Sonali Bhardwaj

PhonePe dominates with a 47.2% market share. Mostly in Tier 2,3 Indian cities. However the rest of the competition is behind. Google Pay → 36.7% Paytm → 6.9% Navi → 2.1% Super Money → 1.1% CRED → 0.8% FamApp → 0.6% Amazon Pay → 0.5% Others → 4% UPI isn’t just a payment method anymore it’s a habit. 🇮🇳🚀

209

14 Comments

Dream11's exit from their ₹358 crore BCCI sponsorship deal - with BCCI waiving penalties due to government regulations - reminded me of a costly lesson I learned during the early IPL mobile rights days. Back then, we had acquired IPL Mobile Digital rights and partnered with Nokia as our exclusive mobile partner. Everything was going well until legislation banned VAS services overnight. When we rushed to review contracts, I discovered a painful reality - Nokia had ironclad protection clauses for regulatory changes, but I had no such mirror provisions with my licensor. Nokia walked away clean. I was left holding the bag. The asymmetry in contract terms taught me that in regulated industries, you're only as protected as your weakest contractual link. Key takeaways for founders: 🔹 Mirror Your Risk Clauses - If you're giving downstream partners regulatory exit clauses, ensure you have identical protection upstream 🔹 Legislative Force Majeure - In sectors like gaming, telecom, or fintech, standard force majeure isn't enough. You need specific regulatory change provisions 🔹 Don't Bank on Goodwill - Dream11 got lucky with BCCI's understanding. Most contracts won't be this forgiving 🔹 Risk Cascade Analysis - Map how regulatory risks flow through your entire contract chain. One weak link can sink the ship The Dream11-BCCI situation shows institutional maturity in handling unforeseen regulatory challenges. But as founders, we can't rely on such understanding. Build your contracts assuming the worst-case scenario - because sometimes it happens. #Startups #Contracts #RiskManagement #IPL #Entrepreneurship #LessonsLearned Kalaari Capital Dream11

1,564

72 Comments

Why do some partnerships break? Hero Group and Zerodha are both family-run businesses. Both had talent. Both had trust at one point. But only one of them stayed unshaken. Hero Group split. Zerodha scaled. So what made the difference? It’s rarely just about money, vision, or market share. It’s about invisible systems most people never build: – Trust > talent – Ego management – Emotional boundaries – Clear roles. Even clearer respect – Who takes the final call (and when) Look at Zerodha: Nithin handles strategy and operations. Nikhil focuses on investing and research. They don’t do the same job. They don’t step on each other’s toes. And they definitely don’t let ego enter meetings. It’s not a magical bond. It’s structured clarity. Because when roles are defined, friction reduces. When respect is mutual, decisions compound. And when ego stays out, momentum walks in. Most partnerships don’t fail due to the wrong person. They fail because both people try to do the same job in different ways. P.S. Did you know that Hero Group ownership was split in 2010?

148

8 Comments

Let's be clear: a significant strength of the Indian IT and outsourcing industry lies in its talent pool. The business model is fundamentally about headcount. Comparing the Revenue Per Employee (RPE) directly with pure product companies, whose revenue scales vastly differently, often misses this crucial point. Within this headcount-driven model, RPE becomes a powerful indicator of how effectively we're elevating value and efficiency: 👉 Take Sonata Software, with an RPE nearing $175,000. It reflect on their strategic focus on high-value "Platformation™," digital engineering, and IP-led solutions. 👉 Large IT services powerhouses like TCS (~$49,000 RPE) and Infosys (~$60,000 RPE). Their RPE figures speak about their mastery of managing vast, diversified service portfolios for global enterprises. These companies balance massive scale with continuous efficiency gains. Their RPE indicates optimized utilization and effective project management. 👉 In the broader Business Process Management (BPM) and outsourcing segments, companies like WNS Global Services (~$20,000 RPE), HGS (~$29,000 RPE), and Firstsource Solutions (~$29,000 RPE) exemplify the industry's foundational strength. Their RPE, while reflective of a more process-intensive, high-volume model, highlights their ability to create widespread employment, nurture a continuous talent pipeline, and underpin essential global operations.

180

6 Comments

The third model of quick commerce. First model: Horizontal q-comm led by players like Blinkit, Zepto, and Instamart. Products across all the categories are listed on these marketplaces. (This model has attracted investments worth $2.5Bn+) Second model: Vertical q-comm platforms with focus on a particular category. We are witnessing the very early stages of this model. Led by vertical e-comm players experimenting with q-comm (Myntra Now) and fundraising spree for new vertical q-comm platforms like FirstClub (premium grocery), Peeko (babycare), and Knot (fashion) Third model: This model is not functional yet, and it’s unclear how it will develop. The idea is that D2C players will sell directly to customers in 10-mins from their website through shared dark stores. There will be a network of shared dark stores. This model will be facilitated by backend supply chain players who will setup these dark store networks to deliver orders within a 10-mins to 1-hour timeline. Players like Blitz, Inamo, Shadowfax, and Delhivery are working on this problem statement with the highest funds been raised by Blitz (~$6Mn) till now. No D2C brand will own these dark stores. They will buy/rent shelf-space on these dark stores. These players won’t have to bear any marketing cost, so the commissions/costs are expected to be significantly less than that of marketplaces (first 2 models). It will solve 2 problems: 1. D2C brands won’t be losing website customers because of quick delivery expectation i.e. better customer data for promotions & loyalty programs and a lot of other benefits of having a customer transact on your website 2. Brands can control their P&L and pricing better without exorbitant platform commissions I think this model will gain traction only once quick commerce steals a significant share in non-grocery categories. I am bullish on the third model. This model will not replace either of the other two, it will co-exist. It will make D2C sales channel more relevant and give brands more flexibility. At least this is what I think. Really interesting to witness these paradigm shifts in Indian online commerce so closely. And the best part is that we don’t have any western parallels to predict how the future of q-comm will look like. India will set the trend. What do you think about the future of the third model? 👇 Dcluttr | Ritvik Nagpal

59

7 Comments

Zomato / Swiggy are building what Paytm tried to build 5 yrs ago - but better. For anyone who thinks Zomato and Swiggy are still food delivery apps has been living under a rock. Food delivery (yes at high burn rates) was simply CAC. Now comes the monetization. Like everyone had / used paytm almost everyday, multiple times a day a few yrs ago and “Paytm karo” became synonymous with UPI payments. But with payment monetization getting regulated and Paytm unable to effectively become a “superapp” when venturing into ticketing, entertainment, mutual fund investments etc., the CAC never translated into monetization. Hard luck + not as sharp execution. Then came other innovations like the sound box, BFSI like longer-time taking monetization strategies. Might work but take time. Zomato / Swiggy on the other hand - move fast. Zomato bought Paytm’s ticketing business and “District” was born. Blinkit. Instamart. Now Scenes by Swiggy. In the future, flying buses by Zomato (if one can dream). Private labeled groceries (Noice by Swiggy) - the customer is here, now sell the high margin products. The monetization is kicking in thick and fast. You’re a captive customer and will remain so with the food delivery, and everything else will bring in the margins and the monetization. A Superapp without being labeled a superapp. That was always the plan. It is just playing out now, and how!

155

8 Comments