Sports Marketing Summit 2008: TV friendly sports attract advertisers’ interest and money

Do sports need to change for TV? This was the topic of discussion in the fourth session of the Sports Marketing Summit 2008, – an event organised by afaqs! and SportzPR – in the capital on September 5. The panel of speakers debated if and how sports have changed for TV; changes that have occurred in the format of the game or its packaging for viewers; and what sports other than cricket in India need to do, to get the requisite limelight, attracting much needed eyeballs, and in turn, becoming revenue spinning propositions.

The panel, which included Anil Singh, managing director, Procam International; Basabdutta Chowdhuri, chief executive officer, Madison Media Plus; and Yannick Colaco, executive vice president, Nimbus Sports, put forward arguments on whether the very format of sports is undergoing a change to cater to viewer preferences, or is it the packaging of the games that is becoming crucial, determining the fate and popularity of a game in India. Samir Kale, president, SportzPR, moderated the session.

Kale began the session by bringing forth the fact that both sports and television have been changing and evolving for the past few years. He tossed the ball in the panelists’ camp, enquiring as to how sports has been trying to cater to the changing demands of TV; and what bearing the resultant changes have had on the formats and fate of the games.

Singh of Procam International began by emphasising that there was a need to understand and make a distinction in the debate on two different points of view. First, is it only sports that has been changing for TV? Or, is it the case of change in packaging of sports that has led to increasing dominance of and the popularity of some games over others?

Singh pointed out that TV, as a medium, could not be held responsible for changes in the formats of games such as cricket, tennis or rugby. Giving an example, he said that the shortened version of cricket, T20, could not be a creation of the medium itself. Instead, it is the game that has changed to capitalise on the nature and demand of the medium. A short and quick, start to finish format suits the medium; as time strapped individuals are provided with a quick fix entertaining version of the sport.

There have been innovations in other sports as well. Tie breaks and the introduction of penalty corner in football and the concept of four quarters in basketball have helped increase the popularity of the games. Singh also stressed on the fact that in order to cash on sports other than the cricket, it is the producer, promoters and TV company, who have to collectively work towards presenting a better packaged game to the viewers. This could translate into games adopting new rules and regulations and making necessary changes in basic formats.

However, according to Singh, the need of the hour is to look at the interesting ways in which different games can be presented, by injecting them with a fresh, new look and style. He also confessed that to do so, all one needed was passion and interest, because only these two things could bring about the necessary change to take a game right into the hearts and drawing rooms of the viewers.

Chowdhuri of Madison, for one, agreed with what Singh had to say about the packaging of the games to attract more eyeballs, which directly translate into the much-needed moolah. She made a definitive and clear statement by saying, “In India, the popularity of any sport is directly proportional to its capacity to deliver revenue. A sport that is not TV friendly cannot expect to be popular and will not be in a position to deliver the expected returns, in terms of viewership or money, as is the case with the popular game of cricket.”

Taking forward Singh’s strong advocacy of necessity in the packaging of games, she explained that TV is a delivery platform, so the game or the packaging needs to be fine tuned for the audience. Successful games have monetised the medium by riding high on big money through, say, telecast rights. So, the way forward for less popular games is to follow their example and make attempts to make it big by bringing in innovative formats and making requisite changes in the presentation.

Chowdhuri reiterated that marketers were not in the business of sports for charity; sports today have ceased to be just games. Rather, today, it is a business and being one, it has to deliver. She accepted that some games, by their very nature, were more adaptable as revenue generating formats, by hooking in more TV viewers.

According to her, the way forward was to accept the fact that today, TV is the largest contributor to the popularity and revenue generated by sports. She also admitted that to some extent, changing viewer interest has resulted in tweaking the format of a few games. But change in format alone cannot and should not be the only parameter to effect a change in the way a sport is perceived or consumed by the audiences.

She considered that sports could be divided into adrenalin and cerebral sports. The former category is representative of spectator games and the second representative of non-spectator sports. By and large, spectator sports are more popular, but there are exceptions within that, golf being a good example. “In our country, it is an event oriented sport, but in United States, it is a TV sport,” she said.

Chowdhuri suggested that to make non- spectator games such as chess more popular, one has to go for innovations by, say, introducing graphs, statistics or drawing up next 10 possible or tentative moves by a player, while the game is in progress. To bring the game into the limelight, one has to look beyond the live coverage alone. Live coverage has to evolve; visual presentation of a game has to be enhanced. There have to be sustained efforts to build communities, cultivating a following for the game.

She pointed out that to exploit a game, one needs to look at and explore different opportunities that the sport presents, in the form of TV rights, licensing rights, sponsorships, merchandising and online rights.

Colaco of Neo Sports began by saying that the objective of introducing any new element or change in a sport is guided by the insight that it would appeal to the consumer. So, any change, even in the basic elements of a sport, is justified and will work if the viewers appreciate it.

Proving his point, Colaco explained, “There has been a change in the way brands and advertisers behave today. There has been a visible increase in commercials during the game, to provide maximum visibility to advertisers. To make the game of football more consumer friendly, goalkeepers are no longer allowed to keep the ball for more than six seconds. When it comes to making structural changes in games, we can see that concerned authorities and federations are working in tandem with producers and broadcasters to make the necessary changes, geared towards increasing the popularity of the sport and raking in more revenues. At the same time, there does exist a puritan view amongst some followers of the game that to needs to be taken care of.”

The format or nature of a game is bound to change to adjust to the changing demands of the consumers and the TV as a medium. The United Kingdom experimented with T20 to counter the increasing popularity of football in terms of shorter play durations, because of which footfall and viewership of cricket was dwindling.

In India, Indian Premier League easily became an instant hit, perhaps because we do not have a game such as football as a competitor. According to Colaco, besides changes in rules and regulations of some games, in terms of marketing, the competitive level of sports has to be raised manifold. Stakeholders today have to ponder what the sports channels want. “We are selling TVR (television viewing rating) to broadcasters. One has to be clear about how much advertisers should pay to put their spots on our channels,” he said.

A good example of excellent marketing strategy and courage is the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) in India. The Americans cleverly combined factors such as appointment viewing and packaging to woo Indians. The traditional art of wrestling was imparted style and a story was woven around it to create a complete entertainment package. Having said that, Colaco reiterated that every sport has to be looked at in terms of the cost of its funding vis-à-vis the medium being used.

When it comes to TV, airtime is the real currency. And with cricket ruling the roost in the country, it is easier and convenient for channels to pick a popular game and hook in the viewers. But what’s the way out with the less popular games? Singh, for one, attracted attention to the fact that the Mumbai and Delhi marathon runs were a good example of a sport other than cricket becoming the uniting factor for sports lovers.

According to Singh, one has to make a beginning somewhere and these two events proved that if the consumer feels connected with the sport, the fortune of a sport will see a turnaround sooner or later. These two events have, in the past few years, raised large amounts for charity, proving that passion, planning and corporate and media support can do wonders with sports other than cricket as well.

Another laudable experiment by broadcasters and promoters has been the PHL (Premier Hockey League) by ESPN STAR Sports. Though it did not prove to be as big a success as IPL, but it was a good beginning, marking a fruitful partnership between promoters, broadcasters and advertisers. Panelists also had a strong opinion on the role of government in influencing the fate of sports in the country. Chowdhuri and Singh felt that in terms of infrastructure and extending financial help to some games, the government is capable of doing a lot more than what it is doing currently.

Colaco said that there are cases where, despite the shackles of arbitrary rules or political rules, sports have prospered. FIFA, for instance, is the most politicised sports association, with a strict, rigid and manipulative voting system in place. However, it is prospering and the game of soccer is doing well in the countries under FIFA administration.

He also agreed that cricket in India, being outside the government’s purview and controlled by BCCI, was doing well for itself. But he said that exceptions would always be there and holding some authority or individual responsible for the fate of a game is too far fetched. “Far too many factors work in tandem to determine the success or failure of a game,” he stated.

Games need to produce sporting heroes to attract attention and admiration by viewers, because sport stars prove to be bigger than the sports itself in our country. Non-TV sports or sports other than cricket, need to throw up big faces, who can represent their sport amongst the idol crazy Indians. The media too loves pin-up boys.

The panel stated that the way ahead for other sports to become the first choice for TV is to sell a vision -- to promise viewer engagement, hold their attention and if not in near future, at least present a viable model, promising revenue returns in the long term. Instead of passing the buck to different stakeholders, one needs to understand that to change the fortune of sports other than cricket, the games themselves have to evolve. And they need to be packaged differently to deliver entertainment to viewers, eyeballs for marketers and advertisers and revenue for broadcasters.

The event was sponsored by Kingfisher, Neo Sports, and Neo Cricket.