Cases and consequences
The calculation of ratings is based on data gained either through handwritten diary accounts or an electronic measuring apparatus connected to the TV sets of the sample families.
Li Zhenguo, an expert in the TV industry and the author of TV Directors, told Global Times that the samples can be "polluted" through bribery, rewards or targeted publicity.
"TV stations can hire private detectives to track down staff at research agencies to get the addresses of the families," Li explained.
They can also bribe senior authorities at rating agencies to directly change the data or select families with obvious preferences, Li said. "This is done by intermediary institutions or covert organizations and individuals."
The rating decides not only the advertisement price but also a program's fate. A quality program could be cancelled for low ratings, while a bad show may occupy prime time slots for its high but falsified ratings.
Cui Yongyuan, a respected CCTV host, agrees with Wang. Cui posted on his Sina Weibo that judicial departments should intervene.
Cui's previous talk show Tell It Like It Is was reportedly cancelled in 2009 due to low ratings.
Li Zhenguo said that false ratings could endanger the whole industry.
"The core of the industry will be corrupted. There will be no way to judge the value of a program. Then what matters is not the quality of programs but the ability in generating fraud ratings," he said. "Advertisers are the direct victims. Fraud ratings result in wasted investment."
Yin Hong said that audiences also suffer, as the receiver of the programs.
Setting standards
In recent years, the rating system has been criticized for its rampant fraud, lack of proper supervision and CSM's monopoly in the industry.
In 2005, Cui said, "The viewer rating [system] is the root of all evil." His words are echoed in this new round of denunciation over fraud ratings. "
The market in China now lacks regulation," said Yin Hong.
China began researching ratings in 1986 when CCTV took a nation-wide sampling survey.
In the 1990s, research developed rapidly with the expansion of TV stations and channels. Industry insiders recognized the importance numbers played in advertisers determining which TV programs have the greatest outreach.
"The key is to find solutions, rather than question the rationality of ratings or doubting the whole research industry," Liu Yannan, a professor at Communication University of China told Xinmin Evening News.
Before a better and objective evaluation system comes out, ratings are still the "hard currency" in TV industry, despite distrust.
"It is necessary to add research agencies in the market," Li said, adding that before ACNielsen drew out of China's market in 2009, fake ratings were not as severe.
There are signs of improvement. Last year, CCTV initiated a new evaluation system in which experts and professional selections were used as evaluation methods besides ratings.
A new national standard is reportedly under discussion and is receptive to input from insiders to ensure fairness, transparency and accuracy.
Li Zhenguo is cautiously optimistic. "The key is whether the [national standard] will be accepted by advertisers."
Yin called for intervention from higher authorities. "In China, people risk less [than in the West] for breaking the market law."
Source: Global Times
Print
Save