The e-mailer war between The Times of India and Hindustan Times would be funny, if it wasn't so pathetic. It is funny to see two large, dominant newspapers engage in a juvenile 'you did this, he did this' squabble. It is pathetic because no one - advertisers, industry bodies, other publishers or readers - cares about it. Their indifference is the most damning piece of evidence on how unimportant English print is becoming for advertisers.
For those who came in late - most publishers who are part of the Media Research Users Council (MRUC), which releases readership numbers, have been up in arms over a rehauled readership survey that came out two years ago (see "Does the IRS matter to advertisers?", Business Standard, April 23, 2015.) The whole issue was settled through an audit, revalidation and finally an increase in sample size by the MRUC in April this year, though it is not clear who will pay for it.
However, most publishers are still sulking about losing a place here or there on the annual ranking. Meanwhile, advertisers - after missing the metrics for two years - are moving on to TV, digital and other media. Much of the trouble, says almost everybody inside the system, stems from publishers' ego and some short-term tactical thinking. The last acceptable readership survey had shown stagnation in English print. The downward journey that print media in the rest of the world is going through, had begun in the profitable, growing Indian market. In the absence of current figures, advertisers use historical numbers. By stalling the readership survey, the top publishers can maintain the status quo on rankings.
TV does a little better than print on this front. Most broadcasters are advertising the results and feeling good about a rehauled TV ratings service. This despite the fact that none of the results that the Broadcast Audience Council Research (BARC) has thrown up are drastically different from the trends that the TAM Media Research service had come out with. Sure, there is a difference in their methodologies. But the bigger difference is the way BARC has approached users' proclivities. The problem with using TAM's data was cherry-picking by niche genre on a smaller sample. Niche channels in music or English news were always up in arms if (figuratively speaking) one viewer shifted from here to there, because their 'ratings,' plummeted. This despite several advisories from TAM saying that for niche genres broader trends should be looked at.
To overcome this, BARC has released data in clusters such as Hindi general entertainment, English news channels, Hindi news channels and so on. Times Now is going to town with its ranking. The fact is that English news accounts for 0.1 per cent of the time Indians spent watching television. That Hindi and Telugu news dominates. This distribution in relevant clusters, however, is good for the ego of the broadcasters. As one insider puts it,"BARC has done a good job of constituency management."
While the contrast between BARC and MRUC is interesting, it is also a sad commentary on how metrics are viewed by India's top media firms. One look at online media shows how useful they can be - for content, distribution and product design. Any digital content player checks its Google Analytics dashboard obsessively for the number of people coming in, what they are reading or watching, how many minutes and so on. They then keep tinkering design and content to show up well on search and to get more people to read or watch their content. To be fair, several entertainment broadcasters do use metrics to figure out audience flows, show and even channel ideas. But largely, in print and TV, metrics have been reduced to a ranking. It is a fist to beat one's chest with and say 'I am number one or number two.'
On the flip side, the thumb rule in media is that the first two brands get a disproportionately high share of ad revenues. Print and TV ad rates are way over anything that digital gets, anywhere in the world. Does that mean that these two media have perhaps better understood the true use of metrics?
Twitter: @vanitakohlik
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
