Traditionally, media owners have held significant control over how their audiences are measured. This raises critical questions about the objectivity and transparency of the data collected. Is it possible for an entity to accurately assess its impact without independent verification? Is there a risk of self-serving manipulation of metrics? To answer all these questions and more,Vikram Sakhuja, Partner and CEO, Madison Media & OOH, took the stage at thePitch Madison Advertising Report 2024 launch ceremony. He discussed the raging question: ‘Should Media Owners Be Involved In Media Measurement’.

Sakhuja opened his session with an example of buying and selling jewellery and how as an old practice the seller would evaluate their own product before making the exchange. The media, in general, is not too different either. According to him, the entire media measurement currency determines the revenue the media owner is going to make. He further emphasised the need to critically evaluate the nature of this involvement, the thin line between involvement and influence, and in some cases even downright control.

It is interesting to note, as pointed out by Sakhuja, that for print readership, the last IRS (Indian Readership Survey) came out in 2020. Another media baseline study - Broadcast India by BARC is still pending. The Audit Bureau of Circulation gives publishers the option to opt-in the editions they want to be audited for circulation, and more than 20% of the publication editions don’t put themselves up for audit including some prominent names in the industry. Sakhuja added, “These account for close to 30% of the circulation. Even while audits are happening, because of this selective practice of opting in to be a part of it or not, the end user is not being able to get a good sense of what the circulation numbers are.”

Talking about television ratings, Sakhuja indicates that the measurement surveys in place are reasonably robust, with BARC at the centre of it, governed by various committees. Flagging the concern in the TV audience measurement, Sakhuja said, “The problem, however, is that only at an overall level one gets stable and solid data. If you have to look at small cuts and segments, for example, all adults or males or 15 to 35 of age watching English news channels in Uttar Pradesh, the numbers by definition become low. There is something called standard era, which shows that the reliability of those ratings is not good at the granular level, it is critical.”

When it comes to cross-media measurement and digital ratings, Sakhuja shares that the end consumer is watching both TV and CTV while also watching on mobile. There is no currency today that can tell the consumption of one vs the other. He further added, “For digital ratings, we have to depend entirely on the media owners to tell us what reach they got, where were the impressions delivered and if they were delivered to the target audience. Although one can monitor them through various third-party monitoring systems, the media owner doesn’t agree. Existing surveys in digital are far short of becoming currencies. Predominantly, it is the big tech that is driving the agenda on measurement within digital.”

The two bright spots in terms of media measurement are OOH and Cinema, Sakhuja said. “These are the sparks in the otherwise desolate-looking scenario”. Radio listenership is probably the weakest, he added.

Coming to the last facet of media measurement, he spoke about AdEx. “TAM has a product called MAP that is doing a good job in the linear/analogue/broadcast world. It captures the entire inventory allowing us to see how spends are being done.”

“When it comes to digital, there is zero data there. We have to try to triangulate by looking at our clients, talking to the big tech trying to get some estimates from them. 40% plus is now with AdEx, but this is one area where we have absolutely no currency on who spends where,” Sakhuja noted.

As a solution then what would be a gold standard rule of engagement for good measurement? Sakhuja answered: “A study whose objectives are not tainted by personal agenda. Nobody wants to be consciously naughty, but if a personal agenda comes in, there is a conflict of interest. There should be a well-designed study that happens regularly - the IRS not happening is a disservice to the entire industry. Third, the beneficiary of the study’s results should not be in a position to influence the results.”

The three principal stakeholders of these studies are agencies, advertisers and media owners. Sakhuja suggested that to rise above any suspicion, media owners should be at arm's length from the actual audience measurement. They should be involved in inputting into the design of the study but not the collection of the data or the projection of the results.

Sakhuja further said, “For starters, the industry should not allow media owners to publish their own data. When it comes to digital, we have to go for a currency. For advertisers, it’s their money at stake, any place that says ‘use my data to decide the reach, impressions, and CPM’. Advertisers should say sorry I won’t engage. If a bunch of advertisers put their foot down and say ‘I am not putting money here until I get third-party data’, everyone is going to sit up and listen. Additionally, advertisers should be pushing for independent research bodies running and monetising audience measurement under the blessing of JIC. Where JICs are funding research, advertisers need to be taking a leadership share of investment.”

Sakhuja closed his address with a request to advertisers, urging them to be more involved in measurement. “Advertisers put your money where your mouth is. It is your money, make it work hard. The last thing you want is regulation to come into measurement. Otherwise, we are working in a completely different marketing ecosystem.”