Uday Shankar at Concept Trade: ‘You may’t say that I personal the platform, however I’m not accountable for the content material’ | Concept Trade Information

My father was an engineer who labored for the federal government. In my preliminary years I studied in Patna, however a lot as I want to declare, my life wasn’t filled with battle. I got here from a middle-class background. After doing my commencement, I joined JNU, which was a giant landmark in my life, within the sense that it opened my eyes to a really completely different approach of trying on the world. Then I grew to become a journalist, becoming a member of The Instances of India as a reporter. I selected to go to Patna as a result of within the early ’90s Bihar was the hotbed of political exercise. I used to be actually eager to see how the actual India works and there was most likely no higher place for that than Bihar. I labored there for some years after which got here again to Delhi, doing just a few stints in newspapers, adopted by All the way down to Earth, the place I travelled a fantastic deal and noticed India in a way that common journalism of mainstream newspapers didn’t can help you see.

The primary time I watched reside TV was in January 1991, when the primary Gulf Conflict was being telecast on CNN. I noticed that and it utterly blew my thoughts. I realised that for a rustic like India — the place each the flexibility to learn and the entry to readership was restricted — the ability of tv was going to be phenomenal. I made a decision that I needed to do TV. I waited just a few years and give up with no job, did odd jobs in TV, till in the future I met Aroon Purie, who was considering of launching a 24-hour reside information channel. It was the primary reside information channel of India. By some means, he noticed promise in me and requested me to assist set it up and that’s how Aaj Tak occurred. After that I got here to Star Information, adopted by Star and the remainder of it.

P Vaidyanathan Iyer: When the merger of Viacom and Star was introduced in November, a $8.5 billion worth firm was created. Because the particular person giving this big content material to 750 million viewers, what occupies your thoughts?

This chance to serve content material to 750 million folks in several components of the nation is an honour, however I additionally take that accountability very significantly. I nonetheless see myself as an old-world, old school journalist. A few of these values I nonetheless maintain very expensive to my coronary heart, and considered one of them is the flexibility to tell or entertain, or your entry to folks is a really highly effective device and you can not misuse that. One easy precept that I’ve is that I’ll entertain however I shall by no means do something that I shall be embarrassed on my own.

P Vaidyanathan Iyer: In tv, OTT, we see content material which may be very completely different from mainstream Bollywood. You discover a whole lot of artistic innovation down South, however not a lot in Bollywood. What would you attribute this to?

This notion which you could serve your entire inhabitants north of the Vindhyas sitting in a suburb of Mumbai may be very colonial. If the inhabitants set isn’t homogeneous, how can a homogeneous unit of individuals create that type of content material? That’s the largest downside with what we name Bollywood.

The ability of India and the problem of India, each come from the layers, variety and the nuances. The homogenisation that Bollywood retains forcing itself in the direction of is its largest mismatch. The ability of the South is that they’re very near their core viewers, so a Tamil movie is made in Chennai, a Kannada movie is made in Bangalore. It isn’t made someplace distant by a bunch of people that have simply determined that that is what India needs, that is what India seems like, that is how India behaves. The elemental disaster is that the movies are usually not connecting with folks.

P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Do these huge rights that you simply take up, for example BCCI or IPL, coupled with the scale that you’ve immediately, give JioStar an enormous benefit, or is it burdensome, provided that IPL rights value round Rs 48,000 crore?

It has its benefits since you are constructing locations the place everyone comes. It’s mass media: the bigger the variety of people who find themselves coming to you, the extra the chance to monetise. So, to that extent, IPL rights or ICC or BCCI rights or different issues like that, they’ve their energy. However the fee, how a lot cash you can also make, how many individuals watch, is simply one of many elements. The dimensions of the financial system, what the promoting market is like, these issues come into play. You don’t essentially generate profits on these huge acquisitions.

On ICC | I discover BCCI to be a much more alive physique to have interaction with its stakeholders in comparison with ICC, which in my opinion is the East India Firm of Cricket. It’s simply right here to take the wealth of this nation

Story continues under this advert

Sandeep Dwivedi: With this merger, you acknowledged that you’re the business. Talking about rights, you mentioned that you simply don’t even thoughts lacking out on cricket as a result of there are different avenues. Is it truly doable for a broadcaster as huge as you to overlook out on one thing as huge as cricket?

What I meant after I mentioned that we’re the business is that given our attain and platform dimension, what we do shall be adopted by everyone else. In impact, if we go fallacious, the business will go fallacious as a result of often folks are likely to observe the chief. As a pacesetter, it’s our accountability to make it possible for we take cost of the business and get it to place.

Now to the query, can we keep away from cricket? We don’t wish to keep away from cricket as a result of it’s such a robust engine of individuals’s viewing right here. I’m a giant believer within the energy of sports activities. Cricket, after all, is the largest aggregator however I’ve been very enthusiastic about different sports activities as nicely. However on the finish of the day, we’re operating a enterprise and if the financials don’t make sense, we’ll need to stroll away.

Sandeep Dwivedi: Since broadcasters are paying a lot for cricket, Indian sports activities followers are lacking out on huge occasions like F1, as a result of no one has the cash left to purchase these rights. Do you suppose it will be important that cricket must scale down the rights?

You must perceive that funding in cricket is now not low cost. By way of unit worth, if an eight-week match just like the IPL prices you greater than a billion {dollars}, the headline worth of NFL and NBA may be larger, however the season runs by way of the 12 months, the amount of video games and so forth. Cricket is likely one of the costliest sporting belongings on the earth. So, for us, anybody who needs to come back in, there are these huge firms globally who’ve the urge for food for that. However the different problem of cricket is that it’s basically one huge sport just for India. So, all the cash that you simply put in is primarily for India and it’s important to recuperate it from India. Regardless of all of the speak, it’s simply the Indian media firms who try this.

Shubhra Gupta: When Netflix got here into India, it had the first-mover benefit. Different OTT platforms, like Amazon Prime, Sony Liv, adopted. We are actually seeing comparable storytelling on all these platforms. Bollywood, which was speculated to be adjoining, can be now shifting into OTT. How do you see constructing differentials?

That’s a problem, and it’s not distinctive to India. Globally, how do you differentiate? However I additionally suppose that after we sit in judgment from the highest, we make these abstract assessments moderately sweepingly. In the event you present the identical piece of content material to 10 folks, who all prefer it, they want it for 10 very completely different causes. That’s the ability of creativity.

Shalini Langer: You began with Aaj Tak, how do you suppose information has developed?

There’s a elementary disaster with information that globally it’s not in a position to resolve. Information was the basic enterprise of intermediaries. As a result of when one thing is occurring in one other metropolis, you’re curious, at instances additionally as a result of it impacts you. You wish to see it your self however you couldn’t be there. And that’s what newspapers and TV did. They had been your surrogate on the spot. Now with expertise, each cell phone is a digital camera and each one who owns a cellular is a cameraperson. Now the primary footage are being taken by somebody who isn’t an expert newscaster or a digital camera particular person, and they’re importing it. So the potential viewer is gaining access to the information concurrently the skilled journalist.

Ritika Chopra: Does the idea of ‘second screen-friendly’ affect content material creation on OTT, provided that individuals are principally glued to their
cellphones?

I don’t know whether or not or how a lot it’s influencing, however the two screen-behaviour has develop into very mainstream. Clearly, some individuals are preserving that on the radar when they’re planning their tales. The most important downside is consideration immediately. A number of screens are competing in your consideration on the identical time. So we’re in a tricky enterprise.

Vidhatri Rao: Earlier, in TV particularly, you possibly can create reveals that kind of lower throughout a number of geographical boundaries, for example KBC, Satyamev Jayate. Now that it’s so fragmented, from a enterprise viewpoint are you segregating content material and catering to particular markets or do you suppose as a rustic we will have that one present that may lower throughout boundaries?

When KBC occurred, there have been fewer channels. Cellular video consumption was not there. Now I’m undecided something you are able to do that can deal with everyone. Except there’s a set of distinctive circumstances that come collectively, like what occurred with Satyamev Jayate. There was a whole lot of frustration and Satyamev Jayate was in a position to seize that. I battle to grasp whether or not the fragmentation of content material is fragmenting the viewing habits, or the fragmentation of viewing habits is resulting in fragmentation of content material.

Vidhatri Rao: We’re seeing much more outrage now. You’ve seen what occurred with Ranveer Allahbadia and India’s Obtained Latent. Do you suppose a present like Satyamev Jayate is feasible proper now, the place on mainstream tv we will discuss subjects that aren’t so snug?

Satyamev Jayate was not confrontational in any respect. It was very inclusive.

On what you simply talked about, the type of content material on social media that simply appeared, all of us need to be accountable. It’s necessary to pause and take into consideration what you’re doing and what broader impact it is going to have on society and viewers, as a result of simply in an effort to get eyeballs, you can not say issues that basically are obnoxious.

On lack of artistic innovation in Bollywood | If the inhabitants set isn’t homogeneous, how can a homogeneous unit of individuals create that type of content material? That’s the largest downside with what we name Bollywood

Story continues under this advert

P Vaidyanathan Iyer: The federal government has been fascinated by taking a look at content material on OTTs and if it ought to be regulated. Do you see that as one thing which is able to curb artistic freedoms or do you suppose finally streaming companions or channels would themselves do a whole lot of self-censorship?

I don’t just like the phrase censorship however not being accountable in the direction of the folks you serve isn’t an choice. I don’t suppose authorities management is a solution to that as a result of that simply turns into structural moderately than efficient. It does stifle creativity.

On streaming providers, I do suppose that a number of the stuff that goes on is known as a matter of concern… You may’t conceal behind arguments that we’re a world platform or an addressable platform, or we’re social media, you possibly can’t say that I personal the platform, however I’m not accountable for the content material.

Rahul Sabharwal: Isn’t {that a} slippery slope, once you say that you simply begin with attempting to manage your self after which within the case of this content material creator that we’re discussing, there are FIRs from Guwahati to Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra? That is clearly an extreme response.

It’s a slippery slope. However do you simply not wish to go there and permit something and every part to proceed? What objective is that content material reaching aside from simply creating salacious consideration? We’ve to take inventory of the place we stand and the way far we are going to permit it to go. If we’re not cognizant of that, an exterior authority will are available and say, ‘cease’.

P Vaidyanathan Iyer: The way in which the ICC has pushed up the fee now, do you suppose there’s a technique to inform the ICC to get the broadcasters’ views additionally?

ICC didn’t maintain a gun to the broadcasters involved. They wrote the cheque that they wished to write down. The issue is that if someone makes a mistake, do you’re employed as a accomplice to handle that? Or do you simply say, you endure, I want my cash and I’ll transfer on? That’s the important thing query right here. And the reply is that proper now that appears to be the angle of the ICC.

On fragmentation of content material | I battle to grasp whether or not the fragmentation of content material is fragmenting the viewing habits, or the fragmentation of viewing habits is resulting in fragmentation of content material

Opposite to the overall notion, I discover BCCI to be a much more alive physique to have interaction with its stakeholders than in comparison with the ICC, which in my opinion is the East India Firm of Cricket. It’s simply right here to take the wealth of this nation, as a result of what does the ICC do? The one efficient factor that the ICC does is to make the worldwide tour programme of cricket. That’s one thing that Google does for you free of charge.

ICC takes this cash, ICC’s enterprise runs out of India and inside India it runs out of the Indian broadcasters. After that the ICC decides that India should play a rustic that no Indian is to observe India play as a result of they wish to develop cricket globally. So it’s their agenda and my cash.

That complete construction may be very exploitative. I really feel that one of the best service that somebody like the brand new chairman of the ICC can do is to make sure that he’s its final chairman. ICC isn’t selling the pursuits of Indian cricket. A disproportionate share of expertise comes from India. An awesome share of income comes from India. And all of it’s going all over the place else. The Worldwide Olympic Committee is worked up about getting cricket into it. That doesn’t assist Indian cricket. That simply is a leakage for the cash that might have stayed within the Indian cricket ecosystem and benefited Indian gamers, all of the Indian stakeholders.

Geetika Srivastava: OTT platforms depend on promoting and subscription fashions, however are we exploring past that? Are we searching for completely different pricing methods or packaging methods, particularly microtransactions or sachet packaging?

All the worldwide streaming firms had been actual disruptors in my opinion however the one space the place they didn’t do a lot disruption was within the monetisation fashions. It was at all times adverts or subscriptions. And I feel that’s the place the massive alternative lies, as a result of there are every kind of monetisation fashions which can be thriving and are very profitable, microtransactions or a number of different issues.

Shubhra Gupta: How a lot of your consideration now are you seeing yoked to the massive star presence in OTT?

I do imagine that stars assist however lastly it’s simply the introduction to the present. After that the present has to run by itself energy. I’m additionally identified for truly strolling away from the star system. I imagine that one of many issues that I actually like about tv is that it creates stars, it doesn’t borrow stars, globally. So that you choose up younger, gifted actors, writers, administrators, and so they often make their mark on tv, after which Bollywood, Hollywood, and the movie business, everybody notices them.