The original post appeared on LinkedIn. You can view it below on Linkedin or scroll below for the web version.
Yesterday evening, as I stopped at a red light, a sudden loud crash shook my car. A delivery rider had slammed his bike right into it - likely rushing to meet a tight deadline or may be for an extra incentive.
After picking himself up and lifting his bike, the rider quickly realized he’d hit a government vehicle. As a traffic cop started approaching, I could see more than just fear in his eyes, there was a sense of hopelessness! I had to get down and intervene to diffuse the tension.
Thankfully none was hurt and he was let go with just a warning. But this encounter stayed with me. It stirred something deeper, making me pause and reflect.
India is perhaps the only country where Q-commerce startups are seeing any success.
Should we be proud of it? Or, more importantly, is it sustainable - not just financially but also socially? The question has become all the more pertinent due to recent hype around q-coms and IPOs
The basic mode of operation in Q-commerce involves altering the supply chain through:
[A] elimination of intermediaries at the pre-dark store level for economies of scale, leading to better procurement prices
[B] but adding an extra layer of delivery logistics for doorstep delivery.
To ensure sustainability when comparing this with a kirana store, the added cost of a delivery partner [B] should be compensated by increased margins due to [A] or the increased cost should be passed on to consumers.
As of now, the model seems to be working, but I have doubts about the future.
[1] Q-com’s success currently hinges on India’s low labor costs. As skill levels and education rise, the labor pool will demand better wages, threatening the model’s profitability+viability in the long run.
[2] Indian middle-class households remain highly price-sensitive. An extra INR 10-15 per txn adds up to INR ~400 monthly, a considerable amount that limits Q-com's scalability outside high- per capita income urban areas.
[3] Q-com often imposes a hidden premium by offering fewer discounts than traditional kirana stores or established e-commerce platforms. This subtle markup strategy, may make consumer retention difficult.
[4] Inherent contradictions - Economies of scale require high population density but quick delivery demands the opposite.
[4A] Q-com’s added costs often don’t justify the marginal time saved for low income geographies
[5] ONDC , the next UPI, has potential to disrupt the food tech just like UPI did to fintech.
[6] Most importantly, commodification of workers. Q-com relies on speed and efficiency, often treating workers as merely cogs in a logistical machine. This reduces people to mere labour units, disconnected from the outcome of their work or the people they serve.
Despite the challenges, the optimist in me hopes to be proven wrong. If Q-com can evolve to offer not only jobs but meaningful careers, it could become a key part of India’s growth story—driven by progress, not just profit!
Pic: Offline fights back!
