With barely an episode left in Satyamev Jayate’s first season, the jury is out on what is the impact created by the show. Is it a success or did it fail to make the impact it set out to make three months ago. Here is the first independent analysis of the show based on available digital data
Satyamev Jayate is undoubtedly a pathbreaking effort to use the television medium to bring about heightened awareness regarding various social ills. The production team of SMJ has announced plans to reach out to audience and include feedback before they get back to bring season 2. Like the show, the aim of the article is to try and cut through a maze of clutter around the show to present some hard facts and analysis.
The measurement challenge
Novelty factor: Some ways in which show is peculiarly structured play a role. One, it is scheduled for Sunday morning that was all but forgotten since the Ramayana and Mahabharata in the 80s. Two, its social theme is not mainstream masala of any known kind. Three, the star value of Aamir is at play, possibly at its peak. Four, even if knowing of its social message and good intent, not all episodes are considered worthy of family viewing. For example, parents of teenagers would’t want them to watch “Intolerance to love” episode on inter-caste marriages. Likewise, many viewers would like to continue in denial than learn pervert ways of society and are known to switch off certain episodes despite being regular followers of the show. Five, the theme of each show is closely guarded till telecast. This is good as well as bad for the show and its organizers. One may be interested in a particular theme and especially on Sunday morning, adjust schedule to watch the show but over time, people with access can always decide to catch up later on web, delayed telecasts.
Television viewership ratings (TRP): How do you measure the impact of a show like SMJ? It is a TV show- agreed, but does it fall squarely in category of entertainment to have TRPs as the barometer? And then the simulcast over DD and starplus would mean tracking and combining two different TRPs. And then there are telecasts in regional languages. To make things complex, you would not just have to measure TRP of one show, but multiple telecasts would combine for same channel during the week.
Other media: Multimedia onslaught of the program meant there was also web to contend with, to measure the impact. With multiple official and unofficial sites/uploaders beaming every episode, and then there are uploaded part-videos of programs separately, and then to measure average view-time, it is difficult to add it all up meaningfully to infer meaningfully on impact in viewership terms leave alone social dimension of issues raised.
Radio talk-shows and awareness programs, twitter followership, number of (meaningful) tweets, likes on facebook, response to SMS campaigns, donation amounts, newsprint acreage consumed in reviews and web blogs and so on, each is independently and in combinations being used by media analysts to conclude varyingly. And if that is not mind-boggling there is also advertisers’ ROI, charities benefitted and political impact etc.
The social impact: While all above are challenging but they are still measurable, albeit with difficulty. True impact created would be in terms of awareness and turning awareness into desirable social change in behavior. Could there be factors ranging from star appeal to sheer voyeurism at play that drive up numbers unknowingly without the larger aim of social impact? Possibly, one should measure dowry deaths reduced, female foeticides prevented, organic vegetables consumed, and so on. For sure, one would end up claiming what one pleases to, as challenge of measuring the intangibles would be most difficult.
Gestation period: Then there is an issue of how long to wait to see impact of awareness translate into action, with both being spaced in time. Planning to increase generic medicines to its successful implementation and then measuring the impact over reasonable period- just the thought of it and we realize how difficult it would be to agree on the impact in a reasonable time.
Let the numbers speak…
Realizing the range, depth and scope of the challenge of measurement, we try to adopt multi-media multi-pronged metrics, then merging these to simplify inferences.
First mover advantage: The show’s novelty worked tremendously to its advantage. The magic created by first episode was never matched again (see graph 1 on donations collected ). Seemingly, given precipitous drop in collections, can be explained by two factors- the magic of surprise in the first episode, with no clue to the anticipating viewers about the theme, media options and content of the show; who then all sat glued to the TV, reflecting in high TRPs. Secondly, the message and the relatively untapped, lachrymal-glands-driven donor sentiment, reaped in the maximum. Sustenance of donor interest beyond airing week for the first episode donations, could be attributed to high TRP aided by intense news-media coverage. Since Reliance foundation matched only week 1 of amount collected in donations, some interesting inferences result. Why collections dipped sharply for episode 3(dowry system) after week of telecast?
In contrast, subsequent episodes witnessed drop in popularity on all media parameters- TRPs, video-views on web, SMS, donations etc. The nature of show by way of moralizing and making at least some people uncomfortable, the fatigue factor catching up after few episodes aided by an intense 90 minutes show, and sensitivity of some issues not conducive to family viewing contributed to the dip. The dip spread across parameters and a multimedia one-view would help see the holistic picture.
A notable exception was highest TRP recorded for episode 4 on healthcare. One possible reason for the high TRP could be universal nature of healthcare, where, unlike disabled problem, female foeticide, dowry etc, everyone is affected. TV viewership though seems to have made cross-channel dent for the episode in web videos.
While the amount of donations was highest for Snehalaya, we would expect SMS amount received to correlate similarly too and be highest in number. However, NGO Childline (Episode 2: Child Sexual abuse) received more than 1.5 times the SMSes received by episode 1. Possibly, large amounts from few donors made a significant difference to the amount. Also, the convenience and method of SMS may have caught on by episode 2 to then dip.
Women-based themes hold sway
Youtube video total views have reduced steadily. The ones that still buck the trend slightly are themes like dowry, domestic violence and inter-caste marriages, apart from female infanticide and child sexual abuse. Audience possibly does not connect that well with issues like organic farming, alcoholism and untouchability than with gender-related issues.
Fastest fingers first: Online Search for episode videos
There is a clear pattern in accessing videos online. Searches point to most used SMJ terms as “Satyamev jayate episode” and “Satyamev Jayate video” as most used, by a factor of 10, compared to other terms. So, over time now, viewers use search engines to reach to videos and when combined with TRP drop, reducing viewership seems for real.
The episode on untouchability was hotly debated on social media. Website comments, twitter feed analysis and media articles and some key omissions in the show point to some reasons. The episode got highest numbers of comments on youtube.
A summary snapshot indicates that the heat generated on the viewership parameters slowly dissipated and the audience turned cold. It is unfair to judge the show though on purely these. Public empathy with the causes, if not the show, should be higher given self-interest of society in issues raised, the show being mere catalyst.
Tenacity to persist with a cause, be it anti-corruption movement or be it social cause of SMJ, seems to be a quality unknown to the lay citizen. A limited attention span or a show that has a message but could not hold on to the recipient, there is a need to evolve. Or does the common refrain that, “ how can wholesome nutritious food be tasty too” hold true also of TV shows. Can a good theme that does not provide as much on entertainment scale but has good social cause, last?
There is also the all important subtle change in mindsets, that numbers do not tell, that is more important than TRPs and advertisers’ money or viewership. Getting the social issues on mainstream agenda and right upto the parliament and many state governments have surely been notable achievements. That the audience matured and the cause resonated more than the star as the show progressed, though, is evident from tweet wordmap from last episode telecast on aging parents.
(Wordmap of top 50 words with hashtags #SMJ or #AgingParents –tweets tweeted on day of Episode 11. Font size indicates frequency of usage.)
Before season 2, there is some home-work to do for team SMJ. The citizens too have their hands full-from the foetus to the elderly and so many more issues in between to make a difference……we only have scraped the tip of the iceberg. Or not even that much. We only just know more about the problems that always existed.
(Note: All data taken from authentic public sources quoted. Data on donations provided courtesy Star TV. Due to transient nature of social media data based on ongoing usage, numbers may have changed since date of data collection during the week.)
About the author
Sandeep Khurana is Founder and Principal Consultant, QuantLeap Consulting services, based at Hyderabad. An ex-Army officer, he is well-read and experienced in govt and corporate sectors. Sandeep holds a management degree from Indian School of Business. He has interest in social media, analytics and Operations. He can be reached at [email protected] or his twitter id @IQnEQ.
RIL has reported disappointing results, with its net profit tanking 21%, to Rs4,473 crore on account of increased expenses higher exchange rates
Reliance Industries (RIL), an enterprise run by Mukesh Ambani, has reported poor results as its net profit sank by about 21% year-on-year (y-o-y), to Rs4,473 crore, for the quarter ended June 2012. Its net profit margins too shrank, from 6.99% to 4.87%, more 200 basis percentage points, for the same period. This was due to higher material consumption, which increased by 23.1% from Rs64,443 crore to Rs79,335 crore mainly on account of higher exchange rate. Its net sales increased 13.4% from Rs81,018 crore in June 2011 quarter to Rs91,875 crore in the June 2012 quarter. Higher prices accounted for 4.1% growth in revenue while higher volumes accounted for the balance 4% growth.
Its operating profit for the quarter ended June 2012 declined 32% y-o-y to Rs6,747 crore, from Rs9,926 crore for the corresponding period last year. This is actually worse than its preceding three-quarter y-o-y decline in operating profits (30%). Reliance Industries’ revenues come from three segments namely: Petrochemicals, refining and oil & gas. All the three segments reported decline in operating profit on a y-o-y basis.
However, sequentially, its operating profit increased, albeit marginally and the first time in three quarters it reported increased operating profit. This underscores the difficulty in containing the cost structure of the business when the going gets bad. Employee costs for the quarter were Rs847 crore which is 41.9 % higher over the trailing quarter on account of one-time performance linked payments for the previous year’s performance. Its sales have been slow to respond, growing at a rate of 13%, which is almost half of its three-quarter y-o-y growth rate of 24%. The disappointment over the last few quarters caused its valuations to drop. Its market capitalisation to operating profits is now in single digit territory, at 8.64 times its operating profits while its return on equity is 11% only.
Addressing the positives rather than the shortcomings, Mukesh Ambani said in a press release, “Reliance Industries has improved its earnings profile as profits from operations were higher on a sequential basis on the back of volume growth in the refining business. We have commenced our next phase of capital investments in the refining and petrochemical segments to enhance earnings and value of our core energy businesses.”
Earlier, the company was served a notice by the Government of India, relating to a production sharing contract in one of the blocks (KG-DWN-98/3) in the Krishna-Godavari basin with regard to cost recovery. The company has initiated arbitration proceedings on the same matter.
On a related note, its Canadian joint venture partner, Niko Resources, had earlier had reported that the reserves in the Krishna-Godavari Basin actually holds 80% less reserves than original estimated. In its press release it said, Reliance Industries is planning to submit Revised Field Development Plan (RFDP) for D1-D3 which is aimed at maximizing gas recovery from the existing fields. It also plans to further pursue approval of RFDP of D 26 (MA) submitted in the earlier quarter. Further, to expedite the development projects of other discoveries, RIL is preparing development plan(s) based on an integrated concept which is planned for submission in third quarter of the current fiscal.
RIL’s portfolio currently consists of 13 exploration blocks excluding KG D6, CBM, Panna-Mukta and Tapti. Both the Panna-Mukta and Tapti have reported decrease in production and reserves respectively.
Reliance has also started to get rid off some assets, for cash. Reliance Exploration and Production DMCC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance has completed the transaction for divestment of its 80% working interest and operatorship in the production sharing contracts (PSCs) for Rovi and Sarta Blocks in the Kurdistan Region to the subsidiaries of Chevron Corporation.
Outstanding debt as on 30th June 2012 was Rs73,213 crore compared to Rs68,259 crore as on 31st March 2012. The increase in debt in rupee terms is mainly on account of change in exchange rates.
In its press release, Reliance has mentioned about the newly planned Broadband Wireless Access that is supposed to offer 4G services. But no timeline has been mentioned.
Unlike the airline industry, which relies on a safety net of checklists, the medical community has been slow to adopt them in all areas and often puts its faith in the outdated idea that doctors are infallible
New York University’s (NYU) Langone Medical Center announced this week that it was adopting new procedures after the death of a 12-year old boy from septic shock. The hospital’s emergency room sent Rory Staunton home in March and then failed to notify his doctor or family of lab results showing he was suffering from a raging infection.
In response to the case, which was covered by The New York Times, the hospital promised a bunch of basic fixes: ER (emergency room) doctors should be immediately notified of certain abnormal lab results and, if such results come in after a patient is sent home, the hospital should call the patient and his doctor.
The case is expected to spur changes in emergency rooms across the US that never again will a hospital make such an avoidable mistake. However, earlier evidence in such incidents suggest the medical system may prove resistant to change. History suggests it would be a victory if NYU Langone manages to follow its own new rules.
It’s long been known that medical errors are a major problem—a US panel concluded more than a decade ago that nearly 100,000 people die each year as a result of errors in hospitals. Despite the resulting national focus on patient safety, patients continue to be harmed and killed by medical shortcuts, inadequate training and breakdowns in communication.
Unlike the airline industry, which relies on a safety net of checklists, the medical community has been slow to adopt them in all areas and often puts its faith in the outdated idea that doctors are infallible.
Time and again the media have uncovered unfathomable lapses at medical facilities, often resulting in patient injuries and death. Time and again, hospital officials have put in place solutions that seem ridiculously obvious. But these solutions are frequently ignored or ineffective.
Few medical skills seem as basic as operating on the right body part of a patient. Yet, Rhode Island Hospital, the main teaching hospital of Brown University's medical school, couldn't get its surgeons to identify the right one.
Three times in 2007, surgeons there drilled into the wrong side of patients’ heads. After the second incident, the state health department ordered the hospital to hire a consultant and to double-check surgical sites. After the third, the department reprimanded the hospital and fined it $50,000.
But in May 2009, it happened again. During an operation to fix a child’s cleft palate, a surgeon at Rhode Island Hospital operated on the wrong side of the patient’s mouth. And then, in October of that year, an orthopaedic surgeon operated on the wrong finger of a patient.
That's five times in less than three years.
After each incident, the hospital said it was committed to patient care and would make needed changes. The hospital was reprimanded again, fined an additional $150,000, ordered to install video cameras in its operating rooms, and required to follow accepted procedures for preventing these types of slip-ups.
There hasn’t been another wrong-site surgery at the hospital since then, a hospital spokeswoman said. But in 2010, the state health department fined the hospital $300,000 for leaving a broken drill bit inside a patient’s skull. That’s another frequent medical foul-up, leaving things inside people, experts have been working to eliminate.
In mid-2003, Ornstein and Weber began writing about problems at Martin Luther King Jr/Drew Medical Center, a public hospital near Los Angeles with a troubling history of poor patient care.
One of their first stories detailed how a nurse in the cardiac monitoring unit failed to notice that her patient’s heart had slowed and stopped for more than 45 minutes. The nurse wrote on the patient’s chart that she was not in distress, even though her heart had already stopped. Two weeks later another patient on a monitor died after her failing condition also went unnoticed.
After the deaths, Los Angeles County health officials vowed that nurses and technicians in monitoring units had been retrained and new procedures had been put in place to prevent such events from ever happening again.
Over the next two years, however, five more patients in King/Drew’s monitoring units died in similar circumstances. In some cases, nurses were found not only to have neglected patients as they lay dying, but to have purposely turned down the alarms on the monitors or lied about their actions on patient charts.
A county supervisor said he was confounded by hospital’s inability to correct basic problems. “You can yell, scream, jump up and down, but things don’t seem to change.” The hospital closed in 2007.
Allen, who previously worked in Las Vegas, reported on the nation’s largest healthcare-based hepatitis C outbreak in 2008. Nurses at a colonoscopy clinic there were reusing syringes and single use medicine vials, infecting more than 100 people with the deadly disease.
The public, regulators and medical providers were outraged: How could anyone think it was OK to reuse syringes? But when inspectors checked other facilities, they found the same problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 125,000 patients have been notified since 1999 of potential exposure to blood-borne diseases due to unsafe injection practices.
The ongoing breaches of medical standards led to the CDC’s One & Only public health campaign, which reminds providers to use only one needle and syringe per patient. And yet, just last week, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said thousands of patients may have been put at risk of HIV and hepatitis because “needles and syringes were used repeatedly, often for days at a time,” at the offices of Stephen Stein, a Colorado dentist. Last year, Stein agreed to stop practicing, at least temporarily.
That's what’s so difficult to understand about medical mistakes. It seems inconceivable that nurses and doctors would reuse a syringe on multiple patients or that they would turn down alarms on cardiac monitors after patients at their hospital had died as a result.
NYU's Langone Medical Center has had its own share of problems over the years. Between 2002 and 2008, it was hit with a string of fines and penalties from the New York State Department of Health for errors that led to patient deaths. In 2007, for example, it was fined $6,000 after delays in diagnosing an infant's herniated bowel and deteriorating condition in the emergency room led to the patient's death.
NYU's history of fines shows that like Rhode Island Hospital, it operated on patients' wrong body parts, and like King/Drew, it did not properly watch over a patient in need of continuous monitoring.
Administrators need to empower front line staff, no matter their rank, to speak out when they see safety lapses before they cause harm—which is difficult in a system that reveres doctors above others.
Addressing the types of failures that led to Rory Staunton’s death depends on redirecting resources at a time when they are scarce and accountability amid the chaos of busy hospitals. And it depends on convincing people that something as simple as adding one new task to an already long list could save lives.