Tag: Indian Broadcasting Foundation

  • TRAI jurisdiction: Madras HC yes to MSOs as interveners, no as impleaders

    NEW DELHI/MUMBAI: The Madras High Court yesterday gave concession to the MSOs allowing them to intervene on matters of law under consideration. But, the court refused to let them implead, via AIDCF, in a case filed by broadcasters (content generators) challenging whether regulator TRAI can have jurisdiction over commercial issues relating to copyright of content.

    Both sides — petitioners Star TV and Vijay TV and All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) — viewed the court stand as a moral victory.

    Star TV and Vijay TV had moved the Madras High Court pleading that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India’s broadcast carriage and telecoms regulator, didn’t have jurisdiction to issue guidelines that had a bearing on tariff of content, both TV and film, especially if such issues were also governed under the copyright law.

    In an official statement, AIDCF said the court was “pleased to permit AIDCF to participate in the proceedings as (an) intervener” allowing it to “file all relevant material, make oral submissions and file written submissions in the main writ petition.”

    The AIDCF statement, quoting organisation president and Hathway video division CEO TS Panesar, said, “We are delighted to note the decision of the Madras High Court in recognising us as an important stakeholder in this matter.”

    A source close to the petitioners, however, described the court’s decision as “disallowing” MSOs to directly implead in the main writ petition, the same way as it had not allowed Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) to implead itself in the case. “AIDCF can only intervene on the main matters of law under consideration, which is whether TRAI has jurisdiction over copyright issues relating to content,” the source opined.

    TRAI, which has been trying to bring about semblance of order in the broadcast and cable sector in India via various guidelines, could not be reached for comments by indiantelevision.com till the time of writing this report. However, TRAI chairman RS Sharma had told indiantelevision.com in an year-end interview in December 2016 that the regulator’s main aim behind issuing draft guidelines relating to broadcast and cable tariff, quality of service and interconnection was to reduce litigation amongst stakeholders and create a broad playing arena for all players, including the consumers.

    Industry sources had indicated that the MSOs had moved the court as they apprehended viewpoints of distribution platforms of TV services in India, notably the MSOs, may not be heard; especially when they have views that don’t converge with those of the petitioners on all aspects of the petition.

    However, there is lack of clarity on the status of the petition filed by Videocon D2H, a distribution platform, to get impleaded in the aforementioned case being heard by Madras HC. The matter is listed for another round of hearing 7 March, 2017.

    Incidentally, the Supreme Court, petitioned by TRAI, had refused to intervene in the case being heard by Madras HC and had stated in its last hearing few days back that it would wait for the outcome at the high court, listing TRAI appeal for a March-end hearing.

    ALSO READ:

    SC keeps TRAI request on tariff pending till Madras HC completes hearing

    TRAI jurisdiction: IBF plea dismissed, AIDCF impleadment decision on 22 Feb

    MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC

    Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

  • MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC

    MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC

    MUMBAI: In a fresh twist to a face-off between broadcasters and regulator TRAI over tariff matters vis-a-vis international and Indian copyright laws, country’s MSOs have joined issues requesting Madras High Court to hear their views too.

    According to cable industry sources, All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), India’s apex body for digital multi-system operators (MSOs), has impleaded itself in the case and urged the Madras High Court — hearing a case filed by Star India and Vijay TV filed against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) over draft tariff guidelines — that while disposing off the case it’s viewpoints should also be heard and taken into account.

    The sources indicated that the MSOs had moved the court about 10 days back as they apprehended the viewpoints of  distribution platforms of TV services in India, notably the MSOs, may not be heard; especially when they have views that don’t converge with those of the petitioners on all aspects of the petition.

    Though Indiantelevision.com was not able to get full details of the MSOs’ stand in the court, industry observers explained that the presence of distributors of TV services in Madras HC makes the case interesting as the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) too has urged to be heard during the hearing of the case.

    After Star India and Vijay TV had moved the Madras High Court appealing against TRAI’s jurisdiction to pass guidelines over tariff and commercial matters where copyrights was involved relating to content, the regulator had moved the Supreme Court seeking succour.

    However the apex court, while  directing TRAI that it could continue with its regulation-framing exercises and seek its nod before mandating guidelines, also observed that the regulatory body should argue its case before the Madras High Court, declining to stay proceedings in the high court.

    The high court had asked TRAI to maintain status quo on tariff guidelines till full hearing of the case filed by Star India and Vijay TV. The next hearing is scheduled middle of this month.

    ALSO READ:

    Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

    TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan

    Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI

  • MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC

    MSOs join issues with TRAI tariff plea at Madras HC

    MUMBAI: In a fresh twist to a face-off between broadcasters and regulator TRAI over tariff matters vis-a-vis international and Indian copyright laws, country’s MSOs have joined issues requesting Madras High Court to hear their views too.

    According to cable industry sources, All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF), India’s apex body for digital multi-system operators (MSOs), has impleaded itself in the case and urged the Madras High Court — hearing a case filed by Star India and Vijay TV filed against Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) over draft tariff guidelines — that while disposing off the case it’s viewpoints should also be heard and taken into account.

    The sources indicated that the MSOs had moved the court about 10 days back as they apprehended the viewpoints of  distribution platforms of TV services in India, notably the MSOs, may not be heard; especially when they have views that don’t converge with those of the petitioners on all aspects of the petition.

    Though Indiantelevision.com was not able to get full details of the MSOs’ stand in the court, industry observers explained that the presence of distributors of TV services in Madras HC makes the case interesting as the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) too has urged to be heard during the hearing of the case.

    After Star India and Vijay TV had moved the Madras High Court appealing against TRAI’s jurisdiction to pass guidelines over tariff and commercial matters where copyrights was involved relating to content, the regulator had moved the Supreme Court seeking succour.

    However the apex court, while  directing TRAI that it could continue with its regulation-framing exercises and seek its nod before mandating guidelines, also observed that the regulatory body should argue its case before the Madras High Court, declining to stay proceedings in the high court.

    The high court had asked TRAI to maintain status quo on tariff guidelines till full hearing of the case filed by Star India and Vijay TV. The next hearing is scheduled middle of this month.

    ALSO READ:

    Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

    TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan

    Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI

  • BARC India mulls client contract review & enforcing opt-out clause

    BARC India mulls client contract review & enforcing opt-out clause

    NEW DELHI: India’s TV audience measurement company Broadcast Audience Research Council of India (BARC India) is contemplating a complete review and legal overhaul of contracts it signs with subscribers and also enforcing the opt-out clause mentioned in agreements with an aim to streamline the whole measurement process and safeguard against increased litigation.

    Indian broadcast industry sources, while confirming such a move is afoot, indicated the thinking within BARC India is that to bring about more transparency in the ecosystem and further boost credibility of the viewership audit, it’s imperative to legally “review and amend” the way in which the contracts are phrased so there’s more clarity.

    The sources pointed out that under the present agreement terms, BARC India can opt out of providing measurement and ratings services to any subscriber, especially those that it sees as “compromising” its position in the industry.

    According to the wordings of its sample client contract, BARC India shall have the right to terminate an agreement, of course by giving written notice, if a subscriber “commit(s) an act, which brings BARC into public disrepute, contempt, scandal (and) ridicule”. This clause is amongst several other such conditions stipulated in an agreement that BARC India signs with an organization that starts subscribing to the paid, full and detailed services of the ratings audit firm.

    Industry sources, familiar with wordings in an agreement, said a legal interpretation states BARC is not obligated or under compulsion to provide or continue to provide its ratings service to a client. “In fact the onus of renewing the annual contract lies on the (paid) subscriber and, while BARC has so far been proactive in renewing contracts under the terms of the agreement, it can leave it up to the clients to seek renewal,” a source explained.

    BARC India, which is  promoted jointly by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), in November 2016 suspended for four weeks the review of viewership of three TV news channels. Reason: alleged activities aimed at manipulating viewership.

    The news channels concerned subsequently moved the Bombay High Court that immediately granted them temporary relief, while one of the channels also sued BARC India for defamation, seeking financial damages. The appeal is still in  the high court in Mumbai, the jurisdiction area for a legal dispute involving BARC India.

    The review process of contractual obligations, deliverables and suspension is being undertaken by BARC India  at a time when it prepares to rollout its digital measurement services some time later this year or early 2018. It is also set to expand its people meter sample in the next few months.

    For this, it had sought global expertise through a process that has elicited interest from several existing measurement firms, including Nielsen. BARC India replaced TAM India, a joint venture between Nielsen and WPP-owned Kantar Media, for viewership measurement in India little over two years back.

    ALSO READ:

    BARC India suspends three errant channels’ review

    In deference to court, BARC to release suspended channels’ data

    ‘Name and shame delinquent channels’

     

  • BARC India mulls client contract review & enforcing opt-out clause

    BARC India mulls client contract review & enforcing opt-out clause

    NEW DELHI: India’s TV audience measurement company Broadcast Audience Research Council of India (BARC India) is contemplating a complete review and legal overhaul of contracts it signs with subscribers and also enforcing the opt-out clause mentioned in agreements with an aim to streamline the whole measurement process and safeguard against increased litigation.

    Indian broadcast industry sources, while confirming such a move is afoot, indicated the thinking within BARC India is that to bring about more transparency in the ecosystem and further boost credibility of the viewership audit, it’s imperative to legally “review and amend” the way in which the contracts are phrased so there’s more clarity.

    The sources pointed out that under the present agreement terms, BARC India can opt out of providing measurement and ratings services to any subscriber, especially those that it sees as “compromising” its position in the industry.

    According to the wordings of its sample client contract, BARC India shall have the right to terminate an agreement, of course by giving written notice, if a subscriber “commit(s) an act, which brings BARC into public disrepute, contempt, scandal (and) ridicule”. This clause is amongst several other such conditions stipulated in an agreement that BARC India signs with an organization that starts subscribing to the paid, full and detailed services of the ratings audit firm.

    Industry sources, familiar with wordings in an agreement, said a legal interpretation states BARC is not obligated or under compulsion to provide or continue to provide its ratings service to a client. “In fact the onus of renewing the annual contract lies on the (paid) subscriber and, while BARC has so far been proactive in renewing contracts under the terms of the agreement, it can leave it up to the clients to seek renewal,” a source explained.

    BARC India, which is  promoted jointly by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF), the Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI) and the Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA), in November 2016 suspended for four weeks the review of viewership of three TV news channels. Reason: alleged activities aimed at manipulating viewership.

    The news channels concerned subsequently moved the Bombay High Court that immediately granted them temporary relief, while one of the channels also sued BARC India for defamation, seeking financial damages. The appeal is still in  the high court in Mumbai, the jurisdiction area for a legal dispute involving BARC India.

    The review process of contractual obligations, deliverables and suspension is being undertaken by BARC India  at a time when it prepares to rollout its digital measurement services some time later this year or early 2018. It is also set to expand its people meter sample in the next few months.

    For this, it had sought global expertise through a process that has elicited interest from several existing measurement firms, including Nielsen. BARC India replaced TAM India, a joint venture between Nielsen and WPP-owned Kantar Media, for viewership measurement in India little over two years back.

    ALSO READ:

    BARC India suspends three errant channels’ review

    In deference to court, BARC to release suspended channels’ data

    ‘Name and shame delinquent channels’

     

  • Broadcasters bat for parity with print medium under GST

    Broadcasters bat for parity with print medium under GST

    NEW DELHI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) today urged the government to level the playing field under the proposed GST regime for “all mediums”, including electronic, radio and print, as businesses across sectors had taken a hit due to demonetisation of high value currency notes November last.

    In a statement put out on Friday, the IBF, which is dedicated to the promotion of television broadcasting in and from India as an organisation, exhorted the government to treat broadcasting community at par with the print medium.

    “Just like the print media that has been clamouring for a zero rating of newspapers under the new GST regime, fuming under mass retrenchment and closing down of various editions, the electronic and the radio media, though bleeding under cancellations of advertisements (of) over Rs. 2000 crore (Rs. 20 billion) have requested the government to treat them at par with the print counterpart as they cater to imparting of not only news, entertainment, but also help educate the masses,” the statement said.

    The IBF statement comes a day after Minister of Information and Broadcasting M. Venkaiah Naidu directed his ministry’s top official, Secretary Ajay Mittal, to examine various concerns raised by the print media players, including the tax regime that would be ushered in under the proposed Goods & Services Tax (GST), wages in the sector and the way government hands out advertising business to newspapers and magazines.

    President of IBF, representing broadcasters in the country with more than 400 channels and 90 per cent of viewership in the country, Punit Goenka said, “It is important that the government recognises TV services, which has evolved over the years as a product/service of mass consumption, to be classified and categorized under the item of mass consumption having a GST rate of 5 per cent so that it becomes affordable to masses.”

    Goenka further added: “Going by the number of TV households, which stands at 120 million, we submit to the government that broadcast services, that is, TV and radio, must be treated at par with the print (medium) in the new GST regime. This submission is based entirely on the fact that TV services have become integral part of everyday life of the vast majority in the country and the general economic downturn globally has impacted the sector extensively.”

    According to MIB data as on 31 December 2016, there are 899 licensed TV channels in the country of which 399 are news and current affairs channels, while 500 fall under the non-news and current affairs category. Building on this data, IBF highlighted that while many news channels had shuttered or are doing so, some others were downsizing to cope with falling revenues — a fall out of shrinking advertising revenue following demonetisation — and rising infrastructure and contest costs. “It seems that many (TV channel) licenses would get either get cancelled or submitted (back) voluntarily by the stakeholders,” IBF warned.

    Pointing out that the rates of DAVP advertisements (the government body that hands out government ads to media), which all broadcasters have to mandatorily carry on their networks, have remain unchanged since 2010, Sony Pictures Networks India president, network sales and international business Rohit Gupta said, “The rock-bottom rates are not at all in keeping with the existing market rates and allows little flexibility to carry out businesses.”

    Dwelling on the impact that rising costs can have on smaller TV channels’ investments in content, which can have “cascading” effects on viewer choice, Zee Entertainment president, legal & regulatory, A Mohan said, “We urge the government to free the media, print, television and radio (mediums) from obsolete taxation squeezes and attacks on revenue streams, as the vitality of this industry is essential to protect the fibre of the country, both socially and economically.”

    The IBF statement, which cautioned government against job losses and disruptions in the vibrant Indian media industry, advocated non-stifling tax regime that can reflect in the upcoming Budget 2017.

  • Broadcasters bat for parity with print medium under GST

    Broadcasters bat for parity with print medium under GST

    NEW DELHI: The Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) today urged the government to level the playing field under the proposed GST regime for “all mediums”, including electronic, radio and print, as businesses across sectors had taken a hit due to demonetisation of high value currency notes November last.

    In a statement put out on Friday, the IBF, which is dedicated to the promotion of television broadcasting in and from India as an organisation, exhorted the government to treat broadcasting community at par with the print medium.

    “Just like the print media that has been clamouring for a zero rating of newspapers under the new GST regime, fuming under mass retrenchment and closing down of various editions, the electronic and the radio media, though bleeding under cancellations of advertisements (of) over Rs. 2000 crore (Rs. 20 billion) have requested the government to treat them at par with the print counterpart as they cater to imparting of not only news, entertainment, but also help educate the masses,” the statement said.

    The IBF statement comes a day after Minister of Information and Broadcasting M. Venkaiah Naidu directed his ministry’s top official, Secretary Ajay Mittal, to examine various concerns raised by the print media players, including the tax regime that would be ushered in under the proposed Goods & Services Tax (GST), wages in the sector and the way government hands out advertising business to newspapers and magazines.

    President of IBF, representing broadcasters in the country with more than 400 channels and 90 per cent of viewership in the country, Punit Goenka said, “It is important that the government recognises TV services, which has evolved over the years as a product/service of mass consumption, to be classified and categorized under the item of mass consumption having a GST rate of 5 per cent so that it becomes affordable to masses.”

    Goenka further added: “Going by the number of TV households, which stands at 120 million, we submit to the government that broadcast services, that is, TV and radio, must be treated at par with the print (medium) in the new GST regime. This submission is based entirely on the fact that TV services have become integral part of everyday life of the vast majority in the country and the general economic downturn globally has impacted the sector extensively.”

    According to MIB data as on 31 December 2016, there are 899 licensed TV channels in the country of which 399 are news and current affairs channels, while 500 fall under the non-news and current affairs category. Building on this data, IBF highlighted that while many news channels had shuttered or are doing so, some others were downsizing to cope with falling revenues — a fall out of shrinking advertising revenue following demonetisation — and rising infrastructure and contest costs. “It seems that many (TV channel) licenses would get either get cancelled or submitted (back) voluntarily by the stakeholders,” IBF warned.

    Pointing out that the rates of DAVP advertisements (the government body that hands out government ads to media), which all broadcasters have to mandatorily carry on their networks, have remain unchanged since 2010, Sony Pictures Networks India president, network sales and international business Rohit Gupta said, “The rock-bottom rates are not at all in keeping with the existing market rates and allows little flexibility to carry out businesses.”

    Dwelling on the impact that rising costs can have on smaller TV channels’ investments in content, which can have “cascading” effects on viewer choice, Zee Entertainment president, legal & regulatory, A Mohan said, “We urge the government to free the media, print, television and radio (mediums) from obsolete taxation squeezes and attacks on revenue streams, as the vitality of this industry is essential to protect the fibre of the country, both socially and economically.”

    The IBF statement, which cautioned government against job losses and disruptions in the vibrant Indian media industry, advocated non-stifling tax regime that can reflect in the upcoming Budget 2017.

  • Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

    Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

    NEW DELHI: Declining to stay proceedings in the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court today said the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India could continue with its work relating to consultation papers and tariff orders, but will not notify these without first referring them to the apex court.

    The apex court direction came on an appeal by TRAI against an order of the Madras High Court. When contacted by indiantelevision.com, TRAI said it has no comments to make on the Supreme Court directive or on the course of action in the high court.

    The high court had, on 12 January 2017, extended the status quo ordered by it on 23 December 2016 with regard to any tariff orders or regulations for the broadcast sector that related to copyrights issue. The HC was informed that India’s telecoms and broadcast regulator had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. After today’s apex court directive, the case filed by Star TV and Vijay TV will come up in the Madras High Court as slated on 19 January 2017.

    The petitioner-broadcasters had sought to argue that the TRAI orders on tariff regulations were broadly in conflict with the Copyright Act 1957. Pending the full hearing of the case, TRAI would not be able to pass any guidelines for issues such as broadcast tariff, broadcast interconnect, etc.

    A few months ago, TRAI had issued draft guidelines on tariff, interconnect and quality of service wherein it had suggested various parameters for stakeholders of the broadcast and cable sectors.

    It may be recalled that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had said in a submission to the TRAI drafts last year that the exercise was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Copyright Act and other international copyrights laws, especially the Berne Convention. The IBF had said the Copyright Board is fully empowered to adjudicate upon disputes between any person and Content or Broadcast Reproduction Rights owners. Hence the Copyright Act and Rules provide for protection, monetisation, enforcement and adjudication procedures for all copyrightable work and broadcast reproduction rights.

    Meanwhile, weighing in with the IBF, Asian pay TV industry body CASBA today in a statement said that it has long expressed concern about India’s previous rate regulations, which included a cable retail price freeze imposed in 2004 “until the market became more competitive” and never revoked.

    Also read:   TRAI regulations threaten investment, warns CASBAA

    Also read:   Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI

    Also read:   TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan

  • Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

    Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

    NEW DELHI: Declining to stay proceedings in the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court today said the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India could continue with its work relating to consultation papers and tariff orders, but will not notify these without first referring them to the apex court.

    The apex court direction came on an appeal by TRAI against an order of the Madras High Court. When contacted by indiantelevision.com, TRAI said it has no comments to make on the Supreme Court directive or on the course of action in the high court.

    The high court had, on 12 January 2017, extended the status quo ordered by it on 23 December 2016 with regard to any tariff orders or regulations for the broadcast sector that related to copyrights issue. The HC was informed that India’s telecoms and broadcast regulator had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. After today’s apex court directive, the case filed by Star TV and Vijay TV will come up in the Madras High Court as slated on 19 January 2017.

    The petitioner-broadcasters had sought to argue that the TRAI orders on tariff regulations were broadly in conflict with the Copyright Act 1957. Pending the full hearing of the case, TRAI would not be able to pass any guidelines for issues such as broadcast tariff, broadcast interconnect, etc.

    A few months ago, TRAI had issued draft guidelines on tariff, interconnect and quality of service wherein it had suggested various parameters for stakeholders of the broadcast and cable sectors.

    It may be recalled that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had said in a submission to the TRAI drafts last year that the exercise was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Copyright Act and other international copyrights laws, especially the Berne Convention. The IBF had said the Copyright Board is fully empowered to adjudicate upon disputes between any person and Content or Broadcast Reproduction Rights owners. Hence the Copyright Act and Rules provide for protection, monetisation, enforcement and adjudication procedures for all copyrightable work and broadcast reproduction rights.

    Meanwhile, weighing in with the IBF, Asian pay TV industry body CASBA today in a statement said that it has long expressed concern about India’s previous rate regulations, which included a cable retail price freeze imposed in 2004 “until the market became more competitive” and never revoked.

    Also read:   TRAI regulations threaten investment, warns CASBAA

    Also read:   Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI

    Also read:   TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan

  • BARC India gets thumbs up for 2016…but challenges remain

    BARC India gets thumbs up for 2016…but challenges remain

    In the early part of the 2000 decade, Indians – still trying to settle down under a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government at New Delhi with AB Vajpayee as the PM – always expected something unusual. And, journalists on the media beat were no exceptions. But it even took such scribes by surprise when many of them received an unmarked envelope. Inside was a list of all homes in which the then TV audience measurement company had installed peoplemeters to collect data on viewing patterns. The hint was clear: peoplemeter homes can be breached and, hence, viewership data could be manipulated.

    A small caveat and reference to the context needs to be added here: around that time, Star TV India having sunk in millions of dollars over the past decade was riding a wave of stupendous rise in terms of revenue, reach and viewership — all on the back of the success of the Amitabh Bachchan-hosted game-show Kaun Banega Crorepati. Other TV channels not only felt the heat, but had been seeing their bottomlines turn scarlet. And nothing they did on the programming front helped them change that colour. Panicking, they settled on attacking the credibility of the edifice that provided agencies and advertiserswith data to negotiate prices on advertising on the channels. A CEO of one of the top four GECs then called indiantelevision.com and told us that he could provide us the peoplemeter household details, if we were interested.

    The peoplemeter list incident was reported by media in few places and soon everything was forgotten. It was life as usual in an industry that believed then more in status quo rather than push for fresh changes and transparency.

    Cut to 2016. When in the third week of November the barely two-year-old Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC), India’s current TV audience measurement company, in an unprecedented move conveyed to its subscribers that it was suspending for a four-week period the measurement process of three television channels there were ripples in the industry.

    The shockwaves, medium size on the Richter scale, if one can use that terminology, however, didn’t go unnoticed or unreported. Shock was more because of the fact that such moves by an industry body are few and far between in India and rarer in the television and entertainment industry, which has been the target of various allegations, starting from slush funding of movies, under-reporting of incomes by film and TV stars, the rampant casting couch and manipulation of data, amongst others.

    Why are we getting anecdotal — and being anecdotal and its criticism is a buzzword these days — for a year-ender piece on BARC? Simply because it’s one of the highlights of 2016 — a push, albeit minor, for more transparency, credibility of an organisation and the work it does.

    Though some critics would say BARC may have jumped the gun in show-causing the three news channels, it goes on to impress on the stakeholders of BARC, and the TV industry in general, that the status quo is likely to be shaken up and which could be good for the whole industry. That the three news channels pulled up by BARC got interim relief from the courts is another story.

    That an organisation like BARC India, a joint venture amongst the Indian Broadcasting Foundation, The Indian Society of Advertisers (ISA) and The Advertising Agencies Association of India (AAAI), is holding its ground and trying to be real global in terms of best practices, technology used and data is laudable. However, we think its three stakeholders, probably, would do well to come out openly and more strongly in support of such BARC actions.

    Apart from such actions aimed at transparency, the year 2016 could be termed a usual one for the barely two-year-old BARC when its rural data opened up various opportunities for all stakeholders, its on-ground education initiatives bringing in more organisations within its fold for data (it’s not commonplace for government organisations to subscribe to private sector-generated data) and its weekly data itself generating excitement within the industry.

    But looking forward isn’t it time that BARC and its direct stakeholders start thinking of digital measurement?

    It may be argued that consumption of digital media by Indians is just a blip on the viewership radar vs. traditional TV, which still remains to be fully exploited in terms of numbers and reach, but independent digital data is always more credible than those handed out by individual companies.

    In Jan 2016, BARC India ushered in the terminology Impressions’000. A year down the line, Impressions’000 has become synonymous with TV viewership data. While the terminology was introduced keeping in view the long term perspective of digital measurement, it is now time to ask if 2017 should be the year when industry adopts Impressions’000 not only as the sole metric for public reporting of data, but also as the single, universal measure for judging channel/programme performance. There is sufficient justification for all sections of industry to reference Impressions’000 to understand trends or make comparisons.

    Why we making such suggestions? Firstly, the TV viewership ecosystem is growing. In fact when BARC India unveiled All-India (urban +rural) measurement, the TV universe had doubled. Along with this, there has been a year-on-year growth in the number of TV channels — not just at an absolute level, but also at the genre level like Hindi GECs, English GECs, and English Movies. A quick visit to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting website will reveal the increase in number of licensed TV channels and those standing in the queue. However, while such additions of new TV channels to the existing universe are welcome from the point of view of consumer choice, these, inevitably, lead to viewership fragmentation too.

    With an increase in the denominator of TV universe and fragmentation of viewers, it can be argued that growth in viewership is not captured when the same is represented in percentage terms or Ratings%. In fact, referring to Ratings% may give the mistaken notion of a decline, where if one looks at an absolute number of viewers (as represented by Impressions’000), one sees a healthy growth in viewership. This is also validated by the fact that India has witnessed in 2016 launch of many new channels (as well as addition of HD feeds) even in genres where many claim a “decline” was witnessed when seen from the perspective of Ratings% .

    Looking forward, the industry could move to using Impressions rather than Ratings% as the standard of TV viewership. But, as they say, while observers may have views, it’s the professionals – who are actually carrying out their businesses using BARC data – who know the best.

    Considering BARC is an audience measurement organistaion, what ratings/impressions should it get for 2016? We feel its thumbs up….but many challenges remain.