Guest column – L Adimoolam, Publisher of Dinamalar, writes why he thinks the IRS readership survey is flawed and how the deficiencies should be addressed.
I have been observing the industry articles on ABC and the IRS. My understanding is that these are all creating a lot of disruption and a lot of dilution and show the Print Industry in a bad light. Since there are many versions that have come out, I will want to write in my thoughts too, in the hope that when things get clear, my opinion will also be considered so that together we are able to renew the Print media its lost glory.
The malpractice in BARC measurements is still casting doubts among clients and advertising agencies. The advertising industry stands shaken. I would say the irregularities and the weaknesses in the IRS are similar to a scam that has been happening in the newspaper industry.
I have a few doubts that need more clarity:
- Belief in sample surveys as final and not indicative;
- Data extrapolated beyond reality;
- and, Real numbers over samples.
The IRS study has benefitted only the top dailies. This allows for an unlevel playing field as it allows considerable gaps in the industry. It is like the lions and the hyenas. The large publications are the lions, which get a greater part of the advertising spending pie, and the rest are like hyenas, which are to survive on the remains and thereby push most to extinction. Major corrective actions are needed, and if not taken now, then print, as an industry will slowly sink to death.
Let me first begin with the sample survey. My grouse here is that in Print media, this IRS sample survey, by MRUC is accepted as all–conclusive by clients and agencies. I want to draw a parallel here. Look at exit poll results. In the recently concluded results in five states, the poll results were in no way close to the final result. This is not only in India but also worldwide. They are similar to the sample survey of the IRS. Mostly, the survey results should only be indicative and not to be followed as a rule.
Moreover, in my personal interaction with a few media agency professionals, they do not know the sample size of the survey. I have come across individuals who hold responsible positions and are in charge of client’s investments in Print media, not knowing the sample size at least in their region.
For instance, in my region of Tamil Nadu, the sample size is 24,433, now marginally increased. Many do not know if it is individuals or households. If this is the state and then the study results alone are considered conclusive, it does affect the industry at large.
Predominantly, I feel that most of the decisions are taken based on top-of-mind brand recall by many in the industry. These just show how deep a publication’s pocket to market its brand is. This will enable one to get investments at more than a desired price (just my view). Another crucial point is that most of the industry does not know how many questions there are in the IRS questionnaire. Besides, how many questions are there for Print? For everyone’s information (although I am not very sure of this number) only less than 10 questions pertain to print.
When this small sample is extrapolated to a population of 8 crore (80 million), it completely distorts reality. However, this figure is considered conclusive by the agency.
IRS should only cover ABC member publications
For a Readership Survey, ABC should be a required parameter. A publication not in the ABC should not be considered for the readership survey. RNI and CA certifications are not to be considered for the readership survey, as these are the only certified figures based on documents produced by publications and are not minutely audited like in the ABC. We are in a country where US dollars, stamp papers, and court bail orders are faked. I am sure you will agree that it is not difficult for a few publications to fake their documents.
ABC is the foundation on which the Print industry is built. Every other parameter should only try to strengthen the importance and need for ABC. If Readership is computed with Non-ABC Publication circulation this will only be weakening ABC and I am sure this is not the agenda of MRUC.
There was also a lot of hearsay a few years ago in Lucknow when the ABC audit team during their surprise audit check at 4.00 am on a particular day, caught 6,000 to 8,000 copies of the same day’s issue of three major publications, the scrap dealer (Raddhi shop). ABC could do only one edition as they are not the CBI to do searches across all editions simultaneously.
ABC, after considering the report of the surprise check team withheld their circulation figures for the three publications for that period. But unfortunately, within a few days, the IRS released its survey citing these three publications among the top ten in the country. Is this not a mockery of the ABC, or is it a failure of the sample survey?
For today’s survival of a few big players, some are going all out to flout all the rules and derail the past original rules of ABC so that they can show inflated circulation figures to increase advertising revenues. If proper ethics are maintained, this industry will surely exist and growth will be there for all and not only for a few.
In my POV, I feel that ABC and IRS should coexist, but surely the deficiencies of the IRS should be addressed and it should be taken only as an indicative survey and not the only means to go for investment.
I hope my views reach the right ears and let us work together to regain Print’s glory.
First published on 17 March 2025 by e4m. Slightly edited for style and republished by permission of the author. The original article was published with a disclaimer: ‘The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views of exchange4media.com.’
