admin
November 28, 2021
By Rasul Bailay & Writankar Mukherjee, Economic Times
November 27, 2021
Reliance Retail aims to be one of the world’s top retailers, but for the last couple of years, it has been a buyer, not a seller. It has bought a string of retail brands — from online pharmacy Netmeds and online furniture retailer Urban Ladder to digital lingerie seller Zivame, online grocer MilkBasket and haute couture label Ritu Kumar. The latest acquisition was Sri Lankan lingerie brand Amante.
These acquisitions are crucial cogs in Reliance Retail’s further push into brick-and-mortar and ecommerce, and are part of Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) unit’s larger strategy: To break into the global top ten retailers. India’s largest retailer (by sales as well as by the number of stores) is currently ranked 53rd in the world, according to Deloitte’s Global Powers of Retailing 2021. Reliance Retail reported an annual revenue of $22 billion and a net profit of $750 million for the fiscal year ending March 2021.
At the same time, the company is looking beyond pure retailing. It’s pursuing a larger play to tap into the growing pie of the country’s overall consumption story — from contract manufacturing to distribution of everything from affordable fashion and consumer electronics to grocery products in India’s $850 billion annual retail market that is expected to swell to $1.3 trillion in the next few years. (Reliance did not respond to ET’s questionnaire.)
Analysts say Reliance’s overall plan is to engage India’s burgeoning consumers in its ecosystem one way or the other at any given point of time: shopping in its vast network of physical stores or on JioMart ecommerce platform, using Jio’s mobile or WiFi networks, watching movies on Jio Cinema, paying through Jio wallet so on and so forth that it is dubbed by the petroleum-to-telecommunications conglomerate as “retail plus” strategy.
“Their plan is to weave their products and services so deeply into your life that from morning to evening you are spending time and money on their networks either directly or indirectly,” says a top executive of an online grocery retailer. “Their idea is to constantly keep consumers engaged in a Jio bubble or in a Jio world.” The executive estimates India has a middle class of around 40 crore people. “Even if they succeed in capturing 10% of that wallet share, it is going to be huge,” he says.
That’s the reason Reliance Retail is betting big on business-to-business (B2B) ecommerce, with a digital wholesale marketplace along the lines of Alibaba for products such as smartphones, televisions, garments and grocery items, among other products, according to people aware of the plan. It’s looking to service a whole gamut of retailers in cities and villages.
Reliance has already started distributing its licencee products of Kelvinator- and BPL-branded consumer electronic items and its smartphone JioPhone Next, produced in collaboration with Google, to retailers outside of Reliance’s stable. The company also boasts a whole host of private brands and many of them are making inroads into general trade.
“The market for modern retail and ecommerce put together would be 15-20% in India. The rest 80% is still in the traditional market. If Reliance can make an entry into the traditional market and partner the smaller stores, the opportunity for growth and revenue is much more,” says an industry executive aware of the plans.
“Reliance’s approach is not to be a threat to small stores or merchants, but to be their enabler, provide them merchandise at best wholesale rates, upgrade their stores and even list them on their ecommerce platforms to help them reach newer consumers,” he adds.
Reliance is doing exactly that. Earlier this year, it started supplying Puric InstaSafe-branded FMCG products like soaps, home disinfectants and sanitisers to kiranas in Punjab and West Bengal. It is planning to roll these items nationwide. The company has put in place a marketing team for the first time to push these products. Similarly, B2B portal Ajio Business is selling T-shirts for Rs 79 onwards, a pair of jeans for Rs 220 and shirts for Rs 170 onwards to small businesses. Last quarter, Reliance Retail forayed into the wholesale business of medicines through Netmeds by roping in neighbourhood pharmacies under its B2B initiative.
These are some of the steps in the conglomerate’s bet not just on pure retail play but on end-to-end gameplay in the retail ecosystem, controlling manufacturing, wholesale, supply chain, ecommerce and payments.
To augment its digital wholesale plans, Reliance Retail has already converted its network of cash-and-carry outlets into fulfilment centres.
Analysts say Reliance’s ambitions are long-term and capital intensive and the company is ready for the long haul and to spend. “Reliance’s plan to rope in and aggregate many elements together — retailers, B2B buyers, suppliers, small players — and bring them on board takes time and is a capital-hungry business,” says Devangshu Dutta, chief executive of consulting firm Third Eyesight. “But controlling end-to-end is Reliance’s game plan in any business, including telecom, where it spans the entire value chain of not just providing the mobile network but also a digital interface with consumers.”
In a bid to feed its ambitious consumption plans, Reliance Retail is lapping up stores and warehouses nationwide to service both ecommerce and B2B sales through its “new commerce” omnichannel plans that will also involve legions of kiranas as last-mile delivery agents as well as buyers of Reliance’s products. Reliance Retail, which operates more than 13,000 stores of various formats, plans to open around 5,000 outlets of its Smart Point that would entail a convenience store, a pharmacy, agnostic centre, a telecom services and financial services products outlet all rolled into one across the country.
Reliance is planning to take this format to even tehsils, according to sources. Real estate agents and mall executives say Reliance is scouting for space for supermarkets, fashion outlets and jewellery and footwear stores.
They say Reliance is also planning to enter newer retail formats like a department store chain to compete with Shoppers Stop and Lifestyle. Also in the works is a Sephora-style beauty and cosmetics chain, they say.
“We will focus on expanding our store footprint multifold this year with co-located delivery hubs over the next few years. They will provide a strong network to reach and serve millions of merchants and customers,” Ambani said at the last AGM of shareholders.
Deloitte’s Global Powers of Retailing 2021 report ranked Reliance Retail as the world’s second fastest growing retailer, behind South Korea’s Coupang Corp.
Global financial and tech titans have taken notice of Reliance Retail’s play and pumped billions of dollars into it. Last year, the holding company Reliance Retail Ventures Ltd raised Rs 47,265 crore by selling about 10% stake to some of the biggest names in global private equity, including Silver Lake, KKR, General Atlantic, Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and TPG.
Reliance will continue with its acquisition spree, say analysts. However, Reliance Retail’s largest, the Rs 25,000 crore acquisition of Future Group, is bogged down by Amazon’s opposition to the proposed deal.
(Published in Economic Times)
admin
June 6, 2015
Bureau,
Financial Express
Mumbai,
6 Jun 2015
In
a belated attempt to salvage its reputation, Swiss FMCG major
Nestle on Friday decided to recall its Maggi instant noodles from
the market to end the ensuing confusion in the minds of consumers,
which it said did not provide a conducive environment for the
product to be in the market at this point of time.
The company’s group CEO Paul Bulcke flew down to India and addressed a crowded press conference to reiterate that its products are safe to consume and that it applies the same quality standards and the same food safety and quality assurance system everywhere in the world. “We felt unfounded reasons resulted in confusion and the trust of consumers was shaken,” Bulcke said.
Though sales of Maggi in India account for roughly 0.005% of Nestle’s global revenue of almost 92 billion Swiss francs ($98.6 billion), Bulcke acknowledged that the recent developments had damaged its brand and the company was in for a long haul. “If you have confusion there is something wrong with communications. That’s why we are sitting here,” he said.
However, the company’s troubles do not seem to end. Even as Bulcke’s press conference was on, the food safety regulator, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), ordered the company to recall all nine approved variants of the instant noodles from the market, terming them “unsafe and hazardous” for human consumption. It ordered it to stop further production, processing, import, distribution and sale of the product with immediate effect. It even said that Nestle launched the Maggi Oats Masala Noodles without approval and, therefore, ordered its recall as the company did not undertake a risk and safety assessment for the product. The regulator also said that Nestle violated labelling regulations on taste enhancer MSG and ordered the company to submit compliance report on its orders within three days.
After reports of presence of mono-sodium glutamate and lead in excess content in some samples surfaced in Uttar Pradesh around two weeks ago, till Thursday five states — Delhi, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand — had banned its sale pending tests in government laboratories. Major retails chains as well as small eateries had also withdrawn the products from their stores and menu. However, with the FSSAI’s order on Friday the company’s woes are expected to increase and the crisis may get prolonged.
Referring to the reports of high lead content in tests by certain government laboratories, the Nestle global CEO said that the company needed to find out the methodology adopted by the government’s test centres. Denying that the company added MSG in Maggi, Bulcke said that MSG was found in the product because of natural ingredients like groundnut oil, onion powder and wheat flour which contain glutamate naturally. However, to remove any confusion the company has decided to remove from now on the “Contains no MSG” labelling.
While analysts welcomed the recall of Maggi by Nestle, they questioned the delay in doing so and even clashing with the regulator and denying the problem for weeks. “If you ask me, everything that Nestle has done is wrong. In this day and age of social media, you cannot question the government and consumers,” said Arvind Singhal, chairman of retail consultancy Technopak.
“Nestle India should have given higher priority to the interest of the consumer and should have done a nationwide recall right at the beginning instead of confronting the situation. In this case they have managed to lose trust of their consumers. Nestle India needs to understand that a brand lives on the trust of the consumer,” Devangshu Dutta, chief executive at Third Eyesight said.
(With inputs from Sharleen D’Souza in Mumbai.)
(Published in Financial Express.)
Devangshu Dutta
January 5, 2010
If we were to look at phrases that have cropped up during the recent recessionary times in the consumer goods sector, “private label” has to be among those at the top of the list.
From clothing to cereals, toothpaste to televisions, there is hardly a category that has not seen retailers trying their hand at creating own labelled products.
The first motivation for most retailers to move into private label is margin. On first analysis, it appears that the branded suppliers are making tons of extra money by being out there in front of the consumer with a specific named product. The retailer finds that creating an alternative product under its own label allows it to capture extra gross margin. Typically the product category picked at the earliest stage of private label development would be one for which several generic or commodity suppliers are available.
At this early stage, the retailer is aiming for a relatively predictable, stable-demand and easily available product whose sales would be driven by the footfall that is already attracted into the store. A powerful bait to attract the customer is the visible reduction in price, as compared to a similar branded product. If the product can be compared like-for-like, customers would certainly convert to private label over time.
However, maintaining prices lower than brands can also be counter-productive. In many products, while customers might not be able to discern any qualitative difference, they may suspect that they are not getting a product comparable to one from a national or international brand. And while private label can drive off-take, the price differential can also erode gross margin which was the reason that the retailer may have got into private label in the first place. Over time, such a strategy can prove difficult to sustain, as costs of developing, sourcing and managing private label products move up.
The other strong reason a retailer chooses to have private label is to create a product offering that is differentiated from competitors who also offer brands that are similar or identical to the ones offered by the retailer. Department stores, supermarkets and hypermarkets around the world have all tried this approach – some have been more successful than others. The idea is to provide a customer strong reasons to visit their particular store, rather than any of the comparable competitors.
Of course, when differentiation is the operating factor, the products need more insight and development, and closer handling by the retailer at all stages. A price-driven private label line may be sourced from generic suppliers, but that approach isn’t good enough for a line driven by a differentiation strategy. In this case, costs of product development and management increase for the retailer. However, to compensate, the discount from a comparable national brand is not as high as generic nascent private label. In fact, some retailers have taken their private label to compete head on with national brands – they treat their private labels as respectfully as a national branded supplier would treat its brand.
So what does it take to go from a “copycat” to being a real brand?
Third Eyesight has evolved a Private Label Maturity Model (see the accompanying graphic) that can help retailers think through their approach to private label, whether their product offering is dominated by private label, or whether they have only just begun considering the possibility of including private label in their product range. The model sketches out a maturity path on five parameters that are affected by or influence the strength of a retailer’s private label offering:
In some cases, retailers may have multiple labels, some of which may be quite nascent while others might be highly evolved, clear and comparable to a national brand. This could be by default, because the labels have been launched at different times and have had more or less time to evolve. However, this can also be used as a conscious strategy to target various segments and competitive brands differently, depending on the strength of the competition and their relationship with the consumer.
The interesting thing is that size and scale do not offer any specific advantage to becoming a more sophisticated private label player. Some extremely large retailers continue to follow a discounted-price “me-too” private label strategy where even the packaging and colours of the product are copied from national brands, while much smaller players demonstrate capabilities to understand their specific consumers’ needs to design, source and promote proprietary products that compare with the best brands in the market.
For a moment, let’s also look at private labels from the suppliers’ point of view. As far as we can see, private label seems to be here to stay and grow. Suppliers can treat private labels as a threat, and figure out how to ensure that they retain a certain visibility and relationship with the consumer. On the other hand, interestingly, some suppliers are also looking at private label as an opportunity. They see the growth of private label as inevitable, and would much rather collaborate in the retailer’s private label development efforts. This way they can maintain some kind of influence on the product development, possibly avoid direct head-on conflict with their own star branded products and, if everything else fails, at least grab a share of the market that would have otherwise gone over to generic suppliers.
If you are retailer, I would suggest using the Private Label Maturity Model to clarify where you want to position yourself, and continue to use it as a guide as you develop and deliver your private label offering.
If you are a supplier concerned about private label, my suggestion would be to gauge how developed your customer is and is likely to become, and ensure that you are at least in step, if not a step ahead.
Of course, if you need support, we’ll only be too happy to help! (Contact Third Eyesight to discuss your private label needs.)
admin
September 22, 2008
Devangshu Dutta
In a departure from popular retail philosophy, Devangshu Dutta calls for a new model of food supply based on multiplicity and diversity. Modern retail must, he says, take into account the changing environment and be sensitive to evolving consumer preferences and to the failures and obsolescence of traditional mass retail models adopted by western developed markets.
Devangshu Dutta is chief executive of Third Eyesight, a management consulting firm focused on consumer products and retail, whose clients include brand leaders and some of the largest companies in their respective markets.
Food price inflation it is still hogging the headlines. It is, after all, an emotive topic. We are terribly concerned not just as food and grocery professionals, but also as consumers and the general public. After all, food and grocery typically account for half of our monthly spend, give or take a few percentage points.
Most students of management, economics, and human behaviour are aware of Abraham Maslow’s classification of human needs into a hierarchy construct. Other economists and psychologists prefer to use other models. Whichever model you consider, the need to eat and the need for security are invariably at the bottom or base level which must be fulfilled the earliest.
The interesting fact is that well after you would imagine these basic concerns have been taken care of, they are actually never far from the surface. This is true not just of the poorest of the poor, but of the wealthy and the well-off as well—whether individuals, communities, or nations.
Increasingly, the agricultural supply chain is dependent on non-renewable petroleum and its products, rather than by the natural energy of the sun being converted into food by the plants.
Is it any wonder that “food security”—the combination of these two—is such a charged subject, especially in these times?
However, a significant set of questions is not really touched in the question of costs and in the question about the continuing security of food supplies: how the food supply chain is structured, how it is driving consumption, what impact that might have on food prices and several broader cost implications.
INDUSTRIALISING AGRICULTURE—FARMING PETROLEUM
Thousands of years ago, when hunter-gatherer human beings stumbled upon agriculture, it was a breakthrough similar to the discovery of controlled fire. Hunter-gatherers were dependent on the natural availability of food, while agriculture created the opportunity to have some control over food supplies and reduce the natural feast-famine cycle. Thereafter, farming, processing and storage techniques kept evolving incrementally to ensure that more food could be produced for each unit of land and effort, and stored for longer – all moving towards ensuring “food security”. This led to the age of empire-building, where monarchs grew their wealth (essentially food territory) with the help of military- imperial complexes, and the greater wealth in turn supported the military-imperial complex.
This remained the trend for a few thousand years, until the age of industrialisation and the age of petroleum. Through the industrialisation and the world wars, the military- imperial complex gave way to a military-industrial complex, which essentially became the military-industrial-petroleum- agricultural complex. Suddenly, there were not just machines to plant, reap, thresh, sort, clean and process, but also petroleum-based and synthetic substances to dramatically increase output and to keep the produce fresher for longer.
As farms industrialised, the parameters that began to be applied were the same as in any factory—how to produce more while spending less—and every year the target was to grow more for less. Underlying this was the principle of “efficiency from larger scale”. The same philosophy played out further down in the supply chain – from processing aimed at extending the shelf-life of the product as it was (chilling, cleaning, sorting) to processing and packing in order to change the nature of the product itself and gain additional value (such as turning tomatoes into puree and potatoes into chips).
Standardisation became a vital link in industrialisation — if you can standardise produce, you can cut down human handling — while you may lose product variety (including flavour and colour) you gain through lower production costs. By reducing unpredictability, you can also concentrate on building the scale of business, because it becomes more repetitive.
The interesting side-effect of this is that, gradually, we are converting ourselves (and people in many industrialised economies already have) into petroleum-burning machines rather than those running on solar energy, because increasingly, the agricultural supply chain is dependent on non-renewable petroleum and its products, rather than by the natural energy of the sun being converted into food by the plants.
The important thing to keep in mind is that, in this switch- over, energy efficiency is actually going down rather than up
Energy efficiency is actually going down rather than up – we are using more calories of fuel source to produce each calorie of food energy.
—we are using more calories of fuel source to produce each calorie of food energy.
So it is worth asking the question: can lower costs actually be costing us more?
THE DEMAND-SIDE STORY
The growth of industrial agriculture has not happened alone, but has been accompanied by the growth of modern or “organised” retail.
On the one hand, large retailers such as Wal-Mart, Carrefour, Tesco, Metro and others, have been widely credited for achieving cost-efficiencies from scale, and then passing on these efficiencies to the consumer in the form of lower prices (and, apparently, higher standards of living). That is a good thing and definitely of benefit to the population at large, especially in inflationary times such as these. Surely, it is good to push for lower costs rather than keeping prices high as a result of inefficient sourcing, wasteful and expensive handling, and non-value-adding costs in the supply chain.
On the other hand, these organisations are driven to standardise their own product offerings, reduce the number of supplier touch-points and increase the volume per supply source.
There is not just a reduction in diversity of suppliers, but also a reduction in the number of product variants. (I’m not referring to the number of “types” of potato chips or packaged meals, but to the actual core food product—the natural species or sub-species that are the basic source.) Of course, agriculture itself is a process of consciously selecting and encouraging species that are more useful to us humans, but industrial
Lower costs can be delivered by reducing the variation of products
Higher sales can come from either having consumers buy more of the same product (which in food does tend to taper off after a while), or by turning the basic product into a “value-added” product (e.g. potatoes into wafers, mash, fries; corn into syrup and food additives, and so on).
THE NEED FOR A DIFFERENT MODEL
We don’t have to look too far into the future to realise that this is not a sustainable model. (Or, as someone pithily said: “Only fools and economists believe in infinitely compounding growth.”) So far, this model has impacted less than a fifth of the world’s human population, but now the growth markets of choice for industrial agriculture companies are China and India. If these two countries move through the exactly same path as have the western economies in terms of agriculture and food processing, given the population base itself the impact may be 5-7 times (or more) on the demand for petroleum as well as the fall-out on the ecosystem.
You may ask: why should retailers and their suppliers worry about this?
Firstly, pure cost considerations – clearly, the costs of petroleum are ranging at the highest levels ever, and explosive demand through industrialised agriculture will only serve to push them up. How far can you push the food bill every month, before people start buying less? What impact would that have on large retail supply chains and farmers whose processes are increasingly built around products of industrial agriculture?
Secondly, what consumers are already beginning to express in western markets will possibly happen in India in the next few years as well: concern about where and how the product has been produced, what has been the fall-out on the environment and on the overall health of people involved with that supply chain as well as the health of consumers. Carbon footprint, food miles and locavores (people who only consume food that is produced within 100 miles of where they live) are terms that companies are increasingly becoming familiar with.
agriculture takes it to a completely different level. Carbon footprint, food miles
The industrial-agricultural-retail economic model can be paraphrased as follows:
Businesses (especially those that are publicly held) need to show growth in profits each year
Growth in profits can come from higher sales at the same cost base or lower costs
Carbon footprint, food miles and locavores (people who only consume food that is produced within 100 miles of where they live) are terms that companies are increasingly becoming familiar with
And an alternative set of questions is also being raised. Is it ok to burn non-sustainable fossil fuel if you get “carbon credits” by planting trees somewhere else—have all the carbon costs been accounted for from the start to the finish of the production process? Is it better to reduce the food miles and have food produced locally in a high-cost economy’s industrial agricultural model, or to have naturally grown foods from a more primitive farm in Africa or Asia where the environmental impact is only the “carbon debit” of the air-freight. And, even if the produce is carbon-friendly, what about the nitrogen footprint (from the fixation of nitrogen into fertilisers) and the methane footprint (from large scale animal farming)?
THE POWER OF THE SMALL AND THE MANY
And finally the question of maintaining diversity must be top- of-mind. For all its so-called inefficiency, diversity is actually a great shock-absorber. Imagine a bean bag or a piece of foam — what gives them their cushioning ability is the space and air between the little balls, or the material. Now imagine a cropland that is attacked by a pest—if there is diversity in the plant population, there is a good chance that certain varieties will survive even if others don’t; unlike a cropland with limited variety which may be totally wiped out (and possibly the farmer with it). Further imagine a supply chain that has multiple suppliers with the same or similar product versus one where the supply base is highly concentrated. Which ecosystem do you think will survive better during times of trouble, even if some of the suppliers—a part of the ecosystem—do not? (One doesn’t have to think too far: the example of the former Soviet Union with its mega manufacturing plants supplying the whole country are a case in point.)
To really find long-term solutions for food security issues, retailers, suppliers, economists and governments need to acknowledge that sustainable safety lies in numbers and diversity. A dispersed economic system with a lot of variety has resilience built in. And the solutions may actually be very close at hand, in the updating of traditional techniques.
It is high time to start figuring out how India (and China) can take the lead in creating an alternative and more sustainable model for food security for large populations, rather than blindly push development models borrowed from the 19th and 20th century western economic history.
Source: FLY ON THE WALL
Send download link to:
