/afaqs/media/post_attachments/7affe4202daa079989e8f23f60516d72aed6517b8e4baad298902c9c01b4d21d.jpg)
Ajay Trigunayat has been an instrumental force in conceiving and nurturing the launch of Movies Now, the movie channel from The Times Group. Under his leadership, the channel challenged the long-standing status quo of the previous players who have dominated the category for more than a decade.
A strategist at heart, it was Ajay's firm directive towards the channel's Audience Management Plan -- content, brand and marketing -- that helped Movies Now carve a distinct identity in the mind of its consumers.
afaqs! caught up with the channel head to understand what helped Movies Now to witness such a propelled upswing, while influencing the overall growth of the genre.
Edited Excerpts
What kind of gap did the research identify before launching Movies Now?
The main gap was in the usage of movies. There is a popular belief that new movies drive viewership, but we found that it is the library movies that do so. Eighty nine per cent of the viewership is led by library movies. Movies like Predator, Speed, and True Lies, the top-rated movies of today are between 15-22 years old.
We reached this conclusion through 36 focus group discussions across Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Chennai, equally split between the age group of 15-34 (SEC A, B), male and female, and validated the focus group data through TAM.
We discovered that people like to watch movies which have simple plots. While it is very fancy to say that 'I watch a Pulp Fiction', in reality, no one understands what the movie is all about. So, we classified movies which made us understand what consumers really prefer to watch. And, within that, we identified the genres and the sub genres.
We were very clear that it should not be a few thousand who are influencing the choice for 36 million. I think this is what we got right in our research phase.
Have you managed to fill that gap?
I think, we have. The category has expanded from 48 GRPs to 77GRPs in Week 1 itself. There was a 79 per cent of expansion in Week 1, and the expansion sustains itself today at approximately 53 per cent, with some loss of viewership to cricket.
In a scenario where the fate of movie channels is driven by titles - which, too, are not often exclusive deals -- how does one create a different positioning for a movie channel?
For me, positioning is a comic book tool. A positioning statement does not matter today, especially when there is a technological leapfrog all over the place. In my opinion, there's nothing called a functional differentiator or tangible differentiator. If your brand and marketing construct is not okay, you are not going to get anywhere since they drive the vision, the focus, and the direction for the business. Let our competitors do positioning; we are not happy to do just that here.
The key differentiator for us today is the personality of the brand.
What about your positioning -- Hollywood in HD, especially, when the HDTV market is still nascent in India? Has it found ground amongst viewers?
We needed to have brand differentiation. So, we've taken HD as a platform in which we wanted to provide a superlative audio-visual experience. There is a certain drool value that we intend to provide.
This is not just a marketing strategy or a matter of spends. It is an investment in better infrastructure, more viewers, more bandwidth.
With standard definition, there are 400 channels running in the market today. With high definition, there are just two channels -- Nat Geo and Discovery. So, there is a lot to be done, understood and executed. It's not like any like STAR Movies or HBO. They have launched many channels internationally. But, they are yet to launch it here. So, they have to replicate a success factor in terms of technology only. I think we have covered that gap.
In the Hindi movie genre, the acquisition model has changed from exclusive rights to telecast rights. What's the (acquisition) model followed for Hollywood titles? Has it changed?
The English movie genre is all about the output deal. In total, there are only about 400-500 Hollywood titles that really appeal to the Indian English movie audience on television. Movie channels depend on unique titles that comprise television premieres, as well as a wide-ranging movie library bank.
While STAR Movies, HBO and Pix are relying on their first output deals, our focus is to aggregate the best library which makes a strong brand-bond with the English movie channel's target audience.
About seven-eight years back, if a movie was getting released at a theatre, it would take about 18-24 months to come on television. Today, it comes in about 12 months, and if it is not a very successful movie, or not yet released in India, it could be on television between 6-4 months.
However, if a movie is doing well in the theatres, they will extend the theatrical run for a couple of months. They will then try to milk it in home video post which goes into video-on-demand platforms, and then into first pay, which is HBO, STAR Movies, or PIX.
But, today, the studios are certainly very happy. Earlier, the first-run movies were the only selling point. Now, their selling point would be the first-run movies, as well as the library movies. So, there is a significant value given to library-led movies, as compared to six-seven years back.
No commercial breaks are good for viewership increase, but what about revenue? How do you compensate? Does it is only work for blockbusters where you can get sponsors for the title?
We have more than doubled our rates, and our inventory is practically sold out. We are even refusing spots on some peak prime-time days. So, inventory is not as low as it seems. At last count, we had more than 56 advertisers on board, with a healthy mix of blue chip brands, ranging from Coke and Pepsi, to Nokia and Aircel. We do approximately 26 GRPs week-on-week, and we are delivering about 66 per cent more viewership than competition. So, if competition is charging Rs 4,500 per 10 seconds, I should be charging Rs 7,500 per 10 seconds. My rate of Rs 3,000 or Rs 4,000 per 10 seconds is not much. We are in negotiations with 100 more clients right now.
Sponsorships depend upon the property personalities and brands that seek affinity with those properties. Sponsorships are not limited to just blockbusters.
Does appointment viewing play a role in this genre's viewership, or is it based on impulse?
Today, there is appointment viewing with respect to a channel. People have their preferred destinations. Of the seven-eight movie channels today, viewers surf through only two-three channels. I think it is difficult, but important to be part of that consideration set of those channels. And, this is where distribution, differentiation, and relevance come into play.
How will the business of movie channels change, if we move towards a subscription model? Will it be significant?
English movies have a fairly healthy subscription revenue stream because you are dealing with the urban affluent audience. They are very particular about what they want and what they don't want. Let's say, if a cable operator is not providing STAR Movies or HBO, it might not get an entry into the household. That is the pull these channels have which constantly deliver the necessaries of subscription revenue.
But, today, there is 90 per cent under declaration with the analog system. And, I think, with digitisation coming in, the subscription revenue potential is going to be very significant. My estimate is that by the end of financial year 2012, there will be 40 million digital subscribers in this country, and the bulk of them are going to be DTH.