The sector of retail that has been attracting the most corporate interest over the last few years is the food & grocery market.

Quite logically so, since this comprises the largest slice of spending – well over 40% in urban markets and above 50% in the lower income towns and rural areas. It, therefore, offers the maximum opportunity for rapid scaling. Working in sequential logic, the nature of that large business would be highly capital intensive, and the large amounts of investment and large footprint should logically act as entry barriers for competitors. Size should also drive costs down through efficiencies of scale and raise margins by removing intermediaries.

By that reasoning, the bulk of the small retailers should be out of business very rapidly, as the well-capitalised corporates buy their way into the market, whether by opening their own stores or by acquiring many retail chains and mashing them together into one company.

This has led some commentators and consultants to predict that within the next 5-10 years, as much as 25-35% of the food and grocery market would be taken by the so-called organised retailers.

That, in my opinion, is a gross overestimation of the pace of change.

Fortunately for the smaller retail chains and the independent mom-and-pop stores, and unfortunately for the large corporates, scale and efficiency is not enough of a competitive advantage at the local level. Retail is a business in which you have the opportunity of growing or diminishing your business’ future prospects every time a customer buys at your store, or chooses not to.

And the food and grocery business is tougher still, since you cannot impose a product top-down in India, with a mix of cuisines and cultures that are as varied as different countries in Europe.

Yes, change is coming to the food business. Like other products, food retailing in India will convert more and more towards modern retail, but it will happen in slices of percentage points. It will happen only when the modern retailers understand and respect the cuisine boundaries rather than imposing a sea of sameness for consumers across the country. It will also need retailers to plan and manage the supply chain and vendors at micro-levels.

There are plenty of speed-bumps and potholes on the way – proceed with caution.

A few weeks ago there was an immense buzz about an email that was apparently leaked from Starbucks. Chairman Howard Schultz apparently had written this to CEO Jim Donald, and there was immense speculation about whether it was fake or a genuine leak.

Well, Starbucks itself put that mystery to rest by confirming the e-mail’s authenticity, and that makes it even more interesting. The soul-searching shared by Schultz in the memo, reflects the criticism that Starbucks has faced in recent years.

As a pioneer of “the third place” experience, it must be especially painful for Schultz to admit that the quality of experience now is below what the consumer would (or should) expect. In the quest for scale and efficiency, he says:

“…we have had to make a series of decisions that have lead to the watering down of the Starbucks experience, and, what some might call the commoditization of our brand.”

He acknowledges ownership for the decisions, which he says…

“…were probably right at the time, and on their own merit would not have created the dilution of the experience; but in this case, the sum is unfortunately much more damaging than the individual pieces.”

As a brand with over 13,000 locations, clearly Starbucks needs to be able to work with a model which is consistent across locations, can be implemented quickly, and delivers the product quickly and at controlled costs. Automation and packaging are two major areas that have given it that capability, but have also become the weak point of the experience from the perspective of coffee connoisseurs, or even people who would just enjoy a “rich and personal” experience.

Schultz quotes some specific cases that are especially powerful illustrators of what is right AND wrong with the business model.

“…when we went to automatic espresso machines, we solved a major problem in terms of speed of service and efficiency but removed much of the romance and theatre that was in play with the use of the La Marzocca machines. This specific became even more damaging when the height of the machines, which are now in thousands of stores, blocked the visual sight line the customer previously had to watch the drink being made, and for the intimate experience with the barista.”

Clearly the automatic machines improve the consistency of coffee delivered in each cup of Starbucks, and also reduce time the customer waits (a huge issue in many of the stores where peak-hour traffic can result in customer queues right to the door). But it is that much more generic an experience. And one would imagine that the barista behind the counter is also just that bit less involved (dare we say, less passionate) about the cup.

Creating a process (and better still, automating it) reduces the dependency on individual skill in any business, and is a strategy followed by all businesses that want to scale up without losing quality. However, an experience that is supposed to be “personal” and unique, needs to retain the human touch to a far greater degree.

Schultz talks about moving to flavour-locked packaging – again a great decision to retain the quality of the product across the chain of stores, while creating an efficient supply chain from procurement, through roasting, bagging and shipment to stores. Each of the outlets receive the coffee with a optimal shelf life left in the product. However, as Schultz says,

“…I believe we overlooked the cause and the affect of flavour lock in our stores. We achieved fresh roasted bagged coffee, but at what cost? The loss of aroma — perhaps the most powerful non-verbal signal we had in our stores; the loss of our people scooping fresh coffee from the bins and grinding it fresh in front of the customer, and once again stripping the store of tradition and our heritage?”

When Schultz took over Starbucks there were hardly any significant competitors – it was either personalised, neighbourhood cafes or fast food joints serving low-grade motor oil masquerading as a beverage. The product itself that Schultz wanted to sell was not just the coffee, but the possibility of someone having a beverage in a relaxed environment outside home or a bar.

Today, Starbucks has itself upgraded the customer’s tastes and expectations, but risks losing that product leadership to smaller competitors, even as the fast food chains are improving the coffee that is served on the go, at prices often cheaper than Starbucks, and also as other “third place” options emerge.

It is the closing of the memo that shows a ray of light…

“…we desperately need to realize it’s time to get back to the core and make the changes necessary to evoke the heritage, the tradition, and the passion that we all have for the true Starbucks experience. I have said for 20 years that our success is not an entitlement and now it’s proving to be a reality…Let’s get back to the core. Push for innovation and do the things necessary to once again differentiate Starbucks from all others. We source and buy the highest quality coffee. We have built the most trusted brand in coffee in the world, and we have an enormous responsibility to both the people who have come before us and 150,000 partners and their families who are relying on our stewardship.”

From reactions from various quarters, it seems that a lot of people not only agree with Schultz, but also admire him for his frank assessment of Starbucks’ weakening brand leadership and authenticity. When the leadership is honest with itself, there must be hope for the brand and the company.

An acquaintance who works with Starbucks expressed it eloquently when she identified the challenge of “staying small, while growing big” and said, “I’m glad our leadership hasn’t forgotten the qualities that have made us who we are.”

Starbucks remains a market leader by far, in terms of retail footprint worldwide and can only grow stronger by sorting out these issues which are at the core of the business.

Two separate incidents recently reinforced to me the need to know and understand the customer intimately, and to have the ability to respond to that knowledge with the appropriate product or service.

One was the experience an acquaintance had with the tea-vendor at a Mumbai railway station, who had segmented his tea-concoctions by the train (and its passengers), customizing to their regional tastes.

The second was a music concert sponsored by a well-known motorbike brand. The audience was largely off-target and the event was clearly not successful for the bike brand, though the audience and the band itself had a great time. As the creator of the department store and the American inventor of the price ticket, John Wanamaker’s once said: “I know half of my advertising money is wasted, I just don’t know which half.”

It’s funny, how gut instincts and home-grown wisdom may quote often seem more successful than planning through facts and figures.

This is partly a function of India’s complexity as a country and a market.

Traditional marketing discipline calls for categorizing customers into segments that are similar within themselves, and distinct from each other. It assumes that there are large or at least measurable numbers of distinct groups of customers Within each group, the customers are assumed to behave and buy in similar ways, which are quite distinct from the other groups in the market.

The reality of life, of course, is that in any market, segments are almost always an artificial construct. In fact, it is becoming more difficult to find large segments that are cleanly demarcated – what’s more, in markets worldwide, customer segments have been blurring into each other.

The Indian market takes this complexity to another plane, and savvy marketers know this from personal experience. India as a market is anything but continuous or homogenous. This diversity is brought out by a media-group’s advertisements series on its radio-channel that make the point about India being a country with 145 festivals in a calendar of 365 days. Or as I’ve often heard Kishore Biyani and others say, in India the mix of language, food and culture changes every 80-100 kilometers.

Let’s face it, most mass products that are marketed in the same way across the country, are handled that way due to manufacturing or distribution economics. Some may even be handled uniformly due to the lack of marketing imagination. It is certainly not due to customers across the country being identical.

How well we can understand the dimensions and the differences can mean the difference between success or even survival and abject failure.

Here is an article that describes the benefits and pitfalls of consumer analyses in India. (Slicing The Market)

[Note: With a 6 MB filesize , the download may take a while if you have a slow connection!]

In my view, India and China are two countries that can change companies.

Most analyses of “consumer India” are led by affluent analysts primarily based in the biggest cities. These incomplete analyses are followed avidly also by international companies to draw up their India strategy. Most do not even scratch the surface of the diversity of the country, let alone customize the approach.

There are reasonably large and distinct consumer segments in India–many are alien to most companies based in the developed markets, because they have been extinct there for several decades.

The companies that seem to be succeeding are the ones who don’t come in expecting a billion-plus market (or even a “percentage” of that) hungering for their brand/product just as it is sold in the US or Europe. They are the ones who take the time, and show the patience, to understand the specifics that their target segment in India is looking for.

They are the ones who are prepared to to the extra mile in tailoring their offering to India. Some may even launch new products in India and then take them elsewhere.

If you’re prepared to discard the filter of the history of developed markets when looking at India, then opportunities abound.

Fresh out of a meeting with a large international retailer this morning, I would like to share something that I mentioned to them: that the Indian market is not as large as it seemed to most people 2-3-5 years ago (whatever base figures they may be using to calculate potential market size); neither is it as small as it seems today to brands that entered the market 10-15 years ago.

There are significantly different dynamics at play, which make the Indian market totally different from the growth curve you might have been accustomed to in the history of the US, Europe, or even more recently, China.

However, some fundamental realities remain common on the consumer side:

• Given choices, consumers will choose

• Given better environments, consumers generally will migrate to them

• Given lower prices for comparable products, consumers will compare, and choose not to spend beyond what is necessary

• A better merchandise mix will win out over a narrow / poor mix

The realities of real-estate costs are the same for everyone–whether the retailer is domestic or international. Domestic retailers may have an advantage in being able to move quicker on closing deals but foreign retailers may have deeper pockets to play with.

Politics remain the same as well–China opened its markets to investment by foreign retailers after allowing its domestic retailers to grow in scale; Eastern European countries may raise the occasional stink about the lack of competition when two foreign retailers decide to swap assets; even in their home markets, Wal-Mart and Tesco face determined opposition. In India we’re seeing just another version being played out.

All this, while everyone is mostly fighting for the top-tier consumer. There is a wider market out there, my friends, a very different one that needs to be understood well, together with its implications for your business model.