admin
December 3, 2025
Pooja Yadav, Exchange4Media
3 December 2025
Over the last few months, India’s e‑commerce and quick‑commerce ecosystem has undergone a wave of structural regulatory and tax reforms. Be it the Goods and Services Tax Council (GST Council) formally bringing “local delivery services” under the tax net with an 18% levy, or the newly implemented labour and social-security reforms expanding obligations for gig workers on aggregator platforms like Swiggy and Zomato, the cost and compliance landscape for delivery and fulfilment is shifting significantly.
The latest GST clarification, delivery fees, packaging charges, and logistics surcharges are now creating a ripple effect across pricing, platform margins, and seller compliance requirements.
The past few months have already shown concrete signals that platforms are revising their incentives, delivery promises, and fee structures. Following the GST clarification, major food‑delivery players have raised their platform fees, for instance, Zomato reportedly increased its per‑order fee from ₹10 to ₹12 (pre‑GST), while Swiggy also raised fees in select markets. Some quick‑commerce arms are also reworking free‑delivery thresholds or fee waiver conditions. Swiggy Instamart also recently updated its free‑delivery threshold to orders above ₹299, with handling and surge fees applying below that level, per reports.
Meanwhile, some platforms seem to be signalling a de‑emphasis on “ultra‑fast for every order” as universally viable; free or fast delivery now appears increasingly tied to higher order values or subscription/membership perks.
It looks like these pressures are forcing platforms to reconsider long-standing quick-commerce levers such as ultra-fast delivery, first-order free offers, zero delivery fees, and flash discounts — which have historically driven customer acquisition and retention.
While Zomato did not comment directly, it referred to the Code on Social Security, 2020 (CoSS), noting that the platform is prepared for gig-worker obligations and does not expect the rules to negatively impact long-term business sustainability.
According to Kapil Sharma of Amazon Ads, “The e‑commerce landscape will continue to evolve, but some fundamentals remain constant such as delivering value to consumers and providing advertisers with meaningful ways to engage. Our full-funnel ad solutions allow brands to focus on objectives such as new product launches, brand building, or promoting larger pack sizes, ensuring campaigns remain relevant and effective even as the ecosystem adapts to changing costs and regulations.”
e4m reached out to Swiggy, Meesho, Zepto and BigBasket for comments, but did not receive responses until the time of publishing.
Several experts told e4m that the economic model of quick commerce, built on heavily subsidised delivery and small-ticket frequent orders, is under pressure. Platforms will need to find sustainable levers to retain customers without eroding margins. The industry has started to see a strategic recalibration where speed is increasingly becoming a hygiene factor rather than a differentiator, free delivery is becoming conditional, and platforms are nudging consumers toward larger baskets, subscription models, curated bundles, and scheduled deliveries. Brands, in turn, are also shifting focus from mass discounting to premiumisation, value-led messaging, and precise cohort-based targeting.
Will Free Delivery Become Rare?
With the new social‑security obligations for gig workers under India’s labour reforms, and the added cost burden of delivery services now subject to GST, the economic logic underlying “free delivery” as a marketing lever is coming under stress. Chetan Asher, Founder and CEO of Tonic Worldwide, echoes this view, noting that quick-commerce platforms previously operated on thin contribution margins and heavily subsidised small-ticket, frequent orders. With rising delivery costs and mandatory social-security contributions, universal free delivery is becoming increasingly unsustainable.
Industry analysts point out that the new social-security mandates and GST on delivery fees have lifted per-order costs noticeably. Most quick-commerce platforms already operate at low single-digit contribution levels, making blanket “free delivery” hard to justify. It may continue, but only as a conditional incentive tied to higher basket values, subscription memberships, or flexible delivery slots, rather than as a universal subsidy.
Shradha Agarwal, Co- Founder & Global CEO, Grapes Worldwide, added from an advertising standpoint, “It’s already happened, brands like Zomato, Swiggy, Amazon and Flipkart, who know we are going to buy from them, have shifted from ‘buy now’ tactics to ‘stay with me’ strategies. Those days are gone when platforms were giving blanket discounts, now brands are the ones tightening their offers.” Citing an example she mentioned how offline pricing is ₹235, but online it is sold at ₹185, with online adding to top-line rather than bottom-line.
On promo hooks like ‘₹0 delivery’, ‘first-order free’ or ’10-minute delivery’, Agarwal said, “As labour codes, compliance costs, and social-security contributions kick in, platforms will have less room to burn cash on promos that don’t create sustainable value. Consumers care more about convenience than freebies.”
On ad spend shifts, she noted, “Offer-driven campaigns will weaken, while value-driven storytelling will rise. ATL and influencer campaigns will strengthen, and performance marketing will become more strategic. Retail media will become non-negotiable.”
From a brand perspective, Asher pointed out that quick-commerce spends are increasingly evaluated against contribution margin rather than sheer GMV growth. Discounts and zero-fee offers are losing bite as customer acquisition costs rise. First-party data, replenishment journeys, and sharper cohort-based offers are gaining importance, ensuring that incentives remain ROI-focussed rather than mass-oriented. Similarly, speed claims such as “0 delivery” or “10-minute delivery” are becoming less differentiating in top cities, where most players already deliver within 15–20 minutes. Consumers now respond better to reliable ETAs, fair fee structures, and transparent pricing than aggressive speed promises.
Adding her viewpoint, Pooja Dhamdhere, Commerce Lead at Starcom India, said, “Incentives like free delivery or first-order offers are likely to evolve rather than disappear, and platforms will explore strategies such as tiered benefits, curated bundles, or differentiated pricing for specific cohorts.”
According to serial entrepreneur Alok Chawla and Founder at Kiko Live, added that while platforms may continue absorbing delivery costs in the short term, the long-term economics will require charging for ultra-fast or low-value orders. “Once platforms pass the actual delivery costs to consumers, we expect order frequency and small-cart behaviour to change, with many users shifting to larger baskets or neighbourhood retailers offering free delivery,” he noted.
Alternative Consumer-Incentive Models
Devangshu Dutta, founder and chief executive of Third Eyesight, who is an expert in the consumer and modern retail sector, stated, “I think platforms will pass a significant portion of the new 18% GST burden on delivery to end-consumers, either through higher delivery charges or repackaged platform fees. Some of this cost may also be clawed back from restaurant partners and quick-commerce brands via revised commissions, slotting fees or mandatory participation in marketing programmes, especially in categories where the platform has stronger bargaining power. Overall, I expect higher minimum-order thresholds and a tighter margin environment for restaurants and small D2C brands that rely heavily on third-party platforms.”
Analysts highlight strategies such as minimum-order thresholds, where free or lower-fee delivery applies only above a certain cart value, nudging consumers to order larger baskets rather than frequent small-ticket items. Subscription and membership-based models are also gaining prominence, offering benefits like waived or discounted delivery, priority fulfilment, and access to exclusive promotions in exchange for a fixed fee.
Scheduled or batch delivery windows are being used to optimise logistics, reduce cost pressure on ultra-fast last-mile fulfilment, and improve operational efficiency. Meanwhile, curated bundles and value packs, including weekly or monthly combos, allow consumers to plan purchases while enhancing per-unit economics for platforms. These levers also enable brands to maintain margin integrity without over-reliance on short-term discounting.
From a marketing perspective, this shift is prompting agencies and creative-first firms to move toward value-led messaging, premiumisation, and cohort-based targeting. Dhamdhere explained, “Platforms are optimising assortments by surfacing premium SKUs, nudging higher average order values, and using search optimisation to strengthen profitability. Brands are now focusing on aspirational consumers with curated bundles, subscriptions, and value-led propositions, rather than mass discounting. Performance campaigns will continue, but clarity of value and sustainable margin-led offers are becoming key for acquisition and retention.”
2026: Will regulatory pressure force a recalibration?
As 2026 approaches, the combined impact of GST on delivery services and mandatory social-security contributions for gig workers is forcing a fundamental rethink of quick-commerce economics. With blanket discounts, zero delivery fees and ultra-fast delivery no longer viable as mass levers, platforms are shifting toward basket-building, subscriptions, curated bundles and conditional incentives. The growth thesis is evolving from “habit formation at any cost” to protecting contribution margins through reliable ETAs, transparent pricing and premium assortments rather than aggressive subsidies.
Brands are recalibrating alongside this shift. Premiumisation, value-led propositions and sharper cohort-based targeting are taking precedence over broad discounting, and campaigns are increasingly evaluated on ROI, repeat behaviour and lifetime value rather than raw GMV. Tiered memberships, scheduled deliveries and subscription-led conveniences are emerging as key retention tools, while short-form video, influencer ecosystems and retail media help articulate value in a tighter cost environment.
Chawla said platforms will have to move beyond “₹0 delivery”, “first order free” and “10-minute delivery” as core propositions because the delivery cost burn far exceeds margins on small-ticket orders. Many consumers currently place multiple micro-orders a day simply because delivery is free, but once fees come into play, behaviour will likely shift toward clubbing orders or reverting to neighbourhood retailers, who themselves are rapidly digitising through partners like Kiko Live.
In the next phase, he adds, free instant delivery will only be sustainable for larger baskets, whereas scheduled delivery may become the default for free delivery, with paid instant delivery as an optional upgrade. Subscriptions may drive loyalty, but only up to a point, since the heaviest users would consume more deliveries than the subscription fee can realistically subsidise, making it difficult for platforms to make the model profitable.
This points to a clear playbook for 2026. “Free delivery” and mass discounting are expected to fade, giving way to conditional, tier-based formats that reward higher basket values, subscriptions or specific cohorts. Brand platform partnerships will also move toward profitability rather than promotional burn, with campaigns designed to protect margins instead of fuelling discount-led spikes.
Taken together, the signs suggest that 2026 will not mark the end of convenience, but the end of convenience that is subsidised blindly. The real test now is who absorbs this new cost of convenience, platforms, brands, or consumers. And as that battle plays out, another tension is already emerging: whether small and regional advertisers can survive the rising cost of visibility in India’s digital economy.
(published in Exchange4Media)
admin
November 26, 2025
Aakriti Bansal, Medianama
November 26, 2025
MediaNama’s Take: The Central Consumer Protection Authority’s (CCPA) decision to publish 18 self-declarations confirms only a partial picture of its dark pattern(s) identifying exercise. The authority has stated that 26 platforms have filed their declarations, but it has made only 18 of them public. This gap means the public still cannot see what eight major platforms submitted or whether those filings contain any meaningful detail. Moreover, even among the published declarations, several are one-paragraph statements that offer almost no insight into the scope or accuracy of the companies’ internal audits.
LocalCircles’ new survey adds further complications, reporting that 21 of the 26 platforms that submitted declarations still display at least one dark pattern. This finding suggests that the CCPA’s reliance on voluntary self-assessment may not be enough to shift platform behaviour at scale. It also raises questions about what the unpublished declarations contain and whether the missing submissions are similarly sparse or incomplete.
Notably, the CCPA has not clarified how it plans to verify the accuracy of any of the declarations, whether published or unpublished. If filings remain unverified for months, compliance risks turning into a box-ticking exercise rather than a meaningful regulatory process. Therefore, the next phase matters far more than the publication of select declarations, because the current approach raises more questions than it answers.
What’s the News
The CCPA has made 18 dark pattern self-declarations public, despite stating that 26 platforms have filed their compliance letters. The publication follows an RTI filed by MediaNama that revealed which companies had submitted their declarations, and pointed out that none of the filings had been available to the public at the time.
These declarations stem from the Ministry’s June 5 advisory, which required e-commerce and quick commerce companies to conduct internal audits under the 2023 Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns and submit compliance letters within 90 days.
For context, Moneycontrol reported that Amazon has still not filed its declaration and has asked for additional time. A senior government official told the publication that the government “has done what it had to” and does not plan further discussions.
The official also said that any punitive action would depend on consumer complaints routed through channels such as the national consumer helpline. This indicates that the enforcement approach continues to be reactive rather than compliance-driven.
What Did The CCPA Ask Platforms To Do?
The June 5 advisory set out a simple compliance framework for digital platforms. It asked every e-commerce and quick commerce company to complete a self-audit of its website and mobile app within 90 days and check their interfaces for the 13 dark patterns listed in the 2023 guidelines. Platforms were required to file a self-declaration confirming compliance once this internal review was complete.
However, the advisory did not specify how the audit should be conducted. Companies were free to choose any methodology, and the CCPA did not prescribe a standard format, a uniform checklist, or a minimum evidence requirement. Also, the advisory did not require independent audits or third-party validation.
Furthermore, there was no explanation of how the CCPA planned to verify whether the declarations were accurate or complete. In effect, the responsibility for defining the scope, depth, and rigour of the audit rested entirely with each platform.
What the CCPA Has Done With the Declarations
As mentioned before, the CCPA has now published 18 self-declarations on its website. The release confirms that companies submitted their compliance letters, but it does not indicate whether the authority evaluated the accuracy or depth of the filings.
Several platforms submitted very short statements that simply assert compliance without describing any checks or findings. BigBasket, Zomato, Blinkit and Swiggy were among the companies that filed especially minimal disclosures. The CCPA has not explained why these filings were accepted or whether any follow-up questions were asked. Therefore, asking for and disclosing self-declarations shows some administrative progress, but it does not reflect any regulatory scrutiny.
This lack of verification aligns with concerns raised by Devangshu Dutta, Founder of business consulting firm Third Eyesight. He told MediaNama that self-declarations “do not change things much” when regulators do not audit submissions or impose consequences.
Further, Dutta remarked that most companies comply at the minimum level required if their claims are not examined and are not made public in full. According to him, revenue-driving design choices such as forced add-ons, confusing checkout flows or misleading scarcity claims will not be voluntarily removed sans oversight.
What Independent Evidence Shows
LocalCircles’ latest audit presents a sharply different picture from the companies’ filings. The organisation found that 21 of the 26 platforms that submitted “dark pattern free” declarations still use one or more manipulative design practices. The assessment relied on feedback from more than 250,000 consumers across 392 districts along with AI-assisted testing.
The most common violations include forced action, subscription traps, bait and switch, basket sneaking, interface interference and disguised advertisements. In practice, these dark patterns respectively mean that users are pushed into steps they did not choose, face hidden or hard-to-cancel subscriptions, see offers change during checkout, encounter fees added at the last moment, get nudged toward platform-favoured choices, and come across ads that appear as regular listings.
LocalCircles also identified drip pricing (gradually adding mandatory fees during the checkout process) on 11 of the 26 companies, including Flipkart, Myntra, Cleartrip, MakeMyTrip, BigBasket, Zomato and Blinkit, among others. The organisation said that many platforms appear to misunderstand what qualifies as drip pricing, which has led to incomplete corrections.
Trust Can Erode Due To Gap Between Declarations And User Experience
Sachin Taparia, Founder of LocalCircles, said that the problem begins with the absence of any verification. “Our understanding is that CCPA is wanting that companies submit a self-declaration at the earliest. However, there is no cross checking of claims that is being done by the CCPA, and as a result the companies are not being as thorough with their dark-pattern detection and resolution,” he said.
Taparia added that discrepancies between declarations and user experience could harm trust. “LocalCircles has found dark patterns on 21 of the 26 platforms submitting self-declarations. If this exercise is not done with high accuracy, both platforms doing so and CCPA could see consumer trust being impacted,” he said.
Importantly, Dutta echoed this concern, saying that the absence of penalties or reputation-related consequences allows companies to self-declare compliance while keeping revenue-generating patterns intact. He described the current process as “more an administrative formality [rather] than a behaviour-changing regulatory tool”.
Why This Matters
The gap between self-declarations and independent audits in the true sense of the word brings the real enforcement question into focus. What should the next phase of regulation look like?
In this context, Dutta said that regulators need to move beyond self-certifications and mandate detailed user experience (UX) audit reports that map every user journey, including pop-ups, onboarding, search, checkout, cancellations and returns.
He explained that regulators should reinforce this by demanding substantive evidence instead of brief compliance letters. This evidence can include screenshots and screen recordings of key flows, version histories that show how an interface changed over time, and product design documents or A/B testing results that reveal why specific nudges were introduced. To explain, A/B testing is essentially a method for comparing two versions of something to see which one performs better.
Furthermore, Dutta noted that platforms already collect extensive data on user complaints and drop-off points, which can help identify harmful or confusing design choices. He also said that independent third-party attestations, similar to security or accessibility audits, can provide a credible external check and increase the cost of non-compliance.
Multiple Annual Audits For Apps that Change Interface Frequently
Notably, Dutta stressed that most dark pattern categories appear across e-commerce, quick commerce and Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) websites, which means regulators can create a baseline audit standard that works across sectors instead of relying on platform-specific interpretations. He also suggested that audits should occur at least once a year, and companies that frequently modify their interfaces may need to report two or three times annually.
The larger concern now is whether the CCPA plans to move toward such a structured framework. Without independent verification and clear audit expectations, companies can continue declaring compliance even when manipulative designs remain embedded in their interfaces.
(Published in Medianama)
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
August 31, 2024
MG Arun, India Today
Aug 31, 2024
Nearly five years after the Centre brought in norms to rein in multinational e-commerce companies operating in India, Union commerce minister Piyush Goyal sparked fresh controversy by raising concerns over the rapid expansion of e-commerce. He also drew attention to the pricing strategies used by some e-commerce firms, questioning what he termed “predatory pricing”.
“Are we going to cause huge, social disruption with this massive growth of e-commerce? I don’t see it as a matter of pride that half our market may become part of the e-commerce network 10 years from now; it is a matter of concern,” Goyal said at an event in New Delhi last week.
His comments come at a time when the ecommerce business in India is growing exponentially. Estimated at $83 billion (around Rs 7 lakh crore) as of FY22, the market is expected to grow to $150 billion (Rs 12.6 lakh crore) by FY26. The growth will be due to multiple levers: a growing middle class, rising internet penetration, the proliferation of smartphones, convenience of online shopping and increasing digitisation of payments. The overall Indian retail market was pegged at $820 billion (Rs 69 lakh crore) in 2023, according to a report published by the Boston Consulting Group and the Retailers Association of India. E-commerce still comprises only about 7 per cent of that, as per Invest India.
The Indian e-commerce market is dominated by global giants, including Amazon and Walmart (which took over Flipkart in 2018). They, along with domestic players, offer huge discounted prices compared to retail prices, which drives online sales significantly. In FY23, Amazon Seller Services and Flipkart posted Rs 4,854 crore and Rs 4,891 crore losses, respectively. Goyal’s argument is that these losses are due to their predatory pricing.
“Is predatory pricing policy good for the country?” Goyal asked, while stressing the need for a balanced evaluation of e-commerce’s effects, particularly on traditional retailers such as restaurants, pharmacies and local stores. “I’m not wishing away ecommerce—it’s there to stay,” he said. Later, he said e-commerce uses technology that aids convenience. But there are 100 million small retailers whose livelihood depends on their businesses.
The Centre has specific laws that permit foreign direct investment (FDI) in e-commerce exclusively for business-to-business (B2B) transactions. However, according to Goyal, these laws have not been followed entirely in letter and spirit. Currently, India does not allow FDI in the inventory-based model of e-commerce, where e-commerce entities own and directly sell goods and services to consumers (B2C). FDI is permitted only in firms operating through a marketplace model, where an e-commerce entity provides a platform on a digital or electronic network to facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers (B2B).
The country’s laws also stipulate that in marketplace models, e-commerce entities cannot ‘directly or indirectly influence the sale price of goods or services’ and must maintain a ‘level playing field’. Entities in the marketplace model re allowed to transact with sellers registered on their platform on a B2B basis. However, each seller or its group company is not permitted to sell more than 25 per cent of the total sales of the marketplace model entity.
Goyal said certain structures have been created to suit large e-commerce players with “deep pockets”. Algorithms have been used to drive consumer choice and preference. For instance, several pharmacies have disappeared, he said, and a few large chains are dominating the retail space. He invoked the importance of platforms like the Open Network for Digital Commerce where small businesses can sell their products.
E-commerce firms counter the argument on predatory pricing. “It is the sellers’ discretion as to what price they should sell at,” says an industry source. The e-commerce player who provides the platform seldom has a role in it, he explains. “Sellers could be doing clearance sales or liquidation of old products at cheaper prices. Some sellers also source products at manufacturing cost and park it with e-commerce firms instead of involving warehousing agents. This helps cut their overhead costs and allows them to offer lower prices on the platform,” he adds.
Some experts are of the view that the government should not step in with controls and allow the market forces to play their role in determining prices. Price controls may lead to shortages, inferior product quality and the rise of illegal markets. Moreover, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which is mandated to act against monopolies, may be given more teeth. It is ironical that, on the one hand, the Centre wants more FDI to flow in, but places more and more controls on foreign players on the other hand. At the core are the interests of small traders and retailers, a key section of the electorate.
Others argue that the government has a role to ensure that there is fair competition. “It is not just small retailers the government would be speaking for, but for large domestic players too,” says Devangshu Dutta, founder of consultancy firm Third Eyesight, emphasising that the government’s role should be to establish laws and practices that promote fairness.
According to him, it is no secret that e-commerce has grown through discounts. “For large e-commerce firms, market acquisition happens by acquiring a share of the consumer’s mind and through pricing. When a large sum is spent on advertisements, it is for acquiring the mind share of the consumer,” he says. “Pricing matters in a big way too. Whether you call it predatory pricing or market acquisition pricing depends on which side of the fence you are.”
(This article was originally published in the India Today edition dated September 9, 2024)
admin
May 24, 2023
Shambhavi Anand, Economic Times
New Delhi, May 24, 2023
Retailers and shopkeepers will soon not be allowed to seek phone numbers of their customers while generating bills, according to a diktat by the department of consumer affairs, a senior government official said.
Taking the numbers of customers without their “express consent” is a breach and encroachment of privacy, said the official, without wanting to be identified.
The official added that such a move will be classified as an unfair trading practice defined as any business practice or act that is deceptive, fraudulent, or causes injury to a consumer.
Most large retailers mandatorily take down buyers’ phone numbers while generating the bill for their purchases and use them for loyalty programmes or sending push messages.
The move has come after the department received several complaints from consumers about retailers insisting on getting their phone numbers. This will be communicated to all retailers through industry bodies representing retailers soon, the official added.
While the implementation of these new rules may require some adjustments and initial costs for retailers, it is seen as a necessary step towards protecting consumer privacy and ensuring fair business practices in the retail sector, said experts.
While retailers will have to rework their systems in case this becomes a regulation, this won’t stop them from asking for phone numbers of consumers as their loyalty programmes run on these numbers, said Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, a retail consultancy firm.
He added that retailers also use numbers for sending e-invoices and so this could have a cost impact and environmental impact.
(Published in Economic Times)
