ABC of Indian Media-Advertising, Bollywood, Corporate Power

P. Sainath is a firebrand activist, and incidentally a journalist.
But he is understandably a spokesman for journalism and journalist issues these days, for good reasons
1) He is at The Hindu, which likes to discuss media-related issues on its pages, especially those that relate to ethics

2) As a methodical prodder passionate about rural and social issues, Sainath comes from the "development/activist" school of journalism, and is thoroughly disturbed by the trivialisation of many serious issues

3) He writes well, with a strong tendency to marshall facts and use telling phrases which can match any lawyer or public orator.

Here he is, arguing about how the Indian media is almost systematically being held to ransom by the superficial troika of advertising, movie glamour and corporate agenda. Good, essential reading for media watchers.

Content goes the service way

Content is King, yes.

Murdoch says it is the emperor. Yes.

But there is an interesting insight. Just as a still is not a moving picture, content is not about static stuff on the Net. Increasingly, it is a service.
Here is a fine piece on that.

Content is King: And Confusion Is Clarity

I have been writing for years now about how online video, Internet streaming and mobile devices will cloud the media, but here is final proof on how confused and confusing the advertising industry and its feeder, market research, have become.
I don't even need to understand the details.
The simple fact is that confusion spells clarity.
Here is how.
For close to a century, we have been led by the thumb rules of the mass media

1. Channel leadership based on high capital costs
2. Television rating points (TRPs) based on prime-time
3. Hype based on a little bit of data and a lot of "relationships"
4. Brands based on broad recall

That era is over, with the Internet and online videos and iPods and all the elements of the Long Tail (including low-investment satellite broadcasts)

Is it any wonder that market researchers are groping in the dark? Stereotyping of the consumer is the illegitimate child of 20th Century mass marketing.
That is ending. Rejoice. Now I can have an old man in Mozambique listening to Britney Spears. And I can have a 20-year-old Peruvian teenager liking South Indian plantain leaf meals.

Online ad revenues zoom on....

Despite the recession, digital advertising is growing robustly--and in fact more so as advertisers find it sensible in getting the right bang for buck, says Zenith Optimedia. Here is a report.

End of Television --A lovely, inspired piece of writing

Please catch this lovely piece in New York's maverick blogazine, Gawker, on how online videos and help creative television writers circumvent the suffocating studio system.
Internet is revolutionising media, and I have written many times in the past about how TV is changing and will end as we have known it. But this piece makes it read like a fairy tale.

The Future Of Newspapers: Are micropayments the way out?

First came print advertising because people read newspapers.
Then came TV advertising, that took away some of those ads
Then came the era of advertising-supported content, as readers became more of "consumers" being targeted by advertisers who signed large cheques.
Then came the part about newspapers adjusting to the demands of advertisers, and addressing readers as "target segments"
That phase is still on now, but the Web is changing --or has changed things--all over again.
Classified ads have migrated to the Web.
Newspaper Websites are not really getting that much ads.
Digital ads are growing,but are they the way out?
How do we price content? Journalism is a costly business, involves travel and credibility -- and unbiased coverage that is under constant pressure from politicians or advertisers in some form or the other.
In the age of the Internet, the business has become more complicated. New York Times has its property on mortgage, and Chicago Tribune filed for bankruptcy.
So what is the future of the newspaper?
This article in Time magazine discusses it, and apparently bets on micropayments. Oh well, let us see how it all goes.

Death of the 30-second (prime-time) commercial?

Now I am right, now I am not.

I was only a month ago wondering if I had spent three years predicting the end of prime-time (as we know it) to eat my words.

Then I thought that live TV will stay with a prime-time kind of feel (I still do).

Now I think could still be right either way. Anything that is recordable need not necessarily be watched live, and hence, the bulk of entertainment programmes will fall into this category.
For instance, now, viewers switch between channels when there is an ad on --while advertisers have to struggle to keep them viewing. With digital video recorders and time-shifted TV programmes, people will concentrate more on the content, with flexibility of viewing more than ever before.
Read this story on the death of the 30-second commercial for more on what things are headed for.

10 rules for brand builders in the age of social media

Last week, the Public Relations Consultants Association of India called me for a panel discussion on, "Social Media--Its Impact & Challenges."
Luckily, my home PC conked out and I had an official excuse to skip a PowerPoint presentation. After a long-drawn, patient do-it-yourself kind of persuasion by Rajesh Lalwani of Blogworks (who has emerged as a pioneering figure in approaching blogs from the other side of the media fence!), and some words of wisdom from Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama (who sounded more like a good investigative journalist than a I-am-having-fun blogger), I got to speak --and felt a bit like the Prime Minister speaking in parliament on a bridge in Nagaland: half-the house had left. But then, I decided to have fun and rolled on with a 10-point programme for brand-builders, written on the back of the invite-sheet for the session (Backs of envelopes are hopelessly out of vogue, you know!).
So here are my 10 points..actually there are only 9 but I made up the last to complete the magic number.
Here goes my two pennies for brand builders, modified on the fly as I write it. I tentatively called it "Blogs and Banter in the world of brands" -- so the rest of the social media gets mentioned only in passing.

1) Blogs are not about the media, but about democracy

Everyone is a reporter, you know. You gotta deal with it. Imagine a world where everyone had a secret diary which everyone else could read. It is nearly that bad.

2) Blogs are not about recall -- they are about reputation

"Recall" is a 20th Century expression, smugly portrayed by ad men and monopolistic publishers and broadcasters. People will remember your brand, but HOW THEY FEEL depends on what these blogger types think. Think about it.

3) Blogs wear pyjamas

No blue-suits, pinstripes, jhola-carrying kurta journalists, whatever...blogs tend to be informal in general, and defy stereotypes. Media persons and professional corporate-types blog, but so do NRI moms, housewives, whoever..and guess what? Everyone mentions brands, somewhere, somehow. Go figure.

4) It ain't just about blogs; instruments abound in the world of social media

E-mails are part of it all-- if someone forwards them (they do!). Chats, RSS Feeds, widgets, Twitter, social networking pages, random remarks, discussion forums, message boards. Sounds complex? It is simple, really--instruments have multiplied, like TV channels and mushrooming PR agencies. (If some of the things mentioned in these instruments sound alien, it is time for you to learn)

5) Influence the influencers

Does it matter if it is Kantabai, the most glam maid in your block, sending a vernacular SMS? Things are getting there, sooner or later. You've got to understand. Special correspondents are kind of passe (I am trying to be humble, you see!)

6) Kill the press release, make corporate blogs happen

Tell your clients to type. Ghost-write, if they insist. I see a future in which the informality of the medium must be matched by a counter-informality. Google has already done it with its blogs. I am told the world follows Google these days. Even Bill Gates does.

7) Beware of mobiles and big mouths

I have kind of hinted this already. Somebody, somewhere is talking about those brands and it is not all systematic. I have coined a term called "feed-on" to replace "feedback" (I have written a separate post on it)
Market research, word-of-mouth, customer referrals happen on the go over the Net to just about anyone, not necessary companies or dealers or shopkeepers. And mobile handsets, cheaper by the day, will make it all multiply. Confused? You should be.

8) It is not about relationships. It is about Truth, Transparency and Tact

Okay, the PR profession must now stop behaving like lawyers. Hee, hee. You gotta face the truth and tell it like it is. It was always this way, but now you have NO PLACE TO HIDE. Some quantity of spin may just be allowed, though. If you are lucky.

9) Mix now, fix later

Be yourself. That point number eight about relationships ain't all over but relations only help you take the message forward, not fudge the message.

10) Read MediaWatch India

(That is the name of this blog and it needed to be mentioned in order to take the number of points to 10. Not sure if it will improve my brand).

End of story. Comments welcome.

US journalists became self-indulgent, says Murdoch

I am not done with the Murdoch visit to India yet. Always looking for telling quotes from the man, whose furrowed forehead and creased smile attracts me as much as his insights into the business.
Here is my takeaway quote from the visit:

Newspapers in America became
monopolistic. Proprietors became lazy, and journalists became self-indulgent because they were writing for each other and lost touch with the public.

Full interview story from CNBC -TV 18 here

Time-Warner segregates content from carriage

The message is clear.

Nearly a decade ago, Steve Case was the big man at America On Line, which, like a tail wagging the dog, acquired one of the world's most reputed media content companies, Time -Warner Inc, because AOL owned the Net connections that would carry content to homes.
Then came the dot-com bust...and then Web 2.0 and all that. It is now clear that content and carriage of content need not be, and in fact, better not be, in the same company.
AOL's carriage part is being separated from the content part.
This is the future of the Net - and indeed the media.
A few decades ago, publishers owned presses.
One decade ago, the pipe-wallahs took content.
Not any more.
My next prediction: Ad sales will be increasingly separated from content. It is happening already on the Web with publishers and ad networks working as partners, and not as one entity.
Why can't that happen to old-world old media houses?
I see it happening, though the pace could be painfully slow.

The Future of News--debated by ad guys (er, where were the newsies?)

The good news on news: somebody was discussing its future.
The bad news on news: there was no newsperson on the dais.
Sounds funny?
Here is the release. If you see it carefully, it is full of ad-biz folks. Nothing wrong with that. But surely, one would expect a hands-on news person to have a thing or two to say there.
Reminds me of the famous Sherlock Holmes story-- where the clue was in the dog that did not bark.
The invitation sent to me earlier mentioned editors among panelists, but apparently they were too busy making or breaking news elsewhere to turn up here.

Here is the news--oops, the release.

New Delhi, August 1, 2008 – afaqs!, India’s leading advertising, media and marketing website, hosted a conference on “The Future of News”. Speakers discussed and debated the prospects of both the content as well as the business of news in New Delhi on August 1, 2008.

The event has come at a time when the very definition of news is changing as is the way in which it is delivered. Unusually, the conference discussed the morphing nature of news across media: be it print, TV, online or mobile.

Among the topics discussed by well known media professionals and marketers were the abundance of news, the localisation of content and whether it translates into revenue, why investors are funding news, an inquiry into revenue streams beyond advertising, a look at how digital content can pay for itself, and whether the tabloidisation of news is affecting the way advertisers view the news genre.

Sreekant Khandekar, Director, afaqs!, said “The consensus of the speakers of the conference seem to be that we will be flooded with even more news brands in all media. We haven’t seen anything. There will be need for many different types of news and many different brands will be born to service those needs.”
Eminent personalities like Ajit Balakrishnan, Founder and chairman, Rediff.com; Lakshmikant Gupta, Chief Marketing Officer, LG Electronics; Punitha Arumugam, Chief Executive Officer, Madison India; Ravi Kiran, Chief Executive Officer, Starcom; Santosh Desai, Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, Future Brands; Shashi Sinha, Chief Executive Ofiicer, Lodestar Universal; Rajesh Jain, Managing Director, Netcore Solutions; Salil Pitale, Head – Media & Telecom, Enam Investment Banking; Shubhodip Pal, Head Marketing, Consumer - Personal Systems Group, Hewlett Packard addressed the conference.

Is television dying? Or is it prime-time? Or is that the soap opera?

Am I eating crow?
Did I speak too soon when I predicted the end-of-prime-time-as-we-know it?
Have I been betting too much on online video?

A new study by CBS says rumours of the television's death may be premature. It says online video is not going to kill TV.

Did video kill the radio star?
Did movies kill theatre?
Did television news kill newspapers?

Hmmm. I wish to go back to the details of my general drift during the three years that this blog has talked time and again of prime-time.
The emphasis should be on end-of-prime-time-as-we-know it

What it means is that a profusion of easy-to-launch digital TV/direct-to-home channels, online videos seen on PCs and other devices, and mobile videos streamed from a variety of sources (including blogs) will collectively erode the awesome power that 20th Century-style television had for about half-a-century.

This is what I say. Just as theatre, newspapers and radio had to re-invent themselves and undeniably lost their clout, so will television, primarily of the thousand-pound-gorilla-prime-time variety. Some of the soap serial makers like Ekta Kapoor, raised on a diet of greasy parathas and TRPs (television rating points) may wish to reach for a handkerchief, mimicking the ladies of their much-watched prime-time serials.

Now, will audio-books make reading go out of fashion? That's another story.

US newspapers head south. What will happen to Indian nupes?

American newspapers are getting thinner, local news is up, stock tables have disappeared. So have TV listings. Revenues are down. Picture is expected to worsen.
So reveals a survey of editors in 1,217 -- and only 259 responded.
The survey comes from Pew Research Center under something called the Project for Execellence in Journalism.
More stuff in this in Reuters Mediafile here

Now, I do believe that Indian newspapers will get thinner as well.

Can you measure journalism? How much is Picasso worth per square inch?

How do you measure journalistic productivity? Can you put numbers on stories executed to judge reporters? What the hell is a good-quality story? Does it involve writing? Balance? Reportage? "Consumer" value? Editing? What is the value of designers/copy-editors? Ideators?
Who should decide the quality? A vice-president with an MBA?
Is this a science? Is this an art?
What is subjective?
What the hell is objective?
No easy answers, but here is an interview with Chicago Tribune editor by Reuters Mediafile, which I am providing as food for thought/grist for mill.

(If I have the answers, I am not going to tell you now:))
And, oh yes! If you read the script below carefully, there is an open acknowledgement that newspapers are in crisis.
That is something that Indian newspapers don't seem to be saying...how interesting!

Here is the interview:

Tribune Co is keeping media reporters and headline writers busy these days with news of how the company is trying to turn around its newspaper business and stay afloat under billions of dollars in debt - all while creating a culture that, as Chicago real estate tycoon and newly minted press baron Sam Zell says, does not take itself too seriously.

That is growing more difficult as the company embarks on another round of job cuts at its papers, sparking fear and loathing among employees, and launches an ambitious plan to redo the papers' sizes and looks. Tribune also set journalism types' tongues a-wagging with its plan to review reporter productivity as a possible condition for staying on board. That might not sound so controversial, except that many people have interpreted that as saying it's not about the quality of your stories, it's about the quantity.

Gerould Kern, Tribune's vice president of editorial and the successor to departing Chicago Tribune editor Ann Marie Lipinski, addressed some of these topics in a phone interview with Reuters.

Q: What is your immediate task as the new editor of the Chicago Tribune?

A: As we report almost daily, the newspaper business is in a crisis. And I want to do everything I can in my power to save it. And you know, the Chicago Tribune has played a huge role in the history of the nation and the city, and I know it and I'm proud of it and I want that history to stretch far into the future. So I'm optimistic that we can solve these economic problems, the economic dislocation that faces us and that we're not only going to survive but thrive in the future.

Q: How do you make the business thrive with fewer people?

A: I think it becomes a lot harder and that's going to force us to be a lot more innovative and entrepreneurial and resourceful than we've ever been before. There's been a lot of misinformation and confusion about productivity as a topic. I think the idea's fairly simple. Let's turn over every stone, let's do every smart thing we can to stretch the resources, to use them to serve people and build our audiences and bring in revenue to support journalism.

It means our full-time professional staff is going to get smaller. And that's been happening to newspapers all over the country. And yet we're having to support more local media channels than ever before. … At the end of the day we still will have the largest newsgathering organization in this city by far. And if we are really smart and resourceful about using them we will be able to a fabulous job for consumers in whatever channel they choose.

Q: What do you say to the reporters who say they're scandalized by the idea of being judged on how many stories they produce, rather than the quality of individual stories?

A: I think it is unfortunate that this has been focused on in this way. I understand it based on some comments that [Tribune Chief Operating Officer] Randy [Michaels] made on the middle of that call. Let me just say this: I talked in a broader sense about productivity, which frankly is the way I'm looking at it. What can the whole organization do that's smart, that's strategic, that's resourceful.

But on bylines: All of our newspapers are looking at all kinds of information to see what is valuable in making some of these tough choices… Some of our newspapers in some departments have been doing byline counts over the years. It's not the first time that anybody's ever done that. From the beginning, we made it clear that this should be viewed as just one data point and, frankly, probably not the most valuable and that it had to be combined with other information. … Everybody knows for instance that you have to evaluate investigative reporters differently than other kinds of reporters. Because reporting takes a long time… And everyone was aware of that.

In the end, the information and the judgment calls [were] left strictly up to editors in the newsroom and that's where it will remain. So, I think much more is being made of it than really is there.

Can Pitchh.com make the ad biz more transparent?

My friend and fellow blog-world philosopher Rajesh Lalwani has brought in the business of competitive pitching into the open -- and on the Net -- with Pitchh.com.
Yet to check this site out but the idea looks promising and disruptive. Basically, we can try to answer the question: If it is competitive, who should there be a closed loop?

The Google-Yahoo war should go to WTO, not Washington

I chanced upon this post by the Silicon Valley's respected Net-watcher Om Malik, and it seems he has forgotten his days in Delhi. Basically, he wonders if the war over Google's alliance with Yahoo (and by implication, Microsoft's acquisition/merger attempts) should go to the regulators -- by which he means Washington's powers-that-be.
The Internet is a global medium, and I don't quite fancy US-centric people holding forth as if the rest of the world does not matter. They have not learnt their lessons from Vietnam/Iraq, whatever...


So, here is my beginner's guide to anyone commenting on the Google-Yahoo saga

1) The US is not the only nation in the world. It is one of about 150. George W. Bush doesn't get this. Do you?

2) Google is a global search engine and Yahoo is a global media company. The World Trade Organisation (WTO), not Washington, is the place to decide anti-competition issues on this.

3) Online advertising is not the only kind of advertising. Google's share should be measured as a part of global advertising revenues in all media.

4) If online ads are to be treated separately, let it be done only for US IP addresses and let there be technologies to segregate and analyse all this. (That will give use to more startups.Wow!) Or else, revenues should be segregated on the basis of geographical origin.

5) Google is leading the process of creative destruction in the global media industry as a whole. Anything disruptive in this nature is by definition pro-competition until such time as it acquires critical mass in market-share. And digital ads have only just begun!

6) If Microsoft's desktop market share in OS or the browser war is not a problem, why should Google's online revenue share should be?

7)In the case of document standards, the International Standards Organisation showed the way to go. Let there be a similar global discourse (oops, do they use this word at Stanford? Must ask my friends from Oxford). This should be done at the World Trade Organisation.

Geneva, not Washington, is the place to decide this. And Mountain View and Wall Street are small dots on Google Earth.

Or how about the United Nations, Om?

The Logic of the Four Screens

The "Silver Screen," television, PC and now mobile handsets --media convergence is increasingly about converging these four and optimising their mix. I am not even talking about print here. My friend Ajay Jain makes an interesting analysis of the four-screen play in his site here

Why YouTube must be saved -- (Oh, help me watch the Bhutto speech and Liril ad)

YouTube is in the news. In the US, privacy groups are worried that it may be forced to share viewer data. In India, two companies of the T-Series group hav dragged the online video-sharing site owned by Google to court for copyright violations.
But I had the delight of catching Riz Khan, the former BBC and CNN anchor, again today after I logged on to YouTube. Riz is now with Al Jazeera which interviewed me yesterday on Asian economic issues. I could not watch myself on air because Indian direct-to-home cable operators don't seem to be offering the Qatar-based global channel.
YouTube and online television are a boon for people like me, who like to have a choice. It would be a pity if the channel does not evolve a meaningful business model to help us enjoy and find online videos. I have stumbled on some great stuff on YouTube, like rare Carnatic music recordings and a Bhutto speech made in 1971 that brings out the flavour of the man for a generation of folks like me who did not have access to such stuff.
YouTube is also a delightful source for retromercials -- or ads that bring nostalgia back. Here is that lovely Liril ad we grew up on.
Or a piece of music that made me sit up and discover a guy called A.S. Dilipkumar -- who later became known as Bollywood and Tamil movie composer A. R. Rahman.
Somone puh-leez make sure YouTube does not suffer.
Are you listening, Sakina Arsiwala?

Who is PR for? Companies or their honchos?

"You don't do the Boss column anymore?" the PR person asks.
"No," I reply, with an increasing sense of glee.

Dealing with public relations folks is part of the drill I have to go through, but you will not believe the number of PR agency dudes and dudettes who have called me about a column called "Boss Day Out" which we at Hindustan Times also ran for a while later under the tag "Boss After Work."
It was a nice thing to tell readers about the other side of the blue suits and pinstripes, but it can get a bit sickening when every two-bit trainee in a two-bit PR agency calls you up to discuss the two-bit CEO of a two-bit company. Very often, the request was to prop up a 20-something with a fat title who got there because papa told him.
Ah, figures. The honcho signs cheque, agency pleases honcho, agency hounds press. All is well with the world. But does that do the company any good?
There are companies that I have never heard of or rarely so, and the PR person would call up and say nothing about the company and often prop up somebody who in our scheme of things is hardly high enough (Gawd! vice-president-marketing isn't quite it!).
That's some tripe hype gripe!

LA Times or Layoff Times? Net is in. Nupes are down. Jobs are cut

Here is a story of job cuts in Los Angeles Times, with the details of how the Internet is eating into the newspaper business in the US.
It feels strange at a time when newspaper launches are getting common all over India, with new editions being launched all around and even brave, new brands hitting the market, even in the English language business, where, presumably, readers have or will have increasing access to the Web.
Am I missing something here?