What changed after broadcasters’ pushback to the multi-agency TRP plan

New Delhi: Following stiff resistance from industry bodies to the government’s plan to allow more ratings firms alongside BARC, the Ministry has tightened its draft amendments and folded in key suggestions from broadcasters.

Industry observers see this as the government’s firm resolve to fix structural issues in audience measurement.

“If anyone believed the government would drop the idea of bringing more players into measurement, the fresh draft is the answer. To my knowledge, the Ministry was trying to find a balanced approach. We were told the Ministry even explored involving advertisers in the measurement architecture. As of now, it is clear the government will go ahead unless unforeseen circumstances intervene,” an industry veteran said on condition of anonymity.

What changed after the pushback

The July draft had proposed deleting Clauses 1.5 and 1.7 of the 2014 Guidelines. That deletion would have loosened long-standing ownership safeguards. The November draft reverses that move. It restores conflict-of-interest and cross-holding rules, and makes them more precise.

Clause 1.4 now states that a rating company shall not have any conflict with broadcasters. The July text spoke only of consultancy and advisory roles. The new phrasing tracks the industry’s larger concern about influence and control.

New Clause 1.5 bars any Board director of a rating company from being in the broadcasting business. This pushes the firewall to where control is exercised and answers calls to address de-facto influence, not just shareholding.

New Clause 1.7 sets a “substantial equity” threshold at 20 per cent. No single entity can hold that stake both in a rating agency and a broadcaster. The same entity cannot hold that stake in more than one rating agency in the same area.

The cap also applies to individual promoters. A promoter company or Board member of the rating agency cannot hold stakes in any broadcaster, directly or via associates or interconnected undertakings.

Clause 5.2.1 now requires technology-neutral ratings that capture data across platforms, including Connected TVs. This aligns the rulebook with current viewing behaviour and mirrors industry requests for TV-plus-digital capture.

Clause 5.3.5 mandates a minimum panel of 80,000 within 18 months for new agencies. It also sets a path to 1,20,000 through annual additions of 10,000.

For the existing agency, the 80,000 mark is due within six months of notification, followed by the same annual growth.

How the I&B Ministry addresses stakeholder concerns

The core ask from IBDF and Zee was to restore the 2014 firewalls prescribed in Clauses 1.5 and 1.7.

The new draft restores the firewalls and adds a measurable 20 per cent test. It also closes the “clean company, conflicted promoter” gap by extending the rules to promoters and Board members.

The July draft mentioned consultancy roles, but after strong pushback from IBDF and Zee, the revised draft bans conflicts “with broadcasters” and bars broadcaster presence on the rating firm’s Board. This aligns with the gatekeeper concern raised by broadcasters.

Zee and others flagged the need to capture TV and digital audiences together. The explicit Connected TV requirement in Clause 5.2.1 reflects that demand.

Where the I&B Ministry remains firm

Clause 1.1 still keeps entry open to any Indian-registered company. The government is not reverting to a single-agency model. It wants competition with safeguards.

The new draft does not impose a name-specific ban on distribution platform operators or global ad-tech firms. Instead, it uses cross-holding rules and Board-level independence to manage conflicts.

Zee sought mandatory Competition Commission vetting at entry and on ownership changes. The draft does not embed that requirement, indicating that general competition law will continue to apply on its own triggers.

A proviso under Clause 1.7 exempts self-regulation models, such as an industry-led BARC, from Clauses 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7.