Devangshu Dutta
June 30, 2025
In every strategy meeting today, one metric is invariably mentioned: Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC). Whether you’re a well-funded corporate retailer, or raising your first angel round, or a well-established digital duopolist brand scaling Series C, CAC is one of the key performance metrics. “Real” spend that is neatly broken down by channel, optimised by funnel tweaks, scrutinised to the last rupee or dollar.
But there’s a metric we almost never hear about that could be costing brands far more in the long run.
Let’s call it Customer Forfeiture Cost (CFC), the residual lifetime value that is lost when a customer walks away from your business not because of price, competition, or even shifting needs, but because of a “burn”: a delivery missed or messed up, a refund that took weeks, an arrogant customer service call, or a product that failed spectacularly against the promise. In other words, when your brand hurts someone enough to make them walk away. Probably for ever.
It’s a paradox: brands are pumping thousands of crores into acquiring users, but they’re bleeding value at the other end. Yet, while CAC is a line item in every financial statement, CFC is invisible in management dashboards. CEOs don’t announce, “We’ve cut our forfeiture cost by 20% this quarter.”
Yet. every CXO knows it exists. The NPS scores, the social media complaints, the “never again” comments in reviews, the sinking feeling when repeat purchase rates fall.
Why CFC Matters More Than Ever
In every business, during the early stages each sale is a victory. Whether it was the retail chains that grew in the 1990s and early-2000s or the digital upstarts that came up through 2010s and 2020s, scale has been the mantra, and investors have poured money into scaling through the growing consumption of India 1 and India 2 customers.
Today customer acquisition isn’t cheap. The same person who clicked impulsively in 2020 now thinks twice before confirming payment. In this landscape, retention isn’t optional, it’s existential.
Every lost customer isn’t just a refund processed, or a cart abandoned. It’s the long tail of future repeat purchases that will never happen, negative word of mouth and brand distrust in the customer’s circle of influence, and increased future CAC due to declining organic reach.
Way back in 1967, management consultant Peter Drucker wrote in his book “The Effective Executive”: “What gets measured, gets managed”.
Today your CAC may be Rs. 500-1,000. If the average customer life time value (LTV) is Rs. 10,000, and a single burn causes churn after just one order worth Rs. 2,000, your CFC is Rs. 8,000, and that doesn’t even include reputational spillover.
Why We Don’t Measure It
Yes, CFC is hard to quantify. It’s not as easily attributable as ad spends. There’s usually no neat model telling you why someone never returned, because tech stacks aren’t typically designed to track emotional exits. And let’s face it, introspection about broken relationships is uncomfortable, even for management teams.
But that doesn’t mean it’s not real. If a customer leaves because your delivery executive messed up, or because your app crashed during checkout twice in a row, that’s on you, not the market. And in a business climate where sustainable growth is the mantra, LTV is king.
Ignoring CFC is like watching your roof leak and blaming the rain.
Toward a New Discipline
Brands and retailers must start measuring CFC, the value lost when customers disengage due to friction, mistrust, or neglect, and then start working on reducing it. This can be done by:
The Competitive Edge We’re Not Using
In a crowded space where everyone’s vying for eyeballs, trust is the true moat. Customers don’t expect perfection – they do expect accountability, authenticity, and recovery when things go wrong.
Brands that understand and act on Customer Forfeiture Costs will quietly start building a powerful edge: deeper brand loyalty, lower CAC over time thanks to referrals and repeats and greater lifetime value per user.
In other words, real, compounding value.
As the Indian brand ecosystem matures, Customer Forfeiture Cost needs to be as visible and valued as CAC. Acquisition is the invitation; experience is the relationship. Relationships, once broken, are expensive to rebuild; if they can be rebuilt at all.
In the end, growth isn’t just about who comes in. It’s about who stays, and why.
(Written by Devangshu Dutta, Founder of Third Eyesight, this was published in Financial Express on 2 July 2025)
admin
May 25, 2025
Gargi Sarkar, Inc42
25 May 2025
SUMMARY: Swiggy and Zomato are scaling back non-core bets such as 10-minute food delivery, private labels, and event logistics to sharpen focus on core businesses and improve profitability. Both companies are betting on platform fees and selective verticals like quick commerce and ticketing, but analysts warn that financial discipline, not endless expansion, is key to long-term sustainability. The foodtech duo is stuck in a balancing act of rationalising what works and doesn’t. However, going ahead, this rationalisation game is only going to get more pronounced as they will strive to shield their core bread and butter businesses
For foodtech giants Swiggy and Zomato (now Eternal), the last few years have been about engaging in a battle for expansion, so much so that it has become difficult to tell them apart.
From quick commerce and cloud kitchens to intercity food delivery and even selling tickets for events and concerts, the two companies appear to be aping each other’s every move to be everything everywhere all at once.
However, what began as a bold bet to dominate every possible vertical falling under the ambit of food, lifestyle and entertainment is now undergoing a major course correction.
For starters, both are reconsidering their blitzkrieg, and while at it, they are gracefully stepping away from non-core bets, diluting underperforming or experimental units to focus on core operations to drive profitability.
For context: Zomato, which once saw the future of food logistics in ultra-fast deliveries, gave up on its 15-minute food delivery service, Quick, four months after its launch in January. It has also pulled the plug on its home-made meal service, Zomato Everyday. Tailored for office-goers and budget-conscious consumers, the service was floated in January 2025.
Swiggy, too, has made similar retreats. It suspended Swiggy Genie, its courier and pick-up-and-drop service that had gained popularity during the pandemic. The company also gave up on its private label food business by entering a strategic agreement with Kouzina, a chain of virtual restaurants, granting it exclusive rights to operate Swiggy’s digital-first food brands.
So, what has triggered this metaphorical fission in strategy?
One possible reason could be the growing realisation that profitability hinges on diversifying smartly rather than untamed expansion.
A market analyst, who did not wish to be named, pointed out that the duo’s attempt to rule their customers’ wallets for everything from food to groceries and entertainment to lifestyle has been quite ambitious. “The course correction was overdue,” the analyst said.
He believes that foodtechs are now forced to burn the visceral fat in the form of non-core businesses because those have been slowing them down, also eating into the revenues of core businesses and impacting operational efficiencies.
“Moreover, the more the segments, the higher the chances of operational hiccups. Managing logistics, customer experience, and quality control across a wide array of verticals inevitably leads to fragmentation and strain on core operations,” he added.
State Of Eternal Affairs: Zomato’s Diversification Saga
Eternal’s push to transform Zomato into a broader lifestyle platform in 2024 was not only about ambition but also a strategic response to a slowing core business — food delivery, according to industry observers.
Also, a glance at the table below reveals how the company has seen a marginal QoQ increase in its monthly transacting users.
In terms of monthly transacting customers, Zomato’s food delivery growth began strong with a 6.84% QoQ jump in Q1, but momentum quickly slowed, and Q2 saw only a 1.97% sequential rise, followed by a slight decline of 0.97% in Q3. This dip signalled stagnation, and although Q4 showed a mild recovery (1.95%), overall FY25 growth of the company’s monthly transacting users (food delivery) was modest at just 2.96%
Interestingly, Eternal founder and CEO Deepinder Goyal, too, acknowledged a slowdown in the company’s food delivery business while announcing the company’s Q4 FY25 results. He said the slowdown was due to rising competition from quick commerce platforms and weak discretionary spending. Goyal added that services like Zepto Cafe, Swiggy Snacc, and Blinkit Bistro, too, were eating into demand for restaurant deliveries.
In terms of Zomato’s food delivery numbers, average monthly transacting numbers grew to 20.9 Mn in Q4 FY25 from 20.5 Mn in Q4 FY24. Net order value (NOV) growth also remained subdued at 14% YoY versus the 20% YoY growth guidance.
Hence, the company was under pressure to unlock new revenue streams. Blinkit’s success became the reference point, and the company started envisioning similar success stories with other verticals too, a former Zomato employee said.
This was when the company got engulfed in the wave of diversification, paving the path for Zomato’s yet another bold move (besides Blinkit) — the INR 2,078 Cr acquisition of Paytm’s movies and events ticketing business, Insider, in August last year.
The acquisition that was planned with the launch of the ‘District’ app meant but one thing — declaration of war against BookMyShow, the lone behemoth in the realm of the entertainment ticketing segment. Even the company knew the path wouldn’t be all rainbows and sunshine.
In its Q4 FY24 earnings call, the management acknowledged that while the gross order value (GOV) of the going-out vertical continues to grow at over 100% YoY, the business still operates at an adjusted EBITDA loss of -2 to -2.5% of net order value (NOV).
Besides, given that the transition of users from Paytm’s ticketing business and Zomato’s dining out platform to the District app requires sustained investment, the company doesn’t expect the business to turn profitable in the near term.
But Zomato expects losses to eventually see stability at current levels.
“However, even with plateauing losses, the company will have to keep spending on creating supply. This means: curating new event experiences, forging partnerships and acquiring new users for the District app… and all of this translates into one thing — prolonged burn,” the market analyst added.
Moving on, Zomato’s ambition to become a lifestyle super app didn’t just manifest into flashy verticals like events, entertainment, and ticketing — it also showed up in its renewed aggression in food delivery, the very space where it first made its name.
Therefore, Zomato began piloting a 15-minute food delivery service in select parts of Mumbai and Bengaluru early this year.
But the company now finds the initiative extremely difficult to operationalise as it has failed to generate incremental demand.
“Customers do not necessarily want food fast, they just want it reliably. A 10-minute turnaround without full control over the supply chain leads to poor customer experiences, operational stress, and negligible upside. Instead of delighting users, it makes the company vulnerable to inconsistent quality and frequent delays,” a Zomato insider added.
Satish Meena, the founder of Datum Intelligence, opined that without controlling the entire supply chain, delivering food items within 10 to 15 minutes cannot be a profitable proposition.
Swiggy’s U-Turns
In 2024, also the year of its public listing, Swiggy aggressively expanded its service offerings, launching several new verticals to diversify beyond its core food delivery business.
Among the most prominent launches was Bolt, a 10-minute food delivery platform. Initially launched in Bengaluru, Chennai and Mumbai, Bolt quickly expanded to over 400 cities, with over 40,000 restaurants, including KFC, McDonald’s and Starbucks.
To complement Bolt, Swiggy introduced Snacc, a separate app for instant delivery of snacks, beverages, and small meals within 15 minutes.
Continuing to diversify its portfolio, Swiggy launched Pyng, an AI-powered platform that bridges users with verified experts like yoga teachers or chartered accountants.
With this, Swiggy marked its entry into the on-demand services marketplace, making professional services easier to access.
Apart from these customer-facing services, Swiggy also entered events via Scenes and the B2B space with Assure, to keep pace with Zomato.
Interestingly, Swiggy, too, has begun consolidating its operations. The company has shut down Genie, its hyperlocal courier business, which competed with Porter, Borzo and Uber.
According to a competitor, sourcing delivery riders specifically for packages is a challenge, particularly in cities like Bengaluru. For Swiggy, which was already managing fleets for food delivery and quick commerce through Instamart, sustaining a separate rider network for Genie only added to the complexity.
In another such move, Swiggy exited its private label food business by transferring exclusive rights for its digital-first brands, including The Bowl Company and Homely, to cloud kitchen operator Kouzina.
Balance Sheet Blues
Imperative to highlight that the rollbacks by Zomato and Swiggy are rooted in the growing pressures on their respective balance sheets.
After diversifying at a breakneck speed, they are now faced with the hard realities of cost structures that don’t always align with revenue potential.
In Q4 FY25, Zomato and Swiggy both reported robust top-line growth. Zomato’s revenue surged to INR 5,833 Cr, largely buoyed by its three core pillars — the food delivery business (INR 1,739 crore), Blinkit’s quick commerce arm (INR 769 Cr), and Hyperpure, its B2B supply chain vertical, which posted a 99% YoY growth in revenue to INR 1,840 Cr.
However, despite the momentum, the company’s net profit declined sharply to INR 39 Cr in the quarter, largely thanks to ongoing investments in Blinkit and newer bets like the ‘District’ lifestyle app.
Meanwhile, Swiggy clocked INR 4,410 Cr in revenue in Q4, up 45% YoY, but saw its net loss nearly double to INR 1,081 Cr. The widening losses were fuelled by surging operational expenses.
“All of this explains the strategic pullbacks witnessed lately, Swiggy exiting Genie and private labels, Zomato pulling the plug on services like Quick and Legends. The rationalisation marks a reset, indicating that while growth via diversification was necessary, financial discipline and profitability are in the spotlight,” the market analyst said.
Platform Fee To The Rescue… But For How Long?
While it won’t be easy for Zomato and Swiggy to suddenly change course, the future of these two foodtech giants is all about heading towards a more focussed set of revenue streams driven by value rather than FOMO.
In the process, both foodtech giants appear to have struck gold with the platform fee, which has grown from just INR 2 in 2023 to INR 10 today.
But the real question is: Can rising platform fee help the duo neutralise the impact of aggressive expansion? Or is rationalisation the only way forward?
Devangshu Dutta, the founder of Third Eyesight, thinks otherwise. He believes that the companies will not stop looking for new revenue streams, even as they will continue to amputate the ones that offer little value.
“All of these companies have to look for growth, which is a given. If their existing businesses are not delivering the kind of growth they need to justify their stock price or valuation, then they have to look at new avenues.”
According to him, we are bound to see a flurry of experiments, trials of different services and new verticals as these companies attempt to expand their addressable markets.
At the end of the day, the foodtech duo is stuck in a balancing act of rationalising what works and doesn’t. However, going ahead, this rationalisation game is only going to get more pronounced as they will strive to shield their core bread and butter businesses.
[Edited by Shishir Parasher]
(Published in Inc42)
admin
May 5, 2025
Mint, 5 May 2026
Priyamvada C., Sneha Shah
Urban India’s pet parents are driving a wave of investor interest in the pet care space. A clutch of startups such as Heads Up For Tails, Supertails, and Vetic are now in fundraising talks amid rising demand for premium products and services
While Supertails looks to raise about ₹200 crore by the end of this year, Heads Up For Tails is eyeing an investment from domestic investment firm 360 One Asset over the next few months, according to mul tiple people familiar with the matter.
Vetic, a tech-enabled chain of pet clinics, is looking to raise a sizeable round and has begun discussions with investors, they said, adding that some of these transactions may see existing investors part exit their stake.
Supertails and Vetic did not immediately respond to Mint’s requests for a comment. While 360 One declined to comment, Heads Up For Tails’ founder Rashi Narang denied the development.
Investor interest in pet care surged in the years following the pandemic, driven by a wave of new pet adoptions and rising disposable incomes. In 2023, pet care startups raised a record $66.3 million across 16 rounds, led by one major transaction ― Drool’s $60 million fundraise.
While 2023 saw a funding spike driven by Drool’s large deal, overall funding activity in 2024 was more broad-based, with fundraising at $17.9 million spanning 13 rounds, as per Tracxn.
“Pet ownership in India is estimated to be less than 10% of overall households, but growing at a rapid pace with rising incomes, especially among urban consumers. In developed economies, pet ownership can exceed three in four households, and that headroom for growth is reflected among the upper income segments in India,” said Devangshu Dutta, chief executive of Third Eyesight, a management consulting firm.
He added that urban couples and singles in many cases are even opting to become “pet parents” instead of having children.
Platforms such as Supertails, Drools and Heads Up For Tails have been the big beneficiaries of this shift. Drools raised $60 million from LVMH-backed private equity firm L Catterton in 2023, while Supertails raised $15 million led by RPSG Capital Ventures in February last year.
Similarly, Supertails, which is in talks to acquire Blue 7 Vets, a multi speciality veterinary clinic, as part of its strategy to expand offline, will also raise capital to fund the acquisition of new customers, investments in technology, and the expansion of healthcare services, including Super-tails Pharmacy and build an omni-channel experience for consumers.
The company raised about $15 million in its series B funding round last year led by RPSG Capital Ventures and existing investors Fireside Ventures, Saama Capital, DSG Consumer Partners and Sauce VC.
(Published in Mint)
admin
March 20, 2025
Sagar Malviya, Economic Times
Mumbai, 20 March 2025
Established beauty product makers such as Forest Essentials, Colorbar, Kama Ayurveda, Body Shop, VLCC Personal Care and Lotus Herbals saw a slowdown in sales growth in FY24, according to the latest Registrar of Companies filings. Consumers favoured new-age rivals such as Minimalist and Pilgrim, specialised derma brands, as well as global labels Shiseido, Innisfree and Eucerin.
Sales growth of established brands mostly in the natural skincare segment, more than halved to single digits during the previous financial year amid a broader economic slump.
In contrast, companies such as L’Oreal, Nykaa and Sephora continued to grow at 12-34% on a significantly bigger base, even as they lost pace.
Direct-to-consumer brand Pilgrim more than doubled its sales, Minimalist’s revenue increased 80% and Foxtale’s sales surged 500% on a lower base.
“With most consumers tightening their budget on discretionary spends in FY24, they seem to have opted for brands that give instant benefits compared to natural products, which take time to be effective,” said Devangshu Dutta, founder of retail consulting firm Third Eyesight.
Over the past few years, there has been a flurry of beauty product launches, which have depended on platforms such as Nykaa and Tira for sales.
In the past two years, Nykaa has launched more than 350 brands, or In the past two years, or nearly one new label every alternate day on average.
This includes international brands such as CeraVe, Uriage and Versed, as well as home-grown brands such as Foxtale and Hyphen.
Reliance Retail, which entered beauty retailing with Tira two years ago, now sells nearly 1,000 brands, including exclusive labels such as Akind, Augustinus Badee, Allies of Skin, Kundal and Patchology.
“10 years ago we were only competing against big guys,” Vincent Karney, global chief executive of Beiersdorf, maker of Eucerin, Nivea and La Prakrit, told ET last month. “Now we have those local brands, and we have to become a bit more agile.”
On Nykaa, Fenty Beauty by Rihanna is the highest-selling brand in lipcare while Eucerin has become its biggest premium dermo-cosmetic serum. South Korean beauty brands Axis-Y, Tirtir and Numbuzin grew over 60% in 2024, with sales of toners increasing 104%, serums 45%, moisturisers 52% and sunscreens 154% on the platform.
VLCC and Colorbar did not respond to ET queries, while Forest Essentials was not reachable.
In January, Mike Jatania, cofounder and executive chairman of The Body Shop and Aurea Group, told ET, “There would be continuation of new entrants. Inflation is still a global issue and we will see the pressure. Competitive environment will be a challenge… 70% of our stores are showing decent growth. We have closed some stores and opened a few also, that’s the nature of the business.”
Ingredients Matter
Warnery of Beiersdorf emphasised the need to stay focused on “big innovation, by being able to talk to GenZ, (a position) which might be filled in by those local brands coming with basic ingredients.”
The likes of Minimalist, Ordinary and Pilgrim disclose active ingredients at a granular level, specifying the exact percentage of acid used in the product to appeal to GenZ users (those born between 1997 and early 2010s), who are said to be far more conscious of what they use on their skin compared to millennials (those born during 1980s to mid-1990s) and Gen X (those born from about 1965 to 1980).
Shoppers Stop, which manages brands such as Estee Lauder, Shiseido, Bobbi Brown, Mac and Clinique in India, sees the overall beauty market driven by companies focusing on consumers across age groups, and not just younger ones. Both natural and dermatological products are expected to find takers.
“While most new age brands tap younger cohorts, their pocket size allows them to mostly buy affordable products and the more affluent consumers opt for established global brands that have proven themselves since decades,” said Biju Kassim, chief executive, beauty, at Shoppers Stop. “Beauty is still not a habit in India and with hundreds of brands being launched, the focus is to grow penetration. There is also a shift from care to cure, driven by derma-recommended products and brands disclosing active ingredients, but it is still a niche sub-segment.”
Dutta of Third Eyesight sees the current trend as temporary. “We expect growth of (established) companies to bounce back in the current fiscal, driven by a strong demand for beauty,” he said, pointing especially to online platforms. India’s beauty and personal care market is expected to reach $34 billion by 2028, up from $21 billion now, driven by an online surge and a growing preference for high quality, premium beauty products according to a report by Nykaa and consulting firm Redseer.
Nicolas Hieronimus, chief executive of cosmetics giant L’Oreal, last year said consumers in India are more demanding and are not just settling for very basic things like putting an ingredient in a product such as salicylic acid or collagen. “That’s where L’Oreal has the best cards to play, and that’s where we really thrive,” he had told ET.
Beiersdorf, Unilever, L’Oreal and Shiseido, among the world’s largest cosmetics companies, have all identified India as a key growth driver, citing the burgeoning population and growing affinity for beauty products.
(Published in Economic Times)
admin
March 5, 2025
Nisha Qureshi, Afaqs
5 March 2025
Bournvita, a chocolate-flavoured malt drink produced by Cadbury under Mondelez, is a household name in India. Marketed as a health drink that supports children’s growth and development, it holds a 15-16% share in the Indian health food drink sector, second only to Horlicks, which dominates with nearly 50%.
Its advertising has traditionally centred on themes of health, confidence, and mental strength, with campaigns such as Tayyari Jeet Ki resonating strongly with consumers.
The Food Pharmer controversy
Despite its strong market presence, Bournvita has faced criticism over its high sugar content and other ingredients, sparking public debate and legal scrutiny. The controversy escalated last year when health influencer Revant Himatsingka, known as Food Pharmer, called out Bournvita for its excessive sugar levels.
Himatsingka’s video criticised Bournvita for its high sugar content and potentially harmful additives, such as caramel colouring agents. His claims triggered widespread consumer backlash and prompted Mondelez India to issue a legal notice, dismissing his allegations as “unscientific” and “distorted”.
However, the legal action only intensified public scrutiny. In response to mounting pressure, Bournvita reduced its added sugar content by 14.4%, from 37.4 grams to 32.2 grams per 100 grams of powder.
Can influencers salvage Bournvita’s reputation?
More than a year after the controversy, Bournvita has launched a large-scale influencer campaign to highlight its lower sugar content and nutritional benefits. The campaign features influencers visiting Bournvita factories to vouch for its authenticity and health benefits.
While the concept of factory tours is not new—brands such as Parle and Havmor use it as an extensive strategy to build consumer trust even in the absence of any controversy.
The concept has since been adapted by several brands. ID Fresh, known for its packaged idli and dosa batter, faced allegations of contamination with animal bones.
In response, it launched TransparenSee, a trust-building initiative that allowed consumers to take virtual tours of its production facility via live streaming, offering an unfiltered view of its operations.
However, marketing experts argue that Bournvita’s approach may not be enough to restore its credibility, as it relies heavily on influencer testimonials rather than direct consumer engagement. Crisis communication, they caution, must be handled with transparency and genuine action.
Bournvita’s strategy bears similarities to Shein’s controversial influencer-led factory tour campaign, which backfired. In June 2023, the fast-fashion retailer invited US influencers on a paid trip to its ‘Innovation Factory’ in Guangzhou, China, to counter allegations of labour exploitation.
Instead of improving Shein’s reputation, the trip sparked further backlash, with critics dismissing it as a PR stunt designed to manipulate public perception.
Mondelez defends the campaign
Speaking about the campaign, a Bournvita spokesperson says, “At Mondelez, our unwavering commitment to quality, transparency, and consumer trust defines everything we do. This campaign is a testament to our ongoing efforts to engage meaningfully with consumers.”
He further emphasises that Mondelez aims to go beyond influencer marketing by engaging directly with key stakeholders such as mothers and nutritionists, offering deeper insights into the product’s quality and nutritional benefits.
The need for authenticity over promotion
Krishnarao Buddha, a former senior category head of marketing at Parle Products, remains sceptical of Bournvita’s approach, arguing that credibility issues cannot be resolved through influencer endorsements alone.
“Instead of relying on paid influencers, brands should adopt a transparent and action-driven approach. In today’s digital age, where public scrutiny is at an all-time high, authenticity is the key to earning and retaining consumer trust,” he explains.
Devangshu Dutta, CEO, Third Eyesight, echoes similar concerns, stressing that once trust is broken, it takes time to rebuild.
“A single influencer campaign cannot erase past controversies. Brands need to engage in consistent and transparent communication about real improvements. Bournvita highlights its nutritional benefits, but consumers need more than promotional content—they need tangible proof of change, such as independent testing and direct consumer engagement,” he asserts.
Sandeep Goyal, chairperson and MD of Rediffusion, critiques Bournvita’s approach as an “MBA (Marketer’s Belly Ache) strategy” that prioritises corporate messaging over authenticity. “In today’s digital landscape, consumers are highly aware of paid promotions, making traditional marketing tactics less effective. Instead of attempting to control the narrative through influencers, brands should focus on rebuilding credibility through transparency and honest communication,” he advises.
Lessons from Cadbury’s past crisis management
This is not the first time Mondelez has had to navigate a brand crisis. In October 2003, just before Diwali, Cadbury Dairy Milk faced a major scandal when customers in Mumbai discovered worms in chocolates. The Maharashtra FDA seized stocks from its Pune plant, leading to widespread concern and a 30% drop in sales.
To regain trust, Cadbury launched Project Vishwas, an initiative to educate 190,000 retailers and reassure consumers. It invested Rs 15 crore in improved packaging without raising prices and enlisted Amitabh Bachchan as a brand ambassador. The campaign successfully restored consumer confidence.
Will Bournvita’s efforts be enough?
While Bournvita has taken steps to address consumer concerns, relying on influencer marketing alone may not be sufficient to rebuild its credibility. As past examples show, true reputation recovery requires more than just strategic campaigns—it demands tangible action, consistent transparency, and genuine consumer engagement.
(Published on Afaqs)
