IRS 2013: Some publishers vent concern over new findings

At the Delhi press meeting of MRUC yesterday, some publishers protested that in many cases the new data did not make sense and has put those publications in a very difficult position

BestMediaInfo Bureau | Delhi | January 30, 2014

It was a packed press conference in Delhi on Wednesday in Delhi, a day after the new IRS was announced at a similar press meet in Mumbai. Even as MRUC officials ran the presentation on the methodology, secure technology and new demographics that formed the basis of the all-new readership data, the meeting turned into a heated debate with representatives of many media houses raising concern and even anger at some of the findings.

A day earlier, dna, the Mumbai-based English daily from Zee Media, had expressed serious reservations about the findings.

The MRUC team was represented by its Chairman, Ravi Rao, MRUC board member and IRS TechCom chairman, Paritoh Joshi, Prashant Singh, MD – Media, Nielsen India, and MRUC Director-General Shaswati Saradar.

Joshi said, “The new IRS was literally like reconstructing the IRS as if there was no IRS. If you compare with the old IRS and feel agitated, all I can say is that we can discuss the process but not the numbers because numbers are outcome, not inputs.”

But the meeting almost got hijacked by strong protests from some publisher representatives. Suresh Srinivasan, VP, The Hindu (Kasturi & Sons), said, “The new data has put various publications in a very difficult position. In two of the leading metros, RPC is 2, in another metro, the RPC is one, in another metro the RPC is 0.3. This is going to be an important parameter for media planners. All of this needs to be aligned. Today there is a situation where respectable publications have got readership less than their circulation numbers. In case of The Hindu, its overall print run is more than the readership! Who is going to explain this? Why should we make this a currency?”

An incensed Srinivasan added, “Then were the previous IRS figures wrong? Will MRUC apologise for reporting wrong figures over the years? Will you correct the data? We have strong reservations about the study. How is it that there is growth in English language readership only in Mumbai and decline in the South including languages? How could you call it a currency if it throws a readership of 4,000 against a print run of 40,000?”

Similar concerns were raised by media consultant AS Raghunath and a representative from The Tribune.

Ravi Rao responded, “We have done enough checks internally at each and every level. MRUC and RSCI are here to listen to every stakeholder if they have any issue. In any research in India, there is always a margin of error. But we have to see as to what extent we can fine tune it. I request everyone to send a note about their respective issues and I will respond within a week. This is the first set of data with a completely new methodology and technology. Let the second and third set of data come, then you will get the clear picture.”

Joshi clarified, “The data cannot be corrected unless our files were corrupted or we got wrong data but that is not the case. New samples will keep coming that will add 60,000 more homes every quarter. I'd like to reiterate that these numbers should be treated as a trend and not as absolute numbers. Now, the process is more error-free as we move from the diary method to CAPI for data collection. The new interview process does not leave any scope for manipulation or outside interference.”

On the question of readership being less than circulation in case of several publishers, Joshi explained, “Bundling of publications may be one of the reasons. If a publisher has higher circulation than readership, he is free to use that data. But asking for correction in the data cannot be accepted. If we change the data on demand, then it is not a study, it will be called a racket.”

Joshi further informed, “The sampling ratio is 1:10,000 and that brings a huge shift in numbers. Skipping three respondents for a particular publication brings a difference of 30,000 or adding three respondents for the same publication increases its data by 30,000.”

Despite the rationale put forward by the MRUC team why a comparison of data of the old IRS and the new IRS may not be appropriate as the two methodologies were entirely different, some publishers retorted that some of the “inexplicable findings” would force them to compare the two data sets.

Both Rao and Joshi reiterated that if any publication felt that the sample size in its area is insufficient, the publication can join hands with MRUC for participative sampling. MRUC is always ready to expand the sample size if helped with the resources in terms of incremental funding, they said.

From the look of things and the mood, the last is yet to be heard on the new IRS.

Info@BestMediaInfo.com

Info@BestMediaInfo.com