ITV

Tag: Broadcasters

  • TRAI attempts to rein in TV channel aggregators in new consultation paper

    TRAI attempts to rein in TV channel aggregators in new consultation paper

    NEW DELHI: It has been saying it will bring some order to the TV channel aggregation and distribution business. And the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is now showing that it means what it has been saying.

    It today issued a consultation paper attempting to regulate the distribution of television channels from broadcaster to platform operators and discipline the distributors (aggregators). The paper involves amendments to the Tariff and Interconnection orders, and Register of Interconnect Regulations, and so TRAI has given stakeholders time till 27 August to send in their comments.

    The essence of these is that it wants to clip the immense clout that the four main aggregators MediaPro Enterprises (distributes 75 channels), IndiaCast UTV Media Distribution (distributes 35 channels), Sun Distribution Services and MSM Discovery (distributeing 30 channels each) have on the TV ecosystem in India.

    The main points of the consultation paper are that:

    * Broadcasters and not the authorised distribution agency shall publish the reference interconnect offers (RIO) and enter into interconnection agreements with the distribution platform operators.

    * If a broadcaster appoints a person as its distribution agent, it shall ensure that –

    a) The authorised distribution agent does not change the composition of the bouquet formed by the broadcaster while providing it to the distributors of TV channels.

    b) The authorised distribution agent does not bundle bouquet or channels of the broadcasters with the bouquet or channels of other broadcasters. In other words, in case the authorised distribution agency represents more than one broadcaster, they shall not link offerings of broadcasters they represent.

    c) While acting as an authorised distribution agent, such person acts for, on behalf and in the name of the broadcaster.

    The regulator has also proposed that it will give broadcasters three months to rework the RIOs and to enter into fresh interconnect agreements and filing the same with it.

    Based on the above, it has issued several orders under which it has chosen to amend earlier orders issued by it.

    These include:

    * The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff (Third Amendment) Order 2013 to amend The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order 2010 (1 of 2010)

    * The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff (Tenth Amendment) Order 2013 to amend The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) Services (Second) Tariff Order 2004 (6 of 2004)

    * The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection (Seventh Amendment) Regulations 2013 to amend The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection Regulation 2004 (13 of 2004).

    * The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) (Second Amendment) Regulations 2013 to amend The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Interconnection (Digital Addressable Cable Television Systems) Regulations 2012 (9 of 2012).

    * The Register of Interconnect Agreements (Broadcasting & Cable Services) (Fifth Amendment) Regulations 2013 to amend The Register of Interconnect Agreements (Broadcasting & Cable Services) Regulation 2004 (15 of 2004)

    Background to TRAI’s attempt to regulate Aggregators

    In the paper, the TRAI says that broadcasters, MSOs, cable operators, DTH, HITS and IPTV operators are recognised as entities in the policy guidelines and regulatory framework of the Ministry and TRAI respectively. Aggregators have not been specifically defined anywhere; neither in the law or the statutory rules, nor in the regulatory framework for the broadcasting and cable TV services sector.

    As on date there are around 233 pay channels (including HD and advertisement-free channels) offered by 59 pay broadcasters. These channels are distributed by 30 broadcasters/aggregators/ agents of broadcasters.

    In the broadcasting and cable TV sector, TV channels are distributed by the broadcasters themselves or through their authorised distribution agencies to the distribution platforms viz cable TV, DTH, IPTV, HITS etc. Many such agencies operate as authorised agents (aggregators) for more than one broadcaster. After obtaining the distribution rights from one or more broadcasters, such distribution agencies form bouquets, many of which also consist of channels of one or more broadcasters. They publish Reference Interconnect Offers (RIOs), negotiate the rates for these bouquets/channels with operators of various distribution platforms and enter into interconnection agreement(s) with them.

    As on date, the distribution business of around 73 per cent of the total pay TV market, including high definition (HD) TV channels, is controlled by a few authorised distribution agencies. These channels include almost all the popular pay TV channels. These authorised distribution agencies wield substantial negotiating power which can be, and is, often misused leading to several market distortions.

    Explaining its move, TRAI said the business of distribution of TV channels from the broadcaster to the consumer has two levels:

    i) Bulk or wholesale level – wherein the distribution platform operator obtains the TV channels from the broadcasters, and ii) Retail level – where the distribution platform operator offers these channels to the consumers, either directly or through the last mile operator.

    Even as TRAI was in the process of reviewing the regulatory framework for broadcasters and their authorised agencies, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry said there have been several complaints from Multi system operators (MSOs) about the modus operandi of such entities, e.g. it has been highlighted that MSOs are forced to subscribe to certain packages. Concerns have been vehemently voiced by various MSOs and LCOs regarding the monopolistic practices of such major authorised distribution agencies of broadcasters, in view of their control over a large number of popular channels.

    The MSOs have complained that the aggregators have abused their market power by forcing them to accept all the channels of the aggregator, fixed fee deals, charging based on the entire subscriber base and not as per actual uptake of channels, insisting on minimum guarantee and other unreasonable terms and conditions.

    The TRAI further adds, in the consultation paper, that in the absence of any regulatory framework for the aggregators (including possible restrictions on the authorised agencies), they started to bundle channels of more than one broadcaster and form bouquets. These bouquets, having popular channels of a number of broadcasters, provided a better marketing proposition. These bouquets grew larger and larger with time, as the aggregator started to piggy back more and more channels, especially those having lesser standalone market values.

  • The coming storm?

    The coming storm?

    MUMBAI: The two-week long standoff between IBF, AAAI and ISA finally ended mid-last week as the three constituents came up with a consensus. However, if one goes through it, it clearly appears that the three bodies bought in a forced peace.

     

    Industry watchers are asking how long before something else flares up. A big question mark still hangs over the ad rate hike which is expected to be made by broadcasters following the imposition of an ad cap by the TRAI. 1 October is not so very far away. Will advertisers, agencies and broadcasters sort out any moves in this direction in a calm composed manner? Or will they get into another round of fisticuffs?

     

    “Rate hike is a definite thing now. The more important question here is that by how much percentage it’s going to go up by. Channels, of course, can’t increase it at one go and hence, will do it in parts,” says a south Indian media planner, who didn’t wish to be named.

     

    Even another media planner from the city feels that it is market forces which will define by how much one can charge and how much will one pay. Most agree that with the new TAM viewership metric television viewership per thousand (TVT) coming soon, the channels will try to make the best of it.

     

    Almost everyone agrees that GECs will benefit when the ad cap comes into play. However, none of them wanted to comment on it. Whereas smaller channels were more than pleased to express what it could do for them.

     

    Sony Max senior vice-president and business head Neeraj Vyas told indiantelevision.com last week: “It is the biggest blessing that is going to happen to the genre. One needs to understand that the biggest problem for the genre is the time spent, so our time spent was close to around 65 to 68 minutes a week and 122 to 130 minutes for the GECs. Now there are clear reasons, GECs shows you original content everyday; and out here, there are repeats all the time. So now, if ads come down, ad time comes down, a viewer tends to stick on and watch more.”

     

    He further stated that the time is right for the movie channels to push for higher ad rates. “Traditionally, the Hindi movie channels have been sold at a a very low rate. The correction should have happened years ago, which did not happen. So probably this is the right time to make that switch. It is a survival issue for all.” (Read interview: “Bollywood is not making films suited for home viewing on TV today”)

     

    Agreeing with him, Food Food channel promoter Sanjeev Kapoor states as a matter-of-fact that someone will have to pay for it. And broadcasters cannot afford to pay, so either the viewers will pay or the brands will. “Fortunately for us, it’s not much of a problem because we are a new channel. In a new channel the inventory consumption is not 100 per cent in the beginning, it builds over time. So we are in a process of building that. And hence, our impact may be lower than others whose inventory consumption may be 100 per cent. However, that doesn’t mean we won’t be affected at all. I think older players, where time for ads is much higher, will be impacted by about 25 per cent. So either the brands will pay or both or it will be a three way split.”

     

    Even news channels which have filed an appeal with TDSAT regarding the ad cap feel that the only way ahead they can see is through a steep increase in ad rates. Zee News’ CEO Alok Agarwal feels that there could be a 70-100 per cent hike in the genre!

     

    The only party which will have to shell out money from their pockets is the advertisers. But they are trying to find a silver lining in the dark cloud.

     

    HDFC Life EVP – marketing & direct channels Sanjay Tripathy asserts, “At this moment there is a lot of speculation going on. Once the ad cap happens, we will be clear on what exactly the scenario will be. To be frank, it will be a demand and supply situation. Popular channels will quite likely get better price increments. The less popular ones will face a tough time. So just let’s wait for the right time and let’s not speculate more on this without knowing any facts.”

     

    Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing , vice-president (sales & marketing) Kamal Nandi says, “When you say that it would be tough on the advertisers, I would say there is a flipside to it that the TV viewing experience of viewers will improve on account of and less clutter. We are internally speaking to our media partners to develop an ROI to work out the cost vs benefit. Also, because of the reduced number of ads, the possibility of our commercial connecting and being viewed by the viewer at home will be higher.”

     

    While an industry expert feels that it is a complicated situation and keeping in mind the current economic scenario, it will be difficult to come up with a “solution” soon. “I wish it was simple. But no other country in the world has more than 650 channels that too in various languages catering to a very wide audience. Hence, all parties will have to sit and work on the economics of price, time, volume and content,” he explains.

     

    So can one expect fireworks again? He laughs and says, “The intelligent channels have already started working out things while others are waiting and will blame it on the market or industry.”

     

    For instance, the Sun Network announced a hike in ad rates of 19 per cent for its weekday prime time slots in late-May. Then Colors and Star India had said that it was taking up ad rates by 30 per cent and 20 per cent respectively in late May too. Colors CEO Raj Nayak last week told indiantelevision.com that advertisers had responded well to the increase in rates and the channel had managed an average uptick of between 12 and 18 per cent following the hike.

     

    Another expert from the opposite side of the table says, “It’s a flea market. Anyone can demand whatever they like, of course, depending on the ratings. And whoever is willing to shell out that much will advertise on it or else look for another option.”

     

    He goes on to clarify, “If by any chance there is a standoff, then I don’t expect collective action from the three associations, as prices are dictated by market forces and intervention is not something that will work.”

     

    Knowing the hyperactive Indian Broadcasting Foundation, don’t expect it to take things lying down in case advertisers and agencies stonewall broadcasters. Will it be fireworks before Diwali?

  • What now for broadcasters and advertisers?

    What now for broadcasters and advertisers?

    The clock is ticking down for the seven broadcast networks, (actually eight, if you include Discovery too that joined the fray over the weekend) which coerced TAM to report on them on a monthly basis unilaterally without consulting either the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) or the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI).

     

    Late Friday evening, advertisers such as Levers, P&G, Loreal, ITC, Britannia, Marico and Godrej put these broadcast networks on notice that if they did not revert to weekly ratings within 72 hours, all advertising on their channels would be pulled off and release orders would stand cancelled, 48 of those hours have already gone past. These broadcasters have only 24 hours left to take a decision.

     

    More advertisers have been sending in their notices over the weekend and this is likely to continue over today. And their 72 hour time bomb notice will also continue to tick.

     

    Advertisers sent the emails over the weekend to probably show they too mean business. Senior managements and sales heads in broadcast networks normally head of for their weekend holidays or timeoffs and hence are normally loathe to convene for any major decisions. With two days out of the three day notice period gone, now broadcasters will be hard-pressed to congregate and do some brainstorming and decide on their way forward today itself.

     

    Above their heads is the guillotine of losing revenues. An estimate is that these broadcaster will lose Rs 22 crore a day collectively should there be a pullout.

     

    There’s more to worry about for the broadcasters. If there are no TVCs, what will they do with the time that has been left vacant by the absence of ads? Fill it with promos of their own shows? Film trailers? But for how long?

     

    They may have to incur further costs should they rely on extra content from 22-24 minutes being churned out currently to 26-27 minutes. That is going to mean writing out larger cheque amounts to TV producers as they will have to work their crew and casts for longer hours.

     

    Continuing being rigid is an option broadcasters have. But it could lead to advertisers being equally rigid, leading to a standoff. Somebody will have to blink.

     

    Even though some of the broadcast CEOs have been haw-hawing, saying that it is the advertisers who will do so, because they need the TV channels and history shows that they are prone to buckling under earlier when they are threatened with no ads, it need not hold true on this occasion.

     

    Advertisers have options today: there are close to 300 channels which are continuing with weekly ratings, while around 105 channels are on a monthly engine. They could put their ads on the weekly-rating- channels. Unless of course the eight “rogue” (in the eyes of the advertisers) networks convince the remainder to join the monthly ratings gang.

     

    At this stage, media observers feel, both sides are doing some grandstanding, watching each others’ moves closely. The squeeze will come when ads stop on TV, and if there is a stalemate. And it will be felt by both.

     

    The year has already seen a slowdown on the economic front, thanks to a weak rupee and a general slowdown. Financial results for most companies are not expected to be something that shareholders will take too kindly by end this year.

     

    Hence, it is in the interest of both to come to the negotiating table, and hammer out a face-saving solution, sooner than later, and keep the advertising cash flows going between each other. A week’s loss of advertising equates an estimated Rs 150 crore in revenue. And a possible further slow down in consumer off take of products from shop shelves for the advertisers. That’s something both cannot afford.

  • Advertisers vs Broadcasters: The battle for weekly TV ratings

    Advertisers vs Broadcasters: The battle for weekly TV ratings

    Aegis Group plc chairman India & CEO South East Asia Ashish Bhasin does not mince his words when he says. "In the next 24 to 48 hours many broadcasters are going to be getting cancellation notices from advertisers for spots booked with them. I have been getting SMSes from some of my key advertisers to move ahead with pulling off ads from TV."

    Adds Group M South Asia CEO & Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) executive committee member C.V.L Srinivas: "Starting yesterday, cancellation notices have been going to broadcasters from advertising clients across the board."

    "Earlier broadcasters took the decision and now advertisers are doing so," adds IPG Media Brands CEO Shashi Sinha.

    The CEO of a channel confirmed that his network had received emails concerning 10-11 clients. "They have given us 72 hours to resolve the issue. If we fail to revert to weekly ratings all release orders for TV spots will stand cancelled," he says.

    That is the state of Indian media today. A battle royale is brewing – some call it the mother of all battles. The two warring parties – on one side of the battle line are the advertisers, and on the other are the seven broadcast TV networks.

    Group M's CVL Srinivas says advertisers will stay away from TV until they get proper weekly viewership data

    The decision Sinha is referring to relates to these broadcasters unilaterally ordering TV ratings agency TAM Media to change the frequency of reporting on their viewership from a weekly routine to a monthly routine. And to also report those details in absolute numbers, not in percentages.

    The seven broadcast networks have more than 100 channels under their umbrella, accounting for almost 50 per cent of daily TV viewing in India.

    Advertisers on the other hand have a war chest of Rs 14,000 crore which they pump into TV channels annually to promote their products and services to TV viewers who are their consumers. And almost 60-70 per cent of that goes into those seven broadcast networks.

    "I don‘t know see why there should be a need for anyone to have a confrontation at this time," expresses Bhasin.

    Aegis Group‘s Ashish Bhasin says advertisers would prefer to put money in the bank then advertise in this situation

    In fact, the broadcast industry has been increasingly flexing its muscles in recent times. While they are competing for viewership with each other daily, they have over the past four or five years increasingly bonded together, finding common cause on issues which are plaguing them. Whether it was on the cable TV carriage fee burden or self-regulation or digitisation, the broadcasters have stood united and lobbied hard to get their views heard and get decisions taken in their favour.

    One of the issues with the ad industry was the gross billing issue. This had been a practice for decades followed by ad agencies, and broadcasters for TV spots carried on them. The broadcasters – led by their association the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF)- wanted the practice to be changed to net bills when the income tax department got after them to pay tax for ad agency commission (which was not being paid by them actually but was only mentioned in the bill). Ad agencies – AAAI – resisted this change even though the IBF continually urged them to do so.

    IPG Media CEO Shashi Sinha says advertisers are now taking their decision

    The IBF then put its foot down and said its broadcaster members would pull out all TV spots from TV channels. Ad agency resistance continued for a couple of days before it melted and agencies, the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) and the IBF hammered out a solution, which saw net billings becoming the practice, albeit with a legend of 15 per cent commission attached. To media observers, it clearly showed who had the power – broadcasters.

    "Agreed that broadcasters had their way in the net billings case because it related to a routine mechanical exercise which did not impact advertisers. It only concerned agencies and broadcasters," explains Bhasin. "But this time it is the advertisers themselves who are being impacted."

    Adds Srinivas: "And advertisers are saying, we will not advertise on those channels for which we don‘t have data. We as their agencies cannot plan on a monthly basis without data and hence are complying with our clients."

    Madison Media COO Karthik Laxminarayan cautions that aggression is not a solution

    "The key thing is that these days advertising comes in bursts of four to six weeks," points out Bhasin. "And if reporting is going to come after the period is over, how will advertisers monitor how their communication is faring with TV viewers? The world is moving to real time reporting of viewing habits. The advertiser has a right to know how the money he is spending is faring and whether it is getting him results. With the monthly reporting, it will not be efficient."

    "India and Vietnam are the only two nations which don‘t have a daily ratings system," adds Srinivas. "And now we are talking about going monthly. It is a retrograde step and it has been pushed through without any logic."

    Bhasin points out this time the broadcasters are a divided lot too. "While these seven broadcast networks are demanding monthly reporting and monitoring, the others are still going with weekly reports," he says. "How can you have two sets of practices in the same sector?"

    Vivkai Exchange CEO Mona Jain: Advertisers will blink first

    But the fact that the broadcasting industry is divided is going to work in the advertisers favour. "I don‘t know why there is this misconception that we cannot do without these 100 channels," says Srinivas. "This is a myth. We can do good media plans and reach our customers even without these channels. There are another 200 channels we can use. And they have said they are more than willing to do deals with us. DD could be a good option."

    He also believes that advertisers are going to start putting their money into other media outlets like below the line, print, and digital. "The floodgates are going to open for digital advertising. We have seen so many clients talking about using digital media over the past month ever since the TAM issue has broken out. And over the past 24 hours two clients have totally shifted from TV – one to a print plan and the other to a digital one. Agreed one of them is a niche player, but the advertising mindset is changing."

    Agrees Sinha: " What are the alternatives left for advertisers? Some might go to print, some might stay away or some might even come back to TV, no one knows what will happen until and unless both parties talk it out."

    Havas Media MD Mohit Joshi says it is a lose-lose situation for all

    Bhasin believes advertisers might also choose to totally do without advertising and straightaway add the money saved to their bottom lines "And in this tough economic times, it is better to have cash in the bank then spend it," he says.

    "It‘s true," points out Srinivas. "Advertisers would rather not advertise than advertise without any data. One or two months without advertising is not going to break any brands. There are even more efficient ways to reach customers than TV."

    What has left most media professionals confused is the hard stance taken by broadcasters. "I agree there could be genuine problems with TAM. But how is 30 days for reporting ratings better than weekly ratings when the data is not trusted by them? There is no logic to the broadcasters‘ stance. This is not a banana republic where you turn things on and off as it suits you," says Srinivas.

    ISA media committe head Hemant Bakshi will be playing a key role

    The question on the top of everyone‘s minds is: who is going to blink first and how long will the difference of opinion continue between broadcasters and advertisers? According to Bhasin, the basics of any business is "the client is always right. I think, within a week, better sense should prevail and things should get sorted out."

    Srinivas is not willing to speculate on the time period but says advertisers will stay off the TV channels until they start getting the weekly data they seek.

    "Obviously advertisers will blink first. Where will they get such a mass reaching medium," says a TV channel CEO. "They came running back to us on the third day during the net billings crisis when we blocked them out for two days."

    Vivaki Exchange CEO Mona Jain believes that "there will be some kind of a push back wherein it will be the advertisers who will have to compromise."

    Lulla says it is a private matter between broadcasters and advertisers

    Others highlight that the combative attitude should give way to finding solutions. "We, as an industry, should not think aggressively but progressively; and try to resolve it by having a healthy discussion," expresses Madison Media COO Karthik Laxminarayan.

    Havas Media India MD Mohit Joshi says that on a personal level, "I am sad that all of us together are not able to find a solution. All such issues are in a lose-lose domain. Nobody is actually going to gain. Broadcasters could end up losing revenue."

    Indiantelevision.com got in touch with ISA media committee chairman Hemant Bakshi to get the advertiser perspective and he said he would prefer not to at this stage.

    Ditto with broadcasters. Indiantelevision.com got in touch with Star India CEO Uday Shankar, Viacom18‘s Sudanshu Vats, Times Television Network CEO Sunil Lulla for their views. All of them refused to get into any discussion. "This is not a matter for public scrutiny. It is a private matter which has to be resolved between broadcasters and advertisers," says Lulla.

    For their individual sakes, hopefully they will do so soon.

  • AAAI’s Sharma: “Use BARC to improve TAM now”

    AAAI’s Sharma: “Use BARC to improve TAM now”

    MUMBAI: Even as the day saw a couple of more notices to unsubscribe from TAM‘s TV ratings. The Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) president Arvind Sharma proffered what could be the way out of the TV ratings crisis the industry is currently grappling with.

    “I understand broadcasters have shown a lot of dissatisfaction with TAM,” he said speaking to indiantelevision.com. Let us address the problems that they are having with TAM to a body which is mandated to do TV ratings in India going forward – that is the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC). It is an existing body with a CEO and a chairman. It has a strong technical committee and has representation from the IBF, the AAAI and the ISA.”

    Sharma highlighted that three constituents – advertisers, broadcasters and agencies – should filter down the various problems broadcasters are having with TAM to three or four issues of broad priority first.

    “The collective technical and business leadership of the industry under BARC will definitely find solutions. After all, BARC has developed an expertise and overview of what‘s happening in the world in terms of technology, methodology and what have you. They have gone through various requests for information. They are up to date,” Sharma said.

    And what about broadcasters‘ complaints that TAM has not paid heed and addressed their problems in the past? “Any player will listen to collective direction that is given in the interest of industry and business,” pointed out Sharma.

    Sharma once again reiterated that there is no question of a ratings blackout scenario becoming a reality in the industry. “We are reaching out to other BARC directors and other players,” he said. “I am optimistic that a solution is going to be found sooner before a situation of a total TV ratings blackout arises.”

    Are advertisers and broadcasters going to toe the same line?

    Watch this space for further developments!

  • Indian TV B’casters: ‘TAM’ing TV ratings

    Indian TV B’casters: ‘TAM’ing TV ratings

     Does the Indian TV broadcast industry want TAM? In one word, the answer is No. Definitely not in the form and manner it is monitoring TV viewership in India. Definitely not the kind of viewership numbers it has been spewing out for them week by week. The major Indian TV broadcast networks have already shown their utter disgust and disregard for its TV ratings by closing their checkbooks on TAM.

    On almost every front, the Indian TV broadcasters – through the IBF – have been flexing their muscles and showing that they mean business. And they have been sorting out troublesome issues: like striking a wage accord with TV industry technicians; setting set up a self-regulatory mechanism when government wanted to muzzle the media; getting the advertising industry to agree to net billing after the government demanded taxes for the gross advertising agency bills it used to make payments on.

    But one of the most vexatious issues it has been grappling with is the TV rating‘s one. And now that the lights have been put out on TAM, what now for the broadcast industry? What are the options before it? Let us take a look at a couple of them:

    *For one they can continue with TAM Media. However, they can give TV ratings a hiatus for a couple of months. It‘s quite possible the chaos that is happening on account of analogue shutoffs and digital set top box switch-ons, will settle down and the ratings will stabilise in that period. They can also dialogue with TAM and ask it to get back to basics and do an establishment survey once again (if possible), represent the peoplemeters appropriately in power-lit areas in LC1, rather than in power-dark areas. And finally, take a closer look at the entire process of churning out ratings that happens every week, through a committee constituted for the very purpose.

    There is a possibility that we could end up with a period of no TV ratings in India if issues are not sorted out by all concerned. How long that period will be is not clear (some say it could be until BARC comes up), but broadcasters will need to get advertisers and agencies’ support for their decision. So far, both have said they are not comfortable with ratings going away, and have spoken up for TAM.
    _____****_____

     

    With all major B‘casters unsubscribing from TAM TV ratings, only time will tell if the viewers‘ true choice can be reflected with the emergence of BARC

    * Or if this is not working out forget that TAM exists, cut off its blood supply, and watch it gradually bleed and die. Come up with a viewership metric that works in the interim for all concerned – broadcasters, advertisers and agencies – and allows the business of communicating brand messages through television for a fee to continue.

    The broadcast industry is torn between the two options. The first has been done before between October and December 2012 and it was painless for all concerned and allowed TAM to continue its existence in a profitable manner. 

    The second option, while it appears the easier one to see through, comes with its set of challenges.

    The Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC)‘s TV ratings system seems nearly a year away and could take longer to get to the levels of coverage TAM is providing now. Unless, under the leadership of Puneet Goenka and Partho Dasgupta, BARC manages to do an Ambani on the system and get the establishment survey, the constitution of the sample, the installation of the meters, the development of the software, the stabilisation of the findings and everything down stream thereof completed in super record time. Most advertisers and agencies have been optimistic about BARC.

    Industry can learn some lessons from the experience of Turkey in 2011. Turkey‘s broadcasters and the industry shut down the ratings service run there by AGB Nielsen in late December 2011, amidst allegations of corruption, which were denied by the ratings service provider. The industry body – The Television Audience Research Committee (TIAK) – prematurely severed its contract with AGB and urged TNS – part of the WPP Group‘s Kantar Research – to set up an alternative ratings system which finally got going in May 2012 with a 1000 peoplemeter panel, as against 2,500 people meters earlier.

    Industry can learn some lessons from the experience of Turkey which faced a ratings blackout in 2011. During the blackout TV ad rates and prices were determined by using average ratings from the month before the shutdown, combined with monthly share performance from the whole of the year.
    _____****_____

    In the interim, adage.com reported in March 2012 that life went on for Turkish advertisers, agencies and broadcasters though the “TV-buying system has since been in shambles. Without reliable new-audience measurement data, prices have been determined by using average ratings from the month before the scandal erupted, combined with monthly share performance from the whole of 2011. The industry is working to regain media agencies‘ and advertisers‘ trust.”

    Agreed, we are not questioning the ethics of TAM in India, though many have hurled allegations against it. There is a possibility that we could end up with a period of no TV ratings in India if issues are not sorted out by all concerned.

    How long that period will be is not clear (some say it could be until BARC comes up), but broadcasters will need to get advertisers and agencies‘ support for their decision. So far, both have said they are not comfortable with ratings going away, and have spoken up for TAM.

    With reason. Two or three months without TAM mean they will have little data to support a TV advertising expenditure between Rs 3,600-4,200 crore. That‘s not an amount you can sniff away.

    Hence, all three will have to come to the table and agree on a performance metric to justify the expenditure and offer some accountability. Could the Turkish media industry‘s interim solution during the TV ratings shutdown there be adapted to work in India?

    Broadcasters are slated to huddle very soon (either this week or next) to get some consensus on which route they will take. Some broadcast CEOs have been travelling and hence have not been able to get together.

     

  • “We hope to reach a mature solution on the TAM ratings issue” :MadisonWorld chairman & managing director Sam Balsara

    “We hope to reach a mature solution on the TAM ratings issue” :MadisonWorld chairman & managing director Sam Balsara

    There are two kinds of individuals out there. Those, who lead their lives on their own terms and others, who lead their lives according to the terms set by the rest of the world. And then there is Sam Balsara, who creates benchmarks for the rest through his feisty attitude!

    Rated as amongst the top media professionals in the world, MadisonWorld chairman & managing director Sam Balsara is no stranger to a challenging situation. He is known to speak his mind without mincing his words. The media vet has worn many hats in various industry associations and committees over his very long career, which began at Sarabhai’s in the late sixties, early seventies and ended with him setting up Madison 25 years ago.

    Here, in an exclusive interview, Balsara opens up on the heated issue of Broadcasters v/s TAM Media. Who else can give us a better perspective than the advertising genius himself. Sit back, read and enjoy his engaging responses from this free wheeling chat indiantelevision.com had with him.

    Excerpts:

    What is your take on Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) members deciding to discontinue subscribing to TV ratings provider TAM?

    It is very clear ratings are very important not just for advertisers and agencies alone, but for the whole industry which includes broadcasters who have worked so hard to built the industry to Rs 12,000 crore. If there are no ratings the confidence in TV advertising will go down.

    Take a look at radio and out of home; they have no robust measurement system, hence they account for just five per cent of the media spends. Television does have a robust measurement systems and it accounts for a sizeable 45 per cent.

    You don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there is something wrong, you fix it. We have to remember that the TV ratings that come out every week are a sample not a census. At times, if it does not do justice, you don’t shut it down. The long term solution is definitely BARC…till then we have to have TAM.
     

    But then how do you address the problems that the IBF and the government has with the ratings?

    Let the IBF put out a paper on what their view is on what is wrong with the ratings methodology and what needs fixing. We can give our view on what can be done or should be. The answer is not stopping a rating system.

    Why do you say that?

    Stopping a ratings system would hurt the broadcast leaders in their respective individual genres, they would lose their leadership perception and this would hurt them. I think it is a very unwise decision.

     


    Let the IBF put out a paper on what their view is on what is wrong with the ratings methodology and what needs fixing. We can give our view on what can be done or should be. The answer is not stopping a rating system.

    Let’s say the TAM meltdown continues and you don’t have ratings, is historical data a valid barometer for buying TV advertising time?

    Historical data around TV viewership is not an option and is unacceptable to the buyer. I would not work with historical data for buying. If I am buying IPL this year, why should I use last year’s data? Why should and how can I use historical data for how a serial is performing? We know that viewership habits move around.

    Then what is the solution?

    If there is something seriously wrong with TAM‘s data, methodology, we should sit together, highlight the problems, diagnose the imperfections and come up with answers. We need to give a patient hearing to each other as to why it’s going wrong too!

    I am aware that TV ratings have been going down because of the rejig of the sample, digitisation and also LC1. But every time you go for a change in a changing environment, the findings are also going to change.

    But the dropping ratings are hurting broadcasters and they are saying how is that possible when we are paying for the measurement?

    That brings us to the fundamental question: should media owners pay for the ratings system? Maybe you are right! Media owners should not be involved in media measurement. But the fact is that no media owner has found fault with the ratings system when they are at No 1.

    But Star India which is the leader in the GEC space is also likely to discontinue its TAM subscription…

    Hmmm. The only thing I have to say is that if there is no viewership data, the TV industry is going to suffer.

    Is making the advertiser/ad agency pay for the data a solution?

    As far as the advertising industry is concerned, we don’t really care who pays for the data, we are concerned that we get the data. We are absolutely certain that we need the ratings.
    I am aware that TV ratings have been going down because of the rejig of the sample, digitisation and also LC1. But every time you go for a change in a changing environment, the findings are also going to change.

    What if broadcasters continue to refuse to accept TAM as the currency and want to do transactions for TV adverts with agencies and advertisers?

    For a deal to take place, each seller has to make something available to the buyer and the latter has to see value in it to pay for it. Both parties have an objective and as long as it is met a deal happens. You see if Dove is priced at Rs 30, and you see merit in buying it you will pay for it, if you don’t, you won’t. Similarly with us, we need a measurement metric before we buy media.

    The IBF seems to be pushing the agenda on various fronts. For instance, in the case of net billings it was the IBF which had its way by forcing the advertising industry to accept net billings? Will it do so even in TAM’s case?

    There is no question of IBF having its way. The AAAI, ISA and the IBF found a mutually acceptable solution. Some of our full service advertising agency members wanted the 15 per cent mention to be in the bills and we got that in. It was a mature solution that met the needs of all concerned. We similarly hope to reach a mature solution on the TAM ratings situation too.
  • NDTV files fresh appeal against Nielsen in New York supreme court

    NDTV files fresh appeal against Nielsen in New York supreme court

     MUMBAI: New Delhi Television (NDTV) ain’t giving up on its law suit against global research agency Nielsen on account of the TV ratings service it runs in India with global advertising powerhouse WPP under TAM Media Research. Last week, the newscaster filed fresh papers with a New York state supreme court appealing against its decision earlier this year to dismiss its $1 billion suit against Nielsen and WPP.This time, however, it has named only Nielsen group companies in the appeal, whereas earlier it had included both in its suit.

    While dismissing the suit, the New York court had then said that NDTV’s claim and complaint should be filed and contested in Indian courts where TAM, the Nielsen-WPP joint venture is based and not in New York.

    NDTV’s nine month old lawsuit states that it has lost hundred of millions of dollars in ad revenues on account of the inaccuracies in TAM’s TV ratings service in India and that it needs to be compensated for the loss. It had alleged that TAM staff took bribes in exchange for overstating ratings.

    In its fresh appeal (a copy of which is with indiantelevision.com) which it filed with the court on 15 May, NDTV sought a reversal, annulment or modification of the trial’s court’s dismissal of its application earlier as it has mistakenly ruled that the Big Apple is not a proper venue for the suit because it “failed to accept as true the allegations” that the New York-based Nielsen owns and controls the “Nielsen process” upon which its ratings services around the world operate.

    Additionally, the NDTV appeal has stated that the court has disregarded the fact that Nielsen’s hq and “senior management (and several key witnesses and thus evidence) are located in New York and the court wrongly concluded that the defendants were foreign.”

    The court has also erred earlier in dismissing its amended complaint, NDTV has stated in its appeal, “for its failure to include an indispensable party (TAM)..the court wrongly concluded that its claims address TAM’s misconduct in India when in fact NDTV’s claims are based solely on the conduct of the New York-based Nielsen.”

    “The Indian courts likely lack jurisdiction over Nielsen,” as it is based out of New York, pleads the new NDTV filing. “Contrary to the trial court’s rulings..we properly pled that Nielsen breached a duty it owed to NDTV and the breach resulted in a compensable injury.”

    NDTV has pointed out that it had brought the bugs in TAM’s ratings process in India to WPP’s and Nielsen’s notice. Both had promised to have these rectified, but did nothing about it forcing it to take the matter to the US courts.

    WPP and Nielsen had denied NDTV’s claims and said that the case should be argued in India and the not in the US, which the New York court had accepted while dismissing the case.

    TAM, on its part, in recent times, has been making efforts to spruce up its act, aiming to guarantee impartiality of its ratings service. It has set up a vigilance desk’, headed by a former senior policeman, and a ‘transparency panel’ of regulation experts. But some broadcasters have said these changes have come too late.

  • Trai likely to issue consultation paper on TV channel aggregators

    Trai likely to issue consultation paper on TV channel aggregators

    NEW DELHI: Telecom regulatory authority of India (Trai) chairman Rahul Khullar today indicated that a consultation paper would be issued shortly about the revenue sharing and other issues related to television channel aggregators under the digital addressable system (DAS).

     

    He assured the cable operators present that the meet was on media ownership and he would meet the LCOs separately on their problems.

     

    As expected, the open house on media ownership where he made the announcement turned out to be a general meet of sorts, with cable operators turning up in great numbers to seek answers to questions facing them including those relating to billing and the consumers refusing to pay the high fee, revenue sharing with MSOs and other issues.

     

    Trai had alerted the police in this regard and restricted entry, and the venue saw the presence of a large number of police personnel.

     

    Trai has already directed the pay broadcasters/aggregators and MSOs to produce in writing the terms and conditions of their interconnection agreements with MSOs or other service providers wherever they are providing cable television services through DAS.

     

    Trai had noted that there has been a hue and cry over the last month. And the broadcasters and MSOs have been extremely slothful in signing channel agreements with each other. The regulator took note of this and asked all of them to furnish the names of the MSO or the service provider with whom the interconnection agreement has been entered into along with the service area covered and the validity period of the said agreement by the week beginning 13 May.

     

    It is expected that the consultation paper would be based on the responses received from broadcasters and aggregators by Trai.