Q-comm Will Add Pressure on Delivery Companies; Small Players Should Find Their Way

The ones in the Indian q-comm space are grocery-delivery apps like Big Basket, Blinkit and Zepto, who have been experimenting with apparel deliveries of late. But, delivery of fashion items is not the same as that of FMCG items or essentials. So, how much of this makes sense?

Remarks Rahul Mehta, Chief Mentor of the Clothing Manufacturers Association of India (CMAI), "I personally do not see quick delivery as a potential gamechanger in the apparel Industry. Yes, it will have some impact, especially in the non-fashion, basic and essential products in the T-Shirt category (basic round necks or single colour polos), or innerwear or some basic shirts. But I feel this will be a limited market—used mainly for emergency requirements, sudden overnight stays, etc. I do not see it as a competition to e-commerce or offline channels, but more as an add-on service, complementing one’s regular channels."

Quips Manish Saksena, Lead Business Consultant for Aadyam Handwoven: "Q-fashion is yet again a reminder to all of us to check our gratification parameters. It talks of consumption of a different level. It’s about immediacy and non-permanence. A purchase of this nature can never be for posterity as it is impulse and satiation beyond needs and wants."

The gratification that Saksena alludes to is for clothes that are about touch-and-feel and when done online it is about browsing and researching till you find the product you are looking for. So, would people be buying stuff that are not that crucial: like innerwear, hosiery, etc?

Mehta feels this will be useful in categories which are (a) not fashion-based, (b) required in an emergency, and (c) not expensive and easily discardable. Saksena believes buying behaviour is getting blurred. "Whether this kind of shopping is for essentials or for going out tonight is difficult to assess." Something that's low on engagement and high on essentials. There are drivers like lack of time to visit a store or even being too late to opt for classic e-comm. He talks of "rushed lifestyle and ravaging experiences."

Myntra's entry into the q-commerce space follows many others like Zepto, etc, who were not in the apparel-fashion space really. Does this indicate a trend of desperation? Does this also mean that the mainstream online marketplaces are saturated in a sense that companies are now looking for new avenues to boost revenues?

"Innovations, whether in product or marketing, are indispensable to being a successful brand--and hence, one does not need to be ‘desperate’ for a quick commerce channel to be introduced by a company--be it a Myntra or anyone else," answers Mehta, who is also Director of Creative Garments.

Saksena thinks the avenues where the customers are would definitely be explored by brands. It's about being where your customer is. "The responsibility and smartness lies in the backend decisions and usage with discretion. If Walmart could sell white shirts alongside daily bread 30 years back, we should all have seen it coming. Businesses which can sell what makes sense for business efficiencies and also meet customer demand will be winners. Haven’t we all started shopping 100X more categories online just for ease? Flower deliveries were the spearheads and if that high engagement category could show us the way there must be something right about it." Incidentally, Saksena was the COO of Tommy Hilfiger's India operations at launch, is now an advisor with the brand.

So far, the talk is mostly about brands and big players. What do these mean for small manufacturers? Do they get new platforms to sell? Or, does this mean they will get financially squeezed as they are often on e-comm marketplaces?

Mehta doubts if manufacturers--big or small--would get squeezed by the coming of quick commerce. "What will happen is that there will be a pressure on efficiencies and on logistics management. So, this will add pressure on delivery companies rather than manufacturing companies."

Saksena is not too worried about small players. He underlines: "Smaller businesses would soon find their way. These channels actually become viable for small businesses with low overheads and zero capex requirements. The channel will be neutral to both big and small players." He is also clear about how this will work: "Like I said earlier... smart, crisp and light merchandise together with high attractiveness and sensitive pricing will determine success."

The broader picture would be about fashion itself. What does this mean for fast fashion itself? Does this add a new dimension altogether, in the sense that fast fashion becomes less about a brand making a new design/range available and becomes more about how soon a consumer gets a product that he or she is looking for?

Mehta does not believe that this will have a lasting impact on a brand. "I doubt very much if a consumer will want to change his/her loyalty to a brand simply because another brand fulfilled his/her immediate need once in a while."

He adds: "Having said that I believe a brand is never about just creating a new design or range--it has always been and will continue to be about understanding the consumer and meeting his/her needs where, when, and in the manner the consumer needs."

Then again, what does all of this say for sustainability? This is pushing consumption to a new level altogether. Where does it leave the buy less, repair, reuse, recycle missions being ardently promoted these days? Mehta does not see quick commerce increasing consumption or impacting sustainability. 

Saksena, however, sees it very differently. He feels the q-comm drive is unsustainable as "it promotes self-indulgence with immediate gratification. The only hope could be that the euphoria dies down as customers see an unnecessary accumulation (of items) to a degree never seen before. They would soon realise that food is consumed and restocked, but fashion sits in the wardrobe once its psychological obsolescence sets in. That is what will bring discretion and consciousness. Hoping for that perfect balance."