admin
September 16, 2024
Priyamvada C., Mint
16 September 2024
When the late George Fernandes, the industries minister in the short-lived Janata Party government of 1977, issued a diktat to multinational corporations Coca-Cola, IBM and AstraZeneca to dilute their stake in their wholly owned subsidiaries to 40% in favour of Indian shareholders, Coca-Cola and IBM chose to exit India. Later, during P V Narasimha Rao’s proliberalisation government in 1993, Coca-Cola returned. It bought out Ramesh Chauhan’s Delhi Bottling Company and Coolaid, the bottling companies of five carbonated drinks, in 1998.
With Coca-Cola India now said to be evaluating options to list its wholly owned bottling subsidiary – Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (HCCB), Mint explains the rationale behind companies considering such moves.
What caused the change in strategy?
Experts said there is a trend of consumer giants spinning off their units to optimise their balance sheets, go asset-light and focus on their core brands and business models. Coca-Cola India’s ambitions to list HCCB come almost a decade after rival PepsiCo’s bottler, Varun Beverages, listed on the local stock exchanges, yielding significant value for the Jaipuria family.
Unlike PepsiCo, Coca-Cola owns its bottling franchise, just as other MNCs including consumer goods major Whirlpool, ball-bearing specialist Timken, and tobacco giant BAT, who are keen to take advantage of the valuations that Indian investors give to well-run MNCs. Varun Beverages commands a market valuation of ₹2.09 trillion. Hindustan Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive (India) are examples of multinational companies that have listed in India.
Coca-Cola’s move is seen as a strategic attempt to yield significant benefits, including financial gains, risk mitigation and other exit opportunities. The Economic Times was the first to report on HCCB’s listing plans in May.
How does the parent company benefit?
Through such moves, the parent company can reduce exposure to risks associated with bottling companies, which include fluctuations pertaining to raw material, regulatory changes and local market conditions, said Alpana Srivastava, a partner at Desai & Diwanji. While spinning off bottling subsidiaries is more prevalent in the beverage industry, she said other fast-moving consumer goods and retail companies may explore similar strategies to optimise their balance sheets in the current environment.
Earlier this year, HCCB announced the transfer of its bottling operations in three territories in north India to streamline supply chains in the region. However, the bottler declined to comment on its IPO plans.
As part of the transition, the Rajasthan market will be owned and operated by Kandhari Global Beverages, which operates in parts of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Chandigarh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Ladakh.
The Bihar market will be owned and operated by SLMG Beverages Pvt Ltd, which runs bottling operations in Uttarakhand, parts of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Bihar. The Northeast market and select areas of West Bengal will be owned and operated by Moon Beverages Pvt Ltd, which operates in parts of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.
What other factors motivate such spin-offs?
Besides providing liquidity for the bottler, listing may offer tax benefits such as reduced capital gains tax or more favourable transfer pricing rules and optimise the overall tax burden for both the parent company and the subsidiary, Srivastava explained. It may allow both entities to be valued more accurately based on their individual capacities in growth, risk profiles and capital intensity.
This comes in the backdrop of companies looking to make the most of a bullish stock market to unlock more value for shareholders by listing their manufacturing subsidiaries. It enables the companies to raise more capital, which can be used to strengthen their market presence and reduce debt, said Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, a management consulting firm. He said the core value generator for companies such as Coca-Cola and Pepsi are brands and marketing rather than manufacturing.
In April, private equity firm Lighthouse Funds invested ₹700 crore in Parsons Nutritionals, a contract manufacturer specialising in packaged foods, beverages, and personal care products, underlining investor appetite in this sector. Other co-investors include the International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group, Evolvence India, HDFC AMC’s Fund of Funds, and various family offices.
However, there may be legal considerations, too. While exclusive contracts exist, the bottler may have partnerships with other companies in its distribution portfolio, which may have to be reviewed and renegotiated. There may be regulatory compliance and other anticompetitive considerations when it involves such big entities.
Other instances of such moves
While there are fewer examples of bottling companies listed in India, this practice is more common globally. Coca-Cola has listed most of its bottling subsidiaries in other global markets such as North America and Europe.
While there is no shareholding between PepsiCo and Varun Beverages, there is an exclusive arrangement for Varun Beverages to bottle, use trademarks, distribute, market, and sell PepsiCo products across India. The beverage giant benefits from royalty and licence fees. Over the past year, Varun Beverages’ revenue rose 22% to ₹16,400 crore while its profit increased to ₹2,056 crore from ₹1,497 crore in FY22. As of Friday’s close, the bottler’s shares had gained almost 30% to ₹645.20 since the beginning of this year.
Any potential listing opportunity for HCCB may allow a staggered exit for Coca-Cola India from managing local operations, monetising its stake and participating in future licence fees and/or royalty arrangements, said Dhruv Chatterjee, a partner at Saraf and Partners. He added that there are indications in the retail and fast-moving consumer goods category of similar divestments. Coca-Cola India did not respond to Mint’s request for comment.
Ravikumar Distilleries is an example of a listed manufacturing company that has tie-ups with liquor companies Radico Khaitan, Shashi Distilleries and John Distilleries, in addition to manufacturing and marketing its own liquor products. Bengal Beverages is an unlisted bottler that manufactures and distributes non-alcoholic beverage brands under licence from Coca-Cola across categories such as sparkling soft drinks, juice and water.
What kind of contracts exist between the bottler and the parent company?
Many bottling plants are usually set up by companies as a joint venture with a local partner. The bottler procures the concentrate from the companies. About 14-15% of the concentrate cost goes to the bottler, which translates into revenue for the brand, according to a person familiar with such discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity. The company spends a part of this revenue on marketing activities that target mass audiences through television, radio and newspapers.
Depending on the terms of the contract, the bottler may be expected to spend a portion of its revenue on marketing through outdoor settings such as billboards, flyers, social media and events. The arrangement between a bottler and a company may be either a pure bottling arrangement (or contract manufacturing) or a bottling and distribution arrangement, where the bottler is also responsible for marketing, branding, and last-mile distribution.
How has the carbonated beverage market fared?
Market research provider Statista estimated that the carbonated drink market in India clocks about $2.4 billion in revenue and is expected to grow by 6.98% annually over the next four years. The volume consumed at home and other outdoor locations is likely about 4.2 billion litres this year.
In 2022, Parle Agro’s brand Appy Fizz and Coca Cola dominated with a 31% market share each, followed by Fanta, Pepsi, 7UP and Sprite, among others. Other brands such as Reliance-backed Campa Cola are expected to challenge the dominance of these companies.
Before Reliance acquired Campa for ₹22 crore in 2022, the soft drink had been launched by Pure Drinks Group in the 1970s. The group was behind the launch and distribution of Coca-Cola in 1949, before the US company was shunted out of the country in 1977.
Pure Drinks and Campa Beverages subsequently launched Campa Cola to fill the gap left by foreign soft drink companies in the country. However, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo re-entered the Indian market in the 1990s, throttling local competition.
(Published in Mint)
admin
September 12, 2024
By Richa Naidu and Dhwani Pandya, Reuters
London/Mumbai,12 September 2024
For years, the world’s biggest condom maker Reckitt Benckiser designed products and marketing to lure Indian men to its Durex brand. Now, it is pushing a growth strategy by betting on women and rural consumers.
India last year surpassed China to become the world’s most populous nation, but still fares poorly on the use of contraceptives. India’s government estimates only around 10% of men use condoms and for women, sterilization remains the popular form of contraception.
Social stigma surrounding sex – which some say stems from Victorian social norms established during British colonization – has for decades marginalized female pleasure in the Indian society.
But attitudes are changing and Reckitt is shifting marketing gears to take advantage of an upswing in condom use among Indian women – now a key target audience for Durex.
Around 9.5% of married Indian women cited using condoms during sex by 2021, almost double the use five years earlier, according to latest available government statistics. Among unmarried women, such use more than doubled to 27%.
Reckitt is reformulating products such as lubricants aimed at attracting women consumers, and has new marketing campaigns, Pankaj Duhan, Reckitt’s senior vice president of intimate wellness, told Reuters in an interview.
The Durex lubricants in India will use improved formulations to appeal to women and have been created after performing clinical studies to address concerns females face — 30% of Indian women experience some discomfort when having sex with their partner.
“We want to change this … That is why we are relaunching our lubes portfolio,” said Duhan. “The women tend to become a little bit more underserved consumer groups.”
The India condoms market is currently dominated by Mankind Pharma, which makes Manforce, followed by Reckitt and TTK Healthcare.
CHALLENGES
The British consumer goods firm faces some stiff challenges in its quest to carve out a lucrative slice of the female condom market and rural consumers, primarily with distribution and pricing – two areas industry watchers believe are key to success – but also in coaxing a still-largely conservative rural population to buy its products.
Moreover, competitors are making a pitch to women too, with Durex’s main rival and market leader Manforce tweaking its marketing — a recent ad stars a Bollywood actress talking about benefits of condoms and asking women to “go buy your own.”
“One challenge Reckitt may face is consistency of messaging,” said Devangshu Dutta, head of retail consultancy Third Eyesight, adding the company needs to figure out if it is targeting condoms for health, family planning, or pleasure as there could be different messaging for each type of shopper.
The growth opportunity is compelling – India’s condom market size is merely worth $210 million, compared to China’s $4.1 billion, but is forecast to grow at 7.4% compound annual rate between 2024 and 2030, according to Indian consulting firm 6Wresearch. The global market is worth $11.3 billion.
Growing the market will take some doing though, not least because of India’s vast size and millions of mom-and-pop stores require a widespread distributor network.
Currently, only about 10-15% of Durex’s sales in India come from rural areas, which is far more price sensitive than urban cities.
“Distribution is the big challenge simply because even though most consumer goods companies have made their way to all pincodes in the country, the question is maintaining availability at retail points,” said Dutta of Third Eyesight.
CHIPPING AWAY AT TABOOS
Sex education in the conservative country is also lagging, and there is a vast gulf between awareness and actual use of contraceptives.
Matt Godfrey, executive vice president for Asia Pacific at Monks ad agency, part of S4Capital, said marketing tweaks by the likes of Durex are a welcome change but condom use and sex education need to improve in India.
“There are significant societal and cultural aspects that need to be rapidly shifted to reverse the status quo,” he said.
In the eastern state of Odisha, for example, a small medical store of Sudam Padhan does not prominently display condoms as “people frown upon them”.
In India, it’s men who mostly buy condoms, but some like Pooja, a marketer in Mumbai, are trying to drive change. She made an “awkward” decision to buy condoms herself for the first time this year, saying “when I’m asking for a condom over the counter I am basically putting my health first”.
Still, in a telling sign of the somewhat taboo nature of the topic, the 31-year-old declined to share her last name as she is unmarried and feared societal admonition.
“An open conversation encouraging safe and responsible sex in India has been steadily progressing but needs to be continually supported” by brands including Durex, S4Capital’s Godfrey said.
Like many of its rivals, Reckitt has over the years largely focussed on Indian men, with many ads featuring women wearing skimpy clothes.
Rival Manforce Condoms features former pornstar Sunny Leone in videos, some labelled “EXCLUSIVE UNCENSORED”. Duhan said many of the condom ads “objectified women.”
But that’s changing. Durex earlier this year launched a risqué “Explorers Wanted” lubricants campaign in India which featured sensual shots of nude male body parts.
PRICING PAINS
Pricing is another big challenge, especially in stores in smaller towns and villages which are reluctant to stock condoms and lubes. Duhan said products have to be “extremely cheap” to sell in some rural areas, where many use free government-provided condoms.
Padhan, from the medical store in Odisha, doesn’t stock Durex “because they are costly and there’s no demand for them in rural areas,” and says most sales are of Ustad “Deluxe Condoms” made by a state-run firm.
Ustaad costs just 10 rupees (11 U.S. cents) for a pack of six. A pack of 10 Durex condoms starts retailing at around 250 rupees, with some priced above $6, and a similar pack of Manforce starts at $1.
But the smaller three-condom Durex pack starts retailing around 99 rupees, and Reckitt believes they will sell better in rural India.
“We are starting at the top (and) planning to get down to the rural areas,” Duhan said. “It’s a massive undertaking”.
(Reported and Published by Reuters)
admin
August 31, 2024
MG Arun, India Today
Aug 31, 2024
Nearly five years after the Centre brought in norms to rein in multinational e-commerce companies operating in India, Union commerce minister Piyush Goyal sparked fresh controversy by raising concerns over the rapid expansion of e-commerce. He also drew attention to the pricing strategies used by some e-commerce firms, questioning what he termed “predatory pricing”.
“Are we going to cause huge, social disruption with this massive growth of e-commerce? I don’t see it as a matter of pride that half our market may become part of the e-commerce network 10 years from now; it is a matter of concern,” Goyal said at an event in New Delhi last week.
His comments come at a time when the ecommerce business in India is growing exponentially. Estimated at $83 billion (around Rs 7 lakh crore) as of FY22, the market is expected to grow to $150 billion (Rs 12.6 lakh crore) by FY26. The growth will be due to multiple levers: a growing middle class, rising internet penetration, the proliferation of smartphones, convenience of online shopping and increasing digitisation of payments. The overall Indian retail market was pegged at $820 billion (Rs 69 lakh crore) in 2023, according to a report published by the Boston Consulting Group and the Retailers Association of India. E-commerce still comprises only about 7 per cent of that, as per Invest India.
The Indian e-commerce market is dominated by global giants, including Amazon and Walmart (which took over Flipkart in 2018). They, along with domestic players, offer huge discounted prices compared to retail prices, which drives online sales significantly. In FY23, Amazon Seller Services and Flipkart posted Rs 4,854 crore and Rs 4,891 crore losses, respectively. Goyal’s argument is that these losses are due to their predatory pricing.
“Is predatory pricing policy good for the country?” Goyal asked, while stressing the need for a balanced evaluation of e-commerce’s effects, particularly on traditional retailers such as restaurants, pharmacies and local stores. “I’m not wishing away ecommerce—it’s there to stay,” he said. Later, he said e-commerce uses technology that aids convenience. But there are 100 million small retailers whose livelihood depends on their businesses.
The Centre has specific laws that permit foreign direct investment (FDI) in e-commerce exclusively for business-to-business (B2B) transactions. However, according to Goyal, these laws have not been followed entirely in letter and spirit. Currently, India does not allow FDI in the inventory-based model of e-commerce, where e-commerce entities own and directly sell goods and services to consumers (B2C). FDI is permitted only in firms operating through a marketplace model, where an e-commerce entity provides a platform on a digital or electronic network to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers (B2B).
The country’s laws also stipulate that in marketplace models, e-commerce entities cannot ‘directly or indirectly influence the sale price of goods or services’ and must maintain a ‘level playing field’. Entities in the marketplace model re allowed to transact with sellers registered on their platform on a B2B basis. However, each seller or its group company is not permitted to sell more than 25 per cent of the total sales of the marketplace model entity.
Goyal said certain structures have been created to suit large e-commerce players with “deep pockets”. Algorithms have been used to drive consumer choice and preference. For instance, several pharmacies have disappeared, he said, and a few large chains are dominating the retail space. He invoked the importance of platforms like the Open Network for Digital Commerce where small businesses can sell their products.
E-commerce firms counter the argument on predatory pricing. “It is the sellers’ discretion as to what price they should sell at,” says an industry source. The e-commerce player who provides the platform seldom has a role in it, he explains. “Sellers could be doing clearance sales or liquidation of old products at cheaper prices. Some sellers also source products at manufacturing cost and park it with e-commerce firms instead of involving warehousing agents. This helps cut their overhead costs and allows them to offer lower prices on the platform,” he adds.
Some experts are of the view that the government should not step in with controls and allow the market forces to play their role in determining prices. Price controls may lead to shortages, inferior product quality and the rise of illegal markets. Moreover, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which is mandated to act against monopolies, may be given more teeth. It is ironical that, on the one hand, the Centre wants more FDI to flow in, but places more and more controls on foreign players on the other hand. At the core are the interests of small traders and retailers, a key section of the electorate.
Others argue that the government has a role to ensure that there is fair competition. “It is not just small retailers the government would be speaking for, but for large domestic players too,” says Devangshu Dutta, founder of consultancy firm Third Eyesight, emphasising that the government’s role should be to establish laws and practices that promote fairness.
According to him, it is no secret that e-commerce has grown through discounts. “For large e-commerce firms, market acquisition happens by acquiring a share of the consumer’s mind and through pricing. When a large sum is spent on advertisements, it is for acquiring the mind share of the consumer,” he says. “Pricing matters in a big way too. Whether you call it predatory pricing or market acquisition pricing depends on which side of the fence you are.”
(This article was originally published in the India Today edition dated September 9, 2024)
admin
August 30, 2024
In a startup world, founders are typically creators first while investors see themselves as the monitors. Therefore, conflicts between the two are almost a default feature of a relationship that in effect funds a dream. From ‘off’ chemistry to differences of opinion to what some founders see as shackles on entrepreneurial freedom, the reasons could be any or a mix of all. Watch this discussion, with a mega-panel of intense start-up founders on the one hand and investors with VC funds on the other, addressing the pain points on Cash, Control, Creativity, Chemistry and Culture in a supercharged encounter. Session Anchor, Devangshu Dutta (Founder, Third Eyesight) reflected, “Those who have heard classical music jugalbandi or witnessed jazz musicians jamming will appreciate the creative tension, the give and take that was the thread throughout this discussion, reflecting the reality of the relationship between entrepreneurs and VCs.”
Watch the video
INVESTORS:
Ankita Balotia, VP, Fireside Ventures
Aashish Vanigota, Principal – Investments, IvyCap Ventures Advisors Private Limited
Bhawna Bhatnagar, Co-founder, We Founder Circle
Nitya Agarwal, VP-Investments, 3one4 Capital
Harmanpreet Singh, Founder & Managing Partner, Prath Ventures
Vamshi Reddy, Partner, Kalaari Capital
Zoeb Ali Khan, Vice President, Sauce.vc
D2C FOUNDERS:
Abdus Samad, Founder, Sam & Marshall Eyewear
Akshay Mahendru, Co-Founder & CEO, The Pet Point & Nootie
Malvika Jain, Founder, SEREKO
Nitin Jain, Founder, Indigifts
Puneet Tyagi, Egoss Shoes
Radhika Dang, CEO & Founder, The Good Karma Company
Rahul Aggarwal, Coffeeza
Udit Toshniwal, Founder & Director, The Pant Project
Vaani Chugh, Co-founder & Director, D’chica
Yash Kotak, Co-founder, Bombay Hemp Co.
Yashesh Mukhi, Co-founder, Chupps
admin
August 24, 2024
Writankar Mukherjee & Navneeta Nandan, Economic Times
24 August 2024
Quick-commerce operators such as Blinkit, Swiggy Instamart and Zepto are aggressively trying to lure away consumers from large ecommerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart by matching their prices across groceries and fast-selling general merchandise, triggering a price war in the home delivery space.
This is a departure from the earlier pricing strategy of quick-commerce players who typically charged 10-15% premium over average ecommerce marketplace prices for instant deliveries, industry executives said.
The strategy now is to win consumers from large ecommerce at a time when urban shoppers increasingly prefer faster and scheduled deliveries, they said.
An ET study of prices of 30 commonly used products in daily necessities, discretionary groceries and other categories, including electronics and toys, in both ecommerce and quick-commerce platforms reveal the pricing disparity has been bridged. “The pricing premium which quick commerce used to charge for instant deliveries is gone with these platforms now joining a race with large ecommerce to offer competitive pricing to shift consumer loyalties,” said B Krishna Rao, senior category head at biscuits major Parle Products.
It seems to be working. Quick commerce is the fastest growing channel for all leading fast-moving consumer goods companies, accounting for 30-40% of their total online retail sales, according to company disclosures in earning calls.
These platforms are also expanding their basket with larger FMCG packs to cater to monthly shopping needs but also non-groceries such as electronic products, home improvement, kitchen appliances, basic apparel, shoes and toys amongst others.
“Consumers have all the apps on their phones and all they want is quick deliveries at the best price,” said Rao of Parle Products.
The increasing competition is putting pressure on ecommerce majors to reduce delivery time.
‘Market acquisition cost’
Flipkart is even eyeing a quick-commerce foray by piloting a 10-minute delivery service called Minutes in some parts of Bengaluru.
Jayen Mehta, managing director of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation that owns the Amul brand, said now that people are buying regularly from quick commerce with an increase in their assortment, legacy ecommerce platforms like Big Basket and Amazon are trying to deliver faster and same day, which has increased competition pressure.
“At the end of the day, consumers compare across channels before buying. So, pricing equality has become important,” Mehta said. “But then, quick commerce has a delivery charge if the order is below a certain value,” he added.
But does their business model allow quick-commerce players to wage a sustained price war against ecommerce platforms?
Quick commerce model requires multiple dark stores to be set up in close vicinity in each market, while ecommerce players mostly make deliveries from centralised warehouses.
But then, quick commerce platforms right now are at a phase where ecommerce was 7-8 years back, said Devangshu Dutta, CEO of consulting firm Third Eyesight.
“Price matching by quick commerce is to acquire market share and is part of market acquisition cost even when it might not be profitable at a per unit transaction level,” he told ET. “They may have to sacrifice margins in the short term to get customers shopping more frequently.”
Blinkit chief executive Albinder Singh Dhindsa earlier this month said the advent of quick commerce has made people want things faster than they would have otherwise got from ecommerce.
“This has led to a direct share shift of a number of non-grocery use cases to quick commerce where customers were primarily reliant on ecommerce for buying these products,” he said in the Zomato-owned quick-commerce platform’s June quarter earnings release.
Dhindsa said quick-commerce platforms are gaining sales by incremental growth in consumption, shift in purchases from next day ecommerce deliveries and mid-premium retail chains.
Citing an example, he claimed the demand Blinkit has generated for online-first oral care brand Perfora is a testament that such brands’ growth and adoption on quick commerce is much faster than on ecommerce.
(Published in Economic Times)
