Why is everyone keeping silent about fake TV ratings?

After the two sessions, the topic of “ratings fraud” was hot, but just like the Wang Jianfeng incident in 2012, there was no follow-up. In 2013, Hunan Satellite TV’s zero ratings also caused a stir, but eventually fell silent.

When this old matter is brought up again, all we get is saliva.

"Ratings" involve the interests of all parties. As part of this large network of interests, market participants should not shoot themselves in the foot. The entire industry has strangely remained silent on this anti-business ethics incident. Although it is sad, there is nothing we can do about it. The question is how long this kind of thing can continue to be crazy.

The distribution and estimation of content value is disrupted

As hard currency, "TV ratings" are, in most cases, the only measure of content value in the traditional media era. They reflect the value of content at the "marketing" and "advertising" levels. Therefore, the supremacy of "ratings only" is, in the final analysis, a monism of content value.

This situation has changed in the new media environment, but due to the complexity of actual operations, this change has become somewhat ambiguous. Among them, the contradictions between two established industry trends and the reality are the root causes of this complexity.

1. The liberalization of channels has diluted the density of traffic on the entire network, and the traffic distribution has also become more complex. The dilemma is that it is increasingly difficult to pool traffic, and the diversion of TV users is becoming more and more serious. Therefore, content ratings are mainly divided into two parts: one is TV ratings; the other is online ratings.

Under this situation, the situation where "TV ratings" was once the only measure of content value should be completely broken, and this method of using "TV ratings" to measure content value should also soon lose its market.

2. The development of the domestic cultural and entertainment industry is providing diversified channels for content realization. For example, first-tier TV stations such as Hunan Satellite TV and Zhejiang Satellite TV are extending the value chain of content to the cultural and entertainment industry. The diversified realization of the value of content has been regarded as the mainstream business trend in the future.

This means that the ratings, which were once the only measure of the value of content, should also be completely rewritten. Under this trend, it is very wasteful for content providers to rely solely on "TV ratings" to realize profits. Logically speaking, the position of "TV ratings" in the television industry, including the content industry, will become increasingly weak.

These two trends essentially indicate that the distribution and valuation of the original value of content have been completely disrupted. In this case, the original standard for measuring the value of content - TV ratings - is indeed no longer applicable.

But the reality is surprising. The development of the industry has not weakened the importance of "TV ratings" in the content business. Instead, due to two specific problems in the development of the industry that cannot be solved in a short time, TV ratings have become more important to all parties in the market. These two problems are also the two bottlenecks in the current development of the industry.

Two bottlenecks in industry development

Compared with TV ratings, network-wide ratings can more accurately measure the value of content. However, network-wide ratings are difficult to measure due to data barriers and complexity. Network-wide ratings calculate the ratings index of content in all channels, but this network-wide index cannot be obtained because it cannot be monitored at the network level.

At the same time, China's online viewing data barriers are serious. For example, several mainstream platforms that generate viewing behavior, such as Youku, iQiyi, and Tencent Video, include WeChat and Weibo, which are influential positions. Because it involves core business interests, no one will share data. Of course, there is no need for moral accusations here. After all, really sharing data, at least at this stage, is a self-destructive approach.

Although Sofres once joined hands with CCTV and Weibo to try to build a new ratings standard, as of now, the "whole network ratings" are far from being formed and have not been truly recognized by the industry. The dilemma is obviously very difficult to solve, at least in a short period of time.

In this case, content providers and advertisers have no choice but to use the old TV ratings standards as the only reference for commercialization. However, the influence of content on the Internet is growing, and although this part of the content influence is valuable, there is a lack of measurement to accurately calculate its value, making it impossible to complete monetization.

On the other hand, facing the continuous decline in ratings, if content providers only use the declining TV ratings, they obviously cannot obtain the full commercial value of the content. (Why would advertisers pay a higher price for content with lower ratings?)

In order to maintain the original monetization efficiency of the content and ensure the smooth output of revenue, it is essential to maintain "ratings" that are equal to the price. Therefore, apart from the inaction of the regulatory level, the content providers use inflated (fake) ratings, which is indeed due to a large part of the industry's own problems. This is also the reason why the entire industry has basically turned a blind eye to the widespread "ratings fraud".

Although the "diversified monetization" of content is regarded as the mainstream of future business, it is achieved through the industrialization of content. The reality is that China's content industry has just started, the investment is far greater than the output, and the diversified monetization is actually very limited.

Despite continuous investment, "diversified monetization" is far from being realized. In order to balance the cost investment as much as possible, the monetization of content at the "advertising and marketing" level is still regarded as the main way to commercialize content. And the commercialization standard at this level has to rely on the original TV ratings when "full network ratings" are difficult to achieve.

Therefore, although the television industry and the content industry have undergone tremendous changes, ratings are still the only thing that guarantees content revenue. As a result, the position of "TV ratings" in the content business and television business has not weakened, but has become more important, so it is not surprising that ratings are faked.

Conclusion: Ratings fraud is essentially a misaligned rebalancing of interests

The reason why this type of fraud is difficult to eradicate is that if the industry completely relies on television ratings to drive business operations, but lacks the value of content on the Internet, advertisers will become the biggest beneficiaries, while content providers will suffer the biggest losses.

The most interesting thing about ratings fraud is whether it means that advertisers are being taken advantage of.

After all, what is calculated based on the TV ratings is only the value of the TV channel. Against the backdrop of the continuous spread of content influence to the Internet, this pricing method is obviously disadvantageous to the content providers.

If the degree of fraud is not so outrageous, the online influence of the content can indeed offset some of the inflated ratings caused by fraud, and to some extent give the content maker some compensation. The reason why the ratings are complicated is that the interests involved are complicated, and it is impossible to say who is really right and who is really wrong.

The special thing about the current stage of ratings fraud is that, in the face of the new media environment's re-evaluation of content value and the re-disruption of value distribution, due to the lack of a principle for redistributing benefits, ratings fraud has essentially become a rebalancing of content benefits (values). Ironically, this anti-commercial ethical balancing method has benefited all parties and led to compromises between them.

It is said that Wang Jianfeng produced more than ten pages of "ironclad evidence" in black and white. In addition to attracting "threatening text messages and emails", even people in the circle avoided him, fearing that he would get into trouble.

Therefore, under the current industry situation, it is almost impossible to suppress or even eliminate TV ratings fraud. TV ratings fraud will continue to be rampant for at least the next 2 to 3 years, and even become more and more serious, because this redistribution of benefits has not really achieved a balance. As for what can be used to save it, at present, it can only be filled with time.

As a winner of Toutiao's Qingyun Plan and Baijiahao's Bai+ Plan, the 2019 Baidu Digital Author of the Year, the Baijiahao's Most Popular Author in the Technology Field, the 2019 Sogou Technology and Culture Author, and the 2021 Baijiahao Quarterly Influential Creator, he has won many awards, including the 2013 Sohu Best Industry Media Person, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Beijing Third Place, the 2015 Guangmang Experience Award, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Finals Third Place, and the 2018 Baidu Dynamic Annual Powerful Celebrity.