Saumyangi Yadav, Entrepreneur India
Jan 6, 2026

After years of rapid growth and a sharp reset, India’s direct-to-consumer (D2C) sector is expected to settle into a more balanced phase. The period of easy funding, aggressive customer acquisition and scale-at-all-costs expansion is clearly over, experts suggest. Now, what lies ahead in 2026 is a shift towards steadier growth driven by better execution, stronger retention and clearer brand positioning.

According to Bain and Flipkart, India’s e-retail market is projected to reach $170–190 billion in GMV by 2030, driven by a growing online shopper base and evolving commerce models. As adoption deepens across Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities, high-frequency categories such as grocery and lifestyle are expected to drive a larger share of growth, making repeat purchase and habit formation critical for D2C brands.

Against this backdrop, 2026 is shaping up as the year when D2C brands are judged less on ambition and more on outcomes.

A Post-Hype Phase of D2C

Industry observers say the D2C ecosystem has clearly moved beyond its hype-driven phase. Devangshu Dutta, Founder and Chief Executive of retail consultancy Third Eyesight, describes the current moment as one of structural correction rather than contraction.

“India’s D2C ecosystem is in a post-hype phase where growth may be slower but structurally healthier,” Dutta says, adding, “Earlier growth cycles prioritised visibility and sales at the expense of profitability and consistency. Now, success is being measured by repeat rates, contribution margins and the ability to fund growth internally.”

Tighter funding is also driving this shift. With D2C investments slowing and overall capital remaining cautious, brands are now being pushed to show predictability rather than promise. Tracxn data shows Indian D2C startups raised USD 757 million in 2024, significantly lower than previous years, while overall PE-VC investments in India remained flat at USD 33 billion in 2025, according to Venture Intelligence.

As a result, Dutta notes that many D2C companies are rationalising portfolios, tightening inventory cycles and optimising supply chains. Marketing strategies, too, are evolving, with greater emphasis on retention, community-building and owned channels instead of discount-led growth.

Uniqueness Will Define Winners

If capital discipline is one defining force, speed is another. Harish Bijoor, business and brand strategy expert, argues that D2C’s next phase will be shaped by how brands respond to a faster, more fragmented commerce environment.

“The e-commerce revolution led to a more refined orientation of D2C, and that has now given way to a q-commerce revolution that is even faster,” Bijoor says, adding, “The D2C revolution is going to be leveraged by speed. A whole host of players will invest time, energy and innovation into this.”

In Bijoor’s view, traditional e-commerce is now the slowest layer in a spectrum where quick commerce is the fastest, and D2C sits in between. In such a landscape, competing purely on price is no longer sustainable. He believes differentiation will increasingly come from uniqueness and premium positioning rather than ubiquity.

“When you know that you get a particular great-tasting biryani at just one place with no branches, you will go to that place. That uniqueness is what will distinguish D2C commerce in the future,” he says.

Bijoor adds that many D2C brands have been trapped in price wars under the guise of differentiation. He also argued that brands that premiumise and resist excessive omnichannel dilution are more likely to build desirability and long-term value.

Consumers Move Beyond Metros

Structural shifts in demand are reshaping how and where D2C brands grow. India now has one of the world’s largest and most diverse online consumer bases, with growth increasingly driven by Tier-2, Tier-3 and smaller towns rather than metros alone. Internet adoption continues to deepen across rural and semi-urban India, expanding the addressable market well beyond early digital buyers.

This widening base is changing the nature of growth. Consumers are becoming more deliberate in how they spend, weighing value, quality and trust more carefully than before.

As Devangshu Dutta notes, Indian consumers have always been discerning, but rising living costs and economic uncertainty have made them even more thoughtful, pushing brands to earn repeat demand rather than rely on impulse or discount-led purchases.

“Value is not just about discounts,” he says. “It’s a balance of price, performance and trust. For D2C brands, repeat consumption has to be earned through consistent quality, transparent pricing and dependable service.”

High-frequency categories such as grocery, lifestyle and general merchandise are expected to drive much of this expansion. Bain estimates these segments will account for two out of every three e-retail dollars by 2030, reinforcing the importance of habit formation and retention-led models.

Quick Commerce Expands Discovery, Not Profitability

Quick commerce has emerged as a powerful but complex growth lever for D2C brands. The format now accounts for a significant share of India’s e-grocery demand and has scaled into a multi-billion-dollar market, becoming a key discovery channel for food and everyday consumption brands.

However, expansion beyond metros remains challenging. RedSeer data shows non-metro markets contribute just over 20 per cent of quick commerce GMV, even as platforms scale to over 150 cities, with breakeven economics in smaller towns requiring significantly higher throughput.

Praveen Govindu, partner at Deloitte India, cautions that while quick commerce has helped many D2C brands gain discovery, particularly in food and beverage, it is not a sustainable growth engine on its own.

“From a customer acquisition standpoint, quick commerce is not fundamentally different from traditional e-commerce,” Govindu says, adding, “It is an expensive channel, and competition will only intensify. Over the long term, brands cannot rely on burning capital there.”

Omnichannel Enters Its Toughest Phase Yet

As digital acquisition costs rise, India’s ad market is projected to grow nearly 8 per cent in 2025 to Rs 1.37 lakh crore, with digital accounting for almost half of the spends, brands are being pushed to diversify distribution. Yet omnichannel presence alone is no longer enough.

“Many brands talk about omnichannel, personalisation and seamless journeys, but in practice these efforts are still disjointed. In 2026, the focus will shift from intent to execution,” Govindu says.

RedSeer projects India’s retail market to cross USD 2 trillion by 2030, with nearly 90 per cent of consumption still happening offline. For D2C brands, this makes offline expansion unavoidable, but success will depend on consistent execution across pricing, inventory, service and communication.

Consumers, Govindu notes, do not consciously differentiate between online, offline or social platforms. “They simply want a consistent experience,” he says. “Even small inconsistencies can erode trust.”

AI-Led Discovery and Experience

Perhaps the most transformative force shaping 2026 will be the evolution of buying journeys themselves. Govindu sees the rise of AI-led and agentic commerce as a major inflection point.

“Conversational platforms and AI-driven assistants will increasingly influence discovery, purchase, fulfilment and post-sales experiences. What earlier happened across multiple touchpoints is now beginning to happen in one place,” he says.

This convergence amplifies the importance of content-led discovery, owned data and deep consumer understanding. Brands that can unify storytelling, commerce and service into a coherent narrative are more likely to build loyalty in an environment where switching costs are low and alternatives are abundant.

Whether growth comes through D2C websites, marketplaces, quick commerce or offline stores, experts agree that the real differentiator will be a brand’s ability to build durable consumer relationships. As investors shift focus from short-term metrics to long-term value creation like retention, margins and brand strength, the next phase of India’s D2C story is less about rapid expansion and more about refinement.

(Published in Entrepreneur India)

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.

Retailwire raised a pertinent question recently about social media and marketing. In marketing as in life, it is all about timing. The question was whether retailers and brands should be concerned that they are moving to Facebook at a time when large numbers of teenagers are abandoning it? 

Having said that, I’d like also to take a different look at those stats. Demographics and physically addressable market aside, the question is what proportion of your potential customers are receptive to the brand in that environment.

At the moment, Facebook is not a medium amenable to classic interruption marketing. (Although it may become that in the future, just like Youtube, with Google ads popping up across the bottom of the video.)

Neither is the Facebook user’s primary purpose brand loyalty or looking at marketing messages. The average Facebook user has enough to keep him/her busy or distracted, without getting on to a brand’s page. That video of a mother with laughing quadruplets is far more likely to get viewed and shared than any of your marketing messages.

If your brand isn’t interesting, engaging, and open, you can’t have the conversations that a platform like Facebook facilitates. If there’s no on-going conversation, your chief Facebook officer is wasting the company’s time, money and internet bandwidth. Logout. Now.

The entire discussion on Retailwire is here: “Marketers Move to Facebook As Teens Move Away” (needs a free sign-up).

Advertising Age recently carried an article titled “The Death of Customer Segmentation”, by Michael Fassnacht.

He questions the traditional marketing hypothesis that the better we segment consumers, the better we know what is relevant and the better we can market to them.

Fassnacht argument is that:

1. Segments are becoming more volatile [totally agree!]
2. Consumers are never part of just one segment [fashion companies discovered that a few years ago, and began marketing to “purchase occasion segments” rather than plain-old consumer segments defined by demographic and static psychographic profiling], and
3. Consumers are preferring to choose what information would be relevant and of interest.

This last point is of particular importance, since electronic media – especially websites that customize themselves based on analysis of the users behaviour and history – are becoming more prevalent communication platforms. In fact, for the last few years “mass customization” and “a consumer segment of one” have been fashionable phrases thrown about in marketing circles.

Fassnacht quotes Amazon, Apple and social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace to support his well-structured argument.

However, it may be a challenge for traditional retailers and brands to apply the learnings from these brands in their physical stores.

Going further and on a lighter note  – or perhaps not 🙂 – if we are to believe the philosophy of the Vedas, the Universe has a head start on “self-segmentation” and “customization of consumer experience” technology. According to it, the world and our experience of it is “Maya,” an illusion product of our mind, and we are free to create and mold it, and experience it as long as we hold the illusion.

If that’s the case, our modern techies and marketers have a long time to go before they climb that technology curve.

The original article is available here: The Death of Consumer Segmentation?

Online retailer Zappos is planning to introduce customizable web pages, and that has attracted all kinds of commentary – warm & welcoming as well as dismissive.

The big question is “what is the customization and how it is being offered”.

My rule is simple: web-page customization has to drive simplification of the shopping experience.

Changing skins, page layout, and other cosmetic stuff may keep novelty-seekers happy – for some time, that is. But the average user will find that it is just another thing too many on the already over-full to-do list.

Simplification of the user-friendly sort has to be heuristics and analytics-driven, and behind-the-scenes. It has to be driven by not just stated preferences (through options / settings, through drag-and-drop etc.), but unstated – by studying past behaviour in both purchase and browsing. Imagine if you had every customer stating their preference for a physical store layout. In fact does everyone even know what they really want?

The flip side is that this kind of monitoring may sound creepy and 1984-ish to some people. But probably those would also be the people who are blissfully unaware of the fact that in today’s world the only way to remain totally untracked is to not use any form of electronic / communication device at all, or to build each such device (hardware AND software) yourself from scratch. If you use social networking sites, and have “friend suggestions” on your page, you are being tracked!

There is also the balance to be kept in mind between the boundaries the customer defines and promotions that the retailer wants to drive. The consumer may want to control completely what reaches her; the retailer may take the view that there are incredible deals which the consumer just wouldn’t know about if she built impregnable walls around herself.

For those who’re interested in customization, the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) document from 2002 about their 2001 website redesign (“The Glass Wall”) is a great resource to refer to. It doesn’t seem to be available anymore on the BBC website itself, but copies are available elsewhere on the web.

Over the past few years, the Internet has been revolutionising the way we interact with each other, as individuals, as companies or corporate entities, providing a mass of information keeps growing with no end in sight. With cheap and direct access, we can quite simply move around with a few clicks, most of the time locate what we want, make an informed (and even comparison-based) decision, and exit. Surely, as many pundits forecast, the Internet should bring an end to intermediation of any sort. Well, yes. And no.

Yes, the Internet makes information more easily accessible to everyone. Every week there are literally thousands of websites, hundreds of portals and at least a few dozen exchanges that spring up. These get hit upon either directly, or via the many search engines that, in turn, are also constantly updating and fine-tuning their search algorithms, pushing to create sensible shortlists that are useful for the researcher. One is even named after the butler created by P. G. Wodehouse, with the implicit claim that it will anticipate your needs even before you know of them! However, these are only attempts at generating intelligence (at best), more often just information, quite a lot of which is unintelligible, and very far from the “knowledge” that we human beings seem to create in our minds quite automatically as we go about doing our tasks. Just a few days ago, I was searching for hotels in the US – what I downloaded was a morass of information, and I spent a whole day sorting through it. In this case I could have just as well requested a trusted travel agent to come up with a few appropriate options for me, from which I could have booked my choice.

Our minds are, yet, the best-known computer to man, in terms of versatility. Our minds can store enormous amounts of data – a surprising amount remains in long-term memory (despite the fact that often we can’t seem to remember the name of the person that we just met in the lift!). More importantly, we can connect and inter-relate seemingly unrelated items of information, for example, creating travel itineraries covering flights, hotels and various other details into a plan that is most effective and efficient keeping in mind the time constraints, costs and our objectives for travelling. We are still not fully-there from robot programmes which will automatically find you the best prices, and the most convenient locations or times, let alone do that for hotels AND flights AND trains and any other items that your itinerary contains. Travel is actually probably one of the simpler examples – you could still create parameters which, provided the base information about price, time or location is provided by the service providers, can be used in programmes that can analyse patterns of new and past data, and revert with some shortlisted options.

Let us think of a more complex example – the textile and apparel supply chain. It is one of the most fragmented industries, and possibly one of the most global in terms of trade flows. There are multiple layers of raw materials and intermediate products, most of which pass through some sort of intermediaries (such as commission agents, stockists, importers etc.). In such a form the industry is a prime candidate for opening out to the Internet, where suppliers can create their websites, or store their information through other platforms (such as “exchanges”) which can be accessed by buyers from around the world – easy to set up, independent of time zones and very very low cost. Get rid of the multiple layers that mostly add costs, book orders directly, get rid of stocks… sounds like a heaven-sent opportunity!

Well, that is how it is being seen by the 70-80 exchanges that have come up around the world, or are in various stages of being set up. Some of these have been set up by existing industry players, some by technology companies, and yet others by people who have set up exchanges in other sectors who believe that similar business principles can be applied to the textile and apparel supply chain as they have applied in the other sectors. This should dramatically raise the direct access between suppliers and customers – be the end of agents and other intermediaries – and basically make millions for the companies promoting the exchanges!

Yet, around the world, retailers and brands that buy finished products and raw material do not seem to be rushing to stake any significant proportion of their purchases to web-based sourcing. And there are multiple reasons for that.

Firstly, such a proliferation of exchanges seems to be only a reflection of the fragmentation, and there does not seem the likelihood that any clearly dominant player will emerge in the next few months. There is little or no differentiation between most of these exchanges – most of them offering a sophisticated yellow pages capability, while others offer possibly a few add-ons such as functionality that allows buyers to bid for stocks, or suppliers to quote for products.

Secondly, in certain areas, buyers or suppliers themselves have got involved in setting up exchanges. Some of these are private web-based initiatives (such as Wal-Mart or Littlewoods on the retail end, or LiFung.com or TheThread.com on the supply side), while others apparently are more public and collaborative, such as World-Wide Retail Exchange.

Closed web-based systems are excellent for the company that is initiating it, because it enables the company to streamline operational processes. However, it does create another platform for people to adapt to, though web-based systems are less painful certainly than EDI or other proprietary systems, which require specific investments. Also, occasionally it brings up the question of conflict of interest. For example, how comfortable would one supplier feel in sharing internal information with another supplier who has taken on an additional role?

Other initiatives, such as the WWRE, have got off to a good start, but here internal stumbling blocks are inevitable due to the composition of the groups. Consider the WWRE: 27 retailers currently, in four separate areas of operation (as diverse as food and clothing), with different geographical bases, which make the business imperatives very different for the various participants. Add to that the fact that people are loath to share knowledge that is considered proprietary by them, whether process knowledge or supplier contacts. It is a long-drawn process of consensus management in such a large initiative.

Thirdly, what kind of a service offer is the best? As of now, there is are options available from various B2B service providers, offering varying areas of benefit, from listing services to “software solutions” for various applications, to loose working relationships. Not only do the service offerings actually vary, there are varying degrees of claims and counterclaims that muddy the waters further.

The scenario is actually as confusing as it seems to be – players, whether exchanges, portals or any other kind of company, are dynamically evolving their business models, with changes seemingly almost every week, and new players emerging all the time. In such a scenario, buyers (who are early-adopters) will get into as many exchanges as possible to get the maximum choice, and to hedge their bets. On the other hand, the majority – which comprises of buyers who adopt new technologies later – will hold back to see which exchanges come up as the most widely accepted or most appropriate for them.

Finally, whether we like it or not, textile and apparel products are inherently emotional products. They are, of course, driven by specifications, and those specs can be defined fairly precisely. But what the specifications cannot ever completely convey is how a buyer feels instinctively about including a product in a range. Or, indeed, what the impact would be of making some minor adjustments that can be visualised, discussed and decided in an interactive session between a buyer and a supplier. Or, for that matter, what is the best way to reconfigure a supply chain, under pressure of a new order, or an unforeseen delay in the process. Intermediation is something that has become ingrained in the textile and apparel supply chain.

In such a scenario, it is unlikely that intermediaries will disappear immediately. What is certainly happening, however, that while previously buyers were willing (or forced) to pay for having access to information, pure information itself is being made a commodity. In this frame of reference, companies are seeking out “genuine value-for-money” before they will shell out a buying or selling commission. Process or domain knowledge is an absolute must – only this can enable web-based companies to create unique and genuine value-adding web-solutions. Simply putting up a ‘telephone directory on the web’ will fetch very little in return. Even though a telephone directory has hundreds thousands of entries, how much do you pay for it? Relationship-management and process-management capability will remain in demand, and many of the existing intermediaries certainly show a lot of that.

Vertical integration

One of the most important developments that will certainly be an accelerated outcome of the internet, will be the vertical integration of the textile and apparel supply chain. While, in the past, the very diverse nature of the stages of the supply chain has created and maintained multiple layers, web-based technologies are now enabling companies to structure and manage the apparel supply chain from as early a stage as they wish to, be that fabric, yarn or even fibre. It is more feasible to exert control, without actually physically owning the different bits of the supply chain.

Breaking down size barriers

Another significant outcome is that the web breaks down “size” barriers. Large retailers typically bought from large suppliers, while small retailers typically did business with small suppliers. Any “criss-crossing” (i.e. small companies dealing with larger companies) needed middlemen – individuals or companies that broke bulk or consolidated orders, for small or large retailers, respectively. This had more to do with operating systems, management capabilities and the scale needed for relationship management than it did with actual barriers. Now, however, web-based systems can allow some parity between organisations of different size, because at a low cost the same level of functionality is available to companies of all sizes, This is significantly changing the balance of power, and the overall structure of the industry. Scale was never the only surrogate measure of capability in this industry, but the correlation between actual scale and perceived or actual capability is getting even more vague over the Internet.

The impact of the web on the textile and apparel industry is not going to be immediate – it will take a while to permeate the hundreds of thousands of companies that make up the supply chain – so there is some breathing space.

But surely, in the next five years, the textile and apparel supply chain that we shall be seeing, will be structured quite differently from the existing supply chain. There will certainly be some casualties. What is important is that you – whether you are a supplier or a retailer – should start taking cognisance of the changes to come, and begin changing your own business to avoid being one of the casualties.