The Evolving Automotive Space in India

The growth story in India is a story with few parallels in the world. Not long ago, in late 90s and early 2000s, India was just a kid on the block staring at an already-developed West and its Northern neighbour starting to move very fast in terms of GDP growth. Mid-2000s saw the pace of growth accelerate for India as well and today, we are a force to reckon with. The reason for this, apart from the policies and governments, is the rising income levels of the middle class consumers. So much so, that now there is a very distinct upper middle class and a lower middle class of them.

But, according to me, no factor can highlight the above in India than the purchase patterns of 4-wheelers (4W). 4W have always been more about social status for families in India rather than for transportation purposes. A car in home means that you are well-off. Period. It doesn't matter if you take out your car every day or once in 15 days. Car purchase has always been one of the 2 most aspirational purchases of an Indian family, the other being their own house. But this purchase of a car has seen a lot of evolutionary trends.

Not long ago, there was a distinct difference between a hatchback and a sedan. Late 90s and early 2000s had a lot of compact car models. The prominent among OEMs was Maruti Suzuki, with brands like Maruti 800, Alto and Zen ruling the roads. Other players were not behind, and Santro from Hyundai and Matiz from Daewoo were quite popular among car buyers. One of the lesser popular models was Fiat Uno in the compact car segment. Distinctly above this segment in comfort, size and luxury were the sedans with cars like Honda City, Honda Accent and Hyundai Sonata being among the top choices for buyers. Many of the foreign car makers had not tried to explore the Indian market aggressively till this time and the only prominent American brand was Ford Fiesta. Very rarely, one could also see an occasional Mercedes being driven on an Indian road.

However, things started to change suddenly during the second half of the first decade of the century. Different car manufacturers had started to take notice of the fast pace of growth in India and companies like GM, Audi and Mercedes started to put more investments in the country. One of the most important trend was identified by Maruti Suzuki in the Indian market during these years. This was the aspiration of an Indian buyer who was not very satisfied with just a compact hatchback and wanted something more. However, he was not able to afford a City or a Civic as well. This insight led to the development of Swift, which is one of the most successful cars in the Indian automotive space. This car was longer (around 3800 mm) than the ubiquitous 800 or Alto and offered similar comfort levels of a sedan, although with a limited boot space. The success of this model opened new doors for other companies as well and thus was born a new segment called 'premium hatchback'. Hyundai launched its upgraded version of i10 in the form of i20 for this segment, Honda came up with Jazz. But none were able to catch Swift in the race of ever increasing sales. Jazz lost the battle quite early due to its high price and i20 was always the 2nd choice after Swift. However, the line had started to blur in the Indian automotive space in terms of hatchbacks and sedan.

Currently, the biggest competition to entry level sedans are the unexpected premium hatchbacks. Hyundai has launched i20 Active and i20 Sportz in this segment which compete with a Swift Dzire and a Honda Amaze, both in terms of price and looks. The Hyundai models are actually priced higher than the 2 sedans mentioned above. Toyota also has launched Etios Cross, which competes with so-called entry level sedans like the 2 models mentioned above. There are still takers for compact hatchbacks, with Hyundai Eon, Maruti Alto 800, Maruti Celerio, Ford Figo, Datsun Go, Nissan Micra working hard to capture the markets in Tier 2 and below.

So, what will be the next big change in the Indian market? We are already seeing compact SUVs being positioned between a sedan and a full fledged SUV like those from the Mahindra's stables. Models like Nissan Terrano, Ford EcoSport, Renault Lodgy, Renault Duster have become very prominent on Indian roads and companies like Maruti Suzuki are going to bring these "crossovers" very soon as well. With more foreign brands slated to come to India in years to come, and with frequent updates in designs to suit the status and luxury needs of the Indian middle class, we are set to see more models in newer segments in the Indian automotive market.

Comment your thoughts and suggestions in the section below.

@NishantSinha88

Cricket is for batsmen AND BOWLERS!

So the season of test cricket starts. Brendon McCullum and some of his countrymen have left the Indian shore and are already playing against the English at Lord's. And this time, the play is not only for batsmen. This time, its test cricket, or as the purists say, the highest form of competitive cricket.

Hang on a second there. What made me say 'this time, its not only for batsmen' for T20 cricket, the Indian version of which has reached the playoffs by now. But, isn't that the case with cricket all along? It has always been more about the batsmen than the bowlers. And this has been like this since the advent of one-day cricket.

The reasons for starting a limited overs version of cricket were simple. People were not turning up for test matches in the huge numbers they used to in the 50s and 60s. They were getting bored by the 'slow' and 'drawn' games lasting for 5 days. Everyone wanted results and quick and fast cricketing action, like boundaries being hit on a regular basis and results coming out after a day's play. The ICC wanted cricket to stand up to other sports and we gradually shifted to ODIs and other limited overs domestic tournaments and leagues. Time moved on and even the ODIs started to seem long enough to search for even shorter formats and we have T20 on our hands now, which has really caught the attention of the crowd with towering sixes of Gayle and AB de Villiers and with some small bowling marvels once in a while.

But somehow, during this whole transition, we forgot about our bowlers by constantly limiting their armoury. There have been many debates over a lot of points on how to bring more 'equality' in the game of cricket. One of the major ones being allowing 1-2 bouncers every over (depending on the format being played). But a lot of benefits still are in the batsman's favor. He can go for a switch hit whenever he wants, but a bowler has to tell the umpire before delivering which side he wants to bowl from (over the wicket or round the wicket). A batsman can shuffle in the crease all he wants, but a bowler can't be an inch outside the bowling crease, otherwise he runs the risk of conceding a 'free hit', which in turn, again gives the batsman an edge. These points have been discussed over and over again by the pundits and it cannot be outrightly denied that some of these batsmen-friendly rules have helped the shorter version of the game.

The point which I want to put across is regarding the over limits for bowlers. Test cricket gives a batsman and a bowler to play to his strengths and keep going on. A batsman can play one whole day in a test match and similarly, a bowler can keep bowling as long as he wants (by taking appropriate breaks in between). But when we shift focus to limited overs cricket, batsmen still have the license to keep going for the entire duration of the innings, whereas the bowlers just can't. Every year we are seeing new boundaries being breached in cricket, the highest individual score or the fastest 50/100/150/200 and so on. The latest world cup itself saw 2 double hundreds, one from Chris Gayle and the other from Martin Guptill, where they single handedly took the game away from the opposition by batting for 40-50 overs (Guptill actually batted through the entire 50 overs - watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NGkG6-02yHg). But do the bowlers ever get such a chance even when they are bowling well. Take for instance Wahab Riaz during his game in the QF against the Aussies. The spell he bowled to dismiss Michael Clarke and literally terrify Steve Smith and Shane Watson has been dubbed as one of the most lethal bowling spells in the history of modern cricket. Even the greats of yesteryears, like the Akrams and the Chappels and the Bothams hailed it as one of the best spells ever (watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmkBKY7CAjE). But even though that contest was a great one to watch, how many overs would it have lasted for, at the maximum? 10 overs and that's all about it. Do we ask the batsmen to retire after they have scored a century or played, say 150 deliveries in a one day match? No. Then why do we limit the bowlers who might be really bowling well in a particular match. Why can't we allow, say, 2 bowlers who won't have the cap of 10 overs (ODI) or 4 overs (T20)? This will give the bowling side something to play for when a Gayle or a McCullum is going all guns blazing. I believe this would definitely tip the scales a little bit towards the bowlers in a match. Also, it would be adding another exciting feature in the game and keep the batsmen wondering if they can really play out a bowler by just defending him.

If we analyze other team sports, we don't see a limiting feature on certain teammates, like the way it exists in limited overs cricket. We don't see a pitcher getting only 10 pitches in a baseball match. We don't see a goalkeeper in a football match being replaced by someone else after he has saved 5 goals. It just doesn't exist in competitive sports. Its time that the ICC and other national boards look into this matter and some of the other long-standing points which have kept the bowlers as second grade citizens in a game of cricket. They can probably look at instituting the above modification in domestic tournaments and see how it goes there. If successful, we can take this to the international arena and enjoy the gentlemen's game a little more.

Comment in the below section as to what you think. The more the discussions, the better it is for the sport.

App-only Strategy: Here to Stay

A lot of chatter happened this week on apps and ecommerce. Myntra, which had decided to go app-only, executed its plan and on 15 May shutdown its website. Some of other major ecommerce players were asked what did they think of this move and if they too will take a similar road. The answer was a resounding NO from the likes of Snapdeal, Jabong and Amazon India.

So what exactly is going on here, with one player betting everything on an app-only approach, whereas others summarily rejecting this move in the near future? For starters, its a very bold move by Myntra in an industry which is still in its infancy and none of the players are yet to show sustainability in cash flow and profits. There are 2 major aspects why this move can be called a bold one. Every company has been going all guns blazing for the past couple of years for acquiring new customers and thereby increasing sales. No one wants to leave any stone unturned in customer acquisition, be it through websites, apps, social media interaction. You name it. Given this relentless push for customers, some have argued as to why force the customer to go to the app, and why not get them coming through website as well.

The 2nd reason is Myntra's product groups i.e. apparels. Shoppers do get a better experience on a larger screen of a laptop when buying clothes and other apparels. An image on a 5-inch or so smartphone will not give a laptop-type experience to shoppers especially while buying the above kind of items.

Let's analyze the above from an objective eye. The largest customer chunk for any established player in India is coming through its app, and not its website or mobile-site. Each of these companies has been doling out special offers on app since the beginning of last year and before. So, its safe to assume that every company wants its sales to go through its respective app. If that's the case, a hue and cry over closure of Myntra's website is on a very weak footing. If every company is betting high on apps-based shopping, there is no place for halfhearted efforts. One has to see the larger picture and go all-in and that's why, Myntra's move is not just a small change in strategy, its a move towards the future. More so, its a move towards creating the future, just as what its parent Flipkart did when it pioneered ecommerce in India in 2007. And we already have examples of services which are app-based solely, rather than having a website (eg, Uber, although one can argue its a completely different model and industry).

The 2nd point as has been mentioned above about small-screen shopping of apparels can also be looked more objectively. We all agree that ecommerce is here to stay. However when it had all started a few years ago, people used to argue that shoppers need to have a 'touch and feel' experience before buying and ecommerce seriously lacks in this. Fast-forward to today, and there is hardly anything which people are not buying through ecommerce. Similar analogy can be drawn for the above argument as well. Small screen or not, mobile and wearables are the future and merely talking about it won't cut the ice. We need companies like Myntra who believe in walking the talk. And those who still want to stick to argument of no-small-screen, they should take a look at Apple Watch and some other companies who are already developing apps for smart-watches.

Skeptics will always be there, but as I said Myntra's move is bold and a very smart one towards building a new future. And I haven't said a word about leveraging customer data and personalizing the experience. There will be hiccups along the way for sure. Myntra will probably need to provide an app-experience which is more than just 'browsing-selecting-paying'. But kudos to Myntra and I believe this move is a potential game changer and I won't be surprised if other players too join the bandwagon.

Please feel free to pitch in with your comments.