major distribution company to have subscription and carriage under one roof. And as we inducted a new team (Anuj Gandhi joined in March 2012) in IndiaCast, the industry knew that we would seek a revenue-carriage correction.

Q. Are DTH service providers able to do fixed fee deals while cable is moving more towards CPS arrangements?
We are seeing an interesting trend emerge. DTH has been able to negotiate more fixed fee deals with broadcasters as they have a national satellite footprint. They can bet on their future subscriber growth numbers with some authority. And they benefit from this kind of commercial arrangement as the yield per box comes down in a fixed fee deal.

Cable networks, on the other hand, are moving towards CPS deals as they address a finite market (city-specific like Delhi or Mumbai or Lucknow) and there is less chance of them growing horizontally (unless acquisitions happen or they compete amongst themselves to grab more territories). Though MSOs want to do fixed fee deals, broadcasters are not comfortable in forecasting the swelling in future cable TV subscriber numbers.

As we move towards smaller markets involving small-sized cable networks in the second and third phase of digitisation, we would definitely see more CPS deals. These could later evolve into fixed fee deals as cable networks get a fix on what subscriber growth they would be able to register in future.

Q. TV18 and Network18 on a consolidated basis earned about Rs 3 billion of subscription income while carriage payout was Rs 3.5 billion in FY‘12. Has IndiaCast been able to do net positive deals in these four metros?
I can’t comment on the financials but we have corrected that legacy and are in a growth phase. We will be net positive in our deals with cable TV networks in the metros.

Q. How much of the carriage fees the four metros account for?
For the industry, these four metros would be accounting for about 45 per cent of the total carriage payouts. We would be in line with this trend.

Q. How much of a carriage fee drop are we seeing in the four digitised markets?
There will be no drastic fall in carriage fees. There are twin reasons for this. While the TAM (TV ratings agency) towns are rising, the number of channels are also shooting up. And in the digitised markets, we will see a good drop in carriage fees.

Q. Raghav Bahl had earlier stated that TV18 would have to catch up on the subscription revenue front while the advertising income had reached a level comparable with the competing networks. What sort of pay revenue growth do you forecast?
The industry will be able to post 20-25 per cent growth in a digitised environment as revenue leakages stop and the pay-TV market gets corrected. IndiaCast would definitely do better than that. We will be doubling our existing subscription revenues within three years. And when we say this, we are not factoring in any new channel that would be added to our distribution bouquet.

‘While DTH has been able to negotiate more fixed fee deals with broadcasters, cable networks are moving towards arrangements on a cost per subscriber basis as they address a finite market and there is less chance of them growing horizontally‘

Q. Why TV18 group could capture a comparable advertising revenue after the launch of Colors while the distribution income stayed far behind competing networks?
Advertising revenues are broadly reflective of the ratings that the shows get. The distribution business, on the other hand, is much more complex and a late entrant will take time to catch up. The challenge is to keep a fine line of balance between subscription and carriage. Growth is also heavily influenced by the ‘legacy numbers’. Digitisation, however, will help correct some of this ‘legacy load’ much faster than what would have been achievable in an analogue cable regime.

Q. The company earns around Rs 300 million from its international content syndication business. What sort of a growth are you forecasting from this segment?

We will double our revenues from this segment in three years. We will achieve this by expanding our reach and launching in more international markets. Colors already reaches out to 68 countries and we are looking at entering the South African market where we are in talks with the leading DTH operator there.

We have just launched MTV India in the Middle East. We are planning to take that channel to other markets including the UK (the channel is already there in the US).

We have also launched a new channel called Rishtey in the UK. The aim is to dig into the fast-growing free-to-air (FTA) market in the UK at a time when the pay-TV growth is shrinking.

Q. With ETV clocking about Rs 1.1 billion of subscription income in FY‘12, how much of an advantage will the acquisition of these regional-language channels have in multiplying TV18’s consolidated pay revenues?
ETV will give us a regional footprint, add depth to our distribution strength, help us penetrate the interior markets, and provide negotiating power to ensure that our network channels get carried in the smaller places.

Q. Has the reworking of the joint venture distribution arrangement with Sun TV Network Ltd helped? Didn‘t TV18 taken the decision of directly handling the distribution of its network channels in the southern states (except Tamil Nadu where Sun distributes) because of the low pay revenues that it used to get despite the JV with Sun?
Even now we share a good relationship with Sun TV. We distribute the Sun network channels in the Hindi Speaking Market (HSM) while the TV18 channels in Tamil Nadu are distributed by them.

For the other southern states, we felt that we needed to take direct control of distribution. The fresh deal with Sun has indeed worked well for us.

Q. Will IndiaCast want to add more channels or follow the OneAlliance model where size doesn’t matter?
We don’t want to add channels just to get volume growth. We want to have the right mix of channels.

October 22, 2012

‘Star to invest in India’s growth market and not be greedy about profits’ : Star India CEO Uday Shankar

Uday Shankar had to wrestle with a thorny problem as soon as he took over as Star India CEO: How to be more successful than his predecessors Peter Mukerjea and Sameer Nair?

Grown up as a journalist and in TV news for long, Shankar did not take long to take tough business calls in the television entertainment broadcasting business. He parachuted out of the Balaji Telefilms’ joint venture agreement as the popular long-running ‘K’ soaps were running out of steam and were turning out to be “expensively” priced. He brought in a bunch of young producers to connect with the changing India at a time when new players like Viacom18 (Colors), 9X (Mukerjea’s venture after quitting Star) and NDTV Imagine (headed by Nair) were making their entry.

Shankar also quickly realised that Star’s creative, marketing and distribution strategies were not in sync to capture the new markets that had come into the C&S homes. He designed Star’s new strategy and laid out a clear road map for the Rupert Murdoch company’s growth in India which at that stage was heavily dependent on the flagship Hindi general entertainment channel (GEC) Star Plus.

Asianet was acquired to get a footprint in the lucrative South Indian media market and Bengali and Marathi GECs were launched. He next launched the second entertainment channels in Hindi to house them under the ‘OK’ brand.

Shankar knows well that India is a growth market and has, thus, decided to reinvest in the business aggressively to build a Star network that would grow and thrive in the future as well. “While we will always try to keep a very sharp eye on the profits, we will not be greedy about profit margins,” he says.

In the third and concluding part of the interview with Indiantelevision.com’s Sibabrata Das, Shankar talks about how Star India is ring-fenced today to stay as a strong leader in the TV entertainment business and is ready to grow in a digitised environment.

Excerpts:

Q. How challenging was it for somebody who came from a news background to conquer the entertainment broadcast business as CEO of Star India? Or was the transition easier because TV news in India had imbibed entertainment content in its culture?
Listen, the news that I was part of is very different from the news of today. I launched Aaj Tak which was a financially very healthy company. It did high quality news, it had a large number of viewers and it was profitable. Hence, it could invest in content. Today, the scenario is very different.

I think too much is made out of this whole thing of news versus entertainment. At the end of the day, the viewer is the same. In a way, news allows you to engage with the consumer in a very dynamic environment and it gives you those insights. Those insights helped me.

The other thing that helped me is that as a news editor or journalist you get to develop some understandings and insights about the Indian society which in all humility I think the entertainment guys lack completely. Their reference to India is a few films, a few shows and little stories that they pick up in newspapers. Sometimes I see what is portrayed in our films and stories and dramas about India is completely unrealistic. And that is what my advantage was in this aspect. Because I had done so many years of journalism, I understood India very well. My general understanding of this country, both as a journalist and as a student of social sciences, was fairly evolved. I think that helped.

Q. When you inherited the chair, Star India had slipped into some sort of a management mess. What were the ills that you had to correct?
No ills. Star was a great company even then and it had a solid leadership. It had an amazing brand; I don’t think there is or there ever will be a media brand in this country that would be as big as Star. The problem is that it was the victim of its own success. There was a sense of complacency that had set in.

The other thing that had happened is that there was a disconnect that had developed between the channel and its viewers. The cable and satellite (C&S) TV universe had penetrated deeper into the countryside. And our creative, marketing and distribution strategies were not in sync to capture the new markets that had come into the C&S homes. I think that was the biggest challenge which I had to tackle. And that is what we have done slowly – by going regional, by creating stories which are more diversified and realistic. We got content which echoed the new sentiments, the new aspirations and the new women. We brought that into Star Plus by way of ‘Rishta Vohi Soch Nayi’.

I also think that we changed the talent mix inside the channel and also the mix of the producers outside the channel. We brought in a bunch of young producers who were producing their first shows at that time. They brought in a fresh pair of eyes and a certain amount of freshness of creativity – and I would like to think that they were better connected. So that’s what helped.

Q. Was there a need to bring about changes in Star Plus in phases? Are we seeing the Aamir Khan show as part of that content evolution?
I don’t see those as different phases. I see them as a journey of evolution for a company, a channel, an entertainment network and for me as a professional.

We were doing a certain kind of stories, we were reaching out to a certain kind of audiences and were addressing a certain kind of market. Slowly, we wanted to expand and diversify in all these three areas. First we started doing different kinds of dramas and then a different kind of non-fiction shows which finally evolved into ‘Satyamev Jayate’ (the Aamir Khan show launched in May 2012 and aired on Sunday mornings). However, it would be a mistake to say that ‘Satyame Jayate’ was the first such step that we took. As early as four years ago, we did a show with Kiran Bedi called ‘Aap ki kacheri…Kiran ke saath’ and in 2009 had ‘Sacch ka Samna’. In drama, we launched Kaali – Ek Agnipariksha.

I go back to the philiosophy that I carry from my journalism background – we must constantly try out new things and must constantly innovate. Because the biggest story of yesterday becomes stale today. And that is something which is deeply ingrained in me.

Q. When you earlier spoke about sports broadcast, you mentioned about drama becoming a bit of a commodity. What made you say that?
Anybody who has the money and an idea can go and create a drama – lease the producer, the writer and the studio. But even if you have the money and the idea, you can’t go and create a sporting property because it is locked in IP. You have to have the teams and the sporting board has to back you up. In that sense, the access to drama is commoditised. But that is not the case with sporting content. If you want to create a cricket tournament, you can’t do it unless the BCCI is supporting it. And BCCI won’t go and support any cricket tournament.

‘My bosses and I are very clear about one thing: reinvesting in the business far more aggressively than taking out profits because India is a growth market and we are building a network that would grow and thrive in the future as well. This is the most critical phase of building the network. If we don’t continue to invest aggressively and ahead of the curve in a market that is so dynamic and evolving and segmenting, then the market forces might overtake us. While we will always try to keep a very sharp eye on the profits, we will not be greedy about profit margins‘

Q. Is entertainment content limited by the fact that India is primarily a single TV household country? That is a bit of a concern. There is mature adult explicit content that you can’t do in a single TV household. Even otherwise, you can’t do that in multiple TV households because not everybody in his or her bedroom wants to watch adult content; the content consumption habits are heavily determined by our cultural systems. I am not sure whether Star as a network would want to do such kind of content even in multiple TV households.

But what is bad is that the government, the regulator and a bunch of self-styled policemen want to act on behalf of the audiences. They act as guardians thinking that the audience is a mass of retarded, dumb, unintelligent people who do not know what is good for them. You go and show them one kiss and it is as if the whole culture of India will collapse. It doesn’t work like that. And these are the people who either have a vested interest and say this because they want to control media or their mindset is so corrupt and regressive that they think that because they have a dirty mind, the whole world has a dirty mind.

Q. But isn’t the growth of niche content limited by single TV households in India?
Surely, because niche content means content that is of interest to a very small set of people. It is difficult to have a business model for niche channels in an analogue cable environment where there is bandwidth constraint. A channel on health, education, classical music and serious political drama will not interest a large number of people and youngsters. Older audiences are not generally interested in science fiction; nor are women in crime or thriller-based shows. In a single TV household you will have to do content which appeals to a large common denominator.

In Star Plus, for instance, we don’t want to put content that won’t deliver reach; it simply doesn’t work for us. But digitisation will change this whole content game. We can then create a channel only for youth or for older men or for teenagers. And audiences having digital cable can choose individual channels; in an analogue system they have to take the whole bunch of channels and pay for it. Why will a family having no youngster in the house want a youth channel? And if there is no old parent living with me, I wouldn’t want a channel meant for old people.

Q. Star Plus made an effort in creating a Sunday morning band and we have seen other channels follow that. Is it possible to drive in audiences regularly in these time slots?
I hope so. I do think that on Sundays there is an appetite that we as content providers are not able to satisfy. Sunday content is generally not satisfying except for a movie that gets shown once in a while.

The quality and quantity of Sunday content is not adequate. Broadcasters should step in to fill that gap with all kinds of programming. What matters is the emotions that your content triggers, the stories that you tell and the connect that you build.

Q. Haven’t all Hindi entertainment networks evacuated the afternoon band?
This is kind of sad but reflects our economic compulsions. The advertising market is tough, rates are under pressure, subscription incomes aren’t going up much and the programming costs are up. That is why broadcasters have to do all kinds of things. But it is not good in the long run. There are a large number of people who tune in to watch TV in the afternoons. It is an audience that all of us had built over a period of time. I guess broadcasters have all had to take short sighted and tactical steps.

I also think that there is another challenge. The creative capacity, particularly in Mumbai, is not developed enough. Or not broad enough to cater to the prime time, afternoon and the weekend needs of such a large number of Hindi entertainment channels. So somewhere the capacity construct is also influencing. You are not getting high quality content. At least that is what our experience has been.

Q. Hindi GECs are almost entirely depending on prime time for ad revenues. As we are in the midst of an economic slowdown, is this the wrong time to make that shift and cultivate other time bands?
There are challenges in opening other time bands. But there is never a right time and there is always a right time. The last few months have not been great for advertising. That has pulled back broadcasters from experimenting with the afternoon slots. But I see this as a short term tactical withdrawal.

Q. Since Star is as you say an amazing brand, why did you create the OK brand for your second channels in the Hindi general entertainment and movie space?
Though we have a big portfolio, each market in India is segmenting and new competition is coming. We were getting restricted because in Hindi we had only one channel and Star One was not doing well. When we were looking at fixing Star One, we thought why should we limit the company to just one brand. Though Star is an awesome brand property, we decided to create one more brand. That is how the OK brand was born.

Q. Is Star being identified as premium and the OK brand with a more general appeal?
I don’t see the positioning of Star Plus or Zee TV or Sony as any different but pretty much similar. If at all, we see Star Plus to be the channel that’s identified more closely with people who are more aspirational and OK with those who are satisfied with life. That is the only distinction we think we can make.

Q. Is this more in tune with a flanking strategy?
I don’t believe in flanking strategies at all. It is a very boring and owner-driven mindset. Viewers do not understand anything of that; they want to go to a channel and a programme that they like. Everything competes with everything in this market. It is a very dynamic and fluid market where one remote changes everything. Flanking is perhaps a product conceived by somebody who has been influenced by a military mindset and didn’t understand media much.

‘The C&S TV universe had penetrated deeper into the countryside. And our creative, marketing and distribution strategies were not in sync to capture the new markets that had come into the C&S homes. I think that was the biggest challenge which I had to tackle. And that is what we have done slowly – by going regional, by creating stories which are more diversified and realistic‘

Q. Do you see the need of a second channel, particularly in a digital environment which will lead to further audience fragmentation?
It will always help in segmenting the market. But there is no question of a second GEC. Who knows? The viewer doesn’t. That is why we have decided to keep Life OK totally separate from Star Plus. A large number of viewers may not be even aware that the two channels are owned by the same company.

In a market where there is Star Plus, Life OK, Zee TV, Colors, Sony, Sab and Sahara, everyone competes with everyone. At an ownership level, you might have two channels. But in the marketplace, the two channels are relevant only when they are the only two channels.

But yes, second channels help in aggregating audiences. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to address the entire Hindi heartland through one channel. Demographic segmentation is also taking place.

Q. Was Movies OK conceived because Star had a vast movie library and a new channel gave it more ad inventory to sell?
India is a very movie crazy market. TV attracts more audiences than cinema theatres for movies. We beefed up Star Gold. We thought we should go deeper into that market and so launched a second movie channel. In any case, we had invested in a big enough movie library.

Movies OK gives more fizz to the OK brand. And opens up ad inventory.

Q. Will we see more launches in the OK brand?
It is always an option. In Hindi entertainment content, we have already got Life OK and Movies OK. Unless there is some clarity on the digitisation front, I am not sure we are going to launch more channels in the near future. We have a huge challenge on the sports front and need to build it after the deal (buyout of Disney’s stake in ESPN Star Sports) finds the necessary regulatory approvals. We also need to consolidate Life OK and Movies OK.

Q. What led Channel [V] to shed its Bollywood music content to become a youth GEC from 1 July?
In the ‘90s, Channel [V] and MTV connected to the youth through music offerings. But now music has become a commodity; it is accessible across many devices including FM radio, mobile and online sites. So we needed a different proposition to get to the youth segment. We came up with the idea of capturing their aspirations through regular TV viewing formats and dramas; we thought this way we would integrate more deeply with youth and address them more effectively.

The other route some music broadcasters have taken is some kind of non-fiction content which reduces youth to being sex-starved and having non-thinking minds. Reality shows like Roadies (MTV) have painted the youth as a group that is sensually-driven. We have not gone through that path. We believe the youth is interested in society, career and education.

Q. How is Zeel’s Ebitda margins from non sports business (Q1 Fy’13 at 34%) higher than Star’s which market estimates say is around 25-27per cent?
First of all, I am not commenting on Ebitda margins because Star doesn’t discuss its financials. But my bosses and I are very clear about one thing: reinvesting in the business far more aggressively than taking out profits because India is a growth market and we are building a network that would grow and thrive in the future as well. This is the most critical phase of building the network. If we don’t continue to invest aggressively and ahead of the curve in a market that is so dynamic and evolving and segmenting, then the market forces might overtake us. While we will always try to keep a very sharp eye on the profits, we will not be greedy about profit margins.

Q. Will digitisation increase content costs with many more channels being launched?
Yes, but your earnings should also go up. If you have more channels, you will have more inventory to sell and your subscription income should be more if you succeed.

Q. Will Star launch new channels or enter into new regional markets?
No, I don’t see any immediate plans. In regional markets, the carriage capacity is even more constrained. Even if digitisation happens with contracts, its impact will not be felt for at least 2-3 years after the implementation.

We might do small channels here and there. We just launched a movie channel in Kerala (in July) to take our bouquet of Malayalam channels to three – Asianet, Asianet Plus and Asianet Movies. In Tamil Nadu, we have Vijay TV which is a very successful Tamil GEC but is still not the leader. There is an opportunity to make it grow bigger. In Kannada, we have Suvarna which is doing very well now and is the No. 1 channel in prime time. But it is still not the unqualified leader in the Karnataka market. So there are certain unfinished agendas that we have to first complete before we launch something new.

Q. Sun TV network is seeing some sort of market share erosion due to cable TV distribution being challenged by state-owned Arasu Cable. It is also losing control over movie studios in the state. Will Star be aggressive in Tamil Nadu to capitalise on this opportunity?
Everybody has been talking about it (market share erosion) but it has not happened yet. And I don’t see that happening in a hurry, if at all. Don’t forget that despite everything, Sun has built a very loyal viewership profile. It also has many channels and is, thus, able to segment the market very well.

The shift in viewership you are talking about is marginal, not gigantic. There would always be a bit of an opening in that market but it would be a mistake to swing to the other extreme. Sun has some very strong content and some very successful channels. And those are not easy to take away.

I won’t launch anything where we don’t have clarity on breaking even and making the business profitable. Otherwise, it doesn’t make business sense. And right now there is no business model.

Q. When Star expanded into regional-language markets why did it look at Bengali and Marathi GECs?
Though the states of Bengal and Maharashtra form part of the Hindi TV viewing population, they are also distinct linguistic markets with strongly driven local creative communities. While Gujarat and Punjab are also attractive markets, the creative class does not work in the local language. Mumbai is more attractive for them and they find it lucrative churning out Hindi content. We, thus, decided to launch Bengali and Marathi GECs first.

Q. Why are broadcasters pressing for a new television ratings system under the aegis of BARC?
Television advertising is cheaply priced today. TAM (the sole TV audience ratings agency in India) does not map the entire C&S universe and only a part of India is measured. We want the ratings coverage to spread out into more areas and socio-economic demographics.

The ratings system should primarily be for a broadcast market. BARC will reflect this need of the broadcasters and allow them to monetise the eyeballs that they deliver more effectively.

‘The last 20 years belong not to Star but to Zee’ : Star India CEO Peter Mukherjea

Peter Mukerjea became the CEO of Star India at a crucial period of satellite television history in India when the relationship between two media moguls Rupert Murdoch and Subhash Chandra had soured.

led Star against India’s homegrown broadcasting business of Chandra and took its flagship Hindi general entertainment channel (GEC) Star Plus to the top in 2000, the position it still enjoys after he quit to try his hands at his own private equity-backed broadcasting venture.

The former Star India CEO admits that the last 20 years of private television broadcasting belong to Subhash Chandra despite himself being at the helm of a significant piece of Indian broadcasting history by successfully leading Star India.

In a tete a tete with Indiantelevision.com’s Sibabrata Das, Mukerjea speaks candidly about how Chandra has outrun Star and Sony and today “runs the most effective broadcasting network, has a thriving cable business and was the first to launch DTH in India”.

Excerpts:

Q. Rupert Murdoch and Subhash Chandra started as allies and formed a joint venture. But this relationship turned stormy by the time you became Star India CEO. How bitter was it?
The relationship with Zee was initially harmonious. But as News Corp started becoming more grounded in the Indian market and established its capability, Chandra’s views on Star, Murdoch and a multinational broadcaster changed.

That in a way was inevitable to happen. So long as Star was in English and Zee in Hindi, the two companies operated in two ecosystems. The moment Star started Hindi content, Chandra saw it as a violation of the joint venture agreement and there was a major shift in relationship between the two partners.

Q. And the beginning of the pay TV industry in India also helped in Chandra taking a hostile approach?
Yes, it built a hostile environment. Alongside the personal stresses and strains, pay TV was becoming a reality in India. Murdoch has experienced pay TV in other markets and successfully developed it in his sprawling media empire. Chandra knew this.

Though the two also ran an equal joint venture in Siticable (the cable TV outfit), there was mutual suspicion. The partnership became frigid and fell apart.

I was in the hot seat as CEO. And the only way to progress was for Zee to buy out News Corp’s stakes in the joint ventures – which they eventually did. Having finished with that task, Star got an opportunity to do a total Hindi entertainment channel. Punit Goenka (son of Chandra and now in charge of Zeel and Zee News Ltd ) was a baby then and Chandra was running the company.

Q. Were Chandra and Murdoch bitter even when they met after they split?
Even when the meetings were pleasant, there was always tension in the background. Both were media moguls in different parts of the world and there was mutual respect. But it was always laced with a fair amount of rivalry.

Q. In your early days as CEO, how did you find Chandra’s aggressive attacks?
There were lots of questions put in Parliament and Star was accused of repatriating money from India and showing obscene content (Star Movies). Some of these were public petitions but we suspected that they were from our competitors. We, though, had no proof that they were Zee-backed.

‘Lobbying, having deeper pockets, being able to hire better executives – all these don’t matter. In love and war, all is fair. As a piece of history, it is Chandra who started DTH first in India. He has a strong presence in cable and runs the most effective broadcasting network in India. It is only in sports broadcasting that he needs an international partner‘

Q. Murdoch always wanted to be the first to launch direct-to-home (DTH) operations in India. So what made Chandra beat Murdoch in this race?You can say it is because of lobbying or whatever. But the truth is that Chandra launched the first DTH platform in India. And he deserves credit for that.

Q. Even Murdoch is known as a lobby master. Is that how you see this as a neutral proposition?
Lobbying, having deeper pockets, being able to hire better executives – all these don’t matter. In love and war, all is fair. As a piece of history, it is Chandra who started DTH first in India.

Q. So who would you say ruled the first 20 years of private satellite television broadcasting in India?
The last 20 years surely belong to Chandra. He runs the most effective broadcasting network in India today. He has created an Indian product and has built a phenomenal international business with that content. He is the first to set up a regional-language network across India. And he has a strong presence in DTH and cable.

Q. You say this even though you used to work in Star and later head it?
Yes, you have to give credit to the man. He has worked so hard getting back, despite being knocked off in Hindi entertainment business in 2000. That was the time he expanded into different languages. Chandra has helped Zee stay probably as the largest broadcasting business in India today and as a publicly listed company. He had a longer part of the rule in these 20 years.

Zee has outrun everybody else. It’s not Star, not Sony but Zee which is the leader of the pack. And this despite not having the backing of the multinationals which have an advantage in bringing truck loads of money. Look at the impact he has had in Indian society and entertainment culture. Zee has connected deeply with the Indians.

Q. Do you see Chandra becoming a leader in sports broadcasting?
He has to find an international sports partner. Though India is just cricket, he needs to step out of the base and bet much bigger. If he has higher risk-taking ability in sports and finds an international partner to provide richness in content, Zee will become a strong competitor to Star in sports broadcasting.

Q. But didn’t he bid the highest for the ICC World CUP and also the BCCI rights?
You can blame that on pedigree. The sad truth is that if you are a decision maker in allocating sports rights, you may go for a lower bid which has greater capability rather than give it to the one whose monetary bid was higher.

Q. Chandra is now stepping into local languages in overseas markets like Middle East and Russia. Is the timing good?
After building a solid business in India, Chandra is now stepping out to other parts of the world. There are great opportunities in eastern Europe or the entire Soviet Union country base. Parts of America are also a good hunting ground.

I think it is a great strategy. Chandra has built the capability, the resources and the relationships. And it is not a bad time to strike. News Corp is going through a crisis and a lot of management time is wasted on external issues rather than businesses. Zee can capture market share and grow it.

Q. Do you think Zee’s over-the-top (OTT) platform has a fair chance to succeed?
There are serious rights issues and OTT is not still an open book. The bulk of the revenues in OTT is in the movie business. Chandra will have to wait it out. But it is creditable to pursue OTT and see it as a future growth business. Even in India, OTT will happen and grow alongside TV.

Q. Would you have loved to work as CEO of Zee?
That is difficult to say and I have never thought of it. I have never spent time with Chandra to understand him as an individual and what his goals are. A lot depends on the personal chemistry that you share with your personal boss. If goals do not match, then that relationship can’t work.

Q. How much does an organisational culture matter?
The promoter always brings a certain kind of personality into the organisation. But a lot depends on the CEO rather than the owner in influencing that culture; he brings his style and charm to the operations of the company.

There are many critics who say the corporate culture in News Corp is not as wonderful as it is supposed to be. Citing the phone hacking issue, they say the organisational culture is wrong. There is, thus, no fixed solution to corporate culture.

October 3, 2012

Star in process of selling its 26% stake in MCCS to ABP

MUMBAI: Star India is in the process of transacting the sale of its 26 per cent stake in Media Content & Communications Services (MCCS), the company that owns and operates three news channels, to its joint venture partner Ananda Bazar Patrika (ABP) Group.

“We have offered our shares to ABP Group at a mutually agreed value. We are in the process of selling our entire stake in MCCS”, said Star India chief executive officer Uday Shankar in an interview with Indiantelevision.com.

The completion of the transaction will free News Corp from owning any stake in a local news venture in India. Star had already disengaged itself from any involvement in MCCS and the Star brand name had been taken out of the Hindi, Bengali and Marathi news channels.

In April this year, Star and Ananda Bazar Patrika (ABP) Group had announced their divorce. MCCS, the joint venture company with Star as a 26 per cent stake owner and ABP holding the balance 74 per cent, launched Star News in March 2004, Star Ananda (Bengali) in June 2005 and Star Majha (Marathi) in June 2007.

According to a source, Star is selling its stake at a value that is not high. Shankar, however, declined to talk on this. “We do not talk about our financials. All that I can say is that we have split amicably,” he said.

MCCS has operationally broken even since FY’11, from its loss of around Rs 60 million in the earlier year on a revenue of Rs 2.13 billion, according to market estimates. The company’s revenue in FY’12 has crossed Rs 2.6 billion.

When asked whether Star was planning to buy a stake in NDTV, Shankar said the company had decided to exit the news business in India because of the 26 per cent FDI cap in the news sector. “We will not invest in any news venture including NDTV till the FDI cap is upped. “

Star feels that the whole economics of the TV news business in India is not working. “News Corp is not a financial investor. If you are not in the driver’s seat or have no significant say in the business, it doesn’t make strategic sense at all,” said Shankar.

But won’t the former MCCS CEO and a newsman himself miss the news business? “We have created a tremendous entertainment footprint and will now build the sports business. News is definitely a gap in our portfolio. But unless there is a change in the FDI limit, it doesn’t make sense,” said Shankar.

Balaji Telefilms is the other joint venture company where Star has exited from any involvement but is holding on to its 25.9 per cent stake. While Star has been wanting to sell for long, the promoters of Balaji Telefilms have not made the purchase yet as the share prices have slipped drastically over the years. In the joint venture termination agreement inked in 2008, Balaji had the right to purchase the shareholding held by Star for an aggregate price of Rs 190 per share. But that period has lapsed and Star has the right to independently find a buyer for its stake in Balaji Telefilms.

September 5, 2012
‘BCCI rights great opportunity to build Star’s sports biz’ : Star India CEO Uday Shankar

Star India CEO Uday Shankar, conqueror of TV news and entertainment business, is ready to wage a new battle in sports broadcasting.

When the BCCI rights came up for grabs after the abrupt termination of contract with Nimbus, Shankar quickly pounced upon it. He tiptoed in, surprising hot contender Sony to pocket the prized rights to telecast international cricket in India from 2012 through 2018. His winning bid: a whopping Rs 38.5 billion.

“We believe in the power and value of cricket as content in India. By acquiring the BCCI rights for telecast, we think it is a great opportunity to create a new business,” he says.

Shankar‘s timing couldn‘t have been better. A couple of months later, joint venture partner Disney agreed to sell its 50 per cent stake in ESPN Star Sports, allowing Star to aggressively build and expand the sports broadcasting business in India.

“Drama and cricket are the two big pools of content that the masses love to watch in India. We are already a key player in entertainment. Now we can have independent charge over the sports broadcasting business,” he says.

Shankar has placed huge bets on digitisation that would plug leakages in subscription revenue and dramatically increase the paying subscribers to broadcasters. “In the current construct, those rights are not profitable. The market is primarily so unattractive because of the theft and leakage in subscription revenues. Digitisation would enable content owners to get a better share of the subscription revenue,” he avers.

In the first part of the interview with Indiantelevision.com‘s Sibabrata Das, Shankar talks about Star‘s game plan in sports broadcasting, the rise in acquisition costs, the huge opportunity that digitisation would throw open and the need to build a robust subscription income.

Excerpts:

Q. Why did News Corp. and Disney end their 16-year-old joint venture partnership in ESPN Star Sports (ESS) when it allowed them to lead the sports broadcasting business in Asia?
When the discussions started two years back, it was not on a buyout proposal but on how to take ESS forward in a changed market environment. The sports business was under financial pressure and both partners were worried. The Champions League T20 rights (for $975 million) did not bring much value. Acquisition prices were rising and competition was not helping stem it. This later turned into the need to go separate ways but the possession of the rights over sporting events made a split in the properties complex and impossible.

The obvious course was to acquire the entire 50 per cent stake of the joint venture partner and be the sole owner. The deal took time because Disney had to take the final call on whether it wanted ESPN to exit from Asia.

Q. When Star bid for the BCCI rights on its own, had Disney agreed to sell or it was an act of defiance to build a sports broadcasting business outside the JV?
We were still discussing the future of ESS when the BCCI rights came up for renewal. And because there was no clarity on the future of ESS, we could not come to an understanding on what its position would be on BCCI. We at Star knew the strategic value this property would add to our thriving entertainment business. We expressed an interest that in case ESS was not clear and since the bid had a final deadline which was approaching fast, Star would go ahead and bid for the rights as a one-off.

Even in the JV agreement, this kind of provision was there that either party (ESPN or Star) could go and bid for the rights. However, they could not use the rights on their own without the approval of the other party. So we agreed that instead of letting BCCI go away to a competitor, Star would bid for it as a one-off and then assign the rights to ESS in case they wanted it. If ESS didn‘t want, Star could go ahead and broadcast it. So that‘s how it happened.

Q. Did the BCCI rights tilt the deal in your favour as we understand that even Disney had expressed an intent to acquire News Corp‘s stake in ESS (though they had made heavy investments in UTV and were looking at consolidating that business)?
The two are not linked. We were very clear that it would be a one-off bid (for rights). Now let‘s assume that Disney had bought out ESS. Then they would have definitely insisted on a non-compete agreement and we would have had to find a way of handing over BCCI. I don‘t know what would have happened; that‘s a conversation one can only speculate on. But if Disney had chosen to play in the sports market here, then they would have definitely tried to also get a piece of the BCCI.

Q. When you realised the strategic value of the BCCI rights, did the fear of Sony haunt you as it had the lucrative IPL (Indian Premier League) rights and its entertainment business was on the upswing?
Of course, it was an important consideration. It would have made Sony a very formidable player in the sports space. And we were then not present in that space; we were only an entertainment company.

We also knew that there were a few others like Ten Sports and BCCL (Benett Coleman and Company Ltd) who had bought the tender documents. All of them were key competitors. And anybody who had the cricket rights would have a serious strategic weapon.

But that wasn‘t why we decided to go for the BCCI rights. We definitely believe in the power and value of cricket as content. It gets the largest number of viewers across all target groups. We also genuinely believe that there is an opportunity to improve the quality of cricket on TV. And we thought the best place to start that would be the BCCI rights.

‘In the current construct, those rights are not profitable. Our big punt is in digitisation‘

Q. Was the bid of Rs 38.51 billion on the higher side?
You would bid only what is the rational value of the tournament and not beyond reasonable limits. In fact, Sony and our bids were pretty close; it clearly tells you that there was a consistent logic that both of us were applying.

You must appreciate that nobody had the time to plan for it because it happened suddenly. BCCI (rights) wasn‘t on Sony‘s or anybody‘s horizon. It was comfortably settled with Nimbus; they were holding the rights for almost six years and they were going to have it for several years more. If anybody says it was part of their serious strategic consideration, that wouldn‘t be correct. How can you plan for something that is not available in the market? But when it came up for grabs, everybody thought it was a great opportunity. And we definitely thought of it is as a great opportunity to create a new business.

Q. But since it was unplanned, you could have overestimated the value of the property? Or how did you arrive at a right value?
There was a reserve price that BCCI had indicated and based on that we did the mathematical calculations. The ad rates for India cricket matches per 10 seconds and the kind of distribution revenues that can be earned are available in the market. So based on that we did our calculations.

Q. Media analysts say those numbers wouldn‘t make up for the bid amount unless digitisation happens. Did you bet too heavily on digitisation when you did the calculations?
In the current construct, those rights are not profitable. The market is primarily so unattractive because of the theft and leakage in subscription revenues. More than Rs 150 billion gets collected from the ground in form of subscription income. But the net off carriage fees that comes to the broadcasters and content owners is a small fraction of that.

Our big punt is that in the next couple of years when digitisation moves significantly forward, a lot of that would change. The leakages would have been plugged, there would be more fair and transparent business processes. And that would enable content owners to get a better share of the subscription revenue.

Sports nowhere in the world has sustained on advertising revenue; that is a small part of it. Wherever it makes money, it makes it on the back of subscription income. And that is what we are hoping would happen in India as well.

Q. Since Star has a very strong entertainment broadcasting business, will the network power not enable you to push up advertising rates for your sports properties?
You can‘t move that synergy to up the ad rates much just because you have more properties under your belt. The target audiences and the set of advertisers are different. The big advertisers on sports, for instance, are telecom and auto companies. General entertainment channels primarily address a female TG.

So you can‘t play much on network strength. We have not factored in any dramatic upside in advertising revenues. Let‘s face it; ad rates can‘t go beyond a certain level of elasticity.

Q. Are you expecting ARPUs (average revenue per subscriber) to climb with digitisation of cable networks?
No, I am not factoring in a tremendous increase in ARPUs. India is always a value conscious market and cricket is a mass market product. There would, of course, be some people who have the ability to pay higher value. But most people won‘t pay that kind of money.

There is also enough competition in the market which would ensure that the ARPUs don‘t go beyond a certain limit. What we are looking at is the big shift in cable that should happen. In case of transparency, we clearly see a visible link between the subscriber base and the payouts.

Q. What sort of paying subscribers would sports broadcasters attract?
If the whole country goes digital, you are talking about 120-130 million C&S homes in the next few years. Even if you say 60 per cent of the entire universe goes cable, you are talking about 70-75 million C&S homes.

The 8-9 million paying subscribers for sports currently under analogue cable would go up significantly. Sports is driven by events. But at any time, the genre would be attracting 60-70 per cent of the total subscriber base. I think that is the ratio that DTH (direct-to-home) gets.

‘Sports had been relatively less competitive in India because the two big players were together. Now since ESPN and Star have parted ways, the next 5-10 years, will see a new round of competitiveness and aggression in the sports market‘

Q. After having acquired the BCCI rights for such an aggressive price, will Star match that aggression for the upcoming cricket boards that will be up for grabs within a year?
We neither choose to nor can afford to be over aggressive. If we are also aggressive, then rights prices would shoot up. Now it is Sony‘s and Ten Sports‘ turn to be aggressive.

Q. Do you see acquisition prices climbing further?
If the competitive norm stays, then there will definitely be a tendency for the acquisition prices to go up. A lot, however, depends on how the distribution market pans out. If the distribution market continues to be so leaky and porous and cable stays largely analogue, then even the current prices will be unsustainable. However, if the digital transformation happens and if there is a matured digital distribution market that comes up, then definitely the prices will go up.

Q. Even if Disney decides to come back after the two-year non-compete period is over and India continues to have analogue cable?
I am not too sure if it continues to be analogue, how many players would be interest. That is the biggest stumbling block. But on the other hand, I also think analogue cable will not survive even if the current digital initiatives fail to go through; analogue will dies on its own. This is a funny market. The analogue experience is poor and the number of channels that the consumers can watch is very few. The cable operator doesn‘t pay taxes; nor does he pay fair value to the content owner. How long will the society tolerate this kind of a distorted model?

Q. Consumers are probably tolerating analogue cable because the ARPUs are low?
The ARPUs are not that low. How much does DTH charge? You can‘t charge beyond a certain reasonable price. What you can charge consumers also depends on affordability and the kind of value that they attach to it. Price doesn‘t escalate in isolation; there has to be a realistic basis.

In certain areas of Mumbai, cable subscription is Rs 300-350 per month. In low income areas, people are paying less. ARPUs are not uniformly low. That will happen in a digital environment also.

Q. Can‘t acquisition prices for cricket rights go up because of strategic value that the property brings?
No mature media company will pay irrationally high for strategic reasons unless this can translate into business value. If they do that, they will go bankrupt. There are a couple of media companies who are prime examples of that. There is a company that launched an entertainment channel and decided to go completely crazy for what they thought was the strategic value. The strategic value worked so well for them that they had to sell out. The news companies have gone ahead and spent so much money on all kinds of distribution, etc. We know the financial mess they are all in.

You think anybody would pay obscenely high just because it has strategic value. Star would not do that; nor would Sony and Zee. If BCCI prices were double this and tomorrow if IPL is available for three times more, would I go and buy those rights? No way. I don‘t want to go and acquire rights and be sacked or drive my company bankrupt.

Q. With the current distribution of cricket properties across sports broadcasters, what sort of dominance will Star have?
It is very difficult for anyone to have any kind of very big position in market share, let alone dominance. In this market, every sector of broadcasting and media is so competitive. Whether it is entertainment, news or regional, one thing that we have seen is that there is new competition coming in every day.

If anything, sports all these years has seen less and less of competition in India primarily because there was a JV between ESPN and Star. Until IPL came, it was just ESPN-Star. Sony had a game only because it got the IPL; without it, it would have been a marginal player. Ten Sports continues to be a marginal player except for a few rights they have like the South Africa and the Sri Lanka boards.

Sports broadcasting requires heavy investments. And not everybody may have the appetite to take big risks unless you are a Zee or Sony, specially because the distribution deals are so uncertain.

Since ESPN and Star have parted ways, it is only a matter of time that Disney and ESPN will come back to India. So I think over the next 5-10 years, you will see a new round of competitiveness and aggression in the sports market. Sony has launched a sports channel; they will have to really work hard to build that and will need more rights. I am sure they will surely bid aggressive for whatever rights come up. Ten Sports will also be forced to bid for a few more rights if they want to stay competitive in the game. You saw how expensive their bid was for the South Africa rights. The price they paid was pretty high and they got it.

Sports had been relatively less competitive in this country because the two big players were together. That phenomena is set to change.

Q. But in UK you have News Corp as a big player and ESPN as a much smaller player. Wouldn‘t India replicate that market?
Those are very settled markets and even there that is not quite the case. In India tell me one sector of media where one single player sits with 50 per cent share. When it started, that may have been the case. About 20 years ago, Zee had a large share. Then Star came and build a large share in Hindi entertainment. See how competitive the market is today.

Take regional. The only market where one player continues to build a very big share is Sun network in Tamil Nadu. And we all know the reasons behind that. But if it‘s a freee market, then it is difficult for anybody to take a 50 per cent or a 40 per cent share. Very, very difficult.

India is an emerging market. So global attention is on this market. Media, despite all the softening, is still delivering the second largest growth rate in the world year-on-year. And that will continue to be the case for a long time. The most attractive growth rate market is not available so easily for media. China does not allow media that easily. So where can you dominate ? India has a huge consumer base; you are talking of 120-130 million C&S homes. Incomes are going up. I think there will be more and more people coming in.

Western media companies are looking at India primarily because they are not getting growth in their own markets. More and more large Indian companies are stepping in. You have seen what has happened in the last 2-3 years. Big Indian corporates have made their foray into media. Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) and Aditya Birla have come into media. I think media is going to get more and more competitive. And no matter how much money you might have, no matter how aggressive you might be, I don‘t see a situation where anybody will be able to build a 50 per cent share in any vertical.

Q. Since Rupert Murdoch had said that IPL was a big miss, would Star‘s next big stretch be on acquiring its rights when it becomes available in future?
Of course, it was a big miss. I don‘t even know what the contractual agreement between Sony and BCCI is. They may have a preferred access to renew it. But if it comes up and continues to be a strong property, then we will surely be interested. We have seen a little bit of softening in IPL and hopefully that‘s temporary. But the renewal is long away and it would depend on what BCCI‘s price expectation is at that stage.

Q. Do you see cricket viewership plateauing?
Cricket viewership depends on a variety of things. First and foremost is the nature of the tournament. Following immediately afterwards is the performance of India. I think there is a value to be obtained from that.

The quality of TV broadcast can make a big difference to how much the viewership can grow. Sports broadcasters generally have done a very good job of providing a professional cricket experience to the viewers. But it seems to have plateaued.

The only rule of content – and that applies to drama, sports, news, anything – is that the sameness brings in fatigue. And there is a certain amount of sameness that seems to have settled in sports. That is the reason why cricket viewership might be peaking. If we can disrupt that sameness, bring in innovation and fresh approach to connectivity, to visual and to graphics, I think given the passion that cricket generates in this country only sky is the limit for viewership. When cricket is played in every nook and corner literally, how can you say that the viewership has peaked. I think the viewership can grow a great deal more provided we continue to grow and build on the experience that we can provide. And there the broadcasters and the boards can do a lot more together.

Q. Are you talking of introducing doses of entertainment?
No, I am not suggesting that. You can‘t turn cricket into soaps; you have to stay true to the sport. But within that, you have to innovate. And there is so much of technology to be used – you see what has happened in the last 10-15 years! New graphic technology has come in and the kind of replays that we get to see only can enhance the viewing experience. You can further enhance that experience a great deal more.

September 4, 2012
Life OK topples Sab, touches high of 123 GRPs

MUMBAI: Star India’s gamble of ceasing non-performing second rung Hindi general entertainment channel Star One and starting afresh with a channel sans Star branding is paying off.

Life OK, the second Hindi GEC channel from the Star stable, has reached its all time high with 123 GRPs (gross rating points) in the week ended 19 May.

As per Tam data for the Hindi speaking markets (C&S, 4+), the channel has added 33 GRPs in the week. It has also overtaken Multi Screen Media’s second Hindi GEC Sab to capture the fifth position on the GEC ladder.

“We are happy that within six months of launch we have reached so far. What is important is that viewers are connecting to our core philosophy of ‘appreciating what we have’. All our shows are highlighting a cause or issue and viewers are appreciating it,” Life OK GM Ajit Thakur told Indiantelevision.com.

He added that despite very big shows, it’s the “philosophy and disruptive strategy” which is working for the channel.

For Life OK, its mythological show Devon Ke Dev Mahadev remained the top gainer. With the high point during the week, the average weekly ratings of the show surged from 1.1 TVR in the last week to 2.3 TVR in the week ended 19 May.

Also, Saubhagyawati Bhava’s average ratings have gone up to 1.4 TVR from 1.1 TVR in the previous week.

Thakur said that in the coming week, two shows – Saubhagyawati Bhava and Mai Laxmi Tere Aangan Ki – will have high points, which will further give a peak to the channel. The channel will also have a week-long special of Savdhan India.

Thakur said that Star India has allowed the channel to take big risks and that he has the youngest team with passion and commitment to run the channel, which is helping in growing it.

Launched on 18 December last year, Life OK had debuted with 87 GRPs in its kitty.

Meanwhile, a look at the other channels’ scorecard:

Star Plus maintained its lead, even if it lost 14 GRPs during the week. The channel ended the week with 262 GRPs. Satyamev Jayate rated 4.4 TVR in HSM markets (All 4+, HSM) and a national TVR of 3.7 (All 4+, All India).

These are simulcast ratings of the original episode aired on Sunday morning 11 am across nine channels (Star Plus, Star Pravah, Star Jalsha, Star World, Star Utsav, Star Vijay, Asianet, ETV Telegu and Doordarshan).

Four of its primetime shows found place among the top 10 shows on the Hindi GECs.

Zee TV and Colors shared second spot with 213 GRPs each. While Colors added 12 GRPs to its last week’s tally, Zee TV lost 11 GRPs.

Zee TV’s DID Li’L Masters and its auditions episode featured in the top 10 shows while Colors had only Balika Vadhu in the list.

Sony Entertainment Television (Set) followed with 210 GRPs, losing seven GRPs during the week.

Sab was the biggest loser in the week. It lost 15 GRPs and slipped below Life OK to end the week at 116 GRPs (last week 131 GRPs).

Sahara One maintained its status quo with 39 GRPs (last week 40), while Imagine TV, which has ceased original programming, closed the week with 2 GRPs.

May 23, 2012
Aamir Khan’s debut TV show Satyamev Jayate opens with 4.1 TVR

MUMBAI: Star India‘s biggest programming property of the year and Aamir Khan‘s debut TV show Satyamev Jayate has made an impact, energising the Sunday morning slot.

The one-and-a-half-hour first episode on female foeticide, telecast at 11 am, opened with an aggregate rating of 4.09 across the country for viewers above four years and reached out to 27 million viewers.

The TAM data is for the entire Indian market, including cable and terrestrial homes where Doordarshan beams. Satyamev Jayate airs on seven Star network channels, ETV Telugu and pubcaster Doordarshan.

The show recorded a rating of 4 in the Hindi speaking market of C&S homes, according to TAM.

Says Star India executive vice president marketing and communications Gayatri Yadav, “The 11 am slot was not at all active. We are happy that our strategy has worked and the time spent by audiences has been quite good. It seems to have worked both in the upper SEC audiences and terrestrial homes. Beyond anything, it‘s the buzz of the show that has been historic; it‘s connecting well with the viewers.”

But isn‘t Star disappointed with the show‘s rating of 3 on its flagship channel Star Plus? Yadav feels that the show should be seen in its totality and not in isolation.

“We are happy with the ratings on Star Plus. We also need to get used to this concept of simulcast as networks have game changing show properties. We will put such properties across our network channels. We must expand our lexicon and see it as an aggregate. The aggregate viewership has been very encouraging,” says Yadav.

How advertisers view the ratings

Advertisers, who have bet big monies on the show across the channels, tend to agree. Says GroupM CEO Vikram Sakhuja, “The debut

ratings have been very good and must be viewed in totality. The reach of the show is also fantastic.”

The biggest benefit is that the Aamir Khan show circulated on other platforms beyond television. Satyamev Jayate, in fact, was the most searched term in Google in India on 6 May, the day of its launch. The show trended 1-9 on the top Twitter Trends.

Says associate sponsor Axis Bank CMO Manisha Lath Gupta, “The ratings support our strategy. We have integrated with the show and have got a lot of traffic from people who aren‘t necessarily our consumers. We have a presence towards the end of the show when we say that ‘to make contribution you can reach out to Axis Bank‘. We have got a lot of value by associating with the show.”

Lodestar UM CEO Shashi Sinha believes the initial response has been positive, particularly among the upscale

audiences. “The rating that the show has got is very good. What is more interesting is to see how it is doing in SEC A. Four is a good opening for a Sunday morning slot.”

Satyamev Jayate has also got a very high interactive value. “If you look at social media, the show has generated a lot of interactivity and buzz. The most difficult audience to get today is SEC A, but the show has managed to tap them,” says Sinha.

Not everybody, though, is convinced. Lintas Initiative Media CEO Sudha Natrajan is disappointed with the ratings that Star Plus has got, though she thinks it was a bold step to start something like this on Sunday mornings. “It is their way of recapturing the Sunday morning time band. It will take a bit longer for the viewership to build up on Star Plus during this time zone. The show is very tightly produced and there are topics of high interest,” she says.

As per Tam data provided by the channel, the show opened with roughly 50 per cent higher ratings in Upper SEC audiences (SEC A 5.9 TVR All 4+). In C&S homes, the show garnered 14.4 TVR in the 15-34 age group, (Digital homes, HSM Million+).

Terrestrial viewers have got hooked on to the show. Doordarshan has posted ratings of 11 (Non C&S Households).

“One should not only see the show from the pure TVR point of view. One has to also notice the amount of buzz that is being created

in the market . The show has done very well on that front. It is more valuable for the brands that it is being talked about so much,” concludes Starcom MediaVest Group chairman and LiquidThread (Asia-Pacific) MD CVL Srinivas.

How the Hindi GECs rank

The pecking order of the Hindi general entertainment channels remains the same. Star Plus leads, adding 14 GRPs in the week ended 12 May, according to TAM data (C&S 4+ HSM).

The channel‘s fiction property Diya Aur Baati Hum leads with 4.92 TVR. Diya Aur Baati Hum has edged past Zee TV‘s homegrown dancing reality show DID lil Masters, pushing it to No. 2 on the ‘top 10 shows‘ list.

Despite losing 15 GRPs, Zee TV continues to hold its position as the second most watched Hindi GEC. The drop comes as DID lil Masters sees a dip in viewership in its third week. The show, which had garnered 6.2 and 5.8 TVR in the first two weeks respectively, could manage 4.82 TVR this week. Zee TV‘s fiction property Punarvivah has seen improved performance, securing a position in the top 10 most watched shows with a 3.42 TVR.

Meanwhile, Sony Entertainment Television (Set) has also lost three GRPs to end the week with 217 GRPs.

Colors has added six GRPs to cross the 200 mark. The channel closed the week with 201 GRPs. Its biggest fiction property, Balika Vadhu, saw a rise in viewership, clocking 4.48 TVR and ranking fourth.

Sab added 27 GRPs to close the week with 131 GRPs. The channel has seen ratings jump across weekend prime-time, weekday prime-time and weekday afternoon prime-time slots.

Life OK, the second GEC from Star, also added six GRPs to end the week with 91 points.

Sahara One remained at the bottom of the ladder with 40 GRPs.

May 16, 2012