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

India’s television ratings ecosystem could be headed for a more fundamental reset than simply the return of ratings under the government’s revised Television Ratings Policy, 2026.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has approached television measurement companies TAM and Chrome DM seeking their support and capabilities for Connected TV (CTV) measurement, according to people familiar with the development. 

The move has brought a larger question to the fore: is the government looking to create more competition for BARC India, or is it trying to build a broader measurement ecosystem in which specialist technology companies can plug into the existing ratings architecture?

Chrome DM already operates an automated CTV measurement system, while earlier, LV Krishnan, CEO of TAM, had told e4m, “With the JV with BARC India, TAM is willing to help BARC in the next phase of measurement depending on industry requirements.”

TAM has longstanding experience in digital and television audience measurement. Chrome DM has also indicated that it is open to working with BARC or other relevant industry stakeholders if its technology, data or expertise can contribute to a wider industry measurement framework.

People familiar with the discussions said the MIB’s outreach should be viewed in the context of the government’s broader attempt to make television measurement more technology-neutral and capable of capturing fragmented viewing across linear television, smart TVs and connected devices.

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

Technology alone does not make a ratings agency

The government has explicitly sought to open up the television ratings market to competition. Under the revised policy, multiple ratings agencies can operate if they meet the prescribed requirements, while the minimum net-worth requirement has been reduced from Rs 20 crore to Rs 5 crore.

On paper, that represents a significant lowering of the entry barrier.

In practice, industry executives say, the economics remain formidable. Another senior broadcasting executive said, "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."

That means a company with sophisticated CTV measurement technology may become an important data or technology provider without necessarily becoming a ratings currency provider.

An industry executive said the distinction is critical because the ability to measure consumption at scale does not automatically translate into the ability to produce an independently audited, nationally representative television currency.

“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,” the executive said.

That could make collaboration a more realistic near-term route than direct competition.

TAM, Chrome DM: Potentially powerful CTV building block

TAM and Chrome DM could have an unusual advantage in this emerging market because it does not have to start from scratch on CTV measurement and multi-screen digital audience measurement service. 

Pankaj Krishna of Chrome DM said the company has built a large-scale automated CTV measurement system capable of capturing consumption in real time. Its data is already being used by broadcasters and advertisers for content and advertising optimisation, according to the company.

Chrome DM’s pitch is that the future of television measurement cannot rely exclusively on a single measurement source.

“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.

That proposition could become increasingly relevant as television viewing fragments.

Linear television continues to require representative panels to understand demographics and establish a common currency. CTV, meanwhile, generates large-scale device-level consumption data that can potentially provide much greater granularity.

The two forms of measurement solve different problems.

A panel can tell the industry who is watching. Automated CTV data can potentially tell it what is being watched, when, where and at what scale.

The strategic question is whether those datasets can be combined without undermining the integrity 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 a stronger industry-wide measurement framework.

It suggests Chrome DM does not necessarily see the immediate opportunity as building another BARC from the ground up. Instead, it could provide a specialist layer of measurement technology to an ecosystem in which different companies contribute different pieces of the puzzle.

But can that make Chrome DM a ratings agency?

If the company were to become a ratings agency in its own right, it would have to meet the applicable regulatory requirements and build an operating model capable of delivering an independent and representative television currency.

A technology partnership with BARC, by contrast, could allow Chrome DM to remain a specialist measurement provider.

That distinction could eventually force the MIB to answer a question that the current technology-neutral framework does not fully resolve: does a company need to own the entire measurement stack to qualify as a ratings agency?

If the answer is yes, specialist CTV companies could face a disproportionate burden.

They would effectively have to recreate the infrastructure required to measure linear television simply to participate in a ratings system in which their existing CTV capabilities may already be valuable.

If the answer is no, the industry could move towards a more modular model.

Under such a structure, a representative panel operator could provide demographic measurement; an automated CTV company could supply census-level viewing data; another technology provider could contribute return-path or set-top-box data; and an independent ratings entity could combine those datasets into the final currency.

That would represent a much bigger change than simply adding another ratings agency.

The TAM question

TAM has a long association with television audience measurement in India, giving it institutional knowledge and historical expertise that a new entrant would not necessarily possess.

However, there is currently no confirmation from TAM that it plans to seek registration under the new policy or return to the market as a full-fledged ratings agency. L.V. Krishnan, CEO of TAM, did not comment on the developments.

For TAM, any re-entry would nevertheless involve the same fundamental challenge facing other potential competitors: expertise alone is insufficient.

A credible national ratings operation requires infrastructure, methodology, panel management, governance, financial resources and sustained industry confidence.

The fact that MIB is speaking to TAM is therefore notable even if it does not ultimately translate into a new ratings service.

It indicates that the government may be thinking beyond the traditional binary of BARC versus a new ratings company.

Could MIB create a two-tier measurement ecosystem?

One possible outcome is a regulatory or industry 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. But the market may require greater functional differentiation.

A ratings agency executive stated, "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 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 said. 

It could also bring more companies into the measurement ecosystem without forcing every player to spend enormous sums replicating infrastructure that another company already possesses.

But the governance questions would be difficult. Questions remain: 

Who decides how CTV data is weighted against panel data?

Who determines the methodology?

Who audits the resulting numbers?

How is duplication across connected TVs, linear television and multiple screens addressed?

How are demographic characteristics attached to device-level consumption?

And, most importantly, who owns the final number that the advertising market uses to transact?

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

BARC may not need another rival. It may need more data

The most consequential possibility may therefore be a system in which BARC does not face a direct replacement but becomes one component of a much broader measurement architecture.

BARC has the representative panel and established industry relationships. TAM and Chrome DM have digital measurement capabilities. Instead of forcing each company to build a complete ratings stack, the industry could potentially combine specialised capabilities.

For advertisers, that could eventually produce a richer view of television consumption. For broadcasters, it could offer more granular data on audiences and advertising exposure.

For the government, it could create competition and technological resilience without requiring every entrant to reproduce the entire national measurement infrastructure.

The Rs 1,000-crore question

That is where the investment economics become critical.

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

That level of capital expenditure fundamentally changes the question of competition.

The government may have reduced the formal net-worth threshold from Rs 20 crore to Rs 5 crore, but the regulatory minimum is not the same thing as the commercial capital required to build a credible ratings operation.

One industry executive puts it bluntly: “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.”

Another executive said the issue goes 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.”

That is potentially the most important issue for prospective entrants. The question is no longer simply whether the government has formally opened the market. It is whether investors believe the rules will remain stable long enough for a new ratings operation to recover its enormous upfront investment.

Competition cannot be created by licence alone

The government has removed one obvious barrier by permitting multiple ratings agencies. But licences alone will not create competition.

A new entrant needs a viable business model, sufficient capital, industry acceptance and confidence that its methodology will be treated fairly.

For a specialist player such as TAM and Chrome DM, the more commercially rational path may therefore be to enter through CTV measurement rather than attempt to immediately replicate the entire BARC infrastructure.

For TAM, the opportunity — if it chooses to pursue one — would be different: leverage its historical expertise while rebuilding or partnering for the infrastructure needed under the 2026 framework.

And for BARC, the competitive threat may not necessarily come from a company attempting to replace it. It could come from a new generation of measurement companies making the concept of a single-source television currency increasingly difficult to sustain.

That is where the MIB’s outreach to TAM and Chrome DM becomes more significant than it initially appears. The ministry could be testing the boundaries of what the next ratings ecosystem should look like.

The choice before the government is effectively between creating another BARC and creating an ecosystem in which no single company has to be BARC in its entirety.

The second model may be technologically more relevant to the future of television. It may also be considerably harder to regulate.

For broadcasters and advertisers, the stakes are substantial. A more competitive ratings market could reduce dependence on a single measurement provider and potentially improve the granularity of audience data.

But if multiple data sources emerge without a common currency, the industry could end up with the opposite problem: more data, more measurement companies — and less certainty about what the numbers actually mean.

The bigger question is whether MIB's engagement with both companies marks the beginning of a genuine competitive ratings market — or the first step towards a fundamentally different model for measuring Indian television audiences.