He is known as the small Giant in us media circles. Indeed, his diminutive figure defies his unassailable status in the global media investment management (he dislikes the term media buying) business. Irwin Gotlieb, Chairman and CEO, Group M, presides over the world's top four media buying, sorry, management agencies, Mindshare Worldwide, Mediaedge:cia Worldwide, Maxus and Mediacom. By some estimates, the total billings of these agencies stood at around $52 billion (Rs 2,34,000 crore then) in 2004.

Gotlieb is credited with unbundling media buying responsibilities from the creative agency. In September 1999, he was roped in by Sir Martin Sorrell to turn around the consolidated media resources of JWT and O&M; in 2004, he was elevated to his present post. Gotlieb was on a two-day visit to India and BT's Archna Shukla caught up with him to discuss the new challenges for communication business in general, and Group M in particular. Excerpts:

It's a little out of the ordinary that the worldwide CEO of the world's largest media and communication management house comes to Asia and visits only India. Is India that important in Group M's scheme of things?

This was supposed to be an Asia visit, but it had to be cut short because I have to reach London on Thursday (August 18). I still go for client meetings and hence, cannot afford the luxury of being away from business for a longer time. As far as India's importance is concerned, it is one of the most important markets for Group M.

Martin Sorrell believes Asia is where the future is. He had identified China and India, in particular, as new centres of economic gravity.

Martin talks about BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries. For me, it's only India and China.

What's their share (in Group M's global billings)?

India contributes around 5 per cent to our total revenues. But that's not what is important in the longer term. India is important from three standpoints. First, the sheer market size; second, the untapped business potential; and third, its talent pool. There are a number of Group M global functions that we have already centralised in Bangalore, like our market research division called Advance Techniques Group. This is the global analysis data centre for Group M worldwide. It is involved in high-end market econometric analysis used by several of our clients and even some of our competitors across the world. We have come to the understanding that there is a lot of quantitative talent available in India, which is unmatched globally, and we intend to invest more in strengthening this talent pool.

Population might be an attractive proposition for consumer businesses, but does it actually present an opportunity for media planners and buyers, given the fact that 40 per cent of the country is still in the dark as far as media is concerned? And even among those who have access to media, around 50 per cent is still pretty un-evolved as far as media-habits go.

Answer my question first: How many TV households does India have?

Around 108 million households, according to the National Readership Survey.

Well, our reading is that India has 100 million TV households. The us, which is the biggest media market globally, has only 109 million. I am sure by the end of the current year, India will surpass the us and be the biggest market. And imagine what happens when even this 40 per cent media-dark population is brought to light.

But the US advertising industry, at around $141 billion (Rs 6,20,400 crore), is many times bigger than India, which is only around $3 billion (Rs 13,200 crore).

Agreed. Low per capita income and spending power will remain growth constraints for some time to come. Yet, what I identify as the biggest problem in the Indian market is the conspicuous absence of a national marketing culture. India still doesn't have a full-fledged branded products market. Developed markets are bigger simply because they have more branded products, which need broad-scale marketing and advertising and hence, bigger media opportunities.

India certainly lacks this matrix. The country has many MNCs and global companies, which, according to me, is the next stage of evolution for an MNC. A lot of our global and MNC clients are keenly looking at new and growing markets because of the reasons I mentioned just now. And with increasing prosperity and the propensity among consumers to buy bigger and better, the scenario will only improve.

The degree of underdevelopment on the branding side and the opportunity to create a market for new products present a unique opportunity that augurs well both for marketers and media managers.

"India is important from three standpoints-its sheer market size, the untapped business potential and its talent pool"

What has been Group M's experience in China, given the restrictions under which the media and advertising community operates?

There is no simple answer to this question. Indeed, operating in India is a lot easier, with no or little government intervention. But then, we are there to help clients in difficult situations. We deploy the available media tools to service clients' strategic needs. So, if communication options are limited, we try and find out means to make the best of them. Besides, there is no restriction on making use of available opportunities in China either.

Let's turn our focus to some of the media buying practices. Media buying largely remains an intuition-driven business despite the evolution of so many scientific tools. The comfort factor with media owners plays a big role in striking deals. Also, a lot of questions are raised about the efficacy of peoplemeter-dependent and TRP-centric analysis of brand exposure on TV. Here in India, we have a difference of opinion over the most basic of things-the total number of TV households. What's your take on all this?

I would like to make a comment here. It's good to have laser precision, but if all you have is a blunt pencil, you have to make do with it. All you have to ensure is that you make an effective use of the available information, and not misuse it. You see, we are in a business that is quite quantitative in nature. And it is also to a good extent intrusive. Finding a balance between the two is the key to the game. The most appropriate level of precision is difficult to get. Till the time we get tools that can give us exact media buying measurements, we will have to add some bit of our intuition to our decisions and rely on our comfort factor. And, it's certainly not an unscientific way of going about the business.

Technology is becoming quite threatening for media managers, with interactive TV, TiVo, DVRs and the likes increasingly gaining currency among consumers. Add to that the audience fragmentation across and within media. Do you think media buyers will have to rediscover their entire business model or at least acquire new skill sets to take on these challenges?

I am a cup-half-full person. Media proliferation certainly doesn't make my job easier. On the contrary, it requires me to be on my toes all the time. But at the same time, it presents enormous opportunities, too. For instance, it allows me to target my consumer more effectively. And it allows me to trade with clients and media buyers more effectively. Fragmentation also means better dispersion of information. DVRs (digital video recorders), for instance, stand for media consumption at leisure in an I-want-it-my-way kind of manner. This also means that when consumers decide to see a commercial, they will seek better information and absorb it better, too. So there, I can place a luxuriously filmed two-minute ad of a Ford car in which all the minutest details of the machine are on display. It will surely leave a brand imprint in the consumers' mindspace, which is all I want.

"The biggest problem in India is the absence of a national marketing culture. There is no branded-products market"

Another big challenge seems to be retail. Reports say that in the US around 20 per cent of P&G's sales happen through Wal-Mart and Sony sells 25 per cent of its PlayStations through Carrefour outlets. How do you propose to combat this new enemy?

I don't think retail is an enemy. Group M works for several of these retailers. They are our clients. I again look at it as an opportunity in disguise. Indeed, setting up distribution channels is our clients' prerogative, but we can help them in tapping those channels for their communication needs. We can guide them about what methods to deploy to engage consumers through these new channels.

Group M agencies have handled rival accounts in the past, but none would have been as challenging as Unilever and P&G, which will become a reality when Mediacom, practically, comes under Group M umbrella.

We build our business on the fundamental promise that conflict can be managed. It is no different from the challenges faced by law firms and investment banks.

What law firms or investment banks do for two rival clients is in no way less conflict-sensitive or less confidential. In this kind of a situation, maturity and professionalism are key to managing business. We are structured as a group in order to build our scale. And building scale will, at times, necessitate handling conflicting clients. We have efficient conflict management tools and client standards in place to ward off any kind of unpleasant situation in this regard.

Are clients going to be the brand differentiators for various Group M agencies or will each evolve its own unique brand identity?

The answer to this is yes and yes. Each of these media agencies already has its own brand image. And yes, each of them, to a large extent, is a reflection of the clients it serves. I have never been smart enough to come up with any kind of positioning for the various agencies I have worked with. My mandate always was to see, think and behave the way the clients do.

But having said that, I also see the need for these agencies to have their own brand image as they compete with other rivals in the open market. In fact, they already have inherent differences in the ways they operate. Mindshare, for instance, has been built as a media shop designed to service global clients, across the markets they are present in. It has 41 offices operating across 34 markets in the world. The agency has a consistent list of clients across all markets and the strategy deployed in each and every market is absolutely the same. Mediaedge:cia, on the contrary, has always been an agency for regional clients. Maxus was built for another set of reasons. It was designed to serve businesses that are different from country to country. Mediacom is a star in its own right and has recently been acquired. We have started working on integrating it with our local businesses. We will see how we take it forward.