Inspiration, flattery or plagiarism? Television cloning in India

As with most developing countries, television in Asia began as a tool for economic development and aid to national integration in the post-colonial era. Often it functioned without direct competition in the form of commercial television due to the nationalist, even socialist policies of early governments, right up till the arrival of transnational satellite television in the early 1990s. Much emphasis was placed on educational and information programming on such issues as literacy, agriculture and health. Yet paradoxically the predominance of development communications on domestic public television triggered the growth of the informal video-rental and eventually cable-satellite television networks to cater for the pent-up demand for entertainment.

Transnational television providers entered the Asian market in the 1990s in fairly rapid succession. The pioneer satellite broadcaster, StarTV, commenced by beaming its five channels from AsiaSat1 in late 1991 and was soon bought by News Corporation, the global media conglomerate. Soon afterwards other global channels like CNN, ESPN, Discovery, TNT/Cartoon Network, MTV and HBO entered the fray, commencing broadcasting via satellites previously used solely for domestic broadcasting, before migrating to newer satellite platforms.

With the launching of more powerful satellites in the mid-1990s, a plethora of channels went on air, many of them clones of the pioneers. Soon numerous regional channels in Asian languages led by TVB Superchannel and ZeeTV began to appear. Others were domestic commercial broadcasters and even domestic public broadcasters which decided to go regional and even global, such as China’s CCTV and India’s Doordarshan. Then newcomers from related industries such as film and video production, such as MGM Gold and Sony Entertainment Television. Thus there soon was a blurring of the distinctions between global, regional and domestic broadcasts.

Incidence of cloning
With over 180 channels available in India at the turn of the 21st century, and rapid entries and exits from the market, it is difficult to quantify the extent of programme cloning or format adaptation. Still cloning is growing phenomenon in India as it is in many other countries in Asia with an active domestic television industry. Some obvious successes stand out in recent years, such as KBC the licensed adaptation of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Sensitivity to local cultural nuances has been critical to its popular reception by audiences. But there are far more instances of cloning, sometimes subtle and at other times not.

Besides KBC, there are few known licensed programme format adaptations in India. One such programme is ‘C.A.T.S.’, clear clone of ‘Charlies’ Angels’, which represents an interesting case of the transnational transfer of rights. Although produced by an Indian production house, it was done for Sony Entertainment Television, which also owns Columbia Pictures, which in turn holds the rights to the original US television programme. Based on observation, the news on StarTV resembles that on BBC and it even has a programme which imitates the latter’s interview show Hard Talk. While the sitcom ‘Friends’ airs on Star World, the international programme channel of StarTV, an Indian version called ‘Hello Friends’ airs on Star Plus, its Indian programme channel.

To possible issues of plagiarism and breaching copyright, many Indian producers plead mere ‘inspiration’ from foreign programme formats. Lack of stringent copyright laws, the immense difficulties of copyright owners enforcing them as well as the high costs involved in collecting copyright revenue mean that for the present programme producers in much of Asia continue to clone without license.

A question of origins
There are complications with estimating domestic versus foreign programme production. One trend has been the filming of Indian serials and movies in foreign countries to provide novelty for the audiences and tax benefits for the producers. Some of these ethnically Indian producers and actors are residents or even citizens abroad, and the production houses are incorporated abroad for tax purposes. Do the programmes they produce count as domestic or foreign?

On the other hand there are foreign-owned corporations such as CNN, StarTV, SonyET and Discovery which source programming from within India for broadcast to the country as well as internationally. Sometimes they use their own foreign crews and at other times they commission local production houses, and in still other situations use a combination of foreign and local personnel. Should their programmes be classified as domestic or foreign? Should one still classify such channels of global origin as foreign when their programming has increasingly been designed or cloned with Indian markets primarily in mind?

Then there are magazine-style programmes that range from those which utilise segments of foreign production to those which are essentially foreign programmes simply topped-and-tailed by local presenters. All this is irrespective of whether the programmes themselves are format adaptations, licensed or otherwise, or have been variously ‘inspired’ by foreign formats. Also, there are clones of other popular Indian programmes adapted from one regional language into another, across the 80-plus channels available nationally. Quite clearly, notions of domestic or foreign programming are inadequate in increasingly globalised cultural industries.

Tale of two ‘Millionnaires’
The most widely acknowledged clone in India is Kaum Banega Crorepati, a licensed adaptation of Who Wants to be a Millionaire? by StarTV. Popularly known as KBC it became an absolute ratings winner - achieving highest-ever ratings in India. As a consequence it spawned unlicensed quiz-show clones among its rival channels such as ZeeTV and SonyET, which failed miserably to match, much less outdo, KBC. The success of KBC was attributed by industry and consumers alike to compere Amitabh Bachan, a leading actor with impeccable command of spoken Hindi and an inimitable avuncular style.

The ZeeTV clone Sawal Das Crore Ka (SDCK) used two actors as comperes but they were much less known and admired actors who also appeared ill matched. The programme was perceived and resented by audiences as a clone whereas KBC was seen as the original, even though many knew it was itself the Indian clone of a foreign programme. The programme struggled to have the production values and the electricity of KBC and in less than a year was taken off air. However SunTV, a South Indian channel, cloned KBC and its version has been popular because it is the only one in the Tamil language.

Within months after its launch, the overwhelming success of KBC was already causing considerable upheaval in the industry. SonyET advertising revenues were down 40 percent from its earlier projections and when ZeeTV was not forthcoming with revenue figures, its share price plummeted. ZeeTV soon scrapped its ‘Millionaire’ clone, entailing considerable negative publicity. Still, as a licensed quality-controlled adaptation KBC has been responsible for raising the expectations of Indian viewers for higher production values in domestic programme production and that not only in game-shows. As such programme cloning may be a good thing.

Perceptive yet possessive audiences
Among Indian audiences there seemed to be varying degrees of awareness of the phenomenon of television programme adaptation from vague suspicion that a programme is a clone to certainty. Many viewers could name talk shows, soaps and sitcoms that are clones of foreign formats, demonstrating knowledge that it took place across genre. There was also familiarity with the clones of clones within Indian television, particularly by southern channels which use different languages of northern channels which use primarily Hindi.

The more educated viewers tend to be quite perceptive of why cloning is done by television programme producers in India as elsewhere. They see it in terms of being general industry practice to identify, replicate and market a successful formula in programmes, one that attracts audiences and thus advertising revenue. They understand that competition for advertising through high-rating programs is another impetus for channels to clone programmes. Viewers offer differing motivations for watching game shows: some think it is simply the prize money, others suggest it is the use of famous actors as game-masters.

Some viewers are quick to point out other forms of imitation that are quite acceptable, namely in scientific experimentation and literature translation. Others doubt whether the programme format adaptations can match the quality of the originals. A ‘cultural cringe’ exists among Indian audiences who can’t believe that KBC fulfils the international standard for Millionaire, despite its rigorous licensing process. There is also condescension expressed by educated viewers about ‘the masses’ not realising that a programme is a clone.

Yet a sense of ownership over a popular programme appears characterise viewers in India as elsewhere in Asia - not only by those unaware of its origin but also among those aware that it is a format adaptation or clone. Should then a producer or channel conceal the fact that a programme was adapted from a foreign original or advertise that fact? Does it really matter either way to audiences? If it does, for which audiences or for which programme genres might it possibly matter?

Cultural economics or business imperative
Given the rapid growth of television in India, from two channels to over 80 in decade, cloning might be one means of coping with the imperative to fill the programme hours. Original imported programmes run the risk of failing completely in the foreign market or at best catering to a small minority. For example, US or UK programmes cater only to those well educated in English and somewhat Anglophile. While cloning offers some hope of achieving a domestic ratings winner, this is by no means guaranteed. The clone in another country could fail utterly, do just as well, or even outstrip the original programme’s performance in its own country.

Doubtless, game shows and talk shows are relatively cheap programmes to produce and are thus a staple of most channels’ programming. The cost differential between production and purchase of an imported programme is lower than it is for a drama series. Hence, there is a greater chance that new ideas will be cloned within such programme genre. The temptation to imitate is understandably high when a rival television channel has a licensed clone that is decimating one’s ratings and raking in the commensurate advertising and sponsorship revenues. But are good programmes like art unique or are they eminently replicable? Then again, how is ‘good’ to be defined: popularity with a mass audience or with a discerning audience?

In Indian cultural production such as movies and television, the imitation of ideas both from the West as well as from other parts of India seems to be fairly acceptable practice. If nothing else, programme cloning is excused as a matter of economic necessity in a developing country. At the same time, an attitude exists among the intelligentsia that cloning Western cultural products undermines purity of Indian culture and corrupts the minds of youth, less educated women, the poor, and so on. Hence a foreign culture’s influence may be more insidious when cloaked in a veneer of local culture, as with a cloned television programme.

Coming to terms with cloning
The practice of cloning cultural products such as Hollywood movies in India predates the current trend worldwide to clone high-ratings television programmes. On the other hand, there are Indonesian clones of popular Indian television serials and movies. In China, cloning of cultural products is considered an ‘elegant offence’ and a compliment to the original creator. In many countries there exist also clones of local clones of foreign programme formats as well as clones of other local or sub-regional original formats. Should one treat the larger Asian countries such as China, Indonesia and India in this context as unitary states, despite the immense cultural diversity within each?

So when is a cloned programme a format adaptation, licensed or otherwise, and when is it simply yet another manifestation of a programme genre, even ‘inspired’ by the success of certain programmes? Is being cloned by another a source of flattery for the original creator - recognition of innovation and excellence by the wider fraternity? Is cloning not culturally objectionable because it may be thought of as learning from and emulating a superior producer? Or should cloning be seen as totally excusable and fully understandable since it is being done by a developing country to a developed one?

Dr Amos Owen Thomas, School of Marketing & Management, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia 9726. E-mail: a.thomas@griffith.edu.au