Sitapati increased the share of advertising and promotion budget from zero to 5% to invest more on

the behaviour change programs (whilst Singht hoped that he would double the percentage as these
programs offered a great opportunity to reach people where media penetration was low).

For KKD even though the reach had been great (Exibit 8) Sitapati was concerned that as the focus on
‘media-dark’ places was increased this would slowly become cost-ineffective. Singhs global team also
had concerns that this focus on housewives wasn’t resulting in the behavioural changes. Also, even
after a school component was added the cost would increase and the payback period will increase as
well.

For the MP partnership Sitapati was willing to consider it as a pilot. The problems here were that the
payback was even larger (13.5 years) with the reach being less (though the total cost was lesser). He
was also worried about the lack of branding (as was the condition of the government) and relying on
the external funding increasing the riskiness. In terms of boarder organizational context, the global
brand team was excited because they thought that the reach would have an avalanche effect where
even though on the surface, they were contacting 900,000 kids, the final effect will be on 4.5 million.

Lastly, the Urban Schools Liquids program targeted mostly the urban population where the liquid
soap had penetrated. The reach for this was the least but the payback was the least (3.5) as well. The
margins for the liquid soap were better too.

Sitapati thus has to find a solution where he could balance reach, payback and the total cost. He can
create a portfolio from all these three to optimize and come up with the best distribution. There are
some things subjective however which could very well be influenced by others in the organization as
mentioned above.