LYNN DE SOUZA
It is said that an important indication of maturity and evolution, of an individual or community or society or process, is the ability to cross boundaries. To break down barriers that exist to protect and preserve so that newer territories, both physical and ideological, can open up to the brave and the enlightened, making way for further growth and development. Boundaries define, and therefore, they limit. Break them and a new world unfolds itself.
The best expression of this is the Internet, of course. And Google. And all things digital. These have broken down barriers surrounding the single most important element in all human relationships—communication. Physical, psychological, geographical and financial barriers have become a thing of the past today when a 12-year-old basketball player in Connecticut can so easily mete out some serious advice on pet therapy to an aging financial analyst in Sydney, both incognito, yet, very much cognito.
We, in media and marketing communication, are lucky to be sitting in the middle of all this. We can see all our carefully-built paradigms crumble before our eyes, and it looks scary, yes, but its full of opportunity too. Ten years ago, an advertiser and his agency made an ad, a newspaper had journalists who gathered news and commented on society, and consumers bought the papers, read the news, read the ads, bought the products and used them. Today, advertisers dabble with editorial, TV channels and radio stations make more ads than advertisers and their agencies, and consumers have begun to beat both journalists and advertisers at their game.
Co-creation and user-generated content. These are two terms that are making media planners, copywriters and journalists spend sleepless nights. They represent loss of control, a reinvention of roles, a full-blown breakdown of boundaries once spelt out in stone. They also represent freedom of expression, and more important, freedom of impression. As a consumer, or user of media, I choose what I want to be impressed by, like never before.
Little wonder then that there is a blurring of roles between media and creative. Media agencies increasingly find themselves suggesting creative solutions, often content-led ones, to both advertisers and media houses. The term content itself has come to mean anything that is published or broadcast—not just editorial, but also quasi-editorial, informercial, interstitial, or blatantly promotional. Media planners get more jollies out of an ‘innovation’ that they have convinced a media owner to execute, usually one that flies in the face of conventional editorial policies and boundaries, than they do from intellectual ROI modeling.
“Everyone is creative”, “Creative is not the prerogative of the creative depart-ment”. These expressions have been bandied around for some time. The truth is these statements are true!
So where does this leave the original dyed-in-the-wool, hotshot, ad agency creative director, many of who are my close friends? Some of them have forayed into strategic planning, many of them have become creative directors at media houses, having loads of fun in programming and promotions. Some have turned into online communication whizkids. Those that have stayed on in advertising grow more defensive by the day. That’s sad.
This is the communication age. Progress, or the lack of it, is now being determined by the quality of communication present in a society—its speed, cost, richness, creativity, reach and impact. Anyone who does creative things for a living should exult. He or she can tap into facilities, features and media that his predecessors would give an arm and a leg for. Smart creative people thus appreciate the need to collaborate with those that provide these facilities and features, rather than complain that other people are treading on their space or crossing into their defined limits.
Having said that, I seriously don’t expect a creative guy to want to do a media plan. And yet, I think I would be happy if he did try to. The best creative directors I have worked with could write a better media strategy than I could on any given day, and have done so. They bring to the table their understanding of how consumers engage with content of any kind, from books and movies to art exhibitions and soap operas, to create communication that makes a difference. Balbir Pasha was not made from the IRS or the NRS. Neither, I daresay, was Google.
—The author is director, Lintas Media Group. She is a juror at the Goa Fest 2007 media awards, to be held later this month
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Advertisers rewrite rules for cricket pitches
The business of cricket advertising is never going to be the same again. Not after India’s early exit from the World Cup, which left several big-ticket advertisers red-faced. Not after bidders for cricket rights in India have had to forcibly share broadcasts with Doordarshan. And certainly not after the Essel group of Subhash Chandra announced plans on Tuesday to challenge the cricketing monopoly of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) by launching an Indian Cricket League, which will give advertisers new options in due course.
India’s ignominious exit from the World Cup has already led to bitter renegotiation of ad rates with the broadcaster Sony. Several ad campaigns involving the Indian team or players (Pepsi, Visa, Reebok) have been pulled out, and contracts with cricketers have been cancelled (Sansui dumped Rahul Dravid and Videocon MS Dhoni). According to the grapevine, heavyweight advertisers who had signed up for the World Cup at hefty premia of Rs 2.5-3 lakh per 10-second spot are now getting the same at 60-80% discounts, at Rs 50,000-Rs 1 lakh.
To avoid such heartburn in future, the big change that is now being discussed by advertisers and media buying agencies is to relate ad rates to actual viewership.
Media buyers, who buy TV and print ad space on behalf of advertisers, are planning to write foolproof, and purely performance-driven, ad contracts with cricket broadcasters, including ESPN, which has the rights to the next two World Cups.
Some media buyers are suggesting a clause whereby advertisers will pay ‘x’ ad rate if India plays, and a reduced `y’ rate if India doesn’t. Advertisers may continue to buy ad rights in bulk, but the ‘x’ and ‘y’ rates for India and non-India matches could come to stay.
Other media veterans are also advocating a TRP-led, post-paid model which is in vogue internationally - rates that will be pegged to the viewership a specific match gets. (TRP, or television rating points, is a system to calculate how many people may have viewed a programme).
CD Mitra, president, Optimum Media Solutions, a media buying agency, is not sure such a model would work in India since advertisers may be unwilling to fork out more for high-TRP games. But then, it’s always possible to have contracts where payments are capped beyond a certain level of targeted TRPs.
Meenakshi Madhvani, managing partner, Spatial Access, a media audit and consultancy company, says: “The money these advertisers put in is actually shareholders’ money. When they say that cricket is a game of chance, shareholders’ money is simply up for gambling. This attitude should change. The TRP-led, post-paid model should be brought in and advertisers should be willing to pay a premium for high-ticket cricket events instead of gambling with shareholders money.”
What remains to be seen is whether broadcasters will accept the new script being prepared by advertisers and media buyers. The heat will be faced by ESPN, which has promised a mind-numbing $1.2 billion to acquire the rights to International Cricket Council (ICC) matches for the next eight years (2007-2015), including the next two World Cups. Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), which won the rights for 2000-07 at $ 550 million, sold the India rights to Sony for roughly $250 million.
Meanwhile, cricket planners point out three measures that broadcasters might take to promote cricket advertising. One, they might sell combo-package deals to advertisers that will not only include cricket events but also some other sporting events whose telecast rights the channel possesses. Second, they can appoint a third party, who will buy the advertising inventories in bulk from broadcasters and sell it to advertisers. In the current World Cup, Sony’s decision to sell a significant portion of ad inventories to Dentsu drew a lot of flak from media buyers and broadcasters who felt they could be cut out of future deals.
Third, broadcasters themselves could launch promotional activities to create the hype around the matches and the tournaments.
(Source : DNA)
India’s ignominious exit from the World Cup has already led to bitter renegotiation of ad rates with the broadcaster Sony. Several ad campaigns involving the Indian team or players (Pepsi, Visa, Reebok) have been pulled out, and contracts with cricketers have been cancelled (Sansui dumped Rahul Dravid and Videocon MS Dhoni). According to the grapevine, heavyweight advertisers who had signed up for the World Cup at hefty premia of Rs 2.5-3 lakh per 10-second spot are now getting the same at 60-80% discounts, at Rs 50,000-Rs 1 lakh.
To avoid such heartburn in future, the big change that is now being discussed by advertisers and media buying agencies is to relate ad rates to actual viewership.
Media buyers, who buy TV and print ad space on behalf of advertisers, are planning to write foolproof, and purely performance-driven, ad contracts with cricket broadcasters, including ESPN, which has the rights to the next two World Cups.
Some media buyers are suggesting a clause whereby advertisers will pay ‘x’ ad rate if India plays, and a reduced `y’ rate if India doesn’t. Advertisers may continue to buy ad rights in bulk, but the ‘x’ and ‘y’ rates for India and non-India matches could come to stay.
Other media veterans are also advocating a TRP-led, post-paid model which is in vogue internationally - rates that will be pegged to the viewership a specific match gets. (TRP, or television rating points, is a system to calculate how many people may have viewed a programme).
CD Mitra, president, Optimum Media Solutions, a media buying agency, is not sure such a model would work in India since advertisers may be unwilling to fork out more for high-TRP games. But then, it’s always possible to have contracts where payments are capped beyond a certain level of targeted TRPs.
Meenakshi Madhvani, managing partner, Spatial Access, a media audit and consultancy company, says: “The money these advertisers put in is actually shareholders’ money. When they say that cricket is a game of chance, shareholders’ money is simply up for gambling. This attitude should change. The TRP-led, post-paid model should be brought in and advertisers should be willing to pay a premium for high-ticket cricket events instead of gambling with shareholders money.”
What remains to be seen is whether broadcasters will accept the new script being prepared by advertisers and media buyers. The heat will be faced by ESPN, which has promised a mind-numbing $1.2 billion to acquire the rights to International Cricket Council (ICC) matches for the next eight years (2007-2015), including the next two World Cups. Global Cricket Corporation (GCC), which won the rights for 2000-07 at $ 550 million, sold the India rights to Sony for roughly $250 million.
Meanwhile, cricket planners point out three measures that broadcasters might take to promote cricket advertising. One, they might sell combo-package deals to advertisers that will not only include cricket events but also some other sporting events whose telecast rights the channel possesses. Second, they can appoint a third party, who will buy the advertising inventories in bulk from broadcasters and sell it to advertisers. In the current World Cup, Sony’s decision to sell a significant portion of ad inventories to Dentsu drew a lot of flak from media buyers and broadcasters who felt they could be cut out of future deals.
Third, broadcasters themselves could launch promotional activities to create the hype around the matches and the tournaments.
(Source : DNA)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
