admin
June 5, 2025
Aakriti Bansal, MediaNama
June 5, 2025
A restaurant owner recently took to X (formerly Twitter) to publicly slam Zomato for “mystery charges” and unauthorised ad placements, reigniting concerns over how the platform treats its small business partners. The tweet, accompanied by screenshots of the restaurant’s earnings dashboard, claimed that despite months of listings, his restaurant received zero payouts, and Zomato allegedly ran ads without his consent.
“Dear @zomato @deepigoyal I’m finally pulling my restaurant off your platform. Congrats! Your mystery service charges, surprise ad placements (without consent), and a POC who ghosts like it’s a talent show—truly inspiring. Small outlets deserve better,” restaurant owner Manish posted on X, under the username @maniyakiduniya.Zomato responded: “We hear you! As mentioned earlier, please share your restaurant ID with us via DM, so that our team can get in touch with you.”
The post has struck a chord among restaurant owners who say Zomato’s ad model bleeds their business dry. In conversations with MediaNama over the week, two restaurant owners and a former manager with Zomato independently confirmed that the platform’s advertising system leaves little room for transparency, choice, or sustainable profit.
The names of the restaurant owners and the former Zomato manager have been withheld to protect their anonymity.
Forced Ad Spending and Diminishing Returns
Restaurant owners say visibility on Zomato is tightly tied to how much they spend on advertising.
“If you don’t run ads, your restaurant won’t even show up unless someone searches for you by name,” one owner told MediaNama. He further added, “From what I’ve seen, the top 10 restaurants you see when you open Zomato are all paying for that spot.”Even ratings and reviews don’t help. For instance, if a user searches for ‘noodles’, only those who have paid for the ad category will show up in the list.
Restaurant owners explained how the ad budget starts small, around Rs. 300–400 per week, but grows rapidly. In one case, as seen by MediaNama in a restaurant’s ad dashboard, spending jumped from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 15,000 per week in just two to three weeks.
“Some are spending Rs. 18,000 to Rs. 20,000 weekly now on ads just to stay afloat,” an owner explained, noting that these costs are hard to bear for restaurants with weekly sales as low as Rs. 2,500.
“When everyone is pushed to advertise just to stay visible, it raises serious questions about how fair the competition is on the platform,” they said. “It’s not about food quality or ratings anymore, it’s about who pays more,” they added.
A screenshot shared by a restaurant owner showing a decline in sales from ads, offers, and orders with applied discounts, highlighting concerns over the effectiveness of Zomato’s advertising model.
Click Charges with No Sales
Zomato charges restaurants based on clicks, not conversions. This means a restaurant is charged whenever a user taps on its listing after seeing a sponsored ad, regardless of whether the user places an order.
One owner explained, “A single click can cost around Rs. 6. Even if a customer just views the restaurant by clicking on it and doesn’t buy, that money is deducted.” He showed a dashboard with 4,877 clicks – most of which occurred before noon – but no conversions. “They exhaust our daily limit by 12 PM and then tell us to increase ad budgets,” he added.
Another restaurant owner echoed similar concerns in a Reddit conversation reviewed by MediaNama. The owner stated that Zomato counts a ‘visit’ even when a user scrolls past an ad and places an order a day later. “That is on purpose,” he wrote, calling the model “scammy for sure”. He also confirmed that restaurants receive no detailed data on who placed orders via ads versus organically.
Furthermore, the owner noted that Zomato lacks a clear grievance redressal mechanism for ad-related issues, as complaints are often ignored by a restaurant owner’s point of contact.
“There’s no formal audit or independent review if an ad campaign fails,” he said.The Legal Escape Hatch: You Signed the Contract
Restaurant owners say Zomato deducts ad spends automatically, citing terms buried in the onboarding agreement – terms many admit they didn’t fully understand before signing. Once enrolled, there’s no clear way to pause or cancel.
“There’s no way to opt out once it starts, and no refunds either,” one merchant said. “Zomato just says, ‘You came to us,’ whenever we raise concerns,” he added.
But is this consent truly informed? “It’s a honeytrap,” the merchant said. “There’s no other option but to keep spending on ads if you want to stay relevant on the platform,” he explained.
Price Parity, Platform Pressure, and Squeezed Margins
Another major source of concern is Zomato’s price parity push. According to one owner, the company convinced restaurants to upload their table-rate menu on the platform by offering to lower commission fees. However, this strategy has backfired for many.
“They promised lower commission if we maintained the same prices online and offline. But now we pay Good and Services Tax (GST), high commissions, and ad spends on top of that. Our margins are cut down to 5–10%,” he said. Commissions alone can go up to 35–40% every month, forcing smaller restaurants to comply just to remain competitive.
In effect, merchants are footing the bill for everything: discounts, ads, visibility, and commissions, while Zomato gains from each layer.
Coupons and Data Obscurity
The dashboard Zomato offers shows data like clicks and visits, but it hides key financial insights that would help merchants make informed decisions. “They will show you how much you sold, but not how much you are paying to the platform,” one owner said.
Restaurant owners also said they have little to no control over how Zomato spends their ad budget. “We don’t know when our ads are shown, or to whom. There’s no data on which campaign worked better, or what to change,” one merchant said. Without visibility into targeting and performance strategy, many feel they are blindly spending in hopes of visibility.
Coupon codes, too, are deducted from the restaurant’s share, even if the platform offers them without informing the merchant. “Whatever discount a customer sees, it’s cut from our side. Zomato’s share is tiny, about 15%. We bear the rest,” the merchant added.
If a platform issues discounts unilaterally but bills restaurants for them, is that a fair bargain?
Opaque Categories and Manipulated Targeting
Merchants also highlighted how Zomato divides ad rates by cuisine categories — North Indian, Chinese, etc. — and even by customer frequency. “There are eight to 10 customer categories, each with a different ad rate,” an owner said. “Frequent buyers are more expensive to target”, he added.
The platform nudges merchants to buy targeted ads by showing graphics and dashboards that suggest potential boosts. But when profits drop, and merchants reach out, they are told that competition has increased significantly since they last got in touch with Zomato and they should spend more.
“It’s a vicious cycle. They’ll say: ‘Try a brand title ad or pay Rs. 300 extra to reach daily customers.’ The game never ends,” revealed the restaurant owner.Inside Zomato: How Ads Shape Visibility
A former Zomato manager told MediaNama that restaurants not running ads don’t get deliberately penalised, but they do end up losing visibility. “Those who run ads automatically rise in rankings. So the others fall behind,” he said. Even a high-rated restaurant may slip if competitors outspend it.
For context, how much a restaurant pays for ads often depends on their rapport with the specific Zomato account manager and their business goals. “If a restaurant wants aggressive growth, we push it to the top line: high spend, high return. Others stay in the down line: lower investment, slower scale,” he said.
Ad pricing, he said, is not standardised. “It varies depending on what the manager thinks the client can afford and how much they are willing to push.”
He added that Zomato’s discovery algorithm changes every five to six months, which makes it difficult for restaurants to adapt or plan long-term. “The idea is to keep the system rotating so one client doesn’t dominate.”
Performance tracking for restaurants, he said, is mostly transparent except for one missing piece: acquisition data. “Zomato doesn’t show how many customers came through advertising. That’s where it becomes murky.”
He admitted Zomato doesn’t intervene if a restaurant complains about bad ad results. “It depends on the manager’s willingness but hardly anyone did it because of too many internal disputes on this issue.”
Why Ad Revenue Matters So Much
Ad revenue, the former Zomato manager said, is especially crucial in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities.
“In big cities, order values are high, so aggregators can survive on commissions. But in smaller cities, ad income is the main driver as the order values are comparatively low”, the former manager added.Zomato’s Q4FY25 Shareholders’ Letter reflects this reliance: the company’s advertising and sales promotion expenses rose to Rs. 1,972 crore on a consolidated basis in FY25, up from Rs. 1,432 crore in FY24. While these are expenses borne by the platform, they highlight how advertising has become a structural lever in both customer acquisition and revenue generation.
Elsewhere, an HDFC Securities report states that quick commerce companies have theoretical levers to improve margins, such as increasing take rates, including higher ad income. It also observes that Blinkit would need to improve its take rates from 18.5% to 22% to reach a 5% adjusted EBITDAM (Earnings before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortisation, and Management Fees), with ad revenue identified as a key lever to meet that target.
However, the report notes that heightened competition may keep some of these levers non-operational.
Zomato‘s Response
In response to MediaNama’s queries, a Zomato spokesperson shared the following statement:
“All marketing collaborations such as ads, promotions, and discounts etc., as well as commercials, are mutually discussed with our restaurant partners before being switched on, switched off or modified. Our multi-factor authentication system ensures that partners retain full control and give explicit consent which is registered before any changes go live. We also maintain robust escalation mechanisms, allowing partners to raise concerns and receive prompt, satisfactory resolutions through the Restaurant Partner App as well as centralised helpline numbers.
We continue to see restaurants having confidence in our partnership and are taking a proactive step to improve and enhance our interactions and processes. For our smaller restaurant partners, we work extra hard to make it easier for them to grow with us. There are always opportunities to improve and we are committed to working on them, on-time.”
While Zomato says it maintains robust escalation mechanisms and explicit partner consent, restaurant owners who spoke to MediaNama described a different reality: one of automatic deductions, limited control, and opaque ad operations.
What Zomato’s Policy Says and Doesn’t
According to Zomato’s Sponsored Listing Service terms, merchants are expected to make full payments in advance. Refunds are not guaranteed, and Zomato has full discretion on ad placements, sizes, and category changes.
The company “assumes no liability or responsibility for any… click frauds, technological issues or other potentially invalid activity that affects the cost of Service.” It also “does not warrant the results from use of Service, and the Merchant assumes all risk and responsibility.”
The Sponsored Listing Service terms grant Zomato broad rights to use merchant content, brand names, and logos, while limiting the company’s liability to the amount of fee paid during a term. These terms become legally binding once the Service Request Form (SRF) is signed.
While Zomato offers a merchant dashboard to track visits, it does not disclose the full breakdown of how ad money is being spent or how much value is being returned. One merchant noted that visibility data only started appearing in the last five to six months. Before that, they had no metrics at all.
Swiggy’s Self Serve Ads: A More Transparent Model?
Swiggy says its ad platform puts control in the hands of restaurant partners. Through the Self Serve Ads tool, restaurants can create their own campaigns, adjust daily spends, and track how those campaigns perform. The company promotes the tool as flexible and cost-effective, with no upfront payments.
The onboarding process is laid out step-by-step: restaurants upload documents like GST and Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) certificates, complete Know Your Customer (KYC), and sign a Partnership Agreement after a verification visit from a Swiggy representative, As per Swiggy, commissions are based on location and whether a restaurant opts for extra promotions.
Compared to Zomato’s Sponsored Listings model, which some restaurant owners say they didn’t fully understand when signing up, Swiggy’s approach looks more structured and consent-driven, at least on the surface.
But that clarity doesn’t always hold up. One of the restaurant owners told MediaNama that Swiggy’s model isn’t entirely different from Zomato’s. “You have to pay them if you want your restaurant to show up in search. It’s the same thing, just framed differently,” the owner said, suggesting that visibility on the platform often comes at a cost, regardless of how the ad system is marketed.
Advertising as a Structural Lever in Quick Commerce
Restaurant owners have flagged the rising costs and opacity of advertising on platforms like Zomato. But industry research shows that this isn’t just a revenue stream but it’s central to how delivery platforms, especially in quick commerce, are designed to operate.
A September 2024 report by CLSA, titled App-racadabra- Magic Behind Instant Delivery Liberating Customers, found that ad revenue makes up around 3.5% to 4.5% of gross merchandise value (GMV) on Zepto. That figure is only expected to grow as more brands start recognising the significance of quick commerce.
Interestingly, Zepto doesn’t just run ads for brands that sell on its platform. It also allows companies to advertise even if they aren’t listed, using spaces like the order tracking page, according to the report.
Quick commerce platforms can also use past purchase data to deliver more targeted ads and push higher-value products – what the report calls driving “premiumisation” of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG).
Zomato’s quick commerce arm, Blinkit, is expected to lean heavily on ads to hit profitability targets. CLSA notes that Blinkit’s margins could eventually exceed those of food delivery, given the larger potential for ad revenue and the shift toward higher-margin categories.
The report adds that quick commerce is especially useful for smaller or direct-to-consumer (D2C) brands. These businesses can tap into a pan-India audience without having to build their own distribution networks.
The CLSA findings reinforce how advertising isn’t just about visibility, but it is baked into the business model. As margins tighten, discovery on these apps is no longer organic but paid.
Expert View: Power, Visibility, and Platform Dependence
These patterns mirror broader trends across retail and platform ecosystems, not just food delivery.
Devangshu Dutta, the Founder and Chief Executive of specialist consulting firm Third Eyesight, told MediaNama that these dynamics are not unique to Zomato or even food delivery.
“Advertising and promotion focussing on specific brands or products is standard across various platforms and formats. It is an outcome of the balance of power between the platform and the supplier brand, and is equally true of physical retail chains, online marketplaces and aggregation platforms such as Zomato,” he said.
Brands or restaurant chains with deeper pockets tend to secure greater visibility—whether through premium shelf space in physical stores or prominent placements like sponsored listings and banners on delivery platforms.
“Demand-side concentration inevitably favours larger suppliers and brands who can fund visibility, whether it is through endcap displays in a retail aisle or sponsored banners or top-of-search-list positions on an app,” Dutta stated.However, he noted that some established brands may choose to bypass platform dependence altogether.
“If brands are well-established or have other means to ensure that their message and product reaches the target consumer, they may choose to opt out of the channel, as many restaurants have done with Zomato and Swiggy,” Dutta explained.
How Can Restaurants Push Back?
In the context of restaurants displaying resistance to food delivery apps, one of the restaurant owners said that small restaurants need to come together.
“There should be local unions who can stand up to Zomato. And there should be a blanket rule on how much ad spend is allowed, so merchants don’t fall into this trap,” the owner said.He added that Zomato seems to earn more from merchants than from customers. “Whatever we pay to be visible, it all goes into the platform’s pocket”, he explained.
Further, he argued that without collective action, individual pushback rarely works. “The minute we stop ad spend, our listings drop to the bottom. So we need to walk together. If even 30% of merchants stop ads at once, it will force a reaction.”
Why This Matters
As India’s online food delivery market continues to grow, so does the reliance of small businesses on platforms like Zomato. However, these platforms are acting as gatekeepers by deciding who gets seen, how often, and at what price.
By tying discovery to opaque algorithms and costly ad spends, they tilt the playing field in favour of businesses that can afford to pay more. In such a system, can small restaurants survive?
And the issue goes beyond advertising. Zomato recently paused its 50:50 refund-sharing policy after public backlash and partner complaints. Restaurant owners said the company auto-enabled the policy and deducted money without consent or clear explanation. As with ads, there was no transparent opt-out process or formal appeal.
Together, these practices raise broader concerns: Should platform-led monetisation come with stricter disclosure norms? Can regulators step in to ensure pricing fairness and transparency in merchant contracts? And what role can merchant collectives play in counterbalancing this power?
For now, many restaurant owners feel caught in a system that offers visibility and participation at a cost they cannot afford and exit without impact.
(Published in MediaNama)
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)
admin
March 4, 2025
Kashmeera Sambamurthy, Storyboard18
4 March 2025
A growing number of health advocates and industry watchdogs in India are raising concerns over misleading food advertisements, challenging brands on their claims and pushing for stricter regulations in an industry where marketing often outpaces oversight.
Recently, lifestyle guru Luke Coutinho called out quick-commerce platform Zepto over what he described as a misleading advertisement for garlic bread on Instagram. Sharing a screenshot of the ad on his social media, Coutinho criticized its promotion of refined carbohydrates as a bedtime snack, calling it “unethical” and a product of corporate greed. Tagging regulatory bodies including the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), he urged authorities to take action.
Similarly, Dr. Arun Gupta, convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), a national think tank of medical experts, pediatricians, and nutritionists, highlighted a full-page advertisement in Delhi Times for Amul TRU, a fruit drink brand. The ad, published on February 14, emphasized the “goodness of real fruits in every pack,” but Gupta pointed out that the listed ingredients contained concentrated fruit rather than fresh produce.
These instances reflect a broader pattern of misleading advertising in India’s food and beverage sector. While such controversies have long existed, it was only on February 7 this year that the Indian government announced the formation of a 19-member committee, led by Union Minister of Food Processing Industries Chirag Paswan, to address deceptive marketing practices and introduce more stringent regulations.
India’s struggle with misleading food advertisements dates back years. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) and FSSAI signed an MoU in 2016 to curb deceptive advertising in the food and beverage sector. Two years later, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) issued an order restricting junk food advertisements on children’s television channels, though they remained permissible on mainstream networks.
Despite these measures, misleading claims persist. In 2023 alone, FSSAI flagged 32 instances of food business operators violating the Food Safety and Standards (Advertisements & Claims) Regulations of 2018. That same year, actor Amitabh Bachchan faced criticism for endorsing Britannia Milk Bikis in a Kaun Banega Crorepati Junior commercial, where the biscuits were equated with the nutritional value of atta roti and a glass of milk.
Health influencer Revant Himatsingka, widely known as ‘Food Pharmer,’ also took on the industry, calling out Cadbury Bournvita for its high sugar content. Mondelez International reduced the product’s sugar levels by 15 percent and dropped its ‘health drink’ label from marketing materials.
The regulatory landscape includes four key frameworks to combat misleading food advertisements: the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act), the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019, and the ASCI Code of Self-Regulation.
However, Gupta argues that these regulations require amendments to better define misleading claims. In 2024, NAPi lodged a complaint with FSSAI against advertisements for Parle-G Royale biscuits, which allegedly misrepresented their sugar content. The response? “There is no FSS regulation which says that nutrients will be declared in the advertisement,” authorities stated.
Gupta further highlighted that when FSSAI initially flagged 150 misleading advertisements in 2023, that number was later reduced to 32, with no clear updates on enforcement actions. “When the Kaun Banega Crorepati ad equated Britannia Milk Bikis with atta roti and milk, NAPi protested. The ad was pulled, but no fines were imposed,” he noted.
Celebrity endorsements add another layer to the issue. The 2024 TAM AdEx report found that food and beverage advertisements accounted for 28 percent of all celebrity-endorsed ads in India. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, prohibits celebrities from endorsing banned products but allows promotions unless explicitly prohibited by law.
In a telling 2006 interview with journalist Karan Thapar, Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan defended his endorsement of soft drinks, arguing, “If soft drinks are bad, ban their production. If production is not stopped due to revenue concerns, don’t stop my revenue.”
ASCI CEO Manisha Kapoor observed that influencers frequently promote foods without disclosing financial ties to brands, making endorsements appear organic rather than paid sponsorships. Sweta Rajan, a partner at Economic Laws Practice, expressed concerns that celebrity-backed marketing distorts public perception of healthy eating. “The continuous exposure to such ads makes it difficult for consumers to make informed choices,” she said.
The recently formed 19-member government committee has been met with skepticism from experts who believe it may lack independence. “The committee does not include a public health expert. Half its members belong to industry bodies. It should form a subcommittee to define what constitutes healthy food,” Gupta said.
Himatsingka called for stringent penalties against brands found guilty of misleading advertisements, suggesting that companies be publicly named on a weekly basis. Rajan, meanwhile, warned against excessive regulation, arguing that it could stifle creativity. “A balance must be struck between regulation and creative advertising,” she said. Instead, she proposed incentives for brands that adopt honest marketing practices.
Some experts advocate for clearer front-of-pack labeling. “Currently, most food labels prioritize regulatory compliance over consumer awareness. Since literacy levels in India are lower than in many Western nations, labels should be simple and easy to understand,” said Devangshu Dutta, chief executive of consultancy firm Third Eyesight.
Taxation has been another approach. Many processed foods in India attract an 18 to 28 percent GST rate, yet brands such as Coca-Cola, Lays, and Haldiram’s continue to thrive. “While taxes have some impact, they are not enough on their own,” Rajan noted.
Gupta suggested replacing FSSAI’s ‘Health Ratings’ – which he says benefit the industry more than consumers – with clear warning labels on ultra-processed foods. He said, “Consumers should be alerted to the risks, not misled by arbitrary ratings.”
(Published on Storyboard18)
admin
January 9, 2025
Sagar Malviya, Economic Times
9 January 2025
Starbucks, Barista, Chaayos and Third Wave Coffee are among café chains facing the brunt of a slowdown in discretionary consumer spending. The impact is more severe for these retailers as they opened hundreds of new stores last fiscal year even as losses widened. To be sure, smaller chains such as Tim Hortons and Blue Tokai have bucked the trend.
Experts attribute the expansion rush to the urge among these retailers – both chains and standalone stores – to outpace competition. In certain instance, it led the same retailer to add stores in the same location, impacting its own growth instead of growing the pie.
At Rs 250 to Rs 350 for a cup of coffee, most chains target affluent, discerning coffee enthusiasts with artisanal brewing and experiential consumption, restricting the consumer base.
Devangshu Dutta, founder of retail consulting firm Third Eyesight, said the number of outlets have been expanding since 2022.
This was true for not just the new brands but also existing ones, Dutta said. “Cafe density in larger cities has gone up dramatically in the last couple of years.”
Growth rate fell to just 5% in FY24 from nearly 70% at Barista and Chaayos while Starbucks’ sales growth declined to 12% in FY24 from 70% in FY23. Third Wave saw sales growth slump to 67% from 355% during the period. Cafe Coffee Day posted a 9% increase in FY24, though sharply slowing from 59% a year ago.
Tim Hortons, however, more than doubled its sales last fiscal, its first full year of operations. Blue Tokai also bucked the slowdown trend with a 70% growth in FY24, compared to 73% in FY23.
Blue Tokai cofounder Matt Chitharanjan believes growth in India’s out-of-home coffee market is more than just a caffeine surge—reflecting the country’s shifting economic fabric. “Coffee consumption is strongly linked to income growth and India has reached a tipping point where it will support growth in the segment and should only accelerate going forward,” Chitharanjan told ET. “We have not seen any slowdown in coffee consumption and our positioning is also more product centric instead of just a cafe, which helped in double-digit same store sales growth.”
Tim Hortons, a Canadian coffee chain, which opened its first outlet in India in 2022, plans to have over 100 stores in the next three years. British coffee and sandwich chain Pret A Manger too launched its first shop in Mumbai as part of a franchise agreement with Reliance Brands. It plans to open up to 100 stores over the next five years. Third Wave and Blue Tokai are running more than 250 stores combined while Starbucks had over 330 stores as of March-end.
Tata Starbucks—the equal JV between Tata Consumer Products and US-based Starbucks Corp—said store footfalls have become a concern and the company has tweaked portfolio and pricing to attract traffic. Last year, the chain introduced classic hot and iced coffee starting at Rs 150 for a small cup, about 20-30% cheaper than regular coffee offered at Starbucks and other cafe chains.
“The stress is being seen across the quick service restaurant segment. It’s an overall consumer spending issue, especially in urban areas. And my hypothesis is probably food inflation is higher than what we think,” Sunil D’Souza, MD at Tata Consumer Products said during the December quarter earnings call.
Globally as well as in India, coffee growers have been hit with uncertain weather conditions while geopolitical factors are also affecting supply chains, which in turn, lifted prices to a record high. “The biggest challenge is erratic weather and climate change which has sent coffee prices to a 50-year high, but we will have to see how it impacts our pricing and profit after the current harvest,” said Chitharanjan at Blue Tokai.
(Published in Economic Times)
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)