Devangshu Dutta
June 30, 2025
In every strategy meeting today, one metric is invariably mentioned: Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC). Whether you’re a well-funded corporate retailer, or raising your first angel round, or a well-established digital duopolist brand scaling Series C, CAC is one of the key performance metrics. “Real” spend that is neatly broken down by channel, optimised by funnel tweaks, scrutinised to the last rupee or dollar.
But there’s a metric we almost never hear about that could be costing brands far more in the long run.
Let’s call it Customer Forfeiture Cost (CFC), the residual lifetime value that is lost when a customer walks away from your business not because of price, competition, or even shifting needs, but because of a “burn”: a delivery missed or messed up, a refund that took weeks, an arrogant customer service call, or a product that failed spectacularly against the promise. In other words, when your brand hurts someone enough to make them walk away. Probably for ever.
It’s a paradox: brands are pumping thousands of crores into acquiring users, but they’re bleeding value at the other end. Yet, while CAC is a line item in every financial statement, CFC is invisible in management dashboards. CEOs don’t announce, “We’ve cut our forfeiture cost by 20% this quarter.”
Yet. every CXO knows it exists. The NPS scores, the social media complaints, the “never again” comments in reviews, the sinking feeling when repeat purchase rates fall.
Why CFC Matters More Than Ever
In every business, during the early stages each sale is a victory. Whether it was the retail chains that grew in the 1990s and early-2000s or the digital upstarts that came up through 2010s and 2020s, scale has been the mantra, and investors have poured money into scaling through the growing consumption of India 1 and India 2 customers.
Today customer acquisition isn’t cheap. The same person who clicked impulsively in 2020 now thinks twice before confirming payment. In this landscape, retention isn’t optional, it’s existential.
Every lost customer isn’t just a refund processed, or a cart abandoned. It’s the long tail of future repeat purchases that will never happen, negative word of mouth and brand distrust in the customer’s circle of influence, and increased future CAC due to declining organic reach.
Way back in 1967, management consultant Peter Drucker wrote in his book “The Effective Executive”: “What gets measured, gets managed”.
Today your CAC may be Rs. 500-1,000. If the average customer life time value (LTV) is Rs. 10,000, and a single burn causes churn after just one order worth Rs. 2,000, your CFC is Rs. 8,000, and that doesn’t even include reputational spillover.
Why We Don’t Measure It
Yes, CFC is hard to quantify. It’s not as easily attributable as ad spends. There’s usually no neat model telling you why someone never returned, because tech stacks aren’t typically designed to track emotional exits. And let’s face it, introspection about broken relationships is uncomfortable, even for management teams.
But that doesn’t mean it’s not real. If a customer leaves because your delivery executive messed up, or because your app crashed during checkout twice in a row, that’s on you, not the market. And in a business climate where sustainable growth is the mantra, LTV is king.
Ignoring CFC is like watching your roof leak and blaming the rain.
Toward a New Discipline
Brands and retailers must start measuring CFC, the value lost when customers disengage due to friction, mistrust, or neglect, and then start working on reducing it. This can be done by:
The Competitive Edge We’re Not Using
In a crowded space where everyone’s vying for eyeballs, trust is the true moat. Customers don’t expect perfection – they do expect accountability, authenticity, and recovery when things go wrong.
Brands that understand and act on Customer Forfeiture Costs will quietly start building a powerful edge: deeper brand loyalty, lower CAC over time thanks to referrals and repeats and greater lifetime value per user.
In other words, real, compounding value.
As the Indian brand ecosystem matures, Customer Forfeiture Cost needs to be as visible and valued as CAC. Acquisition is the invitation; experience is the relationship. Relationships, once broken, are expensive to rebuild; if they can be rebuilt at all.
In the end, growth isn’t just about who comes in. It’s about who stays, and why.
(Written by Devangshu Dutta, Founder of Third Eyesight, this was published in Financial Express on 2 July 2025)
admin
June 1, 2025
Sharleen Dsouza, Business Standard
Mumbai, 1 June 2025
Reliance Consumer Products is in a sweet spot – and it intends to stay there. Launched barely three years ago, the company has already entered the list of India’s top 10 fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) players by revenue in the 2024-25 financial year (FY25).
After making headlines by acquiring Campa Cola in 2022 — and taking the brand overseas in under two years — Reliance Consumer Products quickly expanded into food and non-food categories under the ‘Independence’ brand. Now, it has trained its sights on a new frontier: Confectionery.
This marks the company’s third major focus area after gaining traction in beverages and staples. Though present in biscuits and namkeens, its immediate priority is grabbing a share of the Indian consumer’s pocket change — via candies, chocolates, and toffees.
Its entry into the confectionery business began quietly in 2022 with a pilot of Joyland candies in Uttar Pradesh. It soon went on an acquisition spree — first picking up the 30-year-old Maharashtra-based Toffeeman brand in 2023, followed by a 51 per cent stake in Lotus Chocolates, and then acquiring the 82-
year-old Ravalgaon, home to nostalgic brands like Pan Pasand, Mango Mood, and Laco. It has been steadily building a formidable candy arsenal.
However, the Mukesh Ambani-led company isn’t limiting itself to Re 1 or Rs 2 price points. According to a source, it is developing an end-to-end confectionery portfolio — across toffees, candies, and chocolate-based products — and plans to enter sub-segments like gums, jellies, and lollipops. It is also betting on old-school favourites, launching chocolate-based confections such as eclairs, Lotus Symphony (toffee with a chocolate centre), and Lotus Zellers (moulded chocolate miniatures).
It is piloting distribution in five states — Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh — with plans to go pan-India this fiscal and reach one million outlets, the source added.
Why the big bet? The Indian confectionery market is expected to grow from Rs. 37,900 crore in 2024 to~59,700 crore by 2033, at a compound annual growth rate of 5.2 per cent, according to global consultancy IMARC Group. North India leads the market with a 32.8 per cent share. IMARC adds that modern retail formats, better digital connectivity, and product innovation are driving market penetration in both urban and semi-urban areas.
India’s sweet tooth has deep roots. Parle began selling candies in the 1920s, followed by Ravalgaon —now part of Reliance Consumer Products’ growing portfolio – in the 1940s.
Experts say the company’s strategy from the start was clear: Dominate. And it has the war chest to play the long game.
“Over two decades, Reliance has gained consumer-side experience and enormous momentum through various retail formats, and has figured out vertical integration in procurement,” said Devangshu Dutta, chief executive officer of consultancy Third Eyesight.
“Its experience in staples comes from private labels, and starting with Campa, its acquisitions in food, beverage and FMCG have grown. As a group, it has the muscle and a long-term approach to make a mark in the market.”
Dhanraj Bhagat, partner at Grant Thornton India LLP, pointed out thatthe FMCG market is notoriously tough — especially when scaling regional brands nationally. “But Reliance has deep pockets for brand building,” he said. That’s what sets it apart — it can spend big and be patient, he added.
While the company is making a dent via its distribution penetration strategy, it also needs to spend on publicity, Bhagat added. “Reliance has the money, so it is a different ball game for it as this gives the company the ability to spend and play the long-term game.”
Reliance Consumer Products is also offering higher margins to distributors in categories like Campa and confectionery, giving it a competitive edge. Its aggressive incentives have forced rivals to raise their own distributor margins — a sign of how this sweet battle is heating up.
(Published in Business Standard)
admin
May 25, 2025
Gargi Sarkar, Inc42
25 May 2025
SUMMARY: Swiggy and Zomato are scaling back non-core bets such as 10-minute food delivery, private labels, and event logistics to sharpen focus on core businesses and improve profitability. Both companies are betting on platform fees and selective verticals like quick commerce and ticketing, but analysts warn that financial discipline, not endless expansion, is key to long-term sustainability. The foodtech duo is stuck in a balancing act of rationalising what works and doesn’t. However, going ahead, this rationalisation game is only going to get more pronounced as they will strive to shield their core bread and butter businesses
For foodtech giants Swiggy and Zomato (now Eternal), the last few years have been about engaging in a battle for expansion, so much so that it has become difficult to tell them apart.
From quick commerce and cloud kitchens to intercity food delivery and even selling tickets for events and concerts, the two companies appear to be aping each other’s every move to be everything everywhere all at once.
However, what began as a bold bet to dominate every possible vertical falling under the ambit of food, lifestyle and entertainment is now undergoing a major course correction.
For starters, both are reconsidering their blitzkrieg, and while at it, they are gracefully stepping away from non-core bets, diluting underperforming or experimental units to focus on core operations to drive profitability.
For context: Zomato, which once saw the future of food logistics in ultra-fast deliveries, gave up on its 15-minute food delivery service, Quick, four months after its launch in January. It has also pulled the plug on its home-made meal service, Zomato Everyday. Tailored for office-goers and budget-conscious consumers, the service was floated in January 2025.
Swiggy, too, has made similar retreats. It suspended Swiggy Genie, its courier and pick-up-and-drop service that had gained popularity during the pandemic. The company also gave up on its private label food business by entering a strategic agreement with Kouzina, a chain of virtual restaurants, granting it exclusive rights to operate Swiggy’s digital-first food brands.
So, what has triggered this metaphorical fission in strategy?
One possible reason could be the growing realisation that profitability hinges on diversifying smartly rather than untamed expansion.
A market analyst, who did not wish to be named, pointed out that the duo’s attempt to rule their customers’ wallets for everything from food to groceries and entertainment to lifestyle has been quite ambitious. “The course correction was overdue,” the analyst said.
He believes that foodtechs are now forced to burn the visceral fat in the form of non-core businesses because those have been slowing them down, also eating into the revenues of core businesses and impacting operational efficiencies.
“Moreover, the more the segments, the higher the chances of operational hiccups. Managing logistics, customer experience, and quality control across a wide array of verticals inevitably leads to fragmentation and strain on core operations,” he added.
State Of Eternal Affairs: Zomato’s Diversification Saga
Eternal’s push to transform Zomato into a broader lifestyle platform in 2024 was not only about ambition but also a strategic response to a slowing core business — food delivery, according to industry observers.
Also, a glance at the table below reveals how the company has seen a marginal QoQ increase in its monthly transacting users.
In terms of monthly transacting customers, Zomato’s food delivery growth began strong with a 6.84% QoQ jump in Q1, but momentum quickly slowed, and Q2 saw only a 1.97% sequential rise, followed by a slight decline of 0.97% in Q3. This dip signalled stagnation, and although Q4 showed a mild recovery (1.95%), overall FY25 growth of the company’s monthly transacting users (food delivery) was modest at just 2.96%
Interestingly, Eternal founder and CEO Deepinder Goyal, too, acknowledged a slowdown in the company’s food delivery business while announcing the company’s Q4 FY25 results. He said the slowdown was due to rising competition from quick commerce platforms and weak discretionary spending. Goyal added that services like Zepto Cafe, Swiggy Snacc, and Blinkit Bistro, too, were eating into demand for restaurant deliveries.
In terms of Zomato’s food delivery numbers, average monthly transacting numbers grew to 20.9 Mn in Q4 FY25 from 20.5 Mn in Q4 FY24. Net order value (NOV) growth also remained subdued at 14% YoY versus the 20% YoY growth guidance.
Hence, the company was under pressure to unlock new revenue streams. Blinkit’s success became the reference point, and the company started envisioning similar success stories with other verticals too, a former Zomato employee said.
This was when the company got engulfed in the wave of diversification, paving the path for Zomato’s yet another bold move (besides Blinkit) — the INR 2,078 Cr acquisition of Paytm’s movies and events ticketing business, Insider, in August last year.
The acquisition that was planned with the launch of the ‘District’ app meant but one thing — declaration of war against BookMyShow, the lone behemoth in the realm of the entertainment ticketing segment. Even the company knew the path wouldn’t be all rainbows and sunshine.
In its Q4 FY24 earnings call, the management acknowledged that while the gross order value (GOV) of the going-out vertical continues to grow at over 100% YoY, the business still operates at an adjusted EBITDA loss of -2 to -2.5% of net order value (NOV).
Besides, given that the transition of users from Paytm’s ticketing business and Zomato’s dining out platform to the District app requires sustained investment, the company doesn’t expect the business to turn profitable in the near term.
But Zomato expects losses to eventually see stability at current levels.
“However, even with plateauing losses, the company will have to keep spending on creating supply. This means: curating new event experiences, forging partnerships and acquiring new users for the District app… and all of this translates into one thing — prolonged burn,” the market analyst added.
Moving on, Zomato’s ambition to become a lifestyle super app didn’t just manifest into flashy verticals like events, entertainment, and ticketing — it also showed up in its renewed aggression in food delivery, the very space where it first made its name.
Therefore, Zomato began piloting a 15-minute food delivery service in select parts of Mumbai and Bengaluru early this year.
But the company now finds the initiative extremely difficult to operationalise as it has failed to generate incremental demand.
“Customers do not necessarily want food fast, they just want it reliably. A 10-minute turnaround without full control over the supply chain leads to poor customer experiences, operational stress, and negligible upside. Instead of delighting users, it makes the company vulnerable to inconsistent quality and frequent delays,” a Zomato insider added.
Satish Meena, the founder of Datum Intelligence, opined that without controlling the entire supply chain, delivering food items within 10 to 15 minutes cannot be a profitable proposition.
Swiggy’s U-Turns
In 2024, also the year of its public listing, Swiggy aggressively expanded its service offerings, launching several new verticals to diversify beyond its core food delivery business.
Among the most prominent launches was Bolt, a 10-minute food delivery platform. Initially launched in Bengaluru, Chennai and Mumbai, Bolt quickly expanded to over 400 cities, with over 40,000 restaurants, including KFC, McDonald’s and Starbucks.
To complement Bolt, Swiggy introduced Snacc, a separate app for instant delivery of snacks, beverages, and small meals within 15 minutes.
Continuing to diversify its portfolio, Swiggy launched Pyng, an AI-powered platform that bridges users with verified experts like yoga teachers or chartered accountants.
With this, Swiggy marked its entry into the on-demand services marketplace, making professional services easier to access.
Apart from these customer-facing services, Swiggy also entered events via Scenes and the B2B space with Assure, to keep pace with Zomato.
Interestingly, Swiggy, too, has begun consolidating its operations. The company has shut down Genie, its hyperlocal courier business, which competed with Porter, Borzo and Uber.
According to a competitor, sourcing delivery riders specifically for packages is a challenge, particularly in cities like Bengaluru. For Swiggy, which was already managing fleets for food delivery and quick commerce through Instamart, sustaining a separate rider network for Genie only added to the complexity.
In another such move, Swiggy exited its private label food business by transferring exclusive rights for its digital-first brands, including The Bowl Company and Homely, to cloud kitchen operator Kouzina.
Balance Sheet Blues
Imperative to highlight that the rollbacks by Zomato and Swiggy are rooted in the growing pressures on their respective balance sheets.
After diversifying at a breakneck speed, they are now faced with the hard realities of cost structures that don’t always align with revenue potential.
In Q4 FY25, Zomato and Swiggy both reported robust top-line growth. Zomato’s revenue surged to INR 5,833 Cr, largely buoyed by its three core pillars — the food delivery business (INR 1,739 crore), Blinkit’s quick commerce arm (INR 769 Cr), and Hyperpure, its B2B supply chain vertical, which posted a 99% YoY growth in revenue to INR 1,840 Cr.
However, despite the momentum, the company’s net profit declined sharply to INR 39 Cr in the quarter, largely thanks to ongoing investments in Blinkit and newer bets like the ‘District’ lifestyle app.
Meanwhile, Swiggy clocked INR 4,410 Cr in revenue in Q4, up 45% YoY, but saw its net loss nearly double to INR 1,081 Cr. The widening losses were fuelled by surging operational expenses.
“All of this explains the strategic pullbacks witnessed lately, Swiggy exiting Genie and private labels, Zomato pulling the plug on services like Quick and Legends. The rationalisation marks a reset, indicating that while growth via diversification was necessary, financial discipline and profitability are in the spotlight,” the market analyst said.
Platform Fee To The Rescue… But For How Long?
While it won’t be easy for Zomato and Swiggy to suddenly change course, the future of these two foodtech giants is all about heading towards a more focussed set of revenue streams driven by value rather than FOMO.
In the process, both foodtech giants appear to have struck gold with the platform fee, which has grown from just INR 2 in 2023 to INR 10 today.
But the real question is: Can rising platform fee help the duo neutralise the impact of aggressive expansion? Or is rationalisation the only way forward?
Devangshu Dutta, the founder of Third Eyesight, thinks otherwise. He believes that the companies will not stop looking for new revenue streams, even as they will continue to amputate the ones that offer little value.
“All of these companies have to look for growth, which is a given. If their existing businesses are not delivering the kind of growth they need to justify their stock price or valuation, then they have to look at new avenues.”
According to him, we are bound to see a flurry of experiments, trials of different services and new verticals as these companies attempt to expand their addressable markets.
At the end of the day, the foodtech duo is stuck in a balancing act of rationalising what works and doesn’t. However, going ahead, this rationalisation game is only going to get more pronounced as they will strive to shield their core bread and butter businesses.
[Edited by Shishir Parasher]
(Published in Inc42)
admin
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)
