MAM
IPL season 5 sees drop in ratings and TV ad rev
MUMBAI: The drop in IPL ratings and inability to protect advertising rates has put Multi Screen Media (MSM), the broadcast rights holder, under pressure to take stock of the situation.
The sixth edition of the IPL next year might be even more challenging for MSM as the television viewership for Indian Premier League has refused to go up despite several close encounters and record turnout at the stadium. When the IPL season began this year, Max had just six sponsors who had come on board at last year’s rate of Rs 500,000 per 10 second spot with Karbonn Mobiles being the only addition to the roster.
However, the drop in viewership has led advertisers to ask for a cut in rates. Parle had reportedly bought ad spots for its new cookie brand, Happy Happy, at a 25 per cent discount over the premium of Rs 500,000.
Even late joiners have cut deals at rates that are lower than last year‘s, implying that they are not disturbed advertising on the IPL despite a ratings fall. The sponsors who came on board have also benefited as they got a clutter-free exposure.
Says Reliance Communications head marketing and branding Sanjay Behl, “There was no premium on ad rates for the IPL this year. We are happy with the RoI that we have got on our investment, although there has been an 8-10 per cent reduction in ratings. We had discounted ratings by 20 per cent before making our media plan.”
The company had bought spots to promote Google-endorsed Android smartphone which is being distributed exclusively in India by RComm.
The average viewership of the tournament is 3.27 TVR for 68 matches compared to 3.39 TVR last year, as per Tam data for C&S 4+ All India market. The cumulative reach is 159 million for the current season, less than the 160 million last year.
For the first 57 matches, the average viewership stands at 3.3 TVR while the first 46 matches had notched up 3.4 TVR. The expectation was that the ratings would pick up as the tournament progresses but that has not been the case.
“We will sit down once the event is over and analyse why the viewership has fallen. However, the event has more or less held up compared to last year. It has been the 4 pm matches whose ratings got affected,” says MSM president network sales, licensing and telephony Rohit Gupta. He, however, refuses to give any details about the ad inventory consumption.
MSM has used a chunk of the ad inventory to promote its sister channels including Sony Six, the newly launched sports entertainment channel. The strategy is not to let the rates fall deep as MSM holds the IPL rights till 2017.
Industry estimates place MSM‘s ad revenue from this season of the IPL at somewhere in the range of Rs 7-7.5 billion. In the previous edition, the IPL had fetched MSM Rs 9 billion from advertising. Gupta did not want to talk about the financials at all.
According to a top level executive at a leading media buying agency, the IPL ad rates decreased by 10-15 per cent over the last year and the spot rates remained flat at Rs 425,000-450,000 per 10 second spot.
Another media buyer estimates the broadcaster to earn upwards of Rs 7 billion as it has managed to sell its inventory as the tournament progressed.
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.
