MIB scrutiny of DPO ratings sparks fears of a new landing page-like revenue model

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s (MIB) action against GTPL Hathway’s television viewership data initiative has triggered fresh concerns among broadcasters over the possibility of distribution platform operators (DPOs) creating a parallel, commercially driven channel-ranking ecosystem.

Industry stakeholders are concerned that DPOs could eventually use their platform-level viewership data to publish channel rankings and offer broadcasters preferential visibility in exchange for marketing or promotional fees. 

Broadcasters fear that such a model could replicate the problems associated with cable television landing pages, where commercial arrangements between operators and broadcasters influenced channel visibility and raised questions about the neutrality of audience measurement.

The concern comes even as the government’s Television Rating Policy, 2026, has specifically excluded landing-page viewership from television ratings, allowing landing pages to be used only as marketing tools.

The latest regulatory scrutiny follows the MIB's direction to GTPL Hathway to stop publishing television viewership ratings generated through its Return Path Data (RPD)-based measurement framework. The company subsequently withdrew the television ratings data from its platform, although its digital measurement component continued to remain accessible.

The ministry has flagged a violation of the Television Rating Policy, 2026. GTPL, however, has maintained that it has not violated the policy and has sought a meeting with the ministry to understand the specific provisions under which the regulatory action has been initiated.

The episode has brought the interpretation of Clause 14.3 of the new policy into focus. The provision allows television distribution platforms and OTT platforms to publish periodic viewership data relating to broadcasters and channels carried on their respective platforms, on their websites, without obtaining registration or permission under the guidelines.

However, broadcasters believe that the distinction between publishing platform-level viewership information and releasing channel-wise ratings or rankings needs to be clearly established.

Also Read: GTPL ratings row: MIB action puts DPOs’ RPD-based TV ratings plans under the lens

Not violated TRP Policy 2026: GTPL tells MIB, seeks meeting

MIB directs GTPL Hathway to stop publishing TV ratings; company takes down RPD data

GTPL Hathway launches TV viewership measurement framework amid ratings freeze

Broadcasters see possibility of a landing page-like commercial model

Broadcasters are particularly concerned about how the data could be monetised once DPOs begin publishing channel-wise rankings.

According to industry executives, if operators are allowed to publish rankings based on their own subscriber ecosystems, the next step could be the introduction of commercial arrangements under which broadcasters are asked to pay platform marketing fees for visibility, promotional placement or inclusion in specific ranking-related initiatives.

The concern is that such arrangements could create a system in which commercial considerations and audience measurement become intertwined. Channels with larger marketing budgets could potentially secure greater prominence, while smaller broadcasters, particularly regional and niche news channels, could find themselves at a disadvantage.

A senior broadcaster said the industry had already witnessed the consequences of allowing distribution platforms to combine channel visibility with commercial interests.

“We have seen this play out in the past with landing pages. What was meant to be a platform for promoting channels gradually became a commercial arrangement, with operators generating revenue through promotional visibility. If the same model is now extended to channel rankings and viewership data, it will create another layer of distortion. Rankings must reflect actual audience behaviour and not the commercial relationship between a broadcaster and a distribution platform,” the broadcaster said.

Another broadcaster said the absence of a uniform measurement framework could make the situation more complicated, particularly for smaller channels that depend on credible audience data to negotiate advertising rates and demonstrate their reach.

“The biggest concern is that every distribution platform could potentially come up with its own ranking methodology. If these rankings are linked to platform marketing fees or promotional packages, the credibility of the entire measurement ecosystem will come under question. Smaller broadcasters and regional news channels will be the worst affected because they may not have the budgets to participate in such commercial arrangements,” the broadcaster said.

BARC's founding rationale and the conflict-of-interest question

The current debate also brings back the original rationale behind the creation of the Broadcast Audience Research Council (BARC) India. 

Industry stakeholders point out that the audience measurement framework was conceived, among other things, to address concerns around conflicts of interest in the television ratings business, particularly the possibility of broadcasters and advertising agencies having competing commercial interests influence the measurement process.

The objective was to establish an industry-backed, independent and credible audience measurement mechanism that could serve as a common currency for broadcasters, advertisers and media agencies, rather than allow individual stakeholders to exercise disproportionate influence over the ratings ecosystem.

Against this backdrop, stakeholders believe the new Television Rating Policy has created an interesting regulatory paradox. While the revised framework has sought to prevent certain combinations of interests and strengthen the separation between measurement and commercial activity, it has also opened the door for DPOs and technology platforms to enter the audience measurement space through provisions such as Clause 14.3.

During the policy consultation process, industry associations, including the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation (IBDF), had expressed concerns about the implications of allowing distribution platforms to publish audience measurement data. 

Their apprehension was that entities with direct commercial relationships with broadcasters could potentially acquire a new role in the ratings ecosystem, creating questions around independence, methodology and the possible commercial use of such information.

The GTPL episode has now brought those concerns into sharper focus.

Industry executives argue that the issue is not necessarily the availability of additional data or the participation of DPOs in audience measurement. RPD-based information can provide useful insights into viewing behaviour across distribution networks. 

The concern is whether platforms that control subscriber access, channel distribution and promotional visibility should also be allowed to develop commercially driven ranking products based on their proprietary audience data.

There is also a larger commercial context to the debate. With subscription revenue growth for DPOs having plateaued in recent years, industry stakeholders believe operators are increasingly looking at alternative monetisation opportunities. The ability to leverage their subscriber data, viewing insights and platform real estate could offer another avenue to generate revenue.

While DPOs may argue that such initiatives are intended to improve transparency and provide additional audience insights, broadcasters fear that the commercial opportunities associated with the data could eventually influence how channels are presented and ranked.

The apprehension, therefore, is that the industry could move from concerns about conflicts of interest in conventional television ratings to a new situation where distribution platforms become both data providers and commercial gatekeepers.

A reminder of the landing page controversy

The current debate has revived memories of the earlier landing page controversy involving cable operators.

Landing pages were introduced by distribution platforms as a way to promote channels when viewers switched on their television sets or navigated through their set-top boxes. Over time, however, the placement and prominence of channels on these pages became a commercial proposition, with operators generating revenue through promotional and visibility-related arrangements.

The concern raised by broadcasters was not merely about promotional expenditure but also about the potential impact on television audience measurement. When viewers were exposed to channels through prominent landing-page placements, the resulting viewing patterns could be influenced by the platform's promotional decisions rather than purely organic audience preferences.

The Television Rating Policy, 2026, has attempted to address this issue by explicitly stating that viewership arising from landing pages cannot be counted in audience measurement. It also clarifies that landing pages can be used only as marketing tools.

The new policy, therefore, draws a distinction between marketing activity and the measurement of television audiences. Broadcasters fear that allowing DPOs to publish commercialised channel rankings could reopen the same debate through a different route.

Separation of measurement and commercial interests remains central

The landing page issue has also been a significant consideration in the broader regulatory framework governing television ratings.

Under the new policy, landing-page viewership is excluded from the computation of ratings, with the provision specifically stating that such pages can be used only for marketing purposes. The objective is to ensure that promotional placement does not influence the audience measurement currency used by broadcasters, advertisers and media agencies.

Broadcasters believe the same principle should apply to platform-level data published by DPOs. While operators may be permitted to share periodic viewership information under Clause 14.3, the presentation of such information as channel rankings, particularly when accompanied by commercial marketing arrangements, could raise questions about the credibility and independence of the data.

The industry is also seeking clarity on whether DPOs can charge broadcasters for marketing services independently of the publication of viewership data, and how the Ministry would distinguish between legitimate platform advertising and commercial arrangements that could influence the presentation of rankings.

Cable operators say data is not intended to be a marketing tool

Cable industry executives, however, maintain that the intention behind publishing RPD-based data is to provide broadcasters and advertisers with additional insights into viewing behaviour, rather than create another revenue stream through the sale of rankings or viewership data.

An industry representative from the cable distribution business, speaking anonymously, said the operators did not intend to sell viewership data or use it as a marketing tool.

“Our intention is not to sell the data or use it as a marketing tool. We are looking at making platform-level viewing information available so that broadcasters and advertisers can understand consumption patterns on our networks. There is a difference between sharing data generated from our platforms and creating commercial packages around channel rankings. We do not intend to monetise the data in that manner,” the operator said.

The cable industry maintains that DPOs should be allowed to publish periodic viewership information generated from their own subscriber ecosystems, as provided under the new policy.

Regulatory clarity becomes critical for the industry

The GTPL episode could have implications beyond one operator, particularly as other distribution platform operators, including Fastway, UCN and DEN, are understood to be exploring RPD-based audience measurement initiatives, with TAM Media Research involved in the backend measurement framework.

The broader proposal is to bring multiple DPOs onto a common framework and potentially aggregate their datasets to provide a wider picture of television consumption.

GTPL's own initiative, launched in October, initially used data from more than 10,000 RPD-enabled set-top boxes across over 200 towns and approximately 3,000 PIN codes. The company had indicated plans to expand the sample to around 50,000 households. Its framework covered nearly 1,000 television channels.

While such initiatives could offer additional audience insights during the ongoing BARC ratings disruption, broadcasters argue that platform-level data cannot automatically be treated as an industry-wide measurement currency. The representativeness of the sample, methodology, geographical coverage and the commercial use of rankings would all need to be clearly defined.

For broadcasters, the concern is that the industry could move from a single measurement disruption to multiple competing measurement systems, each with its own methodology, commercial interests and ranking structures.

The larger concern is also about the direction in which the audience measurement business is evolving. A framework originally strengthened to address conflicts of interest in television ratings could now see distribution platforms and technology players emerge as additional participants, with their own commercial interests and monetisation ambitions.

With television ratings influencing advertising allocations, channel positioning and programming investments, any perceived commercial influence over rankings could further undermine confidence in the system.

The industry is therefore looking to the Ministry to clarify the scope of Clause 14.3 and establish clear boundaries between publishing platform-generated viewership data, assigning channel rankings and offering marketing services.

The larger question is whether the new policy's provision allowing DPOs to publish viewership data will remain a mechanism for transparency or become the foundation for another commercially driven ranking ecosystem. For broadcasters, avoiding a repeat of the landing page controversy will be critical to preserving the credibility of television audience measurement.