 Now, we're moving on to a very interesting segment, one that many of you have been waiting eagerly for. 2020 has been an unforgettable year for the Indian media industry and we all do agree, right, that what does this year, it's been really difficult and what this new year has in store for us, we all would love to know. We believe one man has all the answers and we can't wait to hear so let's invite Mr. Vikram Sakhuja, Group CEO of Madison Media and OOH at Madison World for a fireside chat with the man who knows it all, Mr. Uday Shankar, Entrepreneur and Fiki President. Believe me, this is going to be a really interesting session. Do join in our online conversation using the hashtag PMAR2021 and here I would like to invite Mr. Vikram Sakhuja on screen to take this conversation forward. Thank you so much Khayati. Okay guys, it makes the person that you're going to be bringing in front of you, he's broken the glass ceiling for all journalists to not only head a news channel, but he's also gone on then to most famously and brilliantly lead India's largest sports and entertainment network. And from there, of course, he went on to become the 21st century Fox's APEC head and then as a transition to a Disney company he was leading that. Now he's pivoted into a completely interesting and exciting new area of being an entrepreneur and of course he is our current Fiki President. He's an absolute visionary, an iconoclast, one of the boldest decision makers that I know and a chap who definitely calls a spade a spade. It's an absolute pleasure and privilege to welcome him on this entire dais, Uday Shankar. Hi Uday, I can see you've got a Fiki branding behind you. Anything for some free advertising? I've learned it from you and sample Sarah Vikram. Okay, we've got a lot to cover, so I'm going to dive right in and really, really looking forward to the session. Okay, let's start big picture. I think you're the first media professional to lead Fiki. What do you think can be advertising and media's role in shaping the entire commerce and industry? It's a great question, very interesting one, Vikram. And first of all, thank you very much for having me here. Delighted to be part of this conversation and always a great experience to get into a conversation with you, whether it is formal or informal. I've always enjoyed our serious exchange of views, we both believe in what we say. So thank you for having me, even though I've exited media as an executive and professional. But to answer your question, I think we have somehow punched under our weight in media and entertainment as far as the larger role in in in making economic contribution to the country is concerned. Also, in terms of playing a role in building the brand India, media and entertainment can play a big role. And I think we have not and I'm not blaming media. I think the country as a whole needs to be aware of that country as a whole needs to to to understand how to leverage the power of that. I mean, if you look at brand US, just imagine the role that Hollywood has played before, you know, I think it'll be tough to describe that what, you know, what went global first, the American way of life, or the Hollywood way of life and Hollywood content without Hollywood, it is anybody's guess, whether we would have internalized as much of America and accepted it as seamlessly as we have today in in in, you know, across the world from the developed part of the underdeveloped part from democracy to totalitarian regime, the one thing which everybody has internalized is this American way, we may disagree with politics, we may disagree with a lot of American issues, but the American way of life. And I think that that's the role that media and entertainment can play in building brand India. And that comes with massive economic upside for the sector and for the country, because there are very few countries who have the strengths potential strengths that we have in India, in terms of our heritage of storytelling, rich cultural tapestry, the diversity nuances of our culture, and our ability to tell great stories traditionally. On top of that, today, as the world has gone is getting disrupted by technology. We also have, you know, one of the strongest and most sort of broad based technological infrastructure in the country are engineering talent or capability to, you know, visualize globally, Indian engineering talent is what is powering the technological advances. We should be able to do that here. But unfortunately, we haven't done that so far. But I think there is there is a huge opportunity for us to do that. Great. So today's forum is one of actually talking the addicts in advertising. Now, specifically, the advertising and marketing sector for the longest time has been hovering at is about 0.3% of the GDP for developed countries. I mean, of course, you took the Hollywood example, but purely from an advertising standpoint, why do you think that has been the case out here? And what does it take to really stimulate addicts as a share of GDP? Again, it's a it's a very good question. The answers are not easy to come by, but I'll tell you what my view on this is that first and foremost, we are still in early stages of building the culture of advertising, advertising as a as an intrinsic part of a business enterprise. It is still considered, first of all, big company's game, it is still considered, you know, something that that you it's nice to do. It's also there is a little bit of understanding in traditional entrepreneurs minds that it is it's a bit of a vanity play. It's not seen yet by large across the board, you know, from big corporates, of course, it's very established, but as you go down the pop startup of business, you know, it's still not seen as something that's an essential tool of your business of, you know, building your brand is is a is a strategic labor of creating value and getting getting market share, getting creating a premium, premium share of the segment. Those things are still not widely established. And I think we as media professionals across the buy and sell side, we haven't done a great job of of evangelizing, you know, if you look at the number of brands that advertise in India, that that number is still really, really small. It's become it's grown dramatically because of digital penetration that has come in. But if you look at traditional media, TV, print and radio, etc, that number is really small for a country of the size and diversity of India. Until you do that, and until we all go, you know, just selling inventory and buying inventory is certainly not the best way of participating in the economic value creation that's going on. I think media can play a much, much deeper and larger role. The problem is that it's my community and, you know, whatever I am today, I owe it to the, you know, to the community of media and media persons. So with full gratitude, if I can say, we have, we have taken, you know, we've been somewhat short-sighted. We have, we have undersold ourselves that, you know, we have run our businesses. We are extremely competitive within our own narrow set, you know, even to the extent of destroying value for one another. But we haven't, you know, we haven't gone ahead and painted a larger vision for, for the world and created essential space for the community of media and entertainment in that larger world, in that larger vision. And that is where the big problem is. I completely agree. Now, as we are seeing, and you, you mentioned that some of the growth, a number of advertisers are coming through digital. Over the times years, we've seen that print used to have roughly about two lakh advertisers, two to three lakh digital also has about three, four lakh TVs and maybe 10 to 15,000 range and so on and so forth. Now these are the kind of numbers that we're talking. The growth momentum, of course, is right now all behind TV and digital. At this point, do you believe that this sort of momentum or this kind of trend is going to continue? And will some of these other mediums like print and maybe print radio will out of home, probably not, but will these really die out as we see in some of the other markets? Or do you see a sustaining power to them? Look, I think these are tough days ahead for a lot of, you know, a lot of segments like print and out of form and radio, etc. They've been devastated during COVID. I don't read too much into that devastation. You know, and I don't really, you know, I saw this really, really deep and comprehensive presentation by Sam and the data is, you know, scary. But I think that will pass. But I have always believed that each crisis just, you know, manifests itself on individuals and businesses and only brings out the latent strengths and weaknesses during the crisis. The crisis is the best sort of spotlight for the latent weaknesses and strengths. And I think what we see with print is, of course, distribution of papers was disrupted and there was no advertising happening. So you see those contractions. However, it was already a trend that just got amplified dramatically. And if you're not seeing the bounce back as dramatic as you're seeing in, you know, something like, let's say TV, and I have view on TV. But if you see that, it's primarily because the businesses, you know, I mean, the newspaper business in this country has been built entirely on the back of advertising. That is a suicidal way to build a business. If you have two streams of revenue, why would you go and kill one stream of revenue? Just imagine a three-year-old could tell you it's not an act of genius. And for 30 years in this country, we hail those entrepreneurs and managers who pushed that line of strategy as amazing visionaries. Because in the short term, it worked for them. In the long term, everybody is dead. So this is, this is, this is really, really, I don't understand this. I, that's that's a great segue you're giving me. So I'll come to your subscription versus advertising bit in a second. But you also said you had a view on TV. Let's hear that. So again, the same on, you know, the view about TV, TV has done in the last 20 years, it has done better than most of the segments. And I think TV has created a national market for content and more than that for advertising that that's pretty commendable. I have to say that Star played a key role in that. But the other television networks are the bigger ones in particular. And some of the, you know, some of the stronger regional networks have played a very big role in that. However, TV has two problems. You know, I think the first problem is television creativity has, has a lot of ground to catch up. You cannot have shows that premiered, you know, reality or game shows that premiered 20 years ago. Still, if they're still leading shows on your network, there is a problem. That it's just a simple problem of inadequate creativity. You, you know, television still does, you know, good content, but we all complain about regulation, FDI restrictions, et cetera. You know, foreigners not being welcome. But a lot of segments have been just kept alive because of those restrictions. If, if it was full flesh global competition that we see in many other sectors of many sectors of media would have died. You know, I don't even understand what happens in radio. You know, why it just, there are literally times when the same song is playing across multiple stations, you keep switching, you don't listen to the song, you keep switching and you keep getting the same song. And when you, you know, it's not because it's probably the best song or the, or, or, or, you know, a song that the whole nation was listened to, it's because it's the song that's available cheapest, if not free. Now, there is a serious creativity problem or content problem in media in general, in TV, in print, in radio, et cetera, et cetera. The other problem is that we still, you know, we are still not very, you know, we're not building brands, again, the same issues that, you know, there is not enough distinction that we are creating between channel A and channel B. There are, there are sectors where it's automatically happening because like sports, you know, it's available exclusively on one channel, but by and large, there is, there is a huge problem of that. And now, the third thing is that when you're getting, you know, the world has moved, the world of content has moved from being just a creative business. And I think, as I told you that I believe that our creative, you know, agenda needs to step up, but the world has moved from, the world of media has moved from being just a creative business to a business of creativity and technology. And by and large, media companies, no offense, my friend, but by and large media companies think changing a bulb is the climax of technological skills. We have, you know, we set up a business that's the last time we want to see an engineer or a technology guy come and set up my sets, put the lights on, make sure that in TV teleprompter works, the rotary machine works and get the hell out of my life. That's not working. You know, a complete creative experience requires you to leverage the power of technology. And if you do that, and I'm not saying that technology just even in building, you know, look at the amount of technology that goes in creating visual content, it can scale up a great deal. And if you do that, it's a great business model. You can open up new markets, smaller countries like Korea, like Turkey, they are exporting content globally and creating a sustainable economic model through that. And a country like India is not able to, you know, our content does not generally travel even from one state to another. So let's take the TV point to a logical conclusion. So today, let's say there are about 880 million people watching TV, you've got about maybe 450 million people watching YouTube, and then you've got maybe about 120 million watching the other OTT platforms are now in a complicated way. Assuming that there is more creativity and tech happening in both YouTube and all the OTTs, are you saying that this number will dwindle for TV in favor of the other platforms? You know, look, you must understand one thing. One of the great advantages TV has is that it's also supplying a lot of content to streaming services. So there is, you know, that, and that because you're creating that content and monetizing it across two screens, it creates a certain advantage. But I think we are coming to, you know, and the other big advantage that television has is that it's really cheap, you know, I think to get a whole suite of entertainment, sports, movie and news channels for anything from 150 to 250 rupees in this country is still possible. And that gets you the basic content. So that, that I think is a huge advantage. And that also keeps the pressure artificially high on streaming services, because you know, when you're pricing content for subscribers, you have to keep in mind the competitive environment. And if TV is so cheap, streaming services can only be so expensive, you know, so that is an advantage that TV has. But I don't see how it will be sustainable forever. So unless we change the creative game and really bring in high quality talent, make the right investments and create content that travels beyond our immediate geography that we create content for, there is a problem. And then there's this whole issue of building brands, you know, whether everybody, I mean, you know, whether it is the production house as a brand, you know, Hollywood is as much known for its celebrity talent as it is known for its celebrity or well-known production studios. So we have an opportunity to do all that. If we don't do that, I think we will, we will struggle. Okay. Now, on the other part that you're talking about between advertising versus subscription, what exactly is your, you've done the consumers pretty well. Are they going to, how much are they willing to pay for content, if anything? I mean, we, of course, print is horribly subsidized. We'd love to see them, but how much is the capacity of a consumer to pay for a newspaper, then pay for a TV subscription and then, or a DTH or a cable subscription and so on and so forth and the OTTs and all the other platforms. So, Vikram, I think, what would be your sort of advice that you would give to how a person would actually spend his money, the consumer would spend his money, how can monetize subscription? So first of all, look, we are in mass media and both the words are equally important, media as well as the mass. So you need to have a proposition that allows you to be attractive to the largest section of people. I totally get that. However, everything doesn't need to be sold to everyone. By definition, Mercedes sells much less than a Maruti, but a Mercedes makes money on each car that it sells and so does Maruti. Some people play the volume game, some people play the premium game and we should be able to do that as well. I think not doing that is a mistake. So everyone just going after everybody, as a result of that, your capacity or your desire to pay or openness to pay for content is very different from somebody who doesn't have the same background. So I totally get it that people who are just coming into the formal media consumer groups, only recently from small towns, villages, etc., people with limited income and limited exposure, you should create cheaper products for them that they can afford. But there has to be an agenda, almost continuous agenda to get everybody up the value cycle. This is how everybody succeeds in business, that you bring in new consumers and you continuously get, you know, sort of upgrade that consumer in terms of their ability to pay. And they will pay, consumers are willing to pay a great deal. In fact, often in my experience, consumers go an inch more or stretch a little bit more in order to pay for what they originally set out to pay. Provided and it's a big provided, they see a value proposition. But as I told you that, you know, the content that by and large, you see across our TV channels or in our newspapers or on our radio channels, there's really no, you know, not that much more Sorry, correct. There's a lot of sameness to it and it's about time. You know, Asian consumers, I've seen across the board from, you know, across my during my experience of running Asia Pacific, I've seen Asian consumers to be very value conscious. I can't talk about consumers in other market, but here, but value conscious doesn't mean that they're reluctant to pay. They want value for money. And we are, you know, we've not done enough in doing that. Got it. Now just I want to move to measurement before I do that. On the language front, there was a time when mass media or media and India, especially TV, and even print for that matter was driven by, well, print was driven by English at one point in time. And then of course, then of course, Hindi was what the TV part was. But increasingly, the regional play has sort of taken hold. In fact, you've had a huge role to play as you started the regionalization of star a decade back or close to. And if tomorrow, you're going to be coming out with some platform or media could get into any content or platform, which language would you bet on? Look, I'm a big believer in local languages or local languages. Why would you just because we were ruled for 200 years by the British, why this fascination to create a business model that is dependent on English, I don't understand. Those days are gone. And you know, look, I came to start. I did my bit in driving it into regional markets. But stars philosophy was very clear, you know, Fox, which was their new score was very clear that they came in as a premium English content provider. But very quickly, they pivoted and they went into Hindi, because that was the most attractive language by the size of population. And it worked really well launch of star plus. But it's a so I think, you know, you're in that position in India, where you can go pick up really any language and create a massive business. But the question is, can you go and disrupt these status quo in that business in that in that market? And that is where the problem if you're going to be offering the same kind of content, the same proposition that six other players have had, then what's the point? Then you're not going to be able to create my so, you know, we I can give you one example that we went and you know, my first acquisition in star was this small channel in a small market called Kerala. And the channel was called Asian it. And we at that time, everybody thought that, you know, I was stupid. But that stupid that stupidity has really worked brilliantly for us, because that channel has created so much value in the core market. And it has given us an ability to to compete and win in most markets in South India. So it's not about what you which market you go to, I mean, you know, the the joy of 135 per hour population is that you could find enough number of people interested in any business that you create. Question is, can you create a great business in the area that you've chosen to? Great. Okay, now, I want to talk briefly on measurement, because I don't know whether you caught Sam's piece towards the end, when he's giving advice to advertisers. And we've clearly 2020 has been, we moved two steps back when it's come to TV measurement, it's come to print measurement, it's been a complete halt. And of course, digital measurement continues to not have any industry sort of sort of measurement kind of thing. What would be your demand, both as Fikki president and as Uday Shankar on this entire aspect of measurement and would the two be same demands be same or would they be different? Look, as Fikki president, I am not sure what the demand should be, but I think they won't be different. You know, one thing about me that I do not speak in different voices, what you what I believe as an individual is what I believe as in my official capacity. So I'll tell you what, first of all, you know, it was really heartening to see Sam say, a GRP is not a GRP or a CPRP is not a CPR. We finally, you know, I think my job in media has been done, because I was I said, I kept saying this for 15, 20 years. And the fact that Vikram Sakuja and Sam Balsara have come around to that view, and it's being officially blessed at Pitch Madison Report and we is a matter of great satisfaction, because a GRP or a CPRP is not just a CPRP. There are CPRPs and there are CPRPs. Number one. I mean, you managed to get an inflation in a deflationary year, you got inflation on an IPL rate to well over 11 lakhs for 10 seconds. That tells you that consumers rather advertiser see a GRP is not a GRP. Exactly my point, you know, they are not, but you have to create a proposition. If people were star for content, IPL was bound to be great. And I have to say that, you know, my erstwhile company and my colleagues in star sports, they did a absolutely outstanding job of producing the IPL. So there was consumer satisfaction. And I think we charged a lot of money. And advertisers paid and I'm delighted that we were we were able to deliver on whatever they paid. So a GRP is not a GRP. But most important thing is that a sample based measurement Vikram was always a suboptimal solution. And it was limited by the technology available in the time. Today, when there is it is possible to accurately measure the whole universe and not just a sample. Why would you not do that? And if you are not doing that, there is always you're leaving yourself exposed to you're leaving yourself exposed to all kinds of distortions. That's that's the real issue. There was a time when you could not get real time data, etc. So, you know, you picked up some sample and you collected data manually from there, and you did that, that was fine. The world was a different place before that, people maintained a diary or what they watched, it was as, you know, as basic as that. But today, you should be able to measure the whole universe. The second thing that I have, and it's a controversial point, and I'm not sure I, you know, whether Fikki would like would would would endorse this point. So I'm making this in my personal capacity. Why do we need a community rating system, this tribal behavior of measuring content is is really totally, you know, again, is a legacy of the past. When it was so complicated, complicated, complicated to measure data, etc. that we all went and said to somebody, okay, you come and measure the data for all of us, and we'll pay you someone. Why do we need to do it today? If none of the digital technology, I mean, digital services are subscribing to third-party data, and they are telling you that they have as many subscribers. If you know, if I could come and tell you that I have as many subscribers as whatever I had at Hotstar, and you would believe that, and if I gave you the data about their consumption behavior, and you would believe that, and you would buy advertising and inventory based on that, why would you not do, why would I not do that for TV? I don't get it. The reason is because today, you have three different, at least on digital, we've got three different data sources, they all give you different numbers for the same reading. So, I mean, arguably, an OTG platform will give me a certain number, MOT will give me another number, and a third party will give me a third number, which number should I go by? You should go by my number. It is my proprietary information. You should go by my number. If you can accept the number that you get from the others, why would you not accept the number that you get from there? So, I'm not in favor. You know my position on this. I've never been in favor of this third-party measurement structure, because we have look at the kind of distortion anomalies that we have created in this country. It's almost alarming, if not dangerous. What is happening in the name of data? This whole current controversy, without going too far into that, everything that's happened has happened. The whole degradation that we are seeing, whether it is in news or whether it is other controversy is on account of our unhealthy obsession with ratings. Ratings are an important tool, but they're a business tool. They're a business tool for engagement between Udesh Shankar as the media executive and Vikram Sakuja as media buyer. You and I need a currency so that you know what you're getting for what I'm selling. But now, suddenly over the years, we turned this into a measurement of our machismo. We turned this into a measurement of our successful data. The market share became the end all and beyond. Not of your business existence, but your entire existence. And that's unhealthy. And that has led to inadequate focus on, you know, that has led to too much focus on tactical, sometimes distorted, sometimes outright corrupt practices and inadequate focus on long-term health and strategy of the business. So two corollaries from what you're seeing. One is, yes, there needs to be a currency, which is why probably if you go to each channel or each platform and use their data, you may not get that currency. The second thing is that if the currency has to be there, do you think it's better that there is a system which is funded maybe as a percent of billings and managed by agencies and advertisers and media owners are kept out of it? So broadcasters are kept out of it. Would it be more healthy? To be honest with you, I'm indifferent to that. The basic assumption here that you're making, and I disagree with that assumption Vikram, is that if media, if broadcasters are involved in that, they will corrupt it. And advertisers and agencies will not corrupt it. I think the proclivity to for that measurement system and that whole thing to be distorted or corrupted remains the same either ways. Who owns it is totally, you know, I'm totally indifferent to that. You know that I am full confession. I played a key role in bringing down TAM and setting up BARC. And I think BARC has been a huge let down. But I don't think it's been a let down because broadcasters and advertisers and agencies were stakeholders in this. I think it's been a let down because we did not create a 21st century. We did not have a vision that was in tune with the possibilities in 21st century. So for a moment if you have to say moving forward from learning from the past, do you think it would be better to again reprioritize? If you have to have a currency, you may say that it's still private, right? Right now it is, it's still, there's a joint industry body which is sponsoring it. But do you think in earlier, of course, it was a completely private company like TAM, do you think it's better? I think just for the controversy that involvement in BARC has created for broadcasters, they should just get out of there. Okay. It's not worth it. Okay. And it's not worth all the suggestions of impropriety, questions of integrity that the broadcasters have faced. Because I think by and large, broadcasters are clean business people and they have done a good job. They have serviced the consumer's interest well and to tar them with the same brush, just because there are some issues with BARC. The issues with BARC are intrinsic to the structure and management and capabilities within BARC. It's not that there was this grand conspiracy of broadcasters coming in to say, let's just do this. And the unsavory fallout is one good reason for broadcasters to get out of BARC. And just closing on the last point on that one, we've already seen that whatever 22, 25,000 crores is the TV ad-ex. There's another 5,000 crores of video coming through YouTube and all the OTTs. Probably that might grow. There has been this call for the longest time to have audio-visual ratings also coming out through the same sort of rating system. Now in the past, that entire stalemate between measuring ads and content led to a certain impasse. How do you think we should now tackle that same issue? Because there's still, it's probably the same place where it was when you were maybe debating it. Yes, it is still very much there. And I have no reason to believe that now that I have no authority, I would be able to make a difference. But look, my view is very clear on that. You know my position, I've taken this position as the leader of Star and Disney. That if everybody is participating, only then Star would participate. Simply because we were the only company that had a substantial stake in streaming and a substantial share of television. And if some of the big streaming giants were not participating in that, Star should not participate. Just because of Star's origins in TV, Star should not just do what the TV people do because if its streaming service is not competing with TV, it's competing with its streaming peers. And if Netflix does not participate and if Amazon Prime is not participating, why should Hotstar participate? That position remains the same. I think, you know, the world has moved beyond this concentrated one company measuring data for everybody. This, you know, the world is moving, we've come towards disintermediation. And I am fundamentally opposed to creating any kind of intermediaries because intermediaries are usually brought in and Bach is a great example of that. Are usually brought in with good intentions and then the intermediaries start serving only themselves. They don't serve either of the two parties that they're supposed to intermediate between. Fantastic. Okay, closing last two questions. You closely observed the entire advertising and marketing ecosystem and you've seen how advertisers, agencies and media owners behave. In this very vibrant and fast-growing ad market, which of the three stakeholders have dharm on their sides? Is everybody, do you find, you've dealt with all of them? Do you think everybody is doing equally righteous job or are some people doing it more than others? No, I think it would be, I think they're all, by and large, I find there may be individual aberrations, but by and large as community, it's one of the more honorable communities that I have seen. And I see that now across the board in my capacity because I'm involved with businesses beyond media now. I see that and I have to tell you that I find, my criticism of people in advertising on the agency side or in broadcasting on content side, my criticism of them is of not having bold enough vision, sometimes too fixated on the past being too tactical, but I don't think as a community, it's a dishonorable community. Actually, I think they have done more for this country than they get recognized for and that's one of the disappointments that I have. I think we have undersold ourselves, this is something that I started with. I think we do not see the role that we have played in this country. If Unilever is a big company and so successful in this country, of course, its products are the reason why they're successful. And I'm just taking an example. It's not about Unilever as you can imagine, but to say that those people who manage the advertising for Unilever, media buys and the channels on which Unilever products were advertised, let me just imagine if there was no television channel, the biggest product would not find a platform to convey its message day after day with consistency and accuracy and build a national proposition or a brand. So I think media has played a really, really positive, constructive role in this country. And because we are not mindful of the deep contribution we make, and we ourselves sometimes largely get distracted by, oh, we are entertainment, we are glamour and we are all of that. We don't take ourselves seriously enough, so the world doesn't take us seriously enough. I think it's a great community and this country, there are many things wrong with media, but this country would have been a much worse country to live in without media. That's a very, very telling statement. Thank you, that's very good, very heartening. So we can't let you leave without you just telling us a little bit more about what your partnership with James Murdoch is and what can we look one of us look forward to in 2021. So as you know, Vikram, I take a long time to think about things and then I figure out something and then I stick with it until I make it work. I'm in the first phase. I'm still taking a lot of time to think about things, but broadly both James and I are really sort of excited about the potential of technology and I have a very high level thesis which I will share with you and with our audience today. My whole thesis is that all the mass consumption services in this country, services and products, were not designed to meet the aspirations of 135 crore people, whether it is media. Just imagine 25 years ago or playback 25, 30 years ago, why private media came up, not because somebody invited or not because it was part of a government policy, private media came up because there was an unmet need, which the official providers were not able to meet, whether it is the DAVP, whether it is Dur Darshan, whether it is AIR, whether it is whatever. So entrepreneurship came in to bridge the gap and today we have created a massive industry around that. I think it's the same with and that aspiration is growing. Today with more people owning mobile handsets and devices, the desire for consuming more content is just growing and the current structures are grossly inadequate. You can only serve this by using technology in a very, very deep fundamental way because that's the only way you can create consistent outcomes which are satisfying and which are at scale without bringing down the bank. Similarly, I think areas like education and healthcare, the same thing. Education in this country was created, formal education system was created by Macaulay, not for the benefit of this country, but to create a small class of clerks for the British empire. And after independence, honestly, with commitment, the successive political establishments have built on that, but the foundation has remained the same. Today, the one thing that's common is that everybody in this country, even a beggar, I'm just using this as an example, but even a poor beggar wants his child to be educated because they are very convinced that if their child has to have a better destiny, education is one essential tool. Same for healthcare. Healthcare wasn't built. I mean, hospitals were not created with the hope or with the agenda that everybody needs to can go there and get treated. So you have this widening gap between aspiration and possibility of supply with the best of intent. The one thing that we have with us is technology, which can, not everybody needs to go to a school to learn, not everybody needs to go to a hospital. COVID has told us that you can be at home and do a lot of things, including get yourself treated. Most doctors were not available, but we got ourselves treated in using technology. And even though we were not ready for it, just imagine the power of technology. If you have this strategy, you're ready for it and you build that. So for the rest of my life, I want to just give it a shot. You harness the power of technology to meet the needs of people who are being badly or underserved right now. I come from that part of the world. As you know, I come from Bihar. I have some exposure to what the underserved populations, aspirations are and what are the challenges that they are facing. Hopefully, I'll be able to do something towards that. Uday Shankar, thank you so much. As always, you've delivered all that you promised. It was uplifting. It was provocative. It was differently thought provoking, maybe controversial also, but very, very uplifting. Thank you ever so much for this lovely conversation. Thank you Vikram. Delighted to be having, as I told you that I have packed my bags and I didn't want to talk about media, but you are one of the oldest friends that I have in media. So it was a pleasure to talk to you. Pleasure. Thank you. Over to you, Kathy. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Shankar and Mr. Sakuja.