When everyone has data: How will platform metrics coexist with the ratings system?

In a significant shift for India’s audience measurement landscape, the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) has introduced a provision under the TV Ratings Policy 2026 that allows distribution platform operators (DPOs), cable networks, DTH operators and OTT platforms to publish their own viewership data, without requiring registration or prior approval as rating agencies.

The move expands the universe of entities that can publicly share audience insights, effectively creating a parallel data layer alongside the country’s long-standing ratings framework. While the policy does not dismantle the existing system, it signals a clear acknowledgment of the growing role of platform-owned data in shaping how content consumption is measured, interpreted, and monetised.

Industry stakeholders say the change could bring greater transparency and more granular insights into viewer behaviour. At the same time, it raises important questions around standardisation, comparability and the risk of multiple, potentially conflicting datasets entering the market.

Also read: TV Ratings Policy 2026: Ambitious redesign faces execution test

TV Ratings Policy 2026: ₹75 lakh penalty for third violation, licence at risk

Govt notifies TV Rating Policy: Landing page viewership excluded from measurement

What the clause actually means: Opening up viewership data publishing

At its core, the new provision is straightforward: television distribution platforms including cable networks and DTH operators, as well as OTT platforms, are now permitted to publish periodic viewership data of the channels available on their platforms. Crucially, they can do so on their own websites without seeking registration or approval under the regulatory framework that governs formal television rating agencies.

This marks a clear departure from the earlier regime, where the publication of viewership data at scale was effectively restricted to authorised entities operating within a defined regulatory structure.

However, the policy draws an important distinction. While platforms can publish data, the fact that they do not need to be registered will not make them official rating agencies under the framework. This means their disclosures are unlikely to be treated as a formal industry currency in the same way as traditional television ratings, said industry experts.

Instead, the clause formalises what has long existed in practice. Platforms already collect vast amounts of user data through set-top boxes, return path data (RPD) and digital analytics. OTT platforms, in particular, operate on near real-time, user-level data that captures detailed viewing behaviour.

According to industry experts, by allowing such data to be publicly shared, the government is effectively legitimising platform-driven insights as part of the broader measurement ecosystem, without subjecting them to the same compliance requirements as rating agencies. For platforms, this opens up new possibilities not just in terms of transparency, but also in how they position themselves to advertisers and content partners.

How it differs from the existing ratings system

For years, India’s television measurement system has revolved around a single, centralised currency: ratings generated by the Broadcast Audience Research Council.

BARC’s methodology is based on a panel of metered homes, where viewing behaviour is extrapolated to represent the broader population. The system is standardised, regulated, and widely accepted by broadcasters, advertisers and agencies as the benchmark for planning and trading.

The new clause does not replace or dilute this framework. Instead, it introduces a fundamentally different type of data into the ecosystem.

Unlike panel-based measurement, platform-level data is typically derived from actual subscriber behaviour within a closed system. For DTH and cable operators, return path data can provide insights into what their subscriber base is watching. For OTT platforms, the data is even more granular, tracking individual user journeys, watch-time, drop-offs and engagement patterns.

The distinction, therefore, lies in both methodology and scope. Traditional ratings offer standardised, population-level estimates, while platform data provides census-like insights within a specific ecosystem. This creates a scenario where two parallel systems coexist, one built on a single industry-recognised currency and the other comprising multiple proprietary, platform-specific datasets.

Importantly, while BARC data is designed for comparability across channels and platforms, platform data is inherently limited to its own environment. A DTH operator’s data reflects only its subscriber base, while an OTT platform’s metrics apply only within its app. As a result, the new provision does not unify measurement but expands it, adding new layers of data that could complement, challenge or complicate existing metrics.

Where more clarity is needed

While the clause is enabling in intent, it leaves several operational questions unanswered, questions that industry stakeholders say will be critical in determining how useful and credible this new data layer becomes.

One of the primary areas of ambiguity is around what exactly constitutes “viewership data.” Platforms today track a wide range of metrics, from reach and time spent to average watch duration and engagement levels, but without standard definitions, these may vary significantly across platforms. What qualifies as a “view” on one platform may not align with another’s methodology, creating inconsistencies in interpretation.

There is also limited clarity on the format and frequency of disclosures. Whether platforms will publish weekly snapshots, monthly summaries, or real-time dashboards remains unclear, as does the level of granularity in reporting. Another key concern is the absence of a clearly defined audit or verification mechanism. Unlike registered rating agencies, which operate under regulatory oversight and methodological scrutiny, platform-published data may not be subject to the same level of validation.

A senior media agency executive said that while enabling platforms to publish their own viewership data is “doable from a technology standpoint,” the real challenge will be ensuring consistency and credibility.

The executive added that without standardised measurement frameworks, the move could lead to “multiple versions of truth” in the market, making it harder for advertisers to compare performance across platforms or rely on a unified benchmark.

Kailash Adhikari, MD, Sri Adhikari Brothers (SAB) Network, echoed a similar sentiment, noting that while the move is directionally positive, it requires a finer understanding of what kind of data will be shared and how it will coexist with existing rating systems. Without clarity, there is a risk of creating confusion among both advertisers and broadcasters.

“TV distribution platforms may publish periodic viewership data broadcaster channel being played on their platforms on their website without opening registration or permission under these guidelines. I think this requires a slightly more finer understanding about the kind of data because rating agencies data and this data should not create any more confusion into the minds of the advertisers as well as the broadcasters. So, this requires for everyone to understand the fine print,” Adhikari said.

Opportunities vs challenges: Transparency gains or data fragmentation?

The new provision sits at the intersection of opportunity and complexity, with its ultimate impact likely to depend on how the industry adopts and interprets platform-published data.

On the opportunity side, the benefits are clear. The move could significantly enhance transparency by allowing platforms to showcase actual consumption patterns within their ecosystems, offering advertisers a more immediate and granular view of performance. This is particularly relevant at a time when media consumption is increasingly fragmented across linear television and digital platforms, and advertisers are seeking more precise and performance-driven insights.

Broadcast consultant Rajiv Khattar pointed out that enabling platforms to deploy return path data and share viewership metrics could help them work out better deals with content providers while also strengthening their ability to pitch advertising opportunities. In this sense, data becomes not just a reporting tool but a strategic asset.

However, these advantages come with equally significant challenges.

The media agency executive cautioned that if multiple platforms begin publishing their own metrics without standardisation, the ecosystem could become fragmented, with competing datasets making it difficult to establish a single source of truth. This could complicate media planning, forcing advertisers to navigate disparate metrics rather than relying on a unified currency.

“It is doable from a tech standpoint, but the real challenge will be ensuring consistency and credibility. If not regulated well, it could fragment the ecosystem, making it harder for advertisers to compare performance across platforms,” he said.

There is also the question of selective disclosure. Since platforms are not bound by the same regulatory requirements as rating agencies, they may choose to highlight metrics that present their performance in the most favourable light, said another media planner.

Without standardisation or oversight, this could skew perceptions rather than improve transparency. Moreover, while platform data is often described as census-level, it is still limited to a specific user base and does not necessarily represent the broader population, which remains the core strength of panel-based systems like BARC, they said.

Another senior broadcast official added that while DPOs such as Tata Sky and Airtel already generate return path data from a subset of set-top boxes, this data published by platforms is indicative at best and not a trading currency. As per his understanding of the ministry’s stance, platforms will not be allowed to sell such data but can publish it on their platforms for reference. BARC will continue to remain the sole, mandated currency for ad transactions, with advertisers relying on certified, standardised metrics for buying decisions.

“While multiple data disclosures could create some noise in the market, it is unlikely to materially impact ad spends, as DPO data lacks demographic depth and is limited to household-level insights. Most provisions in the updated policy are legacy clauses from 2014, with key changes including an expanded panel size, landing page measurement and formal recognition of DPO data, while raising concerns over the lack of clarity on funding the proposed scale-up in measurement,” the official said.

A parallel data future

Taken together, the new clause signals a broader evolution in India’s audience measurement ecosystem, one that reflects the realities of a multi-platform, data-rich media environment.

Rather than replacing the existing ratings framework, the policy appears to be enabling a parallel data architecture where multiple sources of viewership insights coexist. For advertisers, this could mean richer inputs but also greater complexity. For broadcasters, it introduces new variables in how performance is measured and monetised. And for platforms, it opens up a pathway to play a more active role in shaping the narrative around content consumption.

The success of this shift will ultimately depend on how the industry navigates the trade-offs between openness and standardisation, innovation and consistency. If implemented thoughtfully, the move could mark a step toward a more nuanced and transparent measurement ecosystem. If not, it risks creating a fragmented landscape where more data does not necessarily translate into better decisions.

Either way, the era of a single, uncontested view of audience behaviour may be coming to an end.