“What would you do if your mobile number was disclosed on the worldwide web?” I’m asked this rather odd question by Bollywood PR consultant Dale Bhagwagar. “I’ll ask the service provider to change it at once,” I reply matter-of-factly. But that’s definitely not the way Bhagwagar’s agile mind, adept at turning trivia into hype for the benefit of his famous Bollywood clients, would have reacted. In fact, one of his major triumphs arose from precisely such a situation. A few years ago, when his then client Shilpa Shetty’s number somehow got leaked on the internet (he avoids telling you how), he used the incident to whip up a media frenzy that planted her firmly in the day’s headlines. Press handouts were distributed widely and TV reporters were persuaded to take up positions outside the police station where Shilpa went to file a complaint. Candid, even boastful, Bhagwagar says happily, “We used the incident very effectively to hardsell Shetty.” And then, as we sip our cold coffees in suburban Mumbai, he casually proceeds to take a call from Rakhi Sawant to advise her how her run-in with the censor board over a music video could be played out in the media. “Good publicity is good. Bad publicity is better. Ugly publicity is the best because it travels the fastest and hits the hardest. The worst of all is no publicity,” declares Bhagwagar.
That is his motto, and indeed the motto of every film publicist in the business, though few are as brazen as Bhagwagar. They are more likely to favour sophisticated MBA-speak about “expectation management”, like Prabhat Chaudhary of Spice PR, the man behind the marketing success of Three Idiots and Ghajini. The promotion of films and stars has become a big, clever and crafty enterprise and image managers and publicity gurus are riding the wave. Some even have management students clamouring to join them and investors willing to put serious money into their once hole-in-the-wall companies. Film marketing budgets are skyrocketing, more inventive ways are being deployed to manufacture hype for a star or a film, and the media, without which none of this would work, has emerged as a willing handmaiden for the Bollywood publicity machine. “Movies are becoming commodities. What we’re witnessing is FMCGisation—movies becoming like soaps and shampoos,” says Siddhartha Mukherjee, senior VP, communications, at TAM Media Research.
Take this week’s big release, Kites. The film’s first “look” was unveiled last year at the Cannes film festival and it has relentlessly been in the news ever since. The publicity machine has been fed stories of a Hrithik-Barbara Mori “affair”; of Suzanne Roshan walking out of her marital home; of Hrithik turning alcoholic; of director Anurag Basu’s supposed misunderstanding with producer Rakesh Roshan; of the climax of the film getting leaked in a tabloid; of a controversial kissing scene between Hrithik and a topless Mori. Last week, Hrithik got into a scuffle with journos at Shirdi; shortly after, the film got into copyright infringement trouble in Bihar; last Sunday, a glowing advance review of the film by a foreign critic started doing the rounds on the internet; and then, to top it all, came a tweet of heady approval from none other than Karan Johar.
Is this just a string of coincidences or a variety of cunning schemes hyping the film and its stars? That such a question can be asked about so many films that have hit the screen in recent times strongly suggests the latter.
1The Hype Machine
Playing Endlessly on Controversies
Katrina claims to have modeled herself on Priyanka Gandhi in Rajneeti
The LSD sex scene was leaked to a tabloid
Much like the multi-crore Kites, the small and critically adored Love Sex Aur Dhokha also very shrewdly played the “sex” angle. First, stills of the film’s controversial sex scene were “leaked” to a Bombay tabloid to make sure all the Peeping Toms came to watch it. This was followed by a huge debate around the use of the word “nangi” (naked) in a song, which was subsequently changed to “gandi” (bad). And in the midst of it all, filmmaker Dibakar Bannerjee blogged constantly to assure his core fan base that “all was well” with the content—the film was not titillating at all!
Such calculated marketing overdrive comes for a reason. The stakes in filmmaking are getting higher and higher. Production budgets have been rising steadily, and there are too many films vying for the attention of a fickle and fragmented audience, which means even less certainty than before about the returns. The days of silver and golden jubilees are over, and a film’s success essentially depends on how much it can amass over the first weekend. “In an attention deficit society grabbing eyeballs is the be all and end all, by fair means if possible, by foul if necessary,” says filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt.
Such is the stress on publicity that the media promotion plan of a film is usually in place even while the film is still being shot. “Rohan Sippy’s Dum Maro Dum is already being built up as the next definitive cop film,” points out Chaudhary of Spice PR. Ajay Devgan has already begun mouthing inanities about his new film Golmaal 3—“revealing” to a journalist that he has taken his shirt off in the film but does not want to be perceived as a gay icon—even though its release is as far away as Diwali.
Controversies chase each other in the run-up to a film, occupying huge space in the media, only to suddenly fizzle out once the film has ended its tryst with the box-office. Does anyone remember the Sikh community’s objections to Singh Is King or Love Aaj Kal? Or the forced change of name of Shahrukh Khan’s production Billu Barber to Billu, after the barber community took offence. “We are bombarded with controversies these days,” says P.N. Vasanti, director of Centre for Media Studies, Noida.
“There’s a lot of noise. I am under pressure to make myself be heard and to be in the news even if I have nothing to say,” admits actor Rahul Bose. As the decibel levels have risen, the marketing budgets of films have been rising too, and now range from anywhere between 15-50 per cent of a film’s budget, while earlier they would never have crossed five per cent of the production cost. Indeed, in the case of a low-budget film like Love, Sex aur Dhokha, the marketing budget even overshot the production cost of the film. Blue is rumoured to have had a marketing budget of Rs 18 crore, Ghajini Rs 7 crore and Three Idiots Rs 6 crore. “Any medium-sized film will spend at least Rs 4 crore on marketing these days,” Chaudhary estimates.
It’s not just publicists and producers, the stars themselves are turning marketing gurus, with Aamir Khan—more hard-nosed, calculating and canny than any publicist—leading the pack. His forte lies in effectively projecting his films as being at the cutting edge of modern-day debates and “causes”—middle-class activism with Rang De Basanti, dyslexia with Tare Zameen Par and education with Three Idiots. He is the master of the photo-op, popping up in different disguises in unlikely places such as Varanasi and Palanpur, and even Sourav Ganguly’s house in Calcutta. For Ghajini, he used a new hairstyle as a marketing tool, and even gave his fans a free cut in Delhi’s Bengali market. No wonder the marketing of Ghajini became a case study at IIM Ahmedabad. So what will he do next with his production Peepli Live? “These days it’s not just the Aamir film that people look forward to, he even creates anticipation about how he will market it,” says Chaudhary.
4Talking Up Trivia
5 Sneaking in Rumours
Hrithik and Barbara Mori topless in Kites
6 Media Tie-Ups
Abhishek talks about Paa in a TV programme
Admittedly, without the media, the marketing hype would fall flat. “It’s a mutually beneficial arrangement,” says Chaudhary. “Everybody has a vested interest and the loser is the reader/audience,” says Pritish Nandy less flatteringly. An evening with a publicist in Bombay is enough to understand how the relationship works. The publicist is bombarded with calls from a tabloid for a “juicy” story, and she willingly obliges. Sure enough, her spiel is carried the next day—verbatim. From an ethical perspective, the worrying aspect of the interface is that not just film magazines, or movie, entertainment and music channels, but the mainstream media, too, has become a megaphone for Bollywood’s publicity machine. Publicity material masquerading as news stories now occupy central space in the country’s most reputed newspapers and TV channels. One media house is known to brazenly, and officially, offer editorial coverage for a price. Every film these days comes with non-stop television promotions, tie-ups with news channels and popular online websites. On some channels, even the footage of audience reactions to a new film is provided by the filmmaker himself. “Earlier, the editorial and commercial spaces were distinct,” says Rahul Bose. “Now they are getting merged.”
Does it always work, or can it also backfire at times? Many of the most publicised films have bombed, and some have taken off with the slimmest of publicity budgets (see box). “Money alone does not help. The publicity must communicate with the viewer rather than just be visible to him. It should be true to the content of the film,” says Chaudhary. However, rarely does it fit these criteria, as some filmmakers themselves admit. “The hype is just meant to grab eyeballs. It doesn’t say anything relevant about the film to the viewer,” says filmmaker Srinivas Bhashyam. At a time when the film business is highly risky, with 90 per cent of films flopping, is it prudent to spend so much on marketing? And does it not harm the cause of small films, which have a hard time raising even production funds? There are many hard questions in need of answers. But no one really seems to be looking for them in Bollywood, where, after all, nothing sells like excess.
Despite the hardsell, they sank
Lara’s bikini flaunt in Blue couldn’t rescue it
No Gimmicks, Just Hits
Naseeruddin in A Wednesday
Dancing to the Southern Beat
Malayalam actor Sreenivasan
How the ways by which we anticipate a new movie have changed! No wonder a lot of professionals and mbas have joined hands in providing the already business-oriented producers and directors a boost to their morale and some ingenious publicity stunts (Hoax Office Hardsell, May 31). Gone are the days when films would celebrate silver and golden jubilees. Today, money spent on lavish settings and hefty fees of actors have to be recouped (and profits made) in the very first week itself. S.R. Kundinya, Bangalore
What about the so-called controversy preceding the release of My Name Is Khan. It was the most brazen use of negative publicity in my view. Divya, London
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT