Tag: Uday Shankar

  • Star India urges employees to contribute to Uttarakhand relief

    Star India urges employees to contribute to Uttarakhand relief

    MUMBAI: After shooting exclusive promos with lead actors of its shows to promote the cause of providing relief to those affected by disaster in Uttarakhand and asking viewers to send in their donations, Star India has gone further and urged its employees to get philanthropic.

    Star India CEO Uday Shankar requests its employees to contribute a day’s salary for Uttarakhand relief fund

    According to sources, Star India CEO Uday Shankar sent an email (a copy of which is with indiantelevision.com) to Star India employees requesting them to contribute at least a day’s salary or more to the relief fund for the victims. In the email Shankar says that the company will match the contribution made by the employees and the sum collected will be used towards relief operations.

    “As responsible citizens and more importantly as employees of a company that has a deep connect with millions of Indians, Star extends the support in whatever way they can,” the Star India CEO says in the email. “Towards this, Star India is launching an effort to provide some solace to the thousands who have been affected by this disaster.”

    Will Star India employees open their wallets and purses? Watch this space!

  • IBF-AAAI resolve net billing issue

    IBF-AAAI resolve net billing issue

    MUMBAI: The stalemate between the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) and the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) on the net billing issue has been resolved and the blackout by the former on accepting TV ads has been lifted.

    According to IBF board member and Star India CEO Uday Shankar: “We have an agreement to do net billing. But we have also created a mechanism in the invoice and contract to enable agencies to charge the fees separately from advertisers effective 1 May.”

    An IBF board meeting is scheduled for later today, revealed Shankar, in order to communicate to broadcasters to resume ads.

    As per the solution hammered out by the two: the invoices that broadcasters raise to agencies will have a rider below which states that the advertiser and agency are free to have a compensation relationship which is as per accepted industry practice. The agencies will then charge clients their commissions on top of that in the bills they present to them.

    “Basically, what this means is that the broadcaster can bill the agency Rs 85 for a Rs 100 value TV spot,” says an industry veteran. “The agency can then bill the client for an amount not exceeding 1.1765 of the net value of the bill.”

    TV commercials are expected to begin airing on channels from today.

  • IBF plays hard ball; orders TV channels to take off ads from 1 May evening

    IBF plays hard ball; orders TV channels to take off ads from 1 May evening

    MUMBAI/NEW DELHI: From 6 pm evening on Labour Day, (1 May), the Indian Broadcasting Foundation’s (IBF) pulled the plug on all television advertising on its members channels. It sent out a missive to its members forcing them to stop airing any TV commercials. The only exception to this ban were Sony Six and Sony Max, the two channels which are airing the sixth edition of IPL.

    Already around late afternoon Star Plus and its channels had started carrying a ticker which read: “Ads are not running on this channel because advertising agencies have refused to accept revisions in billing methods which are seen as flawed by tax authorities. We regret any inconvenience but Star group is committed to doing business with the highest standards of compliance which reflects the true commercial arrangement between advertisers and broadcasters.”

    According to Star India CEO Uday Shankar, his network was carrying only ads of those agencies whose clients had agreed to work on net bills as of midnight 30 April.

    Among the brands, the ads of which were being aired on the Star network included: Navratna Oil, and Fogg Deo. Zee TV was carrying spots of Wasan Eye Care. Colors too had stoppped airing commercials. Sony also blacked out all advertising on its network though in the day it was as business as usual. Sab aired commercials of Lays, Breeze and VIP; Sony Entertainment Television – Breeze, VIP, Bournvita, LG, Clinic Plus, Airtel, Dell, Frooti, Whirlpool, Caprese, Odonil among others. Most of the broadcasters were using the ad inventory to promote shows on their network channels.

    Shankar reiterated that there was no truth that the black out of ads will last a few hours or just one day but in fact will continue till the issue is sorted.

    According to News Broadcasters Association (NBA) board member Anurradha Prasad, the black out of ads is being supported by the association too. “We need to get this issue resolved quickly. The income tax authorities have been sending us notices for tax which is not our responsibility. Hopefully, this black out will put an end to the net bill confusion, though channel losses (in the absence of advertising) could be substantial.”

    AAAI president Arvind Sharma in an SMS to our correspondent said that they were in discussions with IBF and ISA on the same. “We are hopeful that these will be concluded by the evening of 2 May.”

  • M&E  industry  lacks reliable data: Uday Shankar

    M&E industry lacks reliable data: Uday Shankar

    MUMBAI: For a $15 billion media and entertainment industry, the lack of reliable data is one of the major factors pulling down growth.

    Star India CEO and chairman of the Ficci Media & Entertainment Committee Uday Shankar wondered how a fledgling industry could function without availability of acceptable data.

    Urging stakeholders of M&E industry to set their house in order, Shankar said that there is lack of reliable data on audience measurement across verticals of the media and entertainment sector.

    "How can this industry function without a shared and non-controversial view of the most basic facts? Numbers are supposed to be the foundations of rational business decisions. How can we make decisions when professionals in the business of numbers can’t get their numbers straight?," he questioned.

    The lack of reliable data is not limited to TAM, Shankar elaborated. "As a TV executive, I am surprised sometimes how I am even able to function. I do not know enough about my viewers – in fact, I don’t even know how many of them are there. There are 140 million cable and satellite homes but the measured universe is 62 million households."

    Shankar also said that the country’s premier media agencies differ on a fact as basic as the size of the advertising market.

    He also pointed out that it‘s not just the television industry that suffers from lack of reliable data. In fact, the whole industry across verticals is functioning without proper data.

    "The ambiguity in data for other sectors of the media and entertainment is no less. For instance, no film producer seems to know accurately how many people actually bought tickets to watch his film," Shankar averred.

    Shankar also exhorted that there is a need for a change of mindset among stakeholders to take the industry to the next level.

    The M&E industry is a real economic enterprise and not just a vehicle of glitz and glamour, one that has the potential to solve the problem of unemployment by creating new jobs.

    "The time has come for all of us to make sure that it is not just industry status that we seek; it is a fundamental change in mindset," Shankar said, while delivering his keynote address today at Ficc-Frames 2013, an annual media and entertainment conclave held in Mumbai.

    He also said that the M&E industry is capable of creating employment and wealth much faster than most other sectors and has the ability to be a force multiplier, like it is in most countries.

    "It is particularly relevant in India because it can be an employment generator without massive public investments and without being hampered by the deficiencies of public infrastructure. Just to put things in perspective, as a $15 billion industry, we employ over 6 million people. This can be so much more significant and meaningful," he said.

    He also bemoaned the fact that the industry despite the huge potential has not got the adequate support from government.

    A case in point, Shankar said, was the government‘s recent decision to increase customs duty on Set Top Boxes, notwithstanding the fact that the cost of STBs will go up at a time when the country is moving towards mandatory cable television digitisation and impose withholding taxes on content rights

    "The lens often used to look at this industry is largely one of glamour and propaganda and the biggest debate is on how to control and contain it. As a result, the growth of M&E has not been supported by policy and regulatory initiatives," he added.

    Emphasising that the industry is facing an imminent talent crunch, Shankar said: “We hide under the pretense of creativity and have convinced ourselves that creativity gives us the license to be informal and chaotic. It is this informality and chaos that has seeped into our approach to spotting and grooming talent. This is dangerous. We must realise that discipline and formality are not antithetical to creativity and if anything they are necessary ingredients to fostering the creative process.”

    Shankar said efforts to curb free speech in a robust democracy like India is one of the biggest challenges that can potentially derail the industry from its trajectory. “When Satyamev Jayate points to weaknesses in the medical system, doctors are offended. When Jolly LLB creates a courtroom satire, lawyers are offended. Even when a precocious teenager posts a comment on Facebook, some people start baying for her blood,” he lamented.

    “What is interesting to me is that we all agree that the role of media is to question the status quo. But with the right to question must come the right to provoke and the right to offend.”

    Shankar also set out the ambitious Rs 10 billion target for Indian movies. "We should work hard and strive for such success. If the stakeholders can come together, a lot can be achieved. We have seen that in the case of digitisation," Shankar said.

  • Star India launches video portal starsports.com

    Star India launches video portal starsports.com

    MUMBAI: Star India, which holds the BCCI media rights, has launched an India-focussed online platform starsports.com to exploit the digital media rights that it owns along with its sister concerns.

    The website which flagged-off with the Pakistan tour of India will provide a video experience for cricket fans that includes high definition video streaming, an advanced player that can be individually controlled and the ability to catch up on the game through both a video scorecard and a video timeline that marks the key moments of the game.

    Commenting on the launch, Star India CEO Uday Shankar said, "At Star, we have always focused on dramatically enhancing the overall consumer experience. Smart technology, combined with powerful content, can be disruptive and we are excited about offering Indian fans an entirely new way of experiencing their favorite game."

    The live streaming and video content will playback on select iOS devices and Android OS version 3.0 and above. However access to video content is currently limited to select operators.

    The non-video sections of the website pages will work on all tablets. The Live streaming and Video content will play back on select iOS devices and Android OS version 3.0 and above.

  • NDTV ends ad sales outsourcing deal with Star

    NDTV ends ad sales outsourcing deal with Star

    MUMBAI: New Delhi Television Ltd (NDTV) has decided to end its advertising sales outsourcing arrangement with Star India for the news business, after allowing the Rupert Murdoch company to handle it from 1 April 2011.

    NDTV’s ad sales revenue in 2011-12 remained flat at Rs 2.62 billion in a fiscal that witnessed slowdown in the economy.

    “We have managed ad sales of our lifestyle channel NDTV Good Times, convergence and other smaller businesses successfully. Star has assisted us in transitioning the team. We see it as a positive step,” NDTV executive vice-chairman KVL Narayan Rao told Indiantelevision.com.

    NDTV will take its sales and marketing destiny into its own hands from Star India and the transition process has already begun. The Star sales team that was working on the NDTV channels — NDTV 24X7, NDTV Profit and NDTV India — will be transferred to NDTV.

    The transfer of sales team from Star to NDTV will ensure close integration with a number of fresh initiatives that NDTV is launching. Under NDTV Lifestyle Holdings, NDTV and joint venture partner Astro plan to launch a slew of niche channels in the lifestyle genre. NDTV Good Times is already a profitable channel.

    “Now that the (NDTV sales) team is ready and NDTV wishes to take charge of its own destiny, we amicably agreed to exit.” said Star India CEO Uday Shankar.

    NDTV’s executive co-chairperson Prannoy Roy said, “Working together with Star has been a great experience.”

    NDTV in its 2011-12 annual report said 2011 was a challenging year for the television broadcasting industry with pressure on advertising rates and total television ad market estimated to have grown by around 12 per cent during the year, less than the projected growth of 15 per cent.

    The challenges are going to stay as the ad market continues to be sluggish. “In the short run, NDTV will have to bear the cost of running its own ad sales team. And posting ad revenue growth in a tough market would always be a challenge,” a media analyst said.

    Prior to Star, NDTV’s ad sales duties were handled by Raj Nayak-promoted Aidem Ventures. The broadcaster did not renew the deal with Aidem in March 2011 and instead turned to Star India.

    NDTV had outsourced its ad sales to Aidem Ventures for one year, after Nayak quit as CEO of NDTV Media to float his own company. NDTV had bought back Nayak and his team’s 26 per cent stake in NDTV Media, a company that was handling the ad sales of the broadcasting company.

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

    ‘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.

    Also read:

    ‘BCCI rights great opportunity to build Star‘s sports biz‘

    ‘Cross-media regulation has only discouraged clean, legitimate players in DTH & cable‘

  • ‘BCCI rights great opportunity to build Star’s sports biz’ : Star India CEO Uday Shankar

    ‘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.

  • AAAI to meet TAM and IBF this week

    AAAI to meet TAM and IBF this week

    MUMBAI: With NDTV‘s lawsuit against television ratings provider TAM Media raising concerns among the industry affiliates, the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) have decided to meet with senior executives of the television ratings agency on 16 August.

    Speaking to indiantelevision.com AAAI president and Leo Burnett chairman and CEO of India subcontinent Arvind Sharma said: “In the (current) environment where all has been reported about the NDTV-TAM case, we want to understand directly from TAM what the facts are. If there are genuine reasons to be concerned, and we are not prejudging that, ww will have to discus on what action can be taken.”

    Sharma also pointed out that a meeting with the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) is planned this week. “We are also trying to get together with the IBF urgently and it hopefully happen this week to discuss the BARC issue,” he added.
    Star India CEO and IBF president Uday Shankar had earlier stated that AAAI and ISA are slowing the progress on BARC. In response, Sharma had said that the two advertising bodies were waiting for the IBF to respond to the draft document (incorporating memorandum and articles of association) sent to the IBF a while back.

    The AAAI, ISA and the IBF are stakeholders in the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC). While the IBF holds 60 per cent stake in BARC, AAAI and ISA equally share the remaining 40 per cent.

  • The ball is in the IBF court: AAAI prez Arvind Sharma

    MUMBAI: The ball is in the Indian Broadcasting Foundation‘s (IBF) court and the draft document (incorporating memorandum and articles of association) has been sent to them a while back, the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) president and Leo Burnett chairman and CEO of India subcontinent Arvind Sharma told Indiantelevision.com, while dismissing charges that the body was stalling the progress of BARC for setting up a new television ratings system that would be more transparent and representative of the country‘s socio-economic demographics and geographical spread.

    IBF president and Star India CEO Uday Shankar admitted the draft has reached the IBF. “But they have not signed it. The issue needs to be treated with more urgency,” he said.

    Shankar had earlier blamed the AAAI and the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) for slowing down the progress of Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC).

    Sharma said the need of the hour is to move forward and get BARC rolling. “I can understand Uday Shankar’s eagerness to progress on BARC and frustration on why it is taking so much time. But we have not signed because they have not responded,” he replied.

    The government is also pressing for speed and had earlier this year told Parliament that BARC would issue its first report by July 2013, an informal dateline that looks hard to meet. The three stakeholders, IBF, AAAI and ISA, have yet to make BARC operational after announcing in March their equity partnership in the entity. While IBF has 60 per cent stake in BARC, AAAI and ISA hold the balance 40 per cent.

    Nagesh Alai, Interface Communications director and the immediate past president of AAAI, believes that it is in everybody’s interest to move BARC forward.

    “It seems to be a misconception or a miscommunication or a misinterpretation. Whatever it is, the statement is rather unfortunate and unwarranted. AAAI (and its members ), as custodians of the clients’ monies and scientific allocators of these monies over various media, is as interested in a robust and transparent research and research design. We are keen to get it off the ground quickly, as is IBF. The drafts of the MOA and AOA of BARC, incorporating these agreements, had been exchanged with IBF and this is under discussion and process. AAAI has always believed in working in partnership with other industry bodies in mutuality of interest and good business practices and so will it be going forward. It will continue to work with IBF and ISA to get to a good place. Stalling BARC is in no one’s interest,” Alai remarked.

    The recent NDTV lawsuit in New York against TAM Media has also prompted the government to consider a probe into the alleged fudging charges after several complaints from broadcasters.

    NDTV has sought damages of $810 million as compensation for loss in revenues suffered over the years and $580 million for negligence by Nielsen and Kantar officials, the owners of TAM.

    Meanwhile, TAM India has preferred to maintain its silence. “We don‘t comment on any litigation,” is all that TAM’s spokesperson had stated when media reports broke out about NDTV’s lawsuit against TAM and parent company Nielsen. TAM is a joint venture of Nielsen, Kantar and Cavendish Square Holdings B.V.