Advertisers take a stand; need weekly data from TAM

Although broadcasters have opted for a monthly data from TAM, advertisers have decided that weekly objective data by the ratings measurement agency is a need that cannot be ignored. Apart from this, major advertisers also remarked that they would not be subscribing to any other alternate system of ratings if broadcasters withdraw from TAM.

Of late, broadcasters have been protesting against TAM’s rating system in the digital regime calling it inadequate and not credible. Till now TAM provides the only currency for advertising on TV channels. TAM is largely funded by broadcasters and advertisers have framed a consensus that this fact should not command the ratings framework. They feel that TAM should be given a fair chance and not renounced at one go completely.

According to advertisers for the campaign to be successful, the property/content needs to have at least 800 GRPs. Below this, spend on any property is futile. It would be wise to have weekly data over monthly data so that advertisers can judge the criteria for ad spend.

TAM needs to upgrade its methodology which captures the approximate amount of reach of a TV property post digitisation. Broadcasters have been relying on the TAM data till now. Only those broadcasters seem to be having a problem with TAM that is not at the top. Till they were at the top, there was no grudge at all.

Advertisers feel that there has to be a market-centric data for them to spend their advertising budget. After 10+2 ad cap, they feel broadcasters will increase their ad rates and then importance of a rationale in working out their ad spend will be much more. 

The main crib of broadcasters is that TAM has failed to leverage a scientific way post digitisation to measure the viewership. A channel cannot be number one for a week and have zero viewership the next week. Inadequacy of TAM is nothing new to the industry, it has been there since the beginning. It has been magnified now because more cities have been added to TAM’s network and both digital and analogue markets exist side by side.

Advertisers think it is like blackmail. You have to also think of the industry as a whole. Just because you are not satisfied with the ratings, you renounce your financial support and in a way compel the other stakeholders to do so. It is a known fact that broadcasters are the biggest fund providers for the TAM. They have deliberately pulled out at the same time. It is just a ploy to bring the current ratings provider down. Had there been many ratings provider, the step of renouncing could have been logical. But this is like paralysing the entire mechanism on which the industry works,” said a CMO of a major advertiser on TV, on condition of anonymity.

Some advertisers have expressed to the media that there is an indirect pressure from broadcasters to subscribe to the future ratings mechanism (BARC) and renounce TAM. But the spenders do not want to take such a step. “One needs to understand that the ratings have to be advertiser-driven and not broadcaster-driven. It makes all sense to not subscribe to any other rating mechanism if broadcasters keep pushing their agenda. It is my money. I need to be sure where it is put and what results are being driven. As of now, TAM needs to improve, but it cannot be discarded. It has to exist,” said a marketing director of one of the leading advertisers of IPL 6 to e4m.

Source: http://cablequest.org/news/national-news/item/2696-advertisers-take-a-stand-need-weekly-data-from-tam.htmlSource: http://cablequest.org/news/national-news/item/2696-advertisers-take-a-stand-need-weekly-data-from-tam.html