 So good morning friends, I'm delighted to be speaking to you once again on the medium of television and I've chosen a more specific subject rather than a general subject which is why large advertisers even today in a digital age prefer television as an advertising medium and spend very vast amounts of money on it. Are they stupid, are they clever, are they just stuck in an old world or only they know what they know because media spend is a very very large number on their balance sheet so they better know what they are doing. Now to buttress my point, take a look at ad spends on TV, Lara is someone moving this? Yeah, so take a look at this graph in 2012 ADEX was about 11,500 crores, TV ADEX. In 2012 it comfortably crossed 30,500 crores, that's about an 11% compounded annual rate of growth. To know the number for 2023, I'm afraid you have to meet me again on this forum on February 15th when we will present the pitch medicine advertising report which will give you a snapshot of what happened in 23 and our prognosis for what to expect in 2024. Now as they say you know you can get numbers to prove almost anything that you want to say and I think that is true for the graph that I showed you earlier, here are the same figures viewed in a different way from a contextual point of view. This graph which gives you share of TV ADEX among total ADEX tells you a completely different story so whilst absolute numbers are going up for TV it's true that its share of ADEX is coming down steadily since Covid year so from a high of 42% to a low of 34% in 2022 I can say that this trend is unlikely to reverse in 2023. Look at similar numbers in a global context globally TV share of ADEX in 2022 is estimated to be only 18% by the respected walk compared to 34% in India twice as much. So let's ask ourselves are Indian advertisers and marketers smarter or are marketers and advertisers in other countries getting swayed by the digital juggernaut. Yet another dimension to these figures if you drill them down a bit is demonstrated by this graph. While share of TV ADEX in 2022 was 34% if I take the TV ADEX of only top 25 advertisers then top advertisers spend 60% of their advertising budget on TV and it has always been like that varying between 60 and 65% except in Covid year. If I looked at the figures for top 50 advertisers again they are similar the number ranges between 58 and 62%. So the obvious question that strikes me and I'm sure will strike all of you and the should strike the media and the advertising and the marketing community at large is why do large advertisers spend twice as much as the others do on TV as a percent of their total spend. According to me there are three main reasons why large advertisers spend or should I say still spend a very large proportion of their advertising budget on television. The first is because it is efficient and also effective. TV seems to score much much better on a metric called attention a relatively new parameter that advertisers now believe should be looked at whilst evaluating media options. And third and quite importantly important from a brand building point of view the lingering effect of television we have seen is much longer than that provided by other medium. So let's take a closer look at these three reasons. First efficiency and effectiveness a simple reason according to me why TV is more efficient for large brands is that currency for TV from the point of view of buying it is CPRP cost per rating point and not cost per thousand cost per thousand for TV reduces considerably if the brands target group is large. The rough benchmark we say that for those brands with a target group of more than 40 million TV is far more efficient perhaps if the target audience is less than 40 million much less than 40 million digital may make sense. The currency of CPRP on TV is advantageous to the advertiser can we see the next one to the advertiser and detrimental to the media owner. On the other hand currency of digital CPT is advantageous to the media owner and detrimental to the advertiser. Another advantage of TV we have to recognize is that TV delivers very often huge spillover of audiences free of cost. If you had a plan to reach 2.4 million female adults of age group 22 to 40 SCCA and B your media agency will give you a media plan reaching 2.4 million such women and giving you a CPRP for it which you may find quite acceptable. What you often don't recognize that in addition to that media plan delivering 2.4 million it is delivering 5.6 million audience in other cohorts at no extra cost to you. On the other hand in digital we have to pay for every single person that you reach. So spillover audiences is definitely a big advantage for television. For a lot of brands spillover audiences are critical because we have seen that a very large number of people from diverse target groups buy most large brands which defy a very narrow or sharp target audience definition. There is increasing realization amongst marketers specially of large brands that to narrowly defining your target audience which you have to do in digital in order to control your costs may be a mistake. Take a look at this case. It shows that a large volume of sale of Colgate toothpaste is made up actually of millions and millions of people purchasing it quite infrequently. So they are not defined they may be they are not defined as the core target audience of Colgate and yet the majority of sales of Colgate come from these people not the core loyalists who only use Colgate every day. It was Byron Sharp who first brought out the rich theory saying FMCG makers have to prioritize on selling as much to their loyal audience as to infrequent users and non-users. So for a highly penetrated established brand like Colgate toothpaste only 9% of buyers bought the brand five times or more in a year. So growth for headroom is in targeting 59% non-users and TV as we know delivers broad audiences enabling recruitment of infrequent users. Also we have seen that in many many cases for newer brands or growing brands TV advertising helps build distribution like nothing else can. Take a look at one of our clients Parag milk foods makers of Govardhan ghee and Go cheese. The company after being silent for a few years pre-COVID wanted to come back with a big splash. We recommended a media plan that incorporated sponsorship of KBC whilst of course brand equity measures went up dramatically and so did worth of mouth. The company to their delight found that there was another very serious and major unintended benefit and it must be because the company reported this in its analyst meeting. They said the company ghee distribution grew 37% and we doubled our reach for Go cheese by doubling distribution. So on the first point I say TV is very effective and efficient for large advertisers. It is cheaper than other mediums in terms of cost per reach point a very very important parameter that all advertisers and marketers must track and not just low CPRP TV delivers spillover audiences free of cost and these audiences invariably contribute a lot to brand sales could be as much as 30 40 50% and TV can improve distribution coverage. My second point is that TV drives attention a relatively new parameter that advertisers now believe that should be looked at when evaluating other media options. I hope all of you by now have heard of Professor Karen Nelson Field who I spoke about in a presentation some years ago pre-COVID. Some of you I think have the pleasure of meeting her in our own city very recently. She's a globally renowned media science researcher and is best known to establish equivalence norms for different media on what she calls the attention metric. The attention metric is 46% in the case of a 30 seconder it goes up to 50% for a 15 seconder but for a skippable 20 seconder it can be as low as 25% going up to 40% for a 6 seconder. I must highlight to you before you take these figures very seriously or try to apply them for your brand. This is a generalized chart from another country for a category. In actual effect these numbers vary quite a bit by geography, demography and messaging. We are hoping that we will be able to establish a very own attention metrics in India very soon. So what is attention and why does it matter to an advertiser given the fact that there is so much what we call noise in the marketplace today compared to say the early days of television when Durdarshan ruled the roost. One could say with some comfort that you had almost 100% attention of an ad today we know that is idealistic and does not exist today. All of us are always double-tasking, double-hitting doing multiple things as we watch television as we scroll down our mobile screens. So this new metric of attention is becoming very relevant to track with given today's media habits of consumers. She studied in this example two campaigns with similar ad budgets but with varying media mix and she found that in one case where the attention adjusted seconds were substantially higher than another media plan the outcome was actually more than double. In one another case she concluded that there was a 65% increase in outcome when the media mix is optimized to increase GRPs adjusted for attention. So it does appear that the attention metric in today's world is becoming critical and attention adjusted GRPs if I may call them that are actually a critical medium to track because they have the ability to drive outcome at scale. My third and final reason why I believe large advertisers prefer TV is because TV ads have a longer lingering effect. How many of you remember still this Cadbury dairy milk ad which I think burst on our television screens over 10 years ago? So lingering effect is quantified by a concept that is called half life. We all know that the effect of any ad in any medium on the brand's equity health parameters deteriorates after the campaign gets over. The time it takes to deteriorate to half the level it reached at its peak is what researchers call half life and it is determined in terms of number of weeks. Now most media mix experts will unanimously agree that half life of TV advertising is much more sometimes three times as much than that of any other media. And from a marketers point of view ROI can be maximized when the time gap between two schedules of the same campaign can be stretched or lengthened. So ads that remain in memory help increase outcomes even when no campaign is running. This of course as we know is very different from performance marketing where brand health measures and outcomes slide down very very sharply when investments are stopped. So bark no. So whilst all this is of course true I think the fact that we must recognize as intelligent media people is that many cohorts that are relevant to many brands are watching less of television today. And this is specially so amongst the young bark now fortunately gives us viewership data across heavy medium and light TV viewers. A closer examination reveals that time spent on TV is reducing amongst youngsters and males. The average drop in time spent between 2019 and today among light TV viewers in age group 15 to 21 is 29 percent but in the 50 plus age group among light viewers the decline is only 16 percent but nevertheless there is a decline. So therefore I submit to you it is very relevant today for us to look at TV viewers in three buckets heavy users heavy viewers medium viewers and light viewers. This slide my next slide brings out the implication on media mix of this analysis. Let's say we are targeting females of age group 22 to 60 SCC AB Indian urban which is about 70 million individuals. And we create a plan conventionally that we say delivers 540 GRPs. A heavy medium and light analysis will show that you will read 23 million individuals with almost double the GRPs at 913. Another 23 million with 478 GRPs closer to what you intended but another 23 million individuals a third will get only 242 GRPs less than half of what you intended the plan to deliver. So the truth is you are not adequately meeting your reach objective with one third of your target audience if you used television alone going by everything that I told you earlier because of its substantial I would say qualitative and quantitative advantages. And this is where I believe digital should come in to fill that gap Google cleverly now provides us information on these 23 million light TV viewers through use of technology that enables us to address these light TV viewers through digital video and make up our objective of 540 GRPs. So it is true that in many cases exclusive use of TV alone will lead to inadequate exposure of your message to light TV viewers and that gap should be filled by digital video. Next slide go to the next one I think this is just a summary. However the question that remains in my mind and I'm sure in your mind is why is then TV share of ad-ex coming down in India and more so in Western countries. I obviously don't have the answer but I have a hypothesis that I want to share with you. First we all know and this is a reality that a marketer's term in a company is shortening so is the term of the CEO and CFO. I can see all around there is a sense of impatience everybody seems to be in a hurry to show improvement in the quarterly results. Unfortunately whilst many of the new age promoters don't understand marketing or brand building even those who do among them unfortunately have to pander to the requirements of the investing public and specially those requirements of the large number of private equity players who want the high valuation a brand can give but to my mind the question is do these private equity players understand what is a brand do they know how to build it that they can dictate and advise the promoter on what to do and what not to do. Do they know that that only a brand with strong brand equity built over time can deliver sustainable huge profits. We all know and I think there is enough evidence that TV is great at building brands but brand building takes time but it offers in return substantial benefits with sustainable profits in the long run. Perhaps that is what prompted me to tell Naval that I should be giving the stock not to all you intelligent media people in the room but to a set of private equity players who seem to be dictating where media should be spent for immediate result. To my mind we have seen that all is well in that world till the time the investor focuses on growing top line at any cost but as soon as as soon as direction changes on focusing on the bottom line the performance model fails in most cases then comes TV to the rescue thank you very much everyone for listening to me.