Indian tea brands want a piece of this steaming hot business.

Written By Devika Singh

The company now plans to expand to the North Indian cities of Gurugram, Chandigarh, Amritsar and Lucknow, among others.

Homegrown tea makers are foraying into quick-service restaurants (QSRs) to tap into the ‘eating out’ culture in India and grow the business. But competition is aplenty — global brands have a formidable presence in India’s QSR scene, even as start-up brands such as Chai Point and Chaayos are gaining traction. According to a report by CARE Ratings, the total market size of QSRs in India is approximately Rs 25,900 crore. The overall restaurant and food service industry is expected to grow at a CAGR of 10.4% between 2018 and 2020.

Indian tea brands want a piece of this steaming hot business. Society Tea, a brand predominantly present in Maharashtra, recently opened its first tea café in Mumbai. Goodricke Group has tied up with the Tea Board of India to launch tea lounges in Mumbai and Kolkata on the latter’s premises. Gujarat-based Wagh Bakri, which was among the first movers, plans to expand its tea lounge presence to 50 large and small format outlets, from the current 13, over the next four years.

What’s brewing?

When Wagh Bakri opened its first tea lounge in Ahmedabad in 2007, the company saw it only as another experiential marketing tool. “Initially, it was a place where people could explore different kinds of tea. But, over the years, we saw a demand for these lounges,” says Parag Desai, executive director, Wagh Bakri Tea Group. The company claims to receive a footfall of 300-400 people per day on an average in stores present in high-street locations.

“We have deliberately stepped out of food courts to keep our offering premium,” Desai adds. A Wagh Bakri tea lounge could entail an investment of Rs 50-75 lakh. The company now plans to expand to the North Indian cities of Gurugram, Chandigarh, Amritsar and Lucknow, among others.

Society Tea, meanwhile, plans to open 10 more stores — mid-size stores around corporate offices — in Maharashtra. Pricing will be its key differentiator. “We are not pricing the product at Rs 300 like other players, but offering a full glass of chai at Rs 50,” says Karan Shah, director, Society Tea.

Goodricke Group has five operational tea lounges in the country, with plans to open one more, its second, in Darjeeling by the year end. The aim is to first foster brand awareness via its presence in locations of high tourist interest.

Blending in

Is a QSR foray really their cup of tea?

According to Devangshu Dutta, chief executive, Third Eyesight, each player could be backed by a different motivation to enter this space. Some may want to use it purely as a marketing tool, while some others may look at it as an alternative source of revenue.

QSRs can be an effective marketing tool especially for brands that have limited access to customers through retail. “Such stores help increase visibility and offer insights about their customers, their spending patterns, etc,” says Pinakiranjan Mishra, partner and leader, consumer products and retail, EY India.

However, expanding footprint in the market and eyeing revenue from the QSR chain could entail substantial investments for tea brands. “If tea companies look at QSRs as an additional business stream, then besides tea, there are food items and cold beverages to be served, which cannot be sourced just from the gardens,” says Dutta.

Furthermore, it will be an uphill task in the presence of biggies Starbucks, Café Coffee Day and Costa Coffee, that are established names in the market, in addition to other upstarts like Chaayos, which has over 50 cafés across Delhi-NCR, Mumbai and Chandigarh, and Chai Point which has 100 cafés in eight cities.

To get an edge, Harsha Razdan, partner and head – life sciences and consumer markets, KPMG India, says that new entrants would have to go beyond metros “and should ensure competitive pricing as the market is price sensitive”.

Source: financialexpress

(Published in the Financial Express, 10 May 2016)

In about 20 years, Café Coffee Day (CCD) has grown from one ‘cyber café’ in Bengaluru to the leading chain of cafés in the country by far.

In its early years, it was a conservative, almost sleepy, business. The launch of Barista in the late 1990s and its rapid growth was the wake-up call for CCD — and wake up it did!

CCD then expanded aggressively. It focussed on the young and more affluent customers. Affordability was a keystone in its strategy and it largely remains the most competitively priced among the national chains.

Its outlets ranged widely in size — and while this caused inconsistency in the brand’s image — it left competitors far behind in terms of market coverage. However, the market hasn’t stayed the same over the years and CCD now has tough competition.

CCD competes today with not only domestic cafés such as Barista or imports such as Costa and Starbucks, but also quick-service restaurants (QSRs) such as McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts. In the last couple of years, in large cities, even the positioning of being a ‘hang-out place’ is threatened by a competitor as unlikely as the alcoholic beverage-focussed chain Beer Café.

CCD is certainly way ahead of other cafés in outlet numbers and visibility in over 200 cities. It has an advantage over QSRs with the focus on beverage and meetings, rather than meals. Food in CCD is mostly pre-prepared rather than in-store (unlike McD’s and Dunkin’) resulting in lower capex and training costs, as well as greater control since it’s not depending on store staff to prepare everything. However, rapid expansion stretches product and service delivery and high attrition of front-end staff is a major operational stress point. Upmarket initiatives Lounge and Square, which could improve its average billing, are still a small part of its business.

Delivery (begun in December 2015) and app-orders seem logical to capture busy consumers, and to sweat the assets invested in outlets. However, for now, I’m questioning the incremental value both for the consumer and the company’s ROI once all costs (including management time and effort) are accounted for. The delivery partner is another variable (and risk) in the customer’s experience of the brand. Increasing the density through kiosks and improving the quality of beverage dispensed could possibly do more for the brand across the board.

The biggest advantage for CCD is that India is a nascent market for cafés. The café culture has not even scratched the surface in the smaller markets and in travel-related locations. The challenge for CCD is to act as an aggressive leader in newer locations, while becoming more sophisticated in its positioning in large cities. It certainly needs to allocate capex on both fronts but larger cities need more frequent refreshment of the menu and retraining of staff.

An anonymous Turkish poet wrote: “Not the coffee, nor the coffeehouse is the longing of the soul. A friend is what the soul longs for, coffee is just the excuse.” There are still many millions of friends in India for whom the coffee-house remains unexplored territory, whom CCD could bring together.

We didn’t get an award, but got the chance to give one away — the Coca Cola Golden Spoon Award 2011 for the “Most Admired Foodservice Retailer of the Year: Cafés & Juice Bars” to Costa Coffee (Devyani International). Congratulations also to the other nominees: Café Coffee Day, Jus Booster Juice, Mad Over Donuts, Baker Street, and Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf.

Eric Oving (Larive), Virag Joshi (Devyani International), Devangshu Dutta (Third Eyesight)

PHOTO CREDIT: IMAGES MULTIMEDIA

Last week, Starbucks unveiled its strategy for profitable global growth, having taken approximately US$ 600 million out of costs in since January 2008.

About 3 years ago in a leaked memo, chairman Howard Schultz had raised concern about how, in the race to scale and to become consistent, Starbucks was losing sight of all critical things that had made it successful in the first place. (“The Commoditization of the Starbucks Experience – Soul Searching by Howard Schultz“).

In January 2008, Schultz took on an active role as CEO in a bid to stem the rot (“Leadership Change at Starbucks – The Barista Returns“).

These two years have been eventful. Shortly after Schultz stepped in, Starbucks announced that it would close 600 under-performing stores in the US. That was well before the “financial tsunami”. In 2009, another 200 in the US and 100 globally were identified for closure, and the company also scaled back on its 2009 expansion plan for 200 new stores.

At its shareholders’ meeting last week, Starbucks presented a more confident face, and outlined a return to growth with plans to expand its presence and “accelerate profitable growth in both the U.S. retail business and in key international markets”. (This profitable growth mantra was also recited in last year’s shareholder meeting.)

However, while the business is looking better, it is far from fixed.

The environment is different. Globally, consumer wallets are leaner, competitors are meaner, and Starbucks may yet need to shrink further; the fat ain’t all in the latte.

Yet, there must be much good in the business if, for all its faults, it still gets imitated around the world.

According to Starbucks, it currently has less than 4 percent of the U.S. coffee market with its 6,800 own and 4,400 licensed stores, and less than 1 percent of the global coffee market even with 2,000+ company stores and 3,500 licensed stores. The company sees that as enough headroom to grow.

Schultz has promised to put the tough lessons learned in the last two years to good use. The company currently has approximately 200 fewer stores than it did at the beginning of 2009 even after new store openings during the year. (To put the current number of 16,700+ stores in perspective, the company had a total of “only” 2,600 stores in Q1-2000.)

But there’s something to think about. If the entrepreneur needs to step back in to fix things gone horribly corporate (bland) and wrong, maybe it’s time to acknowledge that there’s a logical limit to the size and scaling-up capability of personalized experience businesses.

Or, as a friend says, scale can be a logical outcome of excellence but excellence is never the logical outcome of scale.

It remains to be seen whether this round of growth will come from the company’s natural strengths or whether Starbucks will return to growth-by-steroids as Schultz eases on the controls.

Last year in an impassioned memo, Starbucks’ Howard Schultz identified several strategic and operational decisions that, according to him, were responsible for a deteriorating customer experience at Starbucks.

Starbucks faced the classic problem of any company scaling up (especially a retail brand) – how to be large without being bureaucratic, how to be efficient without losing the soul of the brand, how to be consistent without losing the differentiation edge.

The problem created by Starbucks taking the certain decisions was compounded by the fact that competitors have not stood still either. Competition has improved its core products (coffee), as well as the augmented product (store ambience, service, wait time etc.), and in comparison Starbucks has possibly stood still or slipped back.

Now, almost a year after that memo, Starbucks begins 2008 with Schultz stepping back into the CEO role. It’ll be interesting to see how his passion for the brand is infused back into the stores and the operations in the coming months.

On a separate note, the classic “founder vs. professional” conundrum also comes to mind, along with the notable examples of Apple (Steve Jobs), The Body Shop (Anita Roddick) and others. (Though Howard Schultz was not strictly the founder of Starbucks – the company was founded in 1971, and Schultz bought the company in 1987 when there were less than 20 stores in the chain – he is pretty close to being one.)

The question is: for iconic brands that are more than just the physical product or service being sold, can a ‘professional CEO’ ever take the place of the founder(s), replicate their passion & vision and maintain the integrity of the brand? I believe there are examples to support both answers: ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.

What do YOU think?