The Hindu Business Line : Audience be damned!

One of the consequences of becoming a media society is that we have to think of people as an audience before we think of them as consumers. — Lee Clow, Chairman and Chief Creative Officer of TBWA Worldwide.

India really discovered television, and colour television at that, in the early '80s with the Asian games. So most of the millions of young Indians who are now in their twenties have been reared on the picture tube, unlike some of us who have grown up on the printed word, and wear thick spectacles as testimony to that!

And this India, which grew up on Chitrahaar, fed on Hindi feature films and feasted on cricket telecast and action replays first knew about products and services through the medium of television. And as Larry Gelbart said rightly, "Today's audience knows more about what's on television than what's in life." (Emphasis added).

A lot of the current cheeky, irreverent, at times sexy, and most often mindless, advertising is beamed at this young audience. They are serious audiences who not only buy products but also influence buying decisions. And yet, are we taking this audience and its parents for granted? Are advertisers, agencies and channels realising the dangers of alienating their current audience and seriously jeopardising their chances of becoming customers in future? Are they aware of the risks they are running? More importantly, do they really care? I am not sure they do.

This feeling, if anything, has been reinforced by the recent World Cup telecast, which probably was an even greater fiasco than the ICC's handling (?) of the event on the ground. The three principal constituents named earlier do not give a solitary damn for the sensitivities of someone who seems an insignificant cog in this entire equation and who runs the risk of being marginalised. Yes, that is you, me and the millions of Indians who watched the telecast — in short the audience that Lee Clow reminded us of.

The fiasco that ended on April 28, 2007

The cricket World Cup was billed as the marketing event of the decade, if not the century. If the pre-tournament hype was to be believed, it had all been fixed. (Oh, there's that pesky word again!) India would meet Australia in the final as a rematch of the 2003 World Cup final. The only difference was that India would win. So we believed or so we were led to.

And so did all the advertisers who succumbed to the `spin' on India's resurgence in cricket. They bought spots and sponsorships as though there would be no other sponsorship available after the World Cup. Remember how dud stocks are marketed and poor unsuspecting retail investors like us are left holding the baby? That is the story of Indian cricket and sponsorship. But let's cut to the telecast, which was primarily commercials interspersed with some mediocre cricket in between. Let's focus on the poor, bored audience.

It's just not cricket

I had the opportunity to watch three different telecasts of this World Cup — at the West Indies, in England and here at home. I was struck by the dramatic difference in the way it was handled in these three markets. As a television viewer in the West Indies, I was king. No commercial in the first ball or the sixth of an over! No commercial when the poor bowler tied his shoe laces. No commercial when there was a problem with the sightscreen. One heard the experts' comments!

It was an unnerving experience for someone who had watched most of his cricket on Indian television. (Of course, there was a downside to this as well as one could experience how bad commentators like Ranjit Fernando were.)

England was another kettle of fish. First, it was not the easiest to get to watch the second innings of a cricket match even if it was a World Cup semi-final. As this paled into insignificance in comparison with a Liverpool vs Chelsea game. At seven o' clock GMT, all pubs religiously shifted to football. An understanding pub owner told me that although he himself wanted to watch cricket; he just had no choice.

Maybe cricket can take a leaf out of football's book where there isn't a single commercial in each exciting half of the game. And I religiously made my way to the single sports bar on Trafalgar Square, which actually had four TV screens (out of a hundred) devoted to World Cup cricket.

There was no question of hearing any experts with all the noise attendant with football viewing, particularly with spirits flowing as they do on big match occasions. But not surprisingly, there were not too many commercials in the cricket. You could watch the cricket and listen to David Gower as well.

Closer home

Watching the World Cup telecast in India was a nightmare. Irate viewers have posted angry blogs at the intrusion of their viewing. The normally unflappable Steve Waugh too lost his cool: "It is annoying, ridiculous and an insult to the game to see an advertisement being squeezed in just because the bowler has not reached the top of his run-up."

Oh Steve, don't you know we love Shaun Tait as we can squeeze in more commercials when he bowls. Who is bothered about his swinging yorker! And yet, this is an alarming tendency that has grown over the years. In the '80s, DD used to have one long loop of TV commercials which consumers could happily miss. I remember one of Mudra's strengths was its ability to promise the client's commercial just before the programme started. (Don't ask me how it was done).

DD had and still has regulations. There could be two-and-a-half minutes of commercial time in a half-hour slot. Today, there are two breaks of five minutes each in a 30-minute programme in most channels. And it is quietly becoming three.

As for the World Cup, the numbers are interesting. The Sri Lanka vs India game had 355 ads. The commercial time a mere 111 minutes. The Super 8 game between South Africa and West Indies had 343 commercials shown for 115 minutes and the West Indies-England game had 353 commercials for all of 130 minutes. What staggering numbers! And what a drag for viewers.

You don't need to be an expert to figure out that viewers watch the game for extended periods of time. How many times can they watch the same boring commercial on the same day? And if that is the case, what are their feelings towards the channel and the brand likely to be? But seriously, does anyone care?

Never underestimate the consumer

Many of us who have been consumers in the pre-liberalisation era know what it is to get poor quality products and shoddy service. One waited seven years to get a Bajaj Scooter. And seven years later, sold it for the same price it was bought for and complimented ourselves on our smartness. To get a landline meant that you had good karma in your previous janam. One had one good half-hour programme in a week's TV watching. We were a patient lot we Indians, even if we broke the queue on occasion.

Today things are different. We are used to choice and better quality. We are more aware. We are vocal. We can boycott products and even burn effigies on occasion. How long before we become discerning? Not too long. Today we are not cynical or aggressive about advertising as people are in mature markets. It would be really short sighted if advertisers, agencies and media take viewers for granted. They could find them becoming a lot scarcer in the years to come.

(Ramanujam Sridhar is CEO of Brand-Comm.)

More Stories on : Advertising | Sports | Third Umpire

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
The Rashomon Effect

`Electrolux is led by consumer insights'

`India provides interesting opportunity'

Waste is out of fashion