Ajit Varghese on why traditional AdEx is shrinking despite market growth

For the first time in the post-pandemic period, traditional ADEX has declined in absolute terms even as total advertising expenditure has expanded. PMAR 2026, revealed that India’s advertising market reached ₹1,55,105 crore in 2025 under an expanded ADEX definition, growing 12% over 2024. The Total Digital ADEX in 2025 stood at ₹93,156 crore (60% share), up 22% from ₹76,261 crore in 2024.

Print is inching up on yield rather than volume, radio faces an impending contraction, and linear television is under strain, even as the broader large-screen ecosystem grows through CTV. Digital, now accounting for the majority share on the expanded lens, is not merely gaining ground; it is redefining the ground rules.

The report forecasts that, on the expanded definition, India’s ADEX will reach ₹1,74,605 crore in 2026, implying 12-13% growth and pushing Digital’s share to about 64% (₹1,11,976 crore), with Traditional at 36%.

In a detailed conversation around the report’s findings, Ajit Varghese, Partner and Group CEO, Madison World, describes the moment as structural rather than cyclical. The migration of spends toward performance-commerce ecosystems, retail media, MSME digital and connected television, he argues, reflects a reallocation driven by accountability and measurable outcomes. The larger concern, in his view, is not the decline of any one medium but the persistence of habit-led allocation models in a market that is increasingly punishing inefficiency.

Beyond the medium mix, the report also surfaces a deeper transition underway inside agencies. As media fragments across platforms and marketers demand clearer links to business metrics, the role of the planner is expanding. Varghese makes a case for the evolution of the media professional into a “growth architect”, someone who begins with diagnosing growth constraints, designs integrated attention-memory-response systems, and connects media investment to penetration, sales and long-term brand effects.

In the excerpts below, Varghese breaks down the data, challenges legacy assumptions, and outlines what this structural reset means for traditional media, digital sub-ecosystems, and the future-ready planner.

Edited Excerpts:

Print is inching up at 3%, radio is forecasted to decline by over 5%, and linear TV is flat after a 4.6% drop. Is this a short-term slowdown, or has the game permanently changed for traditional media?

Yes. 2025 is the first post-pandemic year where Traditional ADEX actually fell (−₹739 Cr) even as total ADEX grew 7% to ₹1,15,291 Cr. Over the decade, Traditional’s share has dropped from 85% (2016) to 54% on the legacy lens and just 40% on the expanded lens, while Digital is already 60% and forecast to touch ~64% in 2026. Linear TV is down 4.6% in value with FCT volumes down ~10% and is forecast flat; Radio grows 2% in 2025 but is forecast to decline ~5% in 2026; Print grows 3% on yields, not volume.

This is structural reallocation toward Digital and performance-commerce ecosystems, not a temporary slowdown. 

Is the industry over-investing in legacy media? If yes, is this because of inertia, or are there specific use cases where these channels justify budget?

India’s Traditional share at 54% (legacy) versus 21% globally shows inertia, especially beyond the top 50 advertisers who are already Digital‑majority (58% Digital vs 32% TV; top 10 at 61% Digital vs 36% TV). PMAR 2026 explicitly says the market is now “punishing habit‑driven allocation”.

At the same time, Auto, BFSI, Real Estate and local Retail clearly justify Traditional in specific roles: Auto grew TV+Print+Radio spends 5% (+₹281 Cr) and Print alone by 8% for high‑involvement decisions; BFSI Print grew 7% for trust‑heavy communication; Real Estate lifted OOH spends by ~20% to ~₹1,206 Cr for site visibility.

The real issue is not that Traditional exists in the mix, but that too much of it is still planned as default reach instead of tightly scoped, high‑impact jobs in attention, memory and local response. 

What must print, radio and linear TV do differently to avoid slow erosion, is innovation possible within these formats, or is growth structurally capped?

Traditional as a cluster is in a low‑growth phase: forecast +1% in 2026 (₹61,949 Cr to ~₹62,629 Cr). Growth is structurally capped, but relevance isn’t, if each medium leans into a specialist role: 

• Print: Slight 3% growth on flat volumes means yield‑driven, premium formats, English/Hindi strength and credibility/ detail plays for Auto, BFSI, Real Estate, Education. Its primary job is depth and trust, not blanket frequency. 

• Radio: Modest 2% growth with Q3-Q4 led revenue and strong categories like Real Estate and Auto shows its role as a local burst amplifier for city‑level offers, store launches and events, ideally in OOH + Digital combos. 

• Linear TV: On its own, TVs ADEX and volume are structurally declining, but combined with CTV, Large Screen grew from ₹37,453 Cr to ₹38,855 Cr and is forecast ~₹40,855 Cr (+5%). Linear must pivot from 52‑week tonnage to premium sports, tentpoles and FTA reach, tightly integrated with CTV and Digital video. 

Traditional can’t return to being the growth engine, but it can avoid erosion by innovating inside clearly defined roles.

Q-Comm grew 202% and is forecast to grow by ~50%. MSME Digital grew ~21%, and CTV also saw growth. Does this mean the next wave of growth will come from specialised digital sub-ecosystems rather than broad digital formats?

Yes. All net growth is now coming from Digital, and the fastest engines are specialised ecosystems, not generic formats. Q‑Comm advertising has exploded from ₹300 Cr (2023) to ₹4,000 Cr (2025, +202%) and is forecast ~₹6,000 Cr in 2026 (+50%); MSME Digital ad spend is ₹35,814 Cr (+21%) and forecast ~₹42,976 Cr (+20%); CTV doubled from ~₹3,000 Cr to ~₹6,000 Cr and is forecast ~₹8,000 Cr (+33%). Ecommerce advertising is already over ₹10,000 Cr (+27%), and combined Ecommerce + Q‑Comm added ₹4,864 Cr in 2025, more than TVs total value decline. PMAR calls these “performance‑commerce ecosystems” and “Retail Media 2.0”, which have moved from experiments to default infrastructure. 

The next wave is Retail Media and CTV, each needing its own strategy, measurement and operating model.

How are agencies recalibrating their planning muscle, are we seeing a deprioritisation of linear media expertise inside agencies?

The reset is structural, not cosmetic. With Digital at 60% (expanded), Traditional shrinking in absolute terms and complexity exploding across 15-20 touchpoints, PMAR warns that the real risk for agencies is “strategic irrelevance”, not just margin pressure. 

Madison 3.0 is our response: Growth Planning System (GPS) codifies planning around Attention-Memory-Response and systems of marketing effects; MBrain sits as an always‑on planning brain, compressing weeks of strategy into hours while enforcing GPS discipline; Catalyst OS and a Commerce Performance Engine tie media to monetisable outcomes. Linear TV expertise is still critical (sports economics, regional FTA reach, genre dynamics), but it now sits inside integrated growth teams rather than in an isolated TV department. 

The shift is from “TV planner vs Digital planner” to planners who can optimise Large Screen + Digital + Retail Media as one system. 

Can you elaborate and share the reasons why marketers should stop planning Linear TV and CTV separately and instead treat the large screen as one unified strategic bucket?

Separate planning distorts the reality that consumers see one large screen, not two Buys. PMAR shows Linear TV down 4.6% to ₹32,855 Cr while CTV doubled to ~₹6,000 Cr, but together Large Screen rose to ₹38,855 Cr and is forecast to be ~₹40,855 Cr (+5%).

That’s not TV dying; its budgets shifting across pipes, broadcast vs IP.

Planning them separately creates: 

• Frequency wastage and audience gaps across LTV/OTT CTV/YouTube CTV

• Sub‑optimal budget splits between cheap but low‑attention Linear and high‑precision CTV

• Fragmented reporting that hides the true incremental reach and ROI of the combined screen

PMAR is explicit: treat Large Screen as one strategic bucket with Linear and CTV as levers inside it, with the screen’s role shifting from mass frequency to mass impact and co‑viewing moments. Then optimise the LTV/CTV split by category, cohort and objective instead of running TV and CTV as competing line items.

All of this points to a larger shift in how media itself is being defined. Which brings us to the role of the planner. If every media planner must now think growth and business outcomes, not just reach and GRPs, what does that practically mean on the ground?

Three very practical shifts:

1. Diagnosis first: Every plan starts with growth constraints, penetration, trial, repeat, geography, portfolio, not with channel splits. Clarity on ambition and barriers is a must before any media is chosen. A brand with strong awareness but weak trial, for instance, gets creator demos, retail sampling and ecommerce friction‑reduction, not just more GRPs. 

2. Systems over channel lists: Planners design integrated Attention-Memory-Response systems where Large Screen, Print, Creators and Digital video build attention and memory, and Search, Retail Media, and performance Social harvest demand. Each channel is chosen for its role in the system, not to “fill a bucket”. 

3. Closed‑loop outcomes: Upper‑funnel channels (TV, CTV, OOH, creators) are linked to lower‑funnel outcomes on marketplaces, Q‑Comm and D2C, and plans are judged on sales, penetration, ROMI and cost‑per‑outcome, GRPs and impressions become diagnostics, not the destination. Rebalancing from over‑weighted performance to a healthier brand/mid/performance mix improves both awareness and performance efficiency. 

What must change in planners’ thinking to earn the ‘growth architect’ title?

Four shifts define the growth architect:

• From channel buyer to system architect: Stop maximising TV GRPs or CTRs in isolation and design systems of effects where every rupee has an Attention, Memory or Response job and is evaluated on system contribution. 

• From campaign bursts to continuous systems: Replace episodic “TV + Digital burst” thinking with always‑on architectures where campaigns are episodes within a long‑term growth system, with learning loops.

• From media brief taker to business diagnostician: Use brand development stages, Marketing Jobs To Be Done and consumer barriers frameworks to reframe briefs around where growth is stuck, then back into media, not the other way around. 

• From intuition‑first to evidence‑augmented: Apply Modern Media Effectiveness Laws (e.g., creator‑led content’s superior brand‑building multiplier) as the default logic, with human judgment refining rather than guessing. 

The growth architect is as comfortable in a brand P&L and MMM as in a channel plan.

What does future-ready media talent look like today? What skill sets will you be looking at before hiring them?

Future‑ready talent sits at the intersection of strategy, data and AI collaboration. Future-ready training programmes are being built around 5 non‑negotiable building blocks: Market & Brand Development Stages, Strategic choices, Consumer Barriers, Attention-Memory-Response, and Media Effects Systems that connect inputs to business outputs. 

Hiring will bias for: 

• Framework‑led thinking: Planners who can diagnose growth problems and structure strategy before they touch a buying tool. 

• Data fluency: Comfort reading MMMs, attribution outputs, platform dashboards and using them to make trade‑offs across channels and funnel stages. 

• AI co‑pilot skills: The ability to work with MBrain: interrogating, challenging and improving its recommendations instead of taking them at face value.

The talent mandate now is about rewarding people who can move outcomes, not just manage campaigns.