A recent fireside chat at WAVES between Uday Shankar, Vice Chairman of JioStar, and Vivek Couto, Managing & Executive Director of Media Partners Asia, titled “Media in India: Past 25 years and Journey Ahead – to 2047,” offered a compelling reflection on the evolution of Indian screen and video entertainment. Their insightful discussion traversed key milestones, challenges overcome, and the promising trajectory of this dynamic industry.
Shankar commenced by highlighting the “spectacular global story” of Indian media’s surge over the past 25 to 30 years. He underscored the unique resilience of television in India, thriving alongside the remarkable rise of streaming video consumption. The early 90s launch of satellite television and the subsequent cable and satellite revolution were identified as pivotal moments, initially disruptive but ultimately expanding the market and attracting a broader consumer base.
A crucial point Shankar emphasized was the affordability-driven accessibility of television in India, a factor that fueled rapid adoption unlike the decades-long growth in developed nations. He lauded the significant local enterprise, creativity, and domestic capital that propelled television and video consumption from near zero to ubiquity within a decade. While acknowledging imperfections, he affirmed that the “overall growth and explosion of video consumption and content in the last quarter-century is an astounding achievement.”
Couto built upon this by recognizing the government’s enabling role through FDI deregulation alongside domestic initiatives. He then steered the conversation towards distribution, noting how the journey of television, culminating in the 4G revolution and the emergence of platforms like Hotstar, democratized access. He then questioned whether content creation had kept pace with this democratization.
Shankar responded that it was “still early days” for streaming, highlighting Hotstar’s relatively recent inception. He pointed to the significant growth, with approximately 700 million people now engaging with streaming content. While acknowledging that content has “by and large, yes” kept pace in certain segments like sports, where distribution into regional dialects significantly expanded the market, he cautioned that viewers are “far ahead of providers.”
He critiqued the reliance on imported models, asserting that simply bringing globally successful content to India is “highly limiting at best.” Shankar stressed the need for significantly more locally tailored content that resonates with Indian tastes, with the potential to then travel globally.
Turning to the economic landscape, Couto noted the Indian screen entertainment industry’s current $30 billion size compared to the US and China, highlighting its impressive growth from $500 million over the past 30 years. He inquired about the projected trajectory for the next 15 years and the key growth drivers.
Shankar expressed confidence that the growth rate of the past 30 years could continue, emphasizing three crucial drivers. Firstly, the creation of more customized content for Indian needs. Secondly, deeper distribution penetration through telecom, broadband, and data expansion. He cautioned against a “one-size-fits-all” approach, advocating for content beyond global imports and Mumbai-centric productions. Thirdly, he stressed the need for a stronger creative infrastructure, lamenting the limited capacity and access to storytellers, writers, producers, directors, and actors. He observed a disconnect, stating that “consumers in this country are way ahead of producers, and that gap needs to be bridged.”
Couto then addressed the unusual dip in theatrical performance in India compared to other emerging markets, despite the resurgence of television and the explosion of streaming.
Shankar clarified that the dip is primarily concentrated in North India and Hindi cinema, which he believes is “still frozen in time” regarding its creative output, failing to keep pace with evolving consumer tastes. In contrast, he highlighted a “creative resurgence” and economic upside in the Southern film industries (Tamil and Telugu).
He further pointed to the limited number of exhibition screens, the expensive movie-going experience, and the “mismatch” between a young population and an aging talent pool in Bollywood as significant issues hindering theatrical growth. He emphasized the need to address distribution, creativity, new talent influx, and connectivity with the “new India.”
Couto then shifted the focus to global investment in India’s creative economy, particularly YouTube’s recent announcement. He inquired about JioStar’s investment plans in this space.
Shankar refrained from discussing specific financial investments, emphasizing that consumers should focus on quality and engagement. However, he highlighted that the Indian media and entertainment industry, largely built by Indianized companies, is already making substantial investments. He cited JioStar’s significant spending on content – Rs. 25,000 crore in 2024, Rs. 30,000 crore projected for 2025, and over Rs.32,000-33,000 crore for 2026. “So, in three years, we are spending over $10 billion on content,” Shankar informed, adding: “That’s what has power.”
He differentiated this from global companies whose primary target may not be the Indian consumer.
Moving to JioStar’s distribution strategy, particularly through the IPL, Couto referenced the target of 300 million subscribers. He sought insights into the company’s performance in the initial three months post-merger across television, connected TV, and streaming.
Shankar expressed satisfaction with the achievements in a short period, especially given the prevailing narrative of declining pay TV and limited streaming growth. He asserted that pay TV has seen growth since the merger, attributing this to a renewed focus on the Indian market. While not commenting on specific subscriber numbers, he indicated “spectacular growth” in streaming, challenging the earlier hypothesis of a limited subscription market. He emphasized the importance of price sensitivity in the Indian market to reach a broader audience.
Shankar also critiqued the lack of innovation in monetization models within the global media and entertainment business, which largely still relies on advertising and subscription. He argued that in a price-sensitive market like India, with limitations in the advertising sector, innovating on product, content formats, and new revenue streams is crucial.
Couto posed three final questions, the first concerning the future of television and streaming distribution over the next five years.
Shankar projected “enormous” growth possibilities, contingent on India-focused innovation from key operators. He believed the growth rate of the past three decades could strengthen due to an expanding and unsaturated consumer base. Regarding advertising, he suggested tapping into the decentralized economic activity in smaller towns to create new brands and expand the advertiser pool, potentially doubling the market in five years.
Couto’s second question explored when an Indian media company might join the ranks of global giants like Tencent, Netflix, and ByteDance, emphasizing their evolution into technology and media companies.
Shankar attributed the high valuations of Chinese companies and the struggles of Western media companies to a lack of monetization innovation beyond traditional advertising and subscription models, especially amidst pressure on existing revenue streams and plateauing subscriber numbers in some markets. He believes a significant opportunity exists for an Indian company to achieve global recognition by innovating its monetization model beyond content creation.
Finally, Couto sought Shankar’s perspective on the policy and regulation of the digital entertainment space, particularly regarding the debate on treating all screens alike.
Shankar concluded that while media companies need to innovate more, regulators are “even further behind.” He cautioned against treating all screens alike, arguing that television and digital platforms are distinct businesses at different evolutionary stages serving different purposes. He advocated for allowing them to compete freely and providing support where needed, warning that homogenization would “homogeneously destroy value from both.”
