 Hello, and a very good afternoon to all of you. Thank you for that wonderful introduction. I was given 15 minutes and I was asked to speak about what we have done in the last two years, which is building up the beauty and FMCG portfolio for Mensa. So I was wondering how do I crunch it to 15 minutes? So what I am going to share with you is a little bit of the challenges that we faced, that we continue to face and how is it that we do our prioritization to reach where we are today, which is roughly at about 500 CR annually and at a positive EBITDA of 8%. So I think one of the first golden rules, cliched as it may sound, is that we treat marketing as a means to the ultimate end which is revenue and not marketing as an end into itself, which means that while we build brands and spend extensively in brand building and brand marketing, which we all know is a very, very slow burn, long haul activity. It is a bit of spraying and spraying. What we do in parallel is very, very intense performance marketing because while you have one stream where you are actually carving a niche out for yourself in this heavily cluttered D2C space, I think the other end you have a dedicated performance marketing wing which ensures that the revenue is coming in and that we are actually profitable. So if this had to translate into the day-to-day activities that we do, one example that I often say is if we do marketing on Instagram or Facebook, it's again with the ultimate objective of generating clicks, generating revenue. So if we gain followers as a by-product of what we are doing, then that's great. But our follower count or even our engagement like shares, comments has never been an ultimate objective for us. Within the beauty space itself, I think like most FMCG categories, we're faced with this great big dichotomy in the consumer psyche. So what is that? So on the one hand, there is brand loyalty. Consumers are super loyal to their brands. On the other hand, the consumer is also extremely flirtatious. At any given point, he or she is always both. So while we see incredible brand loyalty to categories ranging from a scale of low involvement to high involvement, so by that I mean that in a category like a shampoo or hair color where you're putting chemicals on your hair and there's a higher loss of hair fall. The brand loyalty is therefore so much higher. You're not going to switch easily. You come a step down to face wash. There is a fear of breakouts. So you might think twice before switching face washes. But that tendency to switch is a little higher as compared to say a hair color product. And then you go into a product like body wash or soap, right? You're using it for the sensorials. There is almost zero to no risk in actually switching and trying a new soap or a new body wash. For the flirtation scale for the consumer is so much higher as you keep going further and further down the personal care line. And while this exists, what is also very contrarian and very contradictory is the fact that brand loyalty does not transfer automatically to another category from the same brand. I think we're all very familiar with the fact that if you look at the bathroom shelf of a consumer or even the handbag of a potential consumer, the kajal that she uses is not going to be of the same brand of the lipstick that she uses or the concealer that she uses. Likewise, even your shampoo and conditioner are not going to be from the same brand. So I think one of the tough lessons that we've learned is leadership or holding a strong bastion in one category does not automatically mean that you get that transferred to the next category or subcategory that you launched. Case in point, I'd say villain. So we've really managed to cover niche for ourselves in the male fragrance space. But why we made inroads into the personal care space? I think one of our biggest learnings is that there was not an immediate transference. The same way that we observed that a strong personal care brand, even in the, I would say, not in the male grooming space. When they try to launch makeup or when they try to launch hair care, while they may have a strong bastion in skincare, while the consumer may try, the loyalty or the repeat doesn't come automatically. You need to work really, really hard to make that happen. So while this is one additional layer of complication that we deal with, I think the other big challenge that we faced while we actually took over these brands, what we saw was unlike your traditional brands where reaching a revenue goal has been the big objective, but there's already an established brand recognition. There is, if not spontaneous recall, there's at least some amount of aided recall when you speak with consumers. T2C brands, as we all know, have short circuit of the journey to reaching a 2 crore revenue per month or even a 5 crore revenue per month. But you go ask the consumer, what does the brand stand for? And you draw a blank. Even if we look at the largest D2C brands that we see today in this space and I spent five years in L'Oréal, the company is very close to my heart, and I know the amount of time we spent hammering home, the positioning of, because we're all worth it, or even five problems, one solution, right? For a sub-brand like Total Repair 5. But if I go and ask a consumer today and not calling out any brand name, but if I did ask them what new age personal care brands stood for, the answer that you'd probably get is an ingredient association. Some might say onion oil, some might say apple cider vinegar. But what does the brand itself stand for? Is it more an amorphous sort of understanding or is it sharply defined? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a sharp definition. I think that is one thing that we're striving to do for the brands that we have acquired. Majestic Pure and Botanic Hearth are two established brands that sell in the US. And this year is a very, very critical year for us because as we speak, we're launching Botanic Hearth, which is in the categories of hair care, body care and face care in India. I think it's one of the first few instances that we've managed to bring a brand globally to India because usually we see vice-versa happening where we launch in India and then we start expanding to international geographies. And in the case of villain, we continue to make inroads into different sub-categories larger than personal care into the men's lifestyle space itself. So two very sort of different positionings. You have villain, which has a clear brand imagery, a brand world, brand codes defined, which we're building on seeing how we can actually translate it into growth. Then we have other brands which have reached a particular revenue mark. But now we're trying to carve out a strong positioning that consumers are able to associate with so that we can actually translate them into consumer-loved brands. So again, in this journey, we are taking a parallel approach. As I mentioned, brand building is a very, very slow activity. And while carving out a position is important, I think even more important is being consistent and not giving into the temptation of trying to reinvent the wheel every six months. I think it's important to distinguish between creating always-on marketing campaigns so that you engage the consumers, particularly in the social media space, versus a clearly defined brand positioning which you need to commit to and not keep reinventing because then all the advertising dollars that you spend actually translates into nothing. So that's a little bit of where we are at Mensa and that's a little bit of how our journey has been. We're still grappling with these challenges and while we continue to be profitable, I think the biggest sort of goalpost that we have is to ensure how we become consumer-loved brands. So yes, happy to answer any questions that anybody has. A very interesting question because I think this has been a question that's been asked for decades now. Is that really the sort of best route? Because are you putting the celebrity on the platform? Are you putting the brand on your platform? I think over the years the answer also remains the same. If you want to quickly catapult into a household name and quickly have people recognize you, I think a celebrity association is a surefire successful route to be able to do that. But I think it can only get you there which is instant fame and recognition. If you have to sustain that, then you need to have your phase 2, phase 3, phase 4, your integrated marketing campaign ready. Because otherwise again, you may very well end up in a position where you sort of made a big campaign and people are talking about it but they don't know what your product is or what your brand stands for. And I also think that while it's not become completely irrelevant, I do think that a celebrity association today has the kind of clout it did possibly even 5 to 10 years ago. For two reasons. One is celebrities are not any more exclusive. I still recall the time when we worked with Aishwarya Rai on L'Oréal. She would not be associated with any other brand. And the number of endorsements that she did were also limited. But today the space is so cluttered. You actually go on an e-commerce platform. You see Sara Ali Khan or Janvi. You don't know which brand that they are actually endorsing it because there are multiple brands. So I think that is one thing to be a little careful about. And I think the other aspect that we can't ignore is if you are able to achieve what you can by actually doing a multi-pronged campaign with influencers whereby you are reaching more people through micro, nano and maybe digital influencers I think that's an option worth exploring than putting all your eggs in one celebrity basket. And then again I think most brands today including some of the brands in the men's house of brands we are looking at a hybrid option of both. Yes. I'm so sorry, I can't hear you. I have a question for you. You spoke about driving business at the end of the day with all the marketing efforts. I want to understand that because you work in beauty industry you work with a lot of influencer. And on social media, how do you define the goals and how do you justify the ROI that you spend on influencers with direct business impact? I know that you would get reach or views through social media activities but is there a direct way that you justify that spend through a business ROI because that's what I struggle with? No, absolutely. As I mentioned for me even reach is a secondary objective or a goal. And while I may not hit my primary metric I always define the primary metric as conversion. So if we are doing influencer campaigns we do have UTN links and we do have coupon codes. So there are two sort of metrics in place that we measure. In the very least to see that if they are landing in the PDP page and of course we actually track the conversion that's coming from each influencer. So I think that is the primary metric and you also get a cookie pool from all the people who have actually visited that basis which we re-target those audiences. So this continues and will continue to be the primary objective. As I said as a by-product if we get engagement, shares, views all of that is great and even an increase in the follow-up account. But these are not the primary objectives we track at all. Understood. So I think I'll connect with you later also because I've known you since Laurya. I will live for a short period of time. So yeah, I would love to know more about this because I struggle with this in my world. Sure, sure. Thank you. Thank you so much. You've been a great audience. Thank you.