More TV Ad Inventory, More Brand Choices: But Who Asked for More Ads?

Television has just been given more room to sell advertising. 

But that does not necessarily mean advertisers will spend more on it. 

The government has removed the long-standing 12-minute-per-hour advertising cap, giving broadcasters greater freedom to decide how much commercial time they want to sell. For an industry that has argued for years that the restriction limited monetisation, the move is clearly positive. 

But Elara Securities estimates that the change could increase overall television advertising revenue by only 1–3%. 

The reason is more important than the number. 

Television's problem is no longer simply a lack of advertising inventory. It is weakening advertiser demand and audience fragmentation. 

That makes the cap removal less of a television growth story and more of a test of whether broadcasters can monetise their existing audiences better. 

The advertisers are already moving 

The broader advertising market does not suggest that brands have stopped spending. 

Quite the opposite. 

According to the FICCI-EY Media & Entertainment Report 2026, India's advertising market continued to grow in 2025, while digital advertising jumped 26% to ₹94,700 crore, accounting for nearly two-thirds of total advertising revenue. Digital also became the largest segment of India's media and entertainment industry, crossing ₹1 lakh crore for the first time. 

That distinction matters. 

The problem is not that advertising demand has disappeared. The problem is where that demand is going. 

Brands have more options today: YouTube, social media, OTT, connected TV and other digital video formats. These platforms offer targeting, measurement and optimisation that traditional television cannot always match. 

So television is no longer competing only with other channels. 

It is competing for the same advertising rupee across the entire video ecosystem. 

More inventory does not create more demand 

A broadcaster can add two more minutes of advertising to an hour. 

It cannot make a brand increase its budget. 

That is the fundamental problem with assuming that removing the cap will automatically unlock significant revenue. 

Elara estimates TV AdEx declined at around a 4% CAGR from ₹31,300 crore in CY21 to ₹26,300 crore in CY25. Pay-TV households also declined at roughly 4% annually between FY20 and FY25, falling to around 104 million. 

So broadcasters are being given more inventory at a time when their traditional audience base is under pressure. 

The question for advertisers is therefore not how much more inventory TV can produce. 

It is whether that inventory can deliver incremental audiences worth paying for. 

And the old cap was not equally restrictive 

The 12-minute ceiling also did not represent the commercial reality across the entire television industry. 

News channels, which account for around 7–8% of TV AdEx, already typically carried 16–18 minutes of advertising per hour, according to Elara. Some regional channels were also operating above the old limit. 

Sports, meanwhile, accounts for around 22–24% of TV AdEx, but has limited room to add advertising without disrupting live events. 

The larger opportunity, Elara believes, lies in regional GECs and free-to-air channels, which together account for roughly 25–30% of TV AdEx. 

That is where the additional inventory could have the greatest commercial impact. 

But even there, advertisers will decide how much of it is actually valuable. 

More supply could mean better deals 

This is where the change could work in favour of brands. 

If broadcasters increase inventory faster than advertiser demand, they will have to compete harder for the same budgets. 

That could put pressure on advertising rates and give advertisers greater negotiating power. 

Elara explicitly factors pricing dilution into its estimate. It assumes that around 25% of TV AdEx could benefit from the change and generate 5–10% net incremental revenue after pricing pressure. That produces only a 1–3% overall industry uplift. 

For advertisers, that could create opportunities to negotiate additional spots or better effective rates. 

But there is a catch. 

Cheaper inventory is not necessarily better inventory. 

More spots do not necessarily mean more reach 

Consider a simple media plan. 

A brand already reaches a consumer five times through television. If it buys another spot and reaches the same person again, it has bought more frequency, not necessarily more audience. 

That distinction becomes increasingly important as TV viewing fragments. 

The FICCI-EY report says television still reaches around 745 million people, showing that it remains a mass medium. But digital has become the largest M&E segment, while digital advertising continues to grow rapidly. 

The implication for advertisers is clear. 

TV still offers scale. 

But the next rupee spent on TV has to compete against the next rupee spent on digital video, connected TV or social. 

The question is no longer simply: 

“How many spots can I buy?” 

It is: 

“What incremental reach am I getting from the next spot?” 

There is another risk: clutter 

Broadcasters now have the freedom to increase advertising loads. 

If they all do so aggressively, television could become more cluttered. 

That may increase short-term revenue per viewer but weaken the viewing experience over time. 

And there is already evidence that the advertiser base on TV has been under pressure. The FICCI-EY report found that the number of advertisers using television fell from 8,477 in 2023 to 7,275 in 2025, while the number of brands advertising on TV declined from 13,381 to 11,394 over the same period. 

That is a significant signal. 

Advertisers are not disappearing. They are reallocating. 

The challenge for television is to make itself competitive enough to win those budgets back. 

The winners will not be equal 

The cap removal will benefit some broadcasters more than others. 

Elara estimates that FY28 advertising revenue could rise by around 4.5% for Sun TV Network and 2% for Zee Entertainment. 

Broadcasters with strong regional audiences and attractive programming may be better positioned to sell the additional inventory. 

But this remains an incremental opportunity, not a structural fix. 

It does not reverse declining pay-TV households. 

It does not stop audiences from moving to digital video. 

And it does not automatically increase advertiser demand. 

It simply gives broadcasters another tool to monetise the audiences they already have. 

What should brands watch? 

For advertisers, the next phase should be watched through three numbers. 

Rates: Does more supply translate into better effective pricing? 

Reach: Does additional inventory deliver new consumers or simply more frequency? 

Clutter: Does a heavier advertising load affect programme audiences and engagement? 

The answers will determine whether the removal of the cap becomes a genuine opportunity for brands or simply puts more inventory into an already competitive market. 

Television has finally got what it wanted: the freedom to sell more advertising. 

But the bigger question is whether it can give advertisers a reason to buy more. 

Because India's advertising market is still growing. 

The money is there. 

The fight is over where that money goes.