Exclusive | External advisory body to address issues: TAM's Transparency Panel Member, Chintamani Rao

In the midst of the recent controversy between the broadcasters and TAM Media Research over the rating issues and the subsequent decision by a few broadcasters to withdraw subscription, Adgully spoke with Chintamani Rao, Member of the TAM Transparency Panel. Rao is a strategic marketing and media industry veteran.

The TAM Transparency Panel is an independent body made up of six people who role is that of an ombudsmen. The members are experts from the field of regulation and others fields such as advertising, research and broadcasting sectors. It was set up in December 2012.

TAM needs an independent body for reasons related to the complexity of television viewership data that it supplies. The panel is perhaps, a first in the world, set up by a research agency. The need for a panel is more significant here than anywhere else because of the complexity of data and the transition phase that the TV industry is in – as it is moving on to digital platforms.

The following is the excerpt of the conversation with Rao.

Adgully: What is the mandate and role of the Transparency Panel at TAM? Can you enlighten our readers on this?

Chintamani Rao: The key word is transparency, and our role is like that of an Ombudsman. The Transparency Panel has no executive role or authority. It is an external advisory body to address stakeholders' issues. We will engage with TAM management as well as with its external stakeholders, taking initiatives based on suo moto cognition of issues as well as responding to issues raised by stakeholders, both internal and external.

AG: How do you view the recent broadcasters move to unsubscribe TAM data? They have issues for quite some time now?

CR: Very unfortunate. Withdrawing does not help address issues. While they may choose to do without it for their own content planning, audience measurement data is integral to the television marketing process. The advertisers and their agencies -- ISA and AAAI -- have made it clear that they will continue to use TAM data. If you don't subscribe to it, you will be the only one who does not have the data on the basis of which planners and buyers evaluate your channel in relation to your competition. On what basis do you negotiate and justify your rates?

On the whole, my own approach to issues is to take a constructive, problem-solving approach rather than a confrontational and adversarial one, but that's my style.

AG: How can Transparency Panel play a role in resolving this issue?

CR: Well, the very purpose of the Transparency Panel is to help resolve these issues, by taking an informed but objective third-party view and advising both TAM and the broadcasters. Now that there is such a body, the constructive course in my view would be to bring the issues to it.

AG: There have been allegations about lack of transparency in the ratings data and the methodologies which many feel are faulty? What steps are being taken to dispel these grievances?

CR: Broad general statements are being made, and have been made before. But I am not aware of any specifics. Again, the Transparency Panel is not a management board. It can address specific issues if you raise them with it.

AG: As an organisation what do you feel are the problems that TAM faces which discharging its core function? How does the committee help in this regard?

CR: Dialogue, under the aegis of an informed, objective third party. That's the role of the Panel, and the best way it can help.

AG: One last question. Overall how effective has been the Transparency Committee in its role? Can you elaborate with one or two examples?

CR: The panel is about six months old. Our intention is to meet once a quarter. We have met twice thus far, in November and April, for three days at a time, and the third next meeting is slated for next month. That, I think, is a pretty good frequency for an international group.

During our first meeting we met with the industry leadership, of both broadcasting and media agencies, to tell them about our role and purpose and to solicit their views.

There is no doubt a lot to be done, but there have been some outcomes already. First, TAM has already appointed a head of security, to deal with panel tampering on the ground. This has been a matter of great concern among many people for a long time, and the only real way to address it was on the ground.

Second, a couple of months ago, at the instance of the Transparency Panel, TAM issued guidelines on data usage. Audience measurement, like all market research, is only a sample survey and as such suffers from the limitations inherent in all sample surveys. The smaller your category or genre or brand, the greater the limitations. The guidelines were nothing data users did not know before, or at least they were what all data users ought to know, but it was all largely ignored and we thought it was important for TAM to state it clearly, to leave no doubt. As always, there will be those who do it correctly, regardless; and those who don't, regardless, but it was the responsibility of TAM as the data provider to state it clearly.

Third, some broadcasters have approached the Panel with issues, and we are addressing them.