iWorld
FB, Google’s biz approach that of a media content company: GroupM chief
MACAO: When the hundred billion dollar man, GroupM Global Chairman Irwin Gotlieb, says that the role of the media is to create content, it’s time to take notes. When he opines that Facebook and Google are tech companies whose “business approach is that of a media company” that relies on content, it’s more the reason that one should seriously relook at content creators and business strategies.
It’s inevitable that Facebook and Google will get more seriously into content creation, Gotlieb said here, adding that it may not be a very healthy trend considering the power that such companies wield in the digital realm today.
Speaking to former CASBAA Chairman Marcel Fenez during the Opening Keynote at CASBAA Convention 2016 here on Tuesday, Gotlieb held forth on varied media industry trends, including holding the view that the AT&T-Time Warner type of mergers (yet to be ratified by US regulator) are “just tip of the iceberg” in vertical integration, which can take interesting turn as FB and Google seriously get down to such M&A activities.
To buttress his argument Gotlieb said that Google had already started a division to create content to target consumers, while it may be a matter of time before FB also follows the same path. It’s “kind of “inevitable” that both these companies move into content creation too, which may pose a challenge to other industry stakeholders, the GroupM chief said.
Pointing out that both these tech giants were “walled gardens and very protective of the data they have”, Gotlieb, who as the GroupM chief is responsible for generating approximately US$ 100 billion in annual global ad sales, said it may not be a very healthy trend as people need to “see across them to target properly (consumers) to maximise client investments.”
“In the absence of big ideas…it (data) allows us to reach and understand the consumer better,” Gotlieb said, adding, while replying to another question, the measurement of TV as “we understand today is understated as there are alternate devices (to consume media)” available with consumers.
Holding forth on the changing nature and measurement of viewing behaviors, Gotlieb also touched upon how ways to reach audiences via the marketing funnel is the same but a granularity of data can help decision-making for each stage of the funnel.
He underscored how media will continue to play a role and become more targetable, addressable and, eventually, part of the transaction process.
Meanwhile, after Gotlieb had set the trend for the opening day of the CASBAA Convention here, Pricewaterhouse Coopers MD Oliver Wilkinson provided statistics to illustrate that pay TV was not dead despite what the headlines screamed and that it remained a primary form of entertainment.
Still, with digital players increasingly encroaching on the turf of pay TV, content and channel providers should look to diverse their business models and offerings, Wilkinson said.
Doing deals in China was the topic for Bennett Pozil, EVP of East West Bank. He discussed the migration of content both ways as well as some of the pros and cons of doing business in China.
Vivek Couto, Executive Director at Singapore-based market research company Media Partners Asia, flagged the rise of digital players with the forecast that pay TV growth would slow to about 3 per cent as content providers were looking to establish more direct to consumer offerings. However, he admitted that in some markets in Asia like India players had invested heavily in traditional TV infrastructure.
Reaching a vast audience through tailored video and gaming content was the topic for Chad Gutstein, CEO of Machinima, who highlighted that their most valued content was when viewers felt they had a connection to the creation of it.
James Schwab, Co-President of VICE, discussed how their local content policy over digital channels has helped the company grow exponentially over the last few years. The recent move into TV was important for the company as it gave them the ability to invest more in content.
Localized and Asian content was flagged by Henry Tan, COO of Astro, for being one of the main drivers that has seen the provider defy the trend of decline in time spent on TV and reporting healthy growth in this respect. A true understanding of the complexities of the Malaysian audience demographic was key to content that worked for Astro’s market, he said.
Piracy, online or otherwise, cropped up in conversations throughout the day with opinions polarized on whether this would continue to be an issue.
In a session devoted to the subject of content piracy, Avigail Gutman, Programme Director, Operational Security, Cisco, advised that the industry needed to “follow the money” in combating piracy. Lucia Rangel, VP Latin America, Asia Pacific & Worldwide, Game Strategy and Operations, Warner Bros. agreed the problem was global and that `ISD boxes’ formed a critical part of the problem as many consumers were not even aware of the illegality of these and other streaming mechanics. A global effort was needed to fight the pirates, Rangel commented.
Desmond Chan, Deputy GM, Legal and International Operations, TVB, highlighted the tangible impact piracy had already made to their business, while Nickhil Jakatdar of Vuclip talked about how the content provider’s strategy was to provide a better experience than that available from pirate outfits.
Gaming
India’s new online gaming rules take effect today, banning money games and creating a regulator
The rules, in force from today, separate e-sports from gambling and impose jail terms and stiff fines on violators
NEW DELHI: India’s online gaming sector woke up this morning to a new reality. The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026, came into force today, May 1st, turning a year of legislative intent into enforceable law. The message from New Delhi is blunt: e-sports and social games are welcome; online money games are not.
The rules operationalise the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, passed by Parliament in August 2025. Together, they represent the most sweeping regulatory intervention India has made in its booming digital gaming market, one that generated Rs 23,200 crore in 2024 and is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 11 per cent to reach Rs 31,600 crore by 2027. The stakes, in every sense, could not be higher.
A sector out of control
The urgency behind the legislation is not hard to find. An estimated 45 crore Indians have been affected by online money gaming platforms, with losses exceeding Rs 20,000 crore. Addiction, financial ruin, money laundering, and suicides have all been linked to the sector. Seventy-seven per cent of the market’s revenues came from transaction-based games, a figure that made regulators deeply uneasy.
The government’s response, effective as of today, is categorical. Online money games, whether based on chance, skill, or any mix of the two, are banned outright. So is their advertising, promotion, and facilitation. Banks and payment processors are barred from handling related transactions. Unlawful platforms can be blocked under the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
The penalties are designed to sting. Offering or facilitating online money games can attract up to three years in jail and a fine of up to Rs 1 crore, or both. Repeat offenders face a minimum of three years, extendable to five, with fines between Rs 1 crore and Rs 2 crore. Advertising such games carries up to two years in prison and fines of up to Rs 50 lakh, with repeat violations attracting higher penalties still. Cyber cell officers at state and union territory levels, including at police station, district, and commissionerate levels, are empowered to investigate offences.
The new sheriff in town
At the centre of the new framework sits the Online Gaming Authority of India, a digital-first regulator constituted as an attached office of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, headquartered in Delhi. It is chaired by the additional secretary of MeitY and includes joint secretary-level representation from home affairs, finance, information and broadcasting, youth affairs and sports, and law and justice, a deliberately multi-sectoral design built for a complex sector.
The authority’s powers are broad. It will maintain and publish lists of online money games, investigate complaints, issue directions, orders, and codes of practice, hear appeals on user grievances, and coordinate with financial institutions and law enforcement to ensure effective and timely action.
Its decisions on game classification are to be completed within 90 days, a time-bound commitment that industry players have welcomed after years of regulatory ambiguity. Classification can be triggered by the authority acting on its own initiative, by an application from a service provider, or by a notification from the central government. Games will be assessed on objective factors: whether stakes are involved, whether players expect monetary winnings, the revenue model, and whether in-game assets can be monetised outside the game. The outcome is recorded in a determination order specific to the game and provider.
E-sports gets its moment
While the crackdown on money gaming dominates today’s headlines, the rules also carve out a structured path for e-sports and online social games. Registration, required when notified by the central government, applies to all games offered as e-sports and is based on factors including risk to users, scale, financial transactions, and country of origin. A successful application yields a digital certificate of registration with a unique number, valid for up to ten years. Service providers must display registration details, designate a point of contact, comply with data retention requirements, and follow directions on facilitating payments.
Online money games are explicitly ineligible for recognition or registration as e-sports under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025. The separation is deliberate, and the industry has noticed.
Akshat Rathee, co-founder and managing director of NODWIN Gaming, called today’s operationalisation “encouraging,” pointing to publisher-led registration of esports titles and a time-bound determination process as creating “much-needed certainty for all stakeholders.” He added that the “continued emphasis on clearly separating esports from online money gaming is critical in preserving the integrity of competitive gaming as a skill-driven discipline.” He described it as “a proud moment to see official acknowledgement of the broader benefits of responsible esports and gaming, from building confidence, discipline, and teamwork to creating new career pathways for young talent,” and said the framework sets “a strong foundation for the ecosystem to scale in a more structured and globally competitive manner.”
Animesh Agarwal, co-founder and chief executive of S8UL, was equally bullish. “This clarity is critical in unlocking investor confidence and attracting multi-genre brands, while also enabling organisations to take a more long-term view, whether in investing in talent, scaling teams, or building globally competitive formats,” he said, adding that it “strengthens trust among audiences and mainstream stakeholders, positioning esports not just as a sport, but as a fast-growing youth entertainment category in India.”
But Agarwal urged caution on several fronts. There remains limited clarity around financial frameworks, particularly in how esports earnings are treated by banks and financial institutions. A well-defined pathway for the formal recognition or registration of esports teams is still evolving, as are structured player protections. He also called for smoother visa processes for esports athletes competing in international tournaments and for government support in developing infrastructure, including bootcamps, training facilities, and access to high-performance equipment across titles.
Vishal Parekh, chief operating officer of CyberPowerPC India, pointed to downstream effects on education and careers. “With formal recognition and policy backing, colleges and institutions are more likely to take the sector seriously, whether through dedicated esports infrastructure, training programmes, or curriculum integration,” he said, adding that this helps students view gaming as a viable career spanning roles across competitive play, content, game development, and allied industries. He noted that as esports gains prominence in global multi-sport events, the framework strengthens India’s position in international competitive gaming, and called on the ecosystem to provide the right infrastructure and access to high-performance hardware to unlock opportunities in talent development and job creation.
Protecting users, one safeguard at a time
The rules introduce a layered system of user protections calibrated to the risk profile of each game. These include age verification, age gating, time restrictions, parental controls, user reporting tools, counselling support, and fair-play and integrity monitoring. Service providers must disclose their safety features and internal grievance mechanisms when applying for determination or registration.
A two-tier grievance redressal system sits atop these safeguards. Users who are dissatisfied with a platform’s resolution can escalate to the authority within 30 days. The authority aims to dispose of such appeals within a further 30 days. A second appeal lies before the secretary of MeitY, who must also endeavour to resolve matters within 30 days. Enforcement proceedings will be conducted in digital mode wherever possible, with cases targeted for resolution within 90 days from receipt of a complaint.
Penalties under the framework are proportionate, taking into account gain from non-compliance, loss to users, the gravity of the offence, and whether violations are recurring. Mitigation efforts by service providers will also be considered when determining penalties. All penalties imposed under the Act will be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India.
The money follows the rules
For investors and founders, the implications are immediate and significant. Sagar Nair, head of incubation at LVL Zero Incubator, a 100-day sprint designed to accelerate early-stage gaming startups across India, argues that with real-money gaming now prohibited, capital will shift “away from transaction-driven models toward content-led, IP-driven, and global-first gaming businesses.” He acknowledged trade-offs: for operators with exposure to real-money formats, the market becomes more restrictive in the near term. But he argued that by clearly separating esports and non-money gaming from online money gaming, “India is positioning itself as a hub for responsible, creative, and scalable game development.” The opportunity, he said, is “to view India not just as a monetisation-first market, but as a talent, IP, and scale market,” adding that “for founders and investors willing to adapt, this shift could ultimately strengthen India’s position in the global gaming landscape.”
The government frames the wider impact in equally ambitious terms: a boost to India’s creative economy and digital exports, new career pathways for young people, protection for families from predatory platforms, and a stronger voice in global digital governance. India, it argues, offers a model for other countries grappling with the same tensions between gaming’s economic promise and its social risks, one that shows innovation and strong safeguards need not be mutually exclusive.
Whether the framework delivers on those promises will depend on enforcement, always the hardest part. But from today, the architecture is firmly in place: a regulator with teeth, a classification system with deadlines, penalties designed to deter, and a clear dividing line between games that build careers and games that destroy finances. For a sector that has grown fast and governed itself loosely, May 1st, 2026 is the day the free ride ends.
