Who is the customer? The advertiser or the subscriber?

If you, as a subscriber, believe that you are the primary customer of a TV channel or print newspaper, think again. The moolahs of the advertiser is far bigger and much more important to the broadcaster and the publisher than the presumably subsidized rates paid by the subscriber. What does this mean to the subscriber?

Every square centimeter of the newspaper and the TV screen, that the subscriber pays for, is also available for sale to the advertiser at the highest bid. Not a price that a subscriber can afford. Hence advertising in every intrusive form always takes precedence over content.

During the recently concluded India – Srilanka ODI matches, the promo for the " BIG BOSS " program on Colors was displayed on top of the broadcast program, positioned almost in the centre of the TV screen. Ofcourse there were other advertising messages elsewhere on the screen too. More advertising message on the screen than broadcast content. Wouldnt it then be a good idea to charge subscription basis square centimetre of broadcast content shown? Atleast then, the subscriber would know what he or she is paying for.

Its no better in the newspaper medium. News is bumped off the front page, front page news is served in different colors on different days ( brand colors of the advertisers ), the advertiser can even have his name on the masthead for a price. Paid PR? Maybe, though there isnt any conclusive evidence suggesting the same.

Advertising isn't bad as long as it isn't intrusive and one can distinguish advertising and the content. But do the subscribers have any say in it? Not really. No choice either. Can't imagine giving up newspapers and TV or paying more for advertising. Have the comfort though, of knowing I can get my name on the masthead of a newspaper.

Originally posted on my blog The Naive Marketer and Consumer on 25th Aug, 2008.