Monopolies & Oligarchies
Many years ago, Warren Buffet had made an astute observation that the fraternity of multi-national ad agencies was an example of an oligarchy – meaning that at any given point, there are a fixed number of ad agencies who will be considered by an MNC FMCG marketing co. – based on their requirements of international network, client roster & prior experience. (These rather stringent requirements make it difficult for new entrants to join the fraternity.) The MNC ad business would therefore “rotate” between these agencies, creating a monopolistic group or oligarchy.

Today, Buffet’s concept of oligarchy has extended to brands in general. At any given point, there are a fixed number of brands who share a common platform of product category & target audience, by maintaining competitive share-of-voice & brand salience. (Ironically, this is a result of the exponential increase in choice coupled with huge distribution networks which makes it easy for the consumer to sample new brands - leading to eroding loyalties & fickle tastes !)

From Brand Leaders to Members of Oligarchy
So the brand leaders of the nineties have been replaced by oligarchies : whether it is international couriers (FedEx, DHL, TNT ... ), sports shoes (Nike, Reebok, Adidas ... ) or mobile phones (Nokia, Sony, Samsung ... ). For example, it is (approximately) equally “acceptable” for a person to be seen wearing Nike as it is Reebok. And it is as fashionable to own a Nokia cell phone as it is to own a Sony-Ericson or a Samsung.

Each brand constantly monitors its “media exposure” vis a vis its competitors – to ensure a minimum share of voice. And the preferred method is by utilizing mass media, like television, radio & print.

Oligarchies in Media
Media brands have grown exponentially in numbers. And extensive distribution systems permit easy accessibility for their audience. So (like all brands) media brands have also formed into oligarchies. ABC, NBC, CBS & Fox which constitute an oligarchy in the U.S. national TV market. While Zee TV, StarPlus & Sony TV are part of an similar oligarchy of Indian entertainment channels. Incidentally, oligarchies are more apparent in media which are easy to switch (like electronic media) and relatively less in print medium.

Given the ‘volatile’ nature of the television medium coupled with the huge choice, it is natural that most viewers switch to other channels, especially during commercial breaks. All this makes it almost mandatory for TV ad budgets to be divided across multiple channels. This puts intense pressure on ad budgets. Which in turn is responsible for depressing ad rates. To retain their revenue targets, channels have actually started providing for unnaturally large commercial breaks. Net result: commercial breaks have started exceeding program segments, which is responsible for creating significant ad clutter !

Think About It !
The increasing duration of ad breaks may soon make it routine for ad breaks to exceed program segments. And a new breed of television commercials are successfully competing not only with each other, but also with programming content ! Will we see a possible “role reversal” between TV programming & commercials ?

.