admin
December 20, 2021
Written By Vaishnavi Gupta
The furniture brand’s retail roadmap includes city stores in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru, followed by tier I and II towns
For the Ikea model to succeed, adequate demand-concentration is crucial, which is being currently provided by the bigger cities in India.
After launching two large-format stores in India in a span of three years — one each in Hyderabad and Navi Mumbai — Ikea opened its first small-format store in Worli, Mumbai, to become “more accessible and convenient”. About 90,000 sq ft in size, these ‘city’ stores are already present in markets such as New York, London, Paris, Moscow and Shanghai.
The furniture market in India stood at $17.77 billion in 2020, and is expected to reach $37.72 billion by 2026, growing at a CAGR of 13.37%, according to a Research and Markets report. Godrej Interio, UrbanLadder and Pepperfry are among the big players in this space, all with a significant online presence, too. Godrej Interio has 300 exclusive stores in India, while Pepperfry has more than 110 Studios.
Spread across three floors, Ikea’s first city store has 9,000 products in focus, of which 2,200 are available for takeaway and the rest for home delivery. “We have observed that it is not easy to find large retail locations in cities like Mumbai and Bengaluru. The small store offers convenience and accessibility for consumers to experience Ikea products,” says Per Hornell, area manager and country expansion manager, Ikea India. This launch is in line with the company’s aim to become accessible to 200 million homes in India by 2025, and 500 million homes by 2030.
More launches are being planned: another city store in Mumbai in the spring of 2022 and a large-format store as well as a city store in Bengaluru by the end of 2022. For its retail expansion in Maharashtra, the company plans to invest Rs 6,000 crore by 2030. “We are on track to exceed the investment commitment of Rs 10,500 crore made for India in December last year,” adds Hornell. Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru are the three cities on its radar at the moment, which will be followed by tier I and II towns.
Furthermore, Ingka Centres, part of Ingka Group that includes Ikea Retail, is coming up with its first shopping centre in Gurugram (followed by Noida), which will be integrated with an Ikea store.
In India, unlike its organised furniture market competitors, Ikea doesn’t have a pan-India online presence yet. It has been following a “cluster-based expansion strategy” for its online offering, but the company insists this is not a limitation. “At present, 30% of our overall India sales come from online channels,” Hornell informs. Through its e-commerce website and mobile shopping app, the company currently operates in Hyderabad, Mumbai, Pune, Bengaluru, Surat, Ahmedabad and Vadodara.
On the other hand, players like Godrej Interio and Pepperfry have big plans to tap new markets. The former aims to add 50 exclusive stores each year, while Pepperfry aims to achieve the 200 Studios mark by March 2022. In September this year, Pepperfry forayed into the customised furniture segment with the Pepperfry Modular offering, which focusses on modular kitchens, wardrobes and entertainment units.
Good start?
This is a good time for Ikea to establish its presence in the Indian market, says Alagu Balaraman, CEO, Augmented SCM. “Earlier, people used to rely on carpenters for furnishing their homes; now, they prefer to buy ready-made furniture. The market is moving towards acceptability, making plenty of headroom for growth for these companies,” he says.
Ikea’s cautious expansion approach in a market like India where several local dynamics are at play, is tactful, analysts say. Devangshu Dutta, founder, Third Eyesight, says, “In the past, Western businesses have made the mistake of simply copy-pasting formats and strategies in emerging markets from their more developed markets.” He believes there is “nothing wrong” in being incremental while growing footprint. “There’s no sense in carpet-bombing the market with stores, when many may end up being loss-making or sub-optimal,” he adds.
Getting the product mix and pricing right would be key in realising the full potential of this market. Balaraman says Ikea will have to balance its global portfolio with what it is doing locally, and make sure it is profitable.
For the Ikea model to succeed, adequate demand-concentration is crucial, which is being currently provided by the bigger cities in India. Given its global popularity, the furniture giant, analysts say, is poised to see traction in the metros and tier I cities.
Source: financialexpress
admin
March 25, 2020
T. Surendar, The Morning Context
25 March 2020
Standing on the porch of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Mumbai suburbs, Diwakar Vaish, co-founder of Noida-based AgVa Healthcare, was trying to catch the attention of software industry executives. This is at the annual conference hosted by IT trade body Nasscom. Vaish’s stall was a side-show for startups to exhibit digital technologies in the healthcare sector.
On a cool, breezy February day, the atmosphere was nothing as grim you would expect in a hospital emergency ward. Vaish’s rig, comprising an iPad-like device on a short steel column mounted on wheels with dangling wires, was a cost-effective version of a ventilator used in critical care. There wasn’t much excitement about his solution, as few executives really understood the medical problem he aimed to solve.
Today, a robotic engineer by training, Vaish is super busy.
It is not easy to get him on the phone, as AgVa’s ventilator is suddenly in demand from all parts of the country. The company is running three shifts fulfilling orders, which have been pouring in since it became apparent that Indian hospitals did not have enough ventilators for patients rendered ill by the novel coronavirus.
Unwittingly, the need for ventilators has once again drawn attention to India’s medical devices industry or the lack of it. So much so that Anand Mahindra, chairman of the $17 billion Mahindra group, which has interests in automobiles, software and resorts, said that he was finding ways to manufacture ventilators in his factories. It isn’t easy putting together a ventilator, not when you are racing against time, but Mahindra is a hardy businessman with deep pockets, and maybe, just maybe, he will succeed.
In many ways, the Indian medical devices industry is an anomaly. India has a space programme, a nuclear programme, it is among the few countries that has developed patented medicines and a low cost version of anything from power turbines to trucks but when it comes to medical equipment, it fares poorly.
India is also the biggest supplier of FDA-approved drugs to the US, the biggest pharmaceutical market in the world. Even as the Indian market for medical equipment has grown at double-digit rates in the last five years to Rs 1 lakh crore, two-thirds of its needs are met by foreign companies such as Philips, GE Healthcare, Siemens and Abbott.
Import domination is all pervasive extending to even non-critical but common equipment like sonography machines, dentistry chairs and diagnostic equipment. Less than five Indian companies had revenue of more than Rs 500 crore a year and 90% were classified as small scale, with annual revenue less than Rs 10 crore. The biggest player in the domestic market is the Rs 1,300 crore Mumbai-based Transasia Bio-Medicals, which makes in vitro diagnostic solutions that are exported to Western markets too.
“For a long time, the government was the biggest buyer of medical equipment and they always preferred imported equipment. That meant that it was not lucrative for local entrepreneurs to invest their capital in the sector,” says G.S.K. Velu, managing director of Trivitron Healthcare, which makes and exports imaging equipment.
The proliferation of private hospitals in the last two decades also did not change things much. With well-entrenched foreign players and a liberal import duty structure to make available the best facilities in India, there were few local companies of scale who could invest big money to fend off competition. AgVa’s ventilators were priced at a fifth of the ones sold by the foreign competitors, yet it couldn’t make inroads into big hospitals. “It’s almost as if our cost was our barrier to sell. Being critical equipment, customers had a lot of inertia to even place test orders,” says Vaish.
Thanks to meagre domestic manufacturing. India also could not set standards of equipment specifications to suit the local needs. It had to tweak its own equipment standards to fall in line with those of foreign manufacturers. For example, in the US, defibrillators used to restore heartbeats by giving shock to patients had to last at least two shock cycles. But, in India, since access to hospitals and medical care was not as easy. patients arrive long after they have suffered heart attacks and Indian doctors use defibrillators for even 10 cycles at a time.
The local standards did not specify this need and as a result many imported defibrillators were not of much use in Indian conditions. “We still don’t have an act to regulate medical devices and it falls under the drugs category. Everything is still borrowed from the West,” says Aniruddha Atre, co-founder and director of Pune-based Jeevtronics Pvt. Ltd, which makes the world’s first hand-cranked defibrillator.
Trivitron’s Velu says that the share of locally produced medical equipment will increase within the next decade. This will be a combination of help from the government which will enforce more domestic manufacturing by overseas firms and increased entrepreneurship.
There is also a view that more global manufacturing will come to India, as firms de-risk their strategy of manufacturing everything in China. “In the past, when labour costs went up in the Chinese west coast, Indian garment companies were beneficiaries of increased orders even though other countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam too got a big share of it. The availability of labour and ability to scale up operations is something global players look for and to that extent India will always be an important outsourcing destination,” said Devangshu Dutta, managing partner at consultancy firm Third Eyesight.
The trend started even before the COVID-19 pandemic as companies in the US began to brace themselves for a trade war with China. For example, a US-based company has started sourcing Indian tyres at a 10-15% premium as it wants to diversify its risk from China. “India has witnessed a surge in mobile phone manufacturing. This is bound to increase the ecosystem in electronic manufacturing which in turn create ecosystems for industries like medical equipment,” says Sharad Verma, senior partner who oversees industrials at Boston Consulting Group.
The timing is also right for increase in local manufacturing, argues Verma. One of the important criteria for that is viable domestic consumption. It’s happened time and again in sectors like automobiles, mobile phones and more recently in manufacture of metro bogies after domestic consumption has reached a scale where it makes sense for companies to set up manufacturing facilities. “The industry is no longer small and the incidence of medical technology will only go up from here making it viable for even foreign companies to look at a manufacturing set up in India,” says Verma.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. The sector, so far, hasn’t seen much by way of private equity or venture investment. The most prominent one was an investment by a Morgan Stanley fund and Samara Capital in Surat-based Sahajanand Medical Technologies and Fidelity Growth Partners’s investment in Trivitron. But starting 2014, a government fund run by the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council-incubated several companies who are slowly bringing their products to market. As some of these products hit home, especially in the wake of COVID-19, the action is definitely bound to pick up.
(published in The Morning Context)
admin
October 7, 2019
Indian tea brands want a piece of this steaming hot business.
Written By Devika Singh
The company now plans to expand to the North Indian cities of Gurugram, Chandigarh, Amritsar and Lucknow, among others.
Homegrown tea makers are foraying into quick-service restaurants (QSRs) to tap into the ‘eating out’ culture in India and grow the business. But competition is aplenty — global brands have a formidable presence in India’s QSR scene, even as start-up brands such as Chai Point and Chaayos are gaining traction. According to a report by CARE Ratings, the total market size of QSRs in India is approximately Rs 25,900 crore. The overall restaurant and food service industry is expected to grow at a CAGR of 10.4% between 2018 and 2020.
Indian tea brands want a piece of this steaming hot business. Society Tea, a brand predominantly present in Maharashtra, recently opened its first tea café in Mumbai. Goodricke Group has tied up with the Tea Board of India to launch tea lounges in Mumbai and Kolkata on the latter’s premises. Gujarat-based Wagh Bakri, which was among the first movers, plans to expand its tea lounge presence to 50 large and small format outlets, from the current 13, over the next four years.
What’s brewing?
When Wagh Bakri opened its first tea lounge in Ahmedabad in 2007, the company saw it only as another experiential marketing tool. “Initially, it was a place where people could explore different kinds of tea. But, over the years, we saw a demand for these lounges,” says Parag Desai, executive director, Wagh Bakri Tea Group. The company claims to receive a footfall of 300-400 people per day on an average in stores present in high-street locations.
“We have deliberately stepped out of food courts to keep our offering premium,” Desai adds. A Wagh Bakri tea lounge could entail an investment of Rs 50-75 lakh. The company now plans to expand to the North Indian cities of Gurugram, Chandigarh, Amritsar and Lucknow, among others.
Society Tea, meanwhile, plans to open 10 more stores — mid-size stores around corporate offices — in Maharashtra. Pricing will be its key differentiator. “We are not pricing the product at Rs 300 like other players, but offering a full glass of chai at Rs 50,” says Karan Shah, director, Society Tea.
Goodricke Group has five operational tea lounges in the country, with plans to open one more, its second, in Darjeeling by the year end. The aim is to first foster brand awareness via its presence in locations of high tourist interest.
Blending in
Is a QSR foray really their cup of tea?
According to Devangshu Dutta, chief executive, Third Eyesight, each player could be backed by a different motivation to enter this space. Some may want to use it purely as a marketing tool, while some others may look at it as an alternative source of revenue.
QSRs can be an effective marketing tool especially for brands that have limited access to customers through retail. “Such stores help increase visibility and offer insights about their customers, their spending patterns, etc,” says Pinakiranjan Mishra, partner and leader, consumer products and retail, EY India.
However, expanding footprint in the market and eyeing revenue from the QSR chain could entail substantial investments for tea brands. “If tea companies look at QSRs as an additional business stream, then besides tea, there are food items and cold beverages to be served, which cannot be sourced just from the gardens,” says Dutta.
Furthermore, it will be an uphill task in the presence of biggies Starbucks, Café Coffee Day and Costa Coffee, that are established names in the market, in addition to other upstarts like Chaayos, which has over 50 cafés across Delhi-NCR, Mumbai and Chandigarh, and Chai Point which has 100 cafés in eight cities.
To get an edge, Harsha Razdan, partner and head – life sciences and consumer markets, KPMG India, says that new entrants would have to go beyond metros “and should ensure competitive pricing as the market is price sensitive”.
Source: financialexpress
admin
March 27, 2019
“Fashion is a zombie business. It is dead and it doesn’t know it yet,” says Devangshu Dutta, Founder of Third Eyesight, a specialist management consulting firm.
This is a must-watch excerpt from a presentation and panel discussion anchored by Devangshu Dutta on 27 March 2019 at the India Fashion Forum, in Mumbai.
The challenge he presents is simple: create a new business model for the fashion sector.
Devangshu Dutta
May 29, 2001
For many decades from the early 1900s onwards, retailers followed a ‘trader’ or ‘merchant’ model, largely buying from those suppliers who could provide the best prices. Of course other parameters were considered as well, such as desirability of the product, but price was the major driver. It was also rare for retailers to go out to look for suppliers – suppliers normally turned up at the merchant’s doors to sell their wares.
There was little, if any, strategy to selecting the ‘supply base’. Retailers were much too busy building their presence in the market, opening new stores, acquiring new markets, growing their product offer; in short, concentrating on the business of selling to consumers. International trade existed, as it has since the dawn of history, but was led by traders. Retailers, by and large, followed the domestic sourcing route.
The retailer goes abroad
The 1950s were driven by the need to rebuild war-shattered economies through trade and economic cooperation. Bi-lateral, and later multi-lateral, trade agreements were brought into force. An awareness of other countries around the world was also brought into sharp focus through two successive world wars, particularly the second. Retailers began to explore supply bases outside their home countries, and from the 1960s to the 1990s this international trade grew by leaps and bounds. Naturally, as the pioneers went overseas, so did their competitors – it is very hard to compete profitably, when your rivals are buying comparable merchandise at much cheaper prices.
As a result, by the early 90s the supply base of any large retailer in the major consuming markets would take in more than 30-35 countries from which products might be sourced. And as the number of supply countries grew, so too did the number of suppliers. It would not be unusual for 500-1000 suppliers to be dealing with a single retailer.
Consolidation, conservation and conservatism
Retailers such as Wal-Mart in the USA, M&S in the UK, Carrefour in France and many others have had preferred suppliers who grew along with them. These suppliers were typically based in the home country of the retailer, and set up production units or sourcing organisations overseas from where they could supply goods to their customer at a competitive price. In some cases, their sourcing strategies were driven by their own analyses; in others the retailer led the way (such as M&S or Wal-Mart identifying the next preferred supply country).
In the 1990s a scientific sourcing principle began to be applied. It was good to cut down supplier numbers, since this reduced the management effort on the part of the buyer to constantly look for new suppliers and maintain current relationships. Terms such as ‘key’, ‘preferred’ or ‘strategic’ supplier came into vogue.
As an example, witness the dramatic supply base reduction undertaken by most large retailers in the UK. Some organisations even looked to supermarkets to understand and apply their supply base management principles, where product categories were dominated by, or completely split up between, less than four suppliers. In a few cases, it reached such extremes that one supplier virtually controlled a retailer’s entire product lines.
Some organisations even quantified the cost of moving into new supply countries in an attempt to understand whether it was worthwhile and how best to shape their sourcing strategy.
At the end of the 90s and into 2000, however, there seem to be rumblings among retailers about the need for some more diversity in their supply bases. Statements such as “we are uncomfortable with our overexposure to country X”, or “I wish I could manage to meet some more suppliers to get a feel for what is happening out there in the marketplace – otherwise our range ends up looking like everyone else’s”, or even, “sometimes we feel we miss out on innovative factories because we are so deeply bound with our existing supply base”, reflect the general consensus.
So, the question is, has supply base consolidation been taken too far?
Time for a new deal
The first step should be to acknowledge that the business of retailing needs a healthy balance between predictability and innovation. Predictability, as much as is possible in sourcing, could be represented by relationships with known and trusted suppliers. It would take a very strong individual, and a very large safety net, to work every season with large numbers of unknown, new suppliers. It would also require a lot of management time and effort to keep educating new suppliers about the business and its needs.
However, equally, it must be acknowledged that the fashion business is not like automobile or aircraft businesses where practically the entire market and supply base is known.
Nor is it as expensive to develop new products or product components. In the automotive industry new models cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop – and with such high stakes, buyers tend to select their suppliers carefully and, once the relationship is established, stick to the relationship for a fairly long period of time, with both parties investing resources in it for mutual long-term gain.
In the fashion industry, on the other hand, most product development investment does not exceed a few thousand dollars. This is well within the capability of not only the largest preferred suppliers of the large retailers, but most of the supply base around the world. Whether design-led or technology-led, new products and new looks are constantly being created. Similarly, innovative business practices that generate more responsive factories, improve quality or reduce costs, are not the sole domain of large, old and established companies.
The two critical areas that need to be addressed by any retailer are:
There are many answers to these questions. One of them, which provides a structure or framework in which to work, is the link between product-type and sourcing strategy.
In this, as a first step, a buyer must make a mental division between ‘largely predictable’ products and ‘fashion’ products. Largely predictable products include not only basic or staple items, such as the three-pack of underwear or a $150 suit, but also seasonal items (such as swimwear) for which sales vary dramatically from summer to winter but follow a rhythmic pattern, with some variation, over the same season from year-to-year. For one company such predictable products might be 80 per cent of the business, while for another it might be no more than 20-40 per cent of the entire range.
For such products, supply base hopping is almost certainly the wrong strategy to follow. The sensible strategy would be to concentrate energy on developing relationships with certain key supply bases and suppliers who provide a long-term sustainability or constant improvement in terms of cost, quality and other performance parameters.
On the other hand, there are other products that follow the dictates of changing fashion moods more closely. For these products, putting a long-term commitment on any significant proportion of this segment to specific suppliers can be counter-productive. It can create a sense of security in the supplier, or even the buyer, possibly reduce the drive towards product and service innovation, and maybe even make the overall sourcing-supply relationship relatively inefficient over a period of time.
There is a sense of ‘supply dependence’ associated with supply consolidation, in comparison to the sense of ‘interdependence’ that comes from a flexible (even though not fully open) network of buyer and supplier relationships. A cosy ‘strategic’ relationship that assumes a two-way exclusivity also creates a relatively narrow channel of ideas and developments, and becomes largely process-driven at the cost of creativity. This is fine if you are selling the same product year-in, year-out; but certain suicide (or slow poison, at best) if you are in any part of the fashion market.
This is not to imply that strategic relationships can’t work in the ‘fashion’ arena. But make sure that in such a relationship the suppliers who are worried, nay paranoid, about their own survival. In the best organisations, uncertainty brings about creativity – pick a strategic supplier like that, and you’ve picked a winner!
Achieving the golden mean
Of course, a perfect balance between long-term strategic suppliers and new relationships is as elusive as the perfect business strategy. If one set of rules governed sourcing in the apparel and textile industries, the sector would have been consolidated around this many decades ago.
Previous experience is certainly a worthwhile guide to selecting suppliers and supply countries. But the competitiveness of supply bases is changing all the time, and suppliers are constantly developing new capabilities around the world. As someone once said, in business relying only on past experience is like driving a rally sports car blindfolded, while the navigator guides you looking through the rear windshield!
By using the tools to discover, build and maintain new relationships efficiently, most buyers should keep their doors open for new suppliers to walk in and display their capability. Closed doors mean closing the possibly to innovative products, significant margin improvement, and even new methods of doing business that might bring about tremendous improvements in ‘sourcing profitability’.
In a different context, a presentation at the National Retail Federation (NRF) seminar in the USA in 1999 by consultant Kurt Salmon Associates mentioned the potential need to move away from the ‘super-specialised’ and ‘super-analytical’ role of today’s retail buyer to bring in shades of the ‘merchant’ of the past.
The truth is that successful retailers have never really abandoned the merchant principle. This degree of freedom is essential to maintaining the healthy influx of new ideas that keep a retailer’s brand alive with the customer and keep it moving ahead in the market. During the selection process, smart buyers even look at the customer list of their suppliers with a conscious effort to imbibe product trends, technical knowledge and best practices from other companies in their own or other markets.
Managing diversification
The key factor that needs to be managed is the effort on the buyer’s part. If a buyer could manage more relationships with the same amount of time and effort, he would probably make more effective use of his own and his supplier’s capabilities to create a more dynamic product and service offer.
Two primary tools come to mind for creating and managing a more diversified supply base: collaboration and technology.
In ‘collaborating’ with the supplier, the idea is to see both buyer and supplier as part of the same demand-supply chain. In fact, take it right back to the supplier’s supplier. Understand that the processes run across organisations, rather than residing in any one – the buyer has as much responsibility and accountability in the sourcing process as the supplier. Information must be shared more transparently, and the overall sourcing process must be managed together, beginning from the product conceptualisation to final delivery. Brainstorming helps, ‘blame-storming’ doesn’t. This approach is as equally valid with a new supplier as with an old, trusted supplier. Good buyers already follow this approach, and it shows in their company’s market performance and financial results. And it does not even add lead-time; in fact, in many cases, it cuts down time.
Secondly, make use of emerging technologies. Don’t just depend on a company’s database or EDI systems. There are a number of tools available today which are relatively inexpensive and easy to use – from the basic supplier profiles available on the numerous marketplaces and exchanges around the world, to more advanced technologies that enable collaborative management of product development and sourcing process management.
There are even well developed systems that can act like virtual assistants, helping buyers and suppliers to keep track of order-specific tasks, and updating each other automatically of the status of these tasks. If you did not have to spend effort on fighting the fire caused by the task that you forgot yesterday, would you have a little more time available to speak to that new supplier whose profile you liked but just could not make the time to meet?
There is no quick fix, and each situation will be different. But I believe that for many buyers, the choices are becoming rather stark. Innovative or staid product? Market leadership, or complete loss of the pole position? Survival or decline? The choices that you make today have a habit of showing up in the profit and loss statements of tomorrow.
