Over-engineered & under-clarified: Broadcasters flag concerns over new TRP policy

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s TV Ratings Policy 2026 has sparked sharp resistance across India’s broadcasting value chain. Industry stakeholders warn that the proposed framework could deepen confusion, inflate compliance burdens, and destabilise an already fragile Television Rating Points (TRP) ecosystem.

Broadcasters, distribution platform operators (DPOs), and cable operators argue that instead of delivering long-awaited clarity, the policy risks creating a complex, compliance-heavy regime. This regime could disrupt advertising flows and distort audience measurement, which is the very backbone of media planning and revenue allocation.

TRP system already ‘opaque’, policy may worsen chaos

The pushback lies in a fundamental concern: the TRP system itself remains difficult to interpret, and the policy may exacerbate this opacity.

The framework mandates greater transparency from rating agencies, including detailed methodological disclosures, publication of anonymised datasets, and explicit identification of “shortcomings, deficiencies, and limitations.” While these measures are intended to improve credibility, industry executives fear they could backfire.

“The TRP system is already difficult to interpret for advertisers and broadcasters. Adding multiple layers of compliance, audits, and methodological disclosures will only make it more confusing and chaotic,” said a senior executive at a leading broadcast network.

Stakeholders caution that exposing methodological nuances across agencies may lead to inconsistent interpretations among advertisers, undermining confidence in ratings rather than strengthening it. With billions of rupees in advertising tied to weekly ratings, even minor discrepancies could trigger disproportionate market reactions.

Fault lines emerge over DPO data monetisation

A major flashpoint in the draft policy is Clause 14.3, which allows DPOs and OTT platforms to “publish periodic viewership data… on their websites” without requiring registration. The absence of explicit language on monetisation has sharply divided the industry.

Cable operators maintain that the provision is limited to disclosure, not commercial exploitation. “The clause clearly talks about publishing data, not commercialising it. There is a big difference between transparency and monetisation,” said a senior cable operator.

However, DPO executives interpret the clause as a tacit green light to build commercial models around return path data (RPD), which offers granular, real-time insights into viewer behaviour.

“If we are generating high-quality RPD, there has to be a business model around it. Otherwise, there is no incentive to invest in data infrastructure,” said a senior DPO executive.

It should be noted that Airtel Digital TV had earlier attempted to sell its viewership data to its clients. The MIB intervened and directed them to either register as a measurement firm or share the data with BARC India.

This divergence in interpretation has raised fears of regulatory arbitrage, where different players adopt conflicting approaches in the absence of clear rules. Industry insiders warn that such ambiguity could further fragment the measurement ecosystem and create parallel data markets, complicating media buying decisions.

The policy’s push for “technology-neutral” measurement — spanning DTH, cable, OTT, and connected TV platforms — has also triggered unease among DPOs, particularly cable operators.

While convergence is seen as inevitable, stakeholders argue that harmonising metrics across fundamentally different distribution technologies is easier said than done. Differences in sampling, return path capabilities, and consumption behaviour could lead to skewed comparisons if not handled carefully.

Compliance overload and regulatory overhang

Beyond structural concerns, the draft policy has drawn criticism for significantly increasing compliance requirements.

It proposes multiple layers of oversight, including internal checks, annual independent audits, and government-led inspections. Penalties for non-compliance range from suspension of ratings to cancellation of registration for repeated violations.

Industry players warn that this could create a climate of regulatory overhang, discouraging agility and slowing down decision-making. “Frequent audits and the threat of suspension will make rating agencies overly cautious. That, in turn, could slow down data releases and affect time-sensitive advertising decisions,” said a media buyer.

There are also concerns over provisions requiring security clearances for key executives and prior approvals for board-level changes, which stakeholders say could impede operational flexibility in a fast-moving media landscape.

Grievance redressal timelines seen as unrealistic

While the policy introduces a structured grievance redressal mechanism with defined timelines, broadcasters and advertisers question its practicality.

“TRP disputes are rarely straightforward. Expecting resolution within 10–15 days may not be realistic, especially when large advertising spends are involved,” said a senior broadcaster. Given the complexity of disputes — often involving multiple stakeholders, datasets, and methodologies — industry executives fear rushed resolutions could compromise fairness and accuracy leading to increase in litigations.

Industry calls for recalibration

Despite widespread criticism, stakeholders acknowledge the need for reform in a system that has long faced questions over credibility and transparency. However, the consensus is that the current policy risks over-engineering the ecosystem.

“There is merit in tightening governance, but the current framework risks over-engineering the system. What the industry needs is clarity and stability — not more confusion,” said a senior industry veteran.

As consultations with the ministry continue, broadcasters and DPOs are expected to push for simplification of norms, clearer delineation between platform-specific metrics, and a more phased, pragmatic rollout. 

“It will be closely watched whether industry stakeholders move court to seek interim relief and regulatory clarity if the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting fails to adequately address their concerns around the new TRP ratings framework,” said an industry analyst.

For now, the industry’s message is unequivocal: unless recalibrated, the TV Ratings Policy 2026 could turn an already volatile TRP system into an even more complex and contentious battleground — with far-reaching implications for India’s ₹80,000-crore-plus television advertising market.

i