TRAI's multiple rating bodies proposal: Who will pay for it, asks industry
TRAI’s recent recommendations on the proposed National Broadcast Policy (NBP) have stirred concerns within the industry, particularly among marketers and advertisers. One of the key suggestions that has raised eyebrows is the suggestion to have a system of multiple rating bodies for audience measurement. Currently, audience measurement in India primarily relies on ratings provided by an agency like BARC (Broadcast Audience Research Council), which uses a single rating system to gauge viewership across channels and programmes. This system has been the norm for several years, and any shift towards a multiple rating system will mark a significant change.
window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []};
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
googletag.defineSlot('/21740140234/e4m_story_page_para3_small_horizontal_banner_3_728x90_normal', [728, 90], 'div-gpt-ad-1595331589677-0').addService(googletag.pubads());
googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.enableServices();
});
In the context of the policy recommendations by TRAI, where a shift to a multiple rating system for audience measurement is being considered, funding becomes a critical issue. Marketers questioned the rationale of this suggestion and posed a critical question - who will fund the new rating system? Will advertisers, broadcasters and agencies pay for it?
window.googletag = window.googletag || {cmd: []};
googletag.cmd.push(function() {
googletag.defineSlot('/21740140234/e4m_story_page_para3_small_horizontal_banner_3_728x90_normal_next', [728, 90], 'div-gpt-ad-1601359261569-0').addService(googletag.pubads());
googletag.pubads().enableSingleRequest();
googletag.enableServices();
});
Last week, e4m reported about TRAI recommending the establishment of multiple rating agencies to "foster a healthy competition". Sajal Gupta, Chief Executive, Kiaos Marketing, says that something needs to be done about measurement as it has “got a lot of gaps at the moment” but “Will five more people doing the same thing solve the core problem?” “The process in which measurement is happening itself needs a complete overhaul. My audience earlier essentially was television. BARC would have that sample and basis that I would have got my ratings. But my audience today is partially on TV and partially on CTV. And I don't have a way to bridge the two. Getting more people to do the same thing is not the solution. “The funding bit is also definitely an aspect. It is of course a costly affair and I don’t even want to go there!” Gupta remarked. A senior marketer, on the condition of anonymity, said, “Whenever we had more than two agencies acceptance by various advertisers is what matters. If all advertisers accept both agencies then it will be in business, otherwise it won’t be. It is all about acceptance. However, I am not sure if multiple rating systems will solve the problem. The moment you have more confusion, it will create more problems for the industry.” “Who is going to fund it, has anybody given it a thought? For a system to be successful, it is important that somebody has to fund for it to work. A system was made with Rs 400-500 crore, advertisers, agencies and broadcasters paid for it. Tomorrow if a new system has to come, will broadcasters, advertisers and agencies pay for that too?” he asked, adding that the system will not evolve on its own. Sharing a similar view, Ashish Bhasin, Founder, The Bhasin Consulting Group, and former CEO APAC and Chairman India, Dentsu, said that instead of introducing multiple rating agencies it was important to get multiple media to be monitored under one currency. He also said that the government can be a good supporter and facilitator. “I don't think the solution lies in having multiple measurement agencies but in having multiple media under one common currency and that currency has to be strengthened and supported,” Bhasin noted. Another senior marketer echoed a similar voice and noted what is required is robustness of the process, and not multiple agencies. “For example, if you have got 10 agencies doing the same job, but in all 10 cases if the methodology and the process and the sampling is not robust enough, what good is it at the end of the day?” he asked. He further explained that the requirement is for one entity to ensure the robustness of every element of the process. Then the data becomes accurate and trustworthy. “The lack of confidence is not due to one particular agency doing it, but because of the lack of trust and robustness. The job was to ensure robust data, rather than inviting different entities to do this survey. Therefore, I don't think this is the right solution.” TRAI, in its recommendations, noted BARC was operating with a sample size of only 55,000 households and that “expanding panel size and embracing advanced technologies was crucial for ensuring a more credible audience measurement”. It also noted that the entry of multiple rating agencies not only introduces competition but also has the potential to enhance the quality of service and reduce costs. TRAI has called for the government to play a proactive role to facilitate establishment of multiple audience measurement agencies. On this, Bhasin said the government could be a good supporter and a facilitator. “So, the government is an important stakeholder and definitely to that extent their involvement should always be welcomed. But, by and large, it has to be driven by people who are on-ground stakeholders, who are living with day-to-day problems, and should not get caught in bureaucracy. It has to be done in a manner that satisfies every stakeholder's needs and certainly the government is one of the stakeholders and therefore they should be around. But the implementation and the running have to be independent,” he noted. Asked if the government would help fund the new system, Bhasin said if they (government) can help with the funding, it would be great. “But the government has so many pressing priorities. This may not be amongst the top ones they would want to look at. They have education, health and various other pressing priorities. So, it would be utopian to expect the government to fund it. But I'm sure the industry wouldn't mind some assistance from the government in that sense. The key lies in the implementation,” he said. In April, e4m had asked - Television rating agency: Does more mean merrier or messier? However, the industry also shared mixed reactions about the government’s intervention. An industry observer noted that he does not see the government playing any role, in terms of adding value to this process. “Policymaking is the domain of the government, they can decide, but I am not too sure whether this is going to help any of the ecosystem players, including advertisers or agencies or the government themselves.” The expert also pointed out that ultimately TRPs have become an important currency in today's time, and because these are playing a big role in molding public opinion and everything else, there is a genuine interest that policymakers can have in this. “Genuinely they cannot add value to this process. I think the more the process remains independent, the better it would be because it will then be a trustworthy output for everyone,” he added. According to Sajal Gupta, “The government can intervene. But how will they solve the invention industry problem? The government, a third party, even if you get an international body, how are they solving the problem? Measurement is totally broken.” In its recommendations, TRAI also observed that the competitive environment serves as a natural deterrent against any attempt of manipulation in ratings. “With multiple agencies competing for accuracy and credibility, any attempt to manipulate ratings becomes more easily detectable. Also, countries like Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and South Korea have two agencies for audience measurement,” it said, while suggesting a transparent system with multiple rating agencies.