 So, they have been introduced, but interestingly I have a set of three ire's and I have been asked specifically not to make bad ire jokes. But what is important is you have got three ire's and three boys. None of them are ire's, alright. Okay, let me ask you guys first. What is the biggest, what is the biggest thing that happened in the last two weeks? Say that again loudly. Okay, that margin of victory did anyone expect? Sorry? Absolutely, how can I forget? Alright, now just tell me one thing. What do you guys think is the single largest achievement that Mr. Modi actually did or made in these elections? There is one very interesting metric which is really completely out of whack. Metric. Well, that was the cause. But just think about this. In the last elections, the BJP got a 31% vote share and got 282 seats. In these elections, the same team got a 38% vote share, right? A 7% swing in your favor is unheard of in the world. Just to give you perspective, 7% converts to 63 million voters which you have got on your side now from the last time. 63 million in context is as big as the entire population of England or Germany. That's the change that was made. Get it? That's huge. Okay, now my question is, how many people in this audience, just put your hands up, believe that digital has nothing to do with it? How many people in this audience believe that digital has nothing to do with this huge victory? For the next years, I've just got a quick example for you and I haven't shared it with my panelists also. How many people in this audience have heard of a guy called Amit Vandana? Just makes my point. So Amit Vandana is a guy who's a stand-up comedian, caters to the class 3 and below population of India. Class 3 towns and below. Before Jio, he had a following of 6 lakh viewers. After Jio, he has 15 million viewers. You never heard of this guy, right? That's what's happening with digital in the rural areas. And that's the kind of achievement you can get as reflecting the last elections. Just to put this in context, somebody like the viral fever, right, EVF, has 6 million viewers today. After so many years, this guy has got 15 million. I've just taken this example to set the ball rolling because every one of us, whichever side of the political divide you might be, were equally surprised at the mammoth achievement. You can blame EVF machines and all that, but that's neither here nor there, right? But even the exit poll said it was going to be so big. So it can't be the EVF machines, right? And that's the margin of victory. That's the extent of victory. It obviously means with somebody like Amit Vandana who's a good reflection of this, it means that we are in a digital age and it means that we are going to compete in digital. But at the end of the day, that's what I want to really get talking about around this table, is that it's still about business. And business in this age seems to have four characteristics before I start the discussion. One is we know there's a huge opportunity there. It's growing, a headroom in a country like India is still massive, substantial. The second also is that the number of players getting in to take a share of that pie is also enormous. Think about this data. The life expectancy of the average business in India today is 6%. Which means that 94 businesses are going to die before their 50th year, which is also true. In the middle of this, you have a customer, that horrible animal, who's become highly demanding, who's become completely, let's say, unforgiving, and yet the same consumer has very little attention span. And that's what's happening because of digital. You guys agree with that? No. If you don't agree, I'll go and ask them if they agree. So with that in mind, we thought we will explore basically five big questions around this. And these are going to be really about the health of businesses rather than digital itself. The question is, in a digital age, how do you manage those five things? Can I set the ball rolling? You know, forever there's been debate between building recognition for brands and building relevance. Recognition is just out there so that, you know, in a moment it passes, it's transactional. Healthy businesses have to build relevance for themselves. Why do you think that we are still far behind, or do you think we are far behind building relevance as against recognition? Just a data point here to start it off. You know, David Acker's profit runs an index called the Brand Relevance Index. And you find that the guys, the top ten of the Brand Relevance Index actually outperform the S&P by one is to three. Who wants to go first? Ashutosh? Can I? Yeah. I hope you do survive. Yeah, thank you so much. I'm Ashutosh. Let me, you know, let me pick a few words from what Ramesh has said. One is business. I think second is relevance. And the third is brand, or the brands. And if we go and try and address the very basic of brand relevance and business, what comes in my mind, whatever is the age? It's a digital age or even whatever age we want to say. I think the brands and the very basic of my opinion, the brand needs to make money and brand has to make more and more money. So that's number one. And number two is brand needs to be relevant, not for five years, 10 years, 20 years. Brand needs to be relevant for maybe 100 years or 200 years. I pick up another thing which Ramesh said and I think some of us would surprise that 94% companies actually fail. But in between I attended one program and where, you know, I was told about one fact that if you take all the companies which are listed on the stock exchange and find out which are the companies who have delivered profit or the back quarter after quarter for at least 12 to 18 quarters. Or you will find that the percentage is even lesser. So maybe I think that percentage is 0.6% or something. I mean, honestly, I didn't believe it, but I honestly don't have a data to verify it when possibly I respect the person who spoke about it. If brand has to be in the business and the brand has to be relevant, I think brand needs to really cross, you know, brand needs to become a brand of an individual. You know, let's take an example of a Modi and I remember one word which everybody say, I am Modi, I am Chokedar. And if I ask question to the people sitting here, do you remember any brand which has really lasted generations? According to you, can you name one brand which you think or two brands which you think has really, really lasted generations? Raymond's, Amul's, you know, Curlon, okay, Godrej. You know, I think sometime I feel that's a limitation, you know, sometime we think too linearly. You know, I'm trying to provoke the rest of the panelists so that they can oppose me. Why brand needs to be owned by somebody? Modi is not owned by somebody. Modi is owned by that person. Just think of a brand, Yoga, which is created in India. Do you think Yoga is a brand? And the Yoga as a brand has passed many, many, many, many generations, has moved, this brand is making money, not for the brand creator, but its brand is solving people's problem. I think that's something which is extremely important brand has to do. Brand has established the trust and then you will find there are many such brands which has lasted, you know, because they stayed relevant. They stayed relevant for the age, whichever is that age, the digital age or whatever. So thanks, that's my opinion and I'm sure here is Aayur. Meera, Aayur number one. Yeah, I think recognition relevance, recognition is really about the science and today all the people over here will know and since all of us are predominantly from the marketing fraternity, to get recognition you need a specific number of frequencies to the selected audience. That's all, right? And you can do it with digital, you can do it with offline, you can do it with a combination. Therefore recognition is something that any and every brand, if it has the money and wherewithal will be able to do, right? Therefore recognition is not something that you can stop a brand from having if it has money. The other part is what is relevance and indeed the elections is the largest part. Is there anybody in the country who doesn't recognize Rahul Gandhi? No. Is there anybody in this country who doesn't recognize Narendra Modi? No. But then the relevant person actually got the higher mandate, right? So I think the difference is very clear. One is doable if you have money. One is something that you have to really construct and be very crafty in terms of how you get it. It's not enough to have money, you say. The second is not enough to have money. Yeah, the second one, look at the largest corporate houses in India. You have the largest one in terms of market cap is reliance, right? And you have several others including Tata's and Birla's. Who do you find more relevant? Who do you connect with more? That's an argument we can have afterwards over tea. Some of them wanted to say something. I think also it's very important that little bit of disagreement about only brands with money can actually build relevance because sometimes you have very limited marketing budgets which happens to many of us at some point in time when the finance team suddenly announces that there's a budget freeze. What do you do then? Just one second. I'm just going to interject for you. I think the point was that if you have enough money you can build recognition. Even with money you can't build relevance was the point. So do you need to engineer the whole thing? You would work very hard, clarity, all of those things. I wanted to state a point here because this is I think again since we're all from the marketing, advertising fraternity out here, budgets are something that we're quite constrained with many a times. In the biggest of organizations, best of organizations, it's always about the ROI that you get for every single thing that you put out there. I think relevance is something that also is very, very closely associated with resonance that you build with the audience. For example, I think if I have to go back to what you said, sir, about brands that have lasted, brands that have been built to last, typical brands that come to mind, say a Coke or a dub, those are the kind of brands that all of us think of. But there are brands that fall off the wagon because they fail to be relevant at a particular point in time. Biggest example that we have is of Sony. Sony was known for Walkman, Sony was known for music. Sony owned that entire category. Sony taught all of us what it is to walk out on the streets with a Walkman in your weird, like portable music was something that they created. And then suddenly because that change took time, I think agility is also something that's a very core component of being very relevant in the market. Or staying relevant. So sometimes you may build relevance, you may stay relevant over a period of time, but in the age that we are in or any age for that matter, like I think we're talking about survival of the fittest and Darwin, change is the only constant, however cliche that may sound. And then the brand then therefore needs to, therefore be very agile in adapting to those changes as well to stay relevant. Does the third eyeer want to violently disagree or? Yeah, I disagree to your point. There's nothing called what is brand relevance versus brand recognition. If you were to say, it's like from whenever we started branding, if there's no relevance, there's no recognition. So with relevance comes recognition. And any brand or any product for that has to be relevant to the end customer. Yeah, but you do agree that there have been brands that have built high recognition and then fallen off the cliff. See, that is again because you're not being relevant. Exactly. You can't say versus. One leads to the other is what I'm trying to tell. Yes, that's right. I also wanted to give a couple of examples. One was, you know, like just style. How many of us use just style over here? I think they advertise a lot, right? I think they have to miss a year's point on recognition. We are here on being recognized, but not being very relevant. Whereas I think also there is a play where, you know, if the product itself is relevant, you automatically buy building recognition, you get relevance. So real estate, you work a lot in the real estate space. What we have seen is because the product itself is relevant. People want to buy a house. So the brands which actually advertise and reach out to consumers automatically get a lot more trust and visibility. For example, if you enter the airport in Bangalore, you'll see like a brigade or a poor one. So automatically the trust factor increases and they become more relevant brands compared to someone who's not advertising today. Got it. Mangesh, your part of it. Just one thing to add to that is I think relevance is also not monolithic anymore, right? It needs to be relevant to your user cohorts and you could have multiple of them. So just something to add to everything else that is said. Not looking at it as just one relevant brand for everybody, but sub-stories of relevance. And that is something that digital is enabling. So that's just something to add. Super. Okay. Come back to you guys in the end. I'm sure you have a point of view. But just move on to the next one, which is basically a sub-stator of relevance. You know, forever we've heard that businesses that command superior customer experience tend to do a 5 to 8x on earnings and growth. We know that metrics like NPS, that is the, you know, advocacy score and your repeat purchase always help to keep you healthy in business. Fundamentally it means you do not have a discount and you have more people coming to you as a consequence of these two. And yet all of us in this room will complain how buy-in-large customer service on almost anything sucks, right? Why is it you think that, you know, businesses haven't quite got? I'm sure there are good examples of people who've got it, but it's exceptional. Why is it buy-in-large we complain as consumers, we complain so much about customer experience? Knowing who are full well that the health of a business and its metrics are largely dependent on these two scores. So let me start with that. So one of the things that we've seen is just the amount of data that is available today and people's ability to process that and use that to improve customer experience. The ones that are doing it really well, the Amazons, the swiggies of the world are really good at understanding, processing, getting meaningful insights out of this data and taking action on it. So your case is that digital can actually raise the bar on this? Definitely. Digital is raising the bar on this and most of the brands that are still focused on traditional, although that's a great mode of driving transactions, it's not probably the best way to understand very granular data. I think, like actually most, like a lot of our clients are from older industries and you know digital is like a shock to their system. They have built legacy systems which... Sorry, just a point. Sunil actually runs a digital agency, one of the founders. So like a lot of older companies have traditional structures, they have a customer support which is tuned to a certain level of engagement, a turnaround times. And in digital you need to respond within 5 or 10 minutes, right? So you see even for passports, for example, for the government, a lot of people will tweet to Shusma Swaraj or the ministry of, you know, actually passport related issues. Because the passport office is not tuned to respond within 48 or 72 hours. So digital is making them create shortcuts or patchwork which makes them respond faster. But the legacy itself is not well built for that. Sorry, before you answered, so do you think, anyone can answer this, do you think a faster response is equal to good experience? I think today that's one of the prerequisites. Because at the click, you need 5 minutes, you need a Uber, you know, passports, you don't want to wait for 2 weeks to get your passport. You want it within 24 hours. Sameera? So, I started my career with Unilever and there was this lever care at Unilever.com as an email ID and there was also this calling number that used to be there. And each of us in the brand teams or whichever brands we used to manage, we used to every week get a download of all customer queries that came to us about our products. Or any kind of complaints that came to us and we had to actually address that. And I remember that barely in a week I would get something close to, and this is for a portfolio of brands that I was handling. I used to barely get something like, you know, 5 to 7 such responses. Today digital has enabled every customer of your product or service to be able to instantly post both good and bad feedback. And unfortunately the bad feedback is what gets posted much more in terms of percentages. And the good ones, whoever are happy, tend to just be happy and not quite act on it. And that has resulted in the need to be, and like he says, legacy systems are not tuned to that. Correct. And suddenly you find that where I was getting 7, you know, 7 customer queries in a week has exploded to 7 million. What do you do? And how do you really deal with it? So is it your point, and anybody can take on this, that digital is actually forcing a better quality of customer experience from companies? Absolutely. See, initially when customers, you know, got a quality of service that they either liked or disliked, they didn't have a medium to express it. Right. Now that they have a medium to express it, suddenly everybody has to stand up and take note. Right? You never even got to know various things about your own product before in this kind of a magnitude. So it goes back to the topic itself, survival. Oh yes, totally. Okay. Yeah, so I think completely agree with what everyone's saying about this. It is about that speed to market. It is about understanding, again it's going back to saying, I know who my customer is. I know which kind of customer. I think that is what digital lends itself today, which traditional media has still not managed to catch up to. We can never do away with traditional media, at least for now. But digital helps you understand. I can literally crawl through each of my pages, whether it's on Twitter or Facebook or Insta or Snapchat, wherever I am as a brand. I know exactly at what point in time, why somebody was looking at my brand, what was the interaction that was happening. So when that particular persona of customer complains, and now the joke is that amongst the millennials that its Twitter is being used largely to complain, not to say anything nice. So the agency that we're dealing with also right now who handles all of our mandate, 24-25 is their average age group. We have genders and we have millennials, most of them who are handling our account right now. For them, it's like Twitter is for old people, Facebook is for old people. And that's a place where people want to complain. So it's very important that as a brand, I am able to immediately address. I think completely with you when you said that, that is the first thing. I just want to know that I am there for you. You had an issue, let me then come back to you and solve it. Then of course, that's speed to then solving it. But I think that immediately, and then as a brand knowing what needs to be done, both those things digital does which traditional can never do. So do you think that... And Damesh, I just want to add one thing today. Unfortunately or fortunately, the bar is being raised by a few. And even if you don't over promise, you actually under promise saying, you know, I will give you this. If somebody else is giving you more, even if you haven't committed to the customer to give only so much, customers still compares you with the yardstick of another competitor who's offering more or better. And therefore you have no choice either to be at the same level playing field or else basically, you know, be open to a barrage of issues that will actually come. So it's also not about setting expectations right anymore. Because it's not about you setting expectations and people holding you accountable against those expectations. It's about people holding you accountable for expectations set by the top most or the highest contender in that particular space. Which is very scary, sorry, which is very scary because as a brand, sometimes you have people who are not even entered your store. Like when you do... And already complained. And they've already complained just because like we had a case recently. Parking was poor. Yeah, yeah, literally somebody in Jalandhar, a 19 year old kid in Jalandhar who wanted to buy a new pair of Reebok sneakers that had come out in the market. And he actually kept complaining, kept complaining, kept complaining till we had to tell him, listen, we're not going to give you anything. And that was a call we had to take because he said, I will tweet, I will go to Facebook, I will call the media everywhere, all of that. Which is a brand after some time gets very scary because you don't know how to respond to customers like that. Because today media is out there for everyone. Hopefully he's not a poster boy for everybody else. Okay, sorry. He's not an influencer, we checked. Just one thing, I think we're all talking about experience, you know, after the fact, like if something's gone wrong, you need to service. I think there's a lot that is possible even before from an experienced standpoint, which is personalization, right? Being able to deal with different people with different requirements, with different messages. And that is something also that's possible. So it's not always about solving problems, it's about making it easier and a better experience. You actually go through the experience also. Super. I just have a point, sir. I just have a point because digital, it's not utilized by us in the way that we have to. There are bots talking to you most of the time. Right. And you don't really get answers from them. There is a plethora of options there, but we are really not using it to our advantage yet. So we should also keep that in mind as to how good is it going to be, unless of course we as marketers kind of really put in some effort into it. Absolutely. Ashutosh, you wanted to make a point and we'll go to the next question. You know, I'm looking at the time also, but you know, I thought, okay, you know, we are all speaking about the transaction, the bar and the service and the quality and the delivery and all that stuff. And just go 10, 15, 20 years back when you used to speak about the spare parts available, you know, the service available and today nobody speaks about it. My opinion, the transaction is something which die and die super fast. I think a brand needs to move away because, you know, few years down the line, a good transaction will be taken as a table stake. It needs to be, you know, good product. I'm sure nowadays at home you see multi-brand environment where all ACs work fine, all refrigerator works fine. You have amazing experience out of all brands, but still you don't stick to the brand. Brand needs to connect emotionally. In the digital age, I think that to me is a challenge to the marketeers that how do we connect emotionally to the consumer? How do we connect passionately to the consumer? One such brand, since we just saw the presentation of, you know, Puma, I remember, you know, myself as a runner and there is a brand called ASICS and doesn't advertise. Of course, now I do see some of their advertisement, but you know, it's been connected to some community very passionately. And I'm sure there could be many more such brand. So I think we need to move away from the transaction very soon. Today we are comparing the transactions to the brick and mortar and the old age setup. Setup is changing and I think we need to move on and connect to that one consumer, individual consumer. You know, that's what I feel. It's a good segue into my next question and we keep it short given time. You know, somebody like Amadeus says that 64% of worldwide travelers are willing to share all their data with you willingly provided you can promise them a good engagement experience, which is really what he was talking about. Can you expand on that? I'm saying why is it that we are still largely in the broadcast mode if this would be true? Just to add to that, I think the digital age has actually opened up a lot of audiences. Earlier the consumer segment was based on ACCA, BC, and so on and so forth. Right now it is not about that at all. Every age group, every person within that same age group, where they're growing, what they're seeing, even within the same household, consume a different kind, I mean they all consume different kinds of media. So engaging with each and every one becomes really relevant in this particular world where it is not like, okay, I have one formula, let me just use it across. It doesn't work any more, I mean for any brands at all. So consumer connect is like very important to the last person. Yes, Sunil. You're the guy who should be answering this. I think also in the print era, there used to be one creative and that was the champion creative for the CEO, CMO, everyone was proud, it was plastered all over town. I think that legacy effect also still continues to some extent where even on digital brands, one should run one type of creative for a particular campaign or for a particular product. Whereas someone for ice cream, for example, I think Sam, you could say like, you know, a millennial ice cream taste would be very different from like a 25 to 30 year old and a 40 year old. But they still would want relatively similar communication or similar styling for different audience segments also. No, but it's actually true. So again, back to comparing 15 years back versus now, I used to brief my same agency, Lowlanders, for example, saying, yeah, we need a damn good key visual for this campaign. Right. And that key visual only you will use for six months. Right. And in fact, when I started on dub incidentally, on digital, you know, the conversation in the room was, we are creative and we will run it on Facebook for six months. Right. And that was how naive we were and we were like utterly did not quite know it and understand it. And today for the midlife set of creatives that we've gotten made for even the TV ads, I had literally 200 photo shoots done, 200 pictures finally to create a library to run with six months. Right. So that's the kind of change that's happened because of digital. One of you. Okay. So I just give an example. I think we're talking about all of this. So we had a men's innerwear brand and we had two types of creatives, one with model, one without model. And of course the brand was very proud about their creatives with model. And we said we want to run all of these. We found that the images of the products without model work very well in tier one. The images with model work very well in tier two collectively was a very popular campaign. And gave great results. So I think the choice that we had to make, that this is good, this is not, is gone. We need to put a lot out there in front of people and let algorithms choose what's working. Actually what she said at the beginning, it's really beginning to sound scary. How many business are going to survive? So if you think about it. Just one point on cost actually also. Cost. Creating these campaigns like 200 creatives requires one time and there's a cost element as well. So technology today has not scaled up to the level. It's getting there where you can do 200 different types of creatives within a day. So say Medlife wants to start a campaign tomorrow. Can you do 200 different creators three days? So I think technology we need to add to the cost. Most brands are not willing to add to that cost today. They're not your thing. So I think what we've been doing just to add to that point as an example. We is Baskin Robbins. So our consumer is literally your genders to your millennials to your older millennials. So that's essentially the classification and then the rest of the world of course. Instagram is a very big medium for us because that's prima facie where our audience is sitting. Then it's literally the same but we go back to the tenets of what we learned at Unilever where we have one key visual that we then use across whether it's Twitter, Facebook, any other medium that goes from there. So your core TG definition versus your communication TG definition and then so on and so forth. What we have started doing from summer has been that we've gotten into topical content. So whether it was elections or whether it was cricket or whether it was a certain show with the series which just ended a couple of three Mondays ago or another show with a young scientist and which show also ended. So things like that that we have actually picked up content that's very relevant, very topical, linked it back to our brand and that's the kind of content that our digital team has been churning around on a daily basis at literally like no cost because you're not going out there and making any kind of a product shoot for it. I think that's what, that's the beauty of digital. Having said that, we still had to run a TV ad and we still had to be there during IPL. We still had to do all of that but today digital lends itself to doing a lot more fun stuff that we couldn't have done even 10 years ago. It does. My big question is with the kind of disruption we're talking about will survival rates get worse? I mean just to put it in context, we're just looking at the data of all the Fortune 500 companies on the list today. Only 54 of them have survived from 1955. So in less than 50 years, 90% of the Fortune 500 has gone out of the window. So is the situation like it's going to make this worse? I don't think it's going to be any different. We discussed this in the first round of questions that you had asked us that only thing that's constant is change. Companies that change and evolve and modify themselves to really move with the consumer trends will survive. Those that don't will die. Okay so my question came from the fact that 30 years ago our ability to control the variables in our business in spite of difficult consumers is much higher. It seems to what you guys are saying, it's much more difficult to control the consumer than it was 30 years ago. So I differ on this. I think that there is so much more data now. It is your ability to process data that's going to define whether you survive or not. I mean 50 years ago it was gut feel. It was many other things. I think it's a lot easier now but the challenge is how do you make, you know, get signal out of the noise and that's going to be the bigger challenge as against. The point that I want to make is that how relevant is the product to the consumer? You know, there are so many consumers right now like the way she just mentioned about the ZenZ and everything coming in. Each and every person wants a different thing and there are going to be fragmented views about the product, the needs, everything is going to change and you being relevant is going to be difficult unless of course you really understand your audience. And that is the key thing. So you're definitely saying it's much harder work than 30 years ago? It is going to be hard because it's also opening up a lot of products and companies are coming in. You need a viable alternative. So I'm saying that, you know, just saying that, I'm not happy with this doesn't mean that there is somebody else over there in the market already offering you that service. I tell you, way back when Asian Paints came up with their entire Merawala Cream campaign where they suddenly introduced computer and said that I will, you know, put this color so much, C-Y-A-N and they basically started mixing and matching and created multitudes or just exploded the sheer color choice that customers had. That was a breakthrough. That was like big, wow. But now they've also had to move away from that and they've had to talk about all the issues that customers face with respect to dust and with respect to some other things, monsoon, some, all kinds of stuff. And now they even have bacteria resistant paint and whatnot. So I'm saying that people are evolving and then you will have to keep coming up with a new narrative and that's really the marketing's job, right? Definitely much harder work. Sounds like much harder work, definitely. But I also think that, you know, going back to what Arthi said about the product relevance, I think it's not just the marketer's job or it's also about marketing ensuring that product quality, marketing having much more stringent control over the quality of product that's going out there. Because I may have a brilliant marketing campaign but if my product falls short, the customer is extremely unforgiving. The kind of hatred, the kind of barrage of, you know, it's, it's scary. I'm going to go back to saying scary. It is scary. So you might have a great campaign that cannot overpromise. It has to, the product has to deliver first. If the product stays true, product stays relevant and you don't act schizophrenic as a brand, I think that's the other scary part if the brand keeps changing. Like just because I'm adapting doesn't mean that I lose my true essence. I think that is the bigger challenge. How do you tread that fine line between staying true to who I am and then also being, you know, adapting and being agile with the market? Which brings me to the last time. Quick point, actually, like a lot of brands over here are older brands. I think it's also become a lot easier to build brands today. And which is why it's become tougher to survive because they come in some of our clients within six to nine months see amazing traction as brands which was never possible ten years back. So I think the timelines have shrunk for building and declines. So it's exhilarating and it's... And yeah, you die out of... Scary as well. My last question, only last question and this has basically derived from what you said. See, one of the things that we've seen over the last 20 years of our work almost a couple of decades is that if you look at the value of businesses, right? Only one-fourth is lying in the books and three-fourth of the value of the business line outside the books. In that, 38% of the value of business is coming from the brand on the average. It may swing here and there depending on what our enterprise has at whatever point of time. But 38% is a big number. Now, therefore, my question is what is really going to be the CMO's role five years from today in a scenario like this where business is disrupting everything? Brands clearly are the arrowhead for the business and yet are we thinking beyond market opportunity and supply chain? What will be the role of the CEO strategically? For example, can I visualize the scenario in which we have got a half an hour slot only for the CMO to tell investors, to tell the board that here is the cause and effect relationship between the amount of money we are spending on branding, digital or otherwise, and the value that's being created for the shareholder, the role of the CMO. Okay, anybody? So, I think two, three things. Going back to what we've been discussing, it's almost like a summation. I think equity is something that brands build. And brand's equity, the way we have learnt it from our quarterly days is about asset and liability and all of that. I'm not talking numbers at all here. If we have to build equity in the customer's mind and therefore your shareholder's mind and even then your presentation to the board, if at all there's a utopian scenario like that where the... It's already happening. Excellent. I'm very happy to know that. So, if there were a scenario like that, like you're saying there is, I think it's very, very important to then ensure that you are able to be very, very, very patient as a brand. Because I think we talk about product, we talk about price. Again, if I have to go back to saying the four P's of marketing and how we're pouring that sounds, we still get evaluated on those parameters only, however much we have evolved, however much you have data and science. You're saying it's still very transactional. It is extremely transactional. You are always asked what are the... And this is true of any organization, any brand, service, product or otherwise. How many number of new retailers are you getting in? How many number of new walk-ins are you getting in? What are the number of people who have transacted more with you, consumption, penetration? It's always the same metric. Why aren't we measuring things like, am I still relevant to that consumer? What kind of brand love? I think that is something that Univer taught us again about brand love. We learned about magic. I agree. So what you're saying, it is transactional and it needs patience. I agree. It needs a lot of patience and that should be the fifth P on which marketers should be evaluated. Understand. But it is not important to measure. It is super important and I think, we are oversimplifying it. There are lots of companies and obviously a little more onto the traditional space, which still have a huge focus on brand. As a brand manager in Univer, I remember my three KRs. I had only three KRs. One was to grow market share of my brand. Second was to ensure gross margins for my brand. And third was the brand equity, which was measured through a set of calculations done on the regular brand track that used to happen. But therefore, equity had an equal weightage. And that means that Univer knew inherently that brand is what the money is in. And therefore, there are companies that do that. And yes, sadly, a lot of the digital companies and digital first companies, especially in the whole world of e-commerce, they start more as a product and tech company. And there is where I think this whole brand thought is completely missing in the initial years. But even there, you see, anybody who started off by saying that my product and technology will take care of everything and will basically take me to the moon and stars, realizes that they pretty much plateau and then they have to resort to marketing and the entire brand building side to start taking the entire numbers up and go for the next wave of growth. So, it is not possible that you don't build equity and you actually get the numbers rolling and going all the time. So, cause and effect has to be established. Therefore, it's a board level topic anyway. Absolutely. So, just to bring that point, it all depends on one key factor which is called that brand valuation. It depends on who's really doing that valuation. As long as it's just not based on the revenues just for today and tomorrow, it is about you seeing the brand 10 years from now or 15 years from now, whatever you work towards with short-term girls would automatically help you achieve that. Well, the brand valuation, I think everybody now speaks about the brand valuation, GMV and all those things. Ultimately, brand has to finally deliver money. You know, I think I feel there is very strong fear of missing out. When we make 200 creatives, is brand still giving one message or brand is giving 200 messages? You know, the CMO needs to stand and say that this is my brand. Okay, brand message can change, but the brand ultimately needs to be true to, you know, 31 in your case. You cannot be 27, 7, 29, 33. Correct? It needs to be, adaptation of this 31 can be 31 types, but ultimately 31, you know, the Vaskinzen, Robin's 31, 31 remains 31. So the CMO, of course, needs to, the role point of view, needs to speak this in the valuation, the equity, the contribution and all those stuff, but needs to stand firm the brand love, what you say. You know, we can't, although she said that, you know, our relationships are changing, but we need to be rock solid with the brand. I think that's what I feel. No, I'm saying today I think industry has not defined a standard equation to basically come up with the correlation of brand to the numbers. If it does, then that is going to be the number one thing, because look at the brands that have fallen from high, high pedestals. Look at how Maggie got affected when that entire controversy hit. Look at brand ambassadors, right? You know, one of the hottest people in the world, Tiger Woods, how his valuation completely fell. It was all to do with the brand, right? So I think it's just about coming up with the equation and if you yourself pointed out that if you look at the valuation of companies, 25% is the books, 38% is the brand, 38 is greater than 25. Absolutely. You basically need an equation to connect the two and then once you do that, it will start with that. Well, the equation's already been built. There are ISO 9000 standards also on this, but I think it's some distance before it gets into a board meeting. What we are all hoping it does, especially in the digital age, is going to become even more important. A big hand for the three ires and the three boys. Do we have time for two simple questions? Because I think it's only fair that they outnumber us and they should have a point of view at least twice. Two questions. Okay, first one, yeah. Can you give them a mic? Tell us who you are. Yeah, good evening to the panel. In today's scenario, AI and big data analysis, how much it helps in brand building? Can you elaborate? AI and big data, how much does the help in brand building? I can take that. Basically, what AI allows you to do is process a lot of data to get meaningful insights out of it. In the earlier days, which was one message going out to people, you measure, I think the cycles were much longer, but what AI and big data or a lot of data allows you to do is measure a lot of things at one time and come up with meaningful insights based on which decisions can be taken. I think that's the biggest value. I think the way we use AI for better brand building is by personalization. It allows you to reach different creators. You can upload 50 different creators or 200 like Meera mentioned and see which creative works for which audience type. AI decides who to show which type of creative automatically. You don't need a manual mapping of this creative to this audience. One last question before we get beaten up. Hello, my name is Alik Banerjee. My simple question is to the panel, can we have some volatile examples of brands that have stayed relevant over the last 10 years? We talked a lot about relevance. Do you have any examples of two Indian examples? Each of us will give you three. I come from e-commerce, so I would say Flipkart. Ten years ago, it was a brand about books. You could go get books there. Today, you can buy many other things. It stayed relevant. It's moved with times. It's also moved into fashion and other categories. I think that's one example I would like to give you. I think Cadburys, say chocolates, they redefine chocolates, Titan watches. I think there are too many to count actually. Yeah. Hi. Good. You know, I saw you. I think you have asked a difficult question. I'm not going to give an answer. I'm just trying to modify your question. A brand which is born in last 10 years and made a profit. Do you have names in your mind? So just I'm leaving this thought. Good thought. Thank you so much. Thank you. In conclusion, I have only two things to say. One is it's obviously looking very, very scary with the consumer completely and totally in control of the conversation today because of digital. Secondly, I might add that it's equally accelerated because number of things that you can do with digital has obviously moved 10x. With that, all I need to say is thank you to each of the six panelists, the three Aidas and three boys. I was completely and totally not distracted, which obviously means that they had my attention. I hope they had yours too. Thank you very much for being a great audience.