MAM
IPL: Oppo, Vivo, Jio & Amazon ads ruled
BENGALURU: Mobile handsets and mobile services, including data services ruled the air on the channels that broadcast the tenth season of the cricket T20 Indian Premier League (IPL 10 or IPL 2017) according to Broadcast Audience Research Council of India (BARC) for the weeks during which live IPL 10 matches were aired. The number of insertions by the top 10 advertisers and brands during IPL10 were 22.9 percent and 10.4 percent more respectively than the spots booked by the top10 advertisers and brands during IPL 9.
The excitement built up for the event saw IPL 10 recording the highest viewership for the season in week 15 till date for all the Sony Pictures Network (SPN) channels that broadcast the event – the two Hindi Movie channels – Sony Max and two Sports channel’s Sony Six.(English) and Sony ESPN (commentary in Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Hindi).These channels have been collectively termed as IPL10 channels in this paper.
IPL 10 commenced on Wednesday, 5 April 2017. The mega T20 cricket bonanza played by 8 teams comprising of over 200 players including 72 international players concluded with the finals on Sunday, 21 May 2017, after 60 matches (59 played, one washed out) spread over 47 days.
BARC week 14 commenced on Saturday, 1 April 2017 and ended on Friday, 7 April 2017. Three days of play with three matches played happened in week 14. The event concluded in the beginning of week 21 – only one match –the final, was played during that week. Ten matches were played during each of BARC weeks15, 16 and 18. Nine matches were played in weeks 17 and 19 and seven planned for week 20, with just one in week 21 as mentioned above.
A total of 21,964 insertions were made by the top 10 advertisers during IPL 10 on the channels that aired the event. Last year the top advertisers had 17,870 spots on these channels.55.6 percent (12,223 insertions) of these spots were booked by two Mobile phone suppliers and two mobile services each – Oppo India (Oppo) was the largest advertiser on the SPN channels during IPL10 with 4,285 insertions followed by Vivo Mobile India Pvt Ltd with3,767 insertions. Mobile and data services provider Reliance Jio Infocomm was the third biggest advertiser during IPL 10 on IPL channels with 2,504 insertions. Vodafone Essar Limited was ranked the seventh biggest advertiser with 1,667 insertions. Please refer to the table below for the 10 largest advertisers on IPL broadcasting channels during IPL 10 weeks.
Oppo split the insertions mainly with two variants of it mobile phone model – Oppo F3 plus, which was the most advertised brand during IPL 10 on the channels that aired IPL 10 with 2,909 insertions and ads that combined both Oppo F3 and F3 plus with 1,376 insertions. The second most advertised brand during IPL 10 on IPL channels was Jio Digital Life with 2,317 insertions. Like Oppo, Vivo split its spots with both variants of it mobile phone – the Vivo V5 and the Vivo V5 plus.Another mobile brand from Micromax – the Micromax Canvas 6 series was the eighth most advertised brand during IPL 10 on IPL channels with 916 insertions. Please refer to the table below for the most advertised brands during IPL 10 and IPL 9.
MAM
Brands push beyond compliance as trust takes centre stage
ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026 spotlights shift from legal checks to credibility.
MUMBAI: In a world where a disclaimer can be legally sound yet socially suspect, brands are learning that compliance may tick boxes but trust wins markets. At the inaugural ASCI AdTrust Summit 2026, a panel on “Beyond Compliance: The New Currency of Trust” unpacked a growing industry reality: the gap between what the law permits and what consumers accept is widening and fast.
Moderated by Meenakshi Ramkumar of National Law School of India University, the discussion brought together leaders across law, marketing and academia to examine how brands must evolve in a digital ecosystem increasingly shaped by scrutiny, scepticism and speed.
Ramkumar set the tone by highlighting a critical shift, advertising today operates in the same digital space that fuels misinformation, scams and fake news, making credibility harder to establish. “The challenge is not just about what brands do, but the broader context of low institutional trust,” she noted, adding that when violations go unchecked, trust erodes not just in brands but in the regulatory system itself.
This vacuum, she said, has given rise to consumer activism from boycotts to social media backlash as a parallel accountability mechanism.
For Amit Bhasin, Chief Legal Officer at Marico, the distinction was clear, legal compliance is non negotiable, but insufficient. “Compliance is the minimum threshold. The real challenge is staying aligned with changing consumer expectations,” he said.
He pointed to how advertising narratives have evolved from traditional depictions of gender roles to more shared responsibilities reflecting a broader societal shift. “Earlier, it was fine to show one person doing the household work. Today, that may not land well. Consumers expect brands to reflect reality,” Bhasin observed.
He also highlighted internal debates where campaigns that may be legally permissible are still rejected for being culturally insensitive, noting that responsible advertising often requires asking uncomfortable questions before the public does.
If compliance is the baseline, reputation is the battlefield.
Bhasin noted that reputational risk has become a far greater concern than legal exposure, particularly in an era where campaigns can be dissected within hours online. “Earlier, a controversial ad might invite a newspaper editorial. Today, within hours, you’re at the centre of a storm,” he said.
Brands, he added, now evaluate campaigns through a dual lens legal viability and reputational vulnerability with the latter often proving more decisive.
From a healthcare perspective, Satish Sahoo of Cipla Health underscored the complexity of operating within fragmented yet stringent regulatory frameworks, spanning drugs, food, cosmetics and Ayush. “Anything under a drug licence is the most tightly regulated,” he said, adding that this necessitates proactive, not reactive, compliance.
He shared an example from the oral rehydration salts (ORS) category, where Cipla resisted the temptation to position products aggressively despite competitive pressure. “Our product is WHO compliant, and our communication reflects that. We chose not to blur the lines, even if others did,” he noted.
The long term payoff, he suggested, lies in credibility built over consistency, not quick wins.
Yet, as Harsha N of National Law School of India University pointed out, even perfect compliance does not guarantee trust. Drawing from historical and modern examples from exaggerated product claims in the 1800s to contemporary environmental and health advertising, he argued that legal frameworks often lag behind consumer expectations. “A brand can be fully compliant and still be perceived as misleading,” he said, citing instances where fine print disclosures fail to reach or convince the average consumer. He added that larger companies carry a disproportionate responsibility to set ethical benchmarks, even in areas where the law remains silent.
The conversation also turned to digital advertising, where the challenge extends beyond content to how ads are experienced. From algorithmic targeting to personalised messaging, brands now operate in an environment where regulation struggles to keep pace with technology.
Sahoo noted that social media has amplified awareness, with influencers and consumers increasingly scrutinising product claims and calling out inconsistencies. “Awareness has gone up dramatically. People are questioning what goes into products and what brands are saying,” he said.
The role of self regulatory bodies such as Advertising Standards Council of India also came under the spotlight.
Harsha acknowledged that while SROs play a crucial role, they are not immune to criticism, particularly around perceived conflicts of interest and enforcement gaps. “SROs have a higher threshold of responsibility not just to interpret the law, but to anticipate societal expectations,” he said.
He added that failures in self regulation often push the burden back onto government intervention, underscoring the need for stronger, more proactive oversight.
One of the more nuanced debates centred on whether building trust comes at a cost. While Sahoo acknowledged that quality and compliance can increase costs, he argued that companies must absorb them as part of their long term strategy.
Bhasin, however, framed the challenge differently not as cost, but as competitiveness in a market where not all players play by the same rules. “The real tension is when others cut corners and you choose not to,” he said.
The panel concluded with a call to embed trust into business metrics.
Sahoo suggested that organisations must go beyond revenue targets to include consumer equity and trust based KPIs, ensuring that ethical considerations are not sidelined in the pursuit of growth. “Trust sounds abstract, but it can translate into measurable consumer equity,” he said.
As the discussion wrapped up, one message stood out: the rules of advertising are being rewritten not just by regulators, but by consumers themselves. In an ecosystem where attention is fleeting and scepticism is high, brands that merely comply may survive, but those that build trust are the ones that endure.
