His executive summary may run into five pages but Raj Nayak, executive vice-president - sales and marketing, STAR India, is very much a "people's person" with his head firmly on his shoulders and priorities in place. In fact, it is this quality that has stood him in good stead through the years as a successful print and television professional encompassing brands like The Indian Post, The Sunday Mail, The Pioneer and Independent Television, and of course, STAR India, the wholly-owned subsidiary of News Corporation, promoted by media baron Rupert Murdoch. His longest stint with a media house to date (he been with STAR for nine years now), Nayak's importance within the group can be gauged from a single line straight out of his dossier, "Raj is a key member of the management team at STAR India". In this interview with Viveat Susan Pinto of agencyfaqs!, Raj Nayak talks about the changing Indian television landscape, STAR's successful formulae and his targets for the future.

Q. Television channels supposedly sell their airtime on the basis of prefixed rates or card rates. But if industry sources are to be believed, no written word is sacrosanct today with media owners negotiating viciously with buyers. The question is why is this happening and where will all this lead to?

A. In my opinion, the industry is still pretty immature. Media professionals, especially television professionals, are not people who have descended from heaven. Most of them have had a press background like me. Thus it has been a learning experience for us, with trials and errors along the way. Initially, there is a herd mentality. You try to ape what's happening in the West, you try to follow their systems. But India is a far more dynamic country where every 50 kilometres or so you come across different eating, drinking and lifestyle habits among people. A Tamilian in Malabar Hills, Mumbai, for instance, is different from a Tamilian located in Chembur (a Mumbai suburb) despite the fact that both reside in the same city. As media professionals we have to bear this rich diversity in mind. Furthermore, we have learnt how the medium operates over a period of time. We have learnt what works and what doesn't work on television.

Again, at STAR we are steadily moving towards a rate card system despite the fact that supply far outstrips demand - especially so in niche channels - resulting in undercutting and so on. It is definitely not good for the industry and that's where networks such as STAR, Sony and Zee or even the Eenadu group need to take the lead and stem the rot by holding on to their rates and subsequently taking the industry to newer levels. Otherwise, there could only be a downward spiral due to undercutting and discounting.

Also, while the trend exists, the rate of discounting today is much lower than what it used to be two years ago. Give it another year or two and I think we will move towards being as close to the rate card as possible. In fact, if I am not mistaken channels such as Aaj Tak and the Eenadu group work exclusively on rate cards.

Q. Most channels have a particular way of selling airtime. Has there been a shift in pricing or selling time on STAR since STAR Plus became the No 1 channel and STAR, the most preferred network? Has it made the task for you any easier?

A. In any market, it is the leader who decides which way the market will head and I think, in that sense, STAR has played a very crucial role in ensuring that we lift the benchmark of the industry. As far as broad trends go, increasingly there is a thought process gaining ground among broadcasters regarding large spenders on mass television. The point is that if your product is something that cannot do without television, you should be paying a higher price as compared to another advertiser who can do without television.

Currently, the scenario is diagonally opposite especially with soap and detergent manufacturers who require mass television to advertise their products. These companies end up paying the lowest possible price for advertising on mass TV channels when the case should be just the reverse. Actually, to increase the base of advertisers on niche channels, such companies should be incentivised to advertise on niche channels but charged a higher rate when advertising on a mass channel. If this premise is accepted by one and all, the result will be a shift in the way pricing is done.

The future will move towards category-wise rate cards as opposed to generic rate cards. As in print, television too should move in this direction so that clients who do not require mass television can be incentivised to advertise on mass TV channels at a lower rate and the ones whose demand for television is more should pay a higher price.

Q. Do you see greater professionalism and accountability coming in with this shift?

A. It has already come in. However, in my opinion, television broadcasters need to optimise their revenues. They should look at charging those companies much more who cannot do without television.

Q. Tell us something more about your network selling strategy? How has it worked for you?

A. Network selling has worked very well for us. Across all channels, we work only towards one vision and one goal, which is to make the network the No 1 in the country. If you take individual channels, STAR Plus is the No 1 today. STAR Movies is also the No 1 channel in its genre. STAR News, for all practical purposes, is No 1, though it would be a bit unfair to compare it to Aaj Tak, which is 100 per cent Hindi. We are a combination of English and Hindi. However, in perception, reality or even revenue terms, I think STAR News is No 1. So far as STAR World is concerned, though the numbers are small, in its category it is No 1. Also, we are taking steps to make STAR Gold No 1, and you will soon find out what these are.

Q. What about National Geographic channel? Don't you think it is the odd one out in a bouquet predominately aimed at general entertainment, straddling music and films?

A. When you are a network, you want to have variety. We don't want to be left out in any genre. An infotainment channel was imperative to us and NGC has filled that gap. Moreover, it is 50 per cent owned by NewsCorp. Again, there is ESPN-Star Sports, as part of our bouquet of offerings. The only channel missing in our bouquet is a kids' channel and regionally we have made inroads here through Vijay TV.

Q. Is STAR seriously looking to fill the vacuum by offering a channel for kids?

A. I don't know; it will all depend on whether there is room for another player. Don't forget that Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon are already there. Hence, a few things have to be studied thoroughly - like how feasible or viable will it be to have a third kids' channel on air, where the content is going to come from etc.

Q. There seems to be a conscious effort on STAR's part to be ahead of its rivals at every stage - even at the risk of losing money. For instance, with Dil Chahta Hain STAR actually tried to reduce viewer fatigue by dropping the number of ad breaks and ads per break. My question is, what is the level of interaction between programming, marketing, ad sales and distribution at STAR?

A. We work hand in hand. Across departments, you'll find that everybody works towards one goal, one vision, which is to be ahead of competition and be the No 1 television network in India.

Q. Fair enough. But then things like 'no breaks' may actually affect your business interests, won't they?

A. Not at all. It does not affect our business interests in any way. We take 10 minutes of advertising in an hour and we have stuck to it. And advertisers have benefited due to this exercise. If earlier they got their spots in between two programmes they now get it in either of the two programmes. Technically speaking, the commercial breaks have just moved to accommodate this transition but the fact of the matter is that we still carry 10 minutes of advertising in an hour, effectively meaning that the airtime I sell remains the same.

If you are asking me why we went ahead with this strategy, the reason is simple. Viewers generally switch channels during the commercial break between two programmes. By going in for a 'no breaks' strategy between two programmes we have tried to make sure that the audience gets a sample of the next programme, so that there is a smooth transition from one to the other. Once they get hooked on to the storyline, they will stay with it. Of course, this strategy is working beautifully for us and it has also reflected in the ratings.

Q. Talking about ratings, what are the fundamental changes taking place in the programming landscape on television?

A. The most notable change is the importance attached to high production values. Channels are investing much larger sums of money to get a quality product in place. Simultaneously, the scale of operations has also significantly increased compared to a few years ago when budgets were really small. Today, the emphasis is to think big and take risks with the result that you are also expecting higher returns from your investments.

Q. Tell us, what is STAR's contribution in its own success in India? The leading channel in your bouquet namely STAR Plus revolves around Balaji-produced programmes and game shows inspired by hit shows abroad. Considering this, what is the extent of STAR's original inputs in its success?

A. We are a global company with strong roots in India. When we decided to Indianise the channel, it didn't necessarily mean that we had to make a beginning by conceptualising or developing a product in-house. After all, we are in the entertainment business. Who Wants to be a Millionaire was an idea we thought would work in India provided we sufficiently Indianised it to suit local tastes. Of course, we had the rights to do it and we went ahead with it. We chose a superstar, who at that time was probably not at his peak and the best part of it was that the show worked wonders for us. The fact that we brought in a quality product, Indianised it, packaged it, and finally presented it to Indian television audiences, highlights the vision and foresight of STAR.

And to be very frank, I'm a firm believer that a good copy is better than a bad original.

Q. You mean to say you weren't confident about your original ideas?

A. We were. But at that moment, we had various options. We thought that this was a great idea. A tried and tested formula, which seemed to fit our plans of finding a big hook that would attract just the right critical mass for the channel. We were proved right because in one night we changed the face of Indian television history.

Q. In other words, you prefer to go with the 'tried and tested'?

A. Not necessarily. We have experimented along the way too. Let me tell you that we were the first to do daily soaps in the country, which wasn't a tried and tested formula. Moreover, we have moved beyond soaps to other programming genres involving other producers (and not Balaji alone) despite the fact that most continue to associate us with the Balaji-produced Kyunki… and Kahani…. Be it Kehta Hai Dil or Kyun Hota Hain Pyaar, there is so much action happening at STAR. And though they may have a 'K' in them, in reality, many are not Balaji productions.

Q. Marathon serials or daily soaps have been around well before STAR forayed into that arena. Serial Tara on Zee is a case in point.

A. Tara was one of its kind. The fact is that we were the ones who started with this strip business on a more regular basis. What I mean is programmes from Monday through Thursday at different slots. Today if you watch STAR Plus, we have strips during the 8.30 pm, 9.30 pm, 10.00 pm, 10.30 pm or 11.00 pm slots, which are all working for us.

Q. STAR has been accused of portraying women in a retrograde light. In fact, that is one plank used by your rivals to sell their brand of programming. Comment.

A. I am a firm believer that at the end of the day it is the viewer who matters. The proof of the pudding lies in the eating, and at the risk of sounding pompous, I can tell you that India watches STAR Plus. Today, 81 out of the top 100 programmes are on STAR Plus, which is a great achievement for us. Moreover, our afternoon programmes deliver much higher ratings than Zee and Sony put together. Obviously, the Indian viewer is lapping up whatever we are offering him.

Q. But how long will it last?

A. Well, it has been going on for the last two years. As far as how long it will continue like this, we are pretty clear that we are in business and we are here for commercial viability. Everything is driven by the success of a programme. The moment we find that a programme is not doing well, we yank it off air and put in a new programme. As long as the viewer is enjoying it, he loves it and our advertisers love it we will continue to go ahead with a programme.

Having said that let me add that despite being in the entertainment business, we also understand our responsibilities towards society and would do nothing that is detrimental to its interests.

Q. With one production house supplying the bulk of the content across television channels, how does one differentiate one channel from the other? How long will the run of 'K' last?

A. The run of 'K' is a question mark because 'K' doesn't necessarily mean soaps. If you look at a Kyun Hota Hain Pyaar or a Kehta Hain Dil, these are very different programmes with the latter targeted at the youth. On the other hand, Khulja Sim Sim is a game show. The letter 'K' in my opinion seems to be a fixation at this point. People love it and for whatever reasons seem to be going with it. And anyways, you can't tell a programme producer how he or she should title his or her show.

Q. And it does not matter that there is this perception of homogeneity across the medium today?

A. In what way? Obviously there is some difference between STAR and the rest of the channels, which is why people are lapping up what is being offered by STAR as compared to a Sony or Zee. If there were a similarity, the audience would have most probably got fragmented. Why are they sticking to STAR? The point is that television is about sticky eyeballs. It's about getting the viewer involved, hooking him on to the programme so that he comes back again and again. In fact, the phrase I use very often to express the nature of my business is, that we are in the repeat order business. Our job is to bring the viewer as well as the advertiser back to television.

Q. You've had a long innings in the print industry. What is the difference between selling airtime on a channel and ad space in a newspaper. What are the advantages/ disadvantages of advertising on television vis-a-vis print?

A. No rocket science. If you can sell space in a newspaper, you can sell airtime on television as well. Because both businesses work on certain fundamental rules and most importantly, the business of selling, whatever may be the product, works on relationships. In fact, that is an art you learn when you are selling space. Half your job is done when you have good relationships. The other half is if it makes commercial sense. In my opinion there's no major difference between the two media except that in television you are exposed to big money as compared to print. Besides it is a far more dynamic medium - it changes very rapidly. Of course, the biggest difference between television and print is that an illiterate can watch television but he can't read a newspaper. Hence if you are targeting people across socio-economic backgrounds, then television is a far more lethal and potent medium.

Q. How has this fiscal year been for STAR? Do you see signs of healthy growth in the near future?

A. It's been extremely good.

I don't think the industry is going to grow at a phenomenal rate. Our estimates tell us that there should be an 8 to 10 per cent growth this year if you total all adspends. And we would definitely like to keep pace with industry growth and probably even surpass it, considering that our channels are doing well. We've always believed that over the last few years we have performed much better than the industry average and we would like to continue with the trend.

Q. Where will the growth come from, considering that budgets are tight for top advertisers?

A. There will be shifts in revenues from channels. Advertisers are definitely looking for more value for money. However, more value for money is not achieved merely by a better-cost-per-rating kind of a deal. It comes from environment, innovation, servicing, packaging and so on. Moreover, there are new advertisers coming on board with new sectors opening up. A case in point is insurance.

Q. With the IBF guidelines on surrogate advertising in force, do you see TV channels suffering heavily?

A. Not really. It is more of a misconception. There has hardly been any cigarette advertising on television as TV companies do not accept tobacco ads. Even if you look at surrogate advertising of tobacco products, it is very minimal. In comparison surrogate advertising of liquor products has been higher. However, when we took stock of the situation in terms of the total volume of business in the last one year, surrogate advertising of liquor products did not account for a sizeable portion of our business.

Gutka and pan masala advertisers definitely spend a lot on television. However, when you spread their monies across various channels, it is not a huge sum of money.

September 16, 2002
Mumbai
You can write to Raj Nayak at
rajn@startv.com