Comment
Why the content king needs wise counsel
As we mark the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai on 26th November 2008 and the subsequent 60-hours of hostage-taking horror, with murders, mayhem and ensuing chaos unfolding live on national television, it is worth reflecting whether a more regulated news media might have shortened the misery and helped the security mission.
There was much criticism of the way television networks covered the atrocity as a tacky round-the-clock Bollywood thriller – except that it was for real, claiming nearly 170 lives and many more injuries. Competing news networks vied with each other to provide the most sensational and dramatic reportage from India’s commercial capital. News footage such as live pictures of National Security Guard commandos being airdropped near the Nariman House, seemed highly irresponsible, potentially endangering both hostages and security forces.
In a report just weeks after 26/11, a parliamentary panel called for greater regulation of real-time broadcasts during such emergencies, claiming that ‘the live footage shown by television channels was free intelligence for those allegedly guiding the attackers from afar through satellite/mobile phones‘. The government proposed 19 new amendments to the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, including the suggestions that in the future there should be ‘delayed carriage of live feed‘ in such emergency situations.
Partly in response, the News Broadcasters Association – a leading professional body of news organizations – set up a self-regulatory ‘emergency protocol‘ for covering terrorism. However, it is likely that commercial imperatives will still dictate what gets on air. In an excessively market-driven broadcasting ecology, the drive to be first with ‘breaking‘ news can lead journalists and news managers to compromise on content. There are numerous instances of this: one prime example is how television news has invented the sting story – sometimes slanderous, sometimes even fake. How should such content be regulated and by whom? What can we learn from other democracies?
Until very recently, broadcasting content was tightly monitored within the European Union. Steeped in the tradition of public service, broadcasting was managed by governments as well as by self-monitoring by internal institutions within the broadcasters themselves. With the opening up of the airwaves to commercial – especially satellite and cable and later digital – broadcasting, this system has been considerably undermined by the forces of the market. As digitalization and technological convergence became a reality, it became difficult, if not impossible, to regulate content and as a result authorities opted for ‘soft touch regulation,‘ letting industry regulate itself in the public interest, while retaining control on broad policy outlines, as well as through judicial review.
One reason that such an arrangement seems to generally work is that the regulators – such as Office of Communication (Ofcom) in Britain – are, and more importantly, are perceived to be, autonomous from government control, and therefore carry greater credibility both within the industry as well as among the general public. The content of such broadcasters as the BBC is also monitored by its Board of Governors and as a public broadcaster, it is also under parliamentary scrutiny, for periodic approval of the licence fee.
What is more, the public have a greater say in terms of feedback on programme content – particularly on the public service television, unlike the commercial sector which is more often than not hostage to advertisers.
Though the ratings-driven commercial model remains the dominant one in the United States and while the First Amendment ensures a high degree of independence to the media, the Federal Communications Commission requires broadcasters to follow certain restrictions in relations to content such as what is deemed as ‘harmful to minors‘.
Though television in India was established in the European public broadcasting tradition, it has continued to veer towards a commercial model where Content is the King. As the world‘s largest and its most vibrant democracy, the notion of a free flow of information and freedom of expression is deeply entrenched in India. However, freedom of information and expression should come with a high dose of social responsibility, particularly relevant in a nation where more than 400 million people remain illiterate – despite huge progress in many areas including unprecedented growth in broadcasting industry – making India a country with the largest number of dedicated news channels (soon to touch three figures).
As the Guidelines for Broadcast Regulations suggested by UNESCO state, the freedom of speech is ‘subject to such conditions and restrictions as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. The exclusions cover: the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, the protection of the reputation and rights of others (including the right to privacy), preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, and maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.‘
For a balanced dynamic to emerge between the freedom to report and social responsibility, there is a pressing need for an autonomous national regulator. The Indian government has been toying with such an idea for nearly two decades now and, despite promises, nothing concrete has been done. In the absence of a professional and credible content regulator, competitive commercial interests have pushed the envelope further and further in the process of creating television empires, while debasing public discourse. As we remember those who lost their lives on 26/11, it is high time that the king of content had some wise counsel.
(Daya Thussu is Professor of International Communication and the Co-Director of the soon to be launched India Media Centre at the University of Westminster in London. Among his key recent publications are Internationalizing Media Studies (Routledge) and News as Entertainment: The Rise of Global Infotainment (Sage). He is founder and Managing Editor of the journal Global Media and Communication.)
(Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author and Indiantelevision.com need not necessarily subscribe to the same)
MUMBAI: 2025 will be remembered as the year India’s OTT industry stopped chasing scale for its own sake and began reckoning with how audiences actually consume content. Completion rates fell, patience wore thin and the limits of long-form excess became impossible to ignore. In this guest column, Pratap Jain, founder and CEO of ChanaJor, traces how micro-drama moved from the fringes to the centre of viewing behaviour, why short-form fiction emerged as a retention engine rather than a trend, and how platforms that respected time, habit and emotional payoff were the ones that truly grew up in 2025.
If there is one thing 2025 will be remembered for in the Indian OTT industry, it’s this: the industry finally stopped pretending.
Stopped pretending that bigger automatically meant better.
Stopped pretending that viewers had endless time.
Stopped pretending that scale without retention was success.
What began as a quiet reset in 2023 and a cautious correction in 2024 turned into a very visible shift in 2025. Business models matured. Content strategies tightened. And most importantly, platforms started aligning themselves with how Indians actually watch content, not how the industry wished they would.
At the centre of this shift was micro-drama—not as a trend, but as a behavioural inevitability.
When OTT finally understood the time problem
For years, long episodes were treated as a marker of seriousness. A 45–60 minute runtime was almost a badge of credibility. Shorter formats were pushed to the margins, labelled as “snack content” or “mobile-only.”
That belief quietly collapsed in 2025.
What platform data showed very clearly was not a drop in interest—but a drop in patience. Viewers weren’t rejecting stories. They were rejecting commitment.
Across platforms, the same patterns appeared:
* First-episode drop-offs on long-form shows kept increasing
* Completion rates continued to slide
* Viewers were sampling more titles but finishing fewer
At the same time, shows with episodes in the six to 10 minute range started showing the opposite behaviour: higher completion, higher repeat viewing, and stronger daily habit formation.
Micro-drama didn’t win because it was short. It won because it respected time.
Micro-Drama didn’t arrive loudly. It took over quietly.
There was no single moment when micro-drama “launched” in India. It crept in through dashboards and retention charts.
By mid-2025, it was clear that viewers were happy watching four, five, sometimes six short episodes in one sitting—even when they wouldn’t finish a single long episode. Romance, relationship drama, slice-of-life conflict, and grounded comedy worked especially well.
This wasn’t disposable content. It was compressed storytelling.
In shorter formats, there was no room for indulgence. Every episode had to move the story forward. Weak writing was punished faster. Strong writing was rewarded immediately.
Micro-drama raised the bar instead of lowering it.
Where ChanaJor naturally fit into this shift
ChanaJor didn’t pivot to micro-drama in 2025 because the market demanded it. In many ways, the platform was already built around the same viewing behaviour.
From the beginning, ChanaJor focused on short-to-mid-length fictional stories that felt close to everyday Indian life—hostels, rented flats, office romances, small-town relationships, young people figuring things out. Stories that didn’t need heavy context or cinematic scale to connect.
What worked in ChanaJor’s favour in 2025 was clarity:
* A clearly defined audience
* Tight episode lengths
* Storytelling that prioritised emotion and pace over spectacle
While several platforms rushed to copy global micro-drama formats, ChanaJor stayed rooted in familiar Indian settings and conflicts. That familiarity mattered. Viewers didn’t have to “enter” the world of the show—it already felt like theirs.
Why audiences started responding differently
One of the biggest misconceptions going into 2025 was that audiences wanted shorter content because their attention spans had reduced. That wasn’t entirely true.
What viewers actually wanted was meaningful payoff per minute.
On platforms like ChanaJor, episodes didn’t waste time setting the mood for ten minutes. Conflicts arrived early. Characters were recognisable within moments. Emotional hooks landed fast.
A typical consumption pattern looked like real life:
* One episode during a break
* Two more before sleeping
* A few the next day
This is how viewing habits are built—not through marketing spends, but through comfort and consistency.
Viewers came back not because every show was a blockbuster, but because they knew what kind of experience to expect.
2025 was also the year OTT faced business reality
The other big change in 2025 was on the business side. Subscriber growth slowed. Discounts stopped hiding churn. Customer acquisition costs rose.
Platforms were forced to ask harder questions:
* Are viewers finishing what they start?
* Are they returning without reminders?
* Is this content worth what we’re spending on it?
This is where micro-drama began outperforming expectations. A well-written short series could deliver sustained engagement without massive budgets. It didn’t peak for one weekend and disappear—it stayed alive through repeat viewing.
Platforms like ChanaJor benefited because they weren’t chasing inflated launch numbers. The focus was on consistency and retention, not noise.
Failures Became Visible Faster
2025 also exposed weaknesses brutally.
Several platforms assumed micro-drama was a shortcut—short episodes, quick shoots, instant traction. What they discovered was that bad writing fails faster in short formats than in long ones.
Viewers dropped off within minutes. Episodes were abandoned mid-way. Weak stories had nowhere to hide.
Micro-drama didn’t forgive laziness. It amplified it.
The platforms that survived were the ones that treated short storytelling with the same seriousness as long-form—sometimes more.
OTT Stopped Chasing Prestige and Started Chasing Habit
Perhaps the most important shift in 2025 wasn’t technical or creative—it was psychological.
OTT stopped trying to look like cinema. It stopped chasing validation through scale and awards alone. It began behaving like what it actually is in people’s lives: a daily companion.
Platforms like ChanaJor found their space here because that mindset was already baked in. The goal wasn’t to dominate a weekend launch. It was to quietly become part of someone’s everyday viewing routine.
That shift changed everything—from release strategies to how success was measured.
What 2025 Ultimately Taught the Industry
By the end of the year, three truths were impossible to ignore:
* Time is the most valuable thing a viewer gives you
* Retention matters more than reach
* Format must follow behaviour, not ego
Micro-drama didn’t take over because it was fashionable. It took over because it fit real life.
Looking Ahead
Micro-drama is not replacing long-form storytelling. It is redefining the baseline of engagement.
Longer shows will survive—but only when they earn their length. Short-form fiction will continue to evolve, becoming sharper, more emotionally confident, and better written.
Platforms like ChanaJor have shown that it’s possible to grow without shouting—by understanding the audience, respecting their time, and telling stories that feel real.
2025 wasn’t the year OTT became smaller. It was the year it became smarter.
Note: The views expressed in this article are solely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect our own.
