MxMIndia

Tag: television rating points

  • It’s time the ecosystem doesn't succumb to government pressure, writes Pradyuman Maheshwari

    Comment: Government must not interfere in TV measurement!

     

    By Pradyuman Maheshwari

     

    MxMIndia has been consistent on its position that the government mustn’t have any role in the television ratings process. We wrote this in 2018, and earlier in 2016 and perhaps a few more times. That the government would appoint a committee to review guidelines on television rating agencies in India, was known. Earlier this year,  on the eve of BARC’s fifth anniversary (https://www.mxmindia.com/2020/04/on-eve-of-barcs-5th-birthday-trai-issues-recommendations-on-tv-audience-measurement/), TRAI issued recommendations on the way ratings should happen.

     

    So while we were appalled when on Wednesday, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting constituted a committee to review guidelines on television rating agencies in India notified by it in 2014, we weren’t surprised. We thought that in the spirit of ‘Ease of Doing Business’, the government wouldn’t interfere. That we guess was asking for too much. It’s the government after all.

     

    It’s time the media ecosystem – broadcasters, advertisers and media agencies – must ask the government to not interfere.

     

    While a review of how BARC is performing is good to do, and what measurement should be like is a must and must be evaluated often enough, did it require the MIB to do it? Couldn’t the joint owners of broadcasters, advertisers and advertising agencies have conducted this? After all, they run businesses of over crores of rupees and are mostly fair in their decision-making. Mostly fair, because we’ve seen some regressive acts in the past. It may be noted that the BARC Board – the meetings of which happen very regularly – is constituted of members of all stakeholders.

     

    But back to our concern that the government shouldn’t be getting involved in measurement. As always, vested interests have evidently got onto the act and prevailed upon the government to do this.

     

    It appears that the genesis of the problem is the unity (or lack of it) amongst and within the three constituents. It is incorrect to let the government interfere. In fact, I may add here that the government’s intervention is a slap in the face of the stakeholders.

     

    The government-appointed TRAI should not have any role in the television audience measurement. Just as it doesn’t have any role in print, radio and internet audience measurement. There is some bizarre view that the reason why the government is involved is because its ads buying arm – the DAVP – loses monies because of incorrect measurement. So what about print which also earns its largesse? The government is scared of the big print players and isn’t able to bully them the way they are able to control the TVwallahs.

     

    The data that is thrown up by measurement is used by advertisers (and hence ad agencies) to decide on advertising and by broadcasters to aid its content and distribution. And since successive governments are aware that the media ecosystem is divided and people love to pull down others, it takes advantage of the situation. Look at print: even though an HT may hate Times, a Dainik Bhaskar may take on Dainik Jagran or Rajasthan Patrika, all rivals are almost always on one page when it comes to warding off government influences.

     

    Frankly, if I am advertiser, I can decide on the criteria for advertising on a certain channel. It could be ratings, it could the colour of the CEO’s shirt or saree, it could be whatever. Why should anyone else decide what the ratings should be. Will the government ask HUL, Amul, Dream11 to give reasons why it is paying XYZ crore rupees to Channel X or Y for its ads? Will the government ask Media Agency ABC why it is suggesting Channel V or W for its advertising. That’s a contract between the advertiser and the agency… Aap Inke Hain Kaun?

     

    Also, there can be multiple ratings agencies that can co-exist. Competition is always good to have, but measurement is an expensive exercise to conduct, and someone has to pay for it. From what I understand, the downturn has already impacted the subscription monies of BARC. It’s alright to talk of the need for competition, but one must remember that it doesn’t come free. That is if you want a quality measurement exercise.

     

    Bottomline: Broadcasters, advertisers and advertising agencies need to do some tough talking with the government. BARC must not toe the government’s line. BARC must not subject itself to the government’s demands.

     

    If BARC doesn’t do its job properly, its joint owners and subscribers will stop paying for its services. That by itself will ensure that it will provide good service. If a channel feels aggrieved, it can petition the association it is a part of to advise/tell/order BARC.

     

    Simple. Hai na? Time for the ecosystem to flex its muscles. And say: Hum Aapke Hai Kaun? And Kyun?

     

    This is the communique from the Press Information Bureau website:

     

    Ministry of I&B constitutes committee to review Guidelines on Television Rating Agencies in India

    Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has today constituted a committee to review “Guidelines on Television Rating Agencies in India” notified by the Ministry in 2014.

    The present guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) on Television Rating Agencies in India were notified after detailed deliberations by the Parliamentary Committee, Committee on Television Rating Points (TRP) constituted by the MIB and recommendations of Telecom Regulatory Authority etc.

    It has been found, based on the operation of the guidelines for a few years, that there is need to have a fresh look on the guidelines particularly keeping in view the recent recommendations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), technological advancements / interventions to address the system and further strengthening of the procedures for a credible and transparent rating system.

    A committee has been hereby constituted to study different aspects of the television rating system in India as they have evolved over a period of time.  The Committee shall carry out an appraisal of the existing system; examine TRAI recommendations notified from time to time, overall industry scenario and addressing the needs of the stakeholders and make recommendations for robust, transparent and accountable rating system through changes, if any, in the existing guidelines.

     

    The composition of the Committee shall be as under:-

    i)             Shri Shashi S. Vempati, CEO, Prasar Bharti                 …. Chairman

    ii)            Dr Shalabh, Professor of Statistics,

    Department of Mathematics and Statistics,

    IIT Kanpur                                                                           ….Member

    iii)           Dr. Rajkumar Upadhyay, Executive Director,

    C-DOT                                                                                  ….Member

    iv)           Professor Pulak Ghosh, Decision Sciences

    Centre for Public Policy (CPP)                                         ….Member

     

    The Terms of Reference for the Committee shall be as under:

    a. Study past recommendations made by various forums on the subject of television rating systems in India and matter incidental thereto;

    b. Study recent recommendations of Telecom Regulatory Authority on the subject;

    c. Suggest steps for enhancing competition in the sector;

    d. Review of the presently notified guidelines to see if the intended purpose(s) of issuing the guidelines have stood the test of time and has met needs of various stakeholders involve The lacunae, if any, shall be specially addressed by the Committee;

    e. Any issues related or incidental to the subject;

    f. To make recommendations on way forward for robust, transparent and accountable rating system in India; and

    g. Any other related issues assigned by MIB from time to time.

     

    The Committee can invite any expert as a special invitee. The Committee will submit its report to the Minister for Information & Broadcasting within two months.

     

  • They say that TRPs should decide the ad rates of reality shows instead of the channels charging advertisers fixed rates even before the show goes live

    Advertisers crib as TRPs fall for Satyamev Jayate

    By Ratna Bhushan

     

    The truth isn’t quite triumphing – not at least in the way some advertisers on Aamir Khan’s hyped debut television reality show Satyamev Jayate thought it would. Television rating points (TRPs) have fallen short of expectations, say at least two marketing heads of associate sponsors, although publicly most advertisers are making the right noises. That, however, hasn’t stopped media buying firms, on behalf of advertisers, from pushing for result and performance-based ad rates on reality shows. They say that TRPs should decide the ad rates of reality shows instead of the channels charging advertisers fixed rates even before the show goes live.

     

    As per rating agency TAM’s data released by Star on June 13, Satyamev Jayate – which is being aired on Sunday mornings across nine channels of the Star Network (as well as on the state-owned Doordarshan) delivered a national TVR of 3.9. That’s lower than the ratings of blockbuster shows of the past like Kaun Banega Crorepati (Sony Entertainment) and Bigg Boss’ debut show (Colors).

     

    Navin Khemka, managing partner of media buying firm ZenithOptimedia, which represents consumer goods major Reckitt Benckiser, one of the associate sponsors of Satyamev Jayate said: “All the risk cannot be passed on to the advertiser. With high entry-level costs on reality shows, it is critical that channels take more accountability on the returns on investment.”

     

    Increasingly, agencies and clients will ask for certain minimum guarantees on programme performance and viewership, he added: “It has to be a win-win for both the brand and the show.”

     

    While Bharti Airtel coughed up a chunky Rs17-20 crore for the presenting sponsor slot, associate sponsors like Axis Bank, Reckitt Benckiser, Skoda, Coca-Cola and Johnson & Johnson paid Rs6-7 crore each for the 13-week show.

     

    Star has charged Rs8-10 lakh per 10 seconds for spot rates for Satyamev Jayate while spot rates for KBC were Rs 3.5-4 lakh per 10 seconds.

     

    According to the marketing head of an associate sponsor who did not wish to be quoted, returns on investment on the show could have been higher. “The way the show was sold to us, we expected higher ratings. It’s disappointing and we hope the ratings increase as the show progresses.”

     

    However, Bharat Bambawale, global brand director at Bharti Airtel, defended the investment: “To view the success of a show based only on television ratings would limit its overall value. The success of a show has to be looked at collectively and in a holistic way… the content of a show will impact ratings.” On whether broadcasters should rationalise ad rates on reality shows, Bambawale said: “It’s a matter of individual judgement for every sponsor.”

     

    Basabdutta Chowdhury, CEO of Platinum Media, a division of media buying firm Madison World, which buys media for Bharti Airtel, said: “Advertisers do want accountability and minimum guarantees factored in for reality shows in general, although Satyamev Jayate was not meant to be a mass ratings show.”

     

    On reality shows, deals are structured in a way that they cannot be re-negotiated through the entire program. This is unlike cricket where broadcasters keep at least some ad inventory – like the semi-finals and finals – open to negotiations based on the ratings.

     

    Ajit Varghese, MD, South Asia of Maxus, which is owned by the country’s largest media buying house Group M, said: “While there’s no standardised way of looking at a deal, we all are pushing for deals with a minimum guarantee. Of course, the arrangement should factor in an upside too, but overall ad deals should be linked to a programme’s performance.”

     

    Veteran ad man Santosh Desai is of the view that Satyamev Jayate needs to be evaluated not just by viewership but also for the impact it has. “It’s a difficult show to watch…. Some subjects don’t have a mass audience at all so to be watched week after week by masses will be a challenge.” KBC’s most recent season had opened to a rating of 5.24, and Bigg Boss Season 5 had opened to a TRP of 4.25. The Amitabh Bachchan-hosted KBC had managed ratings of over 4 all through its run.

     

    A Star India spokesperson says the show has delivered a reach of Rs40 crore over the first five episodes (including repeats). The launch episode delivered a TVR of 4.9 in Hindi-speaking markets and a 4.1 TVR all-India. Subsequently, all episodes have consistently delivered a 4+ rating in HSM and 3.5+ ratings at the all-India level.

     

    Kevin Vaz, Star India president, ad sales said: “Satyamev has ranked amongst the top few every week on an all-India level.”

     

     

    Source: The Economic Times

    Copyright © 2012, Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. All Rights Reserved

     

  • A weekly column by Paritosh Joshi, until recently CEO, Star CJ. Given his varied experience in the media and industry bodies, Mr Joshi will analyse issues concerning the business of media, measurement and research

    Paritosh Joshi: Ratings & readerships must come with a Statutory Warning

    By Paritosh Joshi

     

    If you are reading this column with any professional interest, it is safe to assume you have done or been closely involved with one or more of the following things within the last year:

    • Sold media inventory
    • Bought media inventory
    • Planned a media schedule

     

    In any of these situations you would have to:

    • Define the target audience
    • Use widely used market research to assess and compare impact of the medium or media in consideration
    • Price the medium or media as a buyer or seller or assess its or their value for money for the advertiser’s planned media expenditure

     

    Inevitably, you would have to deal with television rating points, publication readerships, radio listenerships and the like. That’s where the fun begins.

     

    With the target audience.

     

    “Housewives SEC A and B, 5 lakh+ towns, UP,Bihar, Jharkhand”, one might say. “Men and Women, SEC A1, Top 6 metros” another might demand. Or even, “Women, SEC A1+, Mumbai and Delhi”. I have to add I am not inventing these, having heard them as specific asks or offers in situations I have been in close proximity to. To be sure, you could probably assign brands or media to all of them with not much effort. So far so good. It’s what happens next that makes no sense.

     

    Someone with access to the right research will actually produce numbers purportedly accurate to within a decimal point to size said target audience and the extent to which a medium or combination of media will reach it.

     

    This is bovine excrement, euphemistically speaking. Why, you ask?

     

    Because all media research is based on statistical sampling, not a person-by-person census of every reader, viewer or listener of show or medium. Statistical numbers are estimates. They work on the twin ideas that all large populations are distributed according to the Standard Normal Distribution, the good old Bell Curve that we are all familiar with. Put simply, the notion that in any large enough group, there are a few thin people, a few fat people and a lot of people of intermediate weight (thereby making you wonder what happened to all of us in the Media and Entertainment fraternity, or whether there’s also an ABnormal Distribution to explain it). And that if you were to draw an adequately large random sample from this normally distributed population, the sample would retain all the statistical characteristics of the population such as Mean and Standard Distribution.

     

    It can be shown that the minimum sample size required to ensure that the sample follows the behaviour of the parent population is 30. Samples of smaller size will exhibit asymmetries and other oddities of shape (things statisticians call measures of Skewness but never mind), that make them useless for drawing reasonable conclusions about their parent populations. As the sample available to extrapolate from becomes smaller, the error in extrapolation becomes larger, exponentially larger.

     

    Thereby bringing us back to the issue of ratings and readerships and such. Take readership and the Indian Readership Survey for a moment. About 67 per cent of India’s population of 1.2 billion, ~160 million households are represented by just over 2.5 lakh respondents. Put another way, every respondent represents nearly 1000 households. Things get even more interesting when you look at television metering.India’s 130 million (your guess is as good as mine on what the actual number is) are represented by ~8,000 meters.  Of course, TAM makes no claim to represent all India, so even if these 8,000 only represented the top 100 cities that have a 2011 population of 128 million or a population above the age of 4 of ~115 million people in over 20 million homes, there would still be only 1 meter in every 2,500 homes. We will get more generous and allow for the fact that TV penetration across the top 100 cities is 70 per cent. In other words out of 20 million total households, there are only 14 million TV homes. Even in this situation there is just 1 metered home in 2,000 TV owning homes.

     

    You see where this is going?

     

    As users slice and chop large aggregate populations and search for meaning in the samples that supposedly represent the segments thus generated, the available sample used to do the statistical prediction shrinks to a point where there is no predictive integrity within it. And yet, statistically naive people in every corner of our industry routinely use these frail foundations to build imposing edifices of brand and media transactions and planning.

     

    Then again, even the Taj Mahal is built on flimsy marshland that may eventually cause it to sink out of sight.

     

    So here’s the suggested Statutory Warning: “Irresponsible use of audience measurement may lead to impaired business diagnosis”.

     

    Paritosh Joshi was until recently CEO, Star CJ. He has been a marketer, a mediaperson and a key officebearer on industry bodies. He can reached via the comments board below or his Twitter handle @paritoshZero.