Welcome to this special webinar on decoding brand safety and sustainability brought to you by Exchange for Media Group in collaboration with BBC World News and BBC.com. In this webinar today, we'll have experts delving to how advertisers choose a brand safe environment for their ad spends. I just want to put a little bit of context that off late the conversation around brand safety across news channels has become a big conversation. And we have seen a lot of brands taking proactive steps to kind of control the narrative or to bring in a certain kind of balance in the narrative. So we will talk about these issues. Before we go ahead, I will introduce our esteemed speakers. We have Mr. Vivek B. Srivatsa head marketing for passenger vehicle business unit data motors limited. We have Rubina Singh CEOI prospect, Mr. Vishal Bhatnagar, sales director of South Asia BBC Global News. Mr. Jayan Mehta senior general manager, planning and marketing Amul.  And it's great having you with us today. I want to direct my first question to Mr. Srivatsa. I want to start with you and talk to everybody else. As I mentioned that brand safety has become a new conversation point across brands. And we saw some pro activism recently where brands wanted to step in and control it. Tell me how big is the issue of brand safety and sustainability in today's news media environment? Yeah. So with regard to brand safety, it's really a very sensitive world out there today. You don't know what wrong messaging or what wrong phrase can really get misinterpreted. And we are putting in place a series of actions. And I would say convert it into a process where we don't put ourselves in a situation which is, I would say, susceptible to misinterpretation and also cause some kind of sensitivity among the different groups out there. That's how I will start off. Obviously, there are different aspects to it. What we say, what we stand for, how we say it, all that matters. And we're looking at a comprehensive process around it. But fundamentally, the approach that automotors have taken and in terms of our communication to our customers is that we are in the business of manufacturing cars. And we try to, and we know what exactly our customers want, what are the services that we provide to our customers. And we try to keep a narrative around that. You know, very business centric. Obviously, it doesn't mean boring communication. But most of our decisions are centered around business. That's how I would like to begin with. Right.   How are they looking at this conversation now? Is that question for me? Sorry, I couldn't hear you. Yes, yes, yes. It was for you. Thanks. I think brand safety is not a new challenge, you know? And it's been there for some time. And yet it remains top of mind for brands. And it continues to, if I may say, even earn global attention. Right. And the COVID-19 pandemic has established, you know, the new normal to be a digital first lifestyle for the majority of the global population. And, you know, consumption habits have changed. More news, savings, content has been seen more on digital. And where customers go, advertising follows there. You know, and at the same time, the ecosystem has become far more complex on digital. You know, on one side, you have fake news and technologies that create deep fake videos with growing more sophistication that threaten to future erode the institutional trust, you know? Also, what has happened is that as people are staying more and more home, their viewing habits are changing. People have moved to connected TVs, you know, while this could lead to more opportunities to talk to the right person based on the location, interest, context, right in the right context with relevant content. However, you know, the measurement is fragmented in the connected TV space across devices and publishers. And the result of it, what can happen is that ads can appear to support content that doesn't necessarily align with the brand values. And fraud can happen even without wedding. You know, the third thing that we've seen, the trend we've seen is that gaming presents a huge opportunity of audience for brands. But brands must navigate this whole landscape of platform titles, player personalities and publisher relationships. And it's really complex, you know? Esports is growing hugely in popularity, right? But brands have to evaluate the risks which are involved, especially when it comes to violence, language, et cetera. You know? And what we see this as a result of these trends, brands experience several brand safety issues today. And industries, stakeholders have called for transparency and accountability from tech partners and ad partners. And new standards for brand safety are critical, I believe, for protecting brands from association with unsafe, illegal or inappropriate content. Right, right. Mr. Mehta, Amul is of course one of the biggest advertisers across news channels. And recently, when there was a certain kind of debate going around, we saw some brands come into focus. Okay. So my question simply is that, has the conversation on brand safety become more vocal than ever? Very true. I think you've raised a very important subject for discussion today. And I agree with what Rubinaji and Vivek had said, that this is a very, very old issue which is coming up. And this is the headline of The Times in London in 2017, which talks about the role of brands and role of advertising and the media and digital and all that stuff. And how it goes around, try to complicate the things as the time progresses.  I agree with what Vivek said, that as brands we hold in trust of our customers. But in case of Amul, a 75 year old brand is owned by 3.6 million farmers. So it is not just the owners are, I mean, capitalized or equity market people, but it is farmers who are owners of this brand and the consumers are billions who trust the brand blindly. I mean, that's the faith of blind faith we have developed into the brand, into the products so that there is no tension anywhere when you are consuming any Amul product. So with this kind of a cooperative model and a farmer owned brand, it's a very, very challenging situation for us also. You mentioned about our media presence. Yes, we have been among the top five advertisers in this year, across the news channels as well as the general entertainment channels. The challenge here is the numbers. I mean, we advertise about 190 or TV creatives in about 275 to 300 TV channels and total secondary, I mean, we're just calculating for this meeting is about 16 to 20,000,000 spots we have done in the last eight months. Now, this is where when you are advertising and our agencies do the media planning much ahead in time. So we don't know that if such thousands of spots which come every day, which channel with which news that spot is going to be aired. So to expect the brand or the media agency or the advertising agency to actually calibrate what you're doing. When we sponsor a master's yet, we know that this is the one hour show in which our ad will appear. And this is how we'll do the planning. But when you do long-term deals with all the news, most of the news channels, then it becomes very critical for that environment to be very clear or measure what is happening and how. But once you have the year on the ground, you listen to the customers, you have powerful social media presence also to counter, then I think we can navigate through tough times also. The same problem as Rubinaji mentioned is in digital space also. So TV, digital, all we love to as brands be very, very careful in understanding the context. And obviously the communication is very clear because we are also content creators. The Amul girl has been talking about issues for the last 55 years. So- One of the longest running, yes, absolutely. We don't have a voice. We also are a part of the conversation and that's why the whole situation is very interesting. Great. Mr. Bhatnagar, you're on the other side of this conversation in a way from an observation point of view. What have you been listening about it? What have you observed as a platform, somebody who belongs to the platform side? How do you see this conversation and what have you been listening to? I think just to echo what the other panelists have said, obviously I think the sensitivity around and safety has obviously come to the fore in the last few years. And I think that's also sort of coincided with the immediacy of social media. As Vivek has said that you never know what context, what random sort of misstep will get blown out of proportion. So we obviously have seen a lot more sort of questions, a lot more requirements, brands and a lot of questions about what we are doing to mitigate any risks around that. And for us fundamentally, I think it's a question of trust for us. I mean, just because the environment that we create fundamentally, news itself is a product that's built on trust. Our viewers have been coming to us for about 100 or years. It's because they expect accurate, credible, independent news. And for us brand safety isn't a veneer, it is not a plugin that you can put in your product just to satisfy a few advertisers. I think that has been a philosophy that's built into our core values. And that's, I think, what has sort of driven also our approach. So it isn't a one-time thing. It's not that you just sort of the button on and it stays on. I think it's such a challenge and a struggle and a task every day to make sure that you keep your environment safe, to retain the trust. And I think that trust is what underpins everything that we do on this. I'm just wondering what's the question here is a little bit complicated. On one side, we're talking about credibility and a narrative that is balanced. On the other side, we are also obsessed with ratings as a brand and rightfully so. So how do we kind of deal with as a brand? How do you balance it too? How do you look at the rate where the ratings is the only metric of a kind of reach? How do you, how can brands of this kind of an end? I hope you can hear me, Mr. Srivath sir. Sorry, sorry, I was on mute. So there are a couple of adages which hold true across the ages. All of us know bad news sales and sensational news sales even more. And I think we can't blame anybody for that. And that's a fact of life. From us as advertisers and maybe specifically for Tata Motors, we've taken an ultra safe mode towards it. If you want to talk about something, we double check it obviously, treat every news as fake till you show that it is right. Also, like I said earlier, our communication guidelines are extremely clear. We speak about what services and products we offer our customers. Of course, it's not that we don't take stands at all, but the stand is very clear in terms of drawing a mid-path and not ruffling up feathers is the direction that we go. But you're right, beyond a point ratings matter. And that's where I come back to the earlier point is if you're looking purely at business deliveries, a number-based approach and an ROI-based approach rather than any other guideline, you would always be able to defend yourself on your decisions. You'll always be able to attribute a logical reasoning to your decisions rather than being portrayed as siding with some opinion or even taking emotional decisions. These are things which we need to be careful about. But again, as my panelists said, in today's situation, you don't know from where the next issue is going to come out. We recently had a meeting with all the CMOs of the Tata Group, many of them, on how do we tackle this? And the consensus was to be first driven by business, second is treat every news as fake till you prove, till you're sure that it is right and always build in a process which double validates what you're going to talk about before it goes out there. That's our approach. It's a pretty conservative approach, but it works. Very rigorous one, I guess. To you, Ms Singh, how do you ensure brand safety in this market environment obsessed with ratings? How do you look at this kind of a conflict that is there? So my belief is that advertisers, especially when it comes to news, it's true when it's a general entertainment, ratings are very, very important, but when it comes to news, advertising aren't just chasing the ratings when they invest in news channels. While ratings is still important, part of the decision making, advertisers are also looking for a value addition and credibility when they look at associating with news platforms and programs, especially when they associate with news. So brands definitely in today's environment want to be careful about the platforms they choose. This is where credibility, fairness, and trust of the viewers comes in.  Brand casters, I believe, as well as advertisers, responsibility must be fixed. And even viewers in a country do not appreciate intimidation or harassment of people, you know what I mean? That's what I think. At Denso, you know, we have our own measurement tech in place. You know, we just don't follow the numbers presented to us during the pitches blindly. And what I believe is that for long-term deals and relationships with advertisers, balanced news is definitely the way forward. You know, and on TV, we've seen a notch from advertisers may force news channels into course correction and stop aggressive and toxic content in the name of news. But on the other hand, on digital, I think too much brand safety is also a concern. As brands, you know, they work to preserve their equity. They should be aware that becoming too cautious may decrease their impact on overall performance also. So the problem exists on the other side as well. And which we saw in the current pandemic that many advertisers wanted to be avoid, they just wanted to avoid any kind of association with related content, whether it was positive or whether it was negative, which we believe in some cases, if it was handled with the right approach, was a missed opportunity. Right, right. Mr. Mehta, when you look at numbers, it's so tempting, you know, the numbers game is so tempting for brands and they would always follow it. But what are the filters that you follow? I mean, to ensure that it's at the same time safe as well. So talking about television, since the numbers of ratings come largely for television, the entire media buying decision are taken by our ad agency, the media agency. So they've been working with us for the last 30 years, the other agencies who last more than 50 years. So they know exactly what's the value of the, in values we stand for as an organization, as a brand, and they obviously translate that into their media plans when they present to us. So it's not just the rates per se. The ratings help you decide the rate for the channel. But then how much to invest on a particular channel is a call which the agency has to take and recommend to us that this is why a channel X would come at such a low rate. It may have a ultra high ratings also, but that's not the right environment for you. And so while you may choose to be present there, your investments on that may not be as commensurate what the ratings are because the environment or the experience, they provide to the viewers, is not what the brand actually stands for. So this is the discretion they use and we follow it. So that check and balance is there in the system. So it's not that somebody will invest disproportionately in a channel which shows higher rating, but the environment is not right for the brand to be present there. So that's the first part of it. Other side of it is the brand also becomes a victim of these digital frauds. We had a very strong problem of fake brands. Fake.com domains, fake ads coming up on Google during people to become a distributor of our mall to set up an Amul franchisee, take up jobs at Amul and so on. So in the last few months, we took up very strongly with all the domain name registers. Even fake bank accounts with Amul names were done. And obviously with Google, when the ads come on their platform in the search engine ratings, fake Amul website, amuldistigator.com comes up, then it's a huge problem for us because the trust of all the channel partners also gets eroded into that. So we filed a case against all these people at the Delhi High Court and we got a favorable ruling that no domain register could register a name with Amul prefix or suffix so that it misleads the people. And the banks also got a directive not to open fake bank accounts with Amul name and so on. So these are things we proactively do to protect the trust of our channel partners also, consumers also and viewers also. And obviously our agency is quite strong. So if we see a discreet, I mean things not happening in a particular way or the content gets toxic in some of the channels and there is unnecessary aggression there, we talk to them and if they mend their ways, it's fine, otherwise we walk away. So both the things are there, but end of the day as a brand custodian, it's more our responsibility to see where our monies are invested and what exposure we get. Obviously the ratings are important, but not that important particularly when it comes to buying news channels. Right. I'll come to you Mr. Bhatnagar, I have a separate question for you. I'll just want to go to Mr. Srivatsa again that in this debate of rating, credibility, polarized narratives, when will credibility dominate the mindset of a brand of a market here? Do you think that time is coming closer? Yeah, so it's also how the consumers change. You know, I think it's a cycle.  And you know, it's also a little bit of a balance. As Ms. Singh said, we ourselves as brands also have to start pushing the envelope a little bit in terms of what we communicate. I'll give an example of Tata Motors at the early part of the pandemic. You know, we were, you know, we needed to be in touch with our customers but we didn't know what to say. But then we moved completely away from, you know, talking about cars and other stuff. And we just propagated positives and messages, propagated safety messages, which actually gel well with customers. You know, so it's a balance on what kind of content you want to put out, how much you want to push the envelope. But at the same time, I think the big role that brands need to play and communicators and marketers need to play is to start drying up this quest for toxicity, this kind of negative communication, fake news. It's all interwoven. If you see a fake news creates toxicity, creates a market and then there's more supply. You know, if there's no demand, there will not be supply anymore. That's the reality of capitalism.  And that is where I think as marketers who have so much of power to influence the customer's mindset have a bigger role to play. And like I said, that positive communication which we sent out for the first two months, no mention of cars, no mention of our services, but customers stuck to us. They waited for two, three months and I'm happy to say that right from unlock, every month our market share has grown. So somewhere positivity helps and we as marketers need to push that strongly. Right. Missing, how far do you agree that ads spends on news platforms, you know? They need a new perspective, a new approach altogether where credibility rates higher than other metrics. You know, so I agree with that completely, you know? And, you know, really let's think about it outside of content which is focused on, obviously it is on violence, terrorism, polarized views or disinformation. There may be only minimal risks associated with advertising in today's news environment. And most of our marketers agree, but some sensitivities will always exist in news, right? So marketers I believe should reconsider blanket blocking news and utilize, you know? In fact, they're available brand safety experts to help them determine their appetite for the scale they want to have on news. And the way to look at it is that credible media outlets are inherently safer for brands. You know, news publishers with journalists plug into their local communities who fact check and use technology to manage quality and safety. Offer brand is safe, highly viewable, low ad fraud advertising environment is what we believe. And if you know you're using an avoidance strategy of certain keywords that you're blacklisting or blocking, consider how it's being used. You know, taking into account the keywords or the categories that are being excluded and how much it may influence your campaign and disadvantage high quality legitimate publishers. You know, I think here is when you have to look at the semantics rather than just looking at, you know, just one view of blockage. And, you know, if still hard news is a buddy, there is always a Bible alternative, right? Using news may be fine with light level of support from hard news, but you know, you also have to evaluate that a large large audience is drawn on news platforms which like to consume entertainment, food, sports, you know, you can reach out to them. So I would definitely urge all marketers that now is definitely the time to reconcile the, if you know, if you're avoiding advertising on news, there is a lot of writing on it. There are lots of eyeballs, there's a huge opportunity. Mr. Batha, your quick thoughts on this. No, I fully agree with what Rubina just said because you can't avoid the particular medium. So you have to find a way to adapt to it. Okay, having said that, we don't do GD at all because we know, we don't know where the spots are going to come. So you can't spread all over the place. Okay, but here if we get into the role of creating content, then you can be present on a particular medium also and actually get higher value for your money spent. I mean, during lockdown for the last eight months, we've been running what's perhaps the world's largest social media Facebook live event for recipes, the chefs. And more than 3000 chefs come on Amul Facebook page and for the last 250 days, they've been sharing eight to 10 live recipes every day. And we get seven to eight million people and there's all targeted audience coming on our shows and watching it. And we have to just two million followers on Facebook, but still we've reached about 120 crore Facebook viewers in the last eight months and eight to 10 crore unique people also. So at practically no cost. So still you are there on social media, you are able to amplify the message, you are able to communicate to it and still able to get the job done. And news you couldn't avoid in the last eight months because agencies were not doing fresh content. So that's what the earlier part I mentioned is certain close monitoring of the sensitive things and listening on social media also helps us understand what people are saying, which is good or bad. I wouldn't say that all those who are trawlers, I mean, I won't call the people on social media trawlers for a simple reason that they are your customers.  Otherwise, you could have just done a print ad and forgotten about it. But in digital space, you have to communicate and listen to them also. So at times what happens is the brands are brought for a certain reason or a communication on a certain channel or I mean, it can be related to content or it represents on a particular channel. So both these things are actually considered toxic at times by a section of the society. But what happens is when it comes to a national issue or a common issue, they stand with the brand also. Like Amul was blocked on Twitter because we had a topical exit dragon which was related to China. So there the entire social media came together and rallied for the brand. So why that fellow would have trolled us for some reason but when it came to the national issue and standing with the country, he was on our side. So he or she has it. So that way people on the other side of the screen whose messages you read are actually real. And we also as a brand are existence to them. And if we listen to them carefully, we will get solutions. You also have to present your point of view also. So at times if you go around. So if that also helps in solving the issue in a more easy and amenable way as I said. Right. Mr. Bhatnagar, you have been listening to all the conversation very keenly. My question to you is that what is the BBC's approach to approving advertising? What are the processes that you follow to ensure brand safety and maximum value for your advertisers? I was on mute. Where for the BBC, I think any content that goes on our platforms that have audience views passes through the same filters. To beat editorial content, the same checks and balances that go into checking any editorial content that goes on for the viewers. Advertising passes through the same filters as well. Because of this, you know, any information that we're putting out, whether it is an advertising message or editorial, I think in fact, we are in some way and we need to ensure that there's nothing false or exaggerated or any claims which are unsubstantiated that go in there. So that's one. And the other is that, you know, right from, you know, human intervention at the highest level. So just like the editors, humans who sit there and analyze every bit of content that goes on. Similarly, we've got position in the BBC called the Advertising Standards Guardian. So this is actually, you know, banned by a few people who sit there and analyze every piece of advertising that goes on, one both from your impact, but at the same time, they will flag up any potential risk that the brand might have because of that. It might be a context that might have just sort of missed any of the filters that the advertiser or the agency has, or we as a commercial team would have missed out. They will flag it up. And I think that is where also BBC's commitment comes into play because at times this does involve a certain financial cost for us because we are foregoing monetization of certain inventory because we will not carry anything which we feel might have any sort of, you know, an adverse impact on the brand's reputation because of, you know, what they're choosing to do.   It is wetted, it's complete transparency of inventory. Ensured it is human traffic.  The new ingenious, you know, method that fraudsters would find to sort of, you know, scam people. So we need to be alert. And that's a process that goes on continuously. But I think above all, you know, the editorial is modern, but that we provide gives the safest possible environment for advertisers, I think. Right. Mr. Strowat Sir, tell me, there was a time when brands thought that, you know, we don't have to look into, we just have, we have a platform, we don't have to look at the platform. We had a narrative agnostic in terms of whatever the channel brought, you know, and now there are certain kinds of, from brands, since we have it for too long, it's correct. And it hasn't happened on so on. Do you think brands have become a little more activist in terms of controlling the narrative? Am I audible? Yeah, I lost you a little bit in between. Can you repeat the question? Have brands become more activist in their outlook when it comes to controlling the narrative on news? I wouldn't say so, actually. I wouldn't really say because for the longest times, each brand has stood strongly for some, some narrative or some lifestyle, I would say, to generalize it very broadly. It is when it is wrongly interpreted, wrongly interpreted, or also I would say if it is expressed in a manner that is not easily understood and the nuance of communications are lost, that's when things take a short turn, I would say. I wouldn't say that brands off later become much more expressive about their opinions or taking sides on whatever spectrum there is. I wouldn't say that. It's about probably digital, provides a lot more freedom in communication also digital has a lot more uncensored content even from the brand, I use the word sensor, but probably unmonitored is a better word, content from brands that go out, which was not the case earlier. So you have the urgency to kind of respond to customers on digital in Twitter, if you don't respond within two minutes, you're seen as an unresponsive brand. So there are cases where some content goes out which is not exactly ratified by people closer to the heart of the brand. And that's why you see a lot more instances of misinterpretation, a lot more instances of, I would say, lack of clarity in content. Right, right. Missing, if you can hear me, okay. Am I audible? Yes. Okay, what would be your kind of recommendation to market yours as far as safety practices are concerned when it comes to advertising on news channels? So, see, I'm gonna say something that there's always going to be a certain amount of risk, particularly related to user-generated content on digital. In turn, we will continue to refine mitigation to moves and strategy disinformation, we'll continue to try by finding newer and newer avenues. And I think privacy debates will not be concluded. And as a matter of fact, with the advent of AI, there'll be debates on whether it's ethical and how will be regulated, and it'll only get further ignited. So fraud, viability and context will have to be addressed. And especially in the context which I alluded to earlier in mediums such as digital out of home, audio, connected TV and gaming. Having said that, the fundamentals we follow on viability, safety and ad fraud at Bensu, not only provide a foundation for brand safety, but also higher quality impressions. So, a high viability standards that are 100% principles must be visible for at least one second. You know, underpins our quality first approach to ensure that our clients and partners understand that we will make advertising work better for them. You know, also to avoid ad fraud, we use an MRC accredited ad verification partner to be able to detect sophisticated invalid traffic. For direct bias, you know, we set up alerts and we monitor any fraudulent activity that may come under suspicion. And in case of problematic bias, also we use pre with filters, post with blocking, wherever it's offered to employ impression level data analysis to optimize, you know, instances of fraudulent activity. And to ensure safety, you know, like I said earlier, we customize blacklist, whitelist, negative words based on semantics.  But at the same point in time, you know, we are aware of the brand safety limitations that exist by the platform. But at the same point in time, you know, the promise and the appeal of new technologies to help us address this inappropriate adjacencies, fraud or transparencies, I think remains really, really strong. While artificial intelligence has, you know, made models that are successful in identifying IP and fringing content or spam or online disinformation. The biggest one which remains to be solved is hate speech. You know, because human contempt has many nuances that have eluded technology up to now and detection relies heavily on human review. But, you know, with the progress that we are having, my hope is that we will solve for this as an industry very, very quickly. Also, the other challenge is big on the video space. And even today, the computer vision that we see images and process video exists only with bespoke video players or large social platforms. And even if that is this with them, you know, they cannot get, process the amount of content that they get at the scale and speed that is required. But to conclude on a more positive note, I think I was reading there is a earlier evidence of blockchains that can actually help develop a better transparency and ad placement and distribution of ad spending. And there are some test runs I think are already happening in the UK and the US. So I just want to say that the risks and technology may involve, but the underlying truths will always be valid that we need an independent measurement system in the industry, which is absolutely critical. And that framework is crucial. And education and literacy programs are also very, very important on the other side with partners to make them aware of what the possible outcomes could be. Right, right. Absolutely, absolutely. So wonderful points raised. Mr. Mehta, coming to you with the same question, Amul is the biggest spender, of course. Is the brand very activist in its outlook now that it wants to also look at the narratives and not just be concerned about platforms and agnostic to the narratives? No, as I mentioned earlier, we have been in space of talking about issues through the Amul girl for the last 55 years. So, but it's even more critical now because earlier topicals were one in a month, then it became once in a week, now it's almost two to three every week. But editorial control is not with us. It is with the ad agency. So what Mr. Takuna decides comes and when you see it, I will also see it. So that is the discretion and the editorial rights the agency has got to talk about anything and everything under the sun around the world on anyone, be it the highest office in India or highest office in US, they have the right liberty to do so. And people have accepted it because we are not doing it with any ill intentions. It's never critiqued. It may only reflect what is the feeling of the countrymen and the masses. So that way we've been active in this space. So it's not that we have been passive and we just observe things and try to be very, very safe. We are also on the edge as far as talking about issues which are relevant to all of us. So having said that, what Rubinaji mentioned in digital space, obviously, there are a lot of checks, filters, balances available there. But when it comes to news channel and news television advertising and when your buys are R.O.D.P, which means it's not fixed times brand in the 9 p.m. newsman Durdarshan karte hain that's not going to happen in this era. In that case, we'll have to take a call and a hard call at times that whether this is the quality you want to be or associate your brand or with or you want to stay up and coming. Having said that, there are multiple options available. So it's not just news on news channels. It's news in news. Print also is as much important. And after having done everything, what will you do with your WhatsApp? Because customer ke paat to remote hain pasat me WhatsApp be hain. WhatsApp forward are a thing which nobody in the world can control including Facebook or WhatsApp themselves. And by some checks and balances are there you can't forward more than so and so times and so on. But loke jo beskein ke itna forward kejiye yeh hain ta paat hain. So there is no solution to it. So as again, I mentioned, we have to be having our year on the ground. Listen to all the conversations. I myself look at every single tweet or Insta post on Amul and for the last five years. So it's not just leave to the listening tools and then you try to look at positive negative sentiments. Here, if you tweet anything directly or indirectly about my brand also, I have my year and I own it and that message is immediately delayed on the post. And having said that there is a customer care channel and all that stuff when you make a phone call and talk to us, that's a different call. So we have to have the brand and the brand team as and the ad agency in the media team also has to be continuously listening and don't hesitate about communicating. And that our topicals do, our creatives do their separate campaigns for digital also. We got into vernacular also. So we have social media handles for top five, seven states of South India, East India and so on and so forth. We're in the English and then Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and so on and so forth. So engaging customers is the only way out. And as I mentioned, we need to have their trust in our products and only if we communicate, that's gonna happen. So we can't shy away from it and better be ready or be prepared to face it. Right. Mr. Bhattankar, you mentioned how BBC puts filters when it comes to choosing the advertisers. You kind of look at it. But in your interaction with brands, have you also found out that brands themselves are very concerned about where do they go? Is it? Sorry. Absolutely, Rohil. I think for brands, it is now a concern which is far bigger than just advertising ROI. I think the implications of any reputational risk is far greater than a marginal change in our, because brand equity and reputational risks aren't just soft issues. These are hard. I think PNL or their balance sheet issues really if you look at it. And we've seen how brands across the globe have reacted very strongly to protect their reputation on these counts. So yes, of course, brands are concerned about it. And then in terms of what they can do, I think the evaluation process, as Rabina was saying, has become far more sophisticated. I think the agency partners and consultants, and I think they are advising brands in terms of getting in more evaluation filters which reflect the dynamism in the entire decision-making process. But it isn't just simply optimizing reach or costs. I think it is also able to acquire the right context for the brand as well. So I think context acquisition metrics are also coming into play increasingly. Because I think an advertisement which is placed in an environment which perhaps erodes a brand's image of equity and it goes out to a lot more. Many people is negative. I'd rather compromise as a brand or maybe marginally less reach. Something which, in a sense, I think provides some synergy and aligns with my brand values as Vivek had said. So definitely brands are having those conversations and they are using all of these valuations while deciding on where they advertise now. Right. I have 10 minutes. There are some audience questions as well. I would love to take them as quickly. Finally, quick comments from all of you. Mr. Srivatsav, for starting with you, what would be the broad conversation? The narrative around 50 in the next six months according to you on news platforms. Can you just repeat the question? It was intermittent. Your voice, yeah. Yeah. Sorry, my necrotour is bad. What would be the broad conversation drivers for brand safety over the next six to one year, six months to one year in your view on news platforms? I think I would look at it slightly broader. I think the nation needs more positivity now. And as we come out of COVID, especially in India, there has to be a little bit of euphoria created. I would say first, ever on the side of positivity make people feel better. In terms of, I would say, safety, maybe further tighten up on the internal processes, ensure that we don't add to the fire that's already burning. And as Mr. Jain Mitha said, every single post or tweet or communication in the last four, five months goes through me. It's quite a lot. We send out close to 10, 15 tweets a day and a lot of Instagram posts and all that. Everything goes through us. I think as brands, we have to be conscious not to add to the fire and try to spread positivity, euphoria in the Indian customers mindset so that we move dramatically to a much better space than we are in now. Right. Missing your quick thoughts on this. So I would say that there are some content types no matter what they're going to be sensitive categories and whether it's an anti-industry, they're excluding pages on those topics. But there are other segments which offer where just an on-the-shelf approach for brand safety but which lack the nuance and the certainty brands need to maximize their reach and scale should be thought through very carefully. And I think I want to sum it up by saying that advertisers now need a more new, nuanced approach to brand safety which is more focused on finding places suitable for their ads than avoiding inappropriate content. So I'll leave it at that. Well said. Mr. Mathew, your thoughts on this. Because I mean, this conversation as we all know has been going around for some time but where does it logically conclude or kind of stop where we make sense of it and implement it? Do you think that time is there now? No, no, it's not gonna end anytime soon. See, like we as brands are aware, we also expect the media partners to be sensitive to where their monies are coming from and what we say which side of the bread is buttered and also consumers need to be kept aware of not getting carried away by a few people who want to we share the environment by spreading their own agenda. So I mean, we are a democracy, we need a free media and we need media avenues also as brands to advertise. So this is not just a one-way street.  It's not gonna happen that way. So we'll have to live with all these things and the more tools we give to everyone.  So risk and responsibilities are shared by all of us and we are 130 crore people and the influencers are around the world. So it's not that one channel can do the magic. It is not that one brand can only do that, take that responsibility. It's not that a few customers can say, you know, no, we will only do this and nothing else. So it's a collective responsibility of the nation and it's a month and as we call, unless the churning happens, you will not get the cream on the top. So we live with it and we learn to live with it and see more important as a brand, let's have this conviction that what's our intent. Okay, so when you are evaluating the content if the intent is right, then we as a brand because what we know what we're gonna put out to the audience and where we're gonna put out. So your intent is right, then I'm sure if anybody and everybody also challenges it and we have a right point of view and we are able to communicate that, I don't think there's much of a reason to worry about it. And there are many, many other issues also to fight out together as a country and as brands and as categories in the market. And we focus our energies on that and try to make life happy for everyone. Mr. Bhatnagar, so Mr. Mehta said about Manthan, so the Manthan is already there and I think some credible voices are in desperate need. People really want to listen to some credible voices now. They've heard enough of different content. Do you think, well content-wise, BBC, I mean, how have it added to your advantage in an in-market that is more, what are emotional in content? How have you navigated it and arrived at a point where brands are now interested? So that Manthan that JNG just mentioned, I think that is very, very critical and I think it is good for news and it's good for media to have this. I think because news, if I just talk about the relevance of news for advertising, it is the most engaged audience that you find on news. News is an active choice, it's a lean and medium, unlike those cat videos that your recommendations engine throws up, which might give you millions of views but I don't know if they'll ever give you any engagement. So I think news will continue to be relevant, it'll continue to be impactful. However, I think the challenge from within news is that not all news platforms are equally engaging. I think, and the word that's come up, multiple times in a conversation today is trust. I think news environment or platforms that basically that have earned the trust of the viewers. I think those are the ones that will stay engaged. I think it is just like human interaction. I think the most enriching engagement or interaction that you have is with people who you trust, where you can just let your guard down. And I think that's when you really sort of have an active exchange of views. I think that's equally true for your advertising messages in news environments as well. And I think from our point of view, your question about how we've navigated, is I think we've just stuck to what we've believed and I don't think fundamental moral compass in terms of what goes on here and the platforms has really changed at this stage. And I think if anything, it is just proof that there is an immense need for credible, accurate news out there. We've seen our audiences grow to record high globally and they in fact, India is the largest contributor in terms of traffic across the board for the BBC. We have almost 60 million people in India tuning into various BBC platforms. So I think accurate quality content sales, there is never going to be a shortage in terms of demand for that. In fact, going forward more so, I think there will be more currency for genuine quality news. Right. I have three minutes. I want to take two questions. I want to come to you, Mr. Mehta first, this question is the question, does no name is not given. Is it the responsibility of brands to stand for issues that promote unity and diversity? That's the question. Yeah, yeah. So as I mentioned, the brands have to, I mean, communication has to address to these issues also. I mean, we can't be divisive. That's for sure. And when, as Amul, we say we have the taste of India. So when India says it's India stands for everyone. And in words of our founder chairman, Dr. Kurian, he used to say that the milk washes the concept of caste, creed, religion. Because on the day when people come in the queue to produce this, give the milk to the village cooperative society, you're not owning your existing to a particular religion. And the cow and buffalo does not have any religion. So that way, yes, unity and diversity is a part of the DNA. And that's what all of us stand for. And with this, I'll also take one more question, which I see here, one Mr. Bhakti about the vegan thing. There are lobbies which are wanting to promote their products and which are basically not milk-based products, but that is soya beverages or almond beverages or beverages, calling themselves milk and also denigrating milk. Now milk gives livelihood to 10 crore families in our country. Okay, and it obviously provides nutrition to all of us and India being the largest producer of milk in the world and also the consumer milk in the world. There are a lot of multinational lobbies trying to push their agent into our country by denigrating our milk producers, our cattle, their wearers and also the product perceive. So we as Amul and the Indian dairy industry is acutely aware of this and we are working on strategies to communicate. There are government laws which says, law which was passed as late in 2017-18, which says that any non-milk, I mean milk is only one, which is bovine milk, which is from the order of a cow or a buffalo. So a soya beverage can't call itself milk, so we are working on it and very soon, Rungi you will see a full page ad in leading papers in which we will shatter the myth and clarify the reality of the pure dairy industry vis-à-vis this lobby which is trying to denigrate the milk lobby. Finally, Mr. Srivath sir, your final comments on brands taking stand on issues. How do you see this? So it really comes from the origins of the brand which category they play in. I mean, you just heard about Amul and how they've always stood for the taste of India. It's interwoven into the fabric of the country and they can't avoid it. But if you look at other categories, automotive from where I'm talking now, I wouldn't use the word responsibility of the brand. I would say it's more a prerogative of the brand if they think they can take up, you know, a messaging in this direction, it is fine. From Tata Motors, we have taken up driving safety, safety on the roads as a messaging, a different kind of safety. And it has been working well for us both in terms of creating awareness of being driving safe on the road. It has pushed the industry forward in terms of creating safer cars. So I would say it's a prerogative of each industry, each organization to take up the cause that they like and the cause might span multiple, you know, topics. So, and like I said, it starts, depends on what your origin is, what's your vision is in terms of growth in the country. Right. Thank you so much. We are out of time. There were some more questions, but hopefully maybe next time or I will try to send them to you. But thank you so much for sharing your views. There's been a discussion and I think it's already focused there. We have been outed and let's hope the next six months to one year, we have a different perspective put together. Thank you so much for joining us. It's been great talking to all of you. Thank you. Thanks to you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.