 Good afternoon everyone. I know it's close to lunch so I will be quick. Any case I speak fast, it will be quick. I don't know why too much. Firstly, I don't know how competent I am to talk about this. The guy who was actually competent walked in with me, the ex-CEO of Baap Parthavas Gupta. Probably he was understanding of technology and measurement in this country having set up world class measurement body from start. So I think probably in a manner of speaking I am stepping in for him. But to quickly get going on TV measurement metrics, I close with two thoughts which I, those who attended earlier sessions or those who know me are, I mean, I am a one trick pony. So I do exactly consistently. So I say that in the end but finally what beyond TV measurement but before that a bit of a backdrop. So, you know, rightly so because of the way the economy is in the last six, seven months and we are victims of what we call chronological time versus objective time. So if I get a chronology, we look at what's happened in the last six months and that becomes the, as we say in Hindi, high power. So everyone is saying why is television growing, what's happening, you know, and is digital killing us, digital taking over. And that's life which we should be growing dramatically no doubt. But is it the end of the world as far as television is concerned? Or put up one slide which is, if you look, this is a PWC report, very, very busy slide got a lot on it. But if you see from a global standpoint, everything in the entertainment and media industry in the country is, you know, perhaps the highest in the world. So everything which is related to TV, so if you see the last five years because finally the economies are measured over a 10 year period or a five year period, not what's happened in the last six months, yes, the last six months may be hurting us. But that is something which we will tide over. The point is that, you know, this is the highest rate of growth across media, not only just television. And so too television, television also is doing across the board. So the reason I put up this slide, nothing to do with measurement at this point in time. But we rest assured that this is a passing phase, you know, it's going to be dramatic, it's going to grow. And compared to what's happening in the world, finally, media entertainment is a reflection of the GDP growth in India. It will be one of the fastest-going GDP markets. Normally the indication is double that size. So TV, media entertainment should be double the size. So I think I want to show everyone not to get worried by what's happening currently, but it is a long-term future for the country. If you look at this whole story which I spoke about being digital, yes, digital is going. Digital is taking over our lives, undoubtedly. But if you see what's the situation of advertising spans all over the world, I picked up some key markets. And if you see other than China, most of the other markets, TV is still sizable. So including the United States, which is 42% digital, if you see the second column. But TV is still there, you know, TV is still 41% or so. So it's still sizable because I am concerned, you know. India, of course, television is the main stage. So the point is that except China, television still is the largest medium and is in a manner of speaking, holding its own. While there is a move towards content rather than the platform between TV, OTT and digital, whatever. But the fact is the way it's measured and the way it's captured today, television still is a strong medium across the world. Some of the other mediums are taking a hit, but television remains. And coming to the point of measurement which was made, you know, and this is the story which some people sit in the room like Parthu and the others in the Bach team, started and embarked upon six years back, happy to report it is perhaps the most advanced in the world, it's the largest panel in the world. So we measure Bach measures are lakhs and 70,000 individuals. If you see, compared to any other, can you think, I mean, people complain that measurement in this country is not accurate and not, I'll talk about it slightly later. But measurement is not representative is not big enough. Look at markets like China, which is far bigger population than India and probably as heterogeneous than as us, you know, even the structure of homogeneity is not there. It's 30,000 individuals. So if you look at an average home of four or five, the sample is 5,000 homes. So look at China, look at Japan, 5,000 individuals, Germany 10,000, UK 11,000, the only one which is sizable is US, which is a lakh plus individuals. So if you see for this, you know, obviously the story is that India is very, very large. And the other thing is if you see the other figures, which are there, which is the point we are going to make along with this, look at television penetration. So you'll find on the right, black numbers are the numbers which are, you know, absolute number of individuals left as homes. India is 83 crore, 83.6 crore individuals. The only market which is bigger than this is China, which is 1.2 million, 2.9 million individuals. So the point is, which I showed in a later slide, that television penetration all over the world is very high. You see here 96%, 95% across India, only 66%. So obviously there's huge headroom. So while we have a strong robust mechanism in place, perhaps the largest and if I may say so, China is best in the world, but having said that is also the fact that there's headroom for growth. So India still has 76% penetration as a long way to go in terms of television. Imagine what will happen and I'll show you some indicators later when you're saying that two-third penetration becomes 95% penetration like some of the leading markets and it will be there. 95% percent will happen in India. So this is the point. So this is a bit misleading because the base is total homes or total individuals in the country. So this also captures the 33% which you don't have television just now and therefore may watch television, may not watch television. But if you see the data across other markets, because you'll see that South America and North America three and a half hours of viewing, which is during time, if you look at Europe, if you see Africa everywhere three and a half hours, of course Asia is a bit less, India is 2.4 hours. Now this is, so therefore the point I'm making is there is headroom to growth and this headroom is primarily because of number of homes which are not, we do not have the opportunity of television at this point in time which will change also in terms of viewing habit. It's not that viewing is coming down and which is the point I'll make later that when you come to viewing, even that you will see going up. One of the other point which always makes how can a panel of 40,000 homes or a lack of 70,000 individuals is it representative of the country? How can you measure? So the one point we made earlier that even the large markets like China and Japan are far, far lower in terms of what we do. Now this is again an extremely busy slide, provided to be one of my friends who are statisticians. But the point is that at 95% confidence, this is the error level if you look at 0.1% reach, you know the error level if you increase the sample to say from 1,70,000 individuals to 4 lakh or 5 lakh, the error level is just marginal decrease. So the utility of increasing the sample dramatically does not help the cause. So unless you have some other measurement mechanism which comes into place where all homes are measured, which is possible through written path data in the long run. But at this point in time that facility is not there for a variety of reasons. So the limited point is that you know repeatedly here and you have a very senior people within the industry, within the government and various other stakeholders saying if you were to increase the sample, in fact if I am not mistaken that here I guideline talks about taking sample up every year. So if you are talking of a sample of 45,000 homes or a lack of 70,000 individuals going up to 2 lakh homes and say maybe 8 lakh individuals is meaningless because the level of error is not going to come down and the utility of that for the huge cost you will incur is not there. So this is a bit misleading. So the point I am making is that you know at 40,000, 50,000 meters are homes which is 2 lakh plus individuals or 2 lakh, 50,000 individuals is good enough sample to pick up even a heterogeneous country like India. It is strong enough. So this is where this point in mind. Now coming back to the Hydroman growth point I made earlier, if you see on the left you know it is just 2-3rd penetration so far and if you see on the right now this base is different so do not go by the 2 hours there. That 2 hours was in the entire population but if you see here on the people who have TV homes or people who have access to TV or watched television, the average time is already 3 hours today and it is not that you know because of perception is OTT and digital and all this coming together, the consumption of television is coming down, that is not true. So consumption of television is actually in a manner of speaking going up. Think about it. This is a big point I mean you know when you see these macro numbers. So a lot of myths I am trying to bust while my topic is measurement but I am going beyond measurement. So if you look at and I do not know how many people, this is all bug data. I do not know how many of you access it. The fact is that television measurement in the last 5 years or 4 years, television time has gone up and I dare say this will go up even further. It may not go up dramatically but it will go up further for a variety of reasons. Look at India as a whole. Do not look at India as a preserver of the small audience which watches Netflix and I have been trying. Other point, you know people say we do not watch advertising. Advertising is not seen. You know, are losing people. Not only are they not watching television, whatever they watch they switch off when advertising comes on. Look at this. These are the interesting slides. So again looking at the thing, look at the bottom first. So look at audience sampled in a week and almost 95% or 98% of them have watched ads on TV. So if you look at that, you know, it is a very high number. It is not that. And if you look at the total SATO in advertising, if you see in seconds, from 2016 to 2019 there is growth in things. So the absolute volumes are going up. If you look at the share of top 10 advertisers, that is somewhat static. It is going. So there are other categories coming in. So the fact is the business we are on Mr. Balsara and me and many of you in the room don't lose heart. There is momentum, you know. So the two points we will leave behind that, you know, is TV dying, is TV going out of fashion. That is not true. There is room for penetration. Penetration will go up. There is more time spent on television as the data proves. It may not go substantially, but still three and a half hours is a lot of time. And advertising will be watched. We are very macro-figured. Obviously, when you start bringing them into your sport and your arm, that's a different factor. But these are three broad things we will talk about. And the original thought that it is today one of the most robust measurements system in the world. I showed it to you all over the world that how probably in my mind after US, India, qualitatively, of course, scale-wise, India is bigger than US, but that's because the population is so much more. But compared to other markets, I mean, billions of dollars of advertising is traded in Japan and China and other markets in the world in Europe. Ours is a far more robust and a far bigger and a better mechanism. With the technology we have in place. I am not speaking about technology today, but with the, you know, our water marketing technology is far, far superior and far more reliable. And compare this with the medium. And I purposely picked out additional, you see. There is no third-party measurement. There is supposed to be a highly evolved medium. Technology publishers put out their own numbers. Nothing wrong in that. But finally, clients and agencies always buy third-party data. There is no measurement in place there. So I think that's the, that's the challenge because if you're going to move in that direction, there is, there will be need to fix this. And I'll close with this two points we're going to make. So the two thoughts, you know, there's so much headroom of for growth in India. And I've been saying there's some different forums, so why not one more time? You know, so there's so much headroom for growth. It's not fair on the ecosystem. So while from a negotiating tactic, it may make a lot of sense to say, we're going to CPRP, we're not giving the benefit of the headroom which is there. But in real terms, if you're a good planner or if you're a good marketer, you'll always look at audiences which you've covered. You finally go by audiences. You're planning for audiences. You're buying for audiences. And if you're buying and planning for audiences, I genuinely believe the truth lies, you know. So in my mind, and I say this, I say this consistently, and I keep saying it till the time I'm in this business. Trading and measurement are two different things. So trading is between a buyer and a seller. Whatever the price they're willing at, there's no such thing as. So people, you know, a lot of people I speak to, very, very senior people say, listen, if we go to the CPT route, our rates will go up. Why will they go up? I mean, I'm not going to answer this question that why will if you move from CPRP to CPT, finally, when marketers are looking at their audiences, it's all on audience numbers. There's nothing on, you know, that per rating point. You know, something in the rating point there. I don't know why we hung up as a metric in this country. On most countries in the world operate on CPTs, you know, cost per thousands or whatever. So this is something which is fox me. I think it's a mindset and psychology issue in this country. The truth is that finally that is where could we reflect everything which I spoke about earlier, be it headroom, be it time spent, be it the increased penetration of television, all that will be captured realistically there. And like I said, the trading, the financial part of it is a plan and demand. It's got nothing to do with whether you do a CPT or CPT, then reset. In fact, I'm not very good at these numbers. My dear friend always explains that how, because if you move to CPT, some numbers, some prices have to come down, some of the channels. So I think that's one more attempt I'll make to say that we must, you know, keep these two separate. And my final point as I run out of time is again a point which is spoken about, again it's a mindset issue, it's not an issue of reality. Yes, there is a tremendous need for a unified measurement of TV plus digital. You know, and this is where I'll request the marketers in the room to put pressure because today it's again a psychology issue. Like I spoke about CPT and CPRP being all a mindset issue, not do anything with reality. Same thing here. So, you know, digital companies, some of them feel that with transparency in media, the digital billar numbers get found out. Why will they get found out? If you have content of your media, if you think the medium is growing and if the medium is delivering in terms of whatever platform you are on. So then you need to ensure that there is transparency in third party data because at some point in time advertisers will start asking questions with advertisers of some indirect means of looking measurement, looking measurement. So why should we be one shy away from measurement? There are enough stakeholders, the digital guys feel that the hotel which you guys will gain because they're getting more targeted and more personalized. The hotel guys feel the big boys in the publishing world like Google and Facebook will gain. Nevertheless, it is finally the advertisers who will gain when there's transparency in measurement. So my plea to I think what I'm saying, all of you agree that measurement on the video which is very important, which will lead to integration of one view of video, which is what Bach is capable of. By the way, Bach is an important cable and they know how to do it. They want pilots, they have put up digital panels, all that is in place. So it's not about capability and technology like you've run in television and the same capability technology exists in digital, they're ready with it. It's a mindset. So my appeal to all the advertisers in the room and I see quite a few of them is to put pressure on the ecosystem to say listen, this has to be done. You know, if you want business from us, must ensure that there is one measurement. So closing, nothing new for me. I just close by saying two points. One half faith in television is enough headroom. People are still watching television, they're going to continue watching ads. They're not going away. And the two other points is that finally look at CPT, CPT is a great way to compare data to do audience planning to understand how audiences are behaving, but nothing to do with pricing. It will not affect pricing in any way. And the second point is we need to get advertisers to push and move towards our digital friends, OTT friends, big boss pastors, everyone to say guys, we have the capability in India, we have a great operating mechanism which is Bach. Why can't you start moving towards digital measurement and one view and then after that one view will happen. By the bulk is yet for that also. So TV plus digital can easily be put out once you have that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.