Bollywood Box Office Hits the Box

Barring a few exceptions, the trend can be said to have started with the telecast of Judai, Trimurti and Ghayal, by Sony in September. The end of September saw a fierce battle for viewership between Sony and Star Plus, which respectively telecast Rangeela and Yes Boss on the same day (September 26) at overlapping timings. Next came Sony’s October telecast of Hum Apke Hain Kaun, which generated revenues to the tune of Rs 4 crore and an unprecedented market share of 85 per cent in Mumbai for the channel on that day. Eager to ride on the momentum of this movie mania, Star Plus accelerated the blockbuster drive by buying telecast rights for Pardes, Ghulam and Dil Wale Dulhania Le Jayenge. The channel reportedly made over Rs 2 crore from the first two. Simultaneously, TRPs (television rating points) for the channel, which seldom rise above 3 for their regular programmes, shot up to a high of 10.7 (8-city average, source: TAM) with Ghulam.

Then in November, Star Plus created a slot for telecasting blockbusters every Saturday and other Hindi films on Thursdays. The channel’s December fare includes Gupt, Raja Hindustani, Coolie No I and Satya. The last is a bit of a coup since Ram Gopal Verma’s film is still running to packed audiences in cinema halls. In a radical departure from established practice, Satya is being shown by Star Plus on December 26 — a mere two days after the film completes its silver jubilee on the big screen.

While sheepishly admitting that Star has “outdone itself” with Satya, Samir Nair, Vice President, Star Movies, Presentations and Promotions, is quick to add that telecasting blockbusters does not threaten the big screen in any way. He argues that in the case of most films, theatre audiences wane within 10-15 months of release and that television has in fact created an additional revenue option for the producers. Nair adds the obvious: that Star TV is using the blockbusters as a platform for promoting Star Plus as a desi channel among viewers and to help showcase its new programmes. The channel also hopes it will induce more viewers to subscribe to the Star package of channels.

Raveena Raj Kohli, Director, Programming, Sony Entertainment Television, on the other hand, stresses the importance of quality programming and says that Sony is in fact trying to reduce its reliance on blockbusters. Denying any competition with Star in this context, she says: “The real competition is now between Star and CVO”. This might be a trifle ingenuous because better Star TRPs puts it in competition with Sony not CVO. But it is true that while Star has gone on a blockbuster rampage, Sony’s movie agenda for December only includes reruns of Rangeela, Ghayal and Mohra.

Significantly, Zee doesn’t seem to have any intention of jumping on board the blockbuster wagon. Ranjan Bakshi of Zee dismisses television’s romance with blockbusters as a “one-night stand” and attributes the trend to creative bankruptcy in original programming on the part of rival channels.

Yet Bakshi’s claim that Zee is unaffected by blockbuster telecasts is belied by the fact that the channel has recently rescheduled two of their popular Saturday programmes — Rishtey and Saturday Suspense — to avoid direct conflict with the timings of the blockbusters on Star and Sony.

The telecast of blockbusters throws up certain important questions: what is the exact nature of the policy concerning the sale of telecast rights? Are producers and satellite channels violating existing norms to serve their own ends? The generally accepted industry practise is that telecast rights cannot be sold to cable channels for six months, and to satellite channels for five years, after the date of a film’s release. However, in the case of movies like Ghulam and Satya, this embargo period has been ignored. Star’s Nair points out that the decision to sell telecast rights ultimately rests with the film producer. The situation in India is further complicated by the fact that producers here generally work individually and are not part of larger corporate conglomerates as they are in the west. In other words, there is no big studio system and the sale of rights happens on a more or less ad hoc basis.

Meanwhile, blockbusters on television seem to have created a win-win situation for almost everyone concerned. Advertisers, who normally face a highly fragmented TV scenario due to the vast range of programmes, view blockbuster telecasts as an excellent opportunity to get maximum advertising mileage for their brands. For channels, the steep hike in viewership resulting from the movies along with the ad revenue generated, makes for a highly attractive package. Producers, who have to cope with the colossal costs of making movies, seem relieved at finding another source of revenue in television. And, finally, in a movie-crazy nation, the viewers are more than happy being treated to an extra helping of their favourite movies.

The real losers, for now, seem to be the distributors, who have to shell out huge amounts of money to secure distribution rights for films, and are entirely dependent on theatre sales to recover their costs. And the deluge of blockbusters on television could also lead to viewers visitingthe halls less frequently.

Channels too, could face a problem, sooner or later: there are simply not enough blockbusters to sustain the high beyond a few months. What’s more, the competition for telecast of movies between the cable and satellite channels coupled with the haphazard practice of acquiring one-off telecast rights has created a situation where the channel has no means of ensuring exclusivity. Ghulam, for instance was shown twice by CVO before it was aired on Star.

So in the long term, effective television programming alone can ensure viewer loyalty to an entertainment channel. As Ranjana Bakshi of Zee, asks, “Can a three-hour blockbuster movie compete with a blockbuster serial, which holds the viewer’s attention for months and years on end?”Curiously, non-commercial cinema, the one area where television can make a crucial difference, continues to be without any takers. Several middle-budget, meaningful films are languishing for want of penetration in the movie market. By providing an outlet for such films, television can be a window to good’ cinema. Sadly, the minuscule viewership for such films translates into non-existent revenues and holds little attraction for the channels.