admin
February 27, 2026
Samar Srivastava, Forbes India
Feb 27, 2026
India’s young consumers are discovering the next big beauty serum, protein bar or sneaker brand not in a mall, but on Instagram reels, YouTube shorts and quick-commerce apps that promise 10-minute delivery. What began as a trickle of digital-first labels a decade ago has now become a full-blown wave. Direct-to-consumer (D2C) brands—built online, fuelled by social media and venture capital—have reshaped India’s consumer landscape and forced legacy companies to rethink everything from marketing to distribution.
India today has more than 800 active D2C brands across beauty, personal care, fashion, food, home and electronics, according to industry estimates and consulting reports. The Indian D2C market is estimated at $12–15 billion in 2025, up from under $5 billion in 2020, and growing at 25–30 percent annually. The pandemic accelerated online adoption, but the structural drivers—cheap data, digital payments and over 750 million internet users—were already in place.
Unlike traditional FMCG brands that relied on distributors and kirana stores, D2C brands such as Mamaearth, boAt, Licious and Sugar Cosmetics built their early traction online. Customer acquisition happened through performance marketing; feedback loops were immediate; product iterations were rapid.
Importantly, these brands are discovered online—but as they scale, consumers buy them both online and offline, increasingly through quick-commerce platforms such as Blinkit, Zepto and Swiggy Instamart, as well as modern trade and general trade stores. The omnichannel play is now central to their growth strategy.
According to Anil Kumar, founder and chief executive of Redseer Strategy Consultants, the ecosystem is maturing in measurable ways. Brands are taking lesser time to reach ₹100 crore or ₹500 crore revenue benchmarks and, once there, mortality rates are coming down. There is also an acceptance that if a brand is not profitable in a 3–5 year timeframe, that needs to be corrected. “There is a lot of emphasis on growing profitably and not just through GMV,” he says.
Big Cheques, Bigger Exits
The D2C boom would not have been possible without capital. Between 2014 and 2022, Indian D2C startups raised over $5 billion in venture and growth funding. Peak years like 2021 alone saw more than $1.2 billion invested in the segment. Beauty, personal care and fashion accounted for nearly 50 percent of total inflows, followed by food and beverages.
Some brands scaled independently; others found strategic buyers. Among the most prominent exits:
> Hindustan Unilever acquired a majority stake in Minimalist, reportedly valuing the actives-led skincare brand at over ₹3,000 crore. For Hindustan Unilever, the annual run rate from sales of its D2C portfolio is estimated at around ₹1,000 crore, underscoring how material digital-first brands have become to its growth strategy.
> ITC Limited bought Yoga Bar for about ₹175 crore in 2023 to strengthen its health foods portfolio.
> Emami acquired a majority stake in The Man Company, expanding its digital-first play.
> Tata Consumer Products acquired Soulfull as part of its health and wellness strategy.
> Marico invested in brands such as Beardo and True Elements.
Private equity has also entered aggressively at the growth stage. ChrysCapital invested in The Man Company; L Catterton backed Sugar Cosmetics; General Atlantic invested in boAt; and Sequoia Capital India (now Peak XV Partners) was an early backer of multiple consumer brands.
Valuations were often steep. boAt was valued at over $1.2 billion at its peak. Mamaearth’s parent, Honasa Consumer, listed in 2023 at a valuation of around ₹10,000 crore. Across categories, brands crossing ₹500 crore in annual revenue began attracting buyout interest, with deal sizes ranging from ₹150 crore to over ₹3,000 crore depending on scale and profitability.
Yet exits have not always been smooth. “While it takes 7-8 years to build a brand most funds that invest in them have a timeline of 3-5 years before they need an exit,” says Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, a retail consultancy. This timing mismatch can create pressure—pushing brands to scale aggressively, sometimes at the cost of margins.
Integration Pains and the Profitability Pivot
For large FMCG companies, buying D2C brands offers speed: Access to younger consumers, premium positioning and digital marketing expertise. But integration brings challenges.
Founder-led organisations operate with rapid decision cycles, test-and-learn marketing and flat hierarchies. Large corporations often work with layered approvals, structured brand calendars and rigid cost controls. Cultural friction can lead to talent exits if autonomy is curtailed too quickly.
Margins are another sticking point. In the early growth phase, many D2C brands spent 30–40 percent of revenue on digital advertising. Rising customer acquisition costs post-2021, combined with higher logistics expenses, squeezed contribution margins. As brands entered offline retail, distributor and retailer margins of 20–35 percent further compressed profitability.
Large acquirers, used to EBITDA margins of 18–25 percent in mature FMCG portfolios, often discovered that digital-first brands operated at low single-digit margins—or were loss-making at scale. Rationalising ad spends, optimising supply chains and pruning SKUs became essential.
The funding slowdown between 2022 and 2024 triggered a reset. Marketing spends were cut by as much as 25–40 percent across several startups. Growth moderated from 80–100 percent annually during peak years to 25–40 percent for more mature brands—but unit economics improved.
Quick-commerce has emerged as a structural growth lever. For categories such as personal care, snacking and health foods, these platforms now account for 10–25 percent of urban revenues for scaled brands, improving inventory turns and reducing dependence on paid digital acquisition.
The next phase of India’s D2C journey will be less about blitz scaling and more about disciplined brand building—balancing growth, profitability and exit timelines. What began as a disruption is now part of the mainstream consumer playbook. And as capital becomes more selective, only brands that combine strong gross margins, repeat purchase rates above 35–40 percent and sustainable EBITDA pathways will endure.
(Published in Forbes India)
admin
December 15, 2025
By Saumyangi Yadav, Entrepreneur India
Dec 15, 2025
India’s D2C ecosystem has grown rapidly over the past five years, but scale remains elusive. While thousands of brands have launched and many have crossed early revenue milestones, only a small fraction manage to break past INR 100 crore in annual revenue. According to a new report by DSG Consumer Partners, based on a survey of over 100 Indian D2C founders and operators, the problem is not demand or product-market fit, it is how brands attempt to scale.
The report shows that around 60–65 per cent of Indian D2C brands remain stuck in the INR 1–50 crore revenue band, with very few reaching the INR 100 crore mark. This stage marks the point where early traction exists, but growth begins to strain unit economics, teams, and operating systems.
Insights from over 100 D2C founders reveal that India’s fastest-growing brands win on fundamentals rather than speed alone. Clear product-market fit, disciplined data tracking, strong unit economics, creative velocity, and an early focus on retention consistently separate scalable brands from those that plateau. Founders also admit that performance marketing mistakes, pricing missteps, and weak creative systems slow growth far more than budget constraints. In a booming D2C landscape, capability gaps in operations, brand-building, and supply-chain depth are widening the divide between breakout brands and those stuck in the performance plateau.
Industry observers argue that this is where many brands mistake rapid online growth for sustainable scale.
As Devangshu Dutta, Founder & CEO, Third Eyesight, explains, “Scaling up online can be very rapid, but is also capital-hungry in terms of CAC. Given the intense competition, the lack of customer stickiness and the power of platforms, there is a constant churn of marketing spend which is a huge bleed for growing brands.”
CAC Inflation is The Real Constraint
One of the clearest findings from the playbook is that acquisition efficiency, rising CAC and unstable ROAS, is the single biggest blocker to growth, cited by more founders than funding or category expansion. Moreover, over 70 per cent of brands rely on Meta as their primary acquisition channel, increasing vulnerability to auction pressure and platform-driven volatility.
Dutta links this directly to the limits of a digital-only mindset. “Limited offline expansion can trap brands in narrow urban digital markets, blocking broader scale,” he said.
This over-reliance on online performance marketing often leads to growth that looks strong on dashboards but weak on cash flow.
Highlighting their report, Pooja Shirali, Vice President, DSG Consumer Partners, said, “Across over 90 consumer brands we’ve partnered with at DSGCP, one truth is clear: brands that master Meta’s ecosystem don’t just grow, they change their entire trajectory through strategic clarity and disciplined execution. The real drivers of scale have less to do with viral moments, and everything to do with the long-term fundamentals that make milestones like the first INR 100 crore predictable, not accidental.”
Why Omnichannel is Unavoidable
The report suggests that brands that scale sustainably are those that reduce overdependence on paid digital acquisition and expand their distribution footprint. However, offline expansion brings its own complexity.
Dutta stresses that omnichannel is not an optional add-on, but a strategic shift. “D2C brands must adopt an omnichannel approach, blending online with offline retail for sustainable and scalable reach. Clearly the channels work very differently and management teams have to be prepared and capitalised for the long haul to tackle acquiring customers with channel-appropriate strategies,” he adds.
This aligns with the DSGCP report’s broader insight that scale breaks down when brands fail to adapt operating models as they grow.
Even within digital channels, performance weakens over time. The playbook finds that 62 per cent of founders report creative fatigue, where repeated creatives fail to sustain ROAS despite higher spends. At the same time, 55 per cent admit to under-investing in CRM and retention, with most brands reporting repeat purchase rates of just 10–30 per cent.
Both the data and expert opinion point to a common theme: brands that cross the INR 100 crore mark are structurally different. They obsess over unit economics, processes, and capital efficiency rather than topline growth alone.
As Dutta puts it, “Scalable brands that cross the growth hump have leadership obsessed with unit economics and omnichannel execution rather than chasing vanity metrics. Cash always was and is king, especially at early stages of growth.”
He adds that execution strength matters as much as strategy. “They are able to grow and steer teams that build and replicate processes fast rather than spending time, effort and money reinventing all the time, and do so without constant CXO intervention.”
As competition intensifies and capital becomes more selective, the next generation of INR 100 crore D2C brands is likely to be defined not by speed, but by the ability to compound cash flows, institutionalise processes, and scale distribution beyond digital platforms.
Saumyangi is a Senior Correspondent at Entrepreneur India with over three years of experience in journalism. She has reported on education, social, and civic issues, and currently covers the D2C and consumer brand space.
(Published in Entrepreneur India)
admin
December 7, 2025
Gargi Sarkar, Inc42
7 December 2025
The past year has been nothing short of monumental for LensKart — from reporting another operationally profitable quarter in Q2 FY26 to making the public markets leap in November, and crossing a market capitalisation of INR 70,000 Cr despite a muted stock market debut.
A clear shift this year has been Lenskart’s effort to move beyond the image of a ‘basic D2C eyewear’ brand selling prescription glasses and sunglasses. The company is now working to reposition itself as a new-age tech brand.
Further, Lenskart is rethinking where and how its products are manufactured. Currently, around 20–25% of its frames are reportedly manufactured in India. The company is ramping up its domestic production. As a new manufacturing facility in Telangana is a work in progress, Lenskart intends to gradually shift most of its manufacturing operations from China to India.
In many ways, 2025 has been about scaling up for Lenskart, and as it embarks on a fresh journey as a publicly listed company, let’s take stock of the company in 2025 and where it might be headed in 2026.
Lenskart’s Smart Eyewear Bet
Lenskart began its smart eyewear journey last year with the launch of Phonic, its audio glasses. It later deepened its push into the segment by announcing a strategic investment in Ajna Lens, a Mumbai-based deeptech company that develops AI-powered XR glasses. Back then, Peyush Bansal described the move as the “next chapter” in Lenskart’s smart glasses journey.
Cut to December 2025, the company is all set to launch its AI camera smartglasses, B by Lenskart, by the end of this month.
What makes B by Lenskart noteworthy is that it isn’t being marketed as just another pair of smart glasses. The new eyewear features an integrated Sony camera that enables hands-free photo and video capture. The glasses come with a built-in AI assistant powered by Gemini 2.5 Live. They are designed to offer natural, conversational interactions and pack in a range of advanced features — from hands-free UPI payments and live translation to wellness insights and more.
What makes the move even more significant is Lenskart’s decision to open B by Lenskart to India’s developer ecosystem. By making its AI and camera technology accessible to consumer apps and independent developers, the company is enabling integrations across categories such as food delivery, entertainment, and fitness.
“By opening its AI smartglasses to third-party developers, Lenskart is moving from a one-time product-sale model to a platform ecosystem model. In the long run, this could unlock recurring revenue streams and higher margins,” said a product developer.
Besides, the company is aligning itself with a younger customer cohort, aided by affordability, style, and technology.
“That’s what seems to define their current strategy. Over time, they’ve also brought in elements of innovation like virtual try-ons, and any product, feature, or service that brings novelty and appeals to younger customers has become part of their brand approach,” said Devangshu Dutta, the founder of Third Eyesight.
Next, the timing couldn’t be better for Lenskart to place its bet on smart glasses. An IDC report reveals that despite a slowdown in smartwatch and earwear segments in the second half of 2025, smart glass shipments shot off more than 1,000% over the last year.
However, it’s not going to be smooth sailing from here.
At its core, Lenskart is still a consumer-facing company, and it needs new products to keep its revenue growing. But the competition is already heating up. Jio unveiled its own AI-powered smart glasses, Jio Frames, at Reliance Industries’ 48th annual general meeting. And of course, Meta continues to lead the global smart glasses market.
At this point, smart eyewear is a niche category, which comes with a hefty price tag.
“Unless cost drops dramatically, mass adoption is still a distant dream. As of now, the product will only attract early adopters and tech enthusiasts, rather than the mainstream consumer,” Dutta adds.
Lenskart’s Make In India Push
Lenskart is not only widening its product range but also ramping up its manufacturing. The company currently operates centralised manufacturing facilities in India (Bhiwadi in Rajasthan and Gurugram in Haryana), Singapore, and the UAE. It also has manufacturing operations in China.
Back home, Lenskart has also signed a non-binding MoU with the Government of Telangana for setting up a greenfield manufacturing facility for optical glasses. The proposed investment stands at INR 1,500 Cr and will be supported by certain incentives and assistance from the state government.
The new production facility is expected to strengthen Lenskart’s domestic manufacturing capabilities while reducing its exposure to foreign exchange fluctuations and import-related volatility.
However, the expansion comes with its own set of challenges. While the new manufacturing plant in Telangana is expected to strengthen Lenskart’s vertical integration, it will come with a hefty cost burden.
Profitability Still A Troubling Question
The cost structure is becoming increasingly important for Lenskart. Despite its headline-grabbing profitability, the company is still operating on fairly thin margins.
Lenskart reported a net profit of INR 297 Cr in FY25, a notable turnaround from a loss of INR 10 Cr in FY24. However, market analysts caution that the business’ core operations were unprofitable. It was largely “other income” or investment income that drove the FY25 bottom line.
“Though Lenskart has increased its revenue from INR 3,789 Cr in FY23 to INR 6,651 Cr in FY25, the company’s profitability has largely improved due to a rise in other income. While it reported a PAT of INR 297 Cr in FY25, a closer look shows that the profit was driven significantly by an increase in other income, which jumped to INR 356 Cr in FY25,” SimranJeet Singh Bhatia, senior research analyst for equity at Almondz Group.
The point of concern here is that Lenskart turned operationally profitable only after its market debut. Bhatia believes that at least three to four quarters of consecutive profitability will be needed to prove the company’s underlying strength.
However, making matters worse are the company’s climbing expenses, which stood at INR 1,980.3 Cr in Q2 FY26, up 18.5% YoY.
What Lies Ahead?
The year was equally sour for the eyewear major. While its IPO generated significant buzz and saw strong subscription levels, its market debut turned out to be a muted affair.
At the upper end of its INR 382 to INR 402 IPO price band, the public issue implied a price-to-earnings (P/E) multiple of roughly 235–238 times its FY25 profits, placing it among the most expensive consumer tech listings in India.
On its first day of trading, Lenskart Solutions Ltd. was listed on the NSE at INR 395 per share, a discount of 1.74% to the issue price of INR 402. The stock, however, fell close to 9% shortly thereafter. On the BSE, it debuted at INR 390, marking a discount of nearly 3%.
After the IPO, Bhatia adds, the biggest concern surrounding Lenskart is the store-level unit economics, particularly because a significant share of the IPO proceeds is being directed toward expanding its company-owned, company-operated store network.
Entering the new year as a public company, Lenskart will have to prove that its scale-up plans are justified and that it has greater control over its balance sheet. 2026 will be a critical juncture for the company, as the next three to four quarters will be closely watched for signs of sustainable growth, improved margins, and stronger operational discipline.
[Edited by Shishir Parasher]
(Published in Inc42)
admin
August 5, 2025
Aakriti Bansal, Medianama
August 5, 2025
MediaNama’s Take: Swiggy is shifting from individual convenience to workplace capture. With DeskEats and Corporate Rewards, the company is embedding itself directly into the workday. This move is not just about food delivery. It is about becoming part of employees’ daily routines. More repetition leads to more orders, stronger retention, and access to a new layer of user behaviour: professional identity.
This approach draws from older models like office canteens and Sodexo meal cards. However, Swiggy reworks it for the app economy. Instead of fixed menus or closed ecosystems, it offers personalized choices tied to employer-subsidised benefits. That creates stickiness. When a company supports one app and offers discounts, switching becomes less likely.
The key question now is whether this integration creates lasting value or opens up new responsibilities. These include questions around consent, profiling, and where to draw the line between workplace systems and digital platforms.
What’s the News
Swiggy rolled out DeskEats, a curated food delivery collection for working professionals, in 30 cities and over 7,000 corporate hubs, according to Storyboard18. MediaNama also reviewed the feature on the Swiggy app. The collection includes categories like Stress Munchies, Healthy Nibbles, One-Handed Grabbies, and Deadline Desserts, aimed at common workday cravings.
During the pilot, DeskEats reached 14,000 companies and 1.5 lakh employees. Users can find it in the app by typing “Office” or “Work.”
Swiggy also launched Corporate Rewards, which lets users access benefits by verifying their work email. These include flat Rs 225 off food orders, Rs 2,000 off on Dineout, and Rs 100 off on Instamart.
On LinkedIn, Swiggy VP Deepak Maloo described Corporate Rewards as the professional version of its earlier Student Rewards program which offers perks like free deliveries, flat Rs 200 discounts, and deals starting at Rs 49, tailored for students aged 18–25 across India.
Financial Context
Swiggy may have launched DeskEats while under pressure to control its burn. In Q1 FY26, it spent Rs 1,036 crore on ads—a 132% jump and posted a loss of Rs 1,197 crore. DeskEats and Corporate Rewards offer a way to stabilise repeat orders without over-relying on discounts or ad spending.
The company’s adjusted Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA) loss widened to Rs 813 crore. Overall, food delivery revenue grew by 20.2% year-over-year to Rs 2,080 crore, with order volume growing by 23.3%. At the same time, newer formats like ultrafast Bolt and SNACC are aimed at increasing consumption frequency and improving retention. These efforts signal Swiggy’s larger bet on everyday integration to drive value.
Platform Strategy and Corporate Integration
DeskEats gives Swiggy access to dense, time-sensitive demand during work hours. Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, says this helps streamline operations: “By integrating directly with workplaces, Swiggy can anchor itself in employees’ daily routines and provide a more predictable stream of orders.”
He adds, “Scheduled office meals create habitual consumption patterns and increase customer lifetime value, especially when the employer endorses a single platform and offers a favourable price-value mix.”
“This is the age-old model followed by contracted office canteens or cafeterias as well, but updated to the mobile app era, with more flexibility in terms of the items that an individual can order based on their own preferences”, Dutta added.
Furthermore Dutta opined, “Adoption is likely to be more in the larger cities where there is a greater concentration of demand and out-of-home consumption is higher among migrant professionals with high discretionary spending power.”
Data, Consent, and Workplace Targeting
To access Corporate Rewards, users verify with their work email. Swiggy hasn’t said whether it collects additional employee data or whether employers see usage metrics. It’s also unclear if enrolment is opt-in or automatic.
This concern mirrors recent questions raised about Zepto, which began recommending mood-specific product bundles like “Crampy” or “Ragey” based on user searches for PMS. Critics pointed out that such inferences may not be accurate and are often made without the user’s explicit awareness. Zepto’s privacy policy permits broad data collection, including health and behavioural patterns, but lacks clear disclosure on profiling. While Swiggy may not be doing this visibly, the direction of workplace-linked behaviour data raises similar concerns under India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), which still doesn’t regulate inferred or behavioural data clearly.
As this model scales, it raises questions under India’s DPDPA especially around purpose limitation and workplace-based profiling.
Why This Matters
Swiggy’s push into the workplace mirrors a broader shift across the food delivery market. Zomato recently launched ‘Zomato for Enterprise,’ a corporate food expense management platform that allows employees to charge business orders directly to their companies. With features like budgeting, ordering rules, and account toggling between work and personal use, Zomato is positioning itself as a paperless, digital alternative to legacy players like Sodexo. According to CEO Deepinder Goyal, over 100 companies have already onboarded the platform.
This move signals intensifying competition in the enterprise food space. While Zomato focuses on billing and reimbursements through employer-tied accounts, Swiggy is targeting recurring workplace consumption through curated menus and behavioural nudges. Both platforms appear to be building business-facing verticals that go beyond consumer ordering, aiming to lock in institutional clients and expand platform dependency within the workspace.
Unanswered Questions
MediaNama reached out to Swiggy with the following questions. The article will be updated when we receive a response:
Is Swiggy positioning DeskEats and Corporate Rewards as part of a larger shift into corporate benefits?
How do companies sign up for Corporate Rewards? Are there different plans or models based on company size?
What employee data does Swiggy collect when someone signs up using their work email?
Are DeskEats and Corporate Rewards linked to Swiggy One or any other paid subscription?
How many companies and users are currently active on DeskEats?
Does Swiggy plan to scale this into a standalone B2B vertical?(Published in Medianama)
admin
July 27, 2025
Alenjith K Johny & Ajay Rag, Economic Times
Jul 27, 2025
Startups in the 60-minute fashion delivery segment are betting on features such as ‘try and buy’ and artificial intelligence (AI)-powered virtual try-ons to tackle high return rates, a key pain point in the segment. These tools are helping increase conversion rates and reduce returns while offering greater flexibility to buyers, said industry executives.
Mumbai-based Knot, which recently raised funding from venture capital firm Kae Capital, said partner brands that typically see return rates of about 20% on their direct-to-consumer websites are witnessing sub-1% returns through offline stores, a trend it is now replicating through these digital features.
“Our partner brands, which have offline stores, would typically witness 20% returns on their direct to consumer websites. But for the same purchases on offline stores, the returns are less than 1%. That is the idea. With the ‘try and buy’ feature, users can make a very decisive purchase at their doorstep,” Archit Nanda, CEO of Knot, told ET.
Return rates among users of the company’s virtual try-on feature are similarly much lower than the platform’s overall user base, he said.
Other venture-backed quick fashion delivery startups such as Bengaluru-based Slikk, Mumbai-based Zilo and Gurugram-based Zulu Club are also testing similar features to increase conversions and reduce returns.
“Returns play as big a part as maybe forward delivery does. Because these are expensive products, giving the customer his or her money back also plays a very critical role,” said Akshay Gulati, cofounder and CEO of Slikk.
Instant returns
Slikk is piloting an ‘instant returns’ feature where, like its 60-minute delivery service, returns are also completed within an hour. Once a return request is made on the app, a delivery partner picks up the product and refunds the amount instantly. The startup claims its return rate is 40-50% lower than that of traditional marketplaces and that it doesn’t charge customers any extra fees for returns.
Some users said they were satisfied with the delivery speed and trial window but pointed out that the app does not provide any return status updates until the product reaches the warehouse.
“I received my order within 60 minutes and had enough time to try it out. However, after returning the product, I didn’t receive any notification in the application until the delivery agent reached the warehouse,” said Mohammed Shibili, a working professional based in Bengaluru, who tried Slikk’s feature.
Investor interest
Investors tracking the segment estimate that try-and-buy and virtual try-on features can reduce return rates by 15-20 percentage points, translating into substantial cost savings for both platforms and brands.
“Features like try and buy are a huge cost save, not just for the platform but also for the brand. The brand otherwise would lose that inventory till it comes back and can’t make the sale on it. But now, that’s all getting quickly turned around. So, for the brand, it’s a win-win situation as well as for the customer where the money is not getting stuck till it gets the returns refunded,” said Sunitha Viswanathan, partner at Kae Capital.
Old model, new infrastructure
Flipkart-owned fashion etailer Myntra had introduced try and buy back in 2016 to attract traditional shoppers to online retail. However, the feature didn’t scale up due to supply chain limitations, according to industry executives.
“Back when Myntra launched ‘try and buy’, there was no hyperlocal delivery infrastructure. Deliveries were through national courier services. That model isn’t feasible to try and buy unless you have your own hyperlocal delivery fleet,” the founder of a fashion delivery startup said on condition of anonymity.
The founder added that while Myntra operated from large warehouses located on the outskirts of cities, the new-age supply chains are built within cities, allowing faster deliveries and enabling features like try and buy.
By the end of last year, Myntra had launched M-Now, an ultra-fast delivery service currently live in Bengaluru, Mumbai and Delhi, with pilots in other cities. The company said daily orders through M-Now doubled in the last quarter.
“Although it’s still early, our observations so far suggest that the quick delivery model, with its reduced wait time, attracts high-intent customers, leading to naturally lower return rates,” said a spokesperson for Myntra.
The etailer did not confirm whether the try-and-buy feature is being tested under M-Now.
Viability concerns persist
Despite the benefits, the long-term viability of these features is open to question, experts said.
“There is a cost to also providing these services (like try and buy), and whether that becomes viable at all is a question mark at this point of time. I think that’s what the concern is, and it has not been that viable,” said Devangshu Dutta, founder of Third Eyesight, a management consulting firm focused on consumer goods and retail industries.
He added that when platforms offer the try-and-buy feature, delivery executives have to wait while customers try on products, which increases the cost per delivery and reduces the number of deliveries that can be completed. Despite that, some items may still be returned, further impacting operational efficiency.
However, startups are experimenting with these features mainly on higher-margin products to offset operational costs, Dutta said, as return rates across fashion categories can range from under 10% to as high as 40% for certain items.
(Published in Economic Times)