Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nomit Joshi's avatar

Interesting approach, but there may be challenges—because headroom for FMCG growth is like a locked room, and the key is called "per capita income going up", and it needs go up across all the income levels. Until people actually have more money to spend, all the technology in the world won't make them buy more soap. Yes, we now use tech to track sales, map consumption patterns, decode consumer preferences, and enable buying with one click—but does any of that actually make someone finish their shampoo bottle faster? Big question. Meanwhile, packaging innovations in dal, rice, salt, and oil have turned loose products into sealed ones, thanks to technology. Yet category growth is still moving at the speed of a bullock cart on the Taj Express way. Why? Because these innovations are copyable. You gain only if you do it first and build a barrier—but in FMCG, the barrier is about as sturdy as a paper umbrella in a cyclone. The kirana guy is mature, the legacy brand is mature, and both are sitting on their turfs like grumpy uncles ready to slap any new-age brand that wanders in. And speaking of new-age brands—look around. Except for a lucky few, most are burning money to acquire consumers, and the ones that survive this cash burn are quietly getting acquired by the very legacy players they wanted to disrupt. The real success would be if the entire category grew fast. It's not happening. E-commerce, quick commerce, kirana, organised retail—they're all there, but they're not fighting a war. They're reluctantly learning to collaborate, swap territories, and enter each other's spaces because technology now allows everyone to do everything. You can map all the phases you want. But until India's per capita income decides to show up to the party, your "frenzy phase" is just expensive inventory gathering dust in a quick commerce warehouse.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?