.jpg)
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB)'s proposal to allow multiple television rating agencies in India has triggered cautious reactions across the broadcast and advertising industries. While the draft policy—released on July 2—aims to boost competition and modernise measurement standards, several senior stakeholders are raising a more grounded concern: who will fund it?
Running a robust viewership measurement system is a capital-intensive exercise that can run into hundreds of crores annually. Experts warn that introducing multiple players in a market already under financial strain could stretch resources thin, compromise data integrity, and ultimately prove commercially unviable. Globally, very few markets beyond the Philippines have successfully sustained a two-agency ratings model.
The move, which includes a proposal to relax ownership norms and allow new entrants such as OTT platforms, cable operators, advertisers, and media firms into the measurement space, is being viewed as a bold regulatory shake-up. But it also unsettles a structure that has underpinned decision-making in Indian broadcasting for nearly a decade.
A bold plan, but who will pay?
Ashish Bhasin, founder of The Bhasin Consulting Group and a veteran of the advertising world, echoes these sentiments. He says, “I don’t think India’s broadcast market is ready for multiple rating agencies. It will only lead to confusion. We’ve already been through this during the TAM and INTAM days, and the result was complete chaos.”
Bhasin argues that in a market as heterogeneous as India, a single robust measurement framework is not just preferable but necessary. “India is incredibly diverse, with multiple languages, content formats, and consumption behaviours. We need one robust measurement framework with an expanded sample and better methods. Splitting already limited resources across multiple agencies would dilute the quality of data.”
He adds, “Having more than one currency is a regressive step. What we need is one trusted, transparent, and well-governed measurement currency in which all stakeholders such as broadcasters, advertisers, and agencies have faith. BARC, as a joint industry initiative, was formed precisely for this reason. It may not be perfect, but it has evolved over time and continues to do so.”
Bhasin warns about the practical cost of running parallel agencies. “Maintaining a robust, accurate measurement system requires hundreds of crores in investment. Who will fund two or three such entities? Ultimately, that burden falls on broadcasters, advertisers, and agencies, most of whom are already under pressure.”
Power imbalance
However, not all players in the ecosystem are struggling with bottom lines. In fact, this is a point some experts have raised. Entities with deeper pockets could gain an upper hand, either by setting up their own rating systems or by exerting greater influence over how viewership is measured.
Improve the system, don’t break it: Experts
“The concern is that, in the absence of strong safeguards and truly independent governance structures, the entry of new players could inadvertently shift the balance of control in the ratings ecosystem, rather than democratise it,” said another expert.
A former executive closely associated with the system echoed similar concerns. Stating off the record, he shared, “BARC helped establish a transparent, jointly governed framework at a time when the industry desperately needed it. Its strength has been in building consensus—not just in data collection, but in getting advertisers, broadcasters, and agencies to work from the same playbook.”
At the same time, they acknowledge the need for reform. “There have been recommendations from committees over the years to strengthen areas like governance, sampling, and methodology. Those need to be implemented. But it’s important to improve what exists, rather than dismantle it abruptly. Opening the market to multiple players without addressing underlying challenges risks fragmenting the ecosystem and diluting resources.”
The expert added that India’s measurement system is already operationally intensive, and introducing multiple players targeting the same market could lead to duplication, inefficiencies, and increased costs without necessarily improving outcomes.
Global practices
Globally, most major markets continue to rely on a single primary ratings agency often supported by partnerships or digital extensions, but rarely replaced by a parallel system.
In the United States for instance, Nielsen remains the dominant measurement provider for television despite growing competition in digital metrics. While newer players like VideoAmp and iSpot.tv are being trialled, especially by networks and advertisers seeking alternative insights, Nielsen continues to be the industry’s official currency for linear TV buying.
In the UK, BARB (Broadcasters' Audience Research Board) is the sole authorised body for television audience measurement. It operates with joint industry oversight and has progressively integrated digital viewing data from platforms like YouTube and SVOD services. Similarly, OzTAM in Australia formed by the country’s three major commercial broadcasters serves as the official source of television ratings and has expanded to include Video Player Measurement (VPM) for streaming platforms.
While collaborative efforts and experimental models exist in these countries, none have successfully adopted a fully dual-agency system for television measurement. Outside of rare exceptions like the Philippines, where a fragmented model has been sustained, most global markets have found that introducing multiple currencies leads to confusion, competing narratives, and diminished trust—rather than greater transparency or effectiveness.
Access isn’t the problem. Sustainability is
As India considers reshaping its ratings framework, industry voices seem to converge on one point: reforms are needed, but so is caution. Innovation must not come at the cost of credibility and any change must be built on strong foundations, not fragmented ambitions.
Another senior industry expert, speaking off the record, challenged the notion that BARC’s dominance has stifled competition.
“This debate isn’t new. The ratings ecosystem has always been open. BARC simply happened to be the one that fulfilled eligibility norms, gained industry consensus, and remained consistent. Others haven’t stepped in, not due to restrictions, but because the economics don’t support it.”
The perception of BARC acting as a gatekeeper, the expert said, is misplaced.
“It’s a licensed regime—any credible player can apply. The issue isn’t access, it’s feasibility. Very few can match the scale, cost efficiency, and reach that BARC has built over the years.”
They added that India’s advertising-to-GDP ratio remains low, which further limits the viability of multiple currencies.
“Most agencies and clients are already stretched supporting one measurement system. The question isn’t whether others should enter; it’s: who will fund and sustain them.”
The expert also cautioned against oversimplifying convergence between TV and digital metrics. “A 15-second YouTube ad isn’t the same as a minute of television content. The context, viewer mindset, and delivery platforms are completely different. Trying to treat them as equivalent units of measurement risks distorting the data.
A leading broadcaster echoed the view that strategic focus should remain grounded.
“As of now, BARC is the designated rating agency. Some discussions are ongoing, and we’ll see how those evolve. But our core focus remains content and technology. We are a broadcaster, a tech-driven company, and above all, a content-first organisation. That’s the business we are committed to, and that’s where our focus stays,” they said.
As the consultation process unfolds, the industry finds itself at a crossroads balancing the promise of innovation with the practical realities of implementation.
What emerges from this reset may not just shape the future of ratings in India, but also redefine how trust, transparency, and technology intersect in the media economy.
.jpg)
