MAM
TV Ad volumes of real estate sector rose by 68% in January-May’22: TAM AdEx report
Mumbai: Ad volumes of real estate category on television rose by 68 per cent during January-May’22 over January-May’20, while the growth was 42 per cent more than the corresponding period last year. According to a TAM AdEx cross media report on the real estates sector, advertising volumes for the category saw an increase of 2.8 times on radio during the period as compared to the same period in 2020, even as advertising space in print medium grew by two times during the same period. Ad insertions of the category on digital medium during the January-May’22 saw a rise of 5.5 times.
On television the top 10 advertisers accounted for over 40 per cent share of ad volumes during the half-yearly period in 2022 with the advertiser Subha Gruha Projects (India) having the greatest ad volumes in the category, with 9 per cent, as per the report. 300 exclusive brands advertised under the category as compared to 2021. 20-40 seconds and greater than 20 seconds ads together added 83 per cent share of the category’s ad volumes, the data indicated.
News genre was the most preferred for the sector in the TV medium, with the genre alone hogging 82 per cent of the category’s ad volumes share followed by general entertainment category (GEC) in the second position. The best three channels got 97 per cent of advertisement volumes’ share for category in January-May ’22.
News Bulletin was the foremost well-known program to advanced properties-real estate category brands on TV, with the top two program genres i.e. news bulletin and interviews/portraits/discussion together adding 66 per cent of the category’s ad volumes.
In the print medium, Kedia Real Estate was the best promoter within the categories with two per cent share of ad space during January-May ’22. The top ten advertisers accounted for 15 per cent share of ad space. Over 6,000 brands were present in print during January-May’22 among which the top 10 brands had 9 per cent share of ad space. During the period, over 4,500 exclusive brands appeared under the properties-real estates category compared to Jan-May’ 21. English dialect was on top with 37 per cent share of ad space with Hindi following close behind with a 31 per cent share.
Meanwhile, Kedia Real Estate was the top advertiser in radio too. The top ten promoters added 25 per cent share of ad volumes amid Jan-May ’22. The top ten brands added 18 per cent to the overall advertising space of the category on radio. Over 590 brands advertised exclusively during January-May’22 over January-May’21.
In digital, the top ten advertisers had 42 per cent share of ad insertions during January-May’22 with Skandhanshi Infra Projects India being on top of the list adding 19 per cent share. Display Ads had more than 98 per cent share of category ad insertions during January-May’22. Also, among the digital platforms, desktop display topped with 57 per cent share of ad insertions followed by mobile display with 39 per cent share, as per the report.
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
