Viewers are humans, not dots

The Classes vs. Masses theory is a myth. Gone are the days when there was a ‘common’ mass psyche and viewers groups could be segmented either by sex, age or income group. Now, it is not possible to do this for viewers are segmented by psychographics and lifestyles. There is a multi-faceted structure in relationships, value systems, buying patterns and viewing habits

In the film The Third Man, Harry Lime, high on Vienna’s Ferris wheel, justifies his fatal drug dealing by pointing at a pin-head of a human being on the pavement far below. "Surely," he asks Holly Martins, "for a fortune, you wouldn’t bother if one of those dots stopped moving?"

Later Martins, at the insistence of the British Investigating Officer, visits children’s hospital where he sees Harry’s victims and feels disgusted. If you ever feel so far away from viewers that you cannot identify with them, get down off the Ferris wheel.

I wasn’t surprised when recently many channels realised their losing grip on viewers only after looking at sliding TRPs. For them, leadership was a function of TRPs and not the viewers’ delight.

It is important not to lose sight of reality. Viewers are people. They are sentient human beings. Constantly changing. They are not dots, digits or a gray impersonal mass of TRPs. They have feelings, sentiments and varied needs, both above and below the surface, tangible and intangible, rational, emotional and social. In entertainment business, we all compete to satisfy these needs. However, we can only do this if we constantly try to understand viewers and identify with them. A lot of well established programs are dying or are in major trouble because these changing needs were not assessed on time.

It is a sad commentary on the growth of TV in India that when every medium in every part of the world is putting in all their efforts, money and talent to create ‘differential’ and ‘novelty value’, some of the leading channels and production houses don’t have even a small research department to anticipate changes in the marketplace.

When Who Wants To Be A Millionaire changed the TV dynamics in the West, within no time five different programs came up. All with their own identity, uniqueness and benefits for the viewers. Who is studying the ever-changing viewer? Who is trying to identify new trends and ascertain their impact? An insecure programmer with targets and deadlines or a trained researcher? In my long interactions with the channels I have observed that though conceptually, there is a lot of insistence on "change", ultimately, one is forced to copy the "last most successful programme."

The Classes vs. Masses theory is a myth. Gone are the days when there was a ‘common’ mass psyche and viewers groups could be segmented either by sex, age or income group. Now, it is not possible to do this for viewers are segmented by psychographics and lifestyles. There is a multi-faceted structure in relationships, value systems, buying patterns and viewing habits.

Earlier, perceptions and beliefs as well as responses were governed by a narrow worldview and were generally common. This was primarily because information sources were limited. Viewers’ reality was based on what they were shown. His ‘image-bank’ was limited and the choices were narrow.

Times have changed. With the advent of numerous options, focussed technology, changes in the job market, liberalisation, Internet, a new-family structure, emergence of a new pragmatic, result-oriented, ‘can-do’ culture and even political arrangements, the information and images around us have also changed dramatically.

Today’s viewers do not receive their images from a handful of sources. Information reaches them every second. To survive in today’s world, it is vital to revise the image-bank. Older images have to be erased and updated. This speeding up of image changes also makes images more temporary. Ideas, beliefs, fashions, attitudes and opinions are formed, reformed, challenged and defied almost every second.

Today’s individual has, in fact, become an ‘image processing unit’, living in a ‘world-of-choices’. Viewers have to constantly make a selection, challenging the programmers to influence their choices in more creative ways. Channels, on the other hand, are forcing him with the same repetitive stereotyped images. And then comes one Kaun Banega Crorepati, creating new images, bringing about a transformation in the viewer’s reality. This explosive change in dynamics is again misunderstood by traditionally run, ‘zero-research-based’ channels and throws them into ‘programming schizophrenia’.

So, channels and producers who are not comfortable with constant change, better watch out. For in the future, making a quick change in viewing, is the most creative thing a viewer will do.

Vivek Agnihotri