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
November 14, 2024
Economic Times
14 November 2024
The Swiggy IPO is making news for being the most successful in a decade in its category. The food and grocery delivery firm yesterday listed at a 5.6% premium to its IPO price of Rs 390, making it the first company with an issue size of over Rs 10,000 crore in the past decade to have listed above its offer price, ET has reported. The stock closed 17% above its issue price at Rs 455.95 in a weak market, surpassing analysts’ expectations of a tepid debut. The company’s market capitalisation at close on Wednesday was Rs 1.02 lakh crore.
Swiggy’s impressive debut also indicates the incoming deluge of cash in an emerging business, quick commerce. Swiggy plans to plough more cash into its quick-commerce business, Swiggy Instamart. Swiggy’s bigger rival, Zomato, is also planning to fatten its war chest. Zomato plans to raise fresh funds through a qualified institutional placement (QIP) despite sitting on $1.5 billion, or about Rs 12,600 crore. The money will also fuel its quick commerce business, Blinkit. Zepto, another quick commerce player, is also raising money. ET reported last month that Zepto is in talks to raise $100-150 million from a group of domestic family offices and wealthy individuals. It last raised $340 million in August. Swiggy Instamart, Blinkit and Zepto are the top three players with over 85% market share.
The floodgates of capital opening into the quick commerce sector would worry the big e-commerce platforms which have already started feeling the heat from quick commerce.
The quick rise of quick commerce
While quick commerce becomes the preferred medium for immediate needs and impulse purchases, e-commerce is favoured for more planned purchases like home, beauty and personal care. But now quick commerce firms are diversifying beyond groceries, small-value items, etc. and invading the home turf of e-commerce players.
Quick commerce is already conquering kirana, the neighbourhood small retail business, as well as hitting modern retail. As consumer preferences shift towards the convenience of last-minute grocery deliveries, quick commerce companies are outpacing traditional retailers, with 46 per cent of consumers surveyed reporting a cut in purchases from Kirana shops, a recent report has said. The quick commerce market size is expected to reach $40 billion by 2030, a jump from $6.1 billion in 2024, according to the report by Datum Intelligence.
Quick-commerce operators such as Blinkit, Swiggy Instamart and Zepto are aggressively trying to lure away consumers from large ecommerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart by matching their prices across groceries and fast-selling general merchandise, triggering a price war in the home delivery space, ET reported a few months ago. This is a departure from the earlier pricing strategy of quick-commerce players who typically charged 10-15% premium over average ecommerce marketplace prices for instant deliveries, industry executives had told ET.
A recent ET study of prices of 30 commonly used products in daily necessities, discretionary groceries and other categories, including electronics and toys, in both ecommerce and quick-commerce platforms reveal the pricing disparity has been bridged. “The pricing premium which quick commerce used to charge for instant deliveries is gone with these platforms now joining a race with large ecommerce to offer competitive pricing to shift consumer loyalties,” B Krishna Rao, senior category head at biscuits major Parle Products had told ET.
The increasing competition is putting pressure on ecommerce majors to reduce delivery time.
“Price matching by quick commerce is to acquire market share and is part of market acquisition cost even when it might not be profitable at a per unit transaction level,” Devangshu Dutta, CEO of consulting firm Third Eyesight, had told ET. “They may have to sacrifice margins in the short term to get customers shopping more frequently.”
After challenging kirana and modern retail, e-commerce is the next frontier for quick commerce companies.
The challenge shaping up for e-commerce giants
With Swiggy, Zomato and Zepto raising a huge amount of money, the war between quick commerce and e-commerce is likely to turn bloody, besides increasing internecine competition among quick commerce players themselves.
Quick commerce, which began with the delivery of groceries and essential items, has now expanded to include a diverse range of products. This includes electronics, clothing, cosmetics, household goods, medicines, pet supplies, books, sporting equipment, and more.
E-commerce sector offers a vast opportunity for growth of quick commerce business. The Indian e-commerce market is projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 21% and reach $325 billion in 2030, as per Deloitte’s report released on Monday. This huge potential is luring big players. The Tata group’s ecommerce venture Neu is set to enter the quick commerce segment branded as Neu Flash, rolling it out to select users selling grocery, electronics and fashion, ET reported last month. Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance, leveraging its vast network of supermarkets, is expanding into the 10–30 minute delivery segment. Ambani wants to ensure quick commerce helps bolster its business ahead of an IPO of Reliance Retail, which was last year valued at $100 billion, and has backers including KKR, sources told Reuters recently.
Besides entry of big ones like Tata and Ambani, the deluge of fresh investment into business by the incumbents such as Swiggy, Blinkit and Zepto will pose a big threat to large e-commerce players Amazon and Flipkart. Swiggy has recently hired two Flipkart executives to boost its senior leadership. They have joined two other executives that Bengaluru-based Swiggy had hired from the Walmart-owned ecommerce major in the past few months.
Swiggy and Zomato are both assessing several new services as they diversify beyond their core businesses, ET has reported a few days ago. Swiggy is all set to launch a pilot programme for a services marketplace, labelled ‘Yello’, which will host professionals such as lawyers, therapists, fitness trainers, astrologers, dieticians, according to sources. It is also testing a premium membership service called ‘Rare’, for affluent customers providing them access to high-end events such as Formula 1 races, music concerts, upscale art exhibitions, in addition to VIP hospitality and priority reservations at luxury restaurants.
Zomato has previously been bold in its diversification moves by buying Paytm’s events and ticket business for Rs 2,048 crore. It is now trying out a concierge-like service to help users place online food orders over WhatsApp. Human customer relationship agents will provide the Gurgaon-based company’s new service instead of its usual approach of deploying chatbots, a person familiar with the move has told ET recently.
Apprehending challenges by quick commerce players, Flipkart has already started its own quick commerce business Flipkart Minutes. While still far behind its established rivals, Flipkart Minutes hit daily orders of 50,000-60,000 during its Big Billion Days sales, people with knowledge of the matter told ET last month.
Further investment and bigger players entering the sector will heat up competition among the quick commerce companies even as they will grapple with new challenges such as logistics as they expand. But a bloody war could soon be seen on the e-commerce battlefield as emboldened by huge popular response the quick commerce companies start invading on the well-guarded turf of Flipkart and Amazon.
(Published in Economic Times)
admin
September 16, 2024
Sesa Sen, NDTV Profit
16 September 2024
As India’s economy grows and digital technologies reshape consumer behavior, the future of kirana stores—the quintessential neighbourhood grocery shops—hangs precariously in the balance.
These soap-to-staple sellers, once impervious to change, now confront an existential threat from quick commerce players like Blinkit, Instamart, Zepto, and from modern retailers such as DMart and Star Bazaar, raising a pivotal question: Can kiranas survive the pressure of change, or will they die a slow death?
The All India Consumer Products Distributors Federation, that represents four lakh packaged goods distributors and stockists, has recently raised alarms, urging Union Minister for Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal to investigate the unchecked proliferation of quick commerce platforms and its potential ramifications for small traders.
Their concerns are not unfounded. Data suggests that the share of modern retail, including online commerce, which is currently below 10%, is set to cross 30% over the next 3-5 years. Much of this growth will come at the cost of traditional retail.
“Unless the government takes on an activist role to support the smallest of business owners, the shift toward large corporate formats is inevitable,” according to Devangshu Dutta, head of retail consultancy Third Eyesight.
Casualties Of The Boom
Madan Sachdev, a second-generation grocer operating Vandana Stores in eastern Delhi, has thrived in the recent years, adapting to the digital age by taking orders via WhatsApp and employing extra hands for home delivery.
Despite having weathered the storm of competition from giants like Amazon and BigBazaar, he now finds himself disheartened, as his monthly sales have halved to about Rs 30,000, all thanks to quick commerce.
Sachdev is worried about meeting expenses such as rent, his children’s education, and other household bills. He finds himself at a crossroads, uncertain about how to modernise his store or adopt new-age strategies in order to attract customers in an increasingly competitive market.
India’s $600 billion grocery market, a cornerstone for quick commerce, is largely dominated by more than 13 million local mom-and-pop stores.
Retailers like Sachdev are also seeing a steep decline in their profit margins from FMCG companies, which now hover around 10-12%, down from the 18-20% margins seen before the Covid-19 pandemic. The consumer goods companies are instead offering higher margins to quick commerce platforms so that they can afford the price tags.
Quick deliveries account for $5 billion, or 45%, of the country’s $11 billion online grocery market, according to Goldman Sachs. It is projected to capture 70% of the online grocery market, forecasted to grow to $60 billion by 2030, as consumers increasingly prioritise convenience and speed.
Many of the mom-and-pop shops are family-run and have been in business for generations. Yet they lack the resources to modernise and compete effectively with larger chains. Modern retail businesses, including quick commerce, begin with significantly more capital, thanks to funding from corporate investors, venture capital, private equity, and public markets.
“They can scale quickly and capture market share due to a superior product-service mix, larger infrastructure, and more robust business processes,” said Dutta.
Moreover, their ability to engage in price competition poses a challenge for small retailers and distributors, making it difficult for them to compete.
“This is something that has happened worldwide, in the largest markets, and I don’t think India will be an exception,” Dutta said, adding that it would be incomplete to single out a specific format of corporate business such as quick commerce as the sole villain in this situation.
“India is a tough, friction-laden environment at any given point in time, including government processes which don’t make it any easier,” he said.
Peer Pressure
Data from research firm Kantar shows that general trade, which comprises kirana and paan-beedi shops, have grown 4.2% on a 12-month basis in June, while quick commerce grew 29% during the same period.
Shoppers are becoming more omnichannel, rather than gravitating towards one particular channel, said Manoj Menon, director- commercial, Kantar Worldpanel, South Asia. “While the growth [for quick commerce and e-commerce] might appear to have declined compared to a year ago, a point to note is that the base for these channels has significantly grown. Therefore, achieving this level of growth is still commendable.”
Consumer goods companies such as Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Dabur India Ltd., Tata Consumer Products Ltd., etc., have acknowledged the salience of quick commerce to their packaged food, personal and homecare products. The platform currently comprises roughly 40% of their digital sales.
“We are working all the major players in the quick commerce space and devising product mix and portfolio. This is a very high growth channel for us,” according to Mohit Malhotra, chief executive officer, Dabur India.
Elara Capital analysts have pointed out that the share of quick commerce is expected to rise to60% in the near future with e-commerce and modern trade turning costlier for FMCG brands than quick commerce. “The larger brands tend to make better margins on quick-commerce platforms versus e-commerce due to lower discounts on the former,” it said in a report.
However, it is too premature to draw a parallel between kirana and quick commerce in terms of competition, given the significant size difference.
The average spend per consumer on FMCG in kirana stores stands at Rs. 21,285 annually while the same is Rs. 4,886 for quick commerce, according to Menon.
Rural Vs Urban Divide
Quick commerce is still an urban phenomenon. In contrast, in rural settings, where internet penetration is still catching up and access to large retail chains is limited, kirana stores continue to thrive.
According to Naveen Malpani, partner, Grant Thornton Bharat, while the growth of quick commerce is undeniable, this channel is not poised to replace traditional retail, which still has a wider reach in the country. “It will complement older models, filling a niche for immediate, smaller purchases. Also, a 10-20-minute delivery may not have a strong market pull in rural markets where distance and time are not much of a concern.”
Yet many others believe, even in these areas, the challenge is palpable.
The small businesses are beginning to feel the sting of same slow decline that once befell the ubiquitous telephone booths in the era of mobile phone, according to Sameer Gandotra, chief executive officer of Frendy, a start-up that is building ‘mini DMart’ in small towns where giants like Reliance and Tatas have yet to establish their presence.
As rural customers slowly start to embrace digital shopping and seek more variety, kirana stores must adapt or risk becoming obsolete, he said.
Besides, the popularity of quick commerce is set to challenge the dominance of incumbent e-commerce platforms, especially in categories such as beauty and personal care, packaged foods and apparel.
“Quick commerce is primarily operational in metros and tier 1 markets, which is impacting the sales of traditional companies in these areas. However, if quick-commerce players were to extend their operations to tier 2 and tier 3, it would even challenge companies such as DMart and Nykaa, and would pare sales and profitability,” noted analysts at Elara Securities.
Frendy’s Gandotra believes the journey for kirana stores is not a lost cause, but it requires strategic interventions. Many kirana store owners struggle to integrate point-of-sale systems, inventory management software, or even digital payment solutions. These stores need to embrace technology.
Another aspect is the need for policy support. Regulations to ensure fair competition can prevent monopolisation by large retailers. Additionally, subsidies, tax benefits, and grants for infrastructure improvements can help small businesses adapt to changing market dynamics. With renewed support, kirana stores can continue to be the backbone of Indian retail.
Nonetheless, there will be some who’ll be left behind during this shift. Analysts at Elara Capital warn that the swift rise of quick-commerce platforms, combined with aggressive discounting, could wipe off 25-30% of traditional grocery stores.
(Published on NDTV Profit)
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)
