For India’s lone television audience measurement agency TAM Media Research (TAM), it?s getting lonelier. What started off as a trickle is turning into a flood. At the last count, nine big broadcasters have pulled the plug on TAM declining to have any truck with the rating agency. More networks are expected to join the boycott.

The first salvo was fired two weeks back when three of India’s biggest broadcasters ? Multi Screen Media (MSM), New Delhi Television (NDTV) and Times Television Network told TAM that they wanted out. Within a few days, Star India, Zee Entertainment Enterprises, Viacom18, Network 18 joined the ranks. Sri Adhikari Brothers, which runs Dhamaal, Dabangg and Mastii channels, claims that it has sent a request to discontinue its subscription to TAM data. Bloomberg TV India has also announced that the news channel has terminated TAM services with immediate effect. Together, these channels account for not less than 80% of the R14,000 crore annual Indian TV advertising spend.

For most of its life, TAM has more often than not been vilified for its ?monopolistic? existence. For years, broadcasters have called it corrupt and manipulative and yet continued to use it for ?lack of an option?. The trigger this time is TAM’s coverage of LC1 towns (towns with population below one lakh) and the surprises it has sprung. While the reach of television increased with the LC1 markets, the overall viewership average dropped, upsetting the calculations of many private channels. TAM’s sample size has now increased to 225 cities and towns with 9,602 peoplemeters. The new towns with less than one lakh population are in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (including Uttaranchal), Rajasthan and PHCHP (Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh). These towns have infrastructural issues and portray a different media consumption behaviour altogether. According to the LC1 report by media consultancy firm Chrome Data Analytics & Media, households here witness about 12-16 hours of power cuts a day in towns with population between 10,000-1 lakh. Chrome conducted the research across UP, MP, Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. Not to forget, with digitisation in place, television users are yet to get educated on and accustomed to using a set-top box. Consequently, the downswing in the average viewing TVR (television viewership ratings).

Says a broadcaster on conditions of anonymity, ?Post the second phase of cable digitisation drive and the inclusion of the LC1 markets, broadcasters expected a dramatic shift in viewing patters. But even in case of mass general entertainment channels (GEC) where the gross rating points (GRPs) should have gone up or at least remained stable, it has actually dropped. This cannot happen and TAM has not been able to explain this at all,? he says.

Ironically, TAM had started coverage of LC1 towns after pubcaster Prasar Bharati had complained that its bouquet of channels under the Doordarshan umbrella were not being monitored adequately by TAM. In November last year, Prasar Bharati had moved the fair trade regulator, Competition Commission of India (CCI), alleging that TAM has been using its dominant position in the market in tracking television viewership to exclude regions where Doordarshan channels have significant presence. Consequently, in February this year, CCI decided to investigate into its alleged unfair practices and ask for an explanation. TAM had hoped that by adding LC1 towns some of the limitations in the ratings would be reduced as far as Doordarshan was concerned.

Quite like the private broadcasting fraternity, Prasar Bharati’s biggest grouse against TAM is its monopoly status. Prasar Bharati believes that TAM has inadequately represented the rural zone where Doordarshan has a very strong presence. Consequently, the public broadcaster continues to bleed. But is TAM really a monopoly? In the 13 years of TAM’s existence, its measurement system has faced competition from rival bodies for almost 11 years.

So, how has TAM reacted to Prasar Bharati’s allegations, which largely focuses on its monopoly power? TAM’s response to the CCI’s investigative queries is based on three basic parameters. First, there are different ways to measure television viewing patterns in India. While DD still does its through DART (Doordarshan Audience Research Team), there is the IRS, which studies the viewership pick-up by talking to respondents through a questionnaire; second, there are plenty of other research studies conducted by individual broadcasters (example: Turner Network’s New Generation Study) that can be used to understand the dynamics of a given market slice; and third, there is always competition existing in the market.

?We feel that this is more of a misunderstanding from DD’s perspective. If we sit down and discuss, most of the doubts will be cleared. We have written to the CEO but unfortunately, he has not responded back,? says LV Krishnan, CEO of TAM Media Research.

And that’s because Prasar Bharati would rather like the court alone to take the final call. Also, despite the explanation, it still considers TAM a monopoly. As Jawhar Sircar, CEO, Prasar Bharati, puts it, non of the above are considered a currency in the advertising world except for TAM. DART is for internal use and even if its out for the market, no advertiser will use it. IRS, on the other hand, does only a fraction of the TV survey: It does not do hour-wise, programme wise, channel-wise reporting.

?TAM is the only body which does real time-reporting on television. There is no other alternative to it. Yes, while bodies such as aMap (Audience Measurement Analytics Ltd) did exist in the past, they closed down eventually. And without a currency, one cannot extrapolate,? he says.

But apart from Prasar Bharati, is the industry really worried about TAM’s monopoly? Not really, say industry watchers. Rather, it is TAM’s ?ineffective monopoly? that is worrisome, they say. In most markets worldwide, only one measurement system exists and the checks and balances come from broadcasters, advertisers and advertising agencies. Having two measurement systems in a country like India, which is very varied and therefore needs a huge investment in adequate boxes, is very difficult. Consequently, a single data source with credible data is necessary.

?But it is TAM?s lack of response and lack of explanation for data anomalies that makes it lose its credibility,? says Man Jit Singh, president, Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), and CEO, Multi Screen Media.

The other factor is the total lack of transparency in their system that furthers the gap in data interpretation.

Clearly, therefore, the fight is more about TAM?s data interpretation methodology, transparency and therefore, credibility than that of its monopoly in the market. But if that?s the case, why did the industry not choose, endorse and grow an alternative in aMap?

Shailesh Shah, secretary general, IBF, tries to answer. According to him, when organisations deliver results that are ?probably? correct, the real world starts to baulk at first, get irritated next and if nothing works, try alternatives thereafter. ?As the media industry had morally and otherwise already invested in TAM, they tried to get TAM to deliver. aMap was trying to deliver when the media industry had already invested its efforts in TAM and this resulted in inadequate support to an alternative currency at the time,? he says.

While the industry continues to fret about TAM?s wrong methodology, TAM argues that if that were the case, the data would not respond to any stimuli at all; whether that be through programming changes, scheduling changes or marketing changes. Take for instance, reality show Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) on Sony. The show had touched its lowest TRP ever on its earlier platform (Star Plus). However, when Sony came out with a new concept backed with an aggressive marketing plan, KBC not just created a new story for itself but turned the tables for the channel completely. Evidently, if the methodology was/is an issue, the extra steps would not have reflected in the content behaviour at all, says an industry watcher who declined to be named.

The methodology, says Krishnan, has been up on the website since 2001 and every change that has been made (as has been reported under the India Peoplemeter Report), has been presented to the industry bodies, clients, ministry, parliamentary committee, broadcast regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and even to the Dr. Amit Mitra committee on the existing TRP system and measures to be taken for a transparent TRP.

?So if somebody has an issue, they can come back to us and tell us what?s wrong with the methodology. Till now no one has commented on the methodology other than saying that it is wrong. When there are no responses, we assume that the ways have found an acceptance,? he complains.

But when approached with this explanation, a top executive of a Hindi GEC asks, how does TAM explain the addition of 10 million TV homes every year and yet the Hindi GEC genre shrinking?

TAM tries to answer: There are 10 million TV sets that are sold every year, of which almost 50% are replacements. Of the remaining 5 million, some are going to multiple TV set homes and some to fresh homes. Now, if the multi-TV homes are removed – probably 10% of the lot?where is the remaining 4.5 million headed? Markets that are largely in urban India are saturated with television ownership already. So obviously, the homes are being added in rural India, which TAM is yet to penetrate given the huge costs involved in buying peoplemeters.

TAM?s argument has been that if the industry wants to penetrate further, it has to provide additional funding to the agency. But broadcasters argue that TAM?s credibility is so low that the feeling is almost like throwing good money after bad to pay TAM to install more boxes.

Says Arvind Sharma, chairman of India subcontinent at advertising agency Leo Burnett and president, Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), ?It is true that additional peoplemeters need funding. But there has been a lack of transparency on the real meter costs and that has been as much of a hurdle as the limited budgets that constrain meter installations. Nobody buys something if they don?t believe in the price and this has been a big challenge for TAM.?

What has perhaps encouraged broadcasters to take a tough stand is that Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), which has the mandate to build an alternative television viewership measurement system, finally seems to be getting its act together. Media veteran Partho Dasgupta was last month appointed as BARC CEO and a new TRP system could be up and running by early next year.

However, advertisers have preferred to take a more balanced approach. Both Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) and Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) have come out in support of the rating agency saying that using TAM would be prudent till an alternative currency was actually in place.

In a statement, AAAI said that ratings provide the final merit on which media agencies do sophisticated analysis and arrive at sharply targeted plans for a brand?s target audience to minimise wasteful advertising and improve advertising effectiveness. ?Therefore, with no BARC yet, the idea to discontinue TAM ratings will lead to overpaying and underpaying of advertising time, both of which will lead to a collapse of TV as an advertising medium,? said Leo Burnett?s Sharma.

ISA has also said that it believes in the continuity of the rating system ?for the smooth functioning of the industry as it is the very foundation of the commercial process, media planning and pricing?.

Interestingly, Prasar Bharati is now willing to continue with its TAM subscription. A few DD channels have started showing an upward trend after the inclusion of the LC1 markets.

All these could take the steam out of the broadcasters? sail. Evidently, with the AAAI and ISA supporting the rating system and now with Prasar Bharati willing to continue with its TAM subscription, the battle against TAM could just fizzle away.

According to Ajit Vargese, managing director, South Asia, Maxus and Motivator, the industry has benefited immensely with the ratings coming into existence. He says, ?Just because there is dim light it does not mean that you switch off the light completely. We are not saying that it is perfect, but it does help in studying larger trends and analysis. With no ratings, advertisers would not know where their money would be going. It will be disastrous and may eventually kill the industry.?

Read Next