How much impact a manipulated ratings system can have on the viewership, quality of content and revenue for a channel/programme?

It is this unreliable rating system that has resulted in sensational yet similar kind of programming across channels today. For example, the multiple crime based programmes and astrology shows across the news channels exist because of TRP ratings. The rise of entertainment in news channels is also arguably based on TRP ratings. Even the overbearing, hectoring style of some anchors is a result of this herd mentality triggered by ratings. Television ratings were initiated for decisions regarding advertisement planning and buying. However, the heavily advertisement dependent television industry makes most of its content strategy and decisions based on the same. It’s become the lowest denominator of deciding what interests’ Indian television audience. More dangerously, these ratings have even become indicators of quality!

TAM offers ratings and media research services for a fee that it charges from whoever wishes to take its data. It is a purely private enterprise and its clients (which would typically be broadcasters, media buying agencies and advertisers) are free to accept or reject the data that it offers. However, if TAM breaches its contractual promise of transparency, fair assessment and that it religiously follows a certified process for collecting and analysing this data, then its client is entitled to allege and sue for damages caused due to such breach.

However, whether TAM or its process is or can be subject to an overall regulatory process imposed upon by the government or any regulator is an issue, which merits some discussion. Reportedly, following close on the heels of the NDTV lawsuit, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has sent notices to TAM to enquire about the steps it proposes to take to address these concerns. There is also a buzz that the Competition Commission of India plans to take suo motu action against TAM under Section 4 of the Competition Act 2002, which relates to abuse of a dominant position by an individual or firm and looks into whether an enterprise, directly or indirectly, imposes unfair or discriminatorycondition in purchase or sale of goods or services.

There is legitimacy in being concerned as to whether a responsible and reputed corporate whose business model is solely dependent on its robust, fair and transparent (audience measurement) process on which reliance is placed by many, should be answerable to the industry (like in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers’ alleged audit lapses in the Satyam issue).

However, the rhetoric that the media industry has been a miserable victim to this process, according to me, is misplaced or that it has some large democratic or nation-wide implications. Firstly, audience research principally affects and is meant for deciding advertising targets and choosingfrom media space offered by numerous TV channels. It does not influence the public but only affects the relative earnings of media owners and other private enterprise. Secondly, there are no regulations, which govern or regulate the creation or operation of a media audience ratings agency. Thirdly, assuming the government had a role or duty to do so, it ought to have already complied with it and therefore for the government to take a position that merely because a private enterprise has been callous as there is so much unfair skew in the market, is a bit late. Fourthly, setting up audience ratings entities has been typically a joint industry initiative in most countries i.e. between advertisers, advertising agencies, media buying agencies and media owners and broadcasters. It is the lapse of the industry in India that they have been unable to come to a common platform and implement a universal desirable vision.

An initial joint industry body got disbanded in the 90s. There was an initiative to set up the Broadcast Audience Measurement Council (BARC) as an independent audience measurement agency—based on the recommendations of the Amit Mitra committee, which has not seen much action, but only recent murmurs and pushes by Prasar Bharati and the government that its functioning should be fast tracked.

In 1994, the Media Research Users Council (MRUC) was set up as a registered not-forprofit body of members drawn from major advertisers, advertising agencies, publishers and broadcast/other media to commission media research for the benefit of its users. The Indian Readership Survey (IRS) is one of its most prime and popular outputs. There is also a festering issue as to how any such umbrella organisation, which would carry out reliable research on which all advertising in the country would depend upon, would be funded. BARC’s constitution mulls 60% funding from broadcasters, followed by advertising agencies and the smallest contribution from advertisers. This is in consonance with trends and practices around the world. The UK’s official television ratings across all platforms are through the BARB (Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board), a non-profit organisation funded by major players in the industry like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, BSkyB.

There is no reason why this implosion should not throw up a credible viable alternative for the industry. What role TAM plays in it finally will be up to a joint industry consensus and possibly upon the result of the NDTV suit.

Whether the regulator like the TRAI or the government can have any role in this is something which needs to be assessed. At the best, it may be able to act as a facilitator or what would essentially be a joint industry initiative. Having a purely state controlled body for measuring audience ratings may also be a recipe for disaster, further corruption and mismanagement but will not be a real solution.