MIB eases TV ratings norms: Progressive or perilous?

By removing restrictions on cross-holdings and board-level overlaps, MIB’s (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) new draft policy could dismantle long-held safeguards in India’s TV rating ecosystem. Now will it democratise measurement or destroy credibility is a question being raised by several stakeholders.

For years, BARC India has functioned as the sole industry-recognised body for television audience measurement, with its weekly ratings serving as the only accepted currency in India's Rs 1.6 lakh crore-plus advertising market. Its data has guided media planning, ad spends, and channel positioning across broadcasters, agencies, and brands, making it central to how the business of television operates in the country.

Now, in a decision that could dismantle the foundational safeguards of India’s television audience measurement ecosystem, MIB has released a draft amendment to the Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India, relaxing eligibility norms and deleting critical conflict-of-interest provisions.

The July 2 proposal eliminates Clauses 1.5 and 1.7, which earlier prohibited rating agencies from having board members or ownership links with broadcasters, advertisers, or advertising agencies. This move, many say, opens the door to a free-for-all where large media entities, OTT platforms, cable operators, and even advertiser groups could float their own rating systems.

“We appreciate the modifications done to Clause 1.4, it is only appropriate that conflict of interest is avoided as much as possible. However, with the deletion of Clause 1.5 and 1.7 deletion we feel that the spirit of clause 1.4 will be lost. If both the rating agency and broadcasting company/ advertising agency/ advertising body has common director then they can influence the process of the rating or the rating itself, there are no safeguards for the same,” said Rajiv Khattar, industry expert with decades of experience in telecom, broadcasting, and cable operations.

As per the recommendation, Clause 1.4 said, “The company shall not undertake any activity like consultancy or any such advisory role, which would lead to a potential conflict of interest with its main objective of rating.”

The changes also come at a time when BARC India has been under pressure to modernise its methodology and expand panel coverage, especially to include digital and OTT distribution. But with this deregulation, the industry is split on whether the timing and intent align with India’s growing need for credible, unified measurement.

“The removal of cross-holding restrictions weakens critical safeguards,” said a media analyst. “If the industry’s largest players can rate themselves, what’s the point of audience measurement? It’s like a school teacher running a private tuition class - objectivity will inevitably suffer.”

A senior agency head who did not wish to be named also flagged the power play this opens up.

“Anyone can be an agency now, a cable operator, an advertiser group or any large broadcaster too but this will mostly help market leaders who want more access and control to start an agency and exercise that control,” the person said.

Legal experts point out that while conflict-of-interest clauses have been deleted, a revised Clause 1.4 still bars agencies from engaging in activities that pose such conflicts, raising questions about interpretation and enforcement.

“The removal of Clauses 1.5 and 1.7 could have wide-reaching implications for the governance, integrity, and competitive landscape of India’s audience measurement ecosystem.

Clause 1.5 refers to prohibited board members of rating agencies from having links to broadcasters or advertisers, a firewall against conflict of interest, and Clause 1.7 refers to restricted equity cross-holdings between rating agencies and industry stakeholders like broadcasters, DPOs, and advertisers to ensure structural neutrality.

Big Tech, OTT platforms, and DPOs may now be allowed to own or control audience measurement firms.

This raises serious questions of impartiality, for instance, a broadcaster or OTT platform owning a rating agency could skew or bias metrics in its favor. The original policy aimed to ensure arm’s length governance. Removing these clauses may weaken institutional checks. This dilutes public trust in the data that drives ₹30,000 crore+ in advertising spends annually, another expert commented.

“The changes could open the market to new entrants, Big Tech (like Google, Meta), OTT platforms (Netflix, JioCinema), and DPOs (Tata Play, Airtel), who can now float or fund their own TRP rating agencies. Smaller or independent players may find it harder to compete unless a strong regulatory framework ensures data interoperability and standardization. By removing restrictions on equity and governance links, the amendments pave the way for platforms like Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Google, Jio, Tata Play, etc., to launch or partner with rating agencies,” said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.

Some stakeholders, however, are celebrating the move as a long-overdue correction.

“Certainly, it’s a very progressive and welcome step. These amendments are critical in opening up the sector to more vibrant competition,” said LV Krishnan, CEO, TAM Media Research. “This is a game-changer, not just for TAM, but for any global organization in the measurement business.”

Advertisers’ Take

“The ecosystem may now experience increased competition, either in the form of new entrants or dormant players reviving, which could potentially drive innovation and even lead to better pricing,” said a senior media planner at a top FMCG brand. “The move may enable advertisers to access more and alternative data sources, but credibility and standardization will be critical.”

Others worry this could fracture the market and destabilise media planning.

“With looser eligibility, there’s a risk of dilution of standards, which has the potential to pose concerns somewhere down the line,” said another advertiser. “In a high-stakes sector where billions are spent on media, trust in measurement is non-negotiable. New or restructured players will need time to build that credibility.”

“When so many billions ride on these numbers, any bias or opaque ownership will skew the market,” added another advertiser from the BFSI sector.

As per Pankaj Pachauri, Founder, GoNews India, Indian TV rating agencies have lost a lot of credibility among the citizens as well as the marketers. TV channels are routinely criticised for ‘garnering TRP’ by sensational or even untruthful content as was visible during the recent Indo-Pak war. Marketers, on the other hand, crave good content to buy airtime around it, he said.

"To regain credibility we need more transparency in the system. The MIB by dropping these two clauses has made the situation worse. If the directors of rating agencies are given a free pass to consult and have business dealings with the content creators, their credibility suffers further. We need more transparency. Rating agencies should be held accountable and disclose their business interests like stock analysts giving disclosure of their holdings. The tweak in the law makes TV ratings fallible to insider trading. The MIB should make clash-of-interest disclosures mandatory, it’s doing the opposite,” said Pachauri.

Poulomi Roy, CMO of RSH Global, opines that the rules have been made further stringent for broadcasters’ influence on rating system and vice-versa. "If we read it as it is then we can expect more realistic numbers and data points to deal with."

She added, perceived notions can be questioned, distribution of broadcasters will play a big role to deliver numbers. Rates can be re-looked and re-negotiated. Thriving campaigns in this unsettled and chaotic environment will be a challenge.

As the MIB invites public comments for the next 30 days, the industry is left grappling with a central dilemma: Can a deregulated, multi-agency environment provide transparency and accountability or will it descend into chaos, driven by vested interests?