Says it was not NDTV's lawyers but WPP company Kantar's CEO who had approached for a halt in litigation
BestMediaInfo Bureau | Delhi | August 25, 2012
Reacting strongly to a recent press statement made by Sir Martin Sorrell and his claim in an interview to an Indian business daily that NDTVâs lawyers had sought a settlement, NDTV, in a statement issued this evening, came out with its own facts. It said that Sir Martin knows better than all of us that the first rule of any PR campaign is never to get oneâs facts wrong. âHence we can only conclude that Sir Martin has been misled by his team into making several incorrect statements,â and went on to list some of the errors.
The NDTV statement, significantly, requestedÂ Sir MartinÂ not to take India lightly. âWe request him to clean up his ratings operation in our country and to refrain from using his global PR clout to perpetuate corruption in his India ratings operation; to respect our country and the serious issues raised in our very real lawsuit (Sir MartinÂ referring to it as "hypothetical" was bizarre) and take real steps to correct them. We, like all other Indian broadcasters, are happy to work together withÂ SirÂ MartinÂ toÂ establish an honest, reliable and credible institution to measure ratings in India.Â This has not happened, despite repeated requests by us and promises made by Kantar and Nielsen,â the statement said.
The first error:Â Sir MartinÂ has alleged that NDTV's lawyers reached out to his lawyers to ask for a settlement. This is completely untrue. There was no such approach after the complaint was filed and communicated. In fact, it was his own CEO, Eric Salama, the CEO of Kantar, a WPP company, who sent a confidential mail to NDTV on August 8, suggesting a meeting if NDTV would "halt litigation". A further mail exchange followed. NDTV has respected Salama's confidentiality by not making this public till now - butÂ Sir MartinÂ would do well to check with his own senior executives before making baseless charges.
The second error:Â The biggest accusation againstÂ Sir Martin's TAM rating system in India has come from Nielsen'sÂ own global head of security, Robert Messemer, not just from Indian broadcasters and NDTV. Messemer, formerly of the FBI, in a meeting in Delhi on April 11, 2912, in front of two dozen people (including the CEO of Kantar), calledÂ Sir Martin's TAM India operations the most corrupt in the world â and he has been to many, many countries to fight fires for Nielsen.Â Sir Martin needs to checkÂ his facts with Messemer or would he perhaps threaten to sue him for defamation?
The third error:Â Sir MartinÂ seems to have finally discovered that this is not a "hypothetical" lawsuit. It is available on the website of the Supreme Court of New York for his team to read ifÂ Sir MartinÂ is busy. Strangely,Â Sir MartinÂ contradicts himself by now applying to the New York court for dismissal of the real lawsuit, using a plea based on technicalities of jurisdiction.Â Sir MartinÂ and his lawyers (presumably) are not refuting any facts; they are merely using legalistic technical grounds to challenge NDTV. Our request is forÂ Sir MartinÂ and his team to argue the substantive factual merits of the case, and demonstrate a desire to stop the bribery and corruption.
As an aside,Â Sir MartinÂ must know that his sudden outbursts have done even more to prove that jurisdiction is indeed in the US and not in India, asÂ he has openly acknowledged how deeply involved he and thus Nielsen (his partner) are in Indian TAM viewership ratings operations.
The fourth error:Â No amount of maliciously false and defamatory statements will work against our lawyers.Â Sir Martin's 10-billion-pound global operations â for which we normally have great admirationÂ â may indeed be able to hire the biggest and most famous legal names, butÂ he should know that the truth wins in the end â not lawyers. We leave it to our lawyers to respond to the allegations made against them.
We may not have a 10-billion-pound empire backing us, but WPP should realise that a court case is fought on the merits. We urge them to read the 194-page lawsuit, which contains indisputable facts, and respond to it on factual merits, not with personal attacks.
The fifth error:Â Sir MartinÂ keeps referring to NDTV's low market cap (vs. his $10 billion). Size matters? We would like to point out that it is indeed near impossible for an honest Indian media company to function in the dishonest environment his company has helped create in India. IfÂ Sir MartinÂ had a similar corrupt system in the UK or the US, he wouldn't be where he is at the moment. Yes, if NDTV's true ratings were reflected as 62 per cent rather than TAM's corrupted 25 per cent, the impact on NDTV's revenues and market cap would be hugely significant.Â Sir Martin, or rather his team, knows that too. The details can be found in our (non-hypothetical) lawsuit.
The sixth error:Â Sir Martin said, "We will do everything to improve the system but not with a gun to our head."Â In fact,Â Sir Martin Sorrell was personally informed about all the problems with TAM ratings at a meeting at TheÂ Oberoi HotelÂ in Gurgaon in August 2011, in the presence of a large number of media journalists and eminent people. That was a year ago, and there was no "gun to the head". Why was nothing done?
Interestingly, NDTV thankedÂ Sir MartinÂ for respecting the broadcasterâs editorial position. âWe are a fiercely independent Indian news operation and proud to be a leader in India. Sir Martin Sorrel has appeared on many occasions on our channels, which clearly shows a mutual respect (and perhaps an indicator that he actually recognises that NDTV is larger than his TAM ratings suggest),â it concluded.