How Vernacular OTT Built A New Mass Audience
Vernacular OTT was never the story anyone was covering. The Indian streaming story was reported as a contest between a handful of English-language services and their originals. The audience that actually materialised was somewhere else, watching in languages that were never part of that conversation.
Vernacular content did not scale because a strategy identified it. It scaled because data got cheap, phones got capable, and a very large number of people who had never been a television audience became a video audience directly.
Why vernacular OTT is not television again
Television built mass reach through scarcity: a limited number of channels, appointment timing, and a household gathered around one screen. Everyone in the room watched the same advertisement.
Streaming has abundance, individual viewing and no appointment. The same number of people can be reached, but never simultaneously and never as a household, which breaks the specific thing television advertising was good at.
What advertisers keep getting wrong about it
Treating language as a delivery variable. A campaign made in Hindi and dubbed into six languages is a Hindi campaign with a distribution plan, and audiences who have spent their whole lives receiving translated content recognise it instantly.
The brands doing well here commission separately, or at minimum shoot performances separately, and accept that this costs more than an adaptation because it is a different product rather than a cheaper version of the same one.
An audience that has been receiving translations its entire life can tell the difference between being addressed and being included in a distribution list.
The measurement gap
Television had an agreed currency, contested and imperfect and agreed. Streaming has platform-reported numbers, which are not comparable to each other and are supplied by the party selling the inventory.
That is a structural problem rather than a temporary one, and it is the main reason large advertisers have moved slower into this audience than the audience's size would justify.
What it means for where work gets made
If the largest growing audience is not in Mumbai and not in English, the logic of concentrating creative production in two cities weakens considerably.
That shift is happening slowly and mostly through production partners rather than through agencies opening offices. The interesting question for the next few years is whether the agency structure follows the audience or whether something else grows up where the audience already is.
Related on Ad Tribe
Advertisement
