Scene from Wang Jianfeng's Ancestral Temple. Photo: CFP
Though the idea of strangers bringing gifts of cooking oil, rice or coupons to bribe families into watching certain programs might sound like an absurd scene out of a TV show, it's a slice from reality.
Sample families are selected by research agencies to track TV shows through audience measurement, a method to indicate the popularity of a program. But problems arise when TV stations attempt to influence the data through various means.
Wang Jianfeng, a producer of Ancestral Temple, wrote on his Sina Weibo early this month that he was approached by a man surnamed Deng. The man, an employee at a Xinjiang-based television research company, promised Wang high ratings in exchange for payment.
Wang said he was offered a two-day free trial. The ratings for Ancestral Temple climbed sharply in the two days, leading him to suspect that the company manipulated the data with CSM Media Research, the only authorized agency measuring audience viewership in China.
Both CSM and Wang reported that they would take the matter to court, starting a national discussion over manipulated TV ratings.
Amid speculation, Deng wrote on his Sina Weibo on Sunday, admitting that while he has gifted sample families, he has never tampered with numbers.
Profit-driven results
Though the case is complicated, Wang's disclosure is not the first. In June, Zhang Yibei, a producer at Hunan Satellite TV claimed that the low ratings for her network over the first six months of 2012 was the result of other TV stations tampering with the ratings.
Manipulating ratings is driven by profit. The ratings for a program refer to the proportion of viewers that watch the program out of an aggregate number. These ratings are used as a way to attract advertisers and increase revenues.
"The price of advertising during a program is decided by its ratings," Yin Hong, a professor at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times.
Take The Voice of China, a reality-based talent show. Its rating climbed from 1.5 percent to 3.34 percent in the first four episodes. The price of advertising soared from 150,000 yuan ($23,566) to 360,000 yuan every 15 seconds.
As Wang revealed, the company made him believe his show would be one of the top 10 programs nationally, based on audience ratings, as long as he shelled over the money.
As many insiders noted, such transactions have mutual benefits.
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."