After Multi-Screen Media (MSM), the Times Television Network (TTN) and the New Delhi Television (NDTV), Sri Adhikari Brothers followed suit and have pulled out of the TAM ratings. With major broadcasters deciding to stop using Television Audience Measurement (TAM) Media Research data, the ongoing debate is of who will be at how much loss. While the industry insiders suggest that the issue between TAM and broadcasters can only be resolved in a mature manner, what’s happening at present is the blame game. Divya Kaushik spoke to lV Krishnan, CEO, TAM and Shailesh Shah, Secretary General, Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) on issues surrounding TAM — like low sample size and flawed measurement — and what the future course of action is likely to be.
Is it time for a new codeIJ Will perception weigh more than figures and will this result in qualityIJ
‘Faulty method and practices’
Unfair trade practices' and ‘flawed methodology' are major issues that broadcasters have with the Television Audience Measurement (TAM) Media Research data. Fluctuating ratings from lC1 (local council 1 of the areas with population under one lakh) towns is a major concern. Many argue that as the numbers of television sets bought is increasing, TAM data shows a decreasing viewership.
Shailesh Shah, Secretary General of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), put it bluntly. “TAM is not doing its job. And the measurement is faulty. Ever since Doordarshan pulled out of TAM, it progressed. Need I say moreIJ”
He said channels were annoyed with fluctuations in ratings. “There was dialogue. And suggestions were made. But no major step was taken to make the system transparent.” IBF is India's premium apex organisation of television broadcasters.
It promotes interests of the Indian TV industry. Some insiders said, “TAM's panel size of 9,000 meters cannot work, keeping in mind the country's size.”
They also claimed that it does not take into account geography and cultural preferences of places. There should be more people meters to check diverse audiences. And factors like language should be considered.
Earlier, TAM showed vast difference in ratings of a channel on two different days, which channels say is “highly impossible.” Post-digitisation, ratings have been a problem. Strange ratings have been coming up.
And TAM research doesn't take into account expanding viewership. Shah added, “We are dealing with currency here. It is better to have none, rather than having a wrong, corrupt one.” Channels say that they are also unaware about the know-how of TAM's rating mechanism.
The IBF has been working on creating its own industry measurement body, Broadcasting Audience Research Council (BARC), which will have separate entities installing metres, collecting and analysing data.
After MSM, NDTV and TNN, Sri Adhikari Brothers pulled out of TAM ratings. In the short run there might not be any extreme effect but it is felt that both parties must work out a middle path. On condition of anonymity one TV commentator said, “So far TAM is the only authentic system followed by channels. In its absence, or with channels not following ratings, assessing the brand value of the channel for advertisers will be difficult. Both parties must take a mature step.” But Shah said as long as TAM continues to complain about fund issues, nothing can be worked out. “We are ready for dialogue if there is any such thing happening. If they choose to sit down and solve the problem we might arrive at solutions.”
There has been friction between broadcasters and TAM for long, but it is the first time that such an extreme step has been taken. Experts say the issue has to be resolved amicably and TAM has to do something about giving weightage to actual perception and viewership across India.
Vs
‘We need funds to operate'
lV Krishnan, CEO of TAM, clarified his stand and the organisation's role in the field of television data research.
On sample size
One issues broadcasters are talking about is low sample size.The number of meters is less compared to market size. The key question is what is ideal sample sizeIJ More than two years back, TAM worked closely with FICCI Amit Mitra Committee report to arrive at the projected/required sample size of 30,000... and we are still waiting for the funding. We were appointed by industry stakeholders — advertisers, broadcasters and media agencies — with a promise of funds. While we specialise in research, conducting and operating it requires funds. My question is, why is TAM always blamed for small sample sizesIJ We have, over years, built the sample to 9,500 people meters, with whatever funding we could muster from parent companies and subscribers. let industry open more. We will deliver their dreams.
On transparency and methodology
What is their definition of transparencyIJ If it means being transparent about methodology, we always made sure our methodologies would be vetted by industry bodies and individual stakeholders before implementation. Take the DAS-1 roll out. TAM has been in constant touch and discussion with the Core Industry Committee (CIC) on methodology and implementation. TAM took them through detailed dynamics of data generation and reporting. It was only post this that data was released for usage. Documents were circulated for everyone to read and comment on. More so, during the last 15 years, all documents pertaining to methodology were shared with industry constituents, attached to reports like Dr Mitra committee, TRAI reports are made available on the company website. So, if they had a problem, why not tell us where the problem in methodology isIJ No one person has come with a perspective on methodology in the last so many years.
On not meeting the industry
For years at industry forums or during one-on-one client meetings, TAM has been appealing to industry clients to create a central wish list or common brief of aspects that it would like TAM to address. The idea was that, post their revert, we were to submit a blue print of Television Audience Measurement. Unfortunately, years passed not a single common brief reached us. This never discouraged or stopped us from re-attempting to get them together for this purpose.
The way forward
Till the time work of BARC kickstarts, why can't the industry constitute a small body to work with TAM and introspect areas where they have a common concern. TAM has always been transparent and will be so. Except for its town list and panel homes. It's to facilitate something in this direction, that TAM attempted to create a separate panel of transparency member team with global experts. The industry can take advantage of this committee to suggest ways TAM should improvise.