Why only point fingers at the TV ratings service? Why not regulate all rating outputs – like the SMS polls done by daily newspapers or polls conducted by TV channels on celebrities or during elections?

The TV ratings system today is a sharp indicator of what’s being viewed in TV homes in urban class I towns, a tool to measure the pulse of the common TV viewer. The Government has no real justification to get involved. Our industry body (Broadcast Audience Research Council) is extremely capable of working out the guidelines and running an efficient ratings service and has done so for the last 10 years.

We are ready to push more samples into the market, but is a larger sampled service viable for the industry?

L. V. Krishnan, CEO, TAM Media Research

Meera Mohanty

This should have been the best time for television audience measurement, what with the big rush of new television channels, the hungry expansion of the digital platform DTH, and a growth in advertising expenditure to keep pace with it, but instead television audience measurement is finding itself in the dock.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) new consultation paper seeking to address credibility and minimum coverage issues of such rating exercises, follows the admission of certain industry members that measurements were possibly not keeping pace with the growth of the industry.

TAM Media Research’s CEO L. V. Krishnan speaks to BrandLine on behalf of the most quoted agency in the business. Excerpts:

When the Government decides that current measurements samples aren’t good enough, isn’t it a direct attack on TAM Media Research’s credibility, considering you are the biggest players?

I would like to point out that the service was created for the Indian industry – advertisers and broadcasters – by TAM based on the requirement that the same industry body had indicated. Doordarshan was also well part of this body.

TAM in 2008 completes a decade of service to the industry. During these 10 years, we have been working closely with the industry – growing meter sampling from 1,800 to 7,200 samples in 2007. It will touch 8,000 by end of this year.

It’s a coincidence that TRAI decides to look at ratings in its 10th year by when TAM had already established and evolved the ratings service in the country.

Do you think that the Government should regulate the ratings system in India?

Every ratings service, in India and globally, is an industry charter.

A TV viewer has the freedom of choosing his programme or channel, and the ratings service is of no real concern to the common viewer because that doesn’t dictate his choice.

The Government has no real justification to get involved. Our industry body (Broadcast Audience Research Council - BARC) is extremely capable of working out the guidelines and running an efficient ratings service and has done so for the last 10 years (as Joint Industry Body - JIB).

And, if the Government does get into the ratings service, why only point fingers at the TV ratings service? Why not regulate all rating outputs – like the SMS polls done by daily newspapers where no sample size is ever indicated, or polls conducted by TV channels on celebrities or during elections?

Ratings service is a market research function, and we already have the MRSI (Market Research Society of India) governing and setting guidelines for the research industry. The Government can instead support the industry body from outside by aiding the lowering of Peoplemeter import duty structures and enabling larger sample sizes to be implemented.

The cable industry says it has never seen any of your boxes. It also argues that TAM data has to be flawed, otherwise why is it that pay channels topping charts have not been picked up with equal enthusiasm in CAS-notified areas?

The cable industry can make rounds of viewers’ homes during primetime. Most broadcasters, programme producers and advertisers conduct their own research and many of them have come back to us to tell us how closely their research matches TAM data.

The TV ratings system today is a sharp indicator of what’s being viewed in TV homes in urban class I towns, a tool to measure the pulse of the common TV viewer.

Having said that, I’ll add that TAM has never suggested that it is the only system to be followed.

Just as the Government can’t control how others use its census data, we cannot dictate what interpretation and explanation the end user wants to give to our data. Data service providers do run the risk of such interpretations or misinterpretation and hence we have the MRSI.

Regarding CAS, the math is really simple. Ninety per cent of cable is in analogue mode and the consumer does not even know what he is paying for. When he does have a choice finally, he acts differently.

Our data from digital cable as well as DTH-enabled homes is already indicating that a consumer, used to paying a monthly token that keeps the channels’ signals on, is reluctant to pay for better quality or service. That’s a marketing and consumer education exercise.

Which is why, the CAS conversion has also been abysmally low across the three cities of Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata.

Ok, how do you ensure credibility of data or interpretation?

TAM doesn’t just collect and supply data. The value that we bring is in the interpretation of the data, in the education of industry members on the use of the information and in delivering audience behaviour insights that help build the broadcast business, which is done by our special team, the S-Group or Strategy Group.

Our other division, TAM Educate, has also spent a lot of time recently educating new industry members and media schools and institutions, and will be launching our e-learning Web site soon. Being part of the international Nielsen network, globally recognised for its research, we obviously also go through stringent internal audit norms.

But what’s in the system that ensures transparency?

The data is a reflection of what happens in the market. You don’t need any other validation. The data has always mirrored every little change whether it is in channel distribution or in programming.

Look at the World Cup Football ratings, which went up 200 per cent, primarily because viewing patterns changed dramatically driven by the hype being built up by newspapers and news channels.

It’s not just programming, we also have case studies of clever programme marketing and on-air promotions driving up ratings. We also ensure that every exercise is updated on our Web site, like, for instance, the panel expansion we did in 2007.

Well, is the 7,000-8,000 sample sufficient enough a representation? Isn’t it time the rural markets were covered?

We never claimed to cover rural markets; everyone in the industry knows that. Regarding sample size – the answer is both yes and no.

Yes, if it is only to represent class I towns (towns with population of more than one lakh). And no, it isn’t large enough to represent the entire country (including rural markets).

We are ready to push more samples into the market, but is a larger sampled service viable for the industry? The Government can help by knocking off custom duties in meter imports and it could, via Doordarshan, help partly fund a rural panel service too.

If the industry agrees, and is ready to support this service either by a commitment of subscription or investments – or the Government supports it — we are willing to work with them.

But the rural or semi-urban market is becoming increasingly important to marketers and broadcasters, says a recent study.

It is just hype! What are we talking about – 220 million homes? Out of which 160 million are in the rural markets accounting for about 60 million television sets?

This means that a 100 million don’t even have a basic TV set yet.

So, should the Government focus on improving infrastructure that will hopefully lead to greater television viewing in rural India, or should measurement precede knowing well enough what it’s setting out to capture? It’s easy to say rural India is booming, but 6,00,000 villages is a mind-boggling proposition.

Telecom, thus far urban-centric, has only just begun its rural conquest, and even that through mobile services and not land lines. The average number of hours of television viewing in urban India is just 2-2.5 hours a day (for Class 1 cities, or 388 towns with 1 lakh plus population, of which TAM covers 145 towns).

But doesn’t that leave the non-pay TV market (or DD) out of all considerations? The consultation paper also points that out.

We welcome a dialogue with the Government and would be happy to incorporate their inputs to improve the TAM processes. Doordarshan is not being left out of any consideration.

In urban India’s cable homes, they get the best placement and some of their programmes do extremely well on the TAM system. Doordarshan needs to focus on promoting and marketing its programmes to woo audiences to succeed in the competitive world out there. In fact, we are coming out with our digital data covering DTH and CAS by the end of April.

The sampling covers a good part of the market, digital platforms account for about 30 per cent of our elite panel in Mumbai and Delhi, and 5 per cent of our national panel. And Doordarshan is the biggest DTH platform owner in this country and it reflects in our national panel data too.

More Stories on : Interview | Marketing Research | Radio/TV

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page