Cricket is in the air. The ongoing India-Pakistan cricket series has cornered so much media space in the last three weeks that it is difficult to believe that all that has happened is just because of the popularity of this game. There is much more to this.
Today, almost anybody in India -- whether genuinely interested in sports or not -- is entertaining himself with what is happening between India and Pakistan on the cricket field. He has little choice, though.
Most newspapers have splashed the news of the India-Pakistan cricket matches all over their front pages. Television channels are vying with each other to offer a more exclusive coverage of the cricket contest between the two countries.
All this has happened largely because cricket has become a mega entertainment business. It has reached a level where the game itself has become financially dependent on advertisements and corporate sponsorship.
Not surprisingly, the advertisers and the sponsors are making sure that there is more entertaining cricket every day so that they get more value for the money they spend. If that means tweaking the rules of the game a little bit, nobody seems to mind as the advertisers and the corporate sponsors are happy.
Purists, however, are upset. They point to two dangers. One, if making cricket more entertaining becomes the all-important goal, the game as a contest between the bat and the ball may lose its intrinsic appeal.
Two, if this goes on for some time, the game might lose its popularity and the sponsors might be accused of killing the hen that lays golden eggs.
But let there be no doubt. Nobody is going to listen to the purists. This is because cricket has become an entertainment business. And it has chosen a business model, where the user does not pay.
The gate money received from the spectators or the television channel subscription fees received from the TV viewers is very small. That is not enough either to organise a match or telecast it.
So, the game depends on corporate sponsors and advertisers. And once the sponsors decide to spend their money on the game, they want to make sure that their returns are substantial. There are no free lunches.
Purists of the game should realise this. If they want the sanctity of the rules to be protected, they must get back to a situation where the cricket administrations' dependence on sponsors and advertisers declines to a level that the latter cannot dictate terms on the way the game is played.
A comparison of what has happened to cricket with the media industry is almost inevitable. Newspapers and television news channels are increasingly becoming dependent on the advertising revenue they get to run their businesses.
Today, almost 80-90 per cent of the cost of producing a newspaper is being met from advertising revenue. The reader pays a very small price.
It is naïve to believe that the advertiser will be satisfied only with the publication or telecast of his paid message through the media. Given the fact that most newspaper establishments are heavily dependent on advertisement revenue to keep their businesses going, the advertiser would try to think up new ideas to reach the readers in what he thinks are more appealing and innovative ways.
If, in the process, the sanctity of a newspaper and its editorial norms are violated, neither the advertiser is bothered, nor are most newspapers concerned. Even if some of them are concerned, their dependence on advertising revenue renders them somewhat incapable of taking a bold and independent decision.
Once again, the purist reader of a newspaper will be upset. And once again, there is no point in blaming either the newspapers or the advertisers.
As in cricket, the business model of newspapers has evolved in such a way that the user (the readers in this case) does not pay for the newspaper he buys. He is heavily subsidised by the advertiser.
So, if the purist reader's interests need to be protected, either the business model of the newspaper has to change and the reader must pay a much higher price for a copy of the newspaper he buys, or you should look for a bold and ethically correct newspaper management.
There is some hope. And that ray of hope has been provided by the country's chamber business. Industry associations have been solely funded by their members and they are expected to take up industry issues with the government. But since it is the members who finance the chambers, they very often browbeat the chamber managements to take up an individual case or two with the government.
Look at the irony. Here was an industry association set up to serve the cause of industry in general. But because it was funded by individual companies, its role was being distorted and reduced to lobbying for individual cases.
So, what did they do? The chambers began reducing their dependence on fees from their members. Today, the Confederation of Indian Industry, for instance, meets only ten per cent of its total expenditure from its membership fees. The rest comes from its independently run advisory services, events, conferences and exhibitions.
The lessons are obvious. The user must pay for the service or product he gets. Be it cricket, newspapers or any other business.
Powered by 
