Summary
- why coconut vendors are trying to challenge zepto, blinkit and Bigbasket.
- Higher pricing is causing tension among local vendors.
- Affordability with human interactions helping local vendors.
- Future collaboration with quick commerce and local vendors.
Coconut vendor in Bengaluru has come up with a smart advertisement that’s quickly catching people’s attention. The vendor put up a poster saying that quick commerce delivery apps like Blinkit, Zepto, and many more are charging 70 to 80 rupees per coconut.
But a customer can get the same coconut from a local shop for 50 rupees, which is cheaper than what those commerce platforms are charging.
The board advertisement, showing the price difference, has gone viral and sparked a wave of interest among customers.
The advertisement was posted on X by a channel called @peakBengaluru with the caption: Will quick commerce affect roadside vendors?
As we all know, quick commerce apps have made shopping much easier than it was before and more convenient by delivering products quickly.
But they sometimes come with higher prices compared to local vendors and shops, which is obvious in a way since they also have to make some margin over delivering everything on time at the customer’s doorstep. Meanwhile, the price gap has led to concerns about how these platforms might affect small businesses.
In urban areas, where people don’t have much time to go outside and spend 5 to 10 minutes looking for a product, asking the seller the price, and bargaining, urban people will definitely go with this innovation that caters particularly to busy, urban consumers who prioritise speed and ease over cost.
But it’s the opposite in rural areas, where people are less digitally connected. Roadside vendors still hold the advantage as they provide immediate, hand-to-hand, in-person customer service.
Assuming the price of products is low, this creates an advantage that can help vendors retain loyal customers despite the convenience offered by online commerce apps.
One thing we know for sure is that the effect of quick commerce on roadside vendors will depend heavily on local economic dynamics, consumer preferences, and government policies designed to support small businesses. It has nothing to do with the pricing.
While quick commerce presents challenges to roadside vendors, it can also serve as a motivator for adaptation and growth if properly leveraged.
Also, while q-commerce can reduce footfall to small vendors, especially in urban areas, it is important to note that its services are usually limited to specific urban areas with smaller delivery radii.
Moreover, many consumers still prefer buying from offline channels like roadside stalls or farmers markets due to affordability and personal interactions, especially outside of major cities.
A state that says many small shops continue to find stronger consumer associations with local markets rather than online platforms.
This indicates that while quick commerce might create competition, it doesn’t completely replace the personalised and economic advantages offered by roadside vendors.
Commerce platforms do pose challenges, but the pricing gap, limited geographical reach, and distinct customer preferences for street vendors suggest a complex, rather than purely negative, impact on local businesses.
Maybe in a couple of years, we will see quick commerce pushing roadside vendors to innovate or collaborate with online commerce platforms, offering them new opportunities for visibility, partnerships, or tech-driven enhancements like online payment options.
