Statement–Courses of Action (media competition and talent attraction): Doordarshan, worried about programme quality amid stiff competition from satellite channels, is considering measures to attract talent; assess which course(s) follow—(I) revise the artist fee structure to attract talent, (II) avoid revising fees until other media revise theirs—on competitiveness and proactivity.

Given data

• Statement: Quality concerns + strong competition → need to attract talent.
• Course I: Revise fee structure for artists to make DD competitive.
• Course II: Wait until other media revise fees before revising.

Concept / Approach
To compete for talent, proactive, market-aligned compensation is logical; waiting for rivals defeats the purpose.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: Course I directly targets the stated goal (talent attraction) via a credible lever (fees).Step 2: Course II postpones action and ties DD's strategy to competitors, undermining competitiveness; it does not follow.

Verification / Alternative
Talent markets respond to timely incentives; leader–follower pricing rarely benefits the laggard in winner-takes-most markets.

Common pitfalls

• Confusing “parity” with “competitiveness.” Proactive differentiation is often required.

Final Answer
Only I follows.