National broadcaster Doordarshan and the Vietnam Television have entered a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for cooperation in exchange and co-production of television programmes in cultural, educational, scientific, entertainment, sports, news and agricultural fields.

The MoU between the two nations was signed in Delhi by Anil Baijal, CEO, Prasar Bharati and Pham Sy Tam, ambassador of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The MoU provides for co-production of programmes that are of mutual interest. It also has a provision for exchange of visits of delegations once a year on a sharing basis.

The agreement will be in force for a period of one year and can be renewed automatically each succeeding year. Doordarshan has international co-operation agreements with 32 other countries, an official release says.

It‘s been 10 days since business channel CNBC India, part of the Sony bouquet, "broke" a story that it had the complete lists of all the households in greater Mumbai that had people meters installed by the two market research agencies ORG MARG‘s Intam service and TAM Media Research. While all the noise has died down somewhat, there is still a heavy scent of suspicion in the air.

Keeping the claims, counterclaims, accusations and statements being thrown around aside, a look at the issues at stake is what I will be attempting here, taking on the role of the "Devil‘s Advocate" so to speak.

What do we have here?

The "exclusive" list was not one at all. Indiantelevision.com was just one of a number of media organisations that received the Mumbai lists of TAM and INTAM households (627 homes). Though we were not sent the Chennai list, which leaked last Thursday, we have it in our possession now.

All said (despite reports like those appearing in the latest issue of Outlook magazine claiming that that for as little as Rs 5,000 one can get hold of the full list of names of any of the two ratings agencies for any towns in India), it is not so easy to get hold of these lists. The fact that both the lists were in circulation indicates that whoever has managed this is not only resourceful but has access to enough resources to pull through an operation of this nature.

However, considering the stakes involved in this business (RS 40 billion to RS 50 billion is the money we‘re talking about) the incentive is certainly there for those interested enough.

And those interested enough could be any of the channels. If the leader has a benefit from getting as many of its shows in the Top 50 to 100 list, the competition has an equally strong interest in getting their programmes as high up the list as possible.

Sam Balsara

‘Somebody is jumping to conclusions here. It is one thing to say some data, which is supposed to be classified, is out in the public domain and it‘s another thing to say that the data has been manipulated.‘

At this point there is no proof to suggest either the TAM figures or the INTAM data has been tampered with. And this is a sentiment that has been more or less constant in all the discussions on the subject. As Sam Balsara, chairman and MD of Madison, and a key figure on Advertising Standards Council of India said: "Somebody is jumping to conclusions here. It is one thing to say some data, which is supposed to be classified, is out in the public domain and it‘s another thing to say that the data has been manipulated."

SPECULATIVE SCENARIOS
But that doesn‘t detract from the fact that the industry is abuzz with whispers that there is and has been manipulation of the ratings.

If we accept that ratings are being manipulated, who is doing it? Since the leading channel is Star, suspicion would point there. But production houses have an equally strong interest in this because their programmes are sold on TRPs. Sticking with Star, did manipulation start only post -"Kaun Banega Crorepati"? Was everyone sleeping in the interim? Or did it start even when Star was nowhere on the ratings chart and the other two rivals were sitting pretty on Top?

Look at the other side. Who has an interest in leaking this information? Obviously, those not benefitting from the current dispensation. These again could be channels or production houses. One thing needs mention here. It was rather too pat the way the story fell into CNBC‘s hands and no other news channel‘s. Especially considering that almost all media organisations worth their salt had got hold of the lists - but in "delayed telecast" mode and not live.

Moving on from the whodunnit to the howdunnit, one thing appears fairly certain. If the ratings are manipulated, it can only be the numbers lower down in the list that are being fudged - those in the 15 and lower range. Simply because the differentials here can be in decimal points and getting a hook on just a few homes would be enough to swing the ratings this way or that.

Ratings agencies point out the TRP lists are meant to be trend indicators and not actuals because the sampling is representative in nature (how representative is the question being raised). Any responsible media buyer should be doing its own counter checks if there are any doubts is their contention. Agreed, but this is only realistically possible for the Top 10 and 15 on the ratings charts. Here dip stick surveys are enough to get a feel of what‘s happening. Go lower down in the ratings and the only worthwhile source of information have to be TRPs, nothing else. And this is the problem area really speaking, not the Top 10.

The questions that will rankle are how do you know whether the list of monitored households is not already in the possession of the broadcast and/or production companies?

How do you know whether a few households have not been paid to control their remotes?

How do you know the nature of the relationship between ad agencies and leading software companies?

A LOOK AT THE FACTS
1) There has been a breach of security and this case shows it is not too difficult an exercise if one is so inclined. It certainly is not as easy as is now being implied though.

2) There is no proof that the people in homes where people meters are installed have been influenced.

3) There is a wide degree of dissatisfaction with the selection of the samples. Ashish Bhasin, president, Initiative Media, quoting from the list he had, says of a total of 228 households in Mumbai that make up the TAM list, only 18 are in south Mumbai and of these 14 are located in chawls. Nabankar Gupta, group president, Raymonds Ltd, is livid when he says that the whole of south Mumbai is represented by one "normal" household on the TAM list (as in a proper housing society or building). The rest being in chawls. One problem here. Both men quoted different figures.

What is clear from the above is that the so-called full list is not complete. But there are enough houses in the list which are authentic to show the premise that TRPs can be manipulated is valid.

‘A healthy industry needs good healthy research.‘

Roda Mehta

THE WAY FORWARD
1) There has to be a complete overhaul of people meter panels across the country.

2) While there is certainly a need for more secure and accurate data, people meters are the only realistic option. Therefore, the data that ratings agencies provide should be put to much more rigorous checking than has been the case.

3) The way the samples are organised need to be more representative - both in size terms and the bundling of panels in very close proximity. But it should be kept in mind that statistical analysis is a science and unless it is clearly shown by competent authorities that there are serious lacunae in the sampling methodology, it is irresponsible to shoot off charges.

4) As far as the security angle goes, no one has talked about utilising available technologies to close the tap on such leaks recurring. Software is available that fragments all information in such a way that anyone accessing information would be able to get only specific parts of data. The coding required to get the complete picture would naturally be available to a very select few in the company.

5) Wireless transfer of data rather than the present system where execs/field officers from the agencies go house to house to collect data should be explored.

6) There have been leaks in other countries as well. In Turkey the full AC Nielsen list leaked last year. In Spain also there was a leak of the ratings list. How these countries dealt with the problem needs study. This should not be a problem since worldwide Nielsen is the agency doing this work.

7) The merger process of the two agencies needs to be accelerated (to streamline costs and improve efficiency) while at the same time instituting clear controls on the functioning of the new entity with regards to data collation. And this can only be done by an independent entity like the Media Research User‘s Council (MRUC), which has credibility across the board.

There is a rider here. Money has to be forthcoming. High quality data collation is an expensive business. According to advertising and media veteran Roda Mehta, one reason for the present mess is the lack of investment being put into quality research by the industry and says: "A healthy industry needs good healthy research."

Mehta sees MRUC‘s role (provided adequate funds were made available by the industry) as an overseer, designing the research methodologies and monitoring the fieldwork.

It has been suggested that the MRUC and the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) have a meeting to thrash out key issues required to be addressed so as to get things in order again.

The IBF has scheduled a meeting for tomorrow (Friday, 14 September) to thrash out these very issues. Both the ratings agencies, TAM and INTAM have been invited to attend though it is not clear whether there will be representation from the Advertising Agencies Association of India (3AAAsofI).

It remains to be seen whether the players involved can keep their differences aside long enough to work towards a system which will benefit the industry as a whole.

THOMAS ABRAHAM,
MANAGING EDITOR, INDIANTELEVISION.COM

CNBC‘s revelations on possible "rating fudge" are significant since priorities of television in India are set by Television Rating Points (TRPs). "Stunned", "shocked" and "damaging" are some of the reactions of TV channels. Certain hype on TRPs has been all across and as if they are sacrosanct. That is why the expose acquires the proportion of a "scam". But it is a wonder that despite a "TRP Trap" television in India has been under for some years, the intricacies were not brought out for public attention much earlier. Considering the consequences, the revelation should be viewed as a wake-up call in the industry

This is not the first time that allegations of "manipulation of TRPs" have been made. This time, however, vulnerability of the system being followed has been substantiated such a way that larger public attention is ensured. TRPs were being taken for granted as a "universal yardstick" by media buyers, broadcasters, media, media users and by development planners at highest level in the country. Advertising agencies and advertisers have been doing their campaign planning and apportioning television spend amounting to some Rs 40,000 million primarily based on such weekly "ratings". And, newspapers were busy hyping the "rating claims" by channels and content producers

The peoplemeter being used was developed for relatively homogenized societies and cultures such as Canada, USA or South Africa and in fact, these meters were initially imported from these countries, mostly used ones.

And yet there is hardly any analysis in the media what these TRPs are all about as to at whose instance they are being compiled, with what kind of methodology and with what reliability, and as to their very relevance in the context of changing media scene and unique viewing situation in the homes.

That these ratings are only projections and for only a select few cities and based on a small sample of "representative" TV households was not convincingly explained. The pattern of selecting television channels, viewing programmes, timings, etc are measured with the help of a "people meter" installed in those selected few TV households. The general impression often given is that these ratings are national and represent total "TV owning households" in the country is not fully correct. At best one could dare to say that they are indicative of viewership in metro and major cities. Neither of the two rating services cover rural India. In fact, they cover only half of urban India. Starting with four metros about five years ago, the ratings today cover 29 cities with some states/ languages being covered by only one city

The peoplemeter being used was developed for relatively homogenized societies and cultures such as Canada, USA or South Africa and in fact, these meters were initially imported from these countries, mostly used ones. The buttons on such a meter in each sampled TV households are expected to be pushed by each viewer as per his or her viewership. That is each viewer in the household is expected to be an "active" one to push on and off of the button each time something on TV is being watched.

The sample size of TV households covered with peoplemeter started with 400 has now gone to 3454 in the case of TAM and 4405 in the case of INTAM. The sample size in the case of some cities is around 120 and in the case of Mumbai it has been maximum - today it is around 600. In these sampled panel households every member is expected to maintain strict confidentiality and factual in doing "on and off" of the button of the meter without any inducement, or any pressure and each member is expected to use only the assigned button on the meter for her or him and do so each time of viewing during a 24 hours period and every day as long as the house is a member of the panel. Each such sampled household is expected to represent several thousands of TV households or cable & satellite TV households.

Any aberration in doing off and on of the button, or any passivity in the process of any one member in the household will vitiate the projected ratings one way or other. If a few households in the "panel" of sample could be induced with incentive as is being done, the outcome is nothing but a manipulated one. The actual representative weightage of a household in a particular socio-economic category is another issue.

Spread of television to nook and corner of the country and of regional language channels, has changed the scope and extent of viewing. And yet rating service is not extended to rural and small towns, despite 60 percent of TV sets being there. Also, since nearly 60 per cent of television sets are old black and white ones, reliability of accuracy of sensing device of people meter is doubtful in capturing the viewership. Then, of course of the fact that spread of channels is not uniform across in different regions of the country. All this brings out inadequacy of rating methodology presently being followed. As a result channels having more viewership in rural or among certain sections are disadvantaged in the ratings. That is ratings based on urban viewership are deciding the programmes and programme schedules of TV channels, including of Doordarshan. Certain phenomena of TV being used as a decoration like a "wallpaper" in some households where "on and off" is not always related to actual viewing, or extent of viewing, is yet another issue.

Any aberration in doing off and on of the button, or any passivity in the process of any one member in the household will vitiate the projected ratings one way or other. If a few households in the "panel" of sample could be induced with incentive as is being done, the outcome is nothing but a manipulated one.

The contents of peoples meter are projected by desegregating the figures into several socio-economic-demographic classifications converted into a matrix of some 64 cells is another contentious issues in terms of accuracy levels. That is how, competing channels, often end up using these ratings to their own advantage picking up from out of these several variables. This is further complicated from the fact that there are two rating services in the market sometimes widely differing from each other although both use similar methodology and cater to same interests.

Both these services, TAM and INTAM, each charging anywhere between Rs 500,000 to Rs 5 million as annual subscription (depending on the turnover of the subscriber), are driven by the interests of advertising. Since advertising is primarily based on perpetuating and pampering consumerism, rating service too caters to such interests. That is preferences and priorities of TV channels and their programmes, their time schedules and formats, commercial tariff, etc are all moderated by and based on these ratings. The two agencies are now engaged to merge rating service and perpetuate tyranny of ratings on Indian television. It is unfortunate that, not realizing all this, Doordarshan got into this trap and lost its direction and priorities when it supported TRPs despite this author‘s efforts otherwise a few years ago.

Such ratings do serve in giving a "logic" for media planners to justify their large dispensations total of which works out to some Rs 80,000 million yearly. Hence the need for certain transparency in methodology and some independent monitoring and validation procedures. Routine replacement of a 10 per cent of sample over a year is too little to ensure reliability of rating or to cope with passivity and casualties in sampled TV households week after week.

Since ratings are now "guaranteed" weeks before to lure advertising, obviously implies that these ratings are a matter of survival for advertising agencies, content producers and to channels themselves. The kind of competition between them is such that it will intensify and lure them further. Obviously, organizations like Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) should take initiative to bring in some discipline. Self discipline any day is far better. The task of validation of ratings should not be left to users alone. In my opinion no one having interest, directly or indirectly, in advertising or media business, be entrusted with such a task. They should however be associated with the exercise.

The architecture of people meter and its practicality, once the scope is extended beyond cities, is yet another issue that needs to be looked into. So that we have state of art technology involving imaging and intelligent processing which allows direct measurement of actual eye contact and reduces tampering chances

Despite week after week these meter based ratings are being pronounced how much do we know about the "impact" of television on any section of the country?. For example, on children? On a rough estimate the money involved between the two agencies, bringing out TAM and INTAM, is not less than Rs 1,000 million yearly.

The author is Chairman, Centre for Media Studies, New Delhi. He can be reached at nbraocms@vsnl.com

(The views expressed in this column are his own and indiantelevision.com will not be held responsible for anything contain therewith.)