1. MEDIA FRAGMENTATION
AND THE COEXISTENCE OF
MARKET INFORMATION
REGIMES
Simultaneous use of two television ratings systems
in India
Media Management and Economics Division, AEJMC 2012, Chicago
Harsh Taneja, PhD Candidate
Media, Technology and Society Program
Northwestern University
harsht@u.northwestern.edu
Twitter:@harsht

2. Study Overview
Question: Are markets for audience measurement natural
monopolies?
Approach: An ethnographic study of ratings producers and
consumers in a media market with two television ratings providers
Contribution: Identification of conditions wherein multiple
providers can exist in media markets

3. Audience Measurement Markets: Extant View
• “Market Information Regimes” (Anand and Peterson, 2000)
• Convert the audience into an “institutionally effective” coin of
exchange between advertisers and media owners (Ettema and Whitney,
1994)
• Provided by a neutral third party entity for unbiased estimates
• Outcome of consensus between various actors involved
• Huge costs of establishment
Audience Measurement Providers tend to be natural
monopolies – e.g., Nielsen television ratings in the US
• Often contested, but contests reinstate a monopoly (Buzzard, 2002)

4. Contests between Audience Measurement
Firms
Changes in
Need to Adapt
Audience
Measurement
Behavior
Entry Resistance by
of Compete
Existing Firm (s)
Competitors
Single
Measurement
Provider
Reinstated

5. Audience measurement industry not a natural
monopoly
• Ratings markets have provided “opportunities for
product substitution” (Furchtgott-Roth, Hahn, & Layne-Farrar, 2007)
• Multiple players can thrive if market participants support
• Single provider situation not attributable to market failure
• Consequences of increasing media fragmentation
• A larger subscriber pool (Taneja & Mamoria, 2012)
• Differing needs of different stakeholders
• “A basket of currencies” than a single measurement provider
(Napoli, 2011)

6. What Has Not Been Explored?
 When data from multiple measurement systems
are in circulation, how do participants make use
of information from competing systems?
◦ Do content and advertising functions, niche vs mass
outlets etc. use ratings differently?
 Reason: Most studies focus on an institutional
level of analysis
◦ Need to focus at a the level of individuals and
organizations who use audience information

7. Television Audience Measurement in
India
 India has 120 million pay TV households and 650
channels ( from 1 in 1991 and 50 in 2001)
 Before 2005: Weekly Ratings by TAM ( a Nielsen
Subsidiary) the only ratings service in the market
 2005: Entry of aMAP as an overnight ratings service
 2005 -2012: Both TAM and aMAP circulate in the market
 Systems similar on all aspects except frequency of
reporting

8. Method: Semi Structured Interviews
 15 Interviews with Industry Professionals
◦
Programming Function
 7 Research Managers at Broadcasters
◦ Advertising Function
 4 Media Planners and Buyers
 1 Advertising Manager at a consumer goods company
 2 Advertising Sales Professionals
◦ Measurement Service Providers
 2 Business Managers ( 1 each at TAM and aMAP)
 Interviews in two markets that contribute to most
of the nation’s media production as well as
advertising spends

9. RQ1a: Which organizations subscribed to
either TAM, aMAP, or both ?
 TAM unequivocally accepted as the advertising currency
◦
Used by all broadcasters and advertising agencies
 aMAP used by select broadcasters in programming
functions alone
◦ Initial uptake by new broadcasters who used it during launch
◦ Some broadcasters lapsed, others continue to use it
◦ Not subscribed by majority of agencies

10. RQ1b: Why certain organizations subscribed to
aMAP, when TAM was recognized as the sole
industry currency?
 aMAP used exclusively to boost performance on TAM
◦ Overnight data which helps them react faster
◦
Make changes in schedules, intensify promotions
◦ Have devised ratios to convert TAM to aMAP
 Other players were unable to deal with divergence; resisted
a second system
◦ Executives have informal access to aMAP through peers

11. RQ2: How did executives in programming and
advertising functions use either or both TAM and aMAP
in their jobs?
Programming Network
Advertising Trading Performance
 TAM sole system used aMAP  Subscribers to TAM and
numbers good to know aMAP
 Deals made weeks in advance • Use aMAP to improve
 Last minute alterations not performance on
TAM
viable - full inventories
• Access restricted to research
 Lack of market maturity for
teams
dealing with daily numbers  Subscribers to just TAM
• Gain informal access to aMAP
numbers

12. RQ3: Did each of TAM and aMAP perceive
the other as direct competitor ?
• TAM and aMAP did not perceive each other as competitors, but
as complements
• TAM viewed aMAP as a complementary system that broadcasters
used as an additional research tool
• Saw no need to convert to an overnight ratings regime
• aMAP saw newer opportunities in Set Top Box based
measurement as market was digitizing fast

13. Discussion: Coexistence of Audience
Measurement Providers
1.Market fragmentation catalyzed the entry of a
parallel system
2.Market supported multiple audience measurement
systems as they met different stakeholder needs
• Advertising currency not the sole use of ratings
3.Systems differentiated on dimensions other than
method of data collection
• Frequency of reporting in this case

14. Conclusion
 Highly fragmented markets can
support multiple audience
measurement systems if they serve
distinct institutional interests

15. QUESTIONS AND
COMMENTS
Harsh Taneja, PhD Candidate
Media, Technology and Society Program
Northwestern University
harsht@u.northwestern.edu