 This is going to be a hard act to follow. I thought the last presentation was absolutely scintillating. What I'm going to be talking about is, could be actually a pretty mundane, boring thing called media measurement, but it's pretty critical to all of us. And I'm going to just add one sort of qualifier to that. It's should media owners be involved in media measurement or which is currency, media measurement? Currency is the stuff that we use to trade. You know, when we buy jewelry, the BIS hallmark notwithstanding, large part, huge overwhelming majority is, person goes to a jeweler, a jeweler self assesses his jewelry and sort of sells it to you. The qualifier is that if you have to return it, no other jeweler's are going to pick it up. It'll only be the same jeweler who might pick it up from you when you return it because he knows what exactly the value was. You know, this is the age where it's a pretty old practice that you've had of the seller evaluating his own product and then pervading it to you. For every one Tanishk which is absolutely trustworthy, there could be many more who may be a little dodgy. The media in general is not too different. And that is the one that you can already get a drift of where I'm coming to. Look, in media, the entire media audience measurement, which for us really is eyeballs, eardrums really, the measurement currency is something that actually determines the revenue that a media owner is going to write. Unlike say a retail audit or a purchase panel or a brand track study which actually captures other brand health parameters, this one has a direct relationship with the entire piece from, sorry, has an entire piece where the entire nulka of money comes, bases the kind of audience that you're able to grab. Not surprising that all media owners, for them, it is the single most important thing to be front and center in this entire media measurement game. But this also therefore brings upon us the need to sort of critically evaluate is what should be the nature of this involvement? What is the thin line between involvement and influencing? And in some cases, maybe downright controlling. And that is the area which I'm going to, with some trepidation, actually get into. To start, I will actually, let's have a look at the state of the nation on audience measurement. By and large, for, it's actually not too much. We really need reach. So whether it's a medium itself or whether it's a plan, what is a reach my plan is giving? What are the total number of impressions, i.e. how many people actually saw it? It could be written as impressions, views, GRPs, whatever. And I would also like to know how many people are really spending on that medium? Add X or add in, as in you would, I love the word add in. I'd probably call it add in from now on. So these three things is really what we need to get out of every medium. And on the back of that, there's one lakh crore industry sort of pretty much runs. Now, if we have to look at top of the line, we have something called a media establishment survey. This is the one which actually gives you the seminal study which tells you all of India, what are the various mediums, what is a reach of TV, print, radio, digital, outdoor, whatever it might be. And also it gives you some product profile data. And it has the ability to do that at a very granular level. Your data is picked up at a district level and so on so forth, so it's really, really deep. In India, the currency has been IRS. And the reality is that IRS, in addition to also doing the entire media establishment, it picks up print readership, Indian readership survey. It is a media establishment survey, but it's also the Indian readership survey. At this point in time, suffice to say, the last IRS came out in March of 2020. That was a 2019 IRS. Nothing for the last four years, point one. There's another media baseline study called Broadcast India, which Bach runs. It was, there was some fieldwork which was finished in October of 22. And then after that, there was some more work which has been now done. But reality is even 15 months later, it's still not out. So it's not really there, so we don't have an alternative at the moment to IRS. The other piece is now we come down to the, from readership, there's also something called circulation. And for that, you've got something called audit bureau of circulation. Unlike the IRS where we pick up all print readership, in audit bureau of circulation, publishers opt in and say that these are my editions that I will choose to get audited for circulation. As things stand right now, last two years data, there are 20% of the publication editions which don't put themselves up for audit. These 20% include Times of India and Bombay, Hindustan Times in Bombay, Hindu in Tamil Nadu, Chennai, some ABP in some of the Cal markets. So we're talking about some real big names out here. So if you look at these markets, they probably account for much more than 20% of the circulation, maybe close to 30. So even while audits are happening because of the selective thing, or should we be part of the audit or not, the end user is not being able to get a good sense of what the total circulation number is. Then we come to the entire piece about TV. And this is where it's reasonably robust. We've got Bach. Now Bach is Broadcast Audience Research Council. It's the world's largest television measurement survey with upwards of 60,000 meters. It's got a very strong governance system. It's got a technical committee which actually gets into the entire design. It's got an oversight committee which actually talks about outliers. It's got a disciplinary committee which looks at any hanky-panky going on and tries to bring some order into all of that. So there is a fair amount of governance which is going into this entire thing. It's also one where, in my estimation, they are overall doing a reasonably good job. The problem, however, is that we face out here is that while, of course, at an overall level, you're getting pretty solid and stable data, if you have to now start looking at very, very small cuts, say if you're looking at all adults or males, whatever, 24, 5, 15 to 35, in seeing English news channels in Uttar Pradesh. The numbers by definition become low. There is something called standard error which basically shows you the reliability of those ratings is not good. It's statistical. Taking your sample size from, or panel size from 60,000 to one lakh is not going to change anything. Statistically, it is just impossible that you'll be able to get reliability. At an overall level, you can be reliable within 1%, but at these small, small granular levels, you can't, it's impossible. Now, the reality, and that's an unfortunate part, maybe it's lack of education or whatever be the case, people are actually interested in looking at it at such granular levels that it's probably, and then when they come out with seeming data, what they call discrepancies, it is actually, you can't really be looking data at that level of granularity. And those issues are really then taken up to major stakeholders is brought up and that becomes a point around which there's a lot of noise and as a result, entire TV ratings sort of gets maligned in the process. So at least on the TV viewership, state of the nation is reasonably good, probably it is the largest people meter system in the world, but the way it's being used is opening it up to a lot of pot shots. Now, when it, okay, now related to TV measurement, we've heard this word twice over, thrice over cross media measurement. It's so, so important to follow the consumers, Vinaf has been said today. They are, the reality is they are watching both TV and consuming CTV as well as watching stuff on their mobiles. We don't have a audience, we don't have a currency today, which is actually being able to, in one platform, tell you one versus the other. So what is a reach? You're getting from one, second combined, what are kind of ratings? So how should I be planning across both? We don't have that. So at this point in time, that's another from a state of the nation standpoint, we don't have any cross media. Now, when it comes to the entire digital ratings, this is again a place where we have to go entirely to the media owner to tell us what is the kind of reach that we finally got, where were the impressions delivered? And on top of that, if they were delivered in the target audience, they are the ones who actually come back and tell you that. There are certain tagging mechanisms that you have, which you can put in and actually come back and say, that listen, I've actually done an independent track of all of this, and I find that I haven't got the kind of reach or I haven't got the kind of impressions that you said, and more importantly, I haven't got them in the kind of target audiences that we had sort of defined. And in some cases, I didn't even have a proper severe because there's a pixel, the entire pixels that was displayed or the amount of time that there was viewed. All of those, you have the ability to maybe third party monitoring, capture all of that. But then the media owner does not agree to that. So you have to almost sell your sort of, your variation to them and they don't buy it. Mind you, right through 90s, in television, we used to have third party, it used to be time monitoring. And the most vulnerable of channels also would count out to them and say, we will only pass a bill, which is actually being monitored by a third party measurement system, not so in digital. And anything else that is happening right now in digital, there are some other kind of, the sort of comm score is one and all, but they still are far short of actually or needs as a digital ad ratings, but they're far short of becoming currencies. So people are using them, but end of day, predominantly it is the big tech who are really driving the agenda on measurement within digital. The radio listenership is actually probably the weakest. We've been capturing FM, only four metros through a diary panel. It's probably one piece of research which is looked at least. So it's, I don't think anything much happening there. The two bright sparks are really out of home and cinema. There have been one on the ages of IOAA and another with some cinema guys actually coming in and actually trying to pick up measurement. And I think this is actually a little bit of spark in the otherwise pretty desolate looking scenario. So if you have to really look at, okay, and take now the least, ADEX. ADEX we've been having something called TAM which has got a product called MAP which has actually been doing a very good job of, you know, the entire broadcast or linear analog world. They actually capture all the inventory which allows us to actually see how spins are being done and gives us a very good fix. In fact, everything that you saw in today's Pitch Madison ad report, the TV print, radio, outdoor tours, the large extent, all of them comes from published data and which we put a certain value to and then we publish it here. When it comes to digital, nada, nothing, zero, zilch. We have to actually try to use triangulate by going, maybe looking at our clients, talking to the big tech, trying to get some kind of estimates from them. But now, 40% plus is now with ADEX and that is a one area where we have absolutely no currency in terms of who spends where. So in all of this, what is the state of the nation on measurement? No media establishment study. On measuring media plan, reach ratings and ADEX, TV overall is pretty good but not being used properly. Print is highly outdated. Radio is antiquated to the point of irrelevance. Out of home and cinema maybe the two bright sparks and digital measurement as a currency is non-existent. Very bleak, very bleak. Now, what should be the rule of engagement for a good measurement study? I'm keeping it very simple. I think a study whose objectives are not tainted by personal agendas. And this doesn't, and I'll come to it in a second and you'll see why I've written this down. Nobody wants to be consciously naughty but if a personal agenda comes in, there is a conflict of interest. And I'm going to just establish that in this subsequent slide. You need a well-designed study that actually happens regularly. IRS is one where it just doesn't happen and that's really, it's a disservice to the entire industry. And then the third, the beneficiary of the study's results should not be in a position to influence the results. If we follow these three simple principles, I think we can actually come out with some pretty robust measurement systems. Now let's take a look at, okay, the three principles stakeholders of this entire audience measurement are agencies, advertisers, and media owners, great. Of these, the owners, the ones whose fortunes by definition are linked to audience measurement, as I pointed out right at the outset, are really the media owners. You know, thus actually for Caesar's wife to be above suspicion, it is important that media owners be at arm's length from the actual audience measurement. They should definitely be involved in inputting into the entire design of the study but not in its collection of the data and or the projection of its results. You know, the Indian marketing fraternities over the years built a very robust system of all these technical committees, these oversight committees. We've actually got a pretty good governance framework in place and it is in place. But despite that, why is it that we still have this malaise? For this, we have to now look into what exactly is the ownership structure of each of these bodies that actually comes out with this data. Let's go one by one, take IRS. IRS comes under the ages of a body called Media Research Users Council. On the board, you've got six publishers, two broadcasters, you've got another six agency people and you've got two advertisers. While this is the composition of the board, 85 to 90% of the study of the study's money actually comes from not only media owners, it only comes from publishers, print publishers. The six guys out there and of course all the INS with all the 400 plus and many more which they represent will be the ones which pay 90%. Agencies, 10 to 12%. Clients or advertisers next to zero or zero to two or some small amount. Now let's look at print circulation. Here is one which is this in audit. So this is the entire, whatever the cost of it is, entirely borne by definition by the media owners and it's something to feed the paid to ABC and agencies and advertisers, agencies only are paying the subscription cost of ABC and whatever there is from that. So that also, that amount is actually quite modest as compared to the others but there it'll be more evenly spread between publishers and agencies. Publishers will still take the lion's share. Overall cost will be much more of course with the publishers. When you get into a block, the board itself has got a 60, 20, 20, that's 60% with IBDF, 20% with agencies and through three years of eye and 20% with advertisers through ISA. Now at this point in time, pretty much there's 0.8% of all revenues made by media owners or broadcasters is what they are charged for from Bach. Agencies are paying for the entire Bach ratings, UME software, they pay a certain slab structure and they pay the money. Finally, it boils down to about 85, 15 again or maybe 88, 12, 12 is how it works out. Radio ratings, agencies may or may not be buying into it. I think that's not very relevant right now but that's again pretty much borne by the media owner. Digital is one where media owner is, there is no currency, zero currency. Whatever is happening right now is happening with the media owner. I'm talking about the currency part. People on their own, if they're subscribed into ComScore, Nielsen, DAAR, all that is happening but not at a currency level, it's happening at an individual level and even there, the conversation in terms of paying the bills, getting the accountability is still, you have to have basically with the media owners. Cross media as I've mentioned, completely non-existent. Currently each agency is doing its own kind of modeling to see what the combined reach is going to be. ADEX as I've already mentioned, TAM has been doing it for the entire traditional media and in digital it is non-existent. But once again because there is no currency, it's all right now in house. The basic principle of all of this which is coming out is even the reality today is that the media owners are wherever they're funding it. In the case of IRS, it is coming out that they don't want to move forward for whatever reasons. There could be a thing or in this particular case where they feel that they are paying all this money and if print comes out looking weaker, then that's going to weaken us further. That's an agenda coming in. In the case of circulation, we've already mentioned, yes, they only put in those, now there are two thoughts out there. Some people are saying we're not putting ourselves up for audit because the ABC's parameters for audit are so stringent that they won't pass it, so what's the point of doing it? Other people feel that their numbers are not looking that good, so they don't want to be audited. I don't know what the truth is, probably somewhere in the middle, but reality today is people are not opting in. Again, because they have a choice. If you have to look at the entire cross media, it's not taken, gone forward, primarily because Bach, if they have to take a call forward for whatever reason, everybody's saying in principle we must do it, but they're dragging their feet over it. I don't know, maybe it is because they feel that we don't know what's going to happen, the great unknown, that if both the data comes together, will there be a hastened migration of TV to digital? It may not be, it may be the other way around, but maybe there's a fear. But somewhere along the line, because there is a, all these are good, fine people, but their own self-interest is coming into the picture, the minute the media owner has a large part to play in funding of the research. And because of that, you're either getting no research or right now in the case of digital, I think it's just bad practice right now. Digital is already 40% of ad-ex. It is too big to fail. We can't be in a situation where tomorrow, God forbid, somebody comes out and says the numbers that have been coming out here are wrong and the entire thing has to implode. If it implodes, it'll be of cataclysmic nature. But somewhere along the line, everybody is just going forward with it and everything is hunky-dory until the proverbial S hits the fan. So what is the alternative? I think for starters, for starters the industry simply should not allow media owners to publish their own data. So my strong viewpoint on this one is when it comes to, especially digital, we have to go for a currency. The advertisers, it's their money at stake. Please go to any place where people are saying you have to use my data to actually decide how much reach I'm getting, what are the impressions, what are the CPMs using my data, you should say sorry, I will not engage. Now at this point in time, if one person says no, it won't make a difference. But if a bunch of advertisers put their foot down and say come what may, I am not putting money out here until I get third party data, everybody's going to sit up and listen. You have the power, you have supreme power. The good news out here is that even today when we come out to the 40,000 or plus of digital, I would, my estimate is about 65% of that is performance. That will remain unchanged because that is great. Obviously digital works, but there you're going and getting paying on the basis of conversions, leads, sales, whatever, that will continue. It is only the 30, 35% right now on branding which is completely based on internal data whereas you need audience measurement data there that is going to be at risk. And that is the one where you should come back and say I will stop until you get me third party measurement. So that is my first sort of recommendation. And everything is right now. I'm putting the ball in fairly and squarely in the advertiser's court because it is your money and you have to get the best results from it. Now in researchers conducted, so in the other currency researchers that we are talking about, most countries including India have been working with what are called JICs, joint industry committees or joint industry bodies. Typically it has people from advertisers, agencies and media owners in that JIC. There are two ways in which JICs work. You either are a blessing body where you give the entire domain or the paradigm or the parameters on which the research must be crafted and give it to a third party or a research independent research agency who actually does it. They also commercialize it. They sell it to you and in the past time was like that that one time IRS and NRS used to be like that. Now of course both of these are not a blessing body but whether it's MRUC, they're funding it and similarly if you're looking at BARC that's also being funded pretty much and not by the, I mean it's actually coming from pretty much all of us before and signed up. Now at this point in time if you have to move the pendulum from 85% media owners to advertisers, the normal practice that what advertisers go around saying is I'm already paying for everything that I do is already part of the media cost. That may be the case according to me and even according to Shantanu who I was talking to earlier. Finally it's a consumer who pays for everything but the reality out here is that I think advertisers are being incredibly myopic by saying that I will not go around spending more on the entire audience measurement which determines where I allocate my monies because and in the process it's okay if I don't get any data or if I get wrong data. You may be making completely wrong decisions but I will not invest in that research and what is the amount of quantum of money that we're talking about? If you have to take into account BARC it's about 350 crores. If I would take into account the entire digital measurement on the cross-media ads say another 150 crores, IRS 25, 30 crores, bottom line 500, 600 crores, not even 0.6% of the entire ad-ex and you can have this completely covered and it's not that advertisers will pay 100% of it. Even at the start in 20, 30, 40% they will have a stake in it which is actually going to become a voice and they'll have a voice which can actually then determine and when they do this I'm very, very confident that all the other stakeholders, agencies of course will be part of that because we are all media agnostic, we want to go where the consumer's going and we want a good picture but I also believe all the industry bodies, the media owner bodies are going to follow suit. So basically this is my call today. At this point in time I'm making, I'm really exhorting, I'm pleading to the advertisers to take leadership of measurement through ISA with a staunch support of the three years of AI. On digital, where media owners are using their data's currency they should demand an industry currency perhaps under the ages of the newly constructed IAMI, Digital Advertising Council under whose charter there is a unified standard measurement as well. It's been a welcome move that ISA themselves came out of the media charter so I think there's already a forum created for these two dialogues to happen. They must take this forward and if required and once that happens I think digital is really going to have, it'll be a renaissance period, there'll be more accountability, more transparency and I think there'll be more trust. Trust word has been used four times today. This is the fifth time. I will end my speech and the other aspect okay and the other one of course I've said is please invest more in the others whether it's IRS or in TV ratings. Combined you need to be doing much more than what the media owners are. You'll be able to drive the agenda. A lot of bogies that are currently being created will actually just wither away. You know I'll end my speech with another point to consider and I think Avinash in his own inimitable way also referred to that. That of government intervention. Governments by and large do not like to get into private enterprise. They've got their hands full, they're running the country, they don't want to get into it. They are forced to get into it when some stakeholders come to them and crib and say this is all going wrong here. There is some hanky-panky here. There's a lot of noise that goes and then they say oh my God we have to do something about it. I think ASCII is one which has been a great example of how in the past years maybe last 10 years more so in the last five, six years they've really done a fantastic job of becoming a voice for self-regulation. Very difficult area to be in. But they've been able to do that and I don't think there's so many complaints going out there to the government for them to actually say that we will have to regulate. They're saying self-regulate. So my, the perform, I mean I'm getting here, they head out to the sand, call out here is please advertisers put your money where your mouth is. It is your money, make it work hard. Otherwise the last thing you want is regulation to come into measurement because then it's going to be a totally different kind of marketing ecosystem that we're working in. Thank you very much.