Mumbai, 24 April 2024
Sharleen Dsouza, Business Standard

With the Supreme Court cracking down on Patanjali over misleading advertisements, the advertisement industry is concerned. While industry players acknowledge that some degree of exaggeration in claims is common, the Supreme Court’s firm action signals an impending shift.

On Tuesday the SC said that its interest was not limited to Patanjali but all those Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs) and drug companies that mislead consumers through their advertisements.

And Patanjali is not the first one to have crossed the line of puffery. There have been many cases in the past, like Horlicks Ltd versus Zydus Wellness Products where the former sought for a permanent injunction against Zydus for the broadcast of false advertisement.

Similarly, in Rajendra versus Union of India, the Bombay High Court restrained any good or service sale claiming it had supernatural and miraculous powers.

“Puffery in advertising is as old as advertising. There is always an element of exaggeration. Over the years, the government has looked the other way. Guys on the ground should take companies and brands to task and have largely been in cahoots with most of the brands,” said Sandeep Goyal, chairman and managing director of Rediffusion Brand Solutions.

Goyal believes that the SC coming down heavily on Patanjali would be a deterrent for other brands. “Puffery or not is for someone to figure out. In most food products, FSSAI doesn’t care. Who is to identify these ads? I think the SC has done something. This won’t deter other brands and get them to make claims which are within the realm of what is correct,” Goyal said.

A question of ethics

Industry experts point out that the primary objective of advertisement is to stimulate desire in the consumer’s mind. This happens by hook or by crook.

“Misleading a consumer has become inherent in advertising to a certain extent. I think this is dangerous when it comes to food, as it is basic nutrition. If you are embedding misleading information or mis-stating facts in ads then it has a real impact on whoever the customer or consumer is of that product. It is good that the issue has been highlighted,” said brand expert Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight.

Then there is the Advertising Standards Council of India and discussions about ethical standards within the industry.

But Dutta believes there is a clear disconnect between what advertisements should say and what actually transpires. “I hope it gets acted upon from the government’s side as well. Self-regulation doesn’t seem to work. We all wish that it works, but it doesn’t. If it becomes more stringent, then it will be good overall,” he said.

While FMCG players are concerned about the stringent action of the Supreme Court, they believe that this will lead to improved advertisement regulation.

Ensuring compliance

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior executive of a leading FMCG company said, “The industry is already disciplining itself due to the growing consumer awareness, stringent ASCI guidelines and the impact of influencer marketing. This will further ensure that misleading ads will be few and far in the future.”

Some companies also ensure that their ads adhere to ASCI guidelines before launching them. “We run our ads with ASCI before we release them. This practice has worked in our favour,” said another executive on condition of anonymity.

In its hearing, the SC had said, “We are of the opinion that the issue relating to implementation of the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act and the Rules, the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and the Rules, and the Consumers Act and the relevant rules needs closer examination in the light of the grievances raised by the petitioner…not just limited to the respondents before this court but to all similarly situated/ placed FMCGs who have… misleading advertisements, and (are) taking the public for a ride… affecting the health of babies, school going children and senior citizens who have been consuming products on the basis of the said misrepresentation.”

(Published in Business Standard)

Christina Moniz, Financial Express

March 18, 2024

It is not difficult to understand why e-commerce firm Flipkart wants a bite of the Q-commerce pie.

India’s quick commerce market has been growing year-on-year at 77% to reach $2.8 billion in GMV (gross merchandise value) in 2023, according to a Redseer report. In comparison, e-commerce has been growing at 14-15% year-on-year. No one would dispute that with instant deliveries of products and groceries in 10-20 minutes, quick commerce firms like the Zomato-owned Blinkit, Zepto and Swiggy Instamart have changed the face of e-commerce and retail over the past few years.

While quick commerce thrives, none of the players in this ring are profitable yet. According to Devangshu Dutta, CEO at Third Eyesight, most quick commerce firms are in an expensive market acquisition phase and are at least a year away from profitability — perhaps longer. He expects that the unit economics for these companies will improve. “Some of the quick commerce players have created a substantial consumer base, which is growing in the frequency of transactions, moving to higher order values and transacting more products with potentially better margins,” says Dutta.

Both Zepto and Blinkit expect to turn profitable in FY25, as per their public statements.

So what are the primary challenges? “Traditional large e-commerce players face obstacles in facilitating last-mile deliveries, establishing dark stores, managing supply chains effectively, and navigating fierce market competition,” says Anshul Garg, managing partner & head, Publicis Commerce India.

The other key challenge for the late entrants is that customers seldom switch platforms. This is different from the way customers shop for products like electronics on e-commerce, where they compare prices/ deals across multiple e-commerce marketplaces. Brands like Flipkart need to define their playbook by maybe exploring categories other than grocery if they are to make a dent in this market.

As things stand, quick commerce has a mere 7% of the potential market. The total addressable market is estimated at $45 billion, higher than food delivery, as per JM Financial. Blinkit leads the market with a 46% share, followed by Swiggy Instamart at 27%, and Zepto at 21%.

Growing-up pangs

Kushal Bhatnagar, associate partner at Redseer Strategy Consultants, explains that there are broadly three ways that Q-commerce firms are working towards profitability. The first is by pushing higher priced items on their platforms and bumping up higher average order values. They’re also foraying into non-grocery segments such as cosmetics and headphones.

The other lever is ensuring dark store efficiencies. “While dark stores are an added cost, most platforms have a solid understanding of the demand across micro markets and are able to extract better profitability from each dark store. So the trend is positive, even if profitability is still to be achieved,” explains Bhatnagar.

For a dark store to deliver ROI and become profitable, it needs to cross 1,200-1,300 daily orders.

Some players like Zepto are also experimenting with a nominal platform fee of Rs. 2 per order, which they sometimes increase during peak times — by up to Rs. 10 — to gain from a surge in demand. Some are also implementing 12-15% fees for orders under Rs. 500, nudging customers to spend more.

Ad revenue is another important lever driving growth for these platforms, especially as D2C brands hop on board and advertise on them to reach GenZ and millennial consumers in metros and tier-I markets. Advertising revenue is around 3% of a platform’s GMV, and it is expected to keep growing.

FMCG and F&B are the top advertising categories on quick commerce currently but that can change as platforms move into higher value categories. “Quick commerce is also venturing into unconventional categories such as electronics, mobile and large appliances. If all goes according to plan, we can anticipate a significant shift in advertising contribution, given that these categories boast higher average selling prices, prompting advertisers to adopt a slightly more aggressive stance,” says Shashank Rathore, vice-president, e-commerce at Interactive Avenues (IPG Mediabrands India).

(Published in Financial Express)

29 February 2024, Mumbai

Prince M. Thomas, TheMorningContext

Prataap Snacks should have been an easy sell for Peak XV Partners. The venture capital firm, which till recently was known as Sequoia Capital India, is the largest shareholder in the snack maker with a 47.56% stake. It first invested in Indore-based Prataap Snacks in 2011 and has since seen the company become the sixth largest player in the industry. An exit now would give Peak XV returns that would match some of its best exits, like those from Zomato and Go Fashion.

The reality is, finding a buyer for Prataap Snacks isn’t as easy as selling a packet of “chatakedaar” rings bearing its Yellow Diamond brand. In fact, those packets of rings may be one of the reasons why the company seems to have lost some of its spice with suitors. We will come to that in a bit, but first it’s remarkable how many doors Peak XV has knocked on without any luck…

The company’s choice of products, most of them falling under the category of “western snacks”, was prudent. “When it comes to snacks, the Indian market is very diversified. Each region has its own flavour and there are local nuances,” says Devangshu Dutta, founder of consulting firm Third Eyesight. That means a regional snack, like the gathiya that is popular in Gujarat, will have fewer takers in eastern and southern states. Prataap Snacks’s products had no such problem as chips and rings were not region-specific…

Read more at: https://themorningcontext.com/business/sequoia-struggles-to-sell-prataap-snacks

Kailash Babar & Sagar Malviya, Economic Times

Mumbai, 23 February 2024

Tata Group and Reliance Industries, two of India’s largest conglomerates, are vying for premium retail real estate in Mumbai as they extend their footprints, creating rivalry in a city starved of marquee properties. From Zara and Starbucks to Westside and Titan, the Tata Group occupies nearly 25 million square feet of retail space in India. That is still no match for Reliance Industries that control three times more at 73 million sq ft for more than 100 local and global brands.

But in Mumbai, they are evenly matched, having nearly 3 million sq ft of retail space each. That is a quarter of what is considered the most prime retail real estate in the country, and both the retail giants are looking for more.

“In a modern retail environment, most visible locations contain more successful or larger brands. It just so happens that many of those brands are owned by either Reliance or the Tatas,” said Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, a strategy consulting firm.

“Tatas have been in retail for longer but also slower to scale up compared to Reliance which had this stated ambition of being the most dominant and put the money behind it,” he said.

In a market where demand is much higher than supply, developers and landlords seek to separate the wheat from the chaff, experts said. Ultimately, success in Mumbai’s retail real estate scene hinges on a delicate equilibrium between accommodating industry leaders and fostering a vibrant, varied shopping environment, they said. “In the competitive landscape of retail real estate in Mumbai, commercial developers and mall owners often face the strategic challenge of accommodating prominent retail brands,” said Abhishek Sharma, director, retail, at commercial real estate consultants Knight Frank India.

“These big brands, with a significant market share of 40-45% in the Indian retail sector, can easily be termed as industry giants and possess the potential to command 45-50% of space in any mall,” he said. According to Sharma, there may be perceptions of preferential treatments, but the dynamics are complex, and developers must balance the demand from these major brands with the need for a diverse tenant mix.

Tata Group entered retail in the late 1980s, initially by opening Titan watch stores and a decade later by launching department store Westside. So far, it has about 4,600 stores, including brands such as Tanishq, Starbucks, Westside, Zudio, Zara and Croma.

While Reliance Retail started in 2006, it overcompensated for its late entry by aggressively opening stores across formats. Reliance has over 18,774 stores across supermarkets, electronics, jewellery, and apparel space. It has also either partnered or acquired over 80 global brands, from Gap and Superdry to Balenciaga and Jimmy Choo. A diverse portfolio of brands across various segments through strategic partnerships and collaborations helps an entity like Reliance to leverage synergies and enhance retail presence, especially in malls, experts said.

“The array of brands with Reliance bouquet allows it to enter early into the project and set the tone and positioning of the mall,” said a retail leasing expert who requested not to be identified.

“This positively helps the mall to set its own positioning and future tenant mix. It also helps Reliance place their brands in most relevant zones within the mall. This will emerge as a clear differentiator in a city like Mumbai where brands are already jostling for space, which is the costliest in the country,” the person added.

(Published in Economic Times)

An insightful must-watch discussion, moderated by Devangshu Dutta (Founder, Third Eyesight), with venture capital fund managers, investors and entrepreneurs in retail on what factors attract investors to retail businesses.

The panelists included Vikram Gupta (Founder & Managing Partner, IvyCap Ventures), Amar Nagaram, (Co-Founder, Virgio), and Vikram Gawande (Vice President, Growth, Blume Ventures).