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.

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.

Breaking News--That's Ram Gopal Varma's next muse

He is done with Veerappan, the Mafia and skinny beauties. Ram Gopal Varma's next muse is Breaking News.
RGV was across the road from my office today at Religare's elegant art gallery, in the company of Amitabh Bachchan, who, a little birdie tells me, will play a character fashioned after NDTV's Prannoy Roy (story revolves around a channel called India 24/7--good for the brand's ailing stature)

The film, "Rann" (Battle) has the tagline "Truth is Terrible" and seems from early hints like an engaging film.
Ramu (touching his cheek about six times in the 10 minutes I watched him) said the movie's intention is to question the business of TV news channels blindly playing the TRP (television rating point) game.
RGV's film has a social message. Now that is Breaking News, for sure.
But seriously, I am glad my publicist friend invited me to cross the road. For one, the Big B of Bollywood spoke at length in his attractive, articulate way about '21st Century Journalism'--having turned blogger himself.
I also salute Ramu's latest attempt to ponder over the mad business of mushrooming TV channels in cut-throat competition that raises too many questions.
I might accuse RGV of stealing a page from another of the latter-day Cinema Verite kind, Madhur Bhandarkar, who made "Page 3" about the colour pages game, but all that is in good intent.
I like the fact that when media cannot introspect enough, Bollywood steps in. I say this in the memory of my late friend Anil Saari, who called Bollywood the Sixth Estate.
Here is a quick list of celebrated Hollywood and Bollywood movies based on life in the media. Surf on to IMDB and look for details

Hollywood: Network (on TV), Front Page, Citizen Kane (newspapers)
Bollywood: New Delhi Times, Page 3.

Of course, many other movies featured media stories, but these are top-of-the-mind.

How Mumbai 26/11 shaped the future of media in India

Mumbai, 26/11/2008

Terrorists carried sat-phones
Eyewitnesses used Twitter feeds
TV cameras rolled live
Social activists attacked them on blogs
Citizens rallied around Facebook pages

That was the world's first instance of "convergence terrorism" or Terrorism 2.0 as I said.
It is clear that media will never be the same again.
Facebook groups sprung up against Barkha Dutt, India's most familiar English TV news anchorette. And pieces by activist writers like Harini Calamur (like this took on the media.
Here are my brief observations.

1)Media will never be the same again, because Internet activism is acting as a countervailing influence on conventional media. Even if they care only for viewership, and claim publicly that only viewers matter, there will be some influence.

2) There are still a huge number of people out there who believe the role of the media as a noble "watchdog" purveying facts, presenting it responsibly. Who is going to PAY for this journalism? Can these activists subsidise the high cost of the publishing business?

3) Increasingly, social bookmarking and e-mail are emerging as powerful drivers of attention.
Gnani Sankaran's piece
questioning the Taj as Mumbai's icon became quite a rage on the Net.

Ban ‘live’ reporting of hostage rescue missions?

Thought provoking post from a respected media blog.

Ban ‘live’ reporting of hostage rescue missions?

via sans serif by churumuri on 11/27/08

"Several foreign nationals are trapped in the Taj Hotel Mahal"

"The top management of a multinational corporation was meeting…"

"Terrorists are suspected to be on the 9th floor…"

"NSG troops are about to have arrived in Mumbai…"

"NSG commandos have entered the Hotel…"

Some of the information telecast live by all news channels on yesterday's terror attack on Bombay.

SHRINIDHI HANDE writes from Madras: News channels have an objective—to fetch the latest news and share them with viewers, much before a competitor channel does that. But I feel this habit of indiscriminate live reporting, while a combat operation is in progress, can be catastrophic for the success of the military operations against terror.

Let us just think for a while. Do we really need to know everything on a 'as soon as it happens' basis? I feel not. Whether NSG commandos have just arrived at airport, or have entered the hotel or are on the first floor or second at this moment, is not necessary to be revealed to the general public on a realtime basis.

Showing such news live, will be immensely useful only to terrorists and their supporters outside.

Consider this. The commandos only know that the militants are somewhere inside the hotel, but the militants know everything about the movements and positions of their pursuers through TV.

Like:

# Who is on their trail (Army/ NSG/ local police, etc)

# What is their ETA (estimated time of arrival), which tells them, how much time they have before a gun battle would begin)

# Where they are right now, at the main entrance/ just entered their floor

# How is the world responding? Is there pressure mounting on the government to succumb to the demands of terrorists to get the hostages freed (so that they can act tough during negotiation)?

# How many of their friends are alive or dead (so that they can assess their strength)?

# What has been the impact of their strike-how many police and civilian dead, the current morale of police, who all as been detained/suspected?

# Live visuals of the street-to assess a possible escape strategy

# What information about them the outside world has (which floor they are in, their head count etc. And much more…

In my view, all this information, while useful to viewers and relatives of victims, also helps the terrorists/ militants to consolidate their position and pose a greater challenge to commandos trying to hunt them down and/ or rescue the hostages.

Why is our media helping them by airing live all the sensitive information about the anti terror operations?

The common man does not need to know them on a live basis.

Can't the information & broadcasting ministry think of banning live reporting during a hostage crisis? Let the channels air the news with a delay of few hours, so that the police and security agencies will have a lead time of few hours, wherein terrorists would be as equally uninformed as they are.

Please note that I am not advocating censorship. I am all for free speech and expression. What I am proposing, is that security agencies should have the power to impose a delay of say three to six hours w.r.t live reporting of anti terror operations.

Let the TV channels record whatever they want, but they should be aired only after a gap of few hours. I do not think anyone loses anything with this.

The movie A Wednesday also shares same opinion. I feel the good old days of oncein a day news bulletin was far better.

What do you think?

(This post is dedicated to all the brave police officials and innocent civilians who lost their lives in yesterday's terror attack in Bombay)

Mumbai attacks shows shakeout in Indian TV news

In the middle of a very busy run, here are a few quick thoughts on how TV News is not going to be the same again in India.

Great reportage from the ground on Times Now, Headlines Today and CNN-IBN, not necessarily in that order. NDTV seems to be lagging -- and very fatigued.

Lots of great articulation from the ground by tireless reporters that I have never heard of or seen much. A great new generation of television journalists is in the making.

Hindi news channels turn mainstream, and everybody watches and surfs on such occasions across channels and languages

TV reportage lacks cohesion in presentation, because it focuses too much on images and "on-the-spot" feeds. Leaves something for print to do.

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.

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.

Murdoch's baraat goes to Bharat: And what's his message for Indian media barons?

So Rupert Murdoch is going to invest $100 million in India's regional language channels.
I already watch Vijay TV in Tamil in which he has a hand through Star TV. He is now up for Saam TV in Marathi and Asianet in Malayalam, we are told.
This man knows his long-term onions.
I watched Star Plus grow from a 50-50 joint venture with Subhash Chandra's Zee TV that had a strong contract which limited Hindi content, before the relationship ended. Subhashji got rich, but guess what Mr. Murdoch got?
Two things: 1) Freedom 2) Ground-level knowledge.
I do believe that a serial like Kora Kagaz, which ran in the constricted Star TV, as the forerunner of the famous mother-in-law soaps that took Star Plus to new heights.
If I were an Indian media baron, I would be floating a joint venture with other regional satraps.
You know, cricket is not the only thing Australians are good at.

When corruption thrives, so does satire

Stumbled on this funny take-off talking about allegations of bribery in the vote of confidence in the parliament.
Just a little while later, it was bizarre to see members of parliament waving wads of currency notes on live television. I am waiting to see equally bizarre SMS polls on the mushrooming news channels.
Meanwhile, I decided to do a spot of do-it-yourself cartooning on the Net. A fantasy come true..and a tool just right for the moment.

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.

See, I told you? Video Entertainment in 2013 Will Be Less Than 50% Traditional TV

More market research in the US reveals more about Life After YouTube (and Hulu, and broadband, and mobile video!).
TV is fading away in the sense we know it.
Mediapost, quoting Solutions Research Group on a study covering US media consumer behaviour, says: "While daily time with TV will remain close to 4 hours, traditional TV's share of the total video entertainment pie is projected to shrink from 63.9% today to 47.1% by 2013, given the overall increase consumers' in total video-based entertainment consumption"
It kind of validates a lot of stuff I have been writing on this blog since it began in 2005.
Am I supposed to say: Watch this space?

State of Hindi news television ...hilarious

A promising site provides much-needed satire on Indian media.



Fly You Fools - An Indian Webcomic about Life.

Courtesy: http://www.flyyoufools.com