This writer’s better half was narrating to him the plot of the recently released Tamil movie Papanasam (a remake of the hit Malayalam movie, Dhrishyam ). The thing that struck me most was that the lead actor played the role of a cable TV operator. And the story revolves around how he outwits the police to prevent the latter from nabbing his family members for a crime that circumstance forces them to commit.
This, obviously, requires him to employ one or more of the numerous ruses that characters in films typically use to extricate themselves from some figure of authority in society. What better way to familiarise oneself with such tricks of the trade than as a cable TV operator, a job that offers limitless opportunities to surf channels and watch all manner of films from crime to social drama?
Had the cable TV business become extinct, the movie’s director would have had a problem on his hands. For he couldn’t have had the lead play the role of a cable TV operator unless he claimed to be producing one of those period movies.
Of course, film directors being such creative people, they would come up with some other device to overcome that difficulty — a solution that would appear credible to the audience. So that need not concern us.
Business proposition
But what must interest students of business and management science is the prospect of cable TV proving to be unviable as a business proposition in the days to come.
One must remember that movies have, over the years, evolved from going to where the people are to getting people to where the movies are and now, in the days of television and cable connections, to some form of mediated, remote offering. In an era when theatres were so few and confined mostly to cities, rural audiences got to see motion pictures only at fairs and ‘shandies’ (seasonal local markets).
A projectionist would carry with him a portable device and short clips of action featuring popular actors. These would be shown to the audience, one at a time, for a small fee. The device came equipped with a view-finder and the customer would place his chin on it and peer into the screen inside. The action would start to roll as the projectionist cranked up the handle to set the spool of film moving. It was called a ‘bioscope’, in local parlance, although the word itself has a more extensive meaning in the Western world.
We have moved from taking the movies to where the people are (bioscope) to bringing the people to where the movies are, with theatres playing the role of intermediaries today. And that has given way to a quasi-remote delivery model, where the local cable operator performs an intermediation function but otherwise has all the ingredients of remote delivery. Of course, along the way, the product has transformed from a reel of photo film to millions of pixels and electrons.
Free from intermediation
Is it now time for the next stage of evolution in delivering movies, in a form that is completely devoid of any kind of intermediation (Direct-to-Home)?
Historically, businesses have become extinct if there is a superior alternative available to consumers than what the incumbent offers as a value proposition. The superior alternative could be one of lower cost or better product features or, quite simply, a better consumption experience. In the present context, the question boils down to this: What is the best way of delivering movies to the masses? Do you get people to where the movies are or take the movies to where the people are? Or is it a combination of remote delivery with some form of last-mile intermediation?
On the face of it, it would appear that movies, given the fact that they are abstract products, as opposed to some real, physical goods, are ideally structured for remote delivery. But it is never as simple as that.
Jonty Rhodes’ direct delivery
Take the case of cricket. The game presents an alternative perspective to the remote versus mediated delivery controversy. In a game situation, where remote delivery is the most obvious choice, an alternative has proved to be more effective. Most of you would be familiar with the slogan, ‘Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it is Jonty Rhodes’, even if you are not avid fans of cricket. Nevertheless, just as a recap, this is what happened in the 1992 cricket World Cup, described as it was happening.
In the match against Pakistan, the batsman tries a heave the ball to leg-side but misses it completely. It raps him on the pad. The batsman, Inzamam Ul Haq, sets out to steal a run. But his partner at the other end hesitates after taking a couple of steps. Inzamam, who is well down the pitch, now turns back. In the meanwhile, Jonty Rhodes had sprinted down from the deep, grabs the ball and he has to quickly decide on the best way of reaching the ball to the stumps before the batsman regains the safety of the batting crease.
He could throw the ball from where he is and try to knock down the stumps. In the language of logistics management, the solution could be described as remote delivery of a shipment. Alternatively, he could carry on with momentum generated by his sprint and land the ball on to the stumps in person — door delivery, so to speak! Jonty Rhodes chooses the latter option and has since become immortal, in a cricketing sense.
In the instant case, it is not difficult to see how the latter course was the most preferred option in the context of running the batsman out. You use the momentum already gained and whip up some extra speed in the act of taking off aerially. No doubt, a ball can travel faster as it is flicked in, at the stumps. But there is precious loss of seconds (or even a fraction, thereof) in the initial phase as the arm is extended backwards and then propelled forward to send the ball flying towards the stumps.
That might have proved the crucial element between getting the batsman run out and failing to effect that run out. Of course, there was also the added risk of the throw missing the stumps altogether. In a contest between a human being as a projectile and the ball flicked in with the arm, the ball wins if the goal is far enough. On the other hand, if the distance is short enough before the force of gravity kicks in, the human being can win the race. And so it proved to be in Jonty Rhodes running Inzamam out. In other words, un-intermediated direct delivery can win the day if the circumstances are right.
Cost-value equation
So it is with movies. Both alternatives (remote versus mediated delivery) present different value propositions and costs of delivery. DTH, for instance, appears to possess customisation possibilities. But if the volumes are not large enough, then customisation is not really an option or if it does, becomes so prohibitively expensive as to make it illusory. Customisation also comes with high initial costs.
In contrast, mediated delivery through cable is far cheaper. Compounding all this is the aspect of technology which keeps changing and can thus alter the current dynamics in the cost-value equation at some future date. The logistics of delivery will keep changing. In the end, the only thing that is permanent is that nothing is permanent.