Our next session is very interesting not just a speaker, not just a presentation or a few ads going up on the screen. Now we have something interesting known as a fireside chat between the executive director of Bajaj Electricals and the director and co-founder of Exchange for Media. Who would be discussing TV is timeless, isn't it? Yes, TV is timeless and it remains the best media for market year. So ladies and gentlemen, let me hear a thunderous applause. Let's see how much energy you gained during lunch. And let's welcome on stage Mr. Anushpodar and Mr. Nawal Ahuja. Let's hear it loud and out. Thank you Bikki. Thanks for coming back after lunch. I know it's tough to sit through sessions like these post lunch. So we keep the format fairly simple. I will try and throw some, you know, contra questions so to say at Anuj. Some of you might know Anuj has an extensive background in the television industry business. His last role was in a leadership role at Viacom 18 post which now he works with a large consumer company called Bajaj Electronics. He's the executive director there. So what I'll do is I'll ask Anuj to first open the session with a few remarks about what's going on in his sense in the TV business. Why he believes that, you know, TV will continue to remain relevant despite all the growth of the Googles and the Facebooks in the world. And then we will do a chat and perhaps also involve some audience members who might be interested in asking questions. So Anuj, how about you? Thanks Nawal. Thanks for having me in the post lunch session. Nawal introduced me as a person who's been in media for many years. I was at Viacom for about 13 years. But, you know, I don't necessarily see myself as a media person. And I'll tell you why because I don't come from a media schooling. Everything I've learnt is on the job. I see myself always more as a dhandawala. So I don't understand jargon. I don't understand technicalities. I think all the few are bigger marketeers. I've learned that, you know, how experts in the field. So, and I think sometimes that's an advantage. I don't understand anything. So I say, bring data, show me the numbers, tell me the logic. My new team at Bajaj there is struggling with understanding this right now. Because I say, it's fine, I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine, bring me data and I'll understand that. So having said that, you know, I just want to share little thoughts and I was also telling Nawal earlier that maybe we should have had some digital people here so we can have a little bit of a debate. But I do come from like a meeting which, while it's known as a broadcaster, we are also into digital and we are also into all media. So I would like to believe I have no biases. And particularly my current role, I'm a marketeer, I'm an advertiser. My only single-point objective, like any marketeer is to reach my audience, to reach my consumer and to reach it in the most cost-effective manner. Whatever's the medium that allows me to do that is where I will go. If the trends change, if the medium's trends change, I will go there. So let me put out some points the way I see it right now. And actually I was just joking with Partho right after a session. How many of you attended the bar session with Partho? Okay, about half of you. So if you saw the numbers there and the numbers that he presented, actually there's little much for us to discuss. I think it's an open and shut case. The numbers for TV are so strongly in favour of TV that I don't think any other media really presents a value proposition. It doesn't matter what China is doing, it doesn't matter what's in the US. If you're advertising and marketing in India, then you really have to look at the Indian marketplace numbers. Just a few headlines and then we can get into the discussion. Firstly, TV is clearly the largest-reached medium. We've seen the numbers, I will not repeat that. But in terms of channels, if I talk about the number one channel or the top five channels in India reach about 400 million unique viewers every month. Compare that to the best of OTT platforms, there is 30, 40, 50 million viewers or consumers every month. If I look at transparency, ratings, data, there is no measure. TV has complete transparent third-party data. Week on week, day on day, slot by slot, your ad spot. If you compare that to print, outdoor, digital, you don't have any third-party data. That gives you that minute measurement of your ad spot at a particular point of time. Who's consumed it? How many people have consumed it? And I can talk more about that. If you look at in terms of the issues and we talk more about the issues, particularly around digital data, but the content that your advertisement is being associated with, if you look at the, what should I say, the fudging, if I may use that word, of data on digital, the click boards, the buying of likes, et cetera, we'll come to that. So if you put all of that together, TV is by far the most effective medium. You think if it's the most powerful medium, it should command the premium. But this is where the funny part is. Being the most, what should I say, effective medium in terms of reach, in terms of value, in terms of power, it's actually the cheapest medium by far. I have some of my earlier sales team here from Viacom. And you know, we did this analysis last year when we were in Viacom, comparing the CPT across all mediums. And if I compare TV to print, print is almost, depending on which print you take, 25 to 40 times more expensive than TV on a CPT basis. Not 10, 20 percent, not 50 percent, not 200 percent, but 25 to 40 times more expensive than TV as a buy. If you compare it to digital and I can get into that debate, digital is anywhere between 5 to 10 times more expensive than TV as a buy. And I can go on, we can talk on radio, we can talk about outdoor, etc. So it's here you have a case where you have the best medium, the most powerful, the widest reach, the best place for you to build brands, and it's by far the cheapest. I think that rests the case. So good parts, Anuj, there is, as you mentioned, nobody from the digital domain had to defend it. But let me play the devil's advocate. Let me for one second be on the side of a digital player and ask you a few questions. First and foremost, you know, Abhishek Desai from PNG showed us some very nice ads, especially the share-of-the-load thing that has done really well over the last few years. I asked him a pointed question once he was back on his seat. Is it possible or would it be possible to have the same impact with these ads if you only ran them on digital and not on television? And his answer was an emphatic yes.  They have brands with mass reach, they have brands that cut across sectors and, you know, verticals. For somebody like him in 2019, India to say that I can use to run my ads only on digital and get the same impact that I get from TV today or would have bought from TV five years back. Should that worry a television owner? I'm not a TV owner. Like I said, I have no biases, I don't care. The numbers speak for themselves, so I think opinions aside, TV you saw back numbers reaches about 835 million people in this country. On a cumulative basis, on a weekly basis, or I think Partho's number said on a daily basis, TV reaches about 630 million people. On a, as a cumulative as television, a single GCs, GCs reach about 300 million people. Tell me a digital platform that reaches that much, or tell me cumulatively, Facebook, YouTube, Hotstar, would reach. It's not even 80% of that. So I don't buy that statement. It depends on whether you're a mass fan or not.  Okay, so I'm not anti-digital. If you can choose both, please choose it. I think digital is a complementary medium. But if it had to be one medium, I think there's a difference. What about concepts like viewability? Because television in many cases is seen as how radio used to be always seen, which is a background medium. Television is not of course as passive as radio, but at the same time when it comes to viewability, digital is more measurable. So you know that if somebody has seen ads on, say, YouTube or Facebook, what is the viewability of that ad? As compared to TV where the television set might be on and the person might be doing something else entirely. So isn't that a concern for advertisers also when it comes to television as a medium? Though I know that when it comes to measurement, TV perhaps, at least in India today, delivers better because there's a unified measurement body, and digital lacks that. But isn't viewability also a very important concern for advertisers like you who are putting money and who are very keen to make sure that the ad is actually viewed? Absolutely. I think you answered your question. Who's telling me how many people have viewed my ad on digital? And what is the trust or faith in that number? Have you seen what happened with Facebook in the US? PHA pulled out 200 million from digital advertising. Given that Facebook, which is one of the leading media, you saw the issue around themselves admitting to the data not being accurate. I have no belief in the data in digital in India till it is reported by a third party. Yet you see 30-40% growth in digital advertising numbers every year. Why do you think that is happening? That on one hand, as you're saying, the data is questionable. There have been instances of large digital companies globally apologizing for the data they have put out. And on the other hand, you have a situation where you have 40% growth in advertising.   It's called FOMO, the fear of missing out.  Having said that, I'm not saying you don't need to have digital in your plan. You can have digital. You should have digital. You should want to compliment medium. You have a fragmented audience which is distracted with different mediums. And you have to make sure you reach out to all of them. But how much of money should you allocate to which one? Where is your real efficacy? Where are you parking your big bets? Versus where are you playing in the pocket money? I think those are two very different questions. Tell me, do you think it's also become a fact? I think nobody wants to kind of, like you said, a FOMO. I mean, this must be the only industry in India where an entire vertical worth almost, now what, 15,000 crore rupees has been built on a concept called FOMO. One of my friends is here, Santosh Kanekar. I don't know how many of you remember. He used to be the CM of Diageo many years back. He's an independent consultant now. And he mentioned something very interesting to me, which I will take up with you. In a lot of western countries, consumption on digital as well as spends on digital have already crossed traditional media spends, which is not the case in India yet. Santosh's theory is that television continues to have preeminence, primarily because CMOs, majority of the CMOs, except for young people like Abhishek Desai, majority of the CMOs have grown up with television and that's the medium they understand better than digital. And that is one of the reasons television's primacy continues to grow. If not for that, digital would be where it is today. Would that statement reflect truth's reality? Let me first talk about the western markets. We're not in the west like I said at the start, we're not in the US, we're in India. Television in most other countries is very expensive, that is not true in India. Part of that comes back to, you know, we are reporting CPRP or the transaction in India being done in CPRP. If you start doing CPT and CPM and then start comparing across media, then you will have what I call doodka doodka panika panika. So to become very transparent. Secondly, you mentioned about the CMOs. I don't think the issues are the CMOs. Look at the media agencies. I said products. If I say X product of mine distributor get 20% margin. Y product of mine distributor get 1 or 2% margin. Guess what that distributor is going to say? Look at, now ask yourself and ask your media by agencies or you know, I don't play with agencies. There's one medium that incentivizes media by agencies with 15-20% margin. And there's the other media where they earn 1-2% margin. That tells you why one media is really propped up. And why the whole buying value chain is incentivized to actually push money on one side versus the other. To make the commission equal, again you see a big shift in the spend allocations in the media marketplace. Tell me, I was listing down a few points that you know, that would typically, when an advertiser would look at spending money on television versus digital, though I think the accepted wisdom is that a combination of both in the proportion that you know, depends upon brand to brand is the ideal one. But if you had limited money and you were looking to park more money on one against the other. Typically a marketer or a media buyer would look at 3-4 points. One, as I said, viewability. Second, I think one of the key aspects that goes in the favor of television or digital rather as opposed to TV's interactability. I think that's where digital scores significantly. Audience targeting on digital is significantly better. Especially if you were to compare television with light to light digital which is in our case, OTT. So if you look at what's happening, what you can do on linear TV in terms of audience targeting versus targeting on OTT, of course OTT will deliver significantly better. Then comes reach in tier 3, 4 cities. Even some of the slides, partner slides we saw said that large parts of UPPR television penetration is still low whereas mobile penetration is getting there. Given these 3-4 things today for media buyer would do a plan. You think he'll be making a mistake by not putting digital as his primary medium of targeting and continue to put majority of his money in television given that these 3-4 aspects of an advertising plan especially in a cluttered environment like today where Mr. Sharma also showed 5,000 new brands have launched in the last few years and so on. Do you think a media planner would be making a mistake by saying television will be my primary medium and not digital? So again, like I said, I'm not against digital. I think he needs to compliment. Perfect question is primary versus secondary. I'm very dear to TV's primary. Let me use, you mentioned about interactivity on digital advertising. Forget the consumer brands or the real world brands. I think the most powerful effect of digital advertising is you can have a straight click-through. You have click-through sales. You may have digital sellers who if you can advertise on digital get a consumer who not only consumes your ad but click and come to your site and buy something. That's the most powerful case for digital advertising. Who are the biggest sellers who are interested in click-through? Is the online sellers? It's the Amazons in Flipkarts of the world. It's the Netflix of the world. They have a very strong reason to advertise on digital only because they can attract the consumer, get him to consume their video, click-through and become a subscriber or go and buy whatever they want to buy on Flipkart and Amazon. Where are these guys advertising maximum? And that gives you an answer. The biggest logical spenders on digital are advertising much more on television than on digital. So I rest my case again on that point. We also know the power of television, some of the work that Arthos showed in terms of launches of GEO they all largely use television and then the rest of the supplementary media has been print and digital. Tell me, besides TV versus digital, you've been part of Bajaj Electrical now for a good part of six, eight months, three months. And Bajaj has been one of the early advertisers on TV. Can you tell us a little more in terms of how your advertising mix has changed now? What are you doing on TV versus digital? We all, I'm sure, grew up seeing Bajaj Electrical's ads. So how do you evolve? How does a company like you evolve with the changing consumer habits? My marketing team is sitting right there and I think to answer the question of the mix, I think there's a pre-image mix and a post-image mix. The biggest factor I'm having is with my marketing team on that mix and actually with my distribution and sales team on retail versus media. But I'm very clear. I think we have to move back to, you know, our brand was created through television. I think everybody who's grown up in the country would win. Remember the Bajaj Lighting Act from television when I was a kid under the blanket and creating that? I think brands are made on television. Every brand that you take in this country has been made on television. Having said that, I think there's a case for PTL-ATL spends. Our mix over the last couple of years for specific reasons has been pro-BTL. The mix or the need for a certain mix keeps changing over a period of time, will keep changing. But clearly, in my view, TV will be the primary medium for spending going forward. So you'll spend significantly more on TV this year? If I get a good deal. Don't take everything I'm saying seriously. So that's good news for the television advertisers and a lot of them will wish they were more, more clients like this who were willing to spend so much more money. So tell us, Anuj, you also worked in a large television setup and last six, seven years have been the years of disruption, so to say. Digital, specifically digital OTT has disrupted the television space and I ask this question as an ex-television executive, not as a large advertiser today. If TV were to retain its primacy going forward as you say that it does have today, if five years down the line TV needs to retain its primacy in an era where digital is really snapping at its heels in multiple ways, what does the television industry need to do to stay where it is today? So again, everything I'm saying today is a spender. As a spender, I have no bias to media. I am not threatened by digital or not pro TV because I can move as fast as the platforms move. So I am not married to a platform. I'm only married to reach. As a television broadcaster, I would worry about digital because when digital disruption happens, it affects me as a broadcaster. So my view as a broadcaster would be very different from my view as a spender. There I do need to look at the future. I do need to look at trends. I need to plan that in advance. I need to hedge my bets, which is why... So what would you do as a broadcaster if you were still running a channel? What would you do to make yourself future-ready?   I'm trying to reach audiences. I'm a content company and I have to reach my audiences. It's for them to choose whether they want to consume my content on digital or through DTH, et cetera. It doesn't matter. I'm out there to entertain them. Number two, this whole trying thing about addressability and funding is very core to creating consumer choice.  So I need to make sure my content reaches the most addressable choice manner to the consumer. It's very important for me as a broadcaster to survive. But number three, having said that, my value proposition, both in terms of consumer R2 and in terms of value proposition to the advertiser as a broadcaster is so much stronger than digital. So I'm actually pretty safe at least for the next 5, 10 years. After that, I don't know what will happen as a broadcaster. Again, as a marketer, DKBC. Don't know, don't care. You want to get to the consumer wherever the consumer is. We're happy to take questions in between if anybody, as you can raise your hand and, you know, we'll send a mic to you. Anybody who wants to ask a question in between is free to do so. Tell me, again, I asked you if you wore the hat of a television executive again. You had this trend of, you know, OTTs being very extremely aggressive in the content space over the last few years. There have been the likes of Netflix and Amazon and the television companies themselves have done OTTs. And you've been part of the setup when OTT happened. Do you see OTTs cannibalizing the primary television business because eventually, you know, you are moving your own consumers away from the TV, linear TV screen to a digital screen where monetization at least today is not easy or is at a very low scale. Is it cannibalizing your primary revenue? Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely. You know, I think you don't decide consumers. They decide where they want to go. When you have cannibal becoming, you know, more available at a cheaper price, consumers are shifting. They do move to, you know, personal devices, et cetera. They are going to digital. If we don't do it, now we, I'm saying, as an ex-media guy, if I don't do it as a broadcaster, somebody else is doing it. So the cannibalization threat is your and it is happening. So I better be part of that party to keep that within my fold than not be part of the party and have Netflix or Amazon take it away. Having said that, am I doing that as a hedging bet or am I actually putting all my eggs, taking it out of the broadcast and moving to digital? That allocation to me as of my investments as the media company is very important. I think what's happened is some of the broadcasters and I can say this now as a person outside, we've gone ahead of the curve. We've put so much money into, into creating these digital OTT platforms. I don't think the ROI is actually justified. We just need to be there, we need to be present there so that when the inflection point happens, when it actually starts taking over TV as a primary screen, we are there, our brand presence should be there, our content should be available. But I don't see the reason why I need to pump, you know, tens of floors or hundreds of floors to tell guys, please come to my digital platform. Let them make the choice. I just need to be available there, if they are considering OTT, let's say a choice. But aren't the pure play digital companies are already doing that? So it is in a way forcing your hand.  So when you have companies like these who are largely significant amount of money on curating content specifically for OTT, what choice does the television channel have? Look at the Netflix numbers, look at the Woot numbers, look at the Hawks Town numbers. People will go to digital, but they will go to digital as a medium, but they will go to content they like. The most powerful content is your biggest asset for the broadcasters. The most powerful content today is owned by, curated by the broadcasters. I believe the broadcasters in this country understand the audiences much better than the digital OTT guys do. It's a learning they've had over many years. The most powerful content today on digital is not all the cool web series. It is not the films. It is your Nagyans. It's your big boss. It's a Pepana or whatever these series. That is your core asset. As long as that talent or that advantage of creating the right content for consumers will understand, better is something that you fiercely protect and then be completely neutral to which platform people consume it in. Users make it available. Your threat is not Netflix and Amazon. I think the winners in this will be, on the one hand, your broadcasters, whether a short star, a wood, or geo, or whatever else of the world. Or the only threat is when Amazons come in with saying they're going to put tens of billions of dollars, then of course, if somebody's going to sink a lot of money in that, that's a different story.  I think a lot of winners are outdoor companies. Every single OTT player, digital companies, advertising on outdoor, and a lot of people said outdoor is dead. It's an old medium. So, I mean, just go out and see what's going on. I think there are prime locations in metros which are just continuously permanently blocked by Netflix and Amazon and outdoor companies are doing better than, you know, I don't know what happens for television, but outdoor industry has certainly got 10, 15% extra growth based on that. So tell me, so what does a broadcaster do on which? I ask this again because, you know, you know that the TRAI regime is taking in tomorrow which will create disruption in linear TV.   And broadcasters on their own have invested so much in OTT that they've kind of pushed the consumers to OTT. And OTT today is not a monetizable platform, at least not at the same scale where TV is. So in a way the broadcaster is sandwiched. You know, he's kind of looking at the devil and the deep you see. If he doesn't, then obviously he's moving his consumers away from linear TV. If he does not do it, then he risks digital company coming in taking that share of, you know, revenue and viewership pie. So what is the right balance for a broadcaster today which kind of takes care of, you know, the monetary scale because if you look at TV companies they are, they continue to be the largest. Whether it's a Viacom, whether it's a Star Network or Zee, they continue to be very large. But OTT today has a disproportionate share of audience but very extremely small share of revenues and it doesn't look like OTT will become, you know, 10x of what it is today in the next three, four years. Whereas audience size will become 10x. So what does the broadcaster do? My view is the opposite. I think OTT has a disproportionate share of revenue to a share of actual viewership today. Again, I'm probably repeating myself a little bit. I think we have to stop thinking of ourselves as a broadcaster. I am a brand and I'm talking today if I'm Viacom-80. I am colors or I'm a Nickelodeon or I am Comedy Central. My relationship with my consumer is that of a brand trust. My consumer is coming to me because when he comes to colors or when he comes to Nickelodeon or when he or she comes to Comedy Central, they come because they believe this is a platform or a brand that can entertain them in the most, you know, reliable manner. As long as a nurture that relationship with the consumer on the one hand and maintain that ability to serve out or curate the best content, it doesn't matter which platform people come to me at. What I need to do a little more smartly which I don't think we're doing today is push my brand out of the digital platform. Woot, and I'm sorry I'm saying this, I have no longer work life on the team. Woot will never command the relationship with my audience that colors or Nickelodeon or, you know, Comedy Central can. To me, that should be the destination. For a consumer, you should want to come to Nickelodeon when he comes online, not come to Woot. Because that's a legacy, that's an asset that I have. The moment I undermine colors or Nickelodeon and start to try and load it with, you know, Woot, I'm undermining my biggest asset in trying to forge a new relationship which is a very expensive proposition to do. And also disown my, you know, legacy of being curator of content. So then what does the broadcasts of Pre-Do that have, you know, multiple opportunities for the individual brands? Yeah. I mean, what does Tommy Hill do? Brands? Yeah. I mean, what does Tommy Hill figure or Raymond, whatever else they do?  Woot is my mall, mall or whatever you call it. My brand is colors. It can be available on Jio, it can be available on Woot, it can be available on colors.com, doesn't matter. Colors is what I want to reach out to every guy out there on any platform. Why should I care? I need to own my relationship with the consumer as colors. It doesn't have to be at my flagship store or it doesn't have to be, you know, promoted under some other brand. I will not promote another retail brand. I need to promote my brand. I think you make a good point though. I'm unsure about the kind of technical and, you know, technology investments it'll require because doing multiple OTT platforms then has a huge implication in terms of technology costs and then, you know, having the ads reside on, you know, phones. Tell me, I want to pick up on another point you made about, you know, television not commanding the desired or the deserved premium. And that's been the case for a while. You know, there have been enough arguments made by channels, networks, even at the idea level that, you know, given the penetration and reach, television continues to be undervalued. Why do you think that situation exists? I think, quite honestly, it's... You're now an advertiser, so, you know, you've been a broadcaster now as an advertiser, so you've seen things from both the sides. Who's interest am I supposed to speak in favor of? No, I'm happy as an advertiser. I realize Bach is typically IA and the broadcasters, IVF, etc. As an advertiser, I'm very happy to have television not be sold as CPT, CPM and therefore continues underpricing itself. It works well for me. As a broadcaster, I don't understand why we as an industry couldn't come together and force it. I think there was a point in time towards the penultimate period of time when we actually moved from, you know, even reporting GRPs to reporting only GVMs and TVMs.   All transactions are done on CPRP and GNAPs. And I think it's a failure of us as an industry. But while this is negative for broadcasters, I don't think it's good for media planners and buyers. The fact that media planners and buyers are consuming, transacting on CPRP or GRPs is a fooling nobody but themselves because they think they're buying one currency but that currency is not a real currency. They think they're buying a more expensive or cheaper medium. If you're not going to evaluate all the mediums on one currency, one measure, who are you working for? You are working for your brand, your job, whether as an agency, whether as a buyer, whether as a brand manager, is to buy the most effective medium. If you're not going to make that transparent for your own purchase to fooling nobody but yourself, so I think it's a failure of us as an industry. I think there's enough spoken about CPT-CPA. If I were to flip it and ask, what would it take for television to start commanding premium? What are the two, three things that the industry needs to do? Again, you're asking the wrong guy. The only thing that I do, since the time I've come, tell my marketing team, at every media plan that you're making, you tell the agency, our buying agency is instructed to give me a CPT-CPM excel sheet. I don't need to see how many GRPs make plans because the first question our team is used to ask is, how many GRPs are you going to buy in the plan? I don't know. Give me a CPT-CPM across all media and I will decide on a plan. Having said that, you can't be a robot, right? You're not trying to buy the cheapest CPT-CPM. There are different mediums that will command the CPT-CPM and there's a reason for that. I will pay a premium for certain media. I will also pay a greater premium on a cost for contact for BTL than I will for ATL. But I need that to be transparent to me and then take the call that I'm going to pay X% premium for one media or BTL versus ATL. But the currency needs to be consistent and transparent. So that's my view as a buyer. I think if every buyer starts seeing it transparently, because it's in his interest and every seller starts pushing that, I don't see why they're trying to do that. I think sellers are keen to move to a CPT model because I think a lot of them believe that a kind of CPT model will help them earn the desired value for the inventory they sell. So I think on the broadcaster's side there is a kind of consensus, a kind of consensus. No that isn't. Sorry? No that isn't. What's top then? I think advertisers are more low. In the TAM thing happened, I told you when I moved to this, it happened because broadcasters came together. They put their foot down, they refused to accept it otherwise there was an IFI, they remember some kind of blackout of ratings or some kind of standoff. There was a lot of arrows cancelled, there was a whole standoff between advertisers and broadcasters and broadcasters suck it out. If they did that it's their currency to sell. But publicly the broadcasters say they want to move to a CPT model and a lot of agencies also publicly say that I think it's the advertisers who are keen to stay with the CPRP-GRP model because of ostensible reasons of cost efficiency. So I don't know whether that's true because of as an advertiser you're saying that you're keen to look at CPTs more than CPRP then that must be good news for broadcasters. My point there is of course I will negotiate with broadcasters. I will make them compete amongst each other for my business. I'm here to get the best part for my dollar but not the cost of me myself not knowing what I'm buying. Then I'm not getting the best part going on. I need to know what I'm buying. I need to be able to see it equally. And then I will go out and negotiate and protect my interest. I'm not a broadcaster. Sorry guys. I'm the buyer now. So I'm going to act as a buyer. But not by public myself. Perfect. I see we've run out of time. So last question to you Anuj. You've been as I said on both sides of the media. Both are in essence consumer brands. Viacop is a consumer brand. And what you do today also is a consumer brand. How has life changed? How has life changed in terms of how you are connecting with the consumer? Because eventually it's about creating so-called emotional bond. So how has life changed Viacom versus Bajaj Electricals? Personally speaking for me life has changed a lot. It's a very tough game out there. I think I moved from the notional intangible selling to the real-world physical tangible selling. There's a lot of differences out there in the field trying to sell a physical product. And there was some conversation earlier that Partho spoke about increasing electrification. You spoke about UP being done. We're actually involved right now as Bajaj bringing electricity for the first time to 40,000 villages across UP. So the first transformer that we're putting in that village is being put by us. The first light bulb in those homes has been put by us. And you know one of the first things I saw when the guy gets electricity the first thing he does is first put a bulb number two put a fan and number two get a DTH box. That's the packing order of his varieties. Moved up in life. From number three you've gone up to number one. I don't know about that. But you know having said that all three are important. Important when I'm happy to sell the bulb and fan to them. Having said that for me as a marketer obviously the world changes. I'm no longer selling an intangible. I need to see direct correlation to not you know viewership but rational physical sales of my product. It's a very different ball game. I see detail very differently than I used to. I can go into a long field on that. But it does change when you're selling a real bulb. I'll tell you one of the other things I was reflecting on. When I was a television guy television guys are also spenders. We are also advertisers. Our room to advertise was limited. If I wanted to advertise a show on colors or whichever channel I was representing. Where can I advertise? I need to get new viewers onto the channel. I cannot advertise on star. I cannot advertise on Z. I cannot advertise on Sony. So I was actually restricted from advertising on broadcasters and I was forced to buy more print and outdoor and bus panels and digital than I actually ideally would like to because my competitors would not carry me. Yet what I would do from my marketing budget every month is maximize whatever television I could buy through the news channels or music channels whoever would agree to me to carry me and then the rest of the money spitted between the other media. But I would think what's stopping the consumer companies from actually doing that. As a consumer company there's no broadcaster who will say no to me as an advertiser. I need to do the same. I need to put out as much money as I can on television. It's such a no brainer. And then put in those little bits of money to look cool on all the other media. So everybody wants to look cool but you've got to realize the price to pay for looking cool. Fantastic with that. I see we are already five minutes over time so thank you. Thank you Anur. Thank you for a candid chat.  Thank you so much gentlemen.