Tiger Global, Accel invest $7.5 million in CommonFloor.com

Tiger Global, Accel invest $7.5 million in CommonFloor.com

The funding is primarily for setting up offices in multiple cities, enhancing technology and products
 
This is the third time the website has raised capital from Accel and the second time from Tiger Global. Photo: Bloomberg
This is the third time the website has raised capital from Accel and the second time from Tiger Global. Photo: Bloomberg
Bangalore: American hedge fund Tiger Global Management Llc and venture capital (VC) firm Accel Partners have partnered to invest $7.5 million (about Rs.45 crore) in real estate website CommonFloor.com.
This is the third time the website has raised capital from Accel and the second time from Tiger Global.
The latest funding is primarily for setting up offices in multiple cities, enhancing technology and products, and expanding in existing markets, said Sumit Jain, co-founder and chief executive, CommonFloor.com.
“This round of funding by our existing investors is a vote of confidence in our business model and traction that we have built in a short time through our differentiated offerings,” said Jain.
In 2009, the company raised capital from Accel Partners and last year from both Accel and Tiger Global. The investment amounts in both these deals were not disclosed.
The six-year-old firm, which combines online property search and apartment management among other requirements, has launched a mobile application for users with features like map search using a phone camera.
Investments by VC and private equity (PE) firms in the fast-growing but still nascent property website space have been substantially growing every year.
Such investments rose to about $12 million across seven deals in 2012, from about $3.9 million in two deals in 2011, according to estimates by researcher VCCEdge and Mint based on disclosed transactions.
In 2013, so far, there have been five other investments in property websites—three of these adding up to $18.8 million; details on the other two were not disclosed.
With significantly increased Internet penetration in India, it’s natural to project that a large part of property research will happen online, especially through neutral information providers such as CommonFloor, said Subrata Mitra, partner, Accel Partners.
“At Accel, we’re great believers of online efficiencies to be brought into large markets, and therefore CommonFloor was a natural investment target,” Mitra said in an emailed response. “We believe the company can dominate several large metros in India for real estate-related listings and research, and therefore the decision to double-down to enable the company to grow rapidly.”
Tiger Global, which has previously invested in travel website MakeMyTrip Ltd, didn’t respond to an email query.
PE firm Indus Balaji, which invested in Perfect Pincode in 2012, recently again invested $2 million in the Hyderabad-based property search company. “When the markets are a bit slow, it is a good time to invest,” said Mohit Ralhan, managing partner at Indus Balaji.
 

From the ashes of Webvan, Amazon builds a grocery business

From the ashes of Webvan, Amazon builds a grocery business

Opportunity for Amazon is huge as the grocery business in US generated $568 bn in retail sales last year 
 
A file photo of an Amazon fresh delivery van in Los Angeles, California. Photo: Reuters
A file photo of an Amazon fresh delivery van in Los Angeles, California. 
 
The online grocery start-up Webvan may have been the single most expensive flame-out of the dot-com era, blowing through more than $800 million in venture capital and IPO proceeds in just over three years before shutting its doors in 2001.
Twelve years later, though, Webvan is rising from the dead—in the form of an online grocery business called AmazonFresh.
Four key Amazon.com Inc. executives—Doug Herrington, Peter Ham, Mick Mountz and Mark Mastandrea—are former Webvan officials who have spent years analyzing and fixing the problems that led to the start-up’s demise.
Kiva Systems, the robotics company that Amazon bought last year for $775 million in one of its largest-ever acquisitions, was built on ideas and technologies originally developed at Webvan and is a key part of the AmazonFresh strategy.
Even Webvan’s old Web address, webvan.com, is now part of the Amazon empire.
“We had a lot of Webvan DNA in the room and we drew on that experience a lot,” said Tom Furphy, who helped start AmazonFresh with Herrington and Ham before leaving to become a venture capitalist. “That was a good formula for building the business responsibly.”
Amazon declined to comment for this story, or make any AmazonFresh executives available for interviews.
Former Amazon and Webvan officials say Amazon drew three big lessons from the Webvan debacle: expand slowly, limit delivery to areas with a high concentration of potential customers, and focus relentlessly on warehouse efficiency.
The opportunity for Amazon is huge. The grocery business in the United States generated $568 billion in retail sales last year, with online accounting for less than 1%, and it’s among the last major retail sectors that the online giant has yet to tackle.
But the risks are large as well. Groceries are a notoriously low-margin business, and the aggressive expansion of discounters like Walmart has made the business even more cutthroat than it was in Webvan’s day.
And competition in the online grocery business is heating up. FreshDirect and Peapod have been plugging away for years, while traditional grocery chains like Safeway also do online ordering and delivery. Walmart is testing its own fast delivery service in some markets in the United States now.
Slow expansion
AmazonFresh now serves Seattle and Los Angeles, and it plans to launch in the San Francisco Bay Area later this year. If these cities go well, Amazon is eyeing 20 new markets for 2014.
But the big plans belie what has been one of Amazon’s most cautious entries into a new business since founder and Chief Executive Jeff Bezos started selling books online in the 1990s.
The grocery service started in just two Seattle neighborhoods, Medina and Mercer Island, in 2007, and then slowly spread to other Seattle communities over the next five years. It didn’t expand beyond Seattle until June 10 of this year, when it launched in Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles roll-out is similarly modest, covering only a few zip codes initially. “We know customers value this service but the economics remain challenging,” an Amazon spokeswoman said when describing the L.A. launch.
Webvan—which ironically was also the brainchild of a book-seller, Louis Borders—expanded to nine major metro areas just 18 months after it began serving the San Francisco Bay Area, former executives recall. (Borders, co-founder of the now-defunct Borders Books & Music, declined to comment for this story.)
Webvan began its big expansion in Atlanta while the San Francisco service was still “wobbly,” recalls Krishna Hegde, Webvan’s vice president of deployment and systems engineering.
After the Atlanta launch in April 2000, Hegde said he recommended that the company slow down. But Mark Zaleski, president of operations, argued the company should press on because of promises made to Wall Street investors, Hegde said. Zaleski could be not be reached for comment.
Webvan “committed the cardinal sin of retail, which is to expand into a new territory—in our case several territories—before we had demonstrated success in the first market,” said Mike Moritz, a Webvan board member and partner at Sequoia Capital, one of the company’s venture capital backers. “In fact, we were busy demonstrating failure in the Bay Area market while we expanded into other regions.”
Delivery density
Webvan not only launched in many cities, it also offered service across entire metro areas. That resulted in the company’s delivery trucks making many trips where they only dropped off a few orders.
“The biggest failure of Webvan was delivery density,” said Gary Dahl, vice president of distribution at Webvan from 1997 to 2001. In the Bay Area, he said, Webvan made money delivering in San Francisco and Oakland, but lost a lot of money delivering in suburbs such as Orinda and Moraga.
“Mean travel time between delivery stops is the key to success in the home delivery business,” Dahl explained. “Travel one block in San Francisco and you have passed 200 people, travel one block in Moraga and you have passed about six people.”
AmazonFresh has tackled this problem by only delivering to densely populated areas of Seattle, and it’s taking the same approach in LA, according to Keith Anderson, an executive at consulting firm RetailNet Group.
“If you drive into certain neighborhoods in Seattle you will see a lot of front doors with AmazonFresh totes,” he said. “That’s because Amazon expanded gradually into specific neighborhoods and tried to deliver to lots of homes in those specific areas.”
FreshDirect covers more than 80% of the New York metro area, but it took the company about a decade to expand its delivery network this wide. Last year, FreshDirect launched in Philadelphia.
Kiva robots prove key
Webvan also suffered severely from weaknesses in the design and technology of its giant warehouses. At its first facility, there was a single conveyor belt that snaked about five miles through the building bringing items to workers, who would then pick and pack the products into totes, Webvan Chief Technology Officer Peter Relan said.
When the conveyor belt broke, the operation would grind to a halt, he recalled.
Mick Mountz, an MIT-trained Webvan executive, oversaw the picking and packing process, along with Mark Mastandrea, and together they tried out lots of technology to make the warehouse run more efficiently, according to Relan.
For each $100 bag of groceries, it cost Webvan about $30 to pick and pack; the company had to get that down to $10 to make the process economically viable.
Mountz came up with a solution based on multiple robots that would bring products from different parts of the warehouse to human workers for picking and packing. Unlike a conveyor belt, if a robot broke down it could be fixed while the other robots continued their work.
However, Webvan had spent so much on its original warehouse—about $100 million, according to Relan—that the company was loath to completely change the process in favor of robots.
After Webvan went bust in 2001, Mountz founded Kiva Systems, which designed and built robots that now zip around the warehouses of retailers including Staples Inc., Walgreen Co and Gap Inc.
Amazon bought Kiva in 2012 for $775 million. Mountz is still running Kiva, while Mastandrea became director of delivery experience at AmazonFresh in March.
“When there are a large number of products and the shapes and sizes vary, as they do in grocery, you still need a human at the end to do the picking and packing,” said Ajay Agarwal of Bain Capital Ventures, which was an early investor in Kiva. “The Kiva System is the best solution out there for that combination of warehouse technology and human workers.”
Amazon has one other thing Webvan never had: a huge, existing customer base. While Webvan had planned to expand into delivery of other goods once it had developed a base of grocery customers, Amazon is going the other way, and can help defray the cost of delivering groceries by delivering books or electronics at the same time.
There are other advantages that have accrued over time. The spread of cloud computing services—pioneered by Amazon’s Web Services business—makes it cheaper to run online businesses, while consumers are more comfortable buying online through faster Internet connections.
Online shoppers who type “webvan.com” into an Internet browser today will find a website selling more than 45,000 non-perishable grocery items. In the top right-hand corner, it says Webvan is “part of the amazon.com family” and consumers can use their existing Amazon accounts to buy.
“Amazon purchased the name a couple of years ago,” Dahl said. “Maybe they will revive it if sales are slow in the Bay Area.”

Flipkart raises $200 million amid e-commerce fund drought

Flipkart raises $200 million amid e-commerce fund drought

Investment comes from existing investors Tiger Global, Naspers, Accel Partners and Iconiq Capital 
 
Flipkart changed its business model in February, moving
        from online retail to the marketplace model, where third-party
        sellers sell products to shoppers.
Flipkart changed its business model in February, moving from online retail to the marketplace model, where third-party sellers sell products to shoppers.


Flipkart.com has secured a fresh infusion of $200 million (around Rs.1,200 crore) from existing investors in one of the largest fund-raisings by an Indian online retailer, as it looks to invest more in technology, allay doubts over its business model and pursue a strategy of chasing revenue at the expense of profits.
Depending on how you look at it and who you speak to, the deal is either proof that there is an Indian e-commerce story or a case of investors throwing more money at an existing investment in the hope that it will pay off.
The move sets the stage for a battle between Flipkart and the company it is modelled on, Amazon.com Inc., which launched its India site in June, although it is not clear whether the company has incorporated a subsidiary in India.
The new infusion of funds may make it difficult for rivals such as Myntra, Snapdeal and Jabong to close the gap with Flipkart, experts said. Funding has dried up for smaller e-commerce firms over the past 18 months. Out of the 53 e-commerce companies that raised $853 million in venture capital over the past three years, only 11 companies have managed to raise further rounds, according to a May report by Allegro Capital Advisors, an investment bank.
“It’s a big validation of Flipkart and Indian e-commerce,” chief executive officer Sachin Bansal told reporters on Wednesday. “There have recently been a lot of sceptics in the media and in business circles who have questioned— rightly so—whether e-commerce is healthy and whether Flipkart is running the way it should be, whether it has the right strategy. This event should put those questions to rest.”
Flipkart’s existing investors, private equity firms Tiger Global Management LLC, Accel Partners and Iconiq Capital, and MIH (a part of South African media company Naspers Group) together invested the $200 million in the company.
Bansal refused to comment on Flipkart’s valuation, but repeated an earlier statement that the company would eventually look at an initial public offering (IPO). Flipkart was valued at $850-900 million when it raised $150 million from the same investors last year, according to a person familiar with the matter.
“E-commerce tends to behave in a winner-takes-all fashion the world over. Take Amazon in the US, for instance. Flipkart is a winner in India and this round of funding will help extend its leadership position,” said Rutvik Doshi, an investor with Inventus Capital Partners, a venture capital firm.
“It would be a scary situation for someone competing directly with Flipkart, especially after this funding. Amazon of course has billions of dollars, but the question is: are they willing to pump in money in India? We don’t know yet,” he added.
Although Flipkart will likely need more money—some analysts say within the year—to sustain its growth, the sheer size of the latest fund infusion should give it more time before its needs to sell shares to the public.
“You will see big players like Flipkart, Snapdeal, Jabong raise huge amounts of money. All of them will require anywhere between $200 million and $500 million in capital till they can even think about profitability. Flipkart, too, will need another round of money within a year or two,” said Deepak Srinath, who leads the technology and emerging sectors practice at Allegro Capital.
An IPO will probably be pursued by Flipkart at an “appropriate stage” to provide an exit to investors, said Aashish Bhinde, executive director at Avendus Capital Pvt. Ltd.
India’s online retail market has the potential to grow to as much as $76 billion by 2021 from just $0.6 billion currently, according to a report published by retail consultancy Technopak Advisors Pvt. Ltd this year.
Flipkart was started in 2007 by Sachin Bansal and Binny Bansal—they are not related— as an online bookseller. Since then, it has raised more than $400 million in capital and expanded its product range to electronics, footwear, accessories and apparel, a category in which it expects to be the largest online firm by October.
Both Bansals previously worked at Amazon, which experts say provides the template being followed by Flipkart.
Amazon, launched in 1995, reported its first annual profit only in 2003. As with Amazon then, becoming profitable is not a priority for the company at this stage, Sachin Bansal said.
“If we become profitable, we will be a small profitable company and when the market becomes $76 billion, we will remain a small profitable company, but that is not what is exciting to us. We want to be a market leader and that is what we are playing for,” he said.
Flipkart doesn’t have an option but to scale up its presence at the cost of profits, Allegro’s Srinath said.
“You’re either a dominant leader or you’re dead. You can’t make a switch overnight and forgo growth and suddenly become profitable. The way to play this game is: big money, winner takes all,” he said.
Flipkart changed its business model in February, moving from pure online retail to the marketplace model, in which third parties use its platform to sell products to shoppers.
The marketplace model allows e-commerce companies to save on storage and other inventory-related costs as the products are held by the merchants.
Importantly, companies following the marketplace model get access to foreign direct investment (FDI). FDI is banned in direct online retail.
Sachin Bansal said Flipkart would use the money from its latest fund-raising to scale up its investments in technology and build its supply chain.
He said the company was on course to beating its target of generating $1 billion in gross merchandise value, or the total value of products sold on the site, by 2015.
“In 2011 we set a goal of reaching $1 billion in gross merchandise value by 2015. We are more than halfway there already, and we should be able to reach the target before 2015,” Bansal said.
Some experts still doubt the soundness of Flipkart’s business strategy as well as the attractiveness of Indian e-commerce firms to investors.
Private equity investors are not too enthusiastic about e-commerce in India because they want to see profitable exits before committing large amounts of capital, said Praveen Chakravarty, chief executive (investment banking) at Anand Rathi Financial Services Ltd.
“It’s illogical to compare Amazon and Flipkart. It’s like comparing Sachin Tendulkar and Sunil Gavaskar,” he said, giving the examples of two cricketers from different eras to make his point. “Amazon was founded in a different era. It had a first-mover advantage and hence its investors were ready to wait longer for profitability. For Google there is Google India, for Yahoo there is Yahoo India, what stops Amazon from having Amazon India?”
Going by the June launch of Amazon’s India site, nothing at all. 

Flipkart closes Flyte MP3 store a year after launch

Flipkart closes Flyte MP3 store a year after launch

Music downloads business in India will not reach scale unless problems such as piracy, easy micro-payments are solved, says official 
 
The company, which launched its Flyte MP3 store in February 2012, will cease digital music sales on 17 June. Photo: Maral Deghati/AFP
The company, which launched its Flyte MP3 store in February 2012, will cease digital music sales on 17 June. Photo: Maral Deghati/AFP
New Delhi: Online retailer Flipkart announced on Wednesday that it was exiting the digital music market in India. The company, which launched its Flyte MP3 store in February 2012, will cease digital music sales on 17 June.
“We set up Flyte MP3 a year back in what was an extremely nascent industry,” said Mekin Maheshwari, head, digital media and payments. “The aim was to bring legal digital content to consumers in India. In a short span of time, we built a massive digital music catalogue at very affordable prices along with a loyal base of nearly 100,000 customers.”
He added: “However, we have realized that the music downloads business in India will not reach scale unless several problem areas such as music piracy and easy micro-payments, etc., are solved in great depth. Which is why, we feel that, at present, it makes sense to take a step back from Flyte MP3s and revisit the digital music market opportunity at a later stage.” The store will continue to sell ebooks.
Users could create a “wallet” on Flyte to purchase songs (which cost as little as Rs.6) without having to enter credit card details. On Wednesday, the company sent out an email to users informing them that the MP3 store “will no longer be operational after June 17, 2013”. The mail went on to tell customers to use their Flyte balance, and confirmed that the unspent money will be refunded.
While purchases will stop on 17 June, users will be able to download any songs they already own until 18 August. Since the songs are DRM (digital rights management)-free, users can download them all to their computers and copy these to their music devices as well.
Earlier this year, at the one-year anniversary of Flyte, Flipkart vice-president, digital, Sameer Nigam, had told Mint that the biggest barrier to adoption lay in the payment process, which he felt needed to be simplified.
Nigam also said that in its first year, Flyte built a catalogue of over five million songs from more than 12,000 music labels around the world, with 2.5 million paid downloads in the first year. Despite the high download numbers, lack of suitable micropayment tools would have definitely been a major issue, which Maheshwari also alluded to.
At the same time, piracy remains a big issue in India and while the Flyte app did allow for the downloading of DRM-free music, things like download management and payments made it no simpler than pirating the content. That’s possibly why so many new services in the music space are focusing on free streaming services supported by ads.
It’s possible that the digital downloads market will pick up again—Apple’s iTunes store is going to help on that front, and some content owners are also experimenting in this space now. For now though, as Maheshwari noted, the market is still too small to support a large-scale enterprise like Flipkart.
 

Myntra looking to launch online marketplace

Myntra looking to launch online marketplace

Over the long term, Myntra expects to generate 20-25% of its sales from the online marketplace 
 
Myntra is one of the few remaining purely online retailers in India as increasingly such companies are adopting the marketplace model to survive.
Myntra is one of the few remaining purely online retailers in India as increasingly such companies are adopting the marketplace model to survive.

Myntra.com, one of India’s biggest online clothing and footwear retailers, may launch a marketplace platform within a year as it looks to offer products such as boutique fashion brands.
Over the long term, Myntra expects to generate 20-25% of its sales from the online marketplace, where independent merchants will sell products directly to shoppers, chief executive Mukesh Bansal said in an interview.
Myntra is one of the few remaining purely online retailers in India as increasingly such companies are adopting the marketplace model to survive after burning hundreds of millions of dollars of investors’ cash on chasing customers. The business model allows companies to save on inventory related costs and provides them access to foreign direct investment (FDI), which is banned in direct online retail. “Long term, it’ll be a hybrid model that will evolve for online firms. I definitely see us having some component of marketplace model,” Bansal said.
“Small boutiques with quality fashion look interesting for the marketplace. We’ll take one boutique at a time in a careful way so that the customer experience doesn’t suffer,” he said.
In the past 18 months, more than a dozen firms including Amazon.com Inc.’s India business Junglee.com, Infibeam.com, ShopClues.com and Tradus.com launched or converted to the marketplace model. Flipkart.com announced its marketplace entry earlier this month.
“If you were to look at Myntra and if you were to ask a retail consumer, ‘what do you associate it with?’, given the kind of advertising they do, it would be things like apparel, fashion, accessories, etc., rather than things like books or cellphones, which you would associate with someone like Flipkart,” said Ajeet Khurana, a venture capitalist at angel investor group Mumbai Angels.
“In light of this, allowing third parties to sell books on your site is different than allowing third parties to sell apparel on your site.”
Bansal said Myntra will take its time to ramp up its marketplace platform.
“We will be very patient about it and understand everything—it’ll be a five-year journey or longer. If you have a marketplace model where any distributor can get their products listed, they will control pricing, so price clash may happen. For us, there won’t be any overlap. The brand that we have in inventory model, we will not have in marketplace, and vice versa,” he said.
Myntra aims to double its revenue to Rs.800 crore this financial year partly as it gains market share from the exit of some online retailers. The company gets 80% of its sales from clothes and footwear and 20% from accessories such as belts and watches. “If you look at the past 12 months, a lot of companies such as 99labels.com have declined in size. We’re taking full advantage of that. Our repeat customers are also spending more so our revenue per customer will increase significantly,” Bansal said.
Myntra, which has raised more than $70 million from investors including Accel Partners and Tiger Global Management since it launched in 2007, will not need funds for two years, he said.
“Now the big question that investors have is: whether online retailers can become profitable? We strongly believe we will be the first e-commerce player in India on a reasonable scale to achieve profitability. Hopefully, next year, we will break even,” Bansal said.
 

India Post may tap e-commerce market with its network

India Post’s wide network will help e-tailers reach remote corners of India and reduce their operating costs 
 
India Post charges 6% of the value of a product as delivery cost and levies no extra charges for handling cash or return. Photo: Hindustan Times
India Post charges 6% of the value of a product as delivery cost and levies no extra charges for handling cash or return. 
 
New Delhi: India Post is looking to tap the growing e-commerce market in the country, according to an official at the postal department who did not want to be identified, and will build 20 mechanized warehouses and booking centres that will exclusively handle shipments from e-tailers.
The move will help such companies, many of which are yet to turn profitable, reach remote corners of India—India Post’s 150-year-old network reaches almost all of India’s 640 districts—and also reduce their operating costs.
According to the Internet and Mobile Association of India, the e-commerce market in the country expanded from Rs.8,146 crore in 2007 to Rs.45,000 crore in 2011.
Many e-commerce companies in India have succeeded by getting around the aversion most Indians have to using their credit cards online.
This has entailed offering customers the option of paying cash on delivery and this, combined with the logistical challenges involved in shipping, have prompted at least some companies to build their own delivery networks.
For a typical Indian e-tailer, shipping and delivery costs could account for as much as 6-15% of total product cost, according to Praveen Sinha, co-founder and managing director at Jabong.com.
Sourabh Goyal, head of logistics at Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd that runs Snapdeal.com, which started using India Post a few months ago, said the company is currently “testing the model”.
Goyal added that the reach India Post provides is a big advantage for e-commerce companies. Currently, typical e-commerce companies service around 11,000 pin codes across India. India Post reaches almost 25,000.
Most e-commerce transactions are currently restricted to the large cities. Goyal said the 11,000 pin codes account for almost 90% of the company’s transactions. Sinha said the top 30-40 cities account for almost 50% of the company’s sales with the other half being spread out across the rest of the country.
Sinha, whose company has also been experimenting with India Post, admitted that “there were some teething problems initially...., like last-mile tracking of orders.”
To be sure, India Post has to prove its ability to service e-commerce companies. The India Post official cited above said this shouldn’t be a problem.
“A separate platform, which can be built at very little additional cost, will ensure that the shipments reach on time and there is minimum wear and tear,” this person said, adding that India Post also has lots of experience in handling cash, which should benefit e-tailers offering the cash-on-delivery option.
Mint couldn’t immediately ascertain whether India Post will come up with a new price offering for e-tailers using its services or stick to its current so-called value payable post (or VPP) model.
According to a November 2011 report by Avendus Capital called India goes Digital, courier companies charge between Rs.65-Rs.75 for outstation delivery; Rs.35-Rs.45 for handling the cash-on-delivery feature; and an extra Rs.40-Rs.55 for returns.
India Post charges 6% of the value of a product as delivery cost and levies no extra charges for handling cash or return.
The average size of an e-commerce transaction in India for most big e-retailers in the country is around $18-$30 according to Sinha of Jabong.com, which makes the India Post offering cheaper in most cases.
Still, there are people who buy smartphones and laptops from websites and in these cases, the India Post offering will prove much more expensive.

Model allows firms to save on storage costs, get access to FDI, but experts see moves as survival strategy

Virtual marketplaces sprout in e-commerce space

Model allows firms to save on storage costs, get access to FDI, but experts see moves as survival strategy 
Flipkart launched its virtual marketplace on Saturday and
        is offering similar services as those of eBay.
Flipkart launched its virtual marketplace on Saturday and is offering similar services as those of eBay.
Flipkart.com’s entry into the virtual marketplace, where independent merchants sell products directly to shoppers, marks the latest in a flurry of online retailers in India shifting to a model made well-known by eBay, but the jury is still out on whether it’s sustainable.
In the past 18 months, more than a dozen firms including the likes of Amazon.com’s India business Junglee.com, Snapdeal.com, Infibeam.com, ShopClues.com and Tradus.com have started providing online services for buying and selling.
EBay, the world’s largest auction and shopping website, recently bought a minority stake in Snapdeal.com as it looks to aggressively expand in a market dominated by Flipkart, India’s largest online retailer.
Flipkart launched its virtual marketplace on Saturday and is offering similar services as those of eBay.
This business model allows e-commerce companies to save on storage and other inventory-related costs as the products are held by the merchants.
Equally importantly, especially as funding for e-commerce companies has shown signs of drying up, companies that choose the marketplace model get access to foreign direct investment (FDI). FDI is banned in direct online retail.
However, several experts, investors and industry executives said this move seems more like an immediate survival strategy for e-commerce firms that have been using up investor cash on chasing customers and sales volumes at the cost of profits.
They said such marketplaces have a better chance of succeeding in countries with efficient supply chains—an area where India lags the West and China.
“Even with the marketplace model, your customer acquisition costs haven’t changed. It’s more of a survival strategy; it’s not a proven success strategy in India. Right now, it’s a phase of experimentation,” said Deepak Srinath, who leads the technology and emerging sectors practice at Allegro Capital Advisors, an investment bank.
In many ways, including delivering a consistent customer experience, it’s more challenging to execute a marketplace successfully compared with direct online retail, said Rutvik Doshi, an e-commerce investor with Inventus Capital Partners.
“In pure-play online retail, where you’re holding inventory, the supply chain is under your control. Look at Flipkart, for example. They are able to deliver products consistently on time. To get this consistency in a marketplace, where you might have sellers in various parts of the country, is much more difficult. Your delivery time is likely to go up, the merchant is not listing stocks accurately, ensuring returns to customers—there are a lot of such risks. So choosing your merchants carefully is essential,” Doshi said.
India’s retail industry is estimated to be around $500 billion, according to industry body Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Less than 1% of that comes from online retail.
A December report published by Allegro highlights how funding has dried up from venture capitalists (VC) and investors for the domestic e-commerce sector. According to the report, 70-80% of VC-funded companies are on “life support” and in dire need of funds.
“In the frenzy of 2011 and early 2012, VC firms may have overexposed themselves to e-commerce, without properly estimating the capital requirement of the sector. It is unlikely that any of these firms will invest in new e-commerce ventures,” Srinath and Aravind G.R. of Allegro, said in the report.
In the last three years, more than 50 e-commerce companies have raised nearly $800 million in VC funding, but barely a third have been able to attract follow-on investments, according to Allegro.
To be sure, the marketplace model has worked in countries such as the US and China. It’s much easier to build scale and size through the marketplace than direct retail due to the lower inventory costs. And because of their ability to add merchants quickly, marketplaces can offer a much wider range of products. Even Amazon.com gets roughly 40% of its sales from its marketplace business.
In India, there are pure-play marketplaces such as Snapdeal and eBay as well as part marketplace-part direct retail firms such as Jabong.com. Industry executives said that most companies will likely adopt a mixed model.
“The mixed model will evolve for most players because you don’t want to dilute the customer experience too much. I don’t think India is ready for a pure-play (model) because of the logistical challenges,” said Praveen Sinha, managing director at online retailer Jabong.com, which launched its marketplace platform late last year. “My sense is because of the easy scalability and the lower working capital costs related to marketplaces, they will continue to increase (their share of e-commerce).”
Increasingly, the product delivery time to customers is going to reduce and firms will also have to handle returns faster, said Arun Sirdeshmukh, chief executive at online retailer Fashionara.com.
“In the near future, it’ll be normal to receive your product in 48-72 hours. In that environment, the pure-play marketplace model will come under pressure. There is so much variability, the complications of logistics, given that both vendors and customers may be in remote locations,” he said.
Industry experts said that eventually, many pure-play marketplace companies will end up either shutting down or being bought at cut-rate prices by bigger players such as Snapdeal and Flipkart.
“Only a few marketplaces will eventually survive, especially the ones that build large consumer and merchant traction. Logistics is a huge challenge (in India), online payments are still a fraction of the business, and finally there is lack of depth in savvy merchants,” said Rajesh Sawhney, former president of Reliance Entertainment and founder of the Global Superangels Forum, a start-up incubator that has an accelerator programme for new ventures.
However, online marketplaces contend that their model is viable and even appropriate for India, where most e-commerce startups are run by people who specialize in technology rather than retail.
“If you look at most of the e-commerce startups, it’s clear that their strong point is technology. There are very few people who have a deep understanding of retail. So unless your Chromas and Pumas of the world come into the online space in a big play, it’s best for startups to focus on their strengths,” said Mudit Khosla, chief executive at online marketplace Tradus.com.
Creating a marketplace is about creating efficiencies based on technology,” Khosla said. “Leave the retail side to the sellers.”
 

Inflation, tax eroding your fixed deposits

Inflation, tax eroding your fixed deposits



    Holders of fixed deposits have been earning a negative return in real terms for most of the preceding five years, thanks to inflation outstripping interest rates. To make matters worse, depositors continue to be taxed on this nominal income.

    Although bank fixed deposits have never been tax friendly, the level of compliance has been sketchy. But compliance is slowly getting stricter. In the past, RBI norms required banks to take into account deposits in
one branch for the purpose of tax deduction at source—a rule which allowed depositors to break up FDs across branches to avoid TDS. Also, several private banks allowed customers to break up FDs and route them into multiple branches to avoid TDS. But after recent sting operations, banks are getting tough and taking into account interest income from all branches for the purpose of TDS.
    A study conducted by Ashish Das, professor, IIT Mumbai’s department of mathematics, shows that for most of the five years since 2008-09 real returns on bank fixed deposits have been negative.
‘Tax on interest from fixed deposits unfair’
Mumbai: Fixed deposit holders having been earning negative returns thanks to runaway inflation and tax on interests. The lowest real return was -5.4% in 2009-10 when consumer price index for industrial workers CPI-IW rose by 12.4% and the weighted average deposit rate on term deposits was 6.97%. The weighted average return takes into account the average cost of deposits for banks after factoring in the extent in each maturity basket. Although bankers offer the highest return on deposits of 3-years and above, bulk of bank deposits are around the one-year category.
    RBI’s weighted average deposit rates are available only up to March 2011. However, given that long-term deposit rates have not crossed 10% and that most deposits are in the one-year basket, it can be safely assumed that the weighted average deposit rates are not above 8.5% for the last two years. The highest real return in recent years has been 2011-12 when the return after being adjusted for inflation stood at 0.2%. In 2001-02, bank FDs had recorded a real return of 5.3% given that CPI rose by only 4.3% even as bank deposits yielded over 9.6%.

    According to Das, the tax on interest income on fixed deposits is unfair to investors. “the rationality of taxation on nominal interest incomes is one major point in itself which the government / banks, RBI, depositors should ponder on. Currently, Tax exemption on interest earnings up to Rs 10,000 applies only for SB deposits” said Das. While banks deduct only 10% tax on fixed deposits with interest above Rs10000, the depositor is bound to pay tax according to his bracket and may have to top up this TDS with separate
payment to the government.
    He says that there is a need to arrive at the scale of actual income after allowing for indexation. “For individuals, though the taxation is on the nominal salary income, there is a compensation individuals receive for inflation through dearness allowance or wage indexation based on \consumer price index (CPI) inflation. Also for working out the actual income in case of long-term capital gains, there are adjust ments through a cost inflation index provided by the central board of direct taxes” he said.