I don't know what they thought, but it reminded me when I did it with Professor Paritzen, it was all done, so we can watch the video. So we should have the. Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Welcome everybody to the special ICTP CISA Colloquium. We are glad to welcome today Professor Giorgio Parisi and take this opportunity to congratulate him on his Nobel Prize. This is in fact Professor Parisi's first scientific talk after he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics 2021 on October 5. And both ICTP and CISA are honoured and grateful that Professor Parisi chose to be here today with all of us here in the room and also with all the broader scientific community connected online through Zoom. We will start now with a welcome message by ICTP's director Hatish Dabalkar, followed by an introduction by Professor Rufo, director of CISA. Then we'll give the floor to Professor Parisi for his lecture. So now I leave the floor to Professor Dabalkar. Thank you. So it's a great pleasure for me to welcome all of you to this very nice ceremony. It was good to see this very warm ovation, almost like an encore in a musical concert. So maybe it was an encore for a second Nobel Prize. So it's a special pleasure for ICTP and for all of us in theoretical physics to welcome Giorgio to this colloquium today. He has made deep and far reaching contributions to really a diverse topics in theoretical physics, from evolution equations of constitutions of nuclear matter to the physics of complex systems. In fact, I encountered his work on supersymmetric matrix models, the Marinari-Parisi model as a postdoc in the field of string theory and quantum gravity. And I think this remarkable breadth of his scientific ove, I would say, has the kind of open-ended quality, which is reminiscent of the great Renaissance physicist Enrico Fermi in the finest traditions of Italian physics. And his contributions were recognized by this prestigious dirac medal in 1919, awarded by ICTP, and he has strong connections with researchers at ICTP and also CISA. And I'm also very looking forward to the title of his talk, it's quite intriguing. I think there is a famous book by Pancari with the same title called La Valère de la Science. And there is a very marvelous essay by Feynman, again with the same title. So I'm looking forward to what Giorgio has to say about this topic. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Davolcar. Now I leave the floor to CISA's director, Professor Stefano Ruffo, who will make an introduction to Professor Parisi, and an overview of his research and scientific career. So please, Professor Ruffo. Thank you. Giorgio Parisi is an exceptionally deep thinker. His career has given similar contributions in many different areas of physics and beyond, from particle physics to computer simulation, from the theory of turbulence to the statistical physics topics. He received, as you all know, the 2021 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales. With an overarching citation for groundbreaking contributions to our understanding of complex physical systems. And remarkably, he shared the Nobel Prize with Klaus Hasselman and Shokura Manabe for the physical modeling of the Earth's climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming. So, which is a very hot topic for all humanity now. It is difficult to summarize Parisi's achievements. I will first focus on one of them, the Parisi solution of spin glass. He proposed his replica symmetry breaking method that solved the Schrodinger-Kirpatrick model for spin glasses in 1979, opening the way to the study of new class of phase transitions that are different from the usual Wilson class and also different from another big class of the Berezinski-Costellis-Tauris. In this new class where ergodicity is broken in an infinite number of states unrelated by symmetry. Without prior information about the order parameter, the replica symmetry breaking method separates phase space in ergodic components, and gives information on the relative location of these components on the energy hyper-surface. This breakthrough opened the way to applications in neural network theories that remember the Amit-Goodfine-Sompolinsky solution of the OPFIL model, with an impact on the foundations of machine learning, a very, very up to date topic nowadays. In combinatorial optimization, the analytic calculation of the satisfiability threshold of the case of problem with Mezar and Zekina, and recently has allowed an exact description of structural glasses in the limit of infinite dimensions. A research area in which Giorgio is very active nowadays. I would like to briefly mention also his main contribution to particle physics, the Altarelli-Parisi equations, which is not cited in the novel document, but for which he received other important prices, notably the streaming prestigious 2021 wall price for ground backing discoveries in disorder system particle physics and statistical physics. In 1973, well before the 1977 paper with Altarelli, Giorgio started the phenomenological study of scaling violations in deep in elastic scattering in a field theoretic framework.  These equations are at the basis of all perturbative quantum chromodynamics calculations that have been recently verified with very high accuracy at the large Hadron collider collider in the same experiments where the Higgs boson has been discovered. Besides these two major achievements, there is a countless list of pioneering contribution by Giorgio Parisi to physics, which are exceptional both in depth and in breadth. I might simply list some of them stochastic quantization without gauge fixing, planar diagrams and the one-dimensional supersymmetric string that also Atish was mentioning, bosonization of fermions in lattice gauge theories, perturbative expansion and fixed dimension to compute critical exponent at phase transitions, supersymmetry and dimensional reduction in disordered systems, multifractal models of turbulence, stochastic resonance. Once the Cardard-Parisi-Zan equation for growing interface, I would like to mention that Zan, I checked with Giorgio this morning, was a sister PhD student and he was clearly very smart because he soon understood who were the right person to work with, arriving in Trieste. Stochastic manifolds in random media, collective animal motion. Let us also mention hardware construction. Maybe not many of you know, but Giorgio with Nicola Cabebo was the proponent and the scientific coordinator of the APE project in the 80s and he was directly involved in the design and both software and hardware of a family of parallel computers dedicated to the calculation of the mass spectrum in lattice gauge theories. His impact in statistical physics is comparable only to the one of Kenneth Wilson, Nobel Prize in physics in 1992. All these qualifies Giorgio Parisi as a universal thinker, a renaissance scientist as Atish was saying. Parisi's relation to CISA I would like to mention that he served as the chair of the International Scientific Advocates Committee and some of his numerous master students from Rome did their PhD at CISA and he continued in recent times to co-advice CISA PhD students and postdocs. Now I will finish from the document highlighting the scientific background of the 2021 Nobel Prize in physics I read. We recognize that scientists understand that no single prediction of anything can be taken as an assailable truth and that without understanding the origins of variability, we cannot understand the behavior of any system. I think this sentence can serve as an introduction of today's lecture by Giorgio on the value of science. Thank you, Professor Ruffo, now it is time to leave the floor to Professor Parisi for his talk on the value of science. So please, Professor Parisi, thank you. Okay, thank you very much for this very wonderful introductions. And let me start with my locker room on the sense on the value of science. Now different people, okay, I can take out, sorry, different people had a different opinion, one of the most extreme position but it's very well synthesized was done by Richard Feynman. Richard Feynman, or physicist, you know who he was, he was a wonderful stellar physicist, which won to cause the Nobel Prize, and he was considered one of the greatest physicists of the second half of the previous century. And he said it's the most sympathetic one. He was used to play boom and so on, he's a great sense of humor, and he says that science is like sex. Science, as both of them, science and sex have practical consequences, but most of the time the practical consequences are not the reasons for which we do. So, this sentence, let me not able to translate the Dante things, but it was an imperative that men and women are not done by not created for living like beasts, but we have to follow the virtue and knowledge. This was something that Dante said about what people should do, and now this statement by Feynman reflects very well the subjective position of the scientists, the subject pollutions, how they see themselves. Now, it's clear that science is a normal puzzle, and every piece of this puzzle that is put in the right place, each test, it's something like a test of a mosaic, allow you the possibility of putting other one. Therefore, this is something like a gigantic mosaic, and each scientist adds some kind of a new piece, and someone is lucky one that he will add the test of the eyes. Where all people will look around, but he can put the test of the eyes because other people put the test of the dresses and so on. And what is nice in this kind of building, that everybody knows that he has done a contribution, and also when after some time the name will be forgotten, there will be other people that will arrive that will use this result, and as been said by many people, will go on his shoulder to see if I wait. So, science is a collective endeavor that needs cooperation, science without cooperation is bad, because you discover something, you die, your discovery is forgotten. So it's clear that science is just a huge cooperative enterprise done by the whole humanity, and also science is very interesting that is in some sense, as far as I understand, is a never ending enterprise. Let me try to do a metaphor of the scientific enterprise. Let's say that some people arrives in the night on unknown island, and they are no light, no moon and so on, and they put on a fire on the beach. With the fire, you start to see something, and you understand more what is on the island, but you start to see that there are some black regions of the island that you don't understand, you just barely see something but you don't know. Now you can put more wood on the fire, the fire become bigger and bigger, more bright and bright, and now you start to see more, many more things, more wood you put on the fire, more things you see, but more things you see, you discover that the island is bigger and there are other things that you can just barely see that you don't see. Therefore, this happens more, and this happens more and more, and more you put light, more you discover there's something that you don't know. And this is the same things for science, more we explore the universe, more we know that the new regions of exploring, and its discovery not only allows us to answer to old questions, but to formulate new questions. And before, new questions that before this black discovery, we could not be able to formulate. Let me think through a relatively recent example. We all, people knew from astronomy that there were some spots on the sky that something like a neighbor and so on, but it was not clear the origin. At a certain moment, they discovered that there were galaxies, because they could see some of the spots, some of the stars and so on. Now it's clearly that this discovery has answered the nature of the neighbor that you can see, but open an infinitely many use number of questions, which are the galaxy, which are the property of the galaxies and so on. And therefore, this means that science is never ending exploration, but beyond this kind of consideration, I think that for scientists, for most of the scientists, it's fundamental that it should be amusing to solve the puzzle. My mentor, Nicola Capbibbo, was always saying when we were discussing physics, why should we study this problem if we do not amuse ourselves in doing it. Sometimes, especially when we were young, there was some kind of surprise that we were paid for doing something that we would like to do. Usually, you are not paid for what you want to do, but when scientists are paid for what you do, and my good friend, unfortunately, died already a good luck, always was saying to work as a physicist, to be a physicist is a hard work. It's quite tiring, but it's always better than to work. I mean, the reality is that it's only the following because it takes something, if you do something that you like to do, you can remain in the night after one o'clock, two o'clock working, and you don't feel the tiredness because it's you that you want to do. You have to remember that, however, that unless there were cases with the scientists that were rich men, and the research was done in the period where the rich men were not working. I'm thinking of Fermat, I'm thinking of Plinus the old. The scientists had always a problem that he has also to eat, has to find the to eat, and the application of science and being always important in order to be to eat while doing science. And you have to think to do one of the first science in astronomy. It's difficult now we live in cities which are well illuminated by electric lights. But if you think of primitive civilization where the amount of light of fire in the street was very low, the effect of the power, the prestige of those which were to control the season. To have, when the stars and so on and so on, that they controlled the movement of the stars or the planets, and they can be predicted as a crisis. They can be predicted the crisis of moon, which was already in a sudden event if you are not, if you are not cultivated, if you don't know astronomy. And also you could predict this terrifying phenomenon, which is eclipses of sun. You have to understand that eclipses of sun, if you don't know, may throw people in terror. And if somebody could tell you don't worry, there will be a crisis of sun. I will stop it when I will move my hand. The eclipses will stop and so on. This was very important for the power. And it's clearly that the people that were doing science got prestige for these things. The power, the government were paying for their life in order to do these things. So the astronomy was in some sense the first applied science. Although we think astronomy to be only pure science at the beginning, astronomy was an important science. And the motivation of the people, the astronauts, were not only culture, but sometimes were for having prestige. However, the scientists knew the importance of practical applications. For example, Galileo, you know, that discovered the Galilean planet, the Medici planet around Jupiter. And you know that this planet, at some moment, they go behind Jupiter and they cannot be seen. The time at which this happens can be predicted very easily by the law of physics at that time. And for the idea of Galileo that you could use this occultation, the planets by Jupiter as a watch, as a clock. That may be used in all parts of the world and could be used to synchronize clock in South America with a clock in Europe. And now the synchronization of the clock is fundamental because the problem of computing is the longitude. And that was very difficult to compute. The problem, the proposal Galileo was not so sufficient and practical. And after the solution was solved with a clock, the clock watch. However, that was with the aim of coordinating scientific research. In 1617, there have been founded many academies which dominated the role still as the academic society, the academic science, the American philosophical society in 1743. The American philosophical society was founded by Benjamin Franklin with the aim of providing useful knowledge. However, with going on times, science become always more useful to society. And nowadays economic development is based on scientific progress, not only on the beginning of the industrial resolution, but the science especially these days become more cost, needs more money, bigger resources and an organization which is much more complex. The second world war, science, the beginning of mass science, and not only with the Salamos that you know, but with all problems of world need a machine and so on, was crucial. And Van Rappbusch coordinated the effort of 6,000 scientists. And okay, now the scientist, the science which institution needed to be financed by society. And I think the society does not care at all if scientists amuse themselves or not. This point of view has been oppressed in a very clear way from the Soviet delegation to the Congress or history of science and technology that happened in London in 1931. That probably someone remember was one of the leaders of the Russian revolution that unfortunately died by during Stalin. He was a very popular in the United Nations type. He wrote the idea that the science as aims to itself is an internal view of the science is named. This idea mixed the subjective functions of the science of the professional scientist that works in a system of very, where the work is very strongly divided with the role, the objective social role of this kind of activities. And this is an activity with utmost practical importance. Now, it's clear that it's not possible to think of the technology that developed without an advancement of science. In the book of Lapid Arquiteto, 1977, science, pure science not only give to the applied science that needed the knowledge to develop language, metaphor, conceptual framework, but has a role more in it than and not less important. Indeed, the scientific activity of this works as some kind of very large circuit in order to test the new product, develop a new product technological product. And they have some first place where high advanced technology is used. Now, the point that science and technique are so well integrated, may think that the science will have a wonderful future in a society that become always more dependent about advanced technology. However, if you give a look around, you see that you are starting to have some problems. Indeed, you have problems that are of different kinds. The prestige of science is sometimes decreasing. There are strong anti-scientific tendency in our society. Well, not so strong, but they have a certain weight and you can see also here. And some trust in science is decreasing with the time. And as you start to have some not only people that come back to astrology, to homoeropathy, and you have anti-scientific position, for example, you can see Novaks, you can see all the story about Silelli and South Italy, bio and also the, how to say, the bio-dynamics agriculture that should be approved, I hope not by law or state. And it's amusing that this kind of anti-scientific position, let's say, are diffused themselves with, together with a very hungry consumeristic idea of consuming product-high technology. I mean, most of the people have a very, very smart phone. This main smart phone is some incredible condensator technology and so on. But having a smart phone does not forbid the people to make anti-scientific statement. And it's not easy to understand really the origin of this phenomenon. However, as a scientist and also a citizen of our country, it's clear that at least myself, maybe I hope also you, you don't like this phenomenon or this anti-scientific position because of this anti-scientific position, the end I damage the whole society. But, however, if you want to fight something, you have first to understand the deep roots. If you don't understand the deep roots of something, it's clear that you cannot put no remedy if you don't know the course. Now, one could say that it's possible that this starting of this untrusting, missing trust in the science can be done from the fact that the scientists are not sometimes too present in an arrogant way. Sometimes they are anti-patic when they speak and they try to present science as absolute knowledge and respect to all other knowledge that can be discussed. However, this they present also when there are some scientific positions that are not completely sure. And, for example, therefore, they have some way, I mean, it's clear that if you have two people, if someone sees the television, there are two people. One is sympathetic, one is anti-patic. You believe to the sympathetic one. And the scientist is the television is anti-patic, no matter what he says. He may be perfectly right, but the result is negative. I speak in arrogance because sometimes you try to have, you don't try to show to the public the proof that you have or something, but you ask to the public to believe in an unconditional trust and an expert. Now, just the need, just the fact that sometimes the scientists do not accept their limits. I mean, there are many things that the scientists do not know, but it's very hard to hear the public talk to some scientist say, no, that I don't know. I mean, you have to understand that you have limits and there is not an acknowledgement of the limit that may limit the prestige of scientists. Sometimes they are too safe on something which is, on which you are not so safe. And sometimes the public opinion is very good in realising the limiting of the scientists and they understand the partiality of what they say. Now also, there is another point that there are people that are doing, they present science in a bad way and science is presented as some kind of wizardry. I mean, what is a wizardry? I mean, think of the old wizardry. You move something and something transforms something else. For example, like in many of our favourites. Sometimes, therefore the results are presented in such a way that you cut all the things intermediate and you discover this as a wizardry, more or less. And now, because you cut all the steps. And now this is, and also something is done for the publisher also to get publicity to some kind of propaganda. We had many times in the news and newspaper a big discovery for medicine that ended nothing or may appear on the market in 20 years and so on. And so this way that the scientists do present themselves as propaganda, doing propaganda to get money, to impress the public to get support.  This is very dangerous because someone that is not a scientist may be driven into an irrational position in front of a science that is also perceived as a wizardry. And therefore to prefer to science something that is also irrational, that is very irrational. This has been discussed a long time ago by a wonderful book on Mark Otero, or Rappel Architekto. But in a nutshell, if science becomes absurd or wizardry, why don't you don't choose the original wizardry and not an imitation of the wizardry? I mean, and I don't say that science is an imitation of wizardry, but the way that sometimes presented looks that way. So we have to do something different in this situation. And there's also important things that we should take care of, that we should not have confidence on the fact that if we need technology, science will go on. We know that in the past, things were not this way. The Romans had taken the technological science from Greece, but they had taken the technology, sorry, the Romans had taken from technology, the technology from Greece, but they had not taken science from Greece. Science, during the Roman time, time had disappeared. And also we have to remember that later on, the Christians killed Patia, and they did not care at all of the consequences of long term killing the mathematicians. On the other hand, they were happy of the disappearance of some knowledge that was considered useful and dangerous. And also we must be careful that before we have this kind of possibility of disappearing of science. Maybe not disappearing of science in all the countries, but we may have disappearance of the science in some countries. And therefore the future of science in Italy is something that is something for which we have to fight. It's not something that we have taken to grant. We have to remember that Italy has had a very strong decline of technological. And what happened in Italy? We have a very systematic deindustrialization, I mean the Christian deindustrialization in Italy. And we remember, I mean, usually from the 60s, there had been the killing of Mattei. There was a people that did Marotta, that did a factory for producing penicillin in Italy that was arrested, not for putting the factory, but it was something that was stopped in this. The Benedetti, when the Benedetti died, the whole electronics that was developed by the Benedetti industry, just not the Benedetti. Okay. Olivetti, Olivetti, sorry, Olivetti. The Olivetti things, when Olivetti died, I mean, the first microcomputer, microchips for computer were produced in Italy. And therefore we have all the type of disappearance and the selling of big part of our pharmaceuticals to outside and taken the farm outside. So Italy had a very strong decrease of technological capabilities. And it's possible that also without an industry of this type, if we don't do a strong investment, also science is going to disappear to Italy and we will come at something very near to the third world. And now you will see that we have, in Italy, we have a slow decay of public school. We have a strong disinvestment of the government in what you can call cultural goods. For example, the restoration of the colosseum that is very important was paid by private funds because the state did not put money to restore the colosseum. And the money that was given for cinema, from state for quality cinema is decreasing. And the thing that is decreasing from 20 years or more than a part of the truth is that cinema in Italy was a very important cultural asset.  And we see that we have a low decrease of all cultural activities in Italy and sometimes also in other forms. Now the things that we need that we have to defend the culture in Italy versus the world, also we have to avoid to lose our ability to transmit the culture to the new iteration. And that is something that is very important and very important that culture and science are not two things that are separated but a two phase of the same coin. And also it's quite important that we defend science not only for those practical aspects but also for the cultural value. I mean, I remember very well a very important man, Robert Wilson that was one of the founding of Accelerator in the United States. And he was planning, was one of the planning to be the big Accelerator of Milab at the Batarian Illinois that was an extremely important step for physics. And it went to the Senate and an American Senate asked him which are the applications of the construction of the Accelerator. Now, he had a two choice. Start to discuss whether we can do this with Accelerator. Accelerator may be useful for construct material and so on. We study the protons and the protons are important because everything is done by protons or things like that. And he gave an answer which was very, I think it's a wonderful answer and says that no, this Accelerator is not useful for industry. It's not useful for defend the country. It's not useful for doing new arms and so on. This was a question that was asked but the value of this Accelerator is in the love for culture. It is like painting, like sculpture, like poetry, like all those activities that we Americans are like as in a patriotic way. We are proud of this activity in a good patriotic mood. It does not need to defend our country but it is such that it is worthwhile to defend our country. So it's clearly that this is some kind of defense of science and defense on culture and something that we have to say because in this period not only we have problems with science and with culture. And if we need to present science as culture we have to make the population as far as we can understand what is the science, how science is done. I think that we realize especially during the COVID how you arrive consensus because one of the things that I see many, many times of people saying well there is one paper that says something but one paper is not it's part of science but it's not the response of science. The response of science where the scientists are convinced that the paper is right they reproduce the paper they discuss the paper with points, the corrector with points. So science is a collective endeavor it's not one paper. So presenting one paper that is something that we do not understand. People do not understand and therefore we need to present science and our science culture a connected one with the other. We have to present which has been the story of science and culture and how consensus which important things of science is formed how does this formation or consensus is a really democratic way between the people that understand scientists. We have to explain in a way that does not appear to my magic what do scientists which have the things that we understand and that is very difficult especially for scientists like the one like physics where you get a lot of mathematics but we always say that science cannot be understood who has not studied mathematics but the same things we could say for science poetry which could not be understood for those which do not know Chinese. Indeed if you look to Chinese poetry this is something that cannot be translated because it's a mixture of literature and painting. I mean no one care or maybe someone care of the original manuscript of L'Opavdi on L'Infinito but no one thinks that reading the original manuscript of L'Opavdi you get a better understanding of L'Opavdi poetry. Now on the other end the original manuscript the unique manuscript of a Chinese poetry is what counts in many cases when you produce the poetry you will produce the characters the writing of the author because the writing of the author is a picture, it's a painting and therefore it is something that you cannot really appreciate if you don't know where the Chinese I have a Chinese poetry in Italian you lose some of the original value but you get some that you can appreciate Chinese therefore in the same way you could be able to have an appreciation of mathematics or mathematics things also if you are not a mathematician therefore I have to add something that is more difficult not more difficult something for which it's not so easy to find a solution that I believe that the difficulties that there are with science with some portion part of the society but it depends on the country have a more deep origin and this deep origin they have to understand well in order to control them now we all understand that we are in a period of pessimism on the future I mean the future is not seen as something we have a crisis of various nations we have an economic crisis we have a climate crisis we have the end the crisis due to the end of resources I mean we are using we are not using renewable resources and non-renewable resources and near to the end we have an increase of pollution and we have also in certain countries an increase of inequalities not always we have in our country the precariate I mean the fact that young people do not have a permanent job which was completely different we have an increase of unemployment we have a lot of wars that have not stopped after the second war something like 50 million 100 million people died of war after the second one I am not checked this number but I think they are all correct and now you see once upon a time everybody was thinking that the future would be better than the present however that is not anymore true people will have a strong fear that the future may be worse than the present and now the trust in the progress the trust in what Lopati was calling the magnificent and progressive I mean the idea that we are going always towards a better situation is no more valid many people fear that future generation will be worse than the present generation I think that this is a sociological fact I don't say that these kind of fears are founded, some of them are well founded climate change and so on I think that if we something that we move if we use science we can stop however at once upon a time science had the merit of the progress because everybody says electric light and so on due to science and so on and now science in some sense have the habit of the fact that there is a decline I mean I don't say that the decline is due to science or there is a real decline but there is a perceived decline and in some sense science in the same way that was responsible for the growth for the further situation was better is considered in some sense maybe something that is not said in an explicit way but the things that makes part of the mood and I mean science sometimes is considered to be a better teacher which is considered humanity in the wrong direction and this perception is not easy we cannot go in the street and say we are a good teacher not a bad teacher we have to do something else and there is you see with all the elections Trump and many other elections there is a big dissatisfaction in the public which shows up in both people that vote against everybody that carries humanity in this present position in this presence of crisis and the scientists do not escape to this negative procedure now it's clear that it's not easy what we should do we have ourselves we stay in a very difficult situation and first all I think one of the things that is important is very important that scientists are honest honest with themselves I mean they are usually honest when they speak of scientific things but they must be honest also in realizing all these types of aspects and try to speak with the people and also there should be a more important effort to teach science in the school this is very important to teach science in the school because science is if you teach learn something in the school you learn all the life but the way that unfortunately science is teaching in the school nowadays is not an optimal one it's something which science is presented as an accomplished factor but what is in science is not so much a accomplished factor but it's a trajectory you will see science has been produced is the act of doing science that is important in the same way of the metaphor by Feynman at the beginning therefore you have to explain if you want to explain how science is done you have to have the children to do science by themselves to do discoveries by themselves and that can be done that can be done also from the from the school from the kindergarten kindergarten elementary school and so on and this was a lesson of the method of Maria Montessori the great Italian educator whose face was put on the bank note of 1000 livres but the method had been partially forgotten and what is important that the teacher should prepare for the pupils for the children some very well prepared settings some well prepared environment and once they should be stimulated to do this the child should explore what they have to see the experiment they have to do with their face we will give them all the time they need because if you discover something by yourself this is 1000 times more valuable than someone else teaches you so we have to what we have to do is to change drastically the way that science is taught I mean no practical, no school maybe a few one in school also for high school scientific school it's organized in the way that people can do experiments in the school we have seen the experiment done by the teacher but they do the experiment by themselves therefore we have to do we have to do a very strong effort we have to do a very strong effort to change the way that science is taught to involve the children in this kind of activities in other countries there's a wonderful movement in the past that was done by many other people in France and that is something that is very important there are other types of initiatives to construct a museum where people can meet themselves Rome is the city which is the only big capital of Europe I guess it doesn't have a museum of science so we have to do a lot of things and that comes also to the responsibility of scientists it's scary that part of the things is the responsibility of the politicians due to the fact that some decisions should be politically even but if the scientists themselves do not push for a change in teaching of science do not push for every museum in science do not push from a presentation of science to the public in such a way that the people in the public can follow in a clear way and they do not push for no magic presentation of science it's clearly if this is not done by scientists it will certainly no one else will do so I think that as scientists we have a huge responsibility not only to go on with science to do what we should do in various fields of science and to move science in the direction of doing something useful for example something that is good for contrasting the climate change or without neglecting the course of basic science because many times the discovery comes from in a completely expected way but we have to move in this direction and if things do not happen we cannot say that is not our fault ok thank you thank you again professor Parisi for a wonderful talk it was nice to see a full hold today and we had more than 700 people connected online both on zoom and youtube and facebook so thank you again for helping us disseminating science especially with younger physicists that will hopefully build a future community of great scientists so now it is time for some questions so please feel free to ask questions again both here in the room through zoom the Q&A session will be moderated by professor Dabalkar and by professor Matteo Marcilli for the questions on zoom so I leave the floor to Q&A thank you thank you for this wonderful talk Giorgio and we have time for a few questions yes yes hello Carla Pacheca Lupe Sissa you are in a location in which politicians made strategic investments for placing international institutions in an area which was a border between two different systems do you think that scientists and science institutions are still up to the task and which barrier can we break today well to break barrier in science a barrier from different fields is something difficult and of course any type of effort is welcome for example well in academia where I belong we have two different classes and we have a lot of discussion among people, scientists and humanists what I was told that you know that the institute of Veneto there is really interdisciplinary discussion on everything so barrier maybe go down but one has to do an effort because he likes destroying walls if you find a wall and you don't destroy it separates always people from one side to the other side it is one question over there so Andrea Gambasi Sissa so you trace back the mistrust in science to the scientists presenting science as an ultimate truth so like you said the problem is what about instead when the scientists go in TV shows in I would say quite depressing way on scientific teams on the TV shows these also create mistrust sometimes what is the basic engine of science becomes the basic engine of mistrust in science because they don't know to whom they should believe in a sense of behavior this type of discussion television and being somewhat a disaster and I think that it's not only before to the scientists which have their responsibility but also the people that are organizing the program because clearly if they put together two scientists the audience will be smaller and if we put the scientists we start to acquire high they are more interested and I think they considered something that was extremely well done in a very bad way all these things because if you have to have two people two saints the natural things will become one hour in advance discuss about who is yourself clear one to the other your opinion and after that you understand what the other is saying is you can go on and having a discussion I mean I had the experience for example personally I had the experience with Bassetti Bassetti was we had the discussion because Bassetti was saying that all the decreases in England were due to vaccination I want to say no the beginning of the decreasing was not due to vaccination because they were not vaccinated at the time and the second part was very important was useful to vaccination we have not been able to understand each other in front of the public because when you stay in front of the public you speak for having the public understand what you say and I think that all these discussions will be not present if we had the time to change to see look and compute the derivative here of discover the slope and so on and discuss on the numbers but if you don't have discussion before it's clear that also you have to understand that scientists I am not easy people I mean they start to fight one with the other one in congress and if the the survey conferences or 727 or with all discussion between former Einstein will be on prime time on the televisions it's clear that people had a good scientist and they were not on prime time on the television time to discuss and take some time to form consensus and the point that in this case you had to show people the television before consensus was formed and that was a disaster plus a certain attitude to play as a prima donna ok maybe we can take one question now from from Matteo there is a question from Matteo Seclich he asks what do you think about the numerological evaluation of scientific merit we are facing more and more such as the importance given to the research index and the likes do you think it has led to a commodification of science well I think that numerology is one of the 10 different instruments that can be used to evaluate I mean past all numerology does not make sense if you do not apply in a restricted field when you apply in a restricted field it may give some importance sorry I have to look sorry what say that the numerology gives you some information I mean if you know that a given paper in a given field it has been quoted one hundred times ten times in the first approximation tells you that the paper has been quoted one hundred times is as likely to add more impact on the field unless people have forgotten to put the first paper but I mean it gives some information when you have to make a judgment is some kind of information that must be complemented to other things now numerology is something that may be also to a different place where it could be used one place if you have to consider the old department the average the average activity on the department is numerology is the first way to get the result of course numerology should never be used if you want to therefore if you want to evaluate the department of 30 people you can do the numerology you may do mistakes in one direction mistakes in the other direction the mistakes do cancels if you have to evaluate someone for a position you should not do you may look to numerology just to see how this guy reflects with other scientists but you should not use in a serious way numerology so numerology for something to get what to say in Italian the ability the ability to I mean the statement that you have to become full professor of numerology should have should be not used or used in much much less way that is now and also if you want to pull someone and you should not use numerology is some pass way to discuss to see people that in case that you do not have time to look to everything can be used but of course it should not be used on individuals or at minimum there is one question or that hello this is Audia from ICTP the value of science is strongly connected to communication I mean the way we communicate science the Italian experience has clearly given shown two big failures I don't know whether this is from the science or from the society view point I mean we've seen that the example of Lacula earthquake was a science communication issue there was a big failure in this and then recently we've seen also the pandemics and is there anything that we should really rethink in the way we natural scientists can really talk to the society and is there any way to rethink new curricula between natural and social sciences by which we could help society evolve at the same speed where science is evolving so to avoid that the future will be a bad one for society as science keeps evolving I mean the future for science will be always better right while for society it seems like we still well I think that something that something that we have seen also in the pandemics is an impact that the scientists sometimes are not good to communicate and they communicate badly so I think that there should be some there should be some professional figure that also scientists but more more inclined to do communications in order to in order to communicate in a better way because I mean I notice a few times I notice people doing the conference and so on and then I take notice sometimes they use a technical word that everybody will understand in a different way and that is a mess because people that they even do not understand for example mistakes that's done by often very mathematician and also by physicists is to use the word the discreet in the sense to something that's done by finite number or element or a separable number or element I refuse to speak with in a conference with laymen people with a discreet value they do not understand what you mean they understand discreet in the common sense therefore it's a big effort to communicate to people and this is a mess with the patient period of COVID in Germany Drosten has spent a lot of time doing every week and our video wonderful done explained the situation this video has been seen millions of times and that was a good way to communicate but to do good communication it takes time it takes effort okay Matteo maybe one last question from if there is one no there is no question on the chart okay anybody else any okay maybe I will ask one question you made two important points about science namely the importance of community to arrive at a consensus which is very important to science and also the decline in the prestige of science and there is a related also in certain academic circles it has become fashionable to say that science is just a social construct so even though you have a community of scientists it is no different from a community in some cult somehow trying to deprive science of its objectivity so do you want to comment upon this trend towards interpreting science as a construction well if I hope that understood well your question the point is that you should do some I mean science is evolving so the type of division in science that were valid half a century ago are changing with time and we have some different kind of specific enterprises that are in the middle between mathematics and physics or between physics and biology informatics and physics and so on and so on for example all problem of learning is something that related to neural network of a neural network what it is something that was born in biology because of the paper it was studied by physics by the paper that mentioned it went to informatics and so on artificial intelligence is something that is in the middle and it is something that requires a lot of different kind of contributions to have one to have something I think that it is nice to have some reflection of different ways of teaching things to aggregate things in some way we could say that the science is something like a jacket which is done by only one piece of tissue and when you have a course at university you cut a piece of the jacket but that jacket has its own unity so to try to preserve this unity of science is something that will be very important and also to put different selection different way to cover science OK so if there are no further questions I would like to thank both on behalf of CISA and ICTP Georgia Stefan I just want to make one quick announcement so in the afternoon we have the Dirac medal ceremony and the two of the Dirac medalists Prof. Pierre Ramon and Prof. André Nouveau they are sitting in the first row and Miguel Virassaro and the third Dirac medalist for the year 2020 was our former director Miguel Virassaro who unfortunately is not with us but there will be a ceremony in the afternoon and also in memoriam session to honour the memory of Miguel Virassaro in the Boudinich Hall so thank you very much for coming


An MB-22 Osprey's normal manifest typically consists of an all-marine crew and maybe some cargo. But at Marine Week Cleveland, more than 40 civilian passengers, including science writer John Mangels, from Cleveland's plane dealer newspaper, have to hitch a ride high above the Cleveland skyline. Mangels has more than 30 years experience, riding with and reporting on more than five kinds of military aircraft. It was an amazing experience. It's hard to believe that it's that versatile. It can fly the way it does horizontally, vertically. I've been on a lot of aircraft, but I've got to say that's the most unique one I've flown on. The Marines took off from Burke Lakefront Airport and proceeded to fly over the downtown and warehouse district of Cleveland before moving east along the coast of Lake Erie. Well, I think it's a unique opportunity for Cleveland to have Marine Week. And I know a lot of people are excited about getting out, meeting you guys, seeing the equipment, seeing what you're capable of doing, seeing the demonstrations. Marine Week runs to Gene 17th, giving journalists and the public a better look into the everyday lives of Marines. For Marine Week Cleveland, I'm Lance Corporal John Tucker.


Thank you and good evening ladies and gentlemen, good evening fellow panellists. Thankfully with none of the gentlemen on stage do I have to stand on formality. But it's mighty disturbing that in a week or a fortnight when Mitu is the flavour of the season, this is mansplaining at its worst. So I have a specific message for the ladies in the audience, please boo us frequently. I think the men need to be shown their place. I will try my darnedest but I wouldn't mind having some help. Sam is already smiling. Sam, you can provoke other people to smile along with you. Gentlemen on the stage, good evening and welcome and always good to meet all of you. We can banter substantially later. The problem today is we are up against a 45 minute deadline, which is not a hell of a lot of time to have six fine intellects, extremely capable speakers, extremely articulate men on stage with me. It's now four minutes shy of eight. So we have to finish four minutes shy of 8.45.  I'm really, really hoping that considering that some of the most senior people in the industry are here, we can try to walk away with at least a tiny blueprint of what such a thing might look like. I don't think we can write out a prescription, but let's at least try to get to maybe two, three things that could possibly look like a framework for it. And Ajay, you are the one client on stage. There are two broadcasters and three agency heads and there is a zero moderator. So you've got zero, one, two, three right there. So I'm going to start with you. And as there were some people saying you're the wrong kind of client to have here because the way that you work with agencies is somewhat different, but I'm going to ask you to sort of pretend to be the typical client rather than Ajay the client and take it in that spirit. So here's my first question. You know, back when I started working there was a notion, when I was a brand manager in 1985 there was a notion, Vicky remembers this because he joined soon after, we took the agency relationship very seriously as in it was a custodial relationship for a brand and it was a joint custody, it was a partnership and this was taken really, really very seriously. So the one aspect of that that was extremely important was that these were durable relationships.  Nothing has changed. Amul is still his client much the same as it was when it was an integrated agency. He treats it like his same way, in the same way. Durability of relationships was a big deal. What is it that has happened in your mind that such partnerships don't endure anymore? I mean, why is it that clients feel that they can, you know, sort of cherry pick month on month or week on week or year on year and there's a flavor of the season this year and another flavor next year? I represent the financial services business and we are known for risk factors, so I'm qualifying with a risk factor. I'm not speaking about anyone to my left, I'm not speaking to anyone about my right, I'm not speaking about anyone in the audience. But when we grew up, we always heard our parents say, our times were like this. I think the people in this panel have reached a point where we can also say, our times were like this. That was not the right time. So if you say that my parents lived together happily for 25 years, 30 years, 50 years, 55 years, that was not the right time. So even if you look at the relationships you're talking about, think people have become more promiscuous, people have become more fickle, people have become more demanding, less accepting, blah, blah, blah, blah. So it's representing the social environment. I remember growing up seeing the corks of the world as the most loyal agency client partnerships. They don't exist today. I've heard and can the cork CMO saying openly, I'm happy to give projects to anyone and everyone. So I think the problem is possibly both sides. And since I've represented both sides, let me admit that who starts delivering first? The agency side will say you don't pay me enough and the client will say I don't get enough. So I think you both have to accept what is it that you're paying for and what is it that you're asking for? If you decide what the media agency delivers, I think promiscuity may not be as prevalent as it is today. I don't think there's an agreement on what is it that I expect and what is it that you're delivering. Okay, so this promiscuity you are saying arises from heightened expectations. So those expectations must be quantifiable. So what is the kind and you know, for a moment, let's step aside from media agency.  Think of the other service providers, think of the market research agency, think of your creative agency, think of your digital agency.  How do you know that it's happening? So if I wear a client hat, I only have three metrics that immediately come to mind. My top line, my bottom line and my number of valued customers. The problem I face is that none of the partners you mentioned speak this language. None of these partners are happy to own my KRS. I'm not sure how many partners know what a client's KRS are. And as I said in the asterisks, when I say mine, I mean ours. No, no, obviously. Not mine. I get that. So I think that's the problem. We all come with what we have to offer, not what the client needs. So I'll end it with one small example of my industry. My industry is very full of itself and we believe that everyone wants a car loan. We believe everyone wants a house, a home loan. The fact is nobody needs a car loan. Nobody needs a home loan. They want a home or a car. The loan is a necessary evil. As long as the partners realize that we are here to deliver business results, now let's see what do we deliver? How do I contribute? I think the relationship will be very different. Vikram, that's an interesting point he makes, that the service industry is unfamiliar with the tasks that the client is up against and that the language that the service industry speaks therefore is alienating and not collaborative. Is this an allegation you are willing to accept? To an extent, yes. Look, it's okay. I'm just going to back up for a sec. Between strategy and price, strategy is hygiene and price is the determining factor when a decision is taken to give business to an agency or not. Now why is that happening? Is it because the metrics are not in place? Possibly. Do we not understand their business well enough? Possibly. But I think somewhere along the line, I think we are still known as media buyers. We are not known as marketing investment managers. And if I use the word marketing investment managers in this group out here, you think they're talking about some alien thing, not media agencies. And I think that's fundamental. As long as our brand stays out here, buyers, that's what's going to be the final stuff on which you're going to be right now evaluated. Is that right? No, it's not right. So how do we move to a place where it can become better? I think we have to now to what Ajay is also saying. We've got to agree on the outcomes that actually media can deliver. And then we can tell them, listen guys, is top line better? Is saving bottom line better? Those conversations aren't happening. So I agree with Ajay to the extent that outcomes need to be defined and then need to be more important than the saving. Raj is getting impatient about saying something. I'm getting impatient because he said there are 45 minutes and I don't want to waste the topic going round and round. No, obviously. I want to come straight to the point. First of all, I disagree with Ajay.  How can you hold him responsible for the top line and bottom line? I mean, that's not the job of an advertising agency. Okay. At the same time, media agencies, again. And I think because I know the reason why this panel was put from what I heard from the host is that Puneet Gowenkar's letter to all the agencies saying, you know, don't pitch. And I think that is the crux of the issue. And I think we all want to be politically correct. Nobody want to address it. My thing is, and that is the bone of contention that exists today, agencies are going out and pitching to clients saying, we will get you 20% lower than what you were getting earlier. Now there's another monster who's come. I don't want to name them. But two, three audit agencies who are going and telling the clients, put pressure on your agency, shift the agency if they can't give you another 30%. That is the issue. Okay. And that's why I said, you know, I was the person who said, you are the wrong client to be on this table. My thing is, and I'll give you specific examples. Cadbury says an example. The account moved from Madison, went to Denso, both are sitting on this table. From 1st of January it will be with another agency. What has the client benefited? First, two, if you're saying 20% discount you will get year on year on year. At some point broadcasters will have to give their spots at zero value. The yield has come down year on year. Agencies are not making money. And that is my question. I've got some distinguished people on this panel here and all big agencies. Okay. And my question is, hey, how are you accepting this mandate from your clients? Okay. Why are you going and promising it? I know of agencies who have returned money to their clients. They are going and pitching businesses and then returning money to the client. I mean, what kind of a business is this?  And that is my issue. Raj, I think that's why I just thought I'll bring it. No, no, no. Fantastic.  Years and years and years ago, Sam, who I have acknowledged and credited with this particular quote, it was only three of us on the stage, Chintamani, you and me, at Fiki Frame some dozen years ago. Sam said those potatoes belong to you. You decide what you want to sell them at. It's his job to deliver potatoes to the guys who make chips out of them. But you, Ashish, you guys own the potatoes. Now, when an agency comes to you and says that this is what they are going to pitch with, why is it that you are, why are you even responding? I mean, if somebody from your team shows up on your doorstep, Ashish, let me ask you this. When somebody in your team shows up at your doorstep and says that the agency has to pitch right now and they have asked for 15% less, what will you do? I think it's a very good question you asked. We can't blame one here. No, no, partner, I'm blaming you now. I'm asking you as a net of business that if a client has asked, agency has agreed, ultimately it is my product which I am selling, and if I don't agree, they both fail. So as a broadcaster somewhere also, overall as a community I'm saying, we are also at fault by fueling that fire. And obviously there are certain circumstances where all of us would have somewhere or the other, probably would have accepted certain such kind of circumstances. So just saying that client is for to be blamed or then the agency is to be blamed or then the broadcasters to be blamed, I think we are all taking part in it. It's a demand supply situation. The business and the broadcasting business or the communication business itself has fragmented so much that everybody is earning for that last rupee. So in that, you know, anxiety, we are all looking forward to give that discount. But I mean, I won't speak for myself right now. I'm giving you a general, you know, overview of what the business is here. Even if there are four to five big broadcasters who say no, there are tons of channels which are still available, can probably make certain plans go, you know, and deliver what an agency is wanting for the client. However, as I said, obviously the whole process starts from the client and then goes on to the broadcaster or the publisher or the digital agency, whichever. Ashish, let me interrupt you. You know, the buck stops somewhere, right? Somewhere along the line, somebody in the organization, and I'm now talking about the sellers, so therefore you, Raj and people like yourselves, somewhere it comes to your desk and it's your question to answer. Is this something that I'm going to be able to support? Or am I not? Shall I answer? Of course. We're living in an ecosystem. I mean, we are the same people who do business with each other day in and day out. And it's not that it's the only business from a particular agency. The reason we are sitting here collectively today is because it's not a broadcaster problem. It's not an agency problem, because I sometimes shudder to think how Vikram, Ashish and Sashi run their business because they have to give... First of all, they work on a miniscule commission. I don't know how they work on that commission in the first place. Then they are supposed to give their... Even if they earn some incentive, volume incentive, they are supposed to give that back to the agency. And then there is an audit of the whole proceedings. Right now, the way it works, to a certain extent, some businesses we don't take.  We can live without you. And I'm sure Ashish has done the same. Yes. And Starr and Sony at different points of time, different people have done the same. It's not that we haven't done. But we are all collectively in this. We have a relationship. So at this moment, we help out each other saying, listen, at this moment, it is a crisis situation for the industry. It's not a crisis situation, but load star or thing. It's an industry situation and the industry has to come together to address it. Otherwise, and correct me, I would like to ask Ashish Vikram or Sashi to contradict me if I'm wrong. The industry has to come together to sort this out. So since you know this, the elder statesman on the stage is Sashi. So he now has to actually get on to this one. Sashi, you know, we get to a point. He's the Vishma Pitama. Yeah, he's been writing on a, he's been wearing crowns of thorns. He's been lying on beds of arrows. And I know of many of them. So I can vouch for that. But Sashi, since you've seen this over a long period of time, in a sense, Raj puts everybody in the dock. He's saying that the entire value chain is in the dock. But the problem is that somebody has to snap out of it, right? Who snaps out of it? Who calls this bluff? So I'll first say this, that it's a cute problem. I think probably Raj is the only one who's called it out as cute as a problem it is. And I'm happy to report that when we're doing this panel discussion, it's a great time. I think what IBF has done, broadcasters have done, saying, giving kind of a guideline, saying that agency should not discount. I'm told INS has also done the same. And I must give credit to our new chairman of 3SFI, Ashish, who's here, who's also spearheading this entire movement to ensure there's consensus amongst agencies. There are many checks and balances. There are global pitches, global clients. How do you do it? But the level to which it is dropped, I don't want to say everything in the public forum, but the level to which it is dropped, where global pitches consultants come in and then they ask channel-wise, program-wise rates, to stop, we have to give it time. Some correction already being made. There was a pitch recently where I sent in, we may win the business, we may lose the business. We sent in the IBF and INS guidelines in Bangalore, saying this is what it is. I'm sure a couple of other agencies weren't sure vacant for the big daddy in the room. But I remember Samson telling me he's also done the same. So I think Ashish has done a great job of leading this change. Any change takes time. And I think suffice it to say, that if we are knit together, there will be some teething problems. You did it, I didn't do it. Someone has did it, you broke the ranks. All that will happen. But without calling it collective action, there is a feeling that this has to stop. Because not only is it hurting agencies, as Raj said, not only is it hurting broadcasters, it's also hurting clients. Because there are finance guys in the CEOs, and there's a case in point where one of Vikram's clients moved in saying, this is what we are delivering, now they're stuck because quality of delivery is poor, finally the brands are suffering. But they're stuck because that's the metric the finance guys have set in. So I think look forward, ask Ashish. I think under Ashish's leadership a lot is happening. Probably six months down the line, we'll be in a very good position to report this. Ashish, quite apart from the fact that, of course, hearty congratulations on the new responsibility. One of the things that I, ladies and gentlemen, I need to say about everybody on the stage is that we have a very small number of people who actually take on industry responsibilities, who are willing to work for stuff that is not only parochial to their individual companies, and many of them are actually here on the stage. So a round of applause for people who actually work for industry and not just their own companies. Ashish, you've been talking about all kinds of industry things for a very, very long time. This is a great new responsibility to have. Very often in the past it has been tokenism, but what Shashi is suggesting is that you are actually digging your teeth into a really large steak. How hard is it? Because history suggests that this kind of, as he was very, you know, Shashi was careful to say about collective action, but it is a shared misery. How will you exacerbate the sense of this anxiety or this worry and, you know, cause it, create it to become causative, to make it cause change? Look, first of all, the Bhishma Pitama of the industry is just crediting me for something which I happen to be currently chairing through. I'm sure that everybody felt and everybody decided that this is the route that we should take. You're absolutely right that there is no 100% way of guaranteeing it. There are going to be lots of issues around it. And I'm sure we'll not be perfect from the day that we start, but today if you're at zero, hopefully if you make some efforts, the only way you can go is up. So that's the background to it and to solve that. But I think the bigger issue that we need to debate at the moment which we sort of are kind of glossing over is the whole thing of price versus strategy. It is, look, every client gets what he or she deserves and equally every agency gets what he or she deserves. I have no qualms in saying that I'm in this business for making money. I'm not an NGO. Every year I'm making more profits so that I can invest in my business, make it healthier, pay my people better, invest in data, invest in all of that. So there is my responsibility to make sure my business is profitable. And that's not going to, in a free market scenario with nearly unlimited supply, I mean there are so many channels, there are so many options and hundreds of agencies, that's not going to happen by clients saying that okay, tomorrow you can do less, I'll pay you more. So today I as an agency, I don't know about the broadcasters, can earn more is by showing more value to my client for which he will be willing to pay. And what I have observed in the last five to seven years is that the whole complexion of the advertising industry is changing pretty rapidly. There are some legacy agencies which are still caught in very old-fashioned way of thinking, very linear in that, and that part of the business, that part of the business is clearly under pressure. But equally there are so many new things emerging today which when I was a young person in advertising they didn't exist, for example data. There are big businesses emerging around their digital performance. Today 17% of the entire market is digital. My agency gets almost 50% of its business from digital. Out of home, there are going to be 40, 50 different airports coming up in India. And now start thinking that what more ways can we add value? It's not just that we are going to ever be able to charge more for the same thing. What else do we bring to the party? And I think broadcasters equally will have to start seeing that, you know, how do we add more value to the ecosystem and then the client has to pay because nobody wants to miss out on that. Vikram, one is of course that the company keeps widening but I want you to while you are keen to answer just one more thought. This everybody understands price. Everybody knows what price. It's very easy to say that this is 10 rupees, that's 9. 10, 9 is cheaper than 10. What is this strategy? I mean we haven't bothered to actually define what specifically is the strategic input that you as an agency bring to the table and does the client actually understand and to understand it. And evaluate it in that way. Okay, great. Actually I'll answer it. It's linked to that only. Okay. We've all grown up in media saying there are two parts of media effectiveness and efficiency. The reality is efficiency because it was easily measurable has been put under an electron microscope. Effectiveness has been given the slot of lip service. Now post earlier there used to be some kind of analytics and awareness planning and those kind of things which used to be all good stuff but now post digital coming in you can actually do a whole lot of online stuff which actually leads to some kind of outcomes as I call them. There are couple of clients where we are the sole sales channel. In one we are the sole sales channel and the second one we are about 50% of the sales that they get from us. These clients don't bother us about price. We're delivering sales. You've suddenly minimized the issue of the cost part by actually going to the top line which has much higher exactly the point. So sales is one aspect of it. Awareness is another aspect of it. Trying to build some degree of there are different engagement metrics. Now for example I believe today that if you want to make somebody think about your brand that is an outcome to be achieved. It's a via media to a final thing but you're getting them to think about it. Now there is a metric and now I think a lot of these digital majors are there is about the dwell time the amount of time they spend you spend on a piece of content there seem to be a good sort of engagement. If I can actually go and tell people that I've delivered a plan where people actually spend time in your content it could be your ad, it could be a blog, it could be search, it could be anything. But there is a bunch of ways in which they spend more time with your brand and that is something which is worth so and so and they actually put a value to it. It is not an esoteric conversation it's a very real conversation but I think it needs to be evolved people on both ends. I don't think there are enough people in the clients and also revolve enough to have this conversation. I'd love it if that happened too. Ajay you heard him three or four isolated points if I'm allowed to say the first is that when you talk about pricing versus strategy and you're talking the context of a pitch strategy is something intangible and when I talk to you it doesn't resonate to a businessman who's thinking numbers but when you talk about cost and you put forth that I will save X percent as against your current it is music to years of any businessman so point number one. Point number two is I believe this conversation we're having today I'm sure we had it five years back and I promise you we'll have it five years later to borrow from Amitabh Bachchan in Sarkar you can see the benefit of this you can see the benefit of this industry so who holds the betan who holds that my belief is no means no who's going to say that the client is going to continue to ask as long as you continue to offer as long as you say no means no otherwise guess what's happening you're digging your own grave because today if you give me 2% I start feeling it has something else I will keep asking more because I don't know where is your bottom and you're not letting me know that so when you had a pitch which people have pitched for I'm assuming because somebody won it which is that 0% commission what are you telling the message to the client you're earning 0% you are admitting you're earning wrongly then why blame anyone I'm saying no means no if you do that let the believers come to you let the non-believers not come to you like Ashish said if you want profits you're in business I'm here for business I don't want the difference between a creative agency and an ad in media industry is in creative you have 5000 and 5000 more in media you have who are all sitting out here I'm not saying do a shame campaign but you can sit across the table and say boss like Raj frankly says I know what you did last summer but we work on the principle that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas not last summer no means no has to start somewhere and I think it has to start so Shashi who says this no then yeah so that's why I'm saying some things are best not said in the public forum but I said I'm very hopeful I'm very hopeful so I tell you because you know it's very easy to jump into strategy let's trade with price so today on price what's happening is you know the successes and like Raj said I don't mind naming names I unfortunately don't understand CPRP which is why I've been propagating CPR to CPT because I don't get it so we don't play we're not the lowest sometimes we win sometimes we lose having said that I think any client as Ajay said keeps discovery and some success yes so this is okay my quality is suffering like a big client in Bangalore one person talk whatever one business I one you know quality is maybe suffering but somewhere I'm getting off now an agency is also seen upset fine I'm picking up an entity but I'm still at least got volumes trading on volumes with our broadcaster friends or whatever so I'm saying it unfortunately I'm known to say things as they come now all that will change let me give you a small example so INS now has said that you know you can't do it if you do it you guys reported to us what are the implications of that accreditation whether you're big or small whether you are me or group M I'm sure there'll be some steps like this which I'd be able to also do to the large medium in this country print and TV start doing it so the consultants also start see then the risk reward changes dramatically that's the thing you know so that risk reward is changing which is why I gave credit man sitting in the middle rightly so the president of the years of fire so he will now will move in that direction so I think like I said not everything is to be said but I'm extremely hopeful next 3-4 months things will happen when you're dramatically different next time when I see you Ashish you'll be wearing the full kit of a knight shining armour Ashish I'm going to come to you because you know what frankly the bit that I feel closes to personally in terms of last more than one dozen years is I guess as a broadcaster and whenever I have worn the hat of a broadcaster and whenever I have looked at the price scenario while it is true that you know this nonsense of fragmentation is constantly thrown at the broadcaster the reality is that this is where the big chunky audiences still are right you cannot get while it is true that what we keep talking about that there are you know better ways of measuring response in many digital properties and so on the reality is that if you want to create a big broad impact there is still nothing anywhere in the world not just in India nowhere in the world that's why network television in the US while their ratings keep shrinking the upfront every September you saw the numbers this year as well they are still up 5% over last year they've cut inventory and they're up 5% over last year alright so we don't have the excuse as broadcasters to say that somebody else will say the no and I'll say this for a reason that if in the past and you know this because I've talked to when I have declined business I have told the agency I have told the agency I have told the agency you know the good news about the business is that it's not a zero sum game the rising tide lifts boats if you are prepared to say no even if the business lands up in Viacom it doesn't really matter to you because the prices at Viacom go up and then it circles back to you why do we not say so let I know you do let me say I've been saying no for last 3 years or 4 years possibly and my balance sheet is there to actually you know completely valid you know say that what I'm trying to say here and maybe if they've not heard that no I'm again saying no right now at this forum that any client ever pitched from now onwards I'm not going to reduce my price then what I am operating at today even if it means to lose that business and I'm sure with 20% of your ship share sitting in my table where will you go exactly so I am and there is another master who's not present here it's a message for them as well that if they want to come and you know have a negotiation they can have a negotiation on the piece of how to improve his viewership on my channels he can negotiate with me how to improve his value as he wants to drive from me he can but he cannot do that on behalf of price being cut for the same value which I've been providing over the years and years so that is something I'm making it very clear however what I'll just now add to what you know Shashi ji just said that this is what has been it's now INS has created this and IBF has created this actually we are coming back full circle go back 10 years from now and ask their teams or probably themselves at that time they were also at the same stage of actually going and talking to broadcasters and discussing you know whenever there was a new pitch happening every agency used to call us and ask what is the price you can give it to me that individually each agency who used to go and pitch they would first check with us that what is the price you're willing to pay me and that is the price they used to quote now in that situation if four of them are pitching and I have given let's say an X agency a lower rate than anybody else so he is only valid to give that rate not anybody else what has happened over the years that when they talk to the market here they talk strategy they get I mean everybody starts to get orgasm and they definitely start to you know work on those strategies etc then after the pitch all the strategy is over they are certainly the marketer vanishes from the room and there is another gentleman comes in who is procurement guy he says all this is very nice but how much less and that's where what started to play I think last five to six years in the minds of the agency and actually become a psychological terror in their mind so now the pitch and the strategy starts from what less price at what I can give it to them the thought process itself is from the perspective of how much less agency commission can I charge and I get this account and what is the less price possible less price I can pitch so they start looking at six months or eight months or one year old data at what was the lowest price I paid the broadcaster let's pitch 10% lower than that and that is what I am going to you will shut the broadcasting business down then you will have nothing left exactly so here that's what start to create that vicious circle as I said and Raj very well articulated it saying that you know ultimately we are working in a very small industry here somewhere or the other you end up trying to help somebody but that help has become now a mandate okay Ashish I will ask you this you know I want you to describe a typical RFP that an agency receives for a new media pitch from a client is it like you know 200 aerial bold flashing in one single headline saying cut that damn price or does that RFP actually have a price in it there are brand managers and media managers who have to earn their salary so it will never be cut that damn price but let me tell you how a typical transaction happens and I am exaggerating and making it slightly unreal but it's not far from reality you will make a two hour presentation let's say the first one and a half hours of that you will talk about you will talk about how you can generate the consumer we have done the research proprietary tool and you know there are certain cliches which every agency has now mastered and there are some visuals and some this thing you show in over there parallely there is a exchange going on parallel to this presentation which is like you said there is a exchange going on and it's almost in some cases like an auction so they will see let's say three of us, three agencies have pitched and let's say I am on A I am the highest in price which is bad for him he is the lowest they will tell him look channel A you are very high you have to bring it down another area I might have been better they will tell him no no there is a procurement battle which is going on at the end of the presentation once it's over and you have done it the client will say to us pricing doesn't matter it is somebody else who is looking at it but we are going to take a decision based on chemistry and this that and the other and when you get out of here after your little cynical when you are 30 years into the business and you know why he is lying we know what you have to do and what it turns out to be my experience that one out of ten guy who doesn't do it actually gets the best service out of the industry and agency and actually gets the best value from the channels therein lies a learning but unfortunately the learning is going the other way so if they were if this were three out of ten five years ago now there is probably one out of ten or half out of ten client so irrespective of what the RFP says you know really procurement focused this is typically how it ends up and I'm sorry but that's the truth I have seven minutes left on the clock so if there is anything that any one of you want to say or comment or question please feel free to raise your hands and if nobody else I'll bring the mic to you but in the meanwhile I'll continue with this okay you know I think the one thing which is the soundest singular prescription is the ability to say no I think the ability to say no at the agency level that I will not participate in this kind of an RFP because ultimately this is what it's going to you know sort of distill down to and I know because that's what happened last year and a year before that I mean you know many of us remember that a few years ago a particular client from Delhi actually charged a bidding document fee to participate in that particular thing now you know without getting into the niceties or whether that was a good idea or a bad idea that client is you know sort of rather poorly known in the industry as being a regular blasphemer in this particular way but they always get service is it possible for you know five large agency houses but you know there are places where we will not do business I mean we don't need that god damn business you know you take your 300 crores and the 1% that you will give me out of it it barely pays for the staff that I have it's not worth doing I mean will we have the nerve to look people in the eye and say no I mean Shashi what do you think at the beginning we are in a panel discussion with so many people the client so what you are saying is collective action something to that effect may happen so I don't need to answer this I have already said no Ajay the question I have for all of us is that at the end of the year when you sit in front of your client what do you give to justify your existence and as long as you talk numbers you will be expected on numbers if you put a goat in front of a hungry city why won't you eat it you will accept that marketing stroke media is one of the highest budgets lines in any brand believing company is profit loss account if you can save you put 50 crores in front of him and say that I can save that for you which client will say no the question is to say that this 50 is coming at the cost of my bleeding therefore I say no and I will not give it to you and like they show in some of these Hindi movies the smart hero bids bids bids bids bids takes an auction till here drops out at the last minute and the villain gets caught let the guys who don't know how to say no get stuck with the lemon and the loss making clients that's a pretty sound thought any comments from the audience there are some very distinguished people there not to worry sir nobody has anything to say Sam you are chewing on something you are mulling over something think about it they didn't send any to this these two Ashish I think we are wrapping up this last thing comes to you and try not to be diplomatic this particular time the internal picture within your own industry is that there might be some participants who are perhaps more predatory or in some senses more extortionate than others but for whatever reason I mean we all try to create a rule based system of working and then the rule based system of working people keep trying to slime out of it happens everywhere what do you have available I mean in terms of enforcing any idea enforcing any sense of discipline or order do we as an industry have any mechanism at all I mean we do now have for example for measurement we have a barc for self-regulation we have an advertising standards council do we have any tools at all to reprimand I assume you are talking about advertising agencies because you started saying your industry but actually it is our industry this value change but if I can speak for advertising agencies I can't speak on behalf of others Raj is ready to speak for the broadcast if you ask about rule based stuff actually we might have nothing because any rule is only worth about whatever the guys want to follow it or not but in reality we have a very very strong weapon and I have a lot of confidence in our guys because and the reason for that is look it sounds like a very big large amorphous industry it's not particularly if you look at the media industry it's the same let's say if you take 10 agency heads you probably covered 80% 90% of the room of the market and the beauty is that while we all compete very aggressively as we showed on the business front on a personal front everybody and I'm telling you everybody it's a very unique scenario very very good personal friends and it is the same people that you have to look in the eye the next day so supposing he and I agree that tomorrow you will not go down below 2.5% on that because we are bleeding or we will not go down below cost we will not do business where it hurts us we must make some profit let's say he and I agree and say I ditch him I actually do that tomorrow I have to meet him on a panel here on a meeting on an MRUC meeting and an ad club meeting in Goa Fes what face do I show him so the biggest strength we have in our industry is actually our people and the fact that you see them very often and they are on this thing and I think that's the only weapon we have I personally don't believe any law any rule can ever prevent that more than this I disagree next day after drinking we mix our eyes okay this is reality okay that's the truth but I genuinely believe there is a mechanism and I think it's time the industry wakes up rather than beating around the bush I think the IBF the 3As of I INS and ISA should sit together on the table and draft the rules of engagement and put it to practice and anybody whether it's a broadcast or agency violates the rules of engagement should be penalized outcast large vehemence notwithstanding how many years have IBF and 3As of I gone without even a contract here you don't have a contract the thing is you can't say we'll stop trying no you have to then don't have this debate but the thing is I think now it's come I feel very sad honestly with lot of you know end of the month I still get my salary but I feel very very sad I don't think the media agencies I deal with are passionate about their clients then the clients themselves and then the account moves and the account moves and I said what are you bloody gave your life for this agency and this for this client and then the client has just walked out of you you know that is the thing and right now I think it is time to wake up and smell the coffee because if you don't it is doom's day and faster than you realize you won't have a business model that's a reality Anurag has something to say a pitch of a big client who has 300, 600 crores of money to spend will you promise in terms of the audience here that you will not make price an issue and if one of them makes an issue and you know will an INS d bar in agency will it really happen it's good to have on paper but from the way the construct is laid out it cannot be implemented I mean you cannot bar a group a Madison or a dense wages network or a universal load star you cannot I mean it won't happen let's be honest do you think they will take action against you if you bid low So sir like I said this is a good time festival time we are very high hope I will say something to you not everything is said publicly so I am fully aligned to Raj his vehemence but obviously there is something which I gave compliments to our 3 out of 5 president and there is only that much we can say so we look forward to reading all we are moving in their direction whether the direction is 2 months from now 3 months from now things are happening and Mr. Naik when did you say no to a price tell us a client energy agency specifically right now for the last 6 months I haven't done business with ITC because I have said no just for record very good and I can go on naming clients ok that's why Ashish's balance sheet looks better than mine as I said I have been saying no I don't have one client to name I have many and currently also there are a lot of client who are out and not part of my network overall I just want to add few more things probably so something what we have been discussing what you asked as a mechanism there is a draft which is in the making of sequential liability from the IVF part however in that everything is not discussed in public don't say that that is something comes into play that will help one secondly I just like to you know maybe put a perspective here is that what is an agency today bringing media planning expertise you know buying obviously power also marketing services all the intelligence strategy on the table for a brand to address slowly and steadily as broadcasters we have started to understand that mechanism and actually if you ask me within my team and probably even in Raj will have we have a team of almost 50-60 media planners sitting because they are also planning our media planning for our in-house etc which also understand media planning from outside we also have creative teams we have strategy teams we have consumer insights team I can as a broadcaster bring much more to the table than what an agency can and if the business is going to depend only on price then I am going to go directly to the client and start pitching for the business principle they will have to think about their business existence I think I would just like to intervene on this point you know I think it is a sad thing that broadcasters or newspapers and this might be slightly controversial think that it is very easy for to go to a broadcaster and give a to a client and give a lower price and therefore disintermediate in agency I think they completely underestimate the range of services it is very easy to gloss over the fact that you only bring the price down yes and to answer Anurag's question I don't think pricing will ever go away from media agencies and I don't think that's what the need of the hour is either I think the need of the hour is that unfair predatory pricing which is not you can't do away with the competition it is a free world I mean I might it is just the unfairness that needs to go away and it has to be pegged at a certain level so pricing will not go away but I think it is unfair to think that the only thing that the agency is bringing to the table is the price right so so to just let Ashish know there are thousands of people sitting in all media agencies who are doing a lot more than just trying to sit with you and get the pricing down if you come to any agency you know and I'm not here saying my agency you choose any of the agencies that are represented here just spend one hour in with some of those people and you would be pleasantly surprised at all I can see I second that I don't I don't if agencies don't have any existentialistic threat about being disintermediated right now I am so I have to I have to shut this one down I don't touch the honestness it's not that what I meant and I don't mean any disrespect it is just that you know keep on pushing the pricing down without asking value for it so I completely agree with Ashish when he said that bring value to the table that is a prayer I mean that is an onus on the broadcaster publisher or any media services which been provided to that value has to be brought on table but at the price which is you know not predatory but at value changes we are also starting two man talk act called Ashish and Ashish which goes on stage right after this in the meanwhile please give it up for this wonderful panel and for the event organizer