from all the delegates who are here, and I remember telling yesterday that UPU is a strong organization, it has a long history, we have survived two world wars, we have survived the good depressions, and I knew that we had the capacity to be able to overcome any challenge. So colleagues, the happy news I would like to convey this evening here is to tell you that the UPU is as strong as it has always been, nearly 150 or more countries that were gathered today, we have worked hard and long during the last couple of days here in Geneva, sometime in the last night and this morning, but this has been a problem which has been with us for a very long time. So after long and very tiring negotiations last night and today this morning, we were able to really get a critical mass of member countries coming together and making the final decision to come with a compromise, what we call option, we call it option victory, we call it the V option. The V option or the victory for the union, the V stands for victory and victory is for who, it's for the union, it's for membership as well as it's for the citizens of this planet because really there's no other organization that has the capacity, to reach and extend to be able to serve humanity like the University of Costa Rica. Therefore today what I really witnessed is a historical moment, really where we avoided possible exit of one of our member countries and of course many other supporting countries. I can't tell you, it was very intense, very, very, can I say really, the moments really felt that things were really falling apart, but I always kept the faith and the confidence and the knowledge that we always overcome this challenge. So we had a very interesting day yesterday, we had an option called option V, it's called Votion and that really meant if it had gone through then probably half the world would have been supported by this option. So when it fell yesterday, then we fell back to the option which we call C, which was a convergence option which was compared by it was supposed to be here, as far back as it came this year. However the version we came with which is called option V really takes element of all the proposals that are on the table. My international secretariat myself and my team together with the member countries really worked very hard to come up with a compromise proposal which I think at the end of the day what we have witnessed is that every single member country that took the floor, I think more than a program, 67 countries support this morning and this afternoon in support of what we call the victory option that we presented. Therefore, the good news is that we are strong in Russia, of course, to live in, stronger than ever before and it's not one single country that's going to walk out of this place.  We have, we've not got everything we want, but certainly it has kept the union together and for once I think member countries will live this place very satisfied that the union is intact. So that is the news I really wanted to give back to you. I'm very delighted as a Delta General and on my watch I did not want to see this union for a part and I was relieved, I was vindicated and I knew that we had the capacity to be able to do more member countries together and all our initiative for our efforts and many, many months and years of great debate has come to fruition this evening and I'm therefore very, very happy with those results that we have brought this evening. Thank you. Yeah, please go ahead. Let's have a Q&A session. Okay. I'm Jamie. Sir, I understand there's a compromise, but can you give us the details exactly? This is a brand new option. It was not on the table coming in before today to my knowledge. What actually is being decided here? Will the United States be able to self-declare rates right away like they had been hoping to do? Well, there are many, many elements of this things really. It's a very technical thing that probably I will not be able to answer all of this at this point in time. However, what this means is that first of all fundamentally I've changed our pricing policies in the, or rather setting the rent policies for this organization. From now going forward, all member countries agree that self-declare rates will be acceptable more for the United States system of each other. Now the question is, everybody's agreed about that? And that's one of the sticking point that the United States was looking forward to achieve and that was achieved. However, the issue here was that how fast then do we want to achieve that? So we wanted a transition period of about five years to which all countries now will be able to move that final, what we call, self-declare rates. Now, of course, United States wanted to have a, what we call, a dual speed process. And this was a good case that any country, not necessarily United States, any country with certain parameters of threshold, such as 5,000 tons of mail that was made, has the capacity or has the possibility to be able to really self-declare the rates. However, it's not 100% separation. In fact, we have got from tears, and 70% of the domestic taxes, so to say. And then thereon, we can have the VR on VR and then they can be able to really take one person. Oh, sorry. The United States community are saying they wanted to be able to self-declare rates immediately. Is that what's going to happen? What's going to happen is that from July, America can be able to declare July 20, 20 is when they can declare their self-declare rates. That's when it takes. So, for the rest of the worship, I think, it is going to be January 20. Oh, sorry. They backed away from their original position then, right? Sorry. They're not holding the line that they were on coming in, right? They backed away from what they initially demanded. Well, this consultation, this is the negotiations. And certainly, I think that the demand has always been that they want to have a fast July was the date they had expressed themselves. But still, I must say that the United States of America wanted to self-declare rates and not only for them. It is the principle of the supply. And I think that the principle is a good one. Analyze, please. Yes, sir. You said that you thought at one stage it was all going to fall apart. At what point did that change and how much was U.S. flexibility or compromise part of the final solution? Well, I think I will give credit to United States for American delegation to be really had a very strong influence in really the positions that we have here. And we needed them to be there once because they're the ones who put this proposal on the table. However, I must say that I credit those to every state member countries and every country that was part of this effort in this initiative. Really, I will give, I'll say that this was not easy because tough negotiations, people have different options and therefore to bring them together to reach a compromise was not an easy task. But I knew I had the confidence that we were going to pull this together. Of course, the option was not to. It was that we leave this place disappointed and we are not going to get one single in. I think, what was there a point at which you did see the whole thing was on the point of falling apart? Well, certainly, first of all, I think, let me just give you some context to this. I called 4NX, the owner of what's called a converters group under my leadership to deliver on Sunday. Sunday and Monday, we've been working on these things so that I knew, certainly, that the option, which is called option B, which was the five options in active states, and the option A, which is provided by options for other countries who are there, I mean, that the exporters on May will not fly. Therefore, the proposal, or rather the conversation was around option C, which was just a midway between the two different spectrums. So, we worked on that. Also, many barriers and many, what we call, amendments, and that is really the moment where they really brought almost all four countries together, key players in this market, and drawn from different regions, and of course, different levels of economic development. So, we sat in a railway hotel for almost two days. We worked very late in the night, but when we were just this close, we could not agree on certain parameters, and really, that was when everybody would say, no, we can't accept when they walked away. That was, I would say, my lowest moment and I just felt a little bit disappointed. But we never gave up. We came back, and the next day, which was really yesterday, we took the whole entire thing again head-on, and when option B, which was the extreme option, preferred option by the United States, and many other countries called Canada, Brazil, and many others, when that failed yesterday, then what happened is that we had to fall back to what was called option B, which was a competition. But option C was really a challenging option because it had 12 different amendments to it, and therefore, if we had gone into it, it would have taken us probably about 20 days between another time. So what we did really, the work we carried out on Sunday and Monday, is really the option C itself. So we already have covered substantial ground, and therefore, what I decided to offer this morning is that instead of going through the entire thing, we have already gained a lot of support for this, so we just went to those stake issues which you could not agree on, and technically, we went through this with other countries of different views and really worked out what we called diplomatic consultations, I would say, but diplomatic and non-business themselves. I've been trained for some of these things so I knew that we had to work with all these people. And close member countries really saw the agency and the desire to hold it in together. I think wisdom prevailed at the end of the day, and it can't be another... Yes, sir. Stay back to the time newspaper. Two questions. First, what remains from the multilateral system with this option of self-snecleric rates? Second question, what will be the impact on the rates and will there be a short decrease, but will it impact e-commerce? What is the main impact on the multilateral system? Of course, QPU is a multilateral organization, and therefore, what we have found is really the desire to maintain that system, something in a multilateral system. Countries can have difficulties with a specific aspect of business or relationships, but what happened here is that what was going on, first today is the desire to hold a multilateral treaty that has been developed today in Burma. So again, it really is our DNA. The multilateralism is part of the... The second question, I missed again. The impact of the rates on... Okay, fine. Really, of course, any rate revision has impact on customers. It's not all about that. But we are there to see how this will really affect the volumes that are on the system, if you guys can help me be offered here right now. But certainly, in any way, it's going to the United States of America. Of course, if they risk the threshold of 1,500 tons going to that country, they can self-require how we can use them. They will only get the full 100% rates, which means they can't... I mean, impose the tariffs, for example, of 100% domestic tariff in the country. There is a 70% cut, which assumes, then, that this mail has already been processed under... Of course, from other countries, therefore, it cannot treat exactly the domestic tariff. But then, from there on, then they can be able to raise... We are on to see whether they can be able to bridge 80% cut, we put it at 80% cut. So, this is some of the technicalities which you've probably used to get through for you. But the principle behind it is that self-require rate is the future of our remuneration system. We have time for one more question. Gentleman Frantzi. Hello, Osiris News Agency. Does that provision on the 75,000 tons a year introduce a kind of two-speed organization that might be used by other members for other discussions in the future? And gave up the impression that that system, because they did it back from 1969, will it prevail for the next 50 years? No, I think what has happened is that the system, which was there from 1969, will no longer be functional in this country. Fixing that from next year. So, that is already a departure from our remuneration system, for sure. That 75,000 tons is a threshold we set up for a country to be able to invoke this self-require rate. Ten, that is, you have to have that threshold fast. The second thing is that they have to do it. I mean, is either invoke it or not. They don't have to, but if they want to do so, they can do so. But even back then, we have to have then this service called, we can copy it after 80%, after 80%, which means from 70 to the best mine, I'm also, well, one, one, one, one, I'll send it up to the, I'll go up to the personage of 80, for the domestic cut. That way, then, we know that kind of the service is taken, and I'm not saying this. Jamie, one quick question. And then we have to follow up on Stefan's question. Just to follow up on his question, because it's a really important one for my readers. Okay. Will customers, which customers will see rates go up? Will they see higher shipping and delivery costs in their daily lives if they're trying to send or receive mail? Well, what will happen here is that once a country declares the rates, they're sending them to stations or they're exporting countries who have to factor that cost. So it means then that cost will be transferred to the person who's sending that item. And certainly those who are, okay, let me put it this way. When you are in a country and you buy item overseas, the customer, the end customer will definitely have to get a high price because it's not the old price which is really important. So I have no doubt in my mind that the financial impact or rather the impact on the customers globally will do you for the exporting countries as well as the... Okay. That's the end of the press conference with the director general. We have another guest. But first of all, sir, I'd like to escort you out. With a big hand. Good. Okay. Thank you for coming here. Just one year ago when President Donald J. Trump learned that the U.S. postal system was being forced to heavily subsidize the importation of a flood of foreign packages at the expense of American factories and jobs. He said to me in the Oval Office, fix it. Today, a White House-led team working closely with the director general of the Universal Postal Union and a broad coalition of friends and allies within the UPU has more than achieved the president's goal and we have done it in Trump time, which is to say as quickly as possible. At just the third extraordinary congress in UPU history, member countries today approved by unanimous acclamation to adopt a comprehensive set of reforms based on the U.S. proposal. This measure provides the United States with the ability to immediately self-declare its postal rates and thereby cover its costs. This is and was the lynchpin of President Trump's objectives. This agreement will also transform an antiquated discriminatory system into a modern and resilient one, far more prepared to meet the new demands of e-commerce and the increasing challenges of counterfeit goods and drugs such as fentanyl now being pushed like poison through the international mail system. Today's victory was neither easy nor preordained. In fact, the skeptics and there were many said it couldn't be done. However, instead of leaving the UPU as the United States was more than prepared to do, we will leave Geneva having demonstrated a new brand of Trumpian diplomacy. This diplomacy is based on one simple principle. International organizations like the UPU must respect the rights of the United States and serve their members rather than be used as piggy banks by bad-actor countries that seek to bend their rules. Today's outcome is also a huge victory for millions of American workers and businesses that President Trump tirelessly champions every single day. It is both appropriate and not without irony that we achieve this historic victory just a few blocks away from the World Trade Organization and during the week of the United Nations General Assembly meetings. An important signal has been sent. With this new agreement, the United States will remain a member of the UPU. This favorable outcome could not have taken place without two irresistible forces. President Trump's resolute willingness to take on a flawed international system and the strong leadership of U.S. Postmaster General Megan Brennan, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Dennis Shea, the Department of State's Superb Chief UPU Negotiator Stephen Anderson, and Special Assistant to the President Hunter Morgan. And I want to have you think a little bit about what has happened here. This is a problem that goes back to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and before that. President Reagan himself expressed deep concern for the market distortions of the UPU. The problem, of course, is that neither Reagan or any president that followed him ever did anything about it. President Trump did this in 11 months. 11 months. That is Trump time. And this could not have been done, really, without working closely with our friends and allies and with the UPU negotiator. Now, what we will do as a practical matter is we will begin our self-declared rates in the end of June of next year. This is exactly what we wanted and had planned for. It won't take place tomorrow because it takes time to get to that point. But immediate self-declared means we do it as quickly as possible on our end. Postmaster General Megan Brennan has prepared for that and we will do that. Now, in terms of the rest of the proposal, with this synthesis proposal, we were able to help our friends and allies get to self-declared rates as well over a slightly longer period of time. So that's important. This is the essence of the multi-speed option. So this was a key portion of this. We have an escalator clause in the mechanism so that under the cost-to-tariff ratio, if it exceeds 70%, which we do not assume it will, but if it is, there's allowed some adjustment just like any contract in any kind of business or government situation would allow for. So that's a good thing. We have a really nice provision to assist the UPU to get to a complete electronic data system, which is critical to monitoring the counterfeit and illicit drugs. So let me stop there and take some questions and I'll try to do my best. I noticed that I think that the Financial Times is not here, but I would like to congratulate the Financial Times for being an important part of this story because they reported it well and I had several op-eds in their paper. The first one, we began this fight a year ago and then just recently coming into this. So yes, sir, and please just identify yourself. You mentioned WTO and Trump in time. Does that mean that the next stage for WTO might be the more precise schedule before a potential withdrawal from the organization? I just say that the United States has a number of issues with WTO. We have a differentiation proposal that we're pushing. We've raised many concerns about the develop body. So reforming the WTO is a big part of our business. I said in my preparatory remarks that an important signal has been sent. It's multiple signals in a way. It basically shows that you can achieve a result with an international organization that actually serves its members rather than punishes some at the expense of others. It also points the way to the ability to come to that kind of result. Yes, sir? Let's try to keep our questions related to universal postal union. No more WTO questions. They are. Paul Needham, CP Research. Paul Needham, CP Research. I write on the postal industry for 15 to 20 years. Two questions. So how do we do? How long has this issue been going on? We did it in what, less than a year? So you'll write a good story then, right? How much are Chinese small packets for the U.S. going to be going up by from next July is the obvious first question. So what is the price increase going to be particularly for the Chinese small packets? So we don't... Second question? Yes. Second question is also, under the terms of this agreement, the U.S. is going to be paying 40 million U.S. dollars over the next five years to the U.P.U. It's what I've been reading. You actually bought this agreement? Oh, that's funny. Okay, so let's do that math, okay? First of all, the money... There's an agreement where 40 million dollars over a five-year period will be used by the U.P.U. So do me a favor. How much is that a year? Quick. How much is it? Eight. Eight, okay. How much do we save a year? By this agreement? You tell me. Did anybody read my op-eds or anything like that? Anybody? Hundreds of millions. Hundreds of millions, good. He gets it, right? Anywhere from 300 million to 500 million dollars in savings and subsidies, over here and then eight million over here a year, which will be used in a large part for what? What would I say we're going to use that money for earlier? Security. Security, thank you. All right, so did we buy the agreement? I think not. Thank you. Now, your first question, I can't give you the details on that, but here's what I can tell you. This is probably a U.S. story, but it's also a story of other countries, and we've seen studies that show the size of the subsidy to the Chinese is very significant depending on how much it weighs. I mean, it can be as much as $10 per packet if it's more towards the 2.2 kilogram side, unless. So there's no question that their rates are going to go up as they should. And the problem we had, a lot of countries, it's not just the China problem, but it's primarily a China problem. We need to be honest about that. And Iceland, during the, it's heartbreaking. Iceland representative, if you were there, said what? They said they went bankrupt because of this, right? There's just so many packages coming in from China and elsewhere under this formal due system. So, yeah, rates are going up. Yeah, we'll buy less Chinese stuff, and we'll buy more stuff from other countries, and we'll make more stuff in America, and the market will be free of distortions. And that's, we call that a hat trick and hockey. What else we got? Yes, sir. Sir, hi, Jamie from Associated Press. I'd like to go back. You mentioned that businesses and workers are going to benefit. Yes, sir. What about consumers in America? You mentioned that if the prices from China are going to go up, there are people going to be paying higher costs for shipping and delivery when they make an order. No, there's nothing for shipping internationally. There's no change in the shipping rates. In fact, the post office will be better profitable from a profitable standpoint. So, there will be no upward pressure on the rates. And remember, when you run a 300 to $500 million loss a year on subsidies, you've got to find that money elsewhere. So, this will actually help keep rates down. But more importantly, it will allow our domestic manufacturers, particularly small retailers and cottage industry types, they won't have to have their product stolen and counterfeited in China and then sent and sold to a destination off of Alibaba at a price less than what they can produce. I mean, that's just crazy stuff. So, this is all good for America. Consumers, workers, entrepreneurs, business is big, business is small. Can I just follow up? Sure. My understanding was you were coming in here hoping to have the self-declared rates taken right away. No, that's absolutely false. That's absolutely false. Never, never. We had a clear understanding that we would start them in July of next year based on information from the first, the Postal Regulatory Commission and then the Postmaster General who we worked with beautifully on this. It just, it takes time. You can't just like put the pill in the water and have it become wine. It takes a while. I'm sorry. Just follow up. Go ahead. There's also my understanding that at some point I know that these self-declared rates were going to come into effect anyway. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. That's not accurate. If we did nothing, we would never get the world of self-declared rates. We would never, ourselves, get the self-declared rates. We would have some bump ups, but no, that's just false. This is a big deal. It's a big deal for a couple of reasons. One is the U.S. got immediate self-declared rates that saves us a half a billion dollars. It eliminates market distortions. It creates tens of thousands of jobs for America. It also helps our friends and allies in other nations, Norway, Finland, Brazil, who are getting hammered by this situation, allows them in a multi-speed option to get to that path. So if you write a bad story about this, you got your facts wrong. What else you got? Yes, sir. We just heard from Mr. Hussain that there was a point where these talks nearly fell apart, that people basically went and left the meetings that they were having on Monday and it looked as if the whole deal was coming unstuck. What did you walk away from at that point and what was fixed that brought you back together? And secondly, you talked about the electronic system, the electronic screening system. What's the plan for introducing that exactly how? So hold that for a minute. Let's just do the first one. Let's talk about process. So we were on public record in the Financial Times as saying that there were two acceptable options to the United States. One was option B, which was the most disruptive. It would provide self-declared rates immediately to everybody. And then the second most disruptive option, and I use that word in a constructive way, is the option C with the American Amendment, which is the multi-speed option. And then there were the gradations of that all the way down to the bad faith option A, which would have done nothing. So by the rules of the UPO Extraordinary Congress role, you must consider each proposal ranked by most disruptive to least disruptive. So in the op-ed I wrote in the Financial Times, they said there's two acceptable options, option B and the multi-speed option. So we knew, first of all, that we would deal with option B. And that would be first and that was on Tuesday. We knew that that was a tougher challenge in order to get the votes because it had just by count fewer supporters and more opposition. So that's fine. So the good part was that we took care of that on Tuesday. We let option B folks have their say. We fully supported that. But we knew that the next day we would have option C considered. Now, here's what's interesting. That's why I have to salute my friends from the UPU. They did a fantastic job. What Bashir did was convene a group of, I think, about 30-something countries on Sunday and Monday of this week, including my good friend here, Ambassador Shea, who was in every single meeting, every single minute. And the beauty of that, the goal of that process was to get to what we got to today. But we didn't get to that. We almost got to that. But what the process was able to do through Bashir's leadership and the participation of folks like Ambassador Shea was to identify what we disagreed on and what the boundaries of that were. And that was the beauty of that process. And so once you knew what you agreed on, what you disagreed on, and what the range of disagreement was, then you could be within the box of consensus. And so through the efforts of the UPU leadership working with many of the countries that had to come into that majority coalition, they arrived at the result today. And if you noticed what happened today, this session was supposed to start at 9 a.m., right? But no, no, no, no. They wanted more time to work to this. There were technical issues with writing the actual documents, which they did beautifully. There were the politics of talking to the competing parties and bringing them on board. And I think that the realization is that in a large organization such as this or in a large organization such as my Congress, it's very difficult to do a trade agreement, which is effectively what this is, by many, many amendments. You're better off if you can. We have in our Congress what's called fast-track legislations, like comes, you voted up or down. We want our Congress, by the way, to do that with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement tomorrow, or at least within 30 days. But in this case, the brilliance of the leadership here was, okay, here we are. We're in the box. This is what we think the market can bear from a technical and political standpoint. They worked it, so by the time three o'clock rolled around the room, they had disseminated the appropriate information and gotten buy-in from people. And I stress, look, this was not preordained. This was hard work. These gentlemen and our people and many other people were up till three in the morning last night and up at seven this morning, and they did it. So I think it's useful to understand how that worked. I mean, this is a beautiful thing. This is how processes should work when they work well. And we were sufficiently close. And the fact that the U.S. was going to leave the U.P.U. I think played as... President Trump was in the room. And China was part of that 34? Pardon me? China was among the 34 countries? I don't know. Was China part of the 34? Yeah, China was part of the 34. I wasn't part of the... But he's the professional in these matters, Dennis Shea. Okay. If you're in Geneva, if you want to know something about the WTR trade, he's the guy. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. I'd like to ask you, sir, to clarify for our readers who are businessmen, what does this deal mean? If I'm a producer in San Francisco exporting to New York, shipping through the post to New York compared to someone who's shipping from Shanghai to New York. Well, you're not going to ship race cars, right? No, no. Small packages. What's the difference? Does that give a leg up to the domestic manufacturer or service provider? And I've got to follow up. Okay, so the big leg up to American workers and manufacturers is protection from subsidized inbound. Okay? And you can go and look at the press coverage. There's like the Mighty Mug example, but the problem we have is that products, if you try to ship from, say, Chicago to New York, a product that you made in Chicago, your postal rates are far higher than the postal rates from China, and given that it's small parcels and low margins and all of that, there's a lot of cases where you simply can't compete. And if you want to do the analytics from an economics point of view, what happens is low margin manufacturers in America get pushed out of the market and high margin manufacturers get their margins squeezed. And our unemployment goes down, our tax revenues go down, our economic growth rate goes down, right? So that's the primary issue there. You know, if you're exporting in a world where we don't anticipate significant issues there. But let's keep in mind, too, I encounter this problem all the time when we're talking about tariffs and trade and things like that. It's like, won't the consumer pay more? Well, the bigger problem here, besides the heavy subsidies, the postal service, is these broader, longer-term economic impacts. I mean, whether it's Iceland or Norway or Finland or other countries, it's a very corrosive trade model that China practices. It's designed predatory. And there's a lot of predatory things China does. This is just one of them, but it's an important one. What else you got? Yeah. How much time we got? I had a follow-up. I had a follow-up. You mentioned it. Let me do this. Let's see if anybody else in the room is here. So we spread the love here. Anybody else? Okay. Reporters with no questions. I'm amazed. Yes, sir? I just want to ask, sorry. Ben Simon, I work for the AFP News Agency. Do you feel like the United States had to give in at all during this negotiation? Because listening to you talk, it's like a total victory. There was no area where you could... It's a total victory for the UPU and the US. I mean, it's... I think there won't be many times you'll see a result like this. Because I can't think of anywhere... Look, the one thing I regret about this is that the other countries weren't able to self-declare. But that's not our loss. That's the loss of the broader system. But in terms of the US, we got immediate self-declared rates. We got basically what we were pursuing and we were going to work with the UPU going forward on a lot of other good reforms. We built really good will with our friends and allies in the group. We demonstrated that reform within an international organization can take place in a collegial way once people understand that the United States must be respected and that these kind of unfair things that happen, whether it's in the WTO or whether it's in the UPU or the United Nations, wherever it is, it's like, and then that. And that's good for everybody else. So, no, I think... I don't see anybody losing here. I mean, China's certainly going to pay more for the privilege of shipping to our market, but that's a good thing for the market. It's a good thing for the UPU. What else? Hang on. Anybody else before we... Yes, sir. You just said you got immediate self-declared rates. Dude, I heard you. I heard you. I'm talking about... Hang on. Just stop. Just stop. Just stop, okay? Just stop. It's just like... Look, I told you that immediate self-declared rates mean and is always meant to us that we're going to start them at the end of June of next year because that's the quickest time we can do them, okay?  Okay? You going to ask it once more? Okay?  There's other interesting questions to ask you. No, there's other interesting questions to ask. Okay, go ahead.  I was interested in your CVL's diplomacy that you highlighted in your introduction. Yes, sir. To what extent has it got that in this very room on December 15, 1993, they gaveled the Uruguay around agreements which didn't capture all these issues that you're mentioning in the following negotiations on... What has this got to do with anything today? The symbolism. They gaveled it in this very room. You know, here's an interesting question because the... Here's the thing, it's like the difference between President Trump and the previous people who have followed him is he actually understands that when you have unfair and non-reciprocal trade rules that hurts America. And if you don't bring that mindset to forums like the WTO, you tend to get bad rules. Here's the last thing I'll leave you. So I'm here for the UPU, but I'm burdened by doing all this other stuff, right? So under the rules of the World Trade Organization, which is just a few blocks from here, other countries around the world can charge America systematically higher tariffs than we charge them for the same or similar products. Let me say that one more time. Under the most favored nation clause of the World Trade Organization, it's perfectly legal under WTO rules for other countries to charge us higher tariffs on the same or similar products than we charge them. How often does that happen? About 66% of the time compared to 20% of the time. And for countries like India, China, they charge us higher tariffs 85 to 90% of the time, right? Now that's insane. And so how does that happen? It happens because the presidents who have preceded President Trump have not had the awareness that trade matters in terms of economic growth, jobs, wages, and other things. So anyway, I love that you're covering this story. I think it's a big story, both on its face and for the larger implications of a better future for UPU and reforming international organizations. And I thank you for your time and patience. And I like Geneva. Thank you very much for coming. Can you sign out a press statement on this, too? You can take it up on our website when we distribute it. I want to send from all the delegates who are here. And I remember telling you yesterday that UPU is a strong organization. It has a long history. We have survived two world wars. We have survived the good depressions. And I knew that we had the capacity to be able to overcome any challenge. So colleagues, the happy news I would like to convey this evening here is to tell you that the UPU is a strong


Hello and welcome to the third edition of our webinar News is Undervalued brought to you in partnership with ADP News. In these times of crisis our dependency on news has increased by many folds. Also in last eight weeks of lockdown news perhaps is the only medium that despite so many challenges is able to create fresh content. Also it is the only genre that is managing to pull off the business to some extent. To discuss this and more on news we have with us Mr. Vaishali Verma CEO initiative. Welcome to the webinar Vaishali. Thank you so much Nazia thanks a lot. This was long do you I mean I've been wanting to do an interview with you for a very very long time. Yeah I always a pleasure to talk to you. It wouldn't work out. So Vaishali you're in the business of agency you're handling so many clients and there is so much to drop in ads these days but this one genre like what I've been hearing from most of the people around me is that most of the inventory these days is going into news right because that's the viewership is almost like 200 percent more. So would you want to speak more about it. Yeah yeah absolutely right. I think what this lockdown has done to us the positive side of it for us in the media industry is that there is unprecedented increase in time spent on television overall time spent on television or digital and most of the genres have grown during this time during the COVID times but yes news has seen an unprecedented growth I think almost 200 to 300 percent and that is obvious at the back of you know the entire anxiety which the consumers or you know our viewers are going through there's so much to know and I think news channels are doing a great job in shouldering that responsibility and the way you know they are going about guiding our consumers or viewers in terms of the precaution and how to remain calm in the alarming situation and awareness is the only way which you know one can handle this outbreak or this outbreak can be beaten and one of the most effective ways to spread awareness is through television I mean which is which is a bigger medium than television to reach Indian households and news of course is at the realm of it given the entire newsiness of the environment which is around us so yes it has grown exponentially however we know that you know advertising has got impacted there are certain sectors like automobiles or consumer goods or handset etc at the back of supply chain hit and a retail shutdown lot of sectors have gotten impacted so I think what is happening is by news has grown exponentially maybe they have not got you know the return on in terms of the advertising revenue or let me tell you that the growth is there but it's not proportionate to the increase in their advertising revenue because sadly not all sectors are advertising and they are CPG's which is the FMCG sectors are on there are a lot of healthcare sectors which is on education yes and a lot of social welfare and the government you know led initiatives which is keeping the momentum on but sadly as the inventory or you know the demand is not as much which is kind of you know disproportionate to when you if you are on the other side of the table I can totally understand the frustration as well but that is true for all the genres so for the for the viewers who are joining is now because I think I started two minutes ahead I must repeat that we are debating we have a panel on is news undervalued and the topic speaking on today is that is the news generation the genre next because that's the only genre which has shown growth in the last few weeks of lockdown it has grown almost by 200 to 300 percent it is the only genre which is keeping the business on so with us we have a Shali Varma who's speaking today on what is the future of news which has come out as kind of a hero of the lockdown period in genres so Vishali you've already given us an insight on how important news is and how much growth it has shown but do you do you also believe that it's been undervalued all throughout see it is undervalued and and I'll tell you the reason why you know the two reasons one is news has to shift from its dependence on events and traditionally whenever there's election or it could be a full mama news coverage Babri Masjid verdict or a Trump visit we see unprecedented increase in viewership right and and those are the times when the news genre are able to attract that premium even in terms of advertising revenue you know but they cannot be dependent on what's bad or what's good you know it is news is a window to the world and they need to have a constant engagement with the consumer or the viewer which needs to be there because what happens is when you don't have these events happening then suddenly there is a drop and and you know and and when you don't see the eyeballs happening as much as you wanted from for it to attract that but I think a revenue obviously it's difficult to sustain so that's one reason and the other is also there's so much of focus on you know breaking news who broke first wherein the consumer is focusing on what is credible so there's always I feel and that's a very personal view that it's always there's always a mismatch between speed and credibility you know the news channel why a lot on breaking it first visa we then kind of sustaining it but having said that I still you know strongly feel that if they have a strong engagement content which is sustainable which keeps the momentum on even beyond these events they will definitely be you know valued more because see what are advertising paying for advertisers are paying for consumers eyeball and wherever the consumer eyeball moves the advertisers will be there and it's and of course they are fairly frugal and in nowadays it's everybody is very cautious of whatever they are spending and it's very ROI driven but in if they see those eyeballs being sustained and currently we are seeing the 200% jump and I hope to see this momentum even post the recovery phase you know so as we are seeing that there was an outbreak there's a recovery phase and then there will be a stabilization phase right because this will not stay maybe two months and three months and after that there will be a stabilization phase then that phase happens we cannot be dependent on these events so while news will play a big role of whatever we have gone through but it needs to keep up that momentum in engaging the consumer and as long as they are doing that and there is viewership coming advertisers will definitely be there I mean what are they seeking they're seeking consumers eyeball end of the day but visually I can interrupt so if you go by numbers viewership has never been a problem with news channels they've always got viewership but yet they've never got the kind of price they have wanted you know all throughout like we had Lok Sabha elections we had state elections there was Ayodhya verdict there was so much happening so I mean you can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think viewership is engagement is a problem still they're not able to convert it into numbers see I don't I'm not agreeing to this because when there was Lok Sabha election for example you know we paid prices which is like 10 times higher than what we would have normally paid so on event which is you know a pre-decided event and you know that they are a budget for example right or you know IPL during IPL times or World Cup times you know that the viewership will be driven towards news channel there is a differential pricing and advertisers have you know gone ahead and paid that prices because you know you are getting that you know viewership or eyeballs or you know ROI but the second point is also that news is a genre is very fragmented you know so while the genre is so earlier if I'm not wrong news would contribute says seven to eight percent to the entire TV ad revenue but you know it I mean today it could be 20% but what happens is there 400 news channels and of course I'm counting all the regionals per se so what happens is even within Hindi if there are like 10 news channels there always be you know a buying for who gets the maximum share and and then what happens that it commoditizes the advertising volume you know so as media planners when you're sitting and making media plans you cannot have 10 channels in a plan so you kind of you know you play your bet on the top four or the next four kind of a thing and it's never possible to advertise in the entire genre so I think somewhere I mean I don't know whether I'm right in saying that but it needs a consolidation we have not seen so many channels in any other genre so somewhere I feel that it needs maybe a consolidation I mean some of the people might not like this but I'm just talking now wearing my hat as a media professional that it needs consolidation so that each of the news bucket or the channel gets their new share. So another expert that I was speaking to last week fragmentation of course everyone has said that that is the biggest problem with news genre also said that there's too much focus on competing with each other and pulling each other down instead of you know focusing on their own product do you agree with that? Yeah I agree and you know let me draw a parallel here with say a newspaper now we still go back and read the newspaper and we know the news but we still need read the newspaper there's a lot of focus on the editorial content you know and I've always failed to believe that why don't news channel behave the same way editorial is the ability to not only deliver the news but deliver the implication arising out of the news you know what's in for us what's in for you from multiple perspectives and people are seeking that but that doesn't happen but the news channels are vying for as I said in my you know earlier answer that who broke the news first so there's so much of focus on speed and there's so much of focus on getting that you know viewership or GRPs that will follow I have always believed that focus on your input focus on you know what are the right matrix to you know touch the output will happen automatically you know that will reflect in the viewership and while I can't name some of the news channels but I have seen some of the news channels how they're using technology how they're using various measures in terms of you know creating their content which is more magazine format which is more opinion led which is more views led and I can see a difference you know when whenever we are analyzing from a viewership perspective I've seen that goes work and you know and and I also want to add a lot of news aggregators for example also are coming up you know in the digital space for example like a daily hunt or in short and why do they exist you know they should not exist ideally because if news channel independently do that job well then we don't need those aggregators so somewhere I'm sure there is something which is missing they're doing a great job and I'm sure there are some nuggets to be fixed which is the only you know missing link as I would want to call in terms of you know for them to get back to what they truly can command and if they create value they will definitely get value another thing I would want to understand is that for GEC the biggest problem right now is they're not able to create fresh content because all production houses are shut so even if if when the lockdown is over or there are relaxations it will take them time to you know go back to normal there in news channel is already got that momentum so how long do you think this golden phase of news channels being on and considering that when the markets will start opening like some states have already started relaxing the norms minus Mumbai or other places the addicts will also see a significant rise I mean things will get start getting better and better for news channels in coming days I think definitely so we are in the middle of and I think everybody around us right we're trying to predict and work on multiple scenarios so for example if lot of government have decided on getting their workforce back with almost 33% that will lead to some viewership impact right so overall time spent on television has gone up but it will not be a sustainable I mean I'm sure it will stabilize but news in particular as you rightly said will be here to stay for long given that you know and whatever we all keep reading that this virus will become a part of a life it's not something that it will just one fine morning we get up and we become virus free we are not going to see that situation right and hence the need for news channel again to you know shoulder that to guide the consumers to get the right insight and with the use of technology again to navigate you know how should one go about it and give the first-hand views and as long as they continue to do so I see them definitely being part of you know at the overall scheme of things for this year they have a long and they should not think short-term you know they should focus on their long-term strategy and and it's similar to how we are telling this to our brands right we are telling most of the brands that you know you need to take a responsibility be reliable be accessible you know and that's what the consumers will bank on if you need if you are salient you are honest and that's what you know consumers are seeking the same analogy applies to the new genre as well so they are definitely have a window they had definitely have a long window even if GC's fresh content comes back I mean I still see two months down the line most of the shooting happens or the studio are in Bombay and Bombay is severely affected but even if they revive say sometime around July there will be some kind of you know erosion which new genre will see for sure but I think they have reached a certain peak they can definitely sustain it not to the pre-COVID times but somewhere in the middle which I which I'm calling it as a stabilization fees so yes there's I see a positive thing there so I would want to understand from you what measures can they take to sustain it but before you answer I want more people to start putting their questions we only have 15 more minutes officially time and so please whosoever is live right now must put questions and you can tag the e4m hashtag e4m webinar and hashtag a VP news please start putting your questions before we shall be time is up and she has too many things on our hand to do so you only have the last 10 15 minutes to ask her questions so coming back to the question I asked from you is that what do you think can be a long-term strategy for them see the long-term strategy again I think I mentioned it that they should not focus on only key events like p.m. speech of cause is a big event you know yesterday 8 p.m. lot of advertisers a lot of our ongoing advertisers reached out right that they wanted some kind of a presence but why only during that time you know so there is the news channels are offering a lot of content beyond that and and I think most of if I'm not wrong lot of the FMCG guys or a lot of the other sectors who are not taking new genre as seriously or not part of their plan have seen that shift right so of course lot has come at the back of GC but they have shifted now if they have shifted and they're advertising there as long as they see the momentum in viewership going on they will stick there how does news channel deliver that again I'm not an expert to come in but as I said earlier that if they develop a strong editorial content you know on views opinion which which could viewers or consumers value and their answers or their questions get answered they see value in that that definitely will work in keeping that you know momentum on so not so much don't focus so much on breaking news don't focus so much on you know 8 p.m. news and 9 p.m. news you know get the experts get expert opinions do some magazine format I know again easy to say but think of content content which key you have the consumer coming on to your channel think of content which keeps them engaged a lot of them are doing it know they've started giving out entertainment stories also they are trying to experiment for a very very long time because even they have too much competition and the real test happens you know when the general when the original content comes back you know when the original content comes back it should not erode the viewership and hence I'm strongly believing that given so much newsiness which is around us news has a strong you know lever to tap on because this whole year will be very newsy on how the situation unfolds and even at a state level etc or at even at a region level or a district level and hence news you know genre has a long has has a strong forplay there so as long as they are able to capitalize it they will have consumers hooked on but they have consumers hope on advertisers will follow you know they will definitely do you like to give us some estimate I don't know how much increase in price can use expect by end of the year that's also linked to demand and supply I mean media market is very much like a stock market you know so it's a demand supply so while I think I started by saying that while the viewership has grown it has not resulted in the proposal not talking about current times but you know another after a few months when since the addicts is better and but the other channels are still in the phase of recovery and this channel is already because this has not gone off right so this is already on so what kind of growth can we expect in that I think if I'm not wrong currently it's almost at a I'm not talking from a viewership growth or an I'm talking more from an advertising revenue growth currently I think it's almost at about 20 21% growth not contribution to growth I mean that's it's a blip so a best estimate even if you know post COVID situation if they continue with you know at a stabilized eyeballs if I may say it might not have a 200% growth but what if they kind of stabilize that even a 50% growth or a 40% growth it will not be 200 then definitely why not they will definitely see an increase in you know pricing and so I would not quote a number on the pricing increase because all my investment leads are going to come heavy on me but but again let me say that it's all ROI and it's all return on investment if the eyeballs are there advertisers will pay today there is a certain softness in the market at the back of demand being low and hence maybe they are not getting that due because you know a lot of sectors are not advertising so there is still inventory available but once all sectors bounce back and there is demand and there is a certain viewership increase that definitely will lead to a price increase as well I'm glad at least some some industry will show some growth positive we are hopeful we are absolutely hopeful that few sectors should start opening and we already have some questions coming up for you Sanket Rastogi wants to know how soon we'll see the sales picking up once the lockdown is lifted it's more of a generic question not only related to news that might take a bit long because as we know that sales has got hit at the back of supply chain you know the retail shutdown etc so that I would say take will take a long and it depends on the sectors to sectors so a lot of CPG or FMCG which is into essentials they have not seen that kind of you know hit but if you're talking about sectors like fashion or sectors like consumer good I mean they might come back I mean of course there'll be some pent up demand which typically happens whenever you know the lockdown will get over there'll be a pent up demand for luxury for beauty for fashion but as I see not before festive you know festive is one time when we are all banking on that that that will be a revival of you know our lost times but I don't see you know things stabilizing before that for a lot of these sectors which I just called out the other interesting question person has not given his name would you want to throw some light on FMCG strategy on news and spoke at the cost of GEC. FMCG as I was saying they're in the business of reaching consumer every day and hence they need to be on air almost you know 52 weeks in a year so they look for wherever the eyeballs are or wherever the GRPs are so you know their strategy will obviously change a bit when there's a revival of GC which starts to happen but we have seen strong shift towards news genre I would not say that everything will get eroded definitely there'll be some erosion which will happen back to you know what the viewers but it will mirror the viewership and as long as news genre are contributing substantially they have a strong chance to be part of their advertising. There's one another interesting question asked by Mr. Sandeep Shivaskar given such a spike in viewership in news genre I would expect some of some of the increase to stay in the post-COVID phase too do you think brands will benefit more from a longer-term relevant association with properties that tie in with brand message than making an opportunistic use as what we see currently. You know definitely and you know consumers will make more rational choices right going forward and they will start to be very conscious of their spends and brands will need to adapt to that and you know the focus will shift to brand you know today we talk about brand love and all that and I see that shifting towards brand value and hence there's a big opportunity to deliver that in an interesting contextual way with a lot of content which resides so to make it more contextual to make it more topical there is huge opportunity in fact we are working for Manapai education online education client on creating a lot of these interesting you know content formats with news genre so definitely yes. This is another gentleman who wants to know how about the numbers she's the ratio wants to know is if yes then how the needs to know sorry I'm sorry I'm mixing up two questions what do you feel about the women worship have the numbers gone up for the new all news channels. The numbers have gone up across you know demographics so the numbers have gone up across demographic and as you know more of the most of the Hindi heartland or most of the India has single TV homes so that and it has become part of the family viewership right the family sitting together and watching we've seen spikes on Ramayana Mahabharat we've seen spikes on you know news so definitely it's part of the increase for women and if it what it would not be then you would not have most of your FMCG brands advertising because they typically target women audiences right so the the PNG or RB or Unilever etc so we see a lot of shift in advertising happening from them so it definitely mirrors increase in women viewership. Shobhi Theroda has in fact asked something that we completely missed out on is business news genre also showing similar amount of growth what are the views about business. Yeah I mean I don't remember the number but I think business news channels have also seen at about 120% growth if I'm not wrong because people are keen there is a lot of anxiety you know around how the economy is going and you know which are the sectors which will bounce back so there is some growth there as well and if I'm not wrong the number is about 120 in the male audiences I remember seeing the number of almost 180% so which is which is substantial though it is a lower base and lot of when the sectors get revived you know when the consumer goods or automobile etc they get revived they will definitely be business news genre will be one of the key genre for them. Another anonymous attendee who wants to know would you see a media mix change on TV plan post COVID. Media mix so I'm just re-iterating if I've understood the question media mix means television digital print and the breakup of that but I mean all your question is only about television I think. Only on television could again you know it will mirror the viewership today we've seen the increase in a movie as a genre we've seen increase in news so more of the advertising has shifted towards you know the movie as a genre movie and news followed by GEC so it will mirror where the viewership goes if the viewership sustains the way it is definitely it will see a change. Media is dynamic right we all live in such a dynamic scenario we are currently you know operating on a weekly basis so we don't even know how June will be so things are fairly dynamic and I think we need to keep our years close to the ground and keep making changes and keep evolving as you see the landscape evolve. I'll take one last question before we close Rohit Mohan wants to know do you think that the shift of TV news from reporter based stories to studio based shows have led to a decline in credibility or TV news is of this newspaper I think you sort of spoke about it when you said they should be more editorial content. I was just trying to draw a parallel from newspaper I mean I don't have data to say that what has led and what kind of content has led I think it's a every news channel needs to be a mix of all kind of content there needs to be citizen journalism there needs to be studio shows there needs to be strong views my bigger point was if we have to create a parallel of an editorial of what typically newspaper do I see a big scope there and I see a big you know leap there where news channel could take that. We have one minute left if you allow me I can take one more question. Sure Nazia go ahead. So I think this is an interesting question would you think frequency will be more important than unique reach for small indigenous brands on TV. Thus will news help. Today news has grown so much that it's helping in reach as well right it's a second biggest genre so it's giving you reach as well traditionally we have always used news as a frequency builder barring the special events but I don't know which sector you mean but you know you are referring to but if you're talking about you know SMB sectors or small medium thing then sure if you're targeting a small set of consumer you know then frequency becomes important but when you're targeting you know a large scale or a bigger set then you need reach so as long as reach or frequency depends upon what your audience base is but I'm assuming that you're talking about the strong small audience base and if that's so then sure frequency makes sense. So I we are almost out of time now and it was kind of Vishali to take the last question despite we being already out of time so before I sum up I think what Vishali has tried to say is that of course news is going is going to a very positive golden phase and it should if it work on couple of things like bringing in more credibility and bringing in correct me if I'm wrong I'm just trying to sum up what I've understood and focus more on sustainable content instead of banking too much on you know that momentary things that keep coming in it can benefit more in terms of ROI and addicts you know wherein it make a more plan content instead of just focusing on breaking news which just comes in. Am I right Vishali? Absolutely. And if it does so this is definitely going to be a very good year for news which is already which has already seen an unprecedented hike of 200-300 percent and as the industry opens as the lockdown opens it can definitely see a 50 percent or 60 percent hike in its ad grades also if it continues to get the similar amount of leadership. So we'll be back next week with another edition of News is Undervalued which is brought to you in association with ADP News. We'll be back with another very senior industry person. For this week we want to thank Vishali for her time and thank you so much for all the insight that you have given to us. We couldn't take up some questions but we'll try to accommodate them next time. Thank you very much Vishali. Thank you so much. Thanks everybody.