The quick commerce (Q-commerce) industry in India is experiencing rapid transformation, with platforms like Zepto, Blinkit, and Swiggy Instamart reshaping how brands approach online retail. Recent discussions among prominent eCommerce professionals including Rahul Mamman, Arafath Kassim, Chris John, Nishad P Gafoor, and Muhammed Ihthisham, reveal significant concerns about escalating listing fees and the sustainability of Q-commerce for emerging brands.

Zepto's Premium Listing Requirements

One of the most striking revelations from industry insider Rahul Mamman is Zepto's demand for ₹10 lakh per SKU for product listings across their network. This substantial investment requirement includes not just listing fees but also additional costs for Share of Rack (SoR) positioning and other promotional activities.

For context, this pricing strategy appears to be positioning Zepto as a premium quick commerce platform, potentially preparing for their anticipated IPO. The high barrier to entry could significantly impact smaller brands' ability to compete on the platform.

Comparison with Traditional Retail Channels

The steep listing fees have prompted industry professionals to question how major hypermarkets in India price their SKU listings in comparison. Traditional retail channels like Lulu and other established hypermarket chains are being viewed as more accessible alternatives for brands struggling with Q-commerce platform costs.

As one industry expert noted, "Lulu, here we come!" - highlighting the potential shift back to traditional retail partnerships when digital platforms become prohibitively expensive.

The Discovery Dilemma in Quick Commerce

A significant concern highlighted by Rahul Mamman is the discovery challenge that Q-commerce platforms face. Unlike traditional eCommerce platforms where discovery was more organic for brands, Q-commerce platforms are not designed to handle thousands of SKUs effectively.

Key challenges include:

• Logistics complexity with managing extensive SKU catalogs

• Reduced organic visibility as more brands compete for limited shelf space

• Increased advertising dependency to maintain visibility

• Platform commission pressures affecting brand profitability

Consumer Behavior and Platform Dependency

Consumer behavior analysis, as observed by industry expert Nishad P Gafoor, shows both adaptation and resistance to platform dependencies. Some customers are finding creative workarounds, such as:

• Searching for restaurants on Zomato and Swiggy

• Contacting establishments directly for orders

• Using UPI for direct payments

• Arranging pickup through services like Porter

However, as noted by industry professionals, there remains a substantial segment of "lazy customers" willing to pay premium prices for convenience, ensuring continued demand for Q-commerce services. As one expert put it, "India is a huge market. Everyone will get their piece of bread."

Brand Strategy and Financial Impact

Industry professionals are sharing mixed experiences with Q-commerce platforms:

Performance Marketing vs. Platform Advertising

Muhammed Ihthisham, CEO of Cow Forest Cookies, shared valuable insights about performance marketing in the dessert category. For specialized categories like desserts and cookies, performance marketing through independent channels often delivers better conversion rates than platform-based advertising campaigns. The higher call-to-action (CTA) conversions in certain product categories make direct marketing more cost-effective than spending substantially on CPC campaigns within aggregator apps.

Revenue Distribution Concerns

A critical insight shared by Rahul Mamman is the risk of over-dependence on Q-commerce platforms. Brands generating 50-60% of revenue from quick commerce channels face significant business risks, particularly as platforms become increasingly expensive or exclusive.

Rahul shared his brand's strategic approach: maintaining Q-commerce contribution at 18-20% of total turnover while avoiding platform advertising costs. His approach focuses on competitive pricing as a customer acquisition tool rather than paid promotion. "We haven't advertised on ecom or q com, currently only 6-7% of our turnover, zepto has come back, with a saner deal (hopefully) and once we can get blinkit and zepto contribution should hopefully be 18/20% but we will not advertise, we believe value will get us customers as we are very aggressively priced."

Despite facing a 20% year-over-year dip due to various market cuts, his brand expects to achieve double-digit PBT (Profit Before Tax) within a couple of months, emphasizing that "peace of mind is much more important for us as a small brand" since they're unlikely to pursue the VC route.

Platform Comparison and Operational Excellence

Based on industry feedback, here's how major Q-commerce platforms compare:

Blinkit

• Reported to have superior operational processes

• Larger scale operations compared to competitors

• Strong systems and logistics management

Swiggy Instamart

• Highly rated for partnership experience

• Good working relationships with brands

• Established processes and support systems

Zepto

• Rapid growth trajectory

• Systems and processes still catching up with expansion, as noted by Rahul Mamman

• Highest listing fee requirements among major players

• Recently returned with "saner deals" according to industry feedback

The Future of Quick Commerce for Brands

Industry consensus, particularly from experienced practitioners like Rahul Mamman, suggests that Q-commerce will likely become either heavily gated (accessible only to well-funded brands) or non-profitable for smaller brands in the medium to long term. This presents a strategic challenge for emerging businesses considering their channel mix.

Key Recommendations for Brands:

1. Diversify revenue streams - Avoid over-dependence on any single Q-commerce platform

2. Focus on unit economics - Ensure profitability before scaling platform presence

3. Leverage competitive pricing - Use value proposition rather than advertising spend for customer acquisition

4. Monitor platform dynamics - Stay informed about changing fee structures and policies

Conclusion

The Q-commerce landscape in India is rapidly evolving, with increasing barriers to entry and rising operational costs. While these platforms offer unprecedented reach and convenience, brands must carefully balance their investment with expected returns.

This discussion reveals that successful Q-commerce strategy requires not just adequate funding, but also strategic thinking about platform dependencies, customer acquisition costs, and long-term sustainability. As the market matures, only brands with strong unit economics and diversified channel strategies are likely to thrive in this competitive environment.

For smaller brands and startups, the message is clear: Q-commerce can be a valuable channel, but it shouldn't be the foundation of your entire business strategy. The future belongs to brands that can leverage these platforms while maintaining independence and profitability across multiple channels.