MxMIndia

Tag: TV advertising

  • The genuine fear is that the BARC initiative will again slow down or worse – get delayed due to lack of clarity or infighting amongst the associations/players

    By Invitation | Atul Phadnis: Will TV measurement in India finally get its logical direction?

    By Atul Phadnis

     

    In March this year, three industry associations that have a significant say in television broadcast and TV advertising jointly announced a new chapter in the TV Ratings Measurement initiative. Broadcast audience Research Council (BARC) is the joint venture that has been in discussion, for the longest time, between the three stakeholder associations – Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), Indian Society of advertisers (ISA) and the advertising agencies association of India (AAAI) to measure nationwide TV audience viewership. BARC has taken birth where a lot of earlier industry initiatives have failed to take off – hence, a lot of folks (including me) are watching these events very closely and curiously.

     

    Yes. There are cynics who doubt whether the BARC initiative will be able to streamline the industry ambitions for a wider and robust TV audience measurement thereby recasting/enhancing the offerings of the current ratings provider – TAM Media Research (a joint venture between Nielsen and Kantar-WPP).

     

    The genuine fear is that the industry initiative will again slow down or worse – get delayed due to lack of clarity or infighting amongst the associations/players. It’s a legitimate concern based on what we have seen in the past. In fact, the recent announcement has been possible only when a formula for compromise was reached after months of stalemate on the BARC shareholding and composition of its board.

     

    The genesis of the industry initiative that has now taken birth as BARC has in its vision the Rs329 billion TV industry that to a large extent depends on ratings and viewership information for key decisions, growth and business. So what are the key expectations of the industry that should get addressed if BARC is the answer to the TV industry’s call on TV Ratings?

     

    1. The Burden of Transparency

    For years now, TAM has been criticized, publicly and privately, for alleged opaque policies relating to aspects such as third-party audits, pricing, technology R&D results and panel performance KPIs. as is the case with any competitive industry bustling with cut-throat competition, rumor mills and conflicting agendas of different players, the transparency burden had been conveniently dumped on TAM. after all, we do see from time-to-time the so-called ‘open letters’ that certain channels would send out to TAM asking for explanations on why their blockbuster programs did not do well in terms of TRPs. Irrespective of where the answers for failure lie, these occasions, nonetheless, cast all sorts of aspersions on the trading currency and are hardly constructive. I haven’t seen a single such instance over the last decade produce any positive reaction – either in providing more answers on causality nor a bettering of the ratings system. and these instances surely can’t be healthy for the industry that has dependencies on advertising that in turn needs TV measurement.

     

    It’s high time the industry associations, perhaps via BARC, put their necks on the block and take frontal onus and responsibilities on transparency elements that will boost confidence on TV Ratings. Not only will this sharing of burden save the industry the blushes in front of the advertisers, it will also have a correctional effect with the routine debates being laid to rest. Hopefully, BARC is able to bring in transparency by defining deliverables and quality parameters clearly to the Ratings vendor(s) in the new scheme of things.

     

    2. Evolving data reporting policies

    Transparency in KPIs will also have an effect on how TV ratings data should be reported in our industry. There are a host of mature markets, in particular theUK, that have a threshold viewership criteria for TV program ratings to meet; if those numbers have to be reported in the weekly data. This ensures that viewership estimates for very small channels and very niche programs inside very small market groups are not reported. However, in our market, if the 700th channel gets launched tomorrow, TV ratings for that channel for very small markets and microscopic audience definitions will be available. Lack of industry understanding and consensus has stopped from any policy to take shape and solidify in this specific issue. This, in turn, has led to a sad saga of inexplicable rating fluctuations for specialist channel genres in small markets/ audiences. With the BARC coming in, certain wise old men (and women) can roll out this policy of releasing viewership numbers of only those channels and programs that are in the permissible and acceptable error level range.

     

    3. Structural changes in panel construction

    The methodology for TV Ratings in India- especially the way panel homes are selected from a neighborhood has remained largely the same. The criteria is defined through Primary Control Variables, a system to carve out quotas of what sort of homes should be selected to enter the panel. However, the dramatic changes that have occurred in the last 5 years – that of DTH now forming a large part of the TV universe – requires the Primary Control Variables to reflect an acceptance of that new reality. Earlier, say 8-10 years ago, cable monopolies in a neighborhood within an area, city or town ensured homogeneity of received signals in spite of the heterogeneity of viewing. That signal homogeneity within the neighborhoods would ensure that thousands of homes within that area would receive the same input from their cablewallah into their TV sets. Today that cable structure lies shattered wherein one single neighborhood would have the cablewallah’s analogue signal in certain homes, his digital (CAS) box in certain households as well as scores of homes with DTH connections from 7 DTH providers.

     

    Now layer this information on the specific channels or channel packs subscribed by DTH or Digital Cable viewers – and you have a distribution complexity that snarls into existence, dramatically affecting TV viewership. This distribution factor needs to be well modeled inside the Primary Control Variables to construct the panel. It is not there at the moment and neither has there been an active industry debate on how to bring newer factors such as these into the panel construction/ panel design exercise.

     

    4. Critical Measurement/ Panel Decisions (including R&D, Technology)

    Consumer patterns of TV consumption are dramatically changing with the advent of set-top-boxes, recorders, mobile TV, and so on. Viewing is also happening when people are on the move rather than only in-home TV viewing. In India, ratings are reported only for in-home TV viewing. TV consumption on mobiles, tablets, IPTV, computers or outside-of-home is unmeasured. If these new patterns need to be measured, a significant emphasis would be needed on R&D. This R&D and Trial Panels have to be budgeted by a vibrant industry determined to capture every viewing instance so as to analyse and eventually monetize those audiences. It would be a disappointment and a terrible waste if BARC did not have this early in its agenda.

     

    5. TV Measurement Vision

    It might seem unbelievable but it is true – the largest customers and users of TV ratings info today do not have a common goal or vision for the future of TV measurement in our market. Issues such as Rural versus Urban, increase coverage vis-a-vis better representation, upscale versus mass-market – would find distinctly different views within the industry. In the absence of a common vision, the strategy to expand, enhance, improve the measurement system is clearly not going to be very effective. With a forum like BARC, the attempt should be to collectively define the vision as well as the timelines and path to attaining that goal by mobilizing opinion and the industry war-chest. This is, perhaps, the most crucial aspect of the success or failure of BARC, the failure of which would risk reducing this initiative into a rudderless and spineless wonder.

     

    6. CPM versus CPRP

    In the last few years, broadcasters have tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to correct a long standing trading currency aberration in our industry. While the world uses CPMs (Cost per thousand ad impressions) to price benchmark TV ad inventory, our market has erroneously got locked into CPRPs (Cost Per Rating Points) – thanks to the myopic vision of media agency AORs of the 90s. While the entire industry (including media agency heads who publicly oppose change but privately admit its fairness) wants transition to the correct trading currency, the longstanding question has been who will do it first on both ends – advertisers and channels. Perhaps with BARC, the opportunity is in planning that roll-out as a coordinated industry action.

     

    7. Redressal Forum

    One of the biggest opportunities for BARC is to streamline the custom arguments, debates and requirements that individual players have on TV ratings into an ever evolving bucket of policies. In the current scheme of things, individual players have their differences with the TV ratings company, but not really have an escalation route to get their views heard. These issues range from pricing (dis)parity to use of raw data to choice of ratings software to conflicting TAM’s policy of not selling their data to certain client categories. Perhaps the most common arguments relate to unexplained fluctuations and peaks-troughs in the ratings data.

     

    BARC would be better served to pursue an approach built on open, transparent debates and a clever commercial policy in such instances that might see lesser open issues but greater revenues into the industry kitty.

     

    Summing up…

    The above piece is my attempt to get a constructive dialogue out in the open on a matter that deeply concerns TV Media professionals cutting across organizational lines. I personally have tremendous respect for professionals in this stream including those within the TAM Executive team as well as the industry folks driving the BARC initiative. It is my sincere hope that a constructive dialogue followed by clear and rapid forward actions by stakeholders leads to the World’s finest and biggest TV measurement initiative! amen…

     

    Atul Phadnis is Chief Executive, WHAT’S-ON-INDIA

     

  • Not everyone is happy at the prospect of having TV ads cut & curtailed. MxMIndia speaks to stakeholders about the move

    TRAI-ing time for TV with ad curbs

     

    By Rishi Vora

     

    The Indian television scene as we know it is set for a sea change, and not in a good way for everyone. While viewers may heave a sigh of relief, advertisers and agencies are already counting the declining shekels as the authorities’ latest move is likely to cause a major setback to the Rs 21,000 crore television industry.

     

    Keeping in mind consumer grievances about too many ads, too little content, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has proposed to limit ad duration on pay television channels and also a few other suggestions on sporting events and news coverage.

     

    The story of Indian TV’s growth is also the story of increased advertising – which is good for brands, broadcasters and media agencies. The consumer, however, tends to feel inundated with advertisements especially at prime time and during the most popular shows.

     

    Not that there are no existing norms, but with the recent proposal, TRAI has stepped up the pressure for a better viewer experience.

     

    The Proposal

    • No free-to-air channel shall carry advertisements that exceed 12 minutes. For pay channels, the limit shall be six minutes. Furthermore, the prescribed limits shall be enforced on a clock-hour basis as against being averaged for 24 hours.

    Also it is proposed that the 12-minutes of advertisement are not to be aired in more than four sessions in one hour which means continuous ad-free broadcast for at least 12 minutes.

    • No more than three ad breaks during a movie, with a minimum 30 minutes between ad breaks will be permitted.
    • During live sporting events, advertisements can only be carried during interruptions in the sporting action. TRAI has also put up a proposal to ban on part-screen & drop-down advertising, which means only full-screen ads are permitted.
    • TRAI has proposed that audio level of the advertisement should not be higher than the audio level of the programme.
    • News and current affairs channels shall not run more than two scrolls at the bottom of the screen carrying non-commercial content. These scrolls should not occupy over 10 per cent of the screen space.

     

     

    The general sense among key stakeholders of the industry is that it’s a drastic move to slice ad duration to such an extent – almost half of the current norm – for pay channels. It’s going to be tough for the pay channels as anyway they lose out on substantial monies on account of leakages in the subscription model. Added to this are other worries such as increase in ad rates, inventory issues which may crop up, impact on quality content etc.

    MxM India finds out what key stakeholders have to say.

     

    Mr Sunil Lulla, CEO, Times Global Broadcasting Co. Pvt Ltd said, “The industry standard today is 10 minutes plus 2. Most of us are around that on an average hour basis but given the pressure and high cost of this business, very often the industry has had to go beyond the earlier stipulation and I think this should be left to the forces of the industry to regulate, like we’ve done for content.”

     

    He further added, “Regulation must be industry-created and cannot be ministry or government-thrusted. We believe that self-regulation has worked for content; we believe that self-regulation will work for advertising and many other aspects, and that’s the best way to develop this industry.”

     

    According to Mr Ajay Kakar, Chief Marketing Officer – Financial Services, Aditya Birla Group, these guidelines, though framed keeping viewer experience in mind, are more likely to impact the industry negatively as they may lead to increase in ad rates. He explains that the lower ad revenue would put pressure on broadcasters to reduce costs, which will subsequently impact the quality of content. Mr Kakar feels that these guidelines if accepted by the industry could lead to a paradigm shift for broadcasters and advertisers.

     

    Mr Ashish Pherwani, Senior Manager, Media and Entertainment – Ernst & Young has a similar view. He says that 70-80 per cent of a pay TV channel’s revenue comes from advertising and if the current regime of 12 minutes per hour is to become six minutes per hour, rates are ‘unlikely’ to double to make up for the revenue dip, so cost of content will go down and therefore shows like Bigg Boss and KBC won’t be viable.

     

    “The TRAI note stresses that digitisation will get more subscription revenues for broadcasters but that’s not going to happen soon. It’s going to take some years! Given that most GECs and sports channels’ inventory is 100 per cent and sold out currently, ad rates will go through the roof if inventory is halved. Advertisers will reduce TV spends and go to other media or less expensive TV channels. Hence, overall a negative impact on the TV industry.”

     

    Mr Jehil Thakkar, Partner and head of Media and Entertainment, KPMG noted that the guidelines have been in existence, but it is the market that determines the volume. He further added that it is in the broadcasters’ interests that they keep a limit on advertising, noting that they are well aware of the perils of excessive advertising as consumers tend to move between channels to avoid long commercial breaks.

     

    Mr T Gangadhar, Managing Director – MEC India is all for a good viewer experience. “I’m not a big fan of regulations, but there needs to be a way to protect the consumer’s interest,” he maintains. “Pay channels are making money through subscription. But yes, that is not much, as a lot of that is lost in leakages that are so prevalent in the broadcast industry.”

     

    He further added, “Typically, in many countries, subscription and ad sales go hand in hand – so what they’re trying to achieve is that if you’re a pay channel, quite clearly you have a revenue model in subscription and therefore while you are entitled to advertising revenue as well, it can’t come at the expense of spoiling the viewer experience especially when the viewer is paying for that particular channel.”

     

    Mr Neelkamal Sharma, COO – Buying Madison Group advised, “I woul suggest that it should be done in two stages, maybe from 12 minutes to 10 and then to 8 minutes. The move to have a limit is good and is in the overall long-term interest of the TV industry, since it will reduce viewer irritation. But a decision like this should be taken in consultation with industry bodies like IBF, ISA and AAAI.”

     

    It will be interesting to see if these guidelines are passed as the industry clearly is not on the same page as the TRAI. Broadcasters and advertisers are expected to send their suggestions to the TRAI before March 27.

     

    Watch this space for updates, views and more analysis.

     

    Imaging: Rafiq, File photograph of Budget on a television set: Fotocorp