|
MUMBAI: If there is one truism about television in India,
it is that the only sure way to break Star Plus' monopoly
on the ratings is to have India cricket. Such is the case
with India cricket.
Tam data for the period 15/10/06 to 21/10/06 shows that India
playing England on 15 October 2006 came in seventh in the
Tam Top 100 C&S 4+.
It managed to get a rating of 5.8. It also appears at positions
21 and 22 with ratings of 4.8 and 4.5.
Starcom's Manish Porwal says that whenever India plays in
a multi team tournament the round robin matches not featuring
India get a ratings that are 1.5 times higher compared to
events that do not feature India at all. This explains why
the Australia versus West Indies match got a rating of 3.6
and is at number 33. The England versus Australia match got
a rating of 2.5. The Sri Lanka versus Pakistan match got a
rating of 3.1. Extraaa Innings, which is Max's wrap
around show, also finds a mention twice.
However, the theory of 1.5 times more for a non India match
in the league stage only applies for as long as India is in
contention in the tournament. Therefore, from an advertising
standpoint, it is fortunate that India versus Australia was
the last league match. India's awful performance and hence
elimination would have had a much bigger impact on viewership
if it had been held before other league matches. As it is
only three matches (the two semi finals and final) are now
affected.
How do advertisers view India's exit? Porwal says
that cricket friendly brands would have taken into account
the scenario of India not qualifying for the semi finals.
He is satisfied with the ROI achieved thus far. "It has
been what we have expected. I will say that there has been
a loss of profit with India not getting through into the last
four. There has not been a loss per se.
"That is because brands like Western Union would have
done internal costing looking at different scenarios before
putting their money on the tournament. Having said that, there
will definitely be a backlash on the ratings that the semi
finals and final get."
Sony executive VP Rohit Gupta concurs on this point saying
that if India had been there in the semi finals and final
you might well have seen a rating of 7-8. Now one could see
a rating of around 3 for the semi finals. It could go up for
the final depending on which teams qualify. He adds that when
you include Sab, which had a simulcast of India's matches
with Hindi commentary, the match between India and England
gets a rating of nearly seven.
The International Cricket Council (ICC) CEO Malcolm Speed's
stand as far as a potential situation of India not making
the last four has been that Indians care for quality cricket.
As long as people care sport will not die. The ICC's hope
therefore is that the television ratings as well as on ground
attendance will not be affected too badly as Indians would
want to see quality international cricket. The coverage being
given in the newspapers and television indicates that.
Gupta, meanwhile, is most satisfied on how the non India
matches have fared pointing out that it was a big improvement
over the ratings that the non India matches got for the Champions
Trophy in 2004. In that tournament as well India was eliminated
early in that case by Pakistan.
R Gowthaman, Mindshare MD South & West and Unilever South
Asia, which handles media buying for Pepsi and Hero Honda,
two of the ICC's global partners, was not so positive however.
He says that the Champions Trophy has disappointed in the
cost per ratings point (CPRP) area. A lot of the matches finished
early. For instance the match between West Indies and Sri
Lanka finished in 50 overs.
"This means that by 6:30 pm when viewing should be on
the up the match is over. So you cannot air spots in the most
impactful time. Then the ratings were not as high as had been
hoped. The ratings should have been more even for the non
India matches given the fact that Extraaa Innings is
meant to build up momentum. Cricket is a hyped up property.
You hope that it will do well in the ratings area but its
performance has been below par just like the Indian teams.
If you look at it, cricket's ratings have been on the decline
over the past couple of years."
Another problem for Pepsi is that it used a very specific
cricket centric campaign (the Blue Billion). The aim was to
express support for the Indian team which then failed to perform.
This raises the question of whether or not it should continue
with that campaign which has now become irrelevant with India
exiting the event.
LG marketing head Sandeep Tiwari on the other hand is satisfied
at the response to the event. He points out that since LG
is a global brand there will be a benefit no matter which
teams win the event or makes the final. So if Australia wins
then LG's visibility down under will increase, he says.
That of course is not the case with an Indian brand. Also
LG did not use cricketers in its campaign. It used Tom and
Jerry to celebrate the Diwali festival. So it is not unduly
concerned about India going out early as it has not used cricket
in the campaign to build an emotional connect. He adds that
if you look at the Champions Trophy and the World Cup together,
then while the former delivers a 30 per cent impact the latter
delivers a 70 per cent push for the brand. That big push of
course will come next year in March when the World Cup takes
place in the West Indies.
Interestingly despite reports about stadiums not being full
for the ongoing Champions Trophy Tiwari is satisfied at the
turnout. He points out that the England Australia encounter
had 50 per cent occupancy which he as a marketer feels is
adequate to get the brand message across. On television too
the delivery is what was projected prior to the start of the
tournament for him.
|
