The Patanjali Group has created an Indian FMCG giant in a very short span of time on the back of a three-pronged strategy:

1. The enormous brand awareness that can be attributed to the very high visibility of Baba Ramdev, across a variety of media and issues,
2. Wide and deep market penetration through a large network of outlets and distributors across the country, and
3. Pricing itself below the benchmark competitor in each product area in which it is competing.

Over time, the group has also invested in improving its manufacturing and packaging infrastructure to bring itself on par with well-established competitors.

The group has clearly focussed itself on the mass market, and Patanjali Group’s products become a “go-to” for customers who are more price-sensitive than brand-loyal. This definitely creates pressure on established brands in each of the product segments where the group is now present.

In the growing market for ready-to-cook packaged food, a new entrant would struggle to create visibility and initial demand. However, with the momentum of the Patanjali brand behind it, the group’s new product — instant noodles — has a fighting chance.

I must say, though, that the immediate opportunity would have been bigger had Maggi also not just relaunched in the market. The other aspect to keep in mind is that while a lot of food and nutraceutical products resonate easily with the Patanjali brand, instant noodles seem completely counter-intuitive under this brand’s umbrella. How much consumers will support this new launch remains to be seen.

This 2-4 minute noodles story is still cooking. Keep watching the pot!

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.)

A seminar was organised on the 12th of May in Zeist (the Netherlands) on “the Opportunities & Challenges for Dutch (Semi-) Processed Food Companies in India”. Highlights of a report and other insights were presented by Devangshu Dutta, chief executive of Third Eyesight. Other entrepreneurs who also shared their experiences in India, and the Dutch agricultural counsellor, Wouter Verhey, was present at the event.

The sessions included:

• Welcome and opening remarks by Wouter Verhey, Agricultural Counselor India & Sri Lanka at the Embassy of The Netherlands in New Delhi.
• The market for processed food in India by Devangshu Dutta of Third Eyesight, India.
• Entrepreneurial challenges in the food sector in India by Peter Uyttewaal, Partner India of Larive International. The characteristics and strengths of the Dutch Food and Grocery Industry by Sekhar Lahiri of FNLI.
• Discovering the Pot of Gold in India by Sumit Saran of Future Consumer Enterprise Limited, India.

You can download a summary of the report via this link: India – Opportunities Challenges for Dutch Processed Food Companies

These are thoughts shared in an emailed interview with the AgriBusiness and Food Industry magazine (published in the November 2014 issue.)

A Perspective on the Indian market:

Our first word of advice to companies that are looking at India as an evolving and large market, is to acknowledge the fact that that it has very diverse cuisines and food cultures.

Both Indian and international companies wishing to enter this market for the first time need to understand and acknowledge that one-size certainly does not fit everyone.

The variety of finished products needed requires food companies to address smaller quantities and to have flexible production.

Therefore, suppliers of capital equipment and technology also need to be able to think about how they can make their solutions more flexible to adapt to changing market needs, and also to price them appropriately for the Indian market. Simply extending solutions that work in large, developed markets such as Western Europe and North America is not the best approach.

I would use the example of one of our clients, a manufacturer of bakery automation equipment, who have approached the market with an open mind. After initial investigations they have gone back to the drawing board and created production lines that have smaller capacity, can produce multiple products including Indian specialities, and which are techno-commercially more feasible for an Indian customer to adopt.

There is no reason to think that India’s food industry should follow exactly the same development curve as the west. The population is much larger, with significantly lower income, and needs that are far more diverse and changing far more rapidly than in most other economies. The technical and technological models for India need to be strongly focussed on four major attributes:

• Water efficiency
• Energy efficiency
• Flexibility
• Cost efficiency

Agricultural, horticultural and animal husbandry practices and technologies, as well as those in the downstream sectors such as food processing, need to perhaps even look at setting new benchmarks for accessibility and long-term sustainability.

Food processing and the Indian consumer market:

Food processing has been part of human history since we learned to transform hunted, gathered and farmed raw products into new foods through curing, cooking, culturing etc. This processing has been driven by mainly two major factors: to make the raw material into a product that is more palatable and easily consumed (for example, from raw grains to bread), or to extend the storage life of the raw material (for example, in the form of cheese, pickles, or sweets, or using cooling and freezing).

However, during the last century, processing has been driven mostly by “convenience” by providing partly or fully cooked options, to reduce the time spent by individuals in cooking and to instead apply that time to activities outside home. Social structures in India are changing, as individuals are migrating out of their home-towns to other locations within the country. The number of households is increasing dramatically, while cooking time and cooking skills are both declining. With this, out-of-home consumption as well as partially or fully-cooked packaged foods are bound to rise, leading to greater need of food processing capacities.

Also, with increasing industrialisation of food manufacturing, standards have become important both for efficiency and for safety. We’re seeing signs of such development happening in recent years in India as well – expectations of both consumers as well as regulatory authorities are higher with each passing year. The industry needs to invest proactively in better technology and processes in all areas – cultivation, handling, processing, packaging, storage and transportation – to raise the standards of hygiene, safety, traceability etc.

Food productivity needs urgent attention:

India is among the largest producers of many agricultural products. However, our yields per head of workforce, per animal, per hectare, or per litre of water consumed can be improved significantly. Not only is the population growing, but per capita consumption of most products will rise as the economic situation of each family unit changes. Better practices, technologies and know-how need to be acquired and applied to dramatically improve Indian agricultural productivity.

An interesting model of development to look at is the “golden triangle” approach followed by the Netherlands – active and intensive cooperation between the government, academic institutions and the private sector.

So far, by and large, academic institutions in India have limited themselves to “teaching” and have stayed away from actively collaborating with industry. Academic institutions and the industry typically connect only for the occasional “lecture” by senior individual from industry, or during the time of recruitment of fresh talent. Government largely limits itself to creating macro-level policies. More effective communication and coordination between these three legs could help to dramatically improve the standards in the agricultural and food sector in India and make the nation not just self-sufficient but significantly more competitive in both cost and quality of the final products.

Similarly, active collaboration within the industry itself is important to achieve combined growth, which can only happen if companies step beyond the usual industry association framework.

Local production and service of food processing equipment is an important factor:

In cases where the market is large enough, local production of the equipment should certainly be investigated because it can help to bring down the initial capital cost for customers, and also provide a quicker service and support base.

A first step that a company takes is to create a local presence, either through a distributor or agent, or by directly opening a sales and service office of its own. However, most international companies need to gain a certain degree of confidence in the market, both in terms of sustained demand and in terms of operating conditions, before they would invest in manufacturing in India, since it takes a whole different level of management commitment as well as financial involvement.

With the announcement of the government’s “Make in India” initiative, hopefully more international companies will come forward to take advantage of the changing operating environment in the country.

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:

• consumer knowledge and insight
• product design and quality
• pricing
• promotion
• supply chain & sourcing

(Click here for a larger image)

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.)