So, we will continue our discussion on game theory. Last class, if you remember, we discussed about the different assumptions of the game theory. What is the need of game theory generally, in which case what is the usefulness of the game theory is there in the economic analysis. Then we discussed about the structure of a game. Then we took a small example to understand what is the dominant strategy, what is the maximum strategy, what is the min-max strategy and how generally equilibrium is achieved when there are two dominant strategies. Then we introduced the concept of Nash equilibrium and Nash equilibrium, if you remember, this is the best action given by the player, irrespective of whatever the opponent does, that is the best strategy, that is generally the Nash equilibrium. So, taking the example of both the firms to advertise or not to advertise, what we discussed in the previous session, the same example we are going to take to understand this Nash equilibrium. So, just to a quick recap, Nash equilibrium is a strategy for each player such that no player has the incentive to change its action unilaterally given that the other player follows the proposed action. So, generally this is a state of equilibrium, this is a state of balance beyond which whatever the effort the player they are going to put it, it is not going to change their payoff and that is why this typical combination is called as the Nash equilibrium. It is generally the other way to put it is that it is the optimal collective strategy in the game involving two or more players where no player has anything to gain by changing his strategy. So, this is the point, this is the optimal collective strategy, this is the optimal strategy for both the firms beyond which whatever may be the change, no player has to gain anything by changing the strategy. So, we will take the same example to understand this Nash equilibrium and here there are two firms firm 1 and firm 2 and it is a choice between them that whether they should advertise or whether they should not advertise. So, we will take the case of firm 2 here, here we will take the case of firm 1, here it is whether they should go for the advertisement, whether they should not advertise, here again we have taken the advertise and do not advertise. So, when both the firms they are advertising, firm 1 get a share of 50, firm 2 get a share of 20. When firm 1 advertise and firm 2 is not advertising, firm 1 is getting 60 and firm 2 is getting 10. When firm 1 is, firm 2 is advertising, firm 1 is not advertising, he gets 40, firm 1 get 40 and firm 2 get 30 and when both of them they are not advertising, they get a pay off of 65 and 25. Now, how we can decide their Nash equilibrium, now what firm 1 will try to do, firm 1 will try to speculate firms to action and in return what firm 2 will do, firm 2 will also try to anticipate what is firm 1 action. Now, to start with let us see what the firm 1 will first do, so to start with firm 1 will presume that, that firm 2 is going to, firm 2 is going to advertise, if firm 2 is going to advertise it is better for the firm 1 to advertise, because in that case they are getting a pay off of 50, if he is not going for advertising even if firm 2 is going for advertising he is getting a pay off of 40. What is best for him, best for him to go for the advertisement, because he will presume that anyway since it is a case of the market share, the optimal output at the end of the day is that there should be increase in the market share and market share how it will increase if firm they are going for the advertisement. So, in this case if firm 1 always presume that the firm 2 is going to advertise and if firm 2 is going to advertise then in that case if firm 1 also advertises he gets a market share of 50, whereas if he is not advertising even if firm 2 is advertising he get a market share of 40. So, since 50 is greater than 40 it is always best outcome or the best pay off to go for advertisement. Now, we will understand from the perspective of the firm 2. Now, how firm 2 will react to this or how firm 2 will behave in this case. So, firm 2 knows that same thought process again or the same speculation again that since it is about the market share, market share increases whenever there is an increase in the advertisement the more it reaches to the consumer more is the market share. So, in this case firm 2 will also think that anyway firm 1 is going to advertise because he has to increase the market share and if firm 1 is advertising if firm 2 is advertising it gets a share of pay off because their pay off is 20. If firm 1 is advertising and firm 2 is not advertising it gets a share of 10. So, since 20 is greater than 10 this should be the preferer this should be the best outcome best strategy. So, for firm 2 also the best strategy or may be the decision of the firm 2 has to advertise. Now, what is the Nash equilibrium? Nash equilibrium is since whatever the strategy taken by firm 1 irrespective of whatever the other firm is doing if it is matching with the strategy whatever is taken by firm 2 irrespective of what firm 1 is doing. So, this is what this is a similarity that both the firm they are going to advertise whatever the other firms they are doing in a. So, in this case it the Nash equilibrium is Nash equilibrium for both the firm is to advertise and advertise. So, this combination of firm 2 and firm 1 is generally leads to Nash equilibrium because the whatever the best for B irrespective of whatever the best for B irrespective of what A does or whatever best for A irrespective of whatever B does if that equal then we get the Nash equilibrium. So, Nash equilibrium is what in this case specific case whatever is firm 2 is doing irrespective of firm 1 that strategy is advertised and whatever is firm 1 is doing irrespective of firm 2 the strategy is again to advertise that is why to advertise and to advertise this combination leads to the Nash equilibrium. So, taking the same example we can understand that how generally when the both the company they are into a competition or they are into taking a decision making that whether they have to go for it not for it. In that case generally they look at what may be the opponent choice, but here they have to when they have to reach a decision they have to see that irrespective of whatever the other company is doing or whatever the other firm is doing what they are getting out of it. Now, in this case both the firms they have the dominant strategy the dominant strategy for firm 1 is to advertise the dominant strategy for firm 2 is also advertise, but may be we will get a case where firm 1 and firm 2 they do not have the dominant strategy. Now, what would happen to the equilibrium output in this case because it may it may happen that the payoff changes or the payoff is in such a way that there is no no dominant strategy for one of them. Suppose one is having a dominant strategy the other is not having a dominant strategy in that case what is the Nash equilibrium because Nash equilibrium is ideally the dominant strategy of 1 when it is match if the dominant strategy of the others we get the Nash equilibrium, but if any case if the there is absence of dominant strategy of one of the firm or may be the other firm in this case what should be the equilibrium output. So, we will just change the payoff slightly and we will see in this case when there is no dominant strategy how the equilibrium output is achieved. So, we will just change the payoff matrix for firm 1 and firm 2. So, this is advertise this is not advertising this is advertising this is not advertising. So, this is the payoff in the first case this is the payoff in the second case this is the payoff in the third case this is the payoff in the fourth case. Now, we will start it again how to whether we can reach the equilibrium looking at the strategy taken by firm and firm 2. Now, suppose if firm 1 advertises now what firm 2 will do firm 2 will also advertise because it gets a better payoff in case of advertising like 50 and 40. Now, sorry it is 20 and 10 because 20 he gets by advertising by not advertising it gets 10. Suppose, if firm 1 is not advertising now here you need to look at the absence that whether it is still profitable for the second firm to go for the advertising. So, if firm 1 is not advertising now what the firm 2 will do firm 2 will also not advertise because the payoff what they are getting from not advertising is higher than the whatever the payment they are getting from the advertising. So, in the previous case since this was 25 the payoff it was profitable for the firm 2 to advertise even if firm 2 is not firm 1 is not advertising, but in this case if firm 1 is not advertising and firm 2 is advertising they are getting a payoff of 30. If they are not advertising when firm 1 is not advertising then they are getting a 35. So, not advertising payoff is greater than advertising and that is why they will prefer not to advertise when the firm 1 is not advertising. So, if you look at here if now if you look at if firm 2 is advertising and if this is for when firm 1 is advertising not advertising what firm 2 should do. So, in this case when firm 1 is not advertising firm 2 is also going to a strategy where it is where the second firm is also not advertising. Similarly, if you look at now if the firm 2 is advertising and if firm 1 is also advertising and if firm 2 is not advertising firm 2 is not advertising when firm 1 is not advertising. So, in this case specifically if you look at firm 2 it depends upon what firm does. So, if firm 1 advertise firm 2 also advertise and if firm 1 is not advertising firm 2 is also not advertising. This leads to the conclusion that firm 2 it does not have a dominant strategy because the strategy are different whenever the opponent changes the whenever the opponent changes the strategy even the other firm also they have to change the strategy. So, we reach to one conclusion here that firm 2 does not have a dominant strategy. Now, we will analyze the case for firm 1. So, we will just take the payoff matrix for the reference. So, this is firm 2 advertising not advertising this is firm 1 again this is advertising this is not advertising and the payoff are 50, 20, 40, 30, 60, 10 and 65, 35. So, we have already reached to a conclusion that firm 2 does not have a dominant strategy because it is dependent on firm 1. If firm 1 advertise it advertise firm 1 is not advertising it is not advertising. Now, we will analyze for firm 1. If firm 2 advertise then it is better for firm 1 to also advertise. Why it is better for firm 1 to also advertise? Because 50 the payoff of advertising is greater than 40 which is the payoff for not advertising this is one situation. Second when firm 2 is not advertising in this case if firm 2 is not advertising if firm 1 is advertising they get a payoff of 60. When firm 2 is not advertising and firm 1 is also not advertising they get a payoff of 65. So, not advertise is the payoff of not advertise is greater than the payoff for advertise. So, now what is the best for firm 1 here or maybe if we can conclude here that if firm 1 should advertise if firm 2 is advertising and firm 1 is not advertising when firm 2 is not advertising. So, we can say again here that firm 2 firm 1 is also having no dominant strategy because it is dependent on whatever the strategy taken by whatever the strategy taken by firm 2. So, if firm 2 is advertising firm 1 is also advertising and if firm 1 firm 2 is not advertising firm 1 is also not advertising. So, in this case if you look at there is no dominant strategy for firm 1 because it is not the best whatever the best that depends on dependent on the rival action and in this case there is no specific action it is all the dependent on the whatever the best that is dependent on the rival action. So, in this case if you look at neither firm 1 nor firm 2 they have a dominant strategy. Now, how we should reach or how we should find out the equilibrium output over here or whether it is possible to get the Nash equilibrium. So, we have we have checked a situation we have analyzed a situation where firm 1 and firm 2 they do not have the dominant strategy. What would happen to the equilibrium output in this case? Here we will get 2 Nash equilibrium will not get a individual Nash equilibrium for the entire situation. Here we will get 2 Nash equilibrium 1 Nash equilibrium it occurs when both companies they advertise when firm 1 and firm 2 they are advertising both of them they are advertising we get 1 Nash equilibrium and when both of them they do not advertise we get another Nash equilibrium. So, when the dominant strategy of 1 is not matching with the dominant strategy of others or maybe there is a absence of the dominant strategy for both the firms over here will not get a individual Nash equilibrium for the entire game rather we will get 2 Nash equilibrium 1 Nash equilibrium occurs when both company advertise and second Nash equilibrium occurs when both the firm they are not advertising. And here each firm is better off if it play the same strategy as the other firm. So, if 1 firm is advertising the other firm should also advertise and if the other firm is not advertising this firm also should not advertise and simultaneously both the Nash equilibrium occurs when both the firm simultaneously play the same strategy. So, it is not that when 1 firm is advertising and other firm is is not advertising, the Nash equilibrium will come. Rather Nash equilibrium will come when both the firms simultaneously play the same strategy. If one is advertising, the other one is also advertising and if one firm is not advertising, the other firm is also not advertising. And Nash equilibrium comes when both the firms they play the same strategy at a particular point of time. So, any maximum strategy profile confer to Nash equilibrium because maximum strategy generally this is the maximization of the worst payoff that confers to Nash equilibrium. And also the minimax strategy by both the player also lead to Nash equilibrium. So, in the first case maximizing the worst payoff by both the players that will lead to Nash equilibrium, because it is basically in that case the player chooses a strategy which maximize the payoff among the worst payoff. So, that in that case also we can get a Nash equilibrium. And also in case of minimax strategy where the strategy is not to maximize something of the own payoff rather to minimize the payoff for the others. And that is why the minimax strategy for both the players if you look at because one firm generally try to minimize the payoff for the others. And at the same time the other firm is also trying to minimize the payoff for the other firm. And in this case generally that also leads to kind of a Nash equilibrium. Then we will discuss interesting case generally which is more common it is a kind of game generally followed to understand the human behavior rather than a typical profit maximizing firm. How this specific game is also a part of if you look at also a part of the economic theory because it is basically individual, but when we generalize this to the individual firms or the economic agents generally they behave in that situation. So, we will start a like interesting case study or interesting kind of game where the basically the moral of this case study is that even if cooperation is profitable still they are not cooperate with each other because they feel that this is not going to the best for them. So, business dilemma generally provides an insight into the difficulty in maintaining the cooperation. And even if the cooperation is profitable still they find it is difficult in maintaining the cooperation and that is the reason they never reach to the optimal solution they always get into a suboptimal solution. So, often people or when it comes to oligopolist firm they fail to cooperate with one another even when they when cooperation would make them better up. So, they fail to cooperate whether it is a case of individual economic agent or whether it is a case of a firm or they fail to cooperate with each other when the cooperation would make them better up. So, this prisoner's dilemma it is a particular game between two capture prisoners that illustrate why cooperation is difficult to maintain even if when it is mutual beneficial. So, this is a if you look at this the case study of two capture prisoners and when they when they were captured by the authority they knew that the cooperation is going to help them out the cooperation is profitable, but it always it difficult to maintain the cooperation and finally they land into a situation which is suboptimal, but that is not the optimal solution or that is not bad not the best solution for them.  So, the suspects they are arrested and for some robbery and immediately they were separated there is no information between both of them there is no communication between both of them and it is then the choice were giving to them whether they should confess or whether they should not confess. So, they are arrested they are immediately separated and how the pay off will come if convicted they will get a term of 10 years in prison if the if the crime is it is proved they are getting conviction and conviction they are getting 10 years in prison. The evidence is not sufficient to convict them more than crime of possessing stolen goods which carries a sentence of only one year. If the evidence is not sufficient to convict them because it is a case of robbery. So, in this case if the it is not getting proved they cannot get the 10 years of prison and they will just carry a sentence of only one year because they have one crime left that they have position of the stolen goods there in the with them. So, if it is it if you look at its two different activity they are caught for being one, but still they have some stolen goods and for them they will get the punishment for one year, but if they are getting convicted for bank robbery they will get a punishment of 10 years.  So, these are the options given to the suspect if you confess then you will go free because you have confessed that you have done the crime. If you do not confess, but your other one other one confess other partner that confess then you will get 10 years and you will go free if both of you are confessing then you will get both get 5 years in prison. Now, from there we get they get this is the payoff matrix and how this payoff matrix how the payoff matrix we can construct now this is for prisoner 1 this is for prisoner 2. So, in this case is getting 10 years both of them they are getting they are. So, both of them they get 10 years when both of them they confess then prisoner 2 if so let us call it this is confess this is not confess this is not confess if both of prisoner 1 and prisoner 2 both of them they are confessing they are getting the sentence of 10 years. If prisoner 1 prisoner 1 not confessing prisoner 2 confess then prisoner 1 here get 10 years and prisoner 2 gets prisoner 2 prisoner 2 generally goes free because he has confessed both of them they are not confessing prisoner 1 confess prisoner 2 not confessing prisoner 1. So, if we can call it is 1 not confess then we can call it prisoner 1 goes free. So, we get 0 prisoner 2 is get 10 years both of them they are not confessing they get 1 1. Now, what is the best option or maybe we can just change this on the basis of our payoff. So, if you confess and your accomplice does not you will go free and your accomplice will get 10 years. So, in this case there is a small change over here. So, this is 5 and 5. So, when both of them they are confessing they are just getting 5 years. When one is confessing the other one is not confessing who is confessing he is going freeing the other one is getting 10 and similarly if both of them they are not confessing they are getting 1 1. Now, what is the best option for them if you look at best option for them is to remain silent. If they are not confessing remain silent they just get 1 1, but practically how this will happen practically this is not going to take place. Since they are the rivals and since there is no communication between prisoner 1 and prisoner 2 they will feel that if I am not going to confess the other one is going to confess. So, in this case I am going to get 10 years the other one goes free and the same thought prisoner 2 also will think that if I am not going to confess the other one is anyway going to confess and in that case I am getting a prison of 10 years then the other one is going free. Here if you look at cooperation is beneficial if both of them they are remain silent if both of them they have the trust that the other one is not going to confess they will remain silent that they would have got just 1 year 1 year, but ideally how this will happen both of them they will confess with the thought that if I am not going to confess the other one is going to get the confess. And in that case he is going free and I am just getting I am getting more I am getting 10 years. So, in that case with the same line of thought both of them they will confess and finally they will land in a they land in a payoff which is not optimal rather this is suboptimal because the optimal one is here when both the prisoners they are remain both the prison they are remain silent, but they are not silent they both of them they are going to confess and that is the reason they will end into a suboptimal solution and which is may be not the Nash equilibrium for here you cannot get a Nash equilibrium and finally they will end in a situation which is not optimal rather it is a suboptimal situation. Now the same thing so if you look at here again what is the dominant strategy the dominant strategy is the best strategy for a player to follow regardless of the strategy chosen by the other player. So, in this case can we say that when we confess that is the best strategy because best strategy for both the prisoner because what is the dominant strategy dominant strategy is one where irrespective of whatever is the other one is doing that is the best strategy. If prisoner one decides to remain confess that should be the best strategy irrespective of what other is doing. So, in this case if you look at still confess is the best strategy for best strategy for prisoner one because if the other one is not confessing other one is confessing is just getting 5 years the other one is not confessing then he is going free and if the other one is may be remain silent that is again another strategy. So, in this case the dominant strategy is the best strategy for the player follow the regardless, but if you look at it may be the dominant strategy, but this is not best best payoff because for prisoner one what are the option if he remain silent if the other one remain silent it is that is one, but the other one confess then you get 10 years. So, he has to maximize the maximize or the minimize the whatever the worst payoff can happen in case of the rival section. So, he will prefer to confess because at least even if it is not a optimal solution but still it is better than if he is not confessing and the same thing will happen with prisoner two and both of them they will confess they will reach to a solution which is may be the best strategy at that point, but that is not the optimal solution and what is the problem over here problem over here is there is lack of cooperation and they find that cooperation is difficult and that is the reason they are getting into a sub optimal solution. So, cooperation is difficult to maintain because cooperation is not the best interest of the individual player. Then we will take this example in a revenue function or in a revenue payoff and we will understand how the price increase and how generally the oligopoly changes accordingly. So, there are two oligopoly Jack and Jill and they are into the business of they generally sell the oil in the market. So, in the first case they have different options when the price is 40 rupees for 40 dollar per gallon. So, if you look at if the price is 40 dollar per one gallon both of them they are selling 40 gallon each and they are getting 1600 as revenue. Now, if they both of them they are reducing the from 40 gallon to 30 gallon the price is going to 50 dollar and both of them they are getting 1800 as revenue. This is one case where 40 rupees for one gallon and both of them they are just selling 40 gallons. Similarly, when they are just selling 30 gallon the price will increase to 50 gallon and both of them they are getting a revenue of 1800. If Jack sell 40 and Jill sell 30 in this case what is the revenue if Jack sell 40 and Jill sell 30 in this case Jill will get Jack will get Jack sell 40 gallons Jill sell ok. So, in this case Jack will get 2000 and Jill will get 1500. Similarly, if Jill is selling 30 and Jill is selling 40 and Jack is selling 30 then in this case it is getting 2000 and here it is 1500 the price is 50 dollar ok. Now, we will see what both of them they will do. So, now if you look at the slide when Jack is selling 40 Jill is getting selling 40 both of them they are getting 1600 as the revenue and they know that if both of them they are selling 30 gallon the price will go up and they can get a 1800 as the revenue because price will go for 60 rupees per gallon and they are getting 60 dollar per gallon and they are getting 1800 as the revenue. But ideally what they will do they will not reduce both of them they will try to sell 40. Here what is the optimal the optimal strategy optimal strategy is to sell less. So, that the price will go up and they will get they will get a higher revenue, but what they will do both of them they will not sell 30 they will sell 40. So, in this case if you look at if Jack is selling 40 and Jill is selling 30 he is going to get a revenue Jill is going to get a revenue of 1500 and Jill Jack is going to get a revenue of 2000 price price goes up to because it is 70 in place of 80 it is 70 now. So, that in that case the price goes up to 50 dollar per gallon. Now, in the other case also if Jill is selling more and Jack is selling less in the same case the total in the first case if both of them they are selling both of them when they are selling 40 40 total is 80 gallon and the price is 40 dollar per gallon. Now, ideal solution is both of them they should just sell 30 30 gallons that comes to 60 gallon the price goes up to 60 dollar and in this case both of them they will get a revenue of 1800. What they will try to do ideal is this both of them if they are reducing they are getting it, but they will not try to reduce it both of them they are trying to just produce just sell 40 gallon and they will land in a revenue which is again not a optimal solution like if you look at here Jack gets 1600 Jill gets 1600 and why they get into this 40 gallon because if at any point of time Jill is selling 30 gallon he gets less revenue as compared to Jack because Jack is not going to reduce beyond 40 gallons. And in some situation if Jack is Jack is reducing it to 30 gallons Jill is not going to reduce and in this case Jack get a revenue of 1500 and Jill get a revenue of 2000. So, if you look at the pay off in the fourth box this looks more profitable for them this should be the optimal strategy, but they will not follow here they will end in a situation where it is suboptimal or where they are getting less profit. This same example can be can be taken into again in a different context like you have two country, country one and country two and the options are whether to keep arm and ammunition or whether to not to keep the arm and ammunition. So, the choice are if you look at whether to arm or to disarm here again whether to arm or whether to disarm. If country one is keeping arm country two is keeping arm then both country one and country two they are at the risk. If country one is disarm and country two is still keeping arm in this case country one is may be the risk and country two is country two is safe and powerful. Similarly here if country one is disarm and country two is keeping arm in this case again country one is safe and country two is risk and when both of them they are not keeping the arm and ammunition both of them they are safe. Here in this case what is the optimal strategy optimal strategy is here where both country one and country two they are safe, but they are not going to this option they are going to exercise this option and they both the country one and country two they are going on the risk. So, if you look at what is what you can conclude from here on the basis of all this situation that even if the cooperation is difficult even if the cooperation is profitable still they go situation where may be they always and into a suboptimal strategy like whether you take a case of the prisoners whether you take the case of the oligopolist whether you take the case of the typical country whether it is keeping arm and ammunition all these cases cooperation is always lead them to a strategy or lead them to a outcome which is best for both of them, but since there is no trust or there is lack of cooperation they always feel that the rivals is going in a different direction and rival will try to give us the worst payoff and that is the reason that will end into a situation which is suboptimal. So, if you if you remember from the case of prisoner the best outcome is to remain silent, but they will not remain silent both of them they will confess and they will land into a situation which is suboptimal. Similarly, about the two oligopolist Jack and Jill in both these cases if they are selling both of them they are selling just 30 gallons they are getting a profit of 1800, but still they are not doing that both of them they are selling 40 gallon and finally, they leads into a suboptimal situation. And similarly in the country level also keeping arm and ammunition both the country they are at the risk, but still they are keeping it because there is a lack of trust rather is lack of cooperation that the other firm is also other country is also going to deserve, but the best option is that both of them they deserve themselves when they become they become safe, but that is not going to happen in this case and that is why both of both the country they keep it in the they keep their strategy as arm and they get into a situation where both the country are at the risk. So, prisoner's dilemma is particularly talks about a game where cooperation is profitable, but it is difficult to maintain and that is why we do not get into the optimal strategy rather we get into the suboptimal strategy. Then we will talk about some types of game like what are the different types of game on the basis of the outcome on the basis of the players and then we will see how this is linked into the different oligopoly model what we discuss in our oligopoly market structure. So, games are classified either on the basis of the relation between players or in the basis of the strategy or on the basis of the outcome. So, the first kind of game is cooperative and non-cooperative game. So, cooperative game are essentially those which enters cooperation among the players in real business world such cooperation is considered to be illegal generally that is called as collusion it is not legal in the real world, but cooperative games are essentially those which enters the cooperation among the player and non-cooperative games are where there is no possible to tie up among players like in case of court throat competition. So, non-cooperative games there is no tie up between the player or there is no collision between the player it generally happens in case of the court throat competition. Then we have normal form and extensive form games. So, normal form games list each player strategy and possible outcome that they derive from each strategy of the opponents and outcome is revealed by the payoff matrix and each players payoff is denoted by the number to measure the utility derived from each strategy. So, in the previous case whatever the payoff we are finding out on the basis of the different strategy that is generally a normal form of the game. So, normal form of the game generally identify the list of the action taken by the players that is the strategy. What is the end outcome in term of the strategy and listing all this end outcome in term of a payoff matrix that is generally the normal form of a game. Whereas, in case of extensive form of game or the typical game tree we call it gives a complete plan of action of the player over a period of time and it gives a chronological order in which player take their action at that particular point of time dependent on what they know at what point. So, generally game tree is and gives a complete plan of the player over a period of time it is in a chronological order and here player takes whatever the particular point of time whatever the decision takes that generally if you look at the when you are deciding the one decision point that leads to the what is the previous decision point and it is dependent on the previous decision of the player. So, we will just take an example to understand the extensive form of game. So, for if you look at in the previous case again we will take where we take the case of the advertisement. So, firm one if there are two options either to advertise or do not advertise this leads to again two outcome that is for a firm two. So, this leads to outcome for a firm two and here again two options advertisement or not advertisement and this leads to the payoff for both firm one and two and this comes as if you remember 50, 20 and if it is not advertising then it is 60 and 10. Similarly, if it is the firm one is do not advertise then this leads for firm two to take two action again advertise do not advertise and from here we get the payoff for firm one and two if do not at firm one do not advertise firm two advertise we get a payoff of 40, 30 and in the case of firm one do not advertise firm two also do not advertise we get a payoff of 55 and 25. So, this is the extensive form of game which record the particular action at the different point of time and then dependent. So, if you look at why firm two is advertising it depends upon because firm one is advertising firm two why it is not advertising again it is depend upon what firm one is doing. Similarly, if you start from the payoff why the payoff is this because firm two is advertising because firm one is advertising. So, extensive form of the game or this is also known as the game tree in this case it gives a chronological order in which players take their action at that particular point of time dependent on what they know at that particular point. Then we will take a different kind of game types of game that is two person games and n person games this is classification is on the basis of the number of players. So, if it is two number is two it is a two person games if it is more than two then it is a n person games then we have a simultaneous move and sequential movement. So, in simultaneous game both the players act at the same time even if players do not act at the same time the second player is inform about the first player move. So, in case of simultaneous move game both the players act at the same time even if the player do not act at the same time the second player is inform about the first player move. This game is used for generally understanding the behavior of the oligopoly firm and the typical example is connote model. So, if you remember in case of connote model it is the reaction function and that decides that what will be the outcome of the other firm dependent on the output of the whatever the output decision of the previous firm. Then in case of sequential game one player acts followed by the other second player knows that the move adopted by the first player and take its decision contingent that taken by the first player and the typical example is the Stackelberg model what we discuss in our discussion during the previous oligopolist market. So, simultaneous move game is the example of the connote model and sequential move game is the example of the Stackelberg model. Then we have constant sum zero sum and non zero sum game. So, in this case the classification is on the basis of the rivalry on the basis of the outcome. So, the extent to which goals of the player is coincide is the basis of the classification. So, in a constant sum game total benefit of players given each strategy is constant the players have to share the profit. It is a game of if you look at constant sum game is the game of the total conflict and also this is a game of the pure competition. The typical example is the game of poker where it is the combined wealth of players remain constant player of share A increases the share of player B must decrease. Then we have zero sum game here the total benefit has to be equal to zero. So, the sum of gain and loss is zero and whatever is gained by one player is lost by the other player. Then we have non zero sum game and in case of non zero sum game the total benefit of players added together given each strategy is more than zero and constant. So, both the players of the game ends up in win win or loss loss situation and the typical example is the strategic alliance and the joint venture. So, in case of non zero sum game total benefit of added together is more than zero or more than a constant and typical example of strategic alliance and the joint venture we take as the non zero sum game. Then we have symmetric and asymmetric game. So, in the symmetric game the payoff do not depends on the player of the game, but on the strategy of the game and typical example is the prisoner dilemma. So, this the here the payoff is not on the player of the game rather it is what is the strategy taken by the game and typical example prisoner dilemma what we discussed before few minutes and asymmetric game do not have identical strategy for both the player because they are asymmetric and typical example is the market entry game. Then we will take 2-3 situation to understand this application of game theory in economics. So, game of entry of potential firm in an industry which already has a monopoly firm and here the incumbent has to decide whether to enter the market or stay out and monopolist has 2 option collude or fight with the entered firm. So, we will just prepare a payoff matrix on this basis and we will see that how this game theory is also applicable on the basis of the on the basis of the decision of the firms when they enter into the market and also we will see the application of this in the corner model and application of this in the Stackelberg model in our next session.


Chief of the General Staff, People's Republic of China, visited San Diego Tuesday. General Feng Feng Wu met with Paycom Admiral Samuel Locklear and Commander U.S. Third Fleet Vice Admiral Kenneth Floyd, and toured USS Ronald Reagan and USS Coronado. The visit allowed officials to help establish clear paths of communication, encourage transparency and trust, and address common regional and global security challenges. Reducing administrative distractions or RAD initiative is in full swing. RAD takes direct input from sailors on how the fleet can improve administrative processes to allow more time to focus on mission readiness. The initiative supports the entire surface force moving forward with changes suggested in the areas of maintenance, engineering and damage control. Read more about these stories at Navy.mil. From All Hands Update, thanks for watching.


Just to tell you, Yogesh does not have WhatsApp here. Just to introduce you to a better thing about Yogesh, he's probably living a much more peaceful life than most of us. So we have an extremely extreme group of people over here. I'm not saying this because I'm trying to look for clients from here. I'm just saying this because I saw the panel for the first time and I was like, whoa, we have everything. We have people who are building brands for skincare and cosmetics to people who are selling cars, people who are giving you a new music experience, people who are probably telling you how to drive a sustainable automobile. We have someone who's helping you manage finances over here. Almost everyone on this panel, probably wherever you look around you at this point of time, each one of these individuals in some way is affecting you and making you take decisions. So probably they are the real influencers. And then we are going to talk about influencer marketing. We have been looking at reels. I'm sure some of you are probably doing that right now. Some of you are looking at stories which are shared as main pages by your friends, colleagues. Some of you are looking at YouTube videos. Some of you are actually checking that hashtag out. It's CMO and seeing who's posting the content. We are living in an era of social media. And at this point of time, everyone who has made a place for themselves in social media can probably influence your life in some way or the other. And that's the essence of influencer marketing. Obviously there's positives and negatives around it. But we all were discussing that somewhere in 2020 after the lockdown it even penetrated to an extent where people used to be irritated with us for using phones all the time like our parents and grandparents are now consuming more content than us. Are now on social media more than us. So we are living in an era of social media and we are getting influenced on an everyday basis by influencers. Coming to the specific panel where we are talking about Gen Z influencers. So before we start the conversation and I hand over the detailing to the panelists, what is Gen Z? I would just like to define it for all of you. People who are born somewhere between... This is a very broad definition. People who are born between the years 1980 to 1997-98 are generally considered to be millennials. These are people who probably were the first users of internet and mobile phones and computers. The generation after that that is 1997-98 to 2010 born during these years are considered to be Gen Zs. These are people who were born with a mobile phone in their hand. They saw their parents using it. They probably used their first devices when they were in class 2, class 3 and they never heard the dial-up internet in their lives. And after that is something called Gen Alpha. We'll probably discuss about those guys 10 years later. But today we'll talk about Gen Z. Very specific questions now. I'll leave it to open to my panelists over here. So one thing which I really wanted to ask and which we were discussing also, what's your broad take on influencers? We're not talking about Gen Z per se over here, but influencers across categories. What's your broad take on influencers and how do you think they help your brands? How do you think they help creating more awareness about what you're doing for your brands? So I would like to start with... Can everyone hear me? Alright, so to answer your question for the content creators and influencers are of course incredibly important to all brands. Talking specifically about our brand, I think they help us achieve our breadth and depth goals as far as awareness is concerned. For us, our breadth goal is about making self-care. 82 East is a modern self-care brand with skin care being our inaugural category. And our breadth goal is therefore about making self-care accessible to all. And even to people who perhaps have not yet started on that self-care journey or perhaps to people who are sitting on the fence about that notion of self-care. So I think the biggest... From an awareness perspective, the biggest help that influencers lend us is that reach to those communities to land that message that self-care is accessible to all. Secondly, I think they help us advance our own storytelling beyond our own marketing efforts to their communities in newer ways and more meaningful ways that kind of resonate with those communities. The second thing from an awareness perspective is the depth goal. For us, it is about building those meaningful relationships with our consumers. And this is again where we find that influencers play a huge and pivotal role in helping us do that because they are able to dimensionalize our brand ethos and our product ethos in sometimes in expert ways, sometimes in better ways than we actually can land that message because I'll give you an example. If you see nutrition, art, music, sport, yoga, these are all can be considered avenues of self-care. Now, we may not be experts in all of that, but using influencers or experts in these areas help us deliver that message in very meaningful ways to those communities and therefore the community is able to resonate and accept that message in a more authentic manner. So in sum, I would just say that for us from an awareness perspective, influencers help us give us that breadth or that reach and go deep in by delivering that message or dimensionalizing that message. Hope that helps. Self-care, so I can think about fitness. Pallavi, what's your take on how have influencers helped you in this journey with HRX? I mean, good evening, everybody. I'm here to specifically speak about fitness, but why start with fitness? Classically, all the brands which have been successful, historically, are the ones which are able to resonate with a certain community type or can manage probably creation of a cult around them or kind of have a clarion call for a movement. So classically, the brands which go on to becoming successful are the ones which are able to draw flocks and flocks of people towards them, right? I think influencer marketing has become the core of every media mix, every marketing mix now, and it's essential because why spray and pray when you can go really deep into communities and have meaningful conversations like Eid, which makes sense, without any spillage, without any spill-overs, right? These are the cohorts on which brands are built today. In fact, not just fitness. Let's talk about the most new age brands. The process of brand building has reversed, I feel. We start thinking of a community type. We start arriving at a problem. Then we find a solution and then we build a brand on it. Typically, I think that the trajectory taken by any market here today is community, content, and then commerce. So it's becoming a very progressive kind of chain, and I think influencer marketing kind of does all of this very, very efficiently. Also, I feel vernacular. I mean, reaching out to the roots and looking at genres outside of your comfort area is a great way of communicating your Indianness, the fact that you're a homegrown, indigenous brand. All of this is attainable through influencer marketing, and unless you're an FMCG brand, which really needs that ATL, I guess this is the way to go about for most of the marketers today. FMCG. Jaikishan, please. Hi, good evening, everyone. If you look at the way this entire ecosystem has evolved, actually, just taking back a bit in time, there was a point in time when, for any kind of opinion, you always had that smart cousin or some uncle or auntie who you would go out and seek information. So whether it's buying a television set or a refrigerator or even what do I do after class 10 or class 12. So you always had some key opinion leaders within the family. What has happened is in this current age and time, probably because of families kind of becoming nuclear and stuff, and the fact that we have started kind of going to Google for everything, focus on having these experts in different domains has just started kind of cropping up. And we call them influencers, opinion leaders, or whatever term you would like to use with them. See, you're right. When you say that for a mass brand, ATL suffices, but what is also happening is within FMCG, there are offerings that are coming in which are slightly niche or which are addressing the premiumization for certain categories. And the cohorts for that are very, very small, and that's where you actually start using influencers to talk about that product, talk about the benefits of that product. And post-COVID, I think the conversations on health, wellness, eating right, the entire millet story, or other things have started going in. And where do you seek information from there? And even if you get information of the net, you still need a point of view and need a perspective in terms of what to do. And that's where I think the role of influencers started kind of becoming far more stronger even with FMCG overall. I think he mentioned uncles and aunties. They still haven't stopped when it comes to giving educational suggestions of what to do in future and where to invest. So I will ask Anand as to how do you use, if there are any uncles and aunties who are really big on social media, for banking sector? Thanks, Pradeek. Now with actually a few things. One is as a disclaimer, I do follow four or five different influencers. And this is more in terms of travel, health, fitness, food, et cetera. And actually, I'm an outlier on the lower side because Canada data actually shows people follow almost 7.5 different influencers. And 26% of urban India right now actually follow any influencer, even one single. And that's a fairly large number that we're really talking about. They follow, they follow. And that's fairly a large number that we are talking about urban India in the context of urban India. So what's really happening is if you really look at the perspective of Gen Z and influencers, what is important for them? So across all these sectors, and what do we really track also becomes really important. Because when you spoke about the even the banking sector or even in general from multiple sector perspective, it is about advocacy also. Influencer, where we are following the influencer and is there advocacy which is really also happening? So when we really also think about metrics, what do we really track? From an awareness, consideration, preference, to actually looking at will they recommend, have they recommended? A lot of times we speak about are you recommending a particular brand, but are they really recommending? We see that quite a bit happening because of the influencer community also coming in. Because there is a lot of nuances, as even Kirtana spoke about, which are important for consumers, which they're getting through right now. And they're able to recommend in a far better way. Data is always very insightful. And I think data also mentions that we now probably have more than 10 million influencers globally. That's what I read sometime back. It's one of the largest employers in the world now. And coming to that, most of them are GenZ influencers. Now I will ask you a ridiculously difficult question. I'll start with you, Yogesh. What do you think GenZ really cares about? Very specific aspects. What do you think? Considering that you're not using one of the tools with GenZ's use the most, I'm asking you this first. So no pressure. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I think what we cared for is what GenZ's care for. As far as I'm concerned, or my brand is concerned, because we are in the audio space, anything that delivers clean, smooth audio is what my consumers look for. That's what we are trying to deliver to them. That's what we've been trying to do for the last 77 years. We've not changed our signature sound. We've not gone with the wave of extra bass, high bass. We've not gone with that wave. We've always delivered a certain level. And that's what we believe is good for your years or for your home audio. So for me and the way when we look at what we ask people within that age bracket that you mentioned is predominantly what do you like to use a particular product for? That's what we ask. We try and understand that is there a difference between how we interacted with the products versus how they interact with products? Yes, there has been a difference. The number of hours that people spend with tech products has increased. That's who I feel Genzies or that age bracket people do. We have seen that we used to use a certain format of music genre to keep us calm. I started listening when I was in college. I started listening to heavy metal. Then slowly moved to rock, alt-rock, pop. And now even EDM works for me and even AR Rahman works for me. I think Rahman works for everyone. But you would be surprised that he works even now for Genzies. So that's why I started saying that what worked for us works for them. If you want to relate to them, just first think of what you've gone through. We all feel that age bracket people are focused on brandishing themselves or going against the wave. Actually they're not. We also did that. We also went against our parents' wishes. We also wanted to do things differently. At some point these uncles and aunties that he mentioned about used to say that we used to put. Even these kids grew up the same way. I think it is how you can relate to them. How you can get your brand to relate to them. Honestly if you're truthful to them, they will bite.  Don't say things which actually are harmful to people. Don't say those things. But at the end of the day ROI is what matters. So be careful with what you say to this bunch. They're actually woke. They understand their exposure to the digital world is far bigger than what we had. I'm not too far away from that age bracket. But having said so I still feel that... Genzies, right? Talking about Genzies. Correct. But having said that I still feel that I should have done it back then. I want to add something. I don't know how many people in the room saw the Russell Peters gig recently. He spoke about Genzies. He said everything that you think is wrong with this generation is something that we millennials have done. Correct. We said we don't want our children to work. They have gone lazy. They don't work. We said we're going to make a breakthrough in technology and they're always sitting in front of screens maybe managing four screens at a time. Whatever we think is going wrong is because of what we've kind of managed cracking. But in all seriousness, I think if you look at the logos, ethos, pathos, part of things, Genzies is very high on IQ, I feel. Probably not so high on EQ. Because they are really the cool, no sweat, unperturbed generation, I feel. They're actually snatch drip everything that they say. You tell them to stay in office till 12 o'clock. They will turn around with their straight face saying, sorry, we can't do it. I will turn it in tomorrow and they will go home. They're not put up. You know, Neha was just complaining about working on weekends. Yeah. So we know that she is not Genzies for sure. I think real story, authenticity, inclusivity is what really kind of gets them going. Like Yogesh said, be authentic. Give them a story to follow and be inclusive. Like they don't care the size, shape, whatever. They're really cool, I feel. Neha, do you, I think all of us feel that what we did, they are doing it. They're just doing it more socially. They're doing it up in your face. Do you think that's what, I mean, my question was specifically about what do you think they really care about in terms of, not only in terms of brands, but in terms of their lifestyle, in terms of how, one of the examples which Pallavi gave, now I'm supposed to work only till 6 p.m. I'll walk out. What do you think they really care about? Is it living a fulfilling life? Is it living just for social media? Or is it just living for a group of people they want to impress? I mean, you can obviously broaden it. I'm just giving you some. Sure. I think, sorry, can you hear me? I think Genzies for them, I think authenticity being real, I think is critical, right? They don't want any facade. They want the real thing. So, you know, when you work with influencers, in fact, that's one of the briefs we give, just embed our product and what you do well.  I think Genzies today is besides authenticity, they also have, you know, a lot of focus on some of the larger causes, you know, whether it's sustainability, climate change, you know, things like that. And that all makes it very, a very deep conversation that you can have with them through the way you convey your brand message. You know, for example, we work a lot. I mean, we sell cars, SUVs. And the decision making really doesn't lie today just with the 35 plus. It actually, a lot of the influence is coming from the Genzies in each family. And we have examples where, you know, the parents went to buy a certain product and then considering the whole narrative and the story, the Genzies in the family actually changed that decision to buy something else, you know, within our portfolio. So I think today Genzies one, not only, you know, follows some of these things deeply, they're also able to influence the larger family. And which is why even though our primary target audience is not Genzies today in the auto sector, they become a very important secondary audience for us and they're big influencers to our primary audience, right? And I mean, if you look at even the World Economic Forum and some of these larger forums, you have the Genzies actually out there putting the messages out there. I mean, look at Greta, right? And people are following that even adults, even other generations. And so I think it's really about meaning, it's really about value. And yes, I mean, back to Pallavi's point, they're very straightforward, you know? And again, you know, our generation possibly is not that straightforward, so it's interesting and it's very refreshing actually for all of us to engage with Genzies both as customers and as part of the team. So it's interesting learning. I'll just add one point to what Neha said right now. Sustainability is absolutely critical and important and we've seen that actually through multiple ways of the data also. In terms of even driving brand equity, for Genzies, it's almost 1.8 to 2x more important at an overall level. They play a lot more important on what the brand is really doing from a sustainability perspective, okay, from climate change, multiple other aspects. So that's actually really important. Looking for.  Pranesh, what's your opinion? Because as Neha said, some of them influence their families to take decisions to make the larger purchases. In your case, I'm sure your teams are dealing with Genzies on an everyday basis because most of the Genzies, their first bike would be at a very early age if I'm not mistaken. So what do you think Genzies are looking for when they come to specifically your brand? So as you started this conversion, sorry, I have a very bad throat so I must sound very different from what I'm today. They're pretty much sure of what they want from their life. The question that you started with, what do they expect? Today, sitting here, probably I'm not sure what's going to be in the next 10 years. At least when we were all Genzies, even then we were not sure about what we were going to do, but today the Genzies are very sure what they want to achieve in their career. And they follow that process, that path very clear in their head what they want to choose. We didn't have luxury, whether by force or by choice, we didn't have that luxury. The mentality is very different the way they've grown. Now specifically to our category, before I come to the brand, the category is an evolving category. Today, the penetration of scooters is about 50% entire two wheeler category and within that is about 15% for EVs. So scooter category, 15% penetration of EVs. They're very technologically evolved product. Now you can't sell an technologically evolved product to a parent straight away. Example say, if somebody is not technologically inclined, they don't see value of EV, right? How do you sell a person EV when they don't see a value and you want to command a slight delta over a petrol scooter? You can't do that, right? So if I'm a technologically ingrained brand, EV is of course a mode of transport which allows me to travel from point A to point B. But you need that kind of inclination. Who gets that inclination faster, the Gen Z, right? Is it easier for us to communicate? Yes, it is easier. But the challenge is because it's an evolving category and that's probably a curse for marketers, if something is really familiar, you need to sell it as differentiated. If something is really differentiated, sell it as very familiar. Because you want to increase the adoption into the category. You don't want to scare them, right? It's so easy. People don't know, okay, how do I charge this EV? It's just as good as plugging in a charger like you do for your mobile phone. But still, people have doubts. How far can I travel? People talk about, oh, this EV today do not have sufficient range. Any regular day for a college student may not be more than 30, 40 kilometers at best. Scooters, single charge, gives about 150 kilometers on a single charge, right? So the way we want to look at this category or the cohort of influencers, Gen Z influencers, this is very, very important because they are the people who are going to influence my next consumers tomorrow. They're also influencing people who are sitting within families helping their parents to buy scooters today, right? Today as a brand, we are trying to redefine how the scooters are made in India. We started this company, Ethnergy, about 10 years back, put the first part five years, but before we got the product in the market, we already had influencers coming for us, which is our own customers' book for us. That's a strong value, that's an understanding that they have, and that's how they're going to add value to the entire customer. So it's actually, I want to just add, it's interesting to see influencers who have a large following within the Gen Z, the engagement on their channels is 40% more. Yeah, you should watch a Karim Iñati video. Yeah, so I'm just saying, I mean, it's not only working with Gen Zs, it's also working with influencers who have a large Gen Z following so that you're able to kind of really build that engagement and get the ROI that you need. And for a brand which is as evolving as ours, our category as evolving as ours, it's very important how we choose our influencers. Probably a lot of brands have flexibility to choose the influence they want to, but we can't do it. I think we should be very careful. It's as important as choosing a brand ambassador for your brand, right? At every level, they need to rub off on the brand, whether it's awareness or the concentration. The way the category is today, we need to do a lot of work in the consideration for the category while we build the awareness for the brand. So there's a lot of play for influence to play in our lives today. Okay, so when it comes to choosing influencers, Palavi, this is specifically to you. When it came to building communities, looking at fitness influencers, today HRX is probably associated with everything from gymware to probably, if you're going for a run, what did your brand specifically do when it came to building communities? Because you specifically spoke about it as well. Personally for one, I'm very proud of our own influencer strategy because I think it's a very well-rounded one and a very deeply integrated one. It doesn't keep changing quarterly in terms of the list of people who kind of resonate with the brand and stuff like that. It started when we were contemplating during the pandemic as to how do we kind of develop this into something more meaningful and all of us had a lot of time because we were just sitting at home. We worked on this key open and leader strategy inside out saying what better way than converting all of us into key open and leaders because who better than me to start with and the rest of my team followed suit because I know the business of fitness in and out. I have the numbers on my fingertips. I understand the categories. I understand what happens on the field. I'm a cross fitter. I do calisthenics, gymnastics. I run half marathons. I'm a super user of most of the other brands ranging from the international ones to the local ones. So the team started putting a lot of focus on what should I be doing to become the key open and leader and pandemic was a great time where all of us sat down. I think we penned several author articles. We wrote blogs. We've logged. And not just me. The thing continued following. There were ripple effects. The community started joining in. There were people. There were aspirants across millennial groups, across Gen Z groups. People saw that this was an authentic strategy because we didn't enable them to grow just in terms of follow account or their engagement rates. The focus were not only on the KPIs but it was actually about elevating the people themselves. So a lot of people who started out early with us as our KOL program participants, they started featuring in our shoots. Their content started featuring on our page on a regular basis. So much so that some of those runners have actually grown on to becoming our paces now. So they are the ones who are training the groups. Right now we have our marathon coming up on the 31st of March. It's led by our own community, our own runners. They are the ones who are the poster boys and girls of the entire campaign. So it's a very well rounded, very well integrated for us. It's like the kernel of the brand. We don't really do an outside-in strategy. It's an inside-out strategy. Everybody who's a part of the system comes to the office. The content is created there. They're used for campaigns, beat with Ritek, beat for the catalog shoot for Minthra, beat a new collection launch, beat a collab on revenue share basis. It's all done with the people and people have grown. Not just their followers and not their KPIs have changed but technically people have grown into becoming quasi-athletes or trainers or nutritionists and whatever they wanted to pursue. So, I mean, I think we were really ahead of our time and I think pat on the back to my entire team for pulling this off. So it's one of the best ones because Nike running club fell through, Adidas running club fell through, but ours has seen the test of the time. That's awesome. We're pretty much the one on the road now. You know, it's always nice to hear a brand talking about that they don't really follow KPIs. When agencies like us hear this, it sounds very nice. By the way, Pallavi herself is an influencer. Somewhere in the middle, she said indirectly, you can follow me on Instagram. So, one specific thing when it comes to Genzi influencers are that I shouldn't use the word sensitive, but they are more, they have more empathy to certain things and that also results into adverse reactions sometimes. We all have heard of something called cancel culture. I'm sure as brands, we have faced it sometime, one or the other time because of some reason, some fan club coming and saying, I do not like the founder of this company, someone coming and saying, delete this particular app. To you specifically, Jai Kishan, when you have, when you run a brand which sells everything from cookies, to luxury suites in some of the best hotels, how much does a cancel culture affects, you know, all the products because it could happen to any one product and then it spirals out of control sometimes. It has happened in the past, it has happened to CEOs, founders, it happened to companies. What do you think can be done to probably, you know, not avoid it, but firefight it? I'll tell you a very interesting thing. Since you mentioned about delete this app and other things, so in my prior role, I used to be with Snapdeal and we had Amer Khan as a brand ambassador. And there was a statement where he said, you know, I fear for the safety of my wife and kids and I would prefer staying going out of India or whatever. There were factions of people who actually started downloading the Snapdeal app and giving it a one rating. The funny thing is because a number of downloads started increasing for people to give a one rating, my ratings on Google Store significantly went very high. So that's on the lighter side. But yeah, in the current scheme of things, we do actually face a lot of this cancel culture and other things because being in the food business, we have gone through everything. We have seen gluten in wheat, we have seen stuff coming in milk, chips, you name it and we have kind of gone through it. So the way to handle it is two ways. You know, one is, you know, step one is to first figure out the validity of the news and other things. And in case if it's just a malicious intent by somebody, then the entire effort is in terms of ensuring how do you mitigate the situation. And one simple thing that we have learned out there is just engage with all your brand friends in the influence of fraternity and start engaging and talking about positive things about the news. Thankfully in the digital space, the shelf life of any negative news is just probably the next controversy. It's just 72 hours here. You have to just wait for three days and the news will go away. You have to just wait. You have to just ensure that for the three days, the pain on your back is kind of reduced. That's about it. See, and again, you know, today, if you look at it, the retention level of even the Gen Z or whatever you talk about on any such news article is very ministerial. Things, you know, money waiting was like a few weeks back. We have already forgotten and moved ahead in life here. But for that specific period of time... Waiting for July, some of us, huh? Yeah. Yeah. I think a lot of Instagram users are waiting for July. How do you think about the most... So, it's like, three days after that, the news was stayed. Everybody had seen and kind of witnessed everything out there. So, if you have to only survive for that period of three days, I think it's just a... Unless you're kind of having a genuine issue with the product and it's kind of going really viral over and above that, then there are certain other remedial steps, you know, which we kind of work with our PR agencies in terms of managing the crisis at that point of time. Okay. So, influencers do play a role in curbing it down. Sometimes the other side... Yeah, they do. ...showing the other side for the brand. They do. So, for example, I remember when the entire control was here, sprung on the gluten and atta. So, there were different set of opinion leaders that we partnered with. So, at one end, we did reach out to some of our brand friends who were also housewives and other things and they talked about benefits of gluten and other things and they were industry experts who talked about benefits of gluten. Some of these stories were taken on digital. Some of them were taken on, let's say, the news channels and other things. Significant amount of write-up started getting triggered in print and news platforms and other things just to kind of give people the understanding. What tends to happen is one person will come and kind of do that only, as you said. The problem is people do not want to go into the depth of it but they just want to follow that herd culture. And that's where you kind of want to kind of give that learning to people. Just don't follow the herd. Understand why certain things are there and is it genuinely impacting you or not? I'm sure, like, if you look at this food space, there have been instances where they have been pesticides and beverages. There have been worms and chocolates. There has been lead and noodles. We've all kind of seen those journeys and we've kind of come out of it. So at times the tail is kind of significantly long but in most of the cases you end up actually addressing it. In fact, one of the conversations that we were having backstage also was in terms of this person talking about sugar and ketchup and how. In fact, I want to just add, sometimes more than influencers, at least for us, the brand love is so high in case of the thar and the scopier brands that we don't even have to step in. It's a debate between customers and they resolve it and you have all the positives coming in from there and so we don't even have to trigger anything to say how do we kind of. So we just watch sometimes because these two brands, I mean the love is so much across and it gets sorted on its own. So I think sometimes it's also how you build your brand and again scopier has a legacy of 20 years and pioneers in the SUV categories. So I'm just saying sometimes it just works well if you've established your brand so strongly and you have a large community and I think some of us kind of mentioned the whole influencer space, especially for Gen Z is a lot about also belonging to a certain community, belonging to a certain cause and that becomes important to understand that and leverage the right influencers for your brands. Let's focus on your brand strategy. You specifically target millennials, not Gen Z's. What has been your learning when it came to, you know, interacting with millennials, whether directly through your campaigns or using influencers specifically for millennials and can we use the same strategies for Gen Z's in general, specifically to your brand? Excuse me, I think what has really worked well for us are three things. Keeping it simple, being authentic and doing things with intentionality and whatever I'm going to say is, you know, perhaps been voiced by Neha and Pallavi but, you know, this is our brand experience. We are literally just about over a year and so it's not like we have a long legacy like Neha's brand or Jay Kishan's brand. But that said, I think, just to reiterate, keeping it simple, being authentic, doing things with intentionality, whether it is a campaign that we put out there or whether it is our influencer program, these three principles are very dear to us and we are guided by this. The second thing that we do is having authentic communications and partnerships. We don't believe on jumping onto trends or, you know, templatizing content. And the third thing for us is having meaningful conversations about our brandy thoughts and about our products and of course always having an angle of self-care in them. So these are the three things that I would say has worked very well for us and specifically with influencers, just like Pallavi said, I think I'm incredibly proud of the organization and the team for putting together such a solid program and building the brand in such a fast pace. The moment I walked in, there were several people who've heard of my brand, who've heard of the campaigns that we have done, who've heard of our products, tried our products. I was in the ladies' room when a young girl came and told me how fabulous our products are. You know, it's literally a pat on the back for the team and for all of us because in one year, if we have been able to establish that, that is thanks to not only what we have done, but also what the influencers have been able to do. That said, moving on to your question of can those learnings be, you know, served for the Gen Z cohort, I want to clarify that of course because we too serve the Gen Z cohort, it's not like self-care is alien to them. If anything, self-care is even more prevalent amongst that community. You spoke about that community, you know, saying that, oh, it's 6 p.m. and I want to leave. It's because there is an angle of self-care. They perhaps have another avenue. They're perhaps taking out their bike and going for a ride or whatever it is, right? So with the Gen Z cohort, they're very authentic, they're very honest. They're not afraid to ask questions. Sometimes they even show you the mirror, right? And like Neha mentioned, they're extremely socially responsible. Let's not forget that this is a generation that has seen, you know, literally very, very powerful, transformative events that have happened in the world. Be it the pandemic or be it the digital revolution, right? And so for them, it's all about keeping it real, keeping it relatable. And so I would say that as a brand, if you have the humility to listen to them and to respond to their feedback and be authentic in your communications, you're going to be a winner. I think it's interesting also that the Gen Z has a raboff on all other generations as well. You know, so while we might say we are targeting Gen Z, I think, you know, and we target other generations, it's important that we make a dent with Gen Z because that definitely has a raboff. You know, today parents, not just in terms of buying a product, but across, right, you'll learn, it's like reverse mentoring, right? A lot of us, even as parents or even as managers, are actually learning from the Gen Z. So I mean, if I really look at it, reverse mentoring works even the way today Gen Z influencers are working. You know, finally, Kirtana mentioned that they want to take their bike out for a ride. Where will they go? They will be stuck in traffic. Am I right? We were discussing traffic before we got here.  I think Gen Z is the most informed, we all agree, because of the kind of digital revolution. They probably see someone picking up a specific type of exercise in the US and they're probably doing it the next hour. They're like, this works for me. And Praneshu mentioned, you have a very evolving industry. How do you strategize for a group of people who are so well informed and they are also constantly involved? They're evolving in terms of what they want. They're evolving in terms of the new information which comes in and then they conclude something out of it. Sometimes the conclusion goes one way, sometimes the conclusion goes the other way. So how do you, as an evolving industry, plan or strategize a long-term strategy or a short-term strategy, what works for you? Two things for us. One is the experience, which we spoke about earlier. I think everybody understands that experience is a key, not just for Gen Z, but across all our consumer segments. If you want to keep them loyal for a long time or if you have a stickiness for your brand, experience is one thing. Second thing is the technology. Today if you look at our category, our brand, today we define, we are actually defining a lot of standards, not just for India, but also for the world, EV. EV, two-wheelers in India is long, long wait, company, US, China, Japan, anywhere you take. That's all happening in India because we are focused on technology along with what experience that we need to build into our scooters today. But specifically about these millennials or Gen Z, sorry, because they're all used to technology, they never had, specific to my brand, they never had the exposure of what technology could be built into a two-wheeler. At the best, what they saw, which is probably functional, is you see a speedometer, which is digital speedometer at best. Probably in cars, you add some screens, which show today the scooters can do all the stuff of a probably an evolved car. Today, except for the shell of a car, our scooters have a world's only scooter with Google Maps on the dashboard. Touch screen on the dashboards. How do you write that is related back to you?  Example, say a Bluetooth, that can be given to, not just from your phone to your earphones, but also to the dashboard. How can you control your music through your controls on the handlebars? Where do you locate those charges? Everything is in the app. So we're trying to integrate experience and technology, which are making the lives of our consumers better. At the end of the day, what are consumers expecting, or Gen Z is expecting? Give me something which adds value to life. They don't need us. Actually, we need them. Right? So they're all they're telling us, if you want to be relevant, make my life easier. Make me be relevant to what I do today. They all have their personal goals, career ambitions to build their own businesses, wealth creation. I think in India, that's where they're largely different from Gen Z's anywhere in the world, is they're focused on personal development. If they're focused towards larger goals of the life, how can we make the regular things in life much easier for them? That's experience, that's technology, and how are we going to make that in reality for these Gen Z's are something really valuable for us. Neha, we spoke about the purchasing power in terms of the Gen Z's influencing families and taking a decision, taking a call. As a representative of the automobile industry, what do you think should be the going-at strategy in terms of, say, maybe next five to seven years? What do you think the whole industry should do? Because individuals will then start also taking decisions. Gen Z's will start taking individual decisions of buying things.  Travelling from point A to point B in public transport is convenient, although that changes as you age. But what do you think the automobile industry should do in the next few years? I'll address it in two parts. I think the first one is not just for automobile, but I think for all industries. I think a lot of us do business for business. I think we have to focus deliberately on business for good. And I think that message will resonate a lot better with the Gen Z's, even as they kind of move into the next generation. And you have to set the foundation now. So when we talk about causes that they are linked to in sustainability, what are you doing on-ground as a brand to really make it real and make it authentic, I think that's going to be critical. And they have to see businesses doing business for good. So I would say that's one part. I think the other part is today we are not just looking at auto influencers. Most people would think automotive would look at auto influencers. But we've gone far beyond. Today your vehicle, you spend a lot of time on the road in your vehicle. So the vehicle and in the years to come with electric and possibly even more, it's going to be a gadget. Your vehicle is going to be a gadget. So your tech influencers, your lifestyle influencers are going to become even more critical. And auto obviously remains, but how are you building on top of that? And Gen Z, whether today or tomorrow when they move into the next generation, technology is going to hold a critical, critical part on how they make their decisions. And so how do we start engaging with the Gen Z influencers today to assure them that we are on the path of next-gen technology? We're on the path on business for good. I think those are going to be two critical focus areas for us to take forward. I think it's becoming a vanity matrix kind of stuff that a company needs to be sustainable, responsible. That's good for keeping the Gen Z's engaged towards your brand. But if you honestly ask me whether it does rise revenue, no. But it just keeps me in the good faith of what we do as a brand, whether we are thinking long term, if you call us humankind, that's what people are looking towards. Yes, I'm disturbing on those parts. I think they are with us. But if you expect them to, if that narrative is going to drive revenue, honestly not. So we spoke about purchasing power, Anand. What do you think? I'm sure the audience has also seen a lot of financial influences. Talk about you should have two sources of income. You should retire at 45. I think most of us are not far from retirement here. So you should invest in particular places. You should invest in stocks. Although the broken industry and the crypto industry to some extent was able to attract Gen Z's to invest. But what about traditional banking products? Do you see there's a reluctance on the part of Gen Z? Because I have heard this many times from people way younger than me, my colleagues, et cetera. We don't have savings at the end of the month. We do not plan for the future. You live for the moment. What do you think the banking sector needs to do to attract these people and make them a little more conscious about money as well? Like wealth as well? It's fairly complicated actually for them. Because we spoke about millennials and we spoke about Gen Z. We have seen actually that compared to millennials, Gen Z actually stress a lot more about handling day-to-day finances and investing. That's also coming from the fact that it is a lot more complicated and you spoke about broken. What really worked in the broken scenario, let me just take brand names like grow, upstock, et cetera, in attracting new consumers, was simplifying it as much as possible for them. And the simplification didn't really happen from just mainstream advertising. But if you see brands like upstocks, actually did a lot of influencer marketing with multiple influences in simplifying the terms and the terminologies for them. That helped because you are attracting a lot of new customers in a category where penetration is low. And let me just take a parallel out here, like health insurance. We spoke about banking, health insurance, et cetera. I recently saw an ad for one of the brands we spoke about, and they had taken a young celebrity, an upcoming celebrity, where they spoke about sub-limit on some assured will be restored. What does it really even mean for a Gen Z? Extremely difficult for them to understand. Unless until you... I'm sure a lot of us in the audience also did not understand. So that was in the mainline communication. So it becomes extremely difficult for them. Unless until you simplify that through a lot of other means, and not just through ads, et cetera, or through banners and performance marketing, et cetera, but through a lot more content being put out for them to easily understand it. That's absolutely critical. So simplification, which will lead to more awareness as well as ownership. Yogesh, I saw you checking your phone. I was wondering what you're checking on the phone. Spam calls. So coming to you guys, I've seen a lot of very impressive influencers marketing on your page. We saw Valentine's Day campaign. I'm sorry. I had to do some self-marketing. He mentioned upstocks. We were one of the agencies who did the influencer marketing for them. So coming to you, we saw a Valentine's Day campaign, which my team thought was brilliant. And on a very regular basis, you have been using musicians who are really big on the digital space. People who have learned music themselves and have been giving them really nice sets of your best equipment. And they have been reviewing it really well. It has worked. What do you think has been your overall strategy in terms of attracting Gen Zs? Has it worked with these specific people, like these specific campaigns I mentioned, or it is beyond influences you're doing, you know, you're doing other things as well? And if you can summarize for all of us. Wow. That's a task. So we believe that when a musician makes music, when a musician makes music, he is absolutely true to his, and he's passionate. He's delivering his best when he's putting out that music. If there are people that connect with that music, they will connect with the equipment that he uses to make that music. So which is why we've had mostly very, very senior musicians associated with us globally, starting from Quincy Jones in the US to A.R. Rehman in India to Martin Garrix in Europe. So we are fortunately for our brand. We work on both sides, which is the professional side, as well as the consumer side. So what the speakers that you see here are JBL versus the speakers that people use at home are JBL versus people who watch movies in a PBR Inox is JBL. The Valentine's Day specific campaign that you spoke about is actually bringing that story out. We had a problem initially when we said that when we were celebrating our 75 years, we actually questioned saying do people actually care that you have been around for 75 years? Are you a heritage product brand or are you going to talk about legacy? So we chose legacy over heritage and that is what we're trying to bring out with a heart of sound campaign. That's what we're actually trying to deliver as to what you hear in a cinema or what you hear at large concerts and we were the first ones to build from when movies started, it started as silent movies. There was an audio behind it and James B. Lansing, which is JBL was the first guy to actually build a horn for movies. That's what we are trying to bring out in our heart of sound campaign and that we believe is something that will influence us ride this wave or not. I think this message should influence our consumers to buy it. We use musicians purely for, because like everyone here said, we are authentic in what they put out as their music and we'd like to be authentic and true to what we believe in in our legacy of 77 years. So summary, I don't know if I may do justice to that or not, but I think the way that I got from here is the Gen Z age group believes in authenticity. If you're authentic with what your messaging is, I think they will buy your product. They don't believe in sales pitches. Oh, they don't believe in sales pitches. Thanks a lot. Thank you. I'm glad everyone's nodding their heads. Thank you. Thank you to the panelists. I hope to see you all again. Yogesh, the next time we meet, I hope to see WhatsApp and Instagram on your phone. That I doubt. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Thank you guys.


He was a human before being given that amulet. Here's a pretty good human though Raco pulling a Decimus Maximus meridius smelling the sand before entering combat And this man lives on right off of it this right go Okay general taking from comes out and rewind will get another chance that pressure right away and Everyone falling for that last hit that string expecting the stagger That is the idea Just like that. I'm about to cut the corner. Oh denied and Zombac gets whatever he wants which could have been a lot more. Yeah Given a gift really there by rewind and it's not bad saying you know what I'm gonna give you that one next time around I'll let you maybe a little bit harder, but one of the few to actually fade out rewinds armor successfully Yeah, we've been seeing that all weekend Right and that's a little bit of delay on that too rather than just keeping it meaty to make balls buck timing to ever Just in case the full delay right there. Maybe or is there something I see good sauce with the armor being quick enough and look at the buttons for rewind a Man that has not skipped a single leg day in his life Here you go. Oh, it is slow I make them go Tori is Didn't even know He said you call the rock target, man You call it over there back to zoning trying to stay away Okay, all right, you have the first one, but the second one was like I'm the actual big one. I got you It's on that thing. I Love that a lot of the rains now are because people are so good at flawless blocks That they'll just do singular approach into lightning cage. Yeah, you really got to mix it up There she is Hey, oh Oh, man a couple of timing issues for rewind in this game so far constant characteristic No, no bar spinning literature from comment. They're either Daggers with the full rip the low Resetting situation is Zombat. He's out of there two bars Three bars spent got to do it and it's close to having enough but no Rewind wanted to close the gap you need to get in the grab range. It's your only real viable right there Right very smart by combat to go. I know where you want to be in the range of this bad boy As he lights up the screen Darius, please that man Have you ever seen that one video it's like when you miss time your Darius assist and It's a video of the actual IRL fight going on and they're just whiffed a full kick. Yeah, that's exactly what just happened It happened in pro cup Darius roundhouse to air It's been rick with the whole way as far as I know We'll see he's considering making the change. It seems. Oh cool Wow All right, I thought it was rick or the whole way shall we go double or nothing? It's not any longer get ready. That's loud or a girl a great teammate For Kung Lao and add on to our variety of this top eight as well Yeah, that's entering the fray both Kung Lao and the Prince of the Shokan Goro He's a dog always the homie Goro will raise the roof with you anytime Take that man to a party. It's gonna be unstoppable not anytime like every 20 seconds because that dude takes his time coming back So you got to be precise about when you want to bring them up But I'm sure we rewind will have that he's used to playing Darius. Darius is a once-around cameo He's actually giving himself a little bit more to play with here. Yeah But you think I know Combat's gonna take a bit of advantage again not quite as much as he could Whoa Rewind plant a little bit of burglar right there for a moment. Yeah Will not have the blockers Cyrax But Goro always making that armored a plus launching a situation that raised the roof of Goro Such a compliment to any special and move in MK really Just a costly resource. Yeah, it just takes a while to come back. It's all Too famous. Oh, yeah, you called it out. Wow. That is pretty good. See I almost got punished there Okay, got it. He stays away. Wow Electric fly in the sky. This is what we came to see right here. That's some Timekicks and Superman and now something finally goes blocked in the watch your health bar disappear Is we about 400 I lied. He's still on a Cyrax About with an asterisk you're gonna get into the corner all the way Almost and went full degenerate with that kick which tries to get you to press This is a very old School style with in front of you do something weird and then just armor because you can And he can again now the corals back Zombat knows that Zombat not over-extending Zombat trying to bait it right there with the neutral jump to solid with dive kick Escape failed again. He's Rion was not looking for both of these back throws What patients by Zombat and then exactly the right moment there patients again? He knew what could come up Hold it out big time on defense on offense. He was there the audacity to do it Unsafely as many times as he did versus you know rewind the head option to do it safely every single time That's just being out read and outplayed in the in the situation Incredible by combat three raw super fighting seven raw Superman's in total in the last couple of games right there It sounds like back to character select is where we're going. Yeah, we are so it might be One and done for Laogoro. We'll see what the choice is other than the first one working come at really Stone walled up in defense. Okay And it back to it. Yeah, I think our adventures are only beginning But we could see here and it disappeared the game It's all he needs is a couple more situations where some of that armor lands because combat is pressing and moving Which means he's hit it just like this Yeah, you're right Knocking the skulls away at Raiden's feet gone now only bones remaining Way out of the corner, okay only down one though And who skull is that in the background? Which one the big one? Oh Big ones my bad Full string this time Yeah, there was a mist to put in I think that's right. It was a dash cancel something for sure It'd have your dash cancel Goro. Yeah That's not what Kane match point Zombat Drives to fish out some counter poke And I mean it's not even fishing if you want them to block it as well. I can't say it's fishing anymore It's just living. We're talking about blocking for me. Yeah. Yeah We're doing poke and lightning cage. You're like, okay, who are you taking from I kind of want them to block it, too Yeah, yeah Later. Oh, hello both jumping back both not wanting to deal with any of that What will the armor come their full conversion this time over to the steps Combat oh, this might be it This might be it Combat's gonna move on three games to zero


My name is Uem Akbanodofi. I'm from Nigeria. Initially, I was diagnosed with DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy. Sometimes in 2017, then we've done series of tests and never knew I had a heriotic valve problem. During further investigation, it was discovered that the heriotic valve replacements needed to be done. So we went to several hospitals in Nigeria and we were told it could be done. But with the use of blood, we are Jehovah's Witnesses. And from our conviction, from Jehovah's Word, the Bible, we are not supposed to take blood. Now we looked for hospitals all around the world that could offer treatment without the use of blood. We contacted the Christian Congressional branch in Nigeria. That was the first time we heard of Manipa, Dr. Divinanda, the senior consultant. I showed us that it could be done successfully without the use of blood. Mr. Uem from Nigeria, who is in his mid-40s, had some difficulty in breathing in the last two or three years. He went to a doctor. He was found to have a dilated heriotic route with badly leaking heriotic valve. Medically we call it as aneliotic ectasia. But unfortunately for him, he also belongs to a faith called Jehovah's Faith, where they do not accept any kind of blood or blood products. And he needs a very super major operation where we have to replace his valve along with his aorta. Somehow they came to know about Manipa. We have some experience of dealing with patients of Jehovah from all age groups from two or three months to almost 60 or 70 years. So when he came here, we evaluated him. They accepted the whole treatment plan. He underwent the operation where we achieved whatever we intended to do like replacing his valve along with the root of his aorta. It's called bental operation. He has recovered very well. His hemoglobinate discharges almost 9 grams. We started off with 13 grams. He has done very well. And we are also very happy that his symptoms have gone now. At least they have come down significantly. We are very sure that his heart strength will also recover over a period of time. And this taking care of this particular set of patients, such major operations without blood, is possible only because we have a system around since we do operations and these kinds of patients. And we also want this message also to go to many other patients who probably are denied operations just because we can't use blood and blood products. It was done successfully without the use of blood. Thanksfulness also goes to Divinanda and his team who has been so helpful, so nice. They have exhibited professionalism in their job. They have been so good to us and they did it successfully. And here I am strong and healthy.