 So brands are not dead, and I hope TV is also not dead. I know it's not dead. It's an interesting discussion because we're talking about a medium which has ruled the roost for many, many years, continues to be the largest medium. Our estimates probably will end this year about anywhere from 40,000 to 43,000 crores of advertising being spent on TV. Yes, digital is catching up almost 30% growth rate every year. Probably ended about 20,000 crores this year. But still, TV continues to be relevant. But the expectations we have from the medium are changing. And what are these expectations? How can the medium evolve to answer some of these expectations? The new language that's coming up in terms of whether it's measurement, whether it's addressability, ROI, outcomes, is TV geared up, and can it get geared up to answer some of these questions? We'll spend some time talking to our esteemed panelists here. And to cut the chase, you've built a brand very quickly, an online brand. Service is being delivered offline. So it's not just about building the brand, but it's also about, coincidentally, I am one of your users of that experience of service, which is offline as well. And you've used TV extensively apart from online. Why have you used TV? Actually, why do you continue to use TV extensively? What drives you? At the same time, what will drive you to use TV even more than what you're doing? Are there questions that you have which will probably help you understand TV better and improve your investments on TV? Sure. Thank you for using Farm is in the first place. No, but I think very relevant question. Very surprisingly, actually, on the contrary, we've never used TV in the first three and a half years of our existence. It was a function of two things, one, capital, obviously. Two was also, we never felt that TV could get us what we need, only because you rightly said there is offline and online presence as well. I think the most important point that we took into consideration was we actually said we will only go on TV when we are live across the country. I think the leakage on TV is phenomenally high. So TV as a medium, say, I mean, in general, if you ask us, we are a very simple thought process. TV is only meant for three things. One, to just tell the world that you arrived, you're a big brand. Two, tell people, hey, you are reliable. Three, you are ready to spend money, which is not super efficient. But it's OK to build a long-term brand. I think those are the three objectives that you will have. The messaging, the branding, the communication never goes through. You generally browse through ads without actually realizing what's happening. But yes, it sticks. It sticks beyond the point. That was the very reason why we went out. But yes, we first went live panhandle because we couldn't afford the leakage. Two, we don't use TV even now. I mean, our spending on TV is less than 50% of our marketing spends purely because, again, I don't know who just viewed the ad. There's no re-targeting. There's no analytics. At the end of the day, TV outdoor print is as good as money gone, revenue coming in after a few months. Very difficult to scale, to justify. Digital works brilliantly. You know exactly the guy, which phone, which location, which app, did what. But yeah, so we have difficult times. So what's interesting is that you speak about what TV does not give you and what digital gives you, but you still continue to use TV. And it seems to have been working in some level for you because you clearly continue to invest less than 50% or even more. No, absolutely. So I'll tell you, there are two reasons. Digital cannot scale beyond a point. Digital cannot just scale beyond a point. If you ask me, if you've given a choice, we would have gone ahead with digital 100%. TV is inefficient. But yes, TV gives you mass. TV gives you scale. TV gives you trust. In India, people still believe if this brand is on TV, it's a reliable brand. If I watch it on Facebook and Google and Insta, I don't know where it's from. But TV gives you trust, which is very, very important. And mass. So clearly, you're talking about the 66% penetration that TV has in India, almost 160, 170 odd million homes. And that's something which we can't ignore. It continues to grow. Penetration is still room for penetration to grow in many markets like UP, VR. And so consumers on TV are going to continue to grow. Even though there are questions on accountability, but still it seems to be delivering in terms of building confidence in the consumer about your brand and about building a top-of-mind recall, right? The only sad part is, and I think this should have come long back in the sense, I think TV, even today, right? TV as a medium is not the best. The properties in TV, they are really credible. So I'll tell you, you ride on a KBC. You don't ride on a channel or on TV. You run ads on the channel, it doesn't work out, but if you run it on KBC, it really runs. That's the fundamental. I think that's interesting because I'll straight away jump to Rajiv. Rajiv mentioned about the fact that it's wrong to even look at mediums as TV or print or anything, but it's about content which ultimately powers the consumer to come back. And you being, having one of the largest bouquet of mass-market brands, you obviously use extensive, one of TV, but what's the role that you see between the way contents is evolving, the way it's getting distributed, and that relationship of content and brands and the distribution in the form of television. How do you see that evolving? You've got brands which are extremely mass-market and you also brands which are probably almost store brands, which are probably going to go about 3,000, 4,000 kind of outlets, and then you've got 6.5 million kind of outlet distribution as well. How do you see your strategy changing? So I'll briefly tell you about how we work and then move to the question. Our brands are present in about 65 lakh outlets in the country. Out of total award, 80 lakh outlets available. So that's the number of outlets we go to. If you look at television, it's roughly 498 million households. Out of total of roughly about 290 million households available, roughly about 66% homes in the country. So if you have a mass brand, if you are available in rural market and if you are very, very mass television is the answer. Now within television, what one should chase is probably the content, not the television as a wide definition, because that includes roughly about 800 channels. 99% of them totally useless in terms of ratings. Very few channels, if you look at the top rating channels, just about seven, eight, 10 channels will give you a majority of the viewership you're looking for. And within that channel, you look at the programs. You look at programs like KBC, you look at programs like say Big Boss. So you chase the content, you know. I'll briefly talk about the regional market. Look at the relevance of television regional markets. If you look at West Bengal, look at the ratings of the programs in that market. All the programs are rated between, all the top 10 programs are rated between say 12 and nine. Go to Maharashtra, similar story. Go to Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala. Same story. I think the problem we are trying to address is a Hindi. You know, we all are worried about Hindi what's happening to Hindi. I think the reason why this is under threat right now is because, you know, the television channels have still not have been figured out what this relationship is called. It's been 12 years. It hasn't come to this time yet. So I think the content, you know, if you have a good content, if you have a good story to tell, people will move over there, you know. People are watching the same content on the same screen. Remember 30 years back, the same screen used to have only one channel, Doodharshan. So all the viewership was on that. Now it has divided probably into two screens, right? From this screen which has both OTT and regular television, linear television and your screen which is your personal screen. So I'm going to kind of jump from what you just said. One is content and the fact that we divided four screens. And this is a question that's been in the mind. Should we define the way we look at television today as not as television the form of the way it's distributed, but in the form of linear audio-video stream and whether that linear stream is being distributed through a DTH provider or through the IP-based services. At the end of the day it's an appointment viewing driven by strong content which you are chasing, right? And if I can in some form bring in addressability, if in some form can I reduce the spillover that happens, maybe that will become relevant. And I'm going to throw this question to both of you, Anurag, because I know that you've done a lot of work in both addressability as well as distribution. And you, because that's a question that is constantly in your mind, why should I use TV at all for most of my portfolio? So you want to go? Yeah, when the hall was talking, it was echoing to me in my ears what I do a regular conversation in my office, TV, Karnak, you're back. I mean, that's where I was wondering. So when Priyanka called me that year, this topic is for discussion. I jumped for this panel discussion because I wanted to hear what others want to say and want to give my experience to. You know, you rightly said, Ashwin, from a perspective that TV is growing. If I get that 14% year on year at a 40,000 crore, so Karni had TV, so TV is there. Digital is growing, 30% to X to what edX is growing, but digital currently is taking over to the print which is the next West Median and it's going to be next number two there. But I will give you an answer from a perspective which we recently did. So I mean, all of us do, you do MMMs, I do cross-media, a lot of people do cross-studies. So recently we did a cross-media study and MMM study with Nielsen and a very interesting fact came out out of it. It was basically telling us that a contribution of your brand's presence on the platforms to the sale. So when we saw the results, TV was contributing X, digital was contributing Y, but that contribution of digital of Y was contributing at that particular person because TV was present. So the dependency of multimedia is the approach we are looking at right now. We're not looking digital kithna karna hai, TV kithna karna hai from that perspective, but what end of the day my objective is that I need to ensure that my brand awareness is higher in the customers or consumers to some other brands. So there we need to understand that multimedia is the approach we need to look at it and when I talk about brands where there are 3,000 doors when we talk or a 6.5,000 doors, the approach will change, but I still feel multimedia is what we look at it and not in isolation that only digital order and behind only television. It's very interesting what you said that the Y that digital delivered would not have been there if the X of TV had not been there. Exactly, exactly. And it was vice versa also. So there were certain brands when we saw that it was delivering X on TV, but it was X because there was your presence of Y on digital. So end of the day if you remove TV the digital contribution would have dropped from that X to X minus Y. So kind of going back to what Daval said about content and what Rajiv said about content and the fact that as long as you continue to innovate on content, you will buy content, right? And the fact that the content can be across mediums. If you chase the content across mediums, you're chasing the consumer across mediums and thus that's the point you're making. Which doesn't matter whether I do TV or digital but clearly I need to do both and there's relevance for both and it'll continue to grow because consumers are there in both places, right? But a lot of work, Anurag, you've done on kind of being able to target consumers, being able to define the way almost at a household level a consumer in a traditional TV medium. Can you spend some time on that? Yeah, sure. So I think first of all I must say that as a content distributor, which is what Tata Sky does, actually it's great to hear the voice of advertisers. Of course we also advertise, but here actually and as a key player in the TV industry as well, how do we need to evolve? And I think one of the views we have taken is that we must help the evolution of TV when it comes to getting advertising across to customers. And that's a demand from advertisers in which what we are hearing from everybody here in different ways. It means content is king, very clearly, which means TV will be their TV's role is very clear, but TV needs to be more efficient, needs to deliver more. And I think that's really where I think we are trying to innovate from Tata Sky. So I think the whole idea that we have is the idea of addressability. And I must say that addressability has been there with the idea of digitization in set-top boxes in the country, but it has been very under leveraged. And just for the audience, I must clarify what is addressability and it's basically the ability to target every individual set-top box with a command from a central place so that that home which has a set-top box actually does something. So today, for instance, every single set-top box that we have in Tata Sky, we can actually send a command from the satellite uniquely to the set-top box and it activates, for instance, a certain subscription, a certain packaging, a set of channels, et cetera, et cetera. And you can extend the same logic into actually also delivering a unique piece of advertising in that household. So that's what addressability is. So it's actually the benefit of the large screen of television which we know builds brands, as we have said, with the ability of digital to actually target. So that's really, I think, the end objective and we are trying to help evolve. So clearly the point you're making is that the intersection of the way we've seen TV so far and technology is actually going to kind of create a very powerful opportunity for all of us to reach households at a mass scale, right? The point that you made about the fact that there is a threshold that you hit with digital and you're unable to kind of push that threshold further. But if you're able to kind of marry this mass reach of television, the application of technology and drive addressability, drive outcomes, it clearly starts becoming a magic kind of pill for all of us. Absolutely. I'm going to say that a little bit about how actually it happens so that it's clear. So today, for instance, if you were to switch on the Tata Skybox, you'd actually land on the landing channel, we call it channel 100, anyone who has a Tata SkyConnection would do that. And as you're navigating the electronic programming guide to figure out which program you want to watch, KBC, for instance, you can actually play ads in the background. And as an advertiser, that's a gateway to TV viewing. So you cannot miss that, which means the customer doesn't miss it, so it's almost assured viewing. Now imagine if we segment that channel and deliver the channel in a targeted way to a certain segment which is defined by the advertisers, anyone sitting over here, you can actually reach a certain specific segment of audiences. So that's something which we allow. And equally, let's say on a static property, whenever you change a channel, a little banner banner comes up on the screen, which means it's seen by anyone who's actually watching TV at that point in time. So that's another way to reach mass customers. Now that, again, can be targeted to a certain geography, for instance, or a certain cohort of individuals the way we define it. So that's essentially the benefit of the large screen with targeting at a segment level. And I think the idea for us is to keep evolving that and have more and more segments so that you can have finer and finer targeting. So for both of you, he's talking the language that you've been used to talking about cohorts, talking about data segments, which you use to deploy your advertising, right? Jatin, you obviously work across brands, across advertisers, you work across media and consult with your clients on cross-media investments. What's that your, what do clients demand of you on a daily basis? Because you're not only planning, but you're also putting the money and buying that media for them, right? So what's the demand that's constantly coming back to you? I guess a lot of being summarized, after all, because we have families from different categories altogether. But the way I see from a very simplistic from a business perspective, I initially mentioned about the size of the business on TV and digital. The big dairy TV is growing in a very double digit number and continued to grow. Digitality is 35, 40 percent, I'm referring to video. And hence, both the mediums are growing and India is the only country probably that every medium is growing, right? Probably the sales guy doing a great job. But if India is a very consumer centric country where the advertising will remain ahead of curve when it comes to investment, the growth index in median entertainment is far higher than the GDP growth itself. And hence, this means the consumers are there and the advertising will keep happening. The question comes, what is the right, what the percentage is rationalized and optimized to give the best delivered output? Having said that, to have a, from Thurl's point, they identified in digital something which could offer to that particular category, which is a big plus because the business otherwise was absent on TV and digital could capitalize on that. So it's all plus. Again, one point in this regard because we handle certain category, we handle auto, which is a big segment, while Rajiv's outlet reaches 6.5, 6.5 lakhs. So auto category in the outflows are very limited. But having said that the dependency on TV to announce, like we heard from previous panelists on how the Jeep got launched, and hence, while a disability is important, but at the same time, the brand needs that mass reach which from established efficiency and effectiveness which delivered, there's no question on TV. But digital is offering something which TV wasn't able to offer. But I guess the eventual question lies if you have a single view of a consumer which can help us to divide a right mix of multimedia which Neelawar has been going on. So I think that'll require one more panel for us to talk about cross media measurement and efficiencies across the investments we are making cross media. But clearly that will probably become a requirement not in the near future, but I think it's a requirement today because our investments today are cross media. We are trying to go after the same consumer in different touch points and measurement will become important and probably it's in the interest of the TV industry to push because I think the more we push for reform, we'll only grow the industry. If we don't, then there is a challenge. So if we can drive addressability while playing on the mass reach, if you can drive measurement which is cross media which allows me to chase the consumer across different touch points, it'll only help me grow the industry. And more importantly, I think there is a story for linear TV per se, regardless of how it is distributed. And how do you see that, Anurag? Linear TV as the product and not the way we look at TV today. Or linear content as the product, let me put it that way. So obviously I think when it comes to linear content distribution, obviously I think television has been the main vehicle in terms of the screen. But we know that the mobile in India has become a very large component of linear TV consumption. So they see the same content on mobile and actually, and that's growing very, very rapidly. Obviously, the models keep evolving and I think within that you have, when it comes to what the way content gets consumed on a mobile phone, you have advertising video on demand, you have live TV, you have advertising video on demand and then of course you have the subscription video on demand. Which is still a very small segment in India because people in India are used to, everything is free so no one wants to pay. But we know that's evolving and that SWORD on mobile is now also going to television screens. And therefore I think you have an evolution from linear TV to on demand, which is similar to linear TV and subscription based, which is at support and then finally subscription based video on demand, on TV and on mobile and across screens. I think that's going to be the evolution which we see. I think if I again talk about from an, from an ability to advertise which is I think obviously where, I think we come in as a panel. There are obviously going to be challenges when it comes to SWORD because most of these platforms do want to have an ad-free environment. So what I think we all have to do is to figure out in environments which allow for advertising, how can we actually make it more efficient. And I think again maybe I'll just come back to the Tata's example for a second. So yes, we have the ability to target with set of boxes. We also have the ability to actually measure advertising through our own panel and use the language of BARC, the same metrics, so that for a media planner, you can actually say, okay, this is what TV, linear TV delivers for me, this is what a Tata Sky distribution platform and I add advertising served on that delivers to me on top of that. And hence I think it's important that we start talking the same language and therefore as in spite of the evolution of the platform how can we keep currencies meaningful and common across the industry. And the big challenge obviously as a, we all face with the digital is that each platform is a walled garden which doesn't talk to the other one and doesn't talk to TV. And therefore measuring cross media is a mine field and therefore each every advertiser thinks that we're just wasting money either here or there. And I think therefore it's in the industry, I personally think it's in the industry, the advertising platforms out there to actually say how can we actually have common currencies of measurement and that's what we're trying to solve for as well. I think. I have one point to make while the environment, we know how the digital is growing but the environment is pretty much incentivized in the sense how the consumer being incentivized to consume certain content in certain form. So going forward gradually how the ecosystem only evolved and in the country like so very price sensitive, I guess that's gonna be also playing a major role in terms of how consumer would want to consume content and hence coming back how the content getting distributed at what cause will become a matrix to look forward to. Cool. So I think this content is the starting point. Clearly more the investment in content, better formats, better engagement that will continue to drive audiences to be on the platform. And that's a good sign that there are enough audiences, there's enough money coming in from an advertising perspective today for media owners to continue to invest in content. So that's a starting point. The second being there are new technologies which are coming up which can make TV more efficient which means which is good news for some of us who believe that I don't want any spillovers while at the same time I want to be able to get that impact and the credibility and the reach that TV gives me, right? And maybe that's an area that media owners will continue to invest in along with distribution partners. And more importantly the point that Neil you made about how TV and digital tango together, right? Or other mediums tango together and if you're able to kind of make sense of breaking these wall gardens, breaking these isolated islands that have been there in the way digital has evolved probably that's going to be some way away. But TV still allows you that one view at least within itself, right? Maybe that's still a good news for us if you're able to add these layers. What do you think Neil? So you completely summarized a lot of things together. One of the important thing which I feel what TV should do dramatically is to innovate. I mean there are challenges but I'll give you an example of yours in IPL, when I was in Vodafone I used to own IPL on ground and television every day. So when I went to L'Oreal which is more female driven TGNXYZ, we couldn't afford IPL but we wanted to urge to do it. That's what data sky guys come to us and say that we have a trend that if the match starts at four, at three o'clock or the match starts at nine, at eight o'clock the people switching into data sky are jumping in. So that's Gorilla marketing which these guys came and told us that you just advertise one hour before with us on your channel 100, that's where he lands there and that's the way I showed presence on IPL. So that's one way which TV needs to innovate. Another way which TV needs to innovate is that start thinking more micro marketing. I mean why digital is winning over TV? The biggest point of digital winning over TV is sharper targeting, so I want to target someone in Goregaon, Malat, Shopper Stopke Bar, I can do it but on television you can't do it. It's national, it's media wastage but there are a lot more examples where you can do market storming activity. So we do multiple for our brands at L'Oréal too that if you're an ex-group and you know, so 10 years back print guys had started that do a market sales led, that your business is bigger than 10% so give me money otherwise don't give it to me. And I was surprised to see when Stark came and told me that I can do that for you in West Bengal market. I mean these are the innovations which TV need to do it in order to, it's gonna grow but in order to survive and sustain that number one position innovation is I think it's great need of the TV. I think so what I'm hearing is that medium is relevant and will continue to be relevant from a consumer's perspective and driven by the kind of content that's being created but from the economics perspective of investing in advertising on the medium there needs to be, so there needs to be business innovation, model innovation, there needs to be innovation in terms of way the content is getting distributed and way advertising can also be targeted and distributed and measured. There needs to be investment and innovation in that area and so that's one part of it and but I remember it was exactly near back and this was a panel in Delhi. There was that buzzword about the fact that targeting is bullshit. At that point in time that big book had come and that theory had come out which said that targeting is bullshit and you just need to go out and reach as many people as you can if now we pass our Daldo and reach as many people as you can and you will end up winning the market if you're able to do that. The fact is that you never have enough money. You may want to reach the world but you never have enough money because the theory was that what whom I think as a consumer today and whom I'm excluding as a potential consumer probably I'm missing a market there so that I want to be probably able to talk to that potential consumer whom I'm excluding from my communication today and that's where I think TV continues to build because it does reach out to all those people whom we probably don't think are consumers but who are going out and buying products, our services and products both. So it'll always have a role to play and will continue to drive top of mind, top drive reach, drive credibility and if you're able to add these layers of innovation and business models and distribution and accountability, I think the growth is not going anywhere. Any last words, not last words, sorry, but. I don't know what you're talking about. So from a, while your point you mentioned in terms of TV having a mass platform, I guess the challenge with TV is that India is still 70% Bharat and I guess in terms of when it comes to content they have a challenge of how they address that 70% of Bharat and hence which kind of brands are relevant into that. At the same time, the challenge they would have to match up to the taste of the consumer who is moving to this video on demand platforms so how they can excite and engage those audience at the same time not lose out on the 70% of Bharat. I guess that would be the key balancing that the TV would have to do going forward. Cool, I just saw at one point, you know, we discussed it earlier that you know content doesn't die, you know. Imagine, imagine, sorry. There's a channel called Imagine, NDTV Imagine about 10 years back which shut down. That content is still there somewhere lying in the system and that one channel picked up that content has become a number one channel. So I think content story never dies. It may change hands, it may change, go from one medium to another, but that's the key in the business. And Raghav, I just want to say that quoting that book, I think the book also said that actually you need targeting but it has to be not at mass scale. You know, it has to be at a large scale and I think therefore, I think as- I think you've kind of summed it up. If I can target at a mass scale and TV with the evolving technologies probably is going to take us there, I think we've got something which is potentially going to continue to grow at the rate and probably even faster and there's a great future as well. Clearly, we need to invest and we need to think and put our heads together and hold ourselves accountable for that. Thank you so much. You have one minute and 43 seconds over, but fine, not bad. Thank you so much. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and being a part of this panel. Thank you.