Another BARC or a new ecosystem? MIB’s TAM, Chrome DM outreach raises bigger question

India’s television ratings ecosystem could see changes beyond the resumption of ratings under the government’s revised Television Ratings Policy, 2026, with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) reaching out to television measurement companies TAM and Chrome DM for their capabilities in Connected TV (CTV) measurement, according to people familiar with the development.

The outreach comes as the government looks at how television measurement can account for changing viewing patterns across linear television, smart TVs and connected devices.

It also raises questions about whether the next phase of India’s ratings ecosystem could involve greater participation from specialist measurement companies, either independently or through partnerships with existing industry players.

Chrome DM operates an automated CTV measurement system, while TAM has experience in television and digital audience measurement. LV Krishnan, CEO of TAM, had earlier told e4m that, following its joint venture with BARC India, TAM was willing to support BARC in the next phase of measurement depending on industry requirements.

Chrome DM has also indicated that it is open to working with BARC or other industry stakeholders if its technology, data or expertise can contribute to a wider measurement framework.

The development comes as the industry waits for television ratings to fully resume under the revised policy.

Technology is only one part of ratings

The revised policy allows multiple ratings agencies to operate, subject to prescribed requirements. It has also reduced the minimum net-worth requirement for ratings agencies from Rs 20 crore to Rs 5 crore.

While this lowers the formal financial entry threshold, industry executives point out that building a national television ratings operation involves substantially more than measurement technology.

“A ratings agency is not simply a company that can count television screens. It needs a representative panel, field operations, people meters, and other measurement infrastructure, data processing, statistical modelling, quality controls, governance mechanisms, and the ability to withstand scrutiny from broadcasters, advertisers, and agencies,” a senior broadcasting executive said.

As a result, companies with CTV measurement capabilities could potentially participate in the ratings ecosystem as technology or data providers without necessarily becoming ratings currency providers themselves.

“Having the technology to measure television consumption is one thing. Running a national ratings currency is an entirely different business. The panel, methodology, governance, auditability and industry acceptance are what ultimately matter,” another industry executive said.

This could make partnerships or specialised roles a more practical route for some technology companies than entering the ratings market as full-service agencies.

CTV measurement gains relevance

The discussions with TAM and Chrome DM come at a time when television consumption is becoming increasingly fragmented across traditional television and connected devices.

Chrome DM has developed an automated CTV measurement system that captures viewing data at scale. According to the company, the data is being used by broadcasters and advertisers for content and advertising optimisation.

Pankaj Krishna of Chrome DM has said the company believes television measurement will increasingly need to draw on multiple sources of data.

“The future of ratings cannot depend on a single source of measurement. A robust system should combine census-level data from multiple sources with representative panel data for demographic profiling,” the company said.

The two types of measurement serve different purposes.

Representative panels remain important for understanding audience demographics and establishing a common television currency. Automated CTV measurement, meanwhile, can provide large volumes of device-level viewing data and potentially offer greater detail on what is being watched and when.

The question for the industry is how such datasets could be combined while maintaining the reliability and independence of the ratings currency.

Krishna said Chrome DM would be willing to collaborate with BARC or another relevant industry stakeholder if its technology, data or expertise could contribute to an industry-wide measurement framework.

Such an arrangement would allow specialist measurement companies to contribute specific capabilities without necessarily having to build a complete national ratings operation themselves.

Partnership with BARC?

If Chrome DM were to seek registration as a ratings agency, it would need to meet the applicable regulatory requirements and develop an operating model capable of delivering an independent and representative television currency.

A partnership with BARC, on the other hand, could allow the company to remain focused on its role as a specialist measurement provider.

This distinction could become relevant as the government implements a technology-neutral ratings framework.

One question is whether a company needs to operate the entire measurement stack to qualify as a ratings agency, or whether specialist providers could contribute individual components to the broader system.

A modular approach could involve a representative panel operator providing demographic measurement, an automated CTV company supplying device-level viewing data, another technology provider contributing return-path or set-top-box data, and a ratings entity combining these sources into a final currency.

Such a model would represent a significant change in how television measurement is structured.

The TAM question

TAM has longstanding experience in television audience measurement in India. However, there is currently no confirmation from the company that it plans to seek registration under the revised policy or return to the market as a full-fledged ratings agency.

L.V. Krishnan, CEO of TAM, did not comment on the developments.

Any potential re-entry would involve the same challenges facing other prospective ratings companies, including the need for infrastructure, methodology, panel management, governance, financial resources and sustained industry confidence.

The MIB's engagement with TAM is nevertheless significant as it suggests that the government is looking at measurement capabilities beyond the existing ratings structure.

Could the market move towards a two-tier model?

One possible outcome is a framework that distinguishes between specialist measurement providers and full-service ratings agencies.

The revised policy takes a technology-neutral approach and seeks to accommodate changing television consumption patterns, including connected television. A more differentiated structure could allow companies to contribute specific measurement capabilities without requiring every player to build a complete national television panel.

“A specialist CTV measurement company could potentially be accredited to provide CTV consumption data without being required to construct a nationwide linear-TV panel,” a ratings agency executive said.

“A full-service ratings agency, meanwhile, could remain responsible for producing the representative national television currency. Such an arrangement could lower the practical barriers to innovation,” the executive added.

Such a structure could allow more companies to participate in the measurement ecosystem while avoiding duplication of infrastructure.

However, it would also raise questions around governance and methodology.

Among the issues the industry would need to address are how CTV data is weighted against panel data, who determines the methodology, how the resulting numbers are audited, and how viewing across connected TVs, linear television and multiple screens is reconciled.

Another question would be how demographic characteristics are assigned to device-level consumption and, ultimately, which entity is responsible for the final number used by advertisers and broadcasters.

The revised policy places emphasis on methodology, transparency, independence and auditing. Any hybrid measurement model would therefore require clearly defined responsibilities and accountability.

BARC and the role of additional data

One potential outcome is that BARC continues to operate its established panel while specialist companies contribute additional sources of measurement data.

BARC has the representative panel and established industry relationships, while companies such as TAM and Chrome DM have capabilities in digital and CTV measurement.

Rather than requiring every participant to build an end-to-end ratings operation, the industry could potentially combine specialised capabilities.

For advertisers, this could provide a more detailed picture of television consumption. For broadcasters, additional data sources could offer greater visibility into audiences and advertising exposure.

For the government, greater participation from specialist companies could introduce more technological options into the measurement ecosystem without requiring every entrant to replicate the existing infrastructure.

The Rs 1,000-crore question

The economics of entering the ratings market, however, remain a significant consideration.

Industry estimates suggest that building a nationwide television measurement operation could require investments of more than Rs 1,000 crore, once panel expansion, people meters, field operations, technology, data infrastructure and personnel are taken into account.

This creates a gap between the regulatory entry threshold and the actual commercial investment required to build a credible ratings operation.

The government may have reduced the formal net-worth requirement from Rs 20 crore to Rs 5 crore, but that does not necessarily reflect the capital required to establish a national measurement system.

“If you're evaluating whether to invest Rs 1,000 crore or more into building a measurement company, you'll closely watch how the incumbent is treated. Predictability is one of the biggest factors investors look for,” an industry executive said.

Another executive said the concern extends beyond the current ratings disruption.

“The concern isn't just today's ratings blackout. The concern is whether similar interventions become part of the operating environment going forward,” the executive said.

For potential entrants, the question is therefore not only whether the market has formally been opened to competition, but whether the regulatory environment will remain sufficiently predictable to support the investment required.

Competition will require more than licences

The revised policy removes one of the formal barriers to competition by allowing multiple ratings agencies. But a licence alone is unlikely to be sufficient to establish a viable competitor.

A new entrant would need capital, infrastructure, a representative methodology, industry acceptance and confidence that its measurement system can operate independently and consistently.

For specialist companies such as Chrome DM, CTV measurement could therefore provide one potential route into the wider ecosystem without requiring an immediate attempt to replicate the entire BARC infrastructure.

For TAM, any potential return would involve leveraging its historical expertise while determining how to build or access the infrastructure required under the 2026 framework.

For BARC, meanwhile, the emergence of additional measurement providers could mean greater competition not necessarily from a company seeking to replace it, but from companies contributing new sources of audience data.

The MIB's discussions with TAM and Chrome DM could therefore be part of a broader effort to assess how television measurement should evolve as viewing becomes increasingly fragmented.

The key question is whether the government ultimately seeks to create more full-service ratings agencies or develops a broader ecosystem in which different companies provide different components of television measurement.

The latter could offer more flexibility and accommodate the growing role of connected television, but it would also make questions around methodology, governance and accountability more complex.

For broadcasters and advertisers, the outcome will be important. A more competitive measurement ecosystem could reduce dependence on a single provider and provide additional audience data. At the same time, multiple measurement sources would need to operate within a common framework to ensure that more data does not result in less clarity about the numbers used by the advertising market.