 So very good afternoon to all of you all. And I think we started the discussion already in the waiting area. So we are quite warmed up to this panel. What we are going to do is we are going to drift a little bit away from the topic which has been aligned. And we are going to get into something which is the elephant in the room. So what we'll do is I'll start our way, get into it. And I'll ask each of you all this question, pertinent question, which is going on. And you all are all sort of media heads, brand heads of large corporates. And there's a lot of money which you spend on media and advertising. So my first question to you is, I'll start with you, is TV dead or is TV dying? Hello. Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Jay, I mean, I'm completely not in sync with what you're saying. And it's a medium which really gets into every nook and corner of India. It has a huge mass appeal. Yes, the relevance has not changed, but there are alternative mediums which have come up. But having said that, I think television is still one of the primary medium in every household, whether and especially when it comes to the regional channels, the regional penetration, because India is many countries within one country. So therefore just seeing that one medium has died, I am not in concurrence to that. So, but I mean, again, it also depends on what kind of category that you're handling, what kind of brand. So depending on the category, there are, certainly, there are changes in terms of the percentage that you spend on different media. But television definitely is one of the key mediums to consider. Thanks. So, Riya, I'll just move on to you and before you can answer. The point, what I'm trying to ask, OK, while she says that TV is not dead, but I want to say that what, do you foresee it dying in the next five years? Maybe not in the next five years. And I think I will maybe spin it around. TV will die soon, and I can't tell you a number of years. If two things happen, one is if there is some substantial third-party measuring or monitoring which happens for digital, that's the first thing. And the second thing is, of course, digital efficiencies have to come down, because right now it's almost even for the smallest unit of video. It's almost 20x that of TV. So if these two happens, I think TV can die a very fast death. Don't know when that's going to happen, and if that will happen. But that's the only way I can see TV dying, because otherwise, as Madhu said, India is a vast country. Too many people. Subscription costs for TV is much, much lesser. And TV affords great entertainment at a very low value. So if things don't change, TV cannot die very soon. Got it. Priyanka? Is it all? So your take on this. So one person is saying clearly TV is not dying. Rhea's point of view is that not right now, but she foresees it in the next not five years or 10 years, that probably given certain constraints which digital has, TV is probably staring at its death. What's your point of view? So well, in a country like ours where 1.4 billion people, you have a rural population, you have a large urban population, and you then have maybe the top 25 million people who have really high purchasing power. So it's fairly dynamic. In that, I mean, I can go with facts. What we have seen, and we also deal with a category which is very, very deeply penetrated. Almost everyone buys a toothpaste, so it's 100% penetrated. We also deal with the challenge of having brands that are mass penetrated to building brands that are talking to a more premium segment, which are more specific to a benefit. What we've seen is that TV reach still continues to hold on. If you look at a longer trend of data, the reach would have come down maybe a few points, a couple of points. What is really coming down is time spent on TV, because people's time is now getting spent on multiple devices. And for us, it is more and. Like we say India is a country of and. It is not this or that. So we do, and I do, see the relevance of TV holding on for consumers and audiences, or maybe segments where it is still deeply reached. Of course, there are opportunities now, and there are sizable opportunities of reaching people through digital. So equally possible to build a demand generation model without TV. Then you have a certain scale of ambition, and you want to run a business out of, I don't know, maybe 100 million people with a certain level of trial and all of that. So both are possible. But I hard to say that TV, when will TV die? I think it is all about finding the right mix of channels and touch points to reach the consumer at the right time and the right message. And in that context, I think TV still holds strongly for some segments and may not have any relevance for a certain set of segments. Very interesting. Sandeep, the ball is in your court. Now you defend it. So yeah. So I think there are two perspectives to this. One with the viewer perspective and the advertiser's perspective. With the viewer's perspective, TV has a long life, because the kind of content that we as Indians watch on TV is very family-based. And as long as the family fabric remains in India, the TV won't die. Because whatever content otherwise we see is mostly not a family-reviewed content. Either you can see as has a husband, wife, right? Very limited content is available, which is very widely we can be seen with. So with that perspective, TV would have a longer life. As long as OTT regulations come and suddenly OTT has to change their content fabric, yes, then we'll have, for the viewer's perspective also, they will have a better. The other thing with this curation. A lot of us are, we don't get too much of time to spend on anything that you want to curate. Like, why does, for me, why does YouTube work? I would search one of my content that I want to see. And in the curation, the AI, what it throws, right? When we have so many OTT options, right? You spend a lot of time in trying to figure out what do you want to watch, right? So that's another reason why I feel that this curation helps a lot. That's why, that's one reason music channels have not died. Music channels have significantly reduced their GRPs, but they have not died, right? Because the curation that's being offered are fabric and people know that this is my taste. And they will not have to jump here and there. So that ways, that again is a very big plus for TV, the curation aspect of it. And the content creation, even today, if you see OTT platforms, like I just read some time back, Netflix has acquired the rights of WWE. Why? Because they want to become what TV is doing, right? So live action, which was one of the important aspects of TV, they know that with whatever they are now creating, marketing, to survive for them, it's not possible unless they have something which is seamless viewership and people have to come regularly. So with that competition is there. Yes, what happens with the advertisers perspective? The mix has to be seen based on what you're wanting to promote. It is the TG you want to promote. It is based on what kind of people you want to promote. So basically, with the advertisers perspective, it is the market and the TG in which you want to reach to a customer. And I just saw a couple of days back, I think. In a TV Prophet, there was a Harit Nagpal was there. And I liked one analogy of his very, very much. It was like he was saying that if people are growing, if cars, if buses were enough, why car grow? If cars are growing, why metros are growing? Metros are still getting built, even in Bombay. So everything is going to grow. And it's not going to, not that because metro has started growing, the car cell will reduce. It's about the convenience, it's about the need. And the so will happen for this medium. The medium is providing entertaining content. The pipe may vary based on the type of content. If the content suits a particular medium, it'll be there. So for that, I'm not in agreement that TV will like. One more data point I want to just add. In last five years, if we see, there is a reduction in reach. But if we see the total hours of content consumed, if I have to give the analogy, five hours of 13 minutes is an every household's average consumption in TV. Except for the COVID year, it's stagnant. Around five or 13 minutes. And if you go in terms of individuals, it's some three hours, some 40 minutes or something. So not that their consumption has reduced. But as everybody's rightly saying, because there are so many mediums, because there are so many options, there has to be a reduction in reach. Thanks, thanks. Interesting points you've made. And with that, I'll get a little more deeper into TV. And so as we have, when we do our planning, we look at, let's say, connected TV, approximately 40, 50 million households. When we look at HDTV, again, 40, 50 million households. Then you have PTV, and then you have FTA. So that's the sort of pyramid which we work with. While we all know connected TV is rapidly growing, HDTV is rapidly growing, FTA is rapidly growing. But I've seen some reports which are talking about, like, PTV either being stagnant or probably declining. And that's largely because of what we believe as cord cutters or cord shavers opting for more connected devices. So given this perspective, okay, do you, as large advertisers, do you believe that the money, the PTV money is dramatically shifting towards digital, is one. And second is that the growth of FTA means that we are going to see India getting polarized. So you have India, you have Bharat. So TV is going to become a more medium for Bharat, while India is going to become more digital. So Madhu, your viewpoints on that. I mean, I personally feel that, again, in terms of when you're talking about this planning of how you want to segregate and do the segmentation, it also depends on the fact that, what are you advertising and which category you're in. So I mean, from an FMCG point of view, the entire approach will be very different versus a lifestyle or any other, whether it's cars, automobile will be different. But having said that, that sharp segregation, I am not really very clear about, but I'll just give you example about certain platforms when cricket happens. I mean, cricket is an all India thing. When such platforms, you cannot segregate because whether it's Bharat or India, I mean, television consumption on cricket, and that's the reason the kind of, during a World Cup or an IPL, the kind of money that is offered in terms of, from airing point of view, as a brand, we all know that what kind of monies are being split. And they are being able to demand that because there is a certain audience or there are brands who are wanting to. Now having said that, when you see, especially for World Cup and IPL, when you see the kind of advertisers, I mean, India growing digital and everything we talk about, the maximum percentage of advertisers are digital platforms. So they are seeing that merit in that platform to reach out to huge amount of people in the mass appeal that we have. So therefore that has also been considered. But having said that, again from a content point of view, the discretion that you're talking about of Bharat versus India, it depends on what is the content and who you're wanting to reach out to. So therefore that amount of, it can't be a sharp Bharat versus India. It's all about who you're targeting, what content you're targeting and in what category you're operating on. So that would be the determining factor for it. Fair point. Rhea, what's your point of view on? I think your question had two points or two parts. So the first part was what Madhu answered about pay TV and how she's going to address it. So I'll try to answer the second one, which was, I think you asked about FTA and is that bringing down the premiumness of TV? Was that your question? Yeah, like basically what I'm trying to say is that with pay TV slowly, like numbers saying that it's declining, does it mean that TV is therefore going to be a very Bharat kind of a medium? Right. Is what I'm saying. FTA is growing. FTA is definitely growing. Sure. Okay, so then what I would say is that we cannot, we shouldn't really look at TV as pay TV, cable, FTA, DD, all of them, because we look at it as how are we reaching out to the consumers, right? So whether it is through connected TV, pay TV, or FTAs, we are finally addressing the business challenges to reach out to the consumers and making them buy our product, right? So like for example, if you remember, maybe 10 years ago, we used to have a lot, a huge percentage of our TV budgets on niche channels that we never used to spend because the CPRPs were great, right? We were also not getting any incremental reach. It is because we felt, or anecdotally, we felt that people like us watch a lot more of the Star World and National Geographic, et cetera. This time nowadays, we have replaced it with connected TV, right? So whether it is on OTTs or connected TV on YouTube or any of those, that is how we've done. So if you ask me, it's just the niche part of it and rightfully so because there is no niche anymore in regular TV, right? Even in HD, you don't have niche. So that is what is getting replaced with connected TV and that's about it. So for a consumer, they are watching everything on the same screen. It's for us media planners that it's actually become connected TV also becomes digital, which is actually, which it actually is not. So that's where it is. Priyanka, what's your viewpoint? Given that you handle a brand which has such a large penetration, is there a clear bifurcation when you plan? Yeah, so I'll pick from what you said. You know, as advertisers, and when we are building plans or demand generation for brands, we don't look at paid TV connected FDA from that lens. And I'll try and tell you with three examples, right? So for example, one of our brands, we wanted to increase our coverage in rural, right? So if you go with the principles of reaching the people, so the first principle is to try and build effective reach through the right set of touch points. We know that there are markets like UP and Vihar where rural, you know, rural parts of this, almost 40, 50% are still media dark. And over the years, mobile access has led to digital, you know, consumption actually, or digital reach being higher than TV. So there, our mix will have, you know, a higher composition of free to wear because, you know, their reach for free to wear is higher. We also use digital for rural because that's the, you know, that allows us or enables us to get incremental reach. Then you look at all other sort of touch points. So it's, you know, finding the right mix and which has a reasonable amount of digital in it on top of TV. But the first principle is also, is always which is the highest reach and which is, you know, the most effective to reach as the first medium and then you build on top of it. Now on the other side of the spectrum, we have, let's say, our, you know, premium brands like, you know, our whitening toothpaste, visible white, if you will say. There we're trying to appeal to a younger audience and a premium audience. So there we, for example, Connected TV is a part of that plan because that's a relevant audience and, you know, we want to reach them consistently. So that's how the mix changes for us. So like I said, there's a core portfolio where we want to reach out to, you know, large parts of India, high reach, penetration is high, distribution is high for us. And then there are these premium brands where we want to be selective, we want to target the right people and we also, because we have a large toothpaste portfolio, for us it is important to differentiate and, you know, send the right messages to people. So where affordability is high, we would like people to buy a toothpaste which has, you know, multi-benefit and has specific benefits. Where affordability is low and where you have rural India, where, you know, half of rural India is not brushing with the toothpaste every day, you need to reach them with the right sort of proposition so that they can, you know, buy it. And then the third thing is also, you know, regional variations and I, I mean, for example, if you look at Tamil Nadu as a state, very, very high consumption of TV is still there. So when you go by numbers and reach build up, we still feel that TV coverage is reasonably high and, you know, other touchpoints don't give you incremental reach. So from a reach point of view, that's the lens with which, you know, you look at. The other lens with which one looks at touchpoints is how do you want to connect with the consumers in different parts of the journey. So while we're talking about digital, mostly from a YouTube or a social point of view, there are other things that a lot of people are searching, right? A lot of people are going on to e-commerce platforms to search for products and buy. There are a lot of people who are searching on Google on concerns and things. So those are also now equally important elements for us because while you're trying to build attention, you know, reach with a certain communication, you also want to be discovered when people are on a platform searching for you. You also want to be there as cool gates, offering a solution when people are searching for anything on Google related to oral care because, you know, we are leaders and we want to be ideally providing a solution wherever we can. So those are other things in digital. So if you look at the mix, if you look at our overall mix, the shift is more towards, you know, the percentage of TV has come down and percentage of digital has gone up. But it is, you know, a combination of all these things that is also driving the change. For example, e-commerce media is a significant part of our digital investment now. I just want to, there was a very important point which you said and I just want to dwell a little more is about regionalization, regionalization of TV. So I remember when I started planning, there used to be only the southern markets where we would look at a regional plan. Now you have Maharashtra, West Bengal, even the Hindi heartland has become regionalized. So one is, I just want your views on that in terms of how it helps brands, how has planning changed, therefore? And second is that we're seeing a tremendous amount of growth here from a regionalization point of view, regional TV and regional markets are also becoming very important. From a media planning perspective, does this mean that, you know, we always do this top-down kind of planning? We'll have a stop-loss or a Z in our plan and then we keep adding regional channels. Is the time come where we have to do bottom-up planning? You know, we plan at state and then we sort of look at national channels. So I would say wherever there is KL, we do bottom-up planning, right? So the five states, I mean, the four south states and Maharashtra and West Bengal are reasonably penetrated with regional TV, right? Where the southern market should be in the range of 70 to 90% regional. If you go across AP, Karnataka, Kerala, TN, and then there's West Bengal and Maharashtra which are almost, I think, 50, 60% regional, right? So you do a bottom-up and there are times when we only advertise in those states. You can, you know, take a call and say you want to only be in West Bengal or Maharashtra and you can get adequate coverage with TV. Now there, digital is also an enabler because Hindi in a state like Maharashtra where you can only cover, let's say, half the population with regional, but ideally you want to cover more. Digital becomes like a good enabler to add on that much. So bottom-up planning definitely wherever you can. I think only when it comes to the Hindi belt if your objective is to cover the large part of North and West, then you would start with, you know, a certain base of Hindi channels and then you do the bills, you know, in that manner. But first principles are largely bottom-up wherever you can. What's your point of view on that? So I object to the word bottom-up because, you know, if you look at it, again, we are looking at expanding our business. We are looking at reaching out to the consumers where the consumers are, right? So I don't think when we start working on a plan, we ever start with a staplass or any of those things, right? So also maybe for our brands, Britannia, our main strengths is in the South, not that we are quite bad in West or East or in any other sort. And hence, market-isolatable markets like the four South states that she said, Maharashtra, East, Odisha, A&E, et cetera, we really can't start with HSM. So if you ask me, Hindi is just one of the regional languages. All the others are also equally important because they also give us that kind of sales to us, right? So that's what we do. So it's not a bottom-up planning. It's what the business requires and that's how we go out and reach out to the people. And of course in rural markets, et cetera, we obviously need to layer it up with either digital or if there are certain really small pockets, maybe we will do some OOH or any of those things. But that's again a media planning principle rather than a region or a language-wise planning. Gordon, Gordon. So interesting viewpoints that regional brands obviously it'll be regional planning, but when you look at large national brands, there is a choice. So you might start with HSM and then add or depending on the pockets of priority, you'll sort of advertise. So interesting, but the moot point is that regionalization in India is definitely growing and it's becoming quite an important part. Looking closer at TV again, we have these journals. And I think Reha, you made that point earlier that there was a point in time we used to put some money for niche channels and now there are no longer any niche channels left. Today when you look at TV, you have the Hindi GECs or the family viewing as you call it. Then you have movies, news, you have impact shows and all that. So from your point of view, like on a scale of like one to five where one being least important, five being most important, what is your priority when you look at your brands and say that this is something which is making more sense to me, this probably doesn't make sense. And over the years, I think this will, like what's the sense for music? What's the sense for Hindi movies? You know, with so much of content being available on OTTs and all that, will they still have the relevance which we expected? I'll start from Madhu. So I mean, having handling, I mean, we're handling a male lifestyle brand. So therefore it's very important that, I mean, I'm gonna be targeting the male audience. So therefore impact properties are very important in terms of, and with the mass appeal. So as I said that we look a lot into cricket because that is a sure shot in terms of when you do the segmentation, the male audience consumption is extremely high. Second, we look at certain channels and not in the sense that which will have a higher viewership in terms of from a male audience point of view. And we also look at the fact that in terms of when the segmentation happening, depending on what are the business objectives for the particular campaign. Now there are certain campaigns which are extremely male centric and the campaign, you know, the proposition that is there. Whereas when we get into the wedding space and all that, we look at that the primary audience and the secondary where women play a very important role in terms of the decision making. So therefore the channel selection, also then we go into a GC as well because there the women are the decision makers. So having said that again, business objectives are the key in terms of how the media planning is happening. And therefore, and not just the television would be the key medium because there are a lot of other things work. We get into a lot of digital. There are a lot of, you know, because it's an experiential shopping that happens. So therefore we get into digital from an influencer point of view and how those things add up as, you know, adding to the different touch points of media communication. But yes, impact as I said that the most important thing is the impact and there should not be any wastage, also media wastage because that's where we said that we look for the male centric properties and news channels also play a very important role because regional as well as English. So when we are going into the festivals, now for example, for us from a consumption point of view, like East is very important for us for the Durga Pooja and all that. So therefore we concentrate a lot on the regional channels both from the GC as well as from the movies and news. And there are other festivals happening because you would know for a category, for a discretionary category like ours from September to December. Those are the very important, you know, time of the year for us. So therefore it becomes a holistic planning where we would get into specifics on looking at the impact properties, looking at what are the channels because that is a very clear, you know, targeting of the audience. And it is a family festivals are all about family emotions together. So therefore GC also plays a role. I think you set the golden word and I think people here from broadcasters will be extremely happy to know that impact is quite important for you. Quick one, Riya. So from your standpoint, if you were to just put a ranking, what is the most important for you and what according to you will become the least important? Regional number one obviously because Britannia is a very highly penetrated category or most of our brands are in a very highly penetrated category. We are a five rupee brand, right? Of course we have higher SQs but five rupees is the one which sells the most. So regional GCs, et cetera. And if you ask me, those are both equally important. Impact, as Madhu said, is very, very important because there is no other property in the country like an IPL or even the regional big boss. They all actually gives you that extremely fast reach and you can actually see the results on your brand tracks, et cetera, from the next month. So that's also equally important or maybe I will put it as a rank too. What puzzles me the most is Hindi movies. Don't know what has happened to them after COVID. I think the media owners themselves are quite puzzled with that. Possibly because there are all these titles which are getting released on OTTs and people actually have the convenience of choosing the time when they can actually watch it. Most of them are free as well unless you are obviously getting it on Amazon or in Disney hot stuff. But otherwise that's what it is. So Hindi movies puzzling, so don't know where that's going. But otherwise I think the others are here to stay. Go ahead. Sandeep, I'll come to you because you'll have to answer this one. But Priyanka, what's your, in terms of your... So we evaluated from two lengths. One is reach, how many people can you reach and how important, and then the cost effectiveness. So if you go in that, high reach channels tend to be GCs, whether it's Hindi or regional, at scale. And then the mix is, what could be cost efficient? So in the mix you will also have Hindi. So in that sense we are agnostic of genres. We don't go in with a preference or a thing saying we want to be on these genres. But we want to deliver reach, so we need to be on high reach and we want to deliver it effectively. So the right combination of it leads to a mix. So as a result of all of this, GCs tend to have a really high contribution. Like I said, because we have a huge rural focus also, free to wear also tend to have a higher contribution. And then depending on objectives like accelerated reach during launch windows, then you evaluate live events and we also do impact also at times. But all of those are then evaluated in the context of, is it giving us some incremental impact? And then there are quality parameters also on TV, right? Are you buying in the right zone? Is there adequate primetime? Your spotting is correct. So that you know that you're at least getting more attention versus being in passive zones of TV, right? That's the... Sandeep, defend Hindi movies. Defend Hindi movies. While I... At Shimaru, I don't have a movie channel as of now in TV, but I have worked with... My past company was before you, we had a movie channel. I think the movies as a problem in TV is that there are too many movie channels as of now. And there's a lot of content repertoire. That's one problem. And for movie consumption, the habit for a movie consumption, people don't see complete movies. They see for movie, maybe as I understand, maybe for an hour, 45 minutes. And that too, they would want to see movies which they know. It's not they go to experiment for a movie. For the experimental movies, they would be happy to curate and go and see where I want them. So there they will search. That's where our OTT platforms are getting their edge, because they will search for the movie. For when they go for TV, they would only sample the EPG, not the channel. And in the EPG, if they know this is the movie, I know it from here, how it would be. It is entertaining, they will stop there, otherwise they move to the next channel. So that's the challenge with the movie channels, that they are right now, more movie channels. And the content that they're offering is not too much of a variety as they have left. That's the challenge for movie channels. And impact definitely in movie channels helps. And I'm sure they are getting good business when they're showing impact. Yeah, so I'll just sort of, in the interest of time, I'll just put each of you all on a spot right now, okay? So... Hey, that's not part of the script. That's why I just specifically kept it outside. So as per the addicts, currently you take whichever, like, you know, industry report. They say that digital is approximately 35%, TV is at around 30% and digital is supposed to be growing at the rate of 15% to 20%. TV grows in single digits at around 8% to 10%. So this is what we are looking at as the picture. From your perspective, okay? Do you think that TV will grow? Or do you think that TV will stabilize or TV will come down? From your perspective, your brand, given that this is the way addicts is moving, but this is what you perceive for your advertising spend. Yeah, I'll put it here. No, no. See, at this current moment, the way things are, like when earlier we said that, that time TV was ruling the rules. There were no other, you know, medium as such, other than obviously at an ATL level, we're going down to OH and the rest of the stuff, but the strongest medium was television. Then the new kid has happened with digital. And India is obviously from a younger audience point of view. I mean, we are a very young country. So therefore, the digital consumption is also pretty high. And therefore, the platforms and the digital, different areas of digital, the numbers that you're showing, we all say that digital is growing. So I mean, that now whether it will, I mean, it has, as far the numbers are going, it has overshot as far as television is concerned. But there are a lot of ways that television, there are certain things which used to be the key differentiators. I mean, as long as television doesn't get, I mean, as long as there needs to be innovation bringing into the television forum, because anything which happened or which was, you know, quite significantly high at 10 years back or 12 years back, you can't, you know, survive with that. So when it comes to television, there needs to be a lot of innovation that will come in. Having said that, whether it will go down or go up is debatable. I am no expert to talk about it. But I can give you an example from our media plan point of view. Like if five years back or rather eight years back, if it was 80% or 90% television and the rest would be others. Now we are also, because we are wanting to address a certain, you know, audience, we are trying to address younger audience and the consumption habit, media consumption habit have also dramatically changed in the last four years. So our media, in our media plan also, the digital intervention has come in way more in terms of it would be today, say a 65% television and the Balances TV. So, sorry, Balances Digital. So therefore, from that point of view, we are, as from a marketing point of view, all of us are getting into going in that direction. But it will stay, but then again, going back to my firm belief that it is very agnostic to what kind of categories you are in. What is your business objective? What are the, what is the proposition you want to reach out to the consumer? But effectively from a media point of view, what is the mix that works is something that will rule the roost. So 65, 35, will this change? Like in the next three years, do you think this will become 50-50? Or do you think it will stabilize at somewhere? Well, I'm sure it will because it all depends how the consumers are, right? Because if it has changed from 80 to this number, it is because how the media consumption has changed over the years. So therefore, it's very difficult for me to forecast in five years how it's going to be. But if this is the trend that is, so it all depends on, because from a marketing point of view, we need to be effective. In what we are doing, we need to reach out to the consumer without much of wastage. So how the entire thing transpires is going to determine the percentage of media spends. Clear. Riya, what's your take? So I'm going to answer in two parts, but I'll make it short, okay? So one is that maybe we will talk about India Addicts. What is the India Addicts expenditure? Obviously, digital is coming up. And the saliency of TV is reducing by the year maybe one or two percent right now. I think they are at some 34 percent while digital is at about 58 percent, et cetera. So you can see that the Addicts is favoring digital. The growth is also much higher for digital, et cetera. However, if you look at the mix of advertisers on TV versus digital, the difference is very, very stark. Like on TV, 45 percent of their Addicts is from FMCG, 20 percent from Ecom. And then the rest of it comes up, right? Like real estate or consumer durables and all of that. While on digital, almost 65 percent of the Addicts is from SMEs. So which is right from a home baker to a person who is actually doing some delivery, et cetera. All of that is part of that huge chunk of 58 percent of Addicts, right? And FMCG is only about 6 percent and Ecom is only about 13 percent, et cetera. And these are all industry numbers. I'm sure it will keep changing agency to agency. But that's where it is. So the Addicts will keep favoring digital and digital is going to keep on growing. TV is going to keep on reducing. The Addicts and the digital growth is mostly because of the SMEs and the smaller newer brands which are coming to play rather than the traditional guys changing their media mix drastically. Having said that, I'll come to Britannia. We were at maybe, see, as I said, we are probably the most efficient meal for an average Indian or below average Indian, right? So you can actually fill up your stomach with a five rupee biscuit pack, right? So from that perspective, we've always felt that we need to do that efficient mass reach, et cetera. We were at a 6 to 7 percent digital saliency maybe five years ago. Now we are at about 15 to 16 percent, right? That's also partly because we are also premiumizing our franchise. We are also looking at maybe health cohorts separately, et cetera. And that is how the spends also have moved. But that movement is here and here to stay. And lastly, I will say, I won't know whether it is going to go really high, et cetera, because these are all experiments that we have done in the last two, three years. Business results will also decide whether we will keep going in that, you know, in that same steady growth for digital investments saliency. Otherwise, it's always going to be a bait and watch. Piyanka, what's your take? So as far as the addicts is concerned, estimates say that the digital spend is actually higher than TV when you look at the overall world, right? And I guess if you project it in future, the trend will be it'll start growing slower than what it has been, but it'll be growing faster than TV. So somewhere it'll, TV reaches stabilized. I don't think it's, I mean, it's declining slightly over the years. And I guess pricing will be under pressure as a function of demand and supply. So we don't, I don't see it growing, but I see it having a significant percentage at least for the next few years. As far as Colgate is concerned and Armix, we have two big pillars. One is the core pants and one is driving criminalization. Those are our two sort of pillars of growth. On TV planning and reach planning, I think we've optimized and I think we've done a good job of getting to those reach levels, right? So just in, it'll be a function of business and which brands do we invest in. But if I assume that criminalization is a bigger lever of newer launches and more things coming, the shift towards digital will be more just as a function of, you know, of the mix. So even if you hold TV, you know, with newer investments coming in, the mix could, the growth on digital is going to be higher. Sandeep, what's your point of view on the overall? So, fortunately, Shimaru has a good share in OTT in YouTube. And so, OTT is Shimaru, me and our channels. So I'm not afraid of all these thoughts. What I actually feel is, advertisers change consumers, right? Wherever, wherever whichever medium can provide that set of consumer that any particular brand is looking for will grow. On a larger base, when we see that, okay, the ecosystem of TV, the ecosystem of digital, for a fair share, definitely, because the growth rate of digital is higher. The growth rate of, as a consumption also, right? It will definitely grow higher, correct? Because, and as you correctly pointed out, there is larger influx of business which is coming and everybody's trying to know if they have to grow, they have to advertise. They have to have their share of voice, right? That also is increasing. Not that it's a limited kitty, which is now getting lesser for TV and going altogether for digital. TV revenues are decreasing to the expectation that they were planning for, for sure, right? But the growth is definitely in commensurate to how things are changing. If at TV, we have to increase our share, we have to increase our content offering to the larger mass. And when there is limitation, this is the kind of regulations. So, I mean, I mean, I mean, agreement that there will be a less, faster growth for TV and digital differently. But that doesn't mean that TV will be sulking, that TV will not grow. It has to be optimized. Even for TV, the digital, like the connected TV, is the same option, right? It's just moving on the same medium to a different medium. Or how we, at TV, we have to figure out how do we make it more interactive, tune to technology changes. And if that happens in future, advertisers will come. It's because it's completely not the medium, it's the viewer. If we can catch up the current kind of viewer, the advertisers will be moving to whichever side possible. I think we had a very interesting discussion. While we started off by, you know, me posing a question saying TV is dead, but it's clearly here to stay. TV has a very important role to play. We've the, another very, like I think, heartening news for a lot of broadcasters is, impact plays a very big role. And we've got three large advertisers here who believe in the power of impact. Regionalization is the third point which we picked up, that regional, India being such a strong regional market, again TV plays a very important role. I think the point which we couldn't discuss and obviously because of time is on the measurement part. And while we had an offhand discussion that TV is the most measured medium. So overall I think we've reached a sort of a conclusion that TV is here to stay. It's not like while there are rumors and you know whatever going around, but there is a long way for TV. Any questions or anything from the audience before we sort of wrap this up? Yes, Gaurav. And we forgot to mention news also plays a very important role. So. Thank you, Jay. Yeah. Firstly, Jay and the entire team there, great thoughts from all of you. Take it as a great sign of encouragement. We'll come back to you with increased budgets on TV. Having said that, what I want to know is see one aspect that you largely covered was the reach, impact, little bit measurement. But one aspect that I would like, maybe all four marketers to throw some light is, how do you see the TV environment playing for content? You know, branded content has become a very large part of you know, conviction and building conviction, especially during COVID it was seen that brands that had actually built conviction for their franchise actually performed well in COVID. These are these brands that did not do that. They were only busy doing transaction and ROI analysis. So fundamentally, do you as marketers see the role of TV being important in content and is that relevant for your brand? So really, that's the question. Anyone would want to take that up? Actually content has to be defined based on what do you want to do, right? What's your purpose and what's your objective? Is then you then decide whether what kind of content and storytelling do you want to do? So for example, if you pick up a bigger agenda, which was like Swachh Bharata, whatever, and then therefore you want to have content creation and you different kinds of, you know, whether it's influencers, create, educated content, is then when you start looking at, okay, if I want to, there has to be an objective, then you will create something and then you will measure against that. And I guess the channel then is chosen based on, again, what is the role of the channel. So it could be news and I don't use a lot of these things happen because I guess news is perceived to be a credible platform. It is a platform where you get influencers and you get people talking and it's generally educated. But like I said, it is again a function. If you have a mission to build oral health in India and if as part of that, a content strategy, which is beyond just brand advertising, becomes a serious part of our communication mix, then we will go out and create the content and then we may not just do it on one channel, then we'll also figure out where do we want to do it and then how can we do it and what it takes to do it. So I think it stems from what's your purpose, what's your mission and therefore, do you need a content strategy? Thank you. Thanks. I believe in an interest of time, Jay, would you like to have your closing remarks? Sort of, yeah, we closed the discussion where we started off by saying that, what's the role of TV and we clearly believe that TV has a very important role to play. There are genres which continue to sort of define the advertising plans such as impact, news, Hindi, GC, regionals play a very important role. Yes, probably the mix might go as per what the consumer is viewing. So TV digital might grow a little faster than TV, but TV is here to stay. Thank you so much. Jay, on curating such an excellent conversation with all our eminent leaders, we request a big round of applause for all our eminent...