 So, good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you Novel for inviting me to speak at your seminar on the very relevant, but if I may say so, slightly debatable subject of TV first. Now I say debatable because after all we live in a digital world. Last week a large client of Madison, when he heard that I was speaking of this conference titled TV first, instinctively asked me, Sam, do you still believe it's TV first? That's not why I recall the story this morning. The truth is that this advertiser continues to spend over 80% of his large budget on television and perhaps therein lies the story of our industry. Let me state my position up front. I believe television will continue to be not just the first medium but the dominant medium in ad-ex for at least a few more years in India. Never mind that digital has crossed 50% of global ad-ex. As per Pitch Madison's revised estimate that we released in August 2019, I must add for the 2020 report, please do come to this very venue on Thursday February 13th at 3.30pm. So as per the revised estimate that we released in August last year that is 2019, television should have been 39% of ad-ex with digital trailing at number 3 rank with a 22% share. But this is as far as numbers are concerned. I believe for those who have the task of building brands, TV will continue to be a dominant and indispensable part of their arsenal. TV, I must confess, may have lost some of its almost magical or miraculous powers since the days of Mahabharat when I launched Sintol Line with just four double spots on four consecutive episodes of Mahabharat on Sundays. And whole a breath, the brand achieved a market share of 5.4% in the very first month of launch in what was then and continues to be today a very competitive premium soap market. But of course, there was one channel then and now we have 750 which bark less. So fragmentation and clutter unfortunately have taken that toll on the advertisers ROI. Let me also state up front that in today's noisy world of advertising, it is not my position that TV is the only medium you should use for brand building. But certainly it should be the dominant medium and the first medium definitely for most consumer mass brands in India. Given the way it impacts the consumers hearts and minds, given the way of the average Indian consumers media watching habits, and given the relatively low CPT television offers to its advertisers. I want to now go on to further buttress my position with the help of some studies, some of them done outside the country and some case studies from within the country. The gentleman here is David Aker, widely recognized as the father of branding, who's supposed to have said branding adds spirit and soul to what would otherwise be a robotic automated price value proposition. Take the humble and lowly salt, a client of ours, and see how Tata's using David Aker's branding principles have made it into an iconic brand with the line Deshka Namak, preferred by millions of housewives who are happy today to pay a premium for it. And we all know of course that good advertising does create a brand and brand equity is best built tugging at human emotions rather than appealing to the brain and such advertising can last virtually a lifetime. And that is where in my view television kicks in and delivers the master stroke. Even the redoubtable Don Draper, I hope most of you have seen this television series on advertising called Mad Men. In this series, Don Draper tells his girlfriend that what you call love was invented by guys like me to sell my lawns. The IPA, the Institute of Practitioners of Advertising based in London, known for its exceptionally high standard of rigor in research and data, concludes that emotional ads work the hardest in delivering profits for the advertiser. And this chart that I'm showing you now is based on a data bank of as many as 1400 cases. Notice how the green bar line shoots far above the others that is rational and combined. And most advertising research and brand managers, marketing directors, advertising and media managers readily agree that no other media matches television in its ability to evoke emotions. There is a chart from Ipsos which shows TV being way ahead of other media in its ability to evoke emotions. Notice how the green bar line shoots all the way up to 77%, but the red bars for radio newspapers and digital are at a mere 6 to 8%. Most of us in this room will recall even today the famous very quick ad where a country bumpkin gets a rich haul with a simple stick and very quick, moving the smart city aleck in his Sunday best with a sophisticated fishing tackle stone faced. My client Piddleite seems to have made a virtue of hitting the bullseye every time the powerful ads that appeal to our emotion and therefore stay with us for a lifetime. Now let's understand why ads on television work or work a little better and I'll have to rely on some foreign research to talk about this. Actually earlier this week in connection with this seminar I spoke to a not so young lady Karen Nelson Field in Adelaide down there in Australia a professor of media innovation at the University of Adelaide and who now runs a research agency and has conducted research on you know the relative strengths of different media across six or seven major countries including Australia, UK and US. And I want to quote from one of her studies done recently in 2019. She had installed cameras to track what she calls active viewing, inactive viewing and passive viewing across multiple devices and compare the efficacy of different media. She comes to three interesting conclusions. First she says TV commands the highest attention of any media and gets an overall score of 58 points. YouTube comes next with 45 points and then Facebook with 20 points. But if you take only active viewing then the difference in scores of our Sharpa at 58 for television, 31 for YouTube and 4 for Facebook. For those interested in finding out more about this study it's printed and easily available on the net in a paper titled the art of attention brought out by her in April 2019. Her second conclusion is that sales is correlated directly to what she calls attention. Extensive modeling done by her show that TV drives more attention and therefore more sales. You will see in this chart how beautiful the fit is. And finally there is a slide concluding that TV ads have the highest lingering effect. Television ad retention is so strong that it generates a greater impact after 28 days than Facebook and YouTube do immediately after exposure. Facebook she says decays 2.5x faster and YouTube 3x faster than television. Perhaps Amazon know these facts before putting their ad out on the famous American game this season. Now why does TV garner more attention? The subject demands some inspection and it is because TV offers greater visibility because visibility is affected by three factors. One coverage the proportion of the screen the ad covers. Two clutter what is going around the ad and the pixels around it. And three completeness that is how much of the ad is on screen at any point of time. And we all know that television was caused because it offers us 100 pixels 100 percent coverage 100 percent of the time. Now that brings us to the discussion of mobility perhaps many of you already know this but it is worthwhile for me to recall this very important mobility factor. The venerable interactive advertising bureau IAB for short that attempts to develop standards defines variability for digital ads as a minimum of 50 percent of the ad should be in view for just one second for display and two seconds for video. In television as we know reach is defined by bar as the number of individuals who viewed the program or the ad for at least one minute. So we all know that the viability standards that are being applied to television and digital are vastly different with television standards being far more stringent and probably this is the reason why on digital we always come across such bubbastic figures. So to conclude ads on TV score high on viability. Viability affects audience attention and high attention helps convey brand message which is necessary to impact sales which is what all advertisers ultimately want. Now since I have quoted extensively from this study I want you to hear the professor talk about her finding with authority and passion can we have this video please. So I think it's important to show you here that TV commands more attention there in mind this is apples for apples for apples so it's all even across the platform twice the active viewing as YouTube and 15 times that of Facebook. In fairness to Facebook I just said this so there's a whole lot of literature around subconscious processing which sort of suggests that active viewing is better but there is an element of subconscious processing going on so you might be looking at someone but kind of in your peripheral vision you can get the gist of what they look like. It's the same thing so and that makes a complete sense if you think about the feed you know you're kind of more interested in your friends than you are in the ads but there's still an impact there so do have a look at the literature around subconscious processing. I'm sure you go home and do that now. And then this one was interesting to us I think one of the biggest mistakes YouTube ever made is tell you that you have 10 9 8 7 6 seconds before you have to look at anything because to me that that number really shocked me but didn't shock me I think that's evidence of the fact that they warn you to go quick or do something else so high level of non-viewing. Now of our two impact measures and again we are researchers so it's important for us to look at two different measures because what if one measure was flawed then your whole study would be rendered you know bias so it's really important that we do too so attention product choice are hugely related really really really closely related so attention product choice consistent across all sets of data so given that attention is so perfectly related to product choice or sales it's no surprises that TV drives more overall sales and what we saw which again probably is not really that surprising is that coverage by media type actually varies quite a lot and what we see here the average screen coverage in our data was that Facebook was around 10% YouTube about 30 and obviously TV was 100 because there's no scrolling the maximum coverage however was a little bit different there in mind very few ads reached 100% pixels in the online forums but in fairness the maximum coverage was 14 30 to 100 so what we found is that again no surprise to us that coverage really really matters a lot to attention and sales a really really strong relationship between coverage and sales and coverage and attention and we already know that attention and sales are highly related so the patterns are quite striking so we say coverage absolutely without a doubt multiple sets of data does impact cut through and the clutter on the screen increases non-viewing and passive viewing behavior so just be thoughtful around that given cut through is an absolute imperative condition of good media I'm here at rethink I'm an independent researcher but it would be remiss of me not to say that coverage is always maxed on TV across all devices and I think until other platforms take that position TV will always win in terms of attention cut through sales in that space I think it's important to say the standard does work right again it's brought unaccountable industry into some sort of account which is great and we can see that in our data we can see that video advertising even at 50% does have an impact in sales and at two seconds so that's good but what you do see is there's a material uplift in sales as you grow above 50% now bear in mind this is the two completely separate sets of data and the patterns are largely the same the impact in terms of stats varies but that's because the platforms are different okay so but you've got to look at the patterns and the consistency of the patterns so there's a material uplift in sales above 50% and at each second but without a doubt pixels matter more being seen matters more than time in fact we can see that a hundred percent pixels renders two times the impact over 50% regardless of time that doesn't mean you should set your time back it just means the impact is greater for being seen that it is for being seen along and the point on the Facebook chart sort of suggests so their viewing time is a lot shorter no secret so pixels matter early more importantly to Facebook than they do to any other because there's no time for it to actually get to 100% so again no surprises that pixels matter to attention also so does coverage being seen matters to cut through so for us anything below 100% viewability is diminishing attention in sales okay so i hope to get her here one of these days and hopefully we'll do a study with some in the Indian environment and measure impact on brands of Indian products in UK the in my view the again the standards of consumer and media research are very high in terms of rigor a study of over 2000 ad campaigns has found that television advertising outperforms all other media investment in terms of generating profit and mind you in UK also i must add as a caveat that digital has crossed 50% of addicts so what does all this mean what should the advertiser hard-pressed to get a good return on his advertising investment in today's noisy and crowded world do does it mean that the advertiser should spend all his advertising money on television no that is not my position we have to recognize that we live in a digital world and consumers are spending more and more time receiving content and messages digitally and many studies done across the globe have conclusively concluded that multimedia works much better than single media you will see this in a table i have here from walk that if TV alone can give you a return of 100 TV plus online can give you a return of 150 percent higher keeping the advertising budget the same my position would be that broadly television affects top of the funnel metrics whereas digital works wonderfully well for bottom of the funnel and together they can create magic for the advertiser two ways that television and digital can work well together is that one we can use digital video to add additional reach to a television campaign cost effectively and two we can use television to increase search volumes and other lower funnel metrics like leads and calls the challenge unfortunately of using television and digital together is that we do not have a single source data to measure both on a common platform at Madison media they have conceived of a system called tv plus which offer our clients an assessment of the combined reach and frequency a tv plus digital plan can deliver by bringing both media on a common base the irs base and then our tool m spectra magically gives us a combined rnf across all mediums here is an output slide using Madison tv plus where it's shown in the first case television alone was used in the plan in the second case in green was used 70 percent and 30 percent digital and in the third case there was 60 percent tv and 40 percent digital in all cases the advertising budget was at a constant 3.5 crore for this brand based on this tv plus tool we concluded that 70 30 ratio is the best for this FMCG brand because this mix increases reach at one plus from 52 percent to 68 percent and 3 plus from 38 to 45 percent and if you are a media planner or a media manager you know how expensive it is to add reach points at higher levels similar plans run for a consumer durable brand added 10 percentage reach points at a lower cost so my simple recommendation is that in many cases tv plus digital is a great combo for better ROI for most mass consumer brands that focus on brand building my second suggestion is to use television to use bottom funnel metrics Google themselves concluded in a study done by them in Hamburg that news of tv would lead to a positive uplift in search queries and they came to this conclusion after studying 98 campaigns no wonder re commerce and dot-com companies in India that heavily rely on Google to deliver bottom of the funnel metrics like sales also use tv very heavily to help advertisers to refine their plans we have an enabling tool called Madison match point to continuously give feedback to media planners on which spots at what time and on what channels are affecting bottom funnel metrics like app installs visits and others which is an invaluable aid for those in the e-commerce dot-com area so even for digital campaigns please add television an eccentric study on cross channel advertising attribution done in 2018 concludes that digital campaigns without the halo effect of television would underperform by 7 to 21 percent in conclusion i want to say that my view and Madison's view is that multi-media works better than single media so our advice is not to spend hundred percent on tv or digital or for that matter use any other medium single unless of course your budget is very tiny tv is a great medium for driving emotion and all brand builders agree that you need to use emotion to build brands or you can't use you can't build brands without appealing to human emotion whilst in this short talk i have focused on tv and digital i should also make the point that tv will very well work in combination with print or outdoor or radio or cinema for brand building because these media like print outdoor radio cinema today offer less clutter and many brands are taking advantage of the low clutter that these traditional media offer thank you very much ladies and gentlemen for listening to me