Skip to content
NPS SurveyBrand LoDsConcerns raised via Slack, emails, and daily routinesi/o metrics from the SX portalFulfillment: Ensuring timely pickups and improving the dispatch-to-order rate.Payout: Streamlining the claim settlement process, reducing invoice mismatch errors, and improving integration with the OMS.Support: Reducing TAT for issue resolution, improving return rates, and enhancing ad ROI through better product discovery.40 BPC brands (12% of Mall OC) breached the NQD guardrails.22 WMF Brands (2.5% of WMF OC) breached the NQD guardrails.WMF: Wrong/missing product received, quality issues, and size chart discrepancies.PCW: Poor product quality, high WFR, incorrect sizing, and wrong/missing product deliveries.
NPS
Brand Self Serve tickets raised please add the chart for i/o metricAll the concerns collated through slack threads
French Essence, charleneRonzilleAl NuaimDazllerEyetex
Initiate User CF for SSCATs Crossing the WFR Tipping PointThe current marketplace tipping point for WFR is set at 5%, while the average WFR across the marketplace is 1.7%.Any SSCATs where the WFR exceeds 1.7% require immediate attention. The tipping point for WFR specific to the mall is under review and will be redefined accordingly (WIP).Address SSCATs Breaching NQD GuardrailsInitiate User CF for all SSCATs that are breaching the NQD guardrails defined within their respective categories.In addition to meeting the search guardrails for onboarding a new supplier as a brand on Meesho Mall, the supplier must also comply with the NQD guardrails established for the category on both Fk and AzReview of the sscat level feedback questions on rating 1* and 2* ratings to understand more about the L1/L2 reasonings of poor perception
Analytics Dashboarding: Automating the tracking of all data metrics, which are currently managed through Excel or manually created Metabase queries.
SunscreenBaby Lotion And CreamsLipsticksEyelinersPerfumes For MenConcealerSanitary NapkinsPrimerFoundationAttar
NutriGlowHimalayaMamaearthBabyNUShryoanAl NuaimLuvlapBumTumBudsbuddy EvereveEye ShadowFace Oil & SerumsCasual ShoesPerfumes For MenSneakersLipsticksHighlighterLip BalmSports ShoesFacial Kits
Mattlookhalf n halfMamaearthAsianWild stone and secret temptationDazller,EyetexMILAP,KaseyRonzilleSUGAR POP
Unisex PerfumesConcealerFace Lotion, Creams And MoisturizersLipsticksPerfumes For MenBathing SoapsFace WashWired Headphones & EarphonesSunscreenInstant Coffee
FormlessWildPlayShryoanMan CodeLafrenchMamaearthMyGlammWild StoneKHADIBiotiqueHighlighterPerfumes For WomenTalcum PowderAttarPerfumes For MenLipsticksEye ShadowFoundationSports ShoesPrimer
Mattlookhalf n halfFormlessWildPlayDazllerEyetexAl NuaimRonzilleMyGlammMILAP
EyelinersUnisex PerfumesWalletsConcealerFoundationTalcum PowderKajalFacial KitsPerfumes For MenFace WashDazllerEyetexFrench EssencecharleneTnWShryoanMyGlammDenver, EnvyRENEELotus Botanicals
Nail PolishSneakersEyelinersBaby WipesLipsticksSunscreenSandalsConcealerFoundationInstant Coffee
MyGlammLayasaLuvlapBumTumBudsbuddyEvereve El DuroSwiss BeautyMamaearthParagon
HighlighterLipsticksMen'S Face WashConcealerFoundationPerfumes For MenBlushEye ShadowBathing SoapsFace Oil & SerumsRonzilleShryoanRENEESwiss BeautyAl NuaimMattlookhalf n halfKHADIMamaearthHimalayaFace WashHair Wax For MenFoundationConcealerBaby DaipersFace Lotion, Creams And MoisturizersBlushSunscreenLipsticksFace Oil & SerumsHimalayaUrbangabruBlue HeavenNature's EssenceLotus BotanicalsRonzilleJoyWowper, Wowpad, BabumMamaearthDazller,Eyetex
Unisex PerfumesBlushPerfumes For MenPrimerFoundationLipsticksBaby DaipersFace WashHair ColorHighlighter
French Essence, charleneRonzilleAl NuaimDazller,EyetexColors Queen,Beauty BerryWowper, Wowpad, BabumMamaearthYutika, Neeta, NishaShryoanFormless, Wild Play
Introduce a like and dislike option for reviews displayed in the ratings table? This would allow users to identify legitimate reviews more effectively and also help us better analyze and assimilate the data.
Analyzing the UGC of negative ratings to gather more data.
Brand LoDsCategory team interactionsUser Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
Alignment with organizational goals and brand staturePotential NMV upliftOC weightage on other platforms (e.g., Flipkart)
Hygiene: Essential tasks that require immediate attention to ensure smooth operations.H1/10X: High-priority, high-impact initiatives that should be fast-tracked, often requiring tech intervention.H2: Medium-priority, long-term initiatives that contribute to growth but can be scheduled later.
04/02/2025
Executive Summary
We have collated data points from the following sources to analyze the key challenges faced by brands:
Currently, most operational issues are raised through Slack and emails. Consolidating these themes, the central problem areas identified are Fulfillment, Payout, and Support:
Additionally, an NQD analysis was conducted for brands on Mall as per the latest definition. Key findings include:
The primary L1/L2 reasons for these breaches include:
Instrumentation
We revamped the NPS survey by adding more detailed questions to enable continuous problem discovery. So far, responses have been collected from 30 brands in the last one month. Additionally, an NPS survey pop-up was introduced on the supplier panel to increase the fill rate, which helped to achieve a better fill rate.
Here are the NPS results, highlighting Support and Payout workstreams as immediate areas for improvement. The following brands have raised concerns regarding these issues. We are currently reaching out to them to gain deeper insights and implement necessary fixes.
NPS Survey Results | Jan'25
Column 1
NPS Jan'24
Promoter
Passive
Detractor
Total
Promoter %
Passive %
Detractor %
Overall Mall NPS
11.0%
64
33
48
145
44.1%
22.8%
33.1%
OMS NPS
62.1%
23
1
5
29
79.3%
3.4%
17.2%
Supplier Panel NPS
10.3%
12
8
9
29
41.4%
27.6%
31.0%
Support NPS
-13.8%
9
7
13
29
31.0%
24.1%
44.8%
Payouts NPS
-17.2%
9
6
14
29
31.0%
20.7%
48.3%
Business Growth NPS
13.8%
11
11
7
29
37.9%
37.9%
24.1%
There are no rows in this table
Support NPS Deepdive
Support NPS
Salience
Brands
Issue resolution TAT is high
39%
WIshcare, Birde, Rapidbox, Sparx
KAM response/ Email response time is high
27%
Wishcare, Liberty, Rapidbox, Febvibe
Issue type missing in Supplier Panel Support
17%
Any Other Issues (Please specify)
17%
There are no rows in this table
Payout NPS Deepdive
Payouts NPS
Salience
Brands
Returns/ RTO related claims not processed/ received
26%
Unable to understand and track payment charges
17%
Delay in order payments
15%
High TAT for claim payouts
15%
Claim policy complicated to understand
9%
Inability to reconcile tax and order payout information on OMS
9%
Any Other Issues (Please specify)
9%
There are no rows in this table
Brand X NPS survey cuts across each categories
2.Brand Experience Tickets
Problems highlighted though slack threads
Issue category
Count of issues highlighted
Fulfillment/OMS Management
83
Supplier Panel
41
Catalog Blocking
4
Discovery
3
Payments and Reconciliation
2
Total
135
There are no rows in this table
3. Brand LoDs
In the brand LoD analysis also the major themes that stood out was with respect to payouts and business growth as below.
Brand LoDs
Problem classification 2
Problem Classification
Brands
PAYOUT
4
Bodycare, Prestige, Ethnic Trendz, Xenor, Purple
Business Growth
2
Boat, HUL
PRICING
1
Safari
OMS
1
Relaxo
LEGAL
1
Harper Collins
There are no rows in this table
Currently, we do not have a consolidated process for analyzing all the concerns brands face. These concerns are gathered through NPS surveys, LoDs, Slack/email channels, and daily problem escalations. Moving forward, we need to explore a centralized ticketing system. However, before implementing it, we are in the process of establishing an SOP with defined TATs for each problem statement, ensuring alignment with the relevant product functions.
NQD Deepdive
Context
Previously, our NQD deboarding process was limited to SL and Non-brands (as defined under the new guidelines). National, D2C, and other Brands (as per the updated definition) were excluded from the monthly detagging exercise and guardrail checks. However, with the recent exclusion of Non-brands from Mall, we continue to observe brands exceeding the NQD guardrails, as outlined below. The major deviations were found in PCW and WMF categories.
Brand NQD vs Guardrails (Scaled catalogs)
Category
OC%
Dec, 30
Dec, 23
Dec,16
Dec,9
Guardrail
CW-Guardrail
PCW
74.15%
11.31%
11.34%
11.34%
11.32%
10.80%
0.51%
Fashion
5.93%
14.21%
14.31%
14.23%
14.16%
15.90%
-1.69%
Mens Fashion
1.77%
15.10%
15.32%
15.18%
14.99%
18.30%
-3.20%
Womens Fashion
0.51%
13.79%
13.72%
13.65%
13.79%
15.00%
-1.21%
WWW
3.12%
13.37%
13.52%
13.38%
13.28%
14.80%
-1.43%
Women Kurtis, Kurta Sets & Suits
0.09%
14.89%
14.73%
14.68%
14.69%
15.80%
-0.91%
Women Sarees
0.10%
26.92%
26.91%
26.80%
26.85%
18.00%
8.92%
Lehengas & Blouses
0.18%
12.45%
12.23%
12.05%
12.33%
16.90%
-4.45%
Kids Fashion
0.17%
15.42%
15.52%
15.38%
15.57%
13.70%
1.72%
WMF
15.51%
17.52%
17.40%
17.51%
17.58%
16.90%
0.62%
Mens Footwear
4.76%
18.98%
19.28%
19.22%
19.00%
24.30%
-5.32%
Womens + Kids Footwear
5.08%
16.70%
16.46%
16.60%
16.79%
13.90%
2.80%
MEA
1.33%
18.73%
19.00%
18.46%
18.46%
18.90%
-0.17%
KU
0.32%
15.51%
16.47%
14.56%
14.48%
15.50%
0.01%
Bags
0.23%
13.08%
12.89%
12.83%
13.82%
11.00%
2.08%
Grocery
1.02%
11.98%
12.17%
11.97%
12.06%
10.30%
1.68%
Overall Mall
98.49%
12.14%
12.04%
12.10%
12.16%
11.40%
0.74%
There are no rows in this table
Problem Statement
How to ensure the NQD of brands on mall exists within the guardrails?
Present Scenario
Currently there are 103 brands amongst a total list of 759 operating brands which are breaching the NQD guardrails within the respective categories. Out of a total of 786 SSCATs, 243 SSCATs are breaching the guardrails as stated below. Amongst these lists, we can also observe top brands such as Denver, Satrani, Cello, Hoppup, Indian Garage breaking the NQD guardrails on a cumulative basis.
NQD | Focus, Anchor archetype
Category
Dec 9
Dec 16
Dec 23
Dec 30
PCW Anchor
11.61%
11.60%
11.64%
11.66%
PCW Focus
11.50%
11.46%
11.40%
11.42%
PCW Non-focus
11.29%
11.31%
11.32%
11.28%
PCW Brands
11.32%
11.34%
11.34%
11.31%
WMF Anchor
21.05%
20.53%
20.00%
19.94%
WMF Focus
14.33%
14.68%
14.29%
14.41%
WMF Non-focus
17.62%
17.55%
17.46%
17.56%
WMF Brands
17.58%
17.51%
17.40%
17.52%
Fashion Anchor
No Anchor Brand
No Anchor Brand
No Anchor Brand
No Anchor Brand
Fashion Focus
13.39%
13.44%
13.46%
13.56%
Fashion Non-focus
14.23%
14.31%
14.38%
14.26%
Fashion Brands
14.17%
14.24%
14.31%
14.21%
There are no rows in this table
To understand more about why these SSCATs/Brands are breaching the guardrails, the L1/L2 reasoning were analyzed.
Category level analysis | BPC, Women’s and Men’s Footwear
BPC:
L! Reason
Salience
Column 3
L2 reason
Salience 2
Quality Issues
40.70%
Other reasons
16.58%
Wrong/Missing Product Received
23.62%
Fake/Duplicate product received
15.58%
Defective/Damaged/Used Product
18.59%
Material/build quality is poor
11.56%
Delivery/Packaging Issue
9.05%
Product looked old/ dirty/ used
9.55%
Post Usage Issues
8.04%
Product was broken/damaged
9.55%
Grand Total
100.00%
Not value for money
8.54%
Material different from shown
5.53%
Completely wrong product received
5.03%
Product not functioning/ working properly
4.02%
Product caused side effects (allergy/rash)
4.02%
Packaging was broken / torn / damaged
4.02%
Delivery boy took more money
2.01%
Late delivery/ Not received the item
1.51%
Expired product/ Expiry date too close
1.01%
Delivered to Wrong address
1.01%
Bill /User Manual /Warranty missing
0.50%
There are no rows in this table
WMF:
L1 reason
Salience
Column 3
L2 reason
Salience 2
Wrong/Missing Product Received
36.28%
Other reasons
12.50%
Quality Issues
23.01%
Material/build quality is poor
10.90%
Size/Fit Issues
23.01%
Fake/Duplicate product received
9.94%
Defective/Damaged/Used Product
14.16%
Completely wrong product received
9.29%
Delivery/Packaging Issue
1.77%
Product looked old/ dirty/ used
8.97%
Post Usage Issues
1.77%
Not value for money
7.69%
Grand Total
100.00%
Product was broken/damaged
7.37%
Colour/shade different from shown
6.73%
Material different from shown
5.13%
Fitting not good
2.88%
Size correct but too big/ too small
2.88%
Wrong size delivered
2.88%
Packaging was broken / torn / damaged
2.88%
Product not functioning/ working properly
2.56%
Product caused side effects (allergy/rash)
2.56%
Delivery boy took more money
1.28%
Late delivery/ Not received the item
1.28%
Delivered to Wrong address
0.64%
Expired product/ Expiry date too close
0.64%
Product not comfortable
0.64%
Bill /User Manual /Warranty missing
0.32%
Grand Total
100.00%
There are no rows in this table
The central themes coming out of these analysis are related to WFR, overall quality of the product, size fit issues.
From these analysis the common themes are listed below
Central Themes
Themes
Way forward
Remarks
WFR
CF for WFR crossing X catalogs for all low ASP. X to be determined basis the evaluation of the tipping point at which the orders drop drastically. For marketplace this value is 5% and the average WFR in marketplace is 1.7%
ERM
The catalog listing for high NQD sscats to be reviewed with the category teams to understand for more CPDs
Pricing
To conduct user LODs to understand more about the expectation. Also deep dive further into the VRS of these SSCATs where in this has been called out
Brand selection
Identify brands that are falling into this segment
26 brands
3PL mismatch/fraud
BD as a potential solve
There are no rows in this table
In breaking these central themes and marching forward, would need guidance and mentorship
Initiatives
Support Required
Appendix
The overall L1 Reasonings are analyzed below.
83% of the reasonings can be attributed to Quality Issues (38.35%), Wrong/Missing Product Received (28.29%), Defective/Damaged/Used product received (16.86%).
Within these L1 reason, the L2, L3 split are as below.
L2 Reasoning | Quality Issues
l2_reason
Salience
Material/build quality is poor
25.50%
Not value for money
21.76%
Fake/Duplicate product received
19.47%
Other reasons
11.70%
Product looked old/ dirty/ used
7.50%
Product caused side effects (allergy/rash)
6.67%
Fabric/ Material quality is poor
2.65%
Colour/shade different from shown
2.38%
Quality of the design/ finishing is poor
0.82%
Bad sound Quality
0.55%
Product faded/torn/shrink after wash
0.18%
Low grade material/fabric used
0.18%
Battery issues
0.18%
Same design but completely different colour
0.09%
Product not functioning/ working properly
0.09%
Product looked old or bad quality
0.09%
Product degraded/broke after use
0.09%
Design/style different from shown
0.09%
Grand Total
100.00%
There are no rows in this table
L2 Reasoning | Wrong/Missing Product Received
l2_reason
COUNTA
Completely wrong product received
40.89%
Other reasons
21.19%
Material different from shown
16.48%
Fake/Duplicate product received
11.90%
Colour/shade different from shown
3.97%
Incomplete product/ Part of the product missing
3.35%
Design/style different from shown
1.12%
Wrong size delivered
0.50%
Bill /User Manual /Warranty missing
0.50%
Material/fabric different from shown
0.12%
Grand Total
100.00%
There are no rows in this table
L2 Reasoning | Defective/Damaged/Used Product
Reason
Count
Product was broken/damaged
45.74%
Product looked old/ dirty/ used
29.73%
Other reasons
15.59%
Product not functioning/ working properly
7.69%
Product was torn/damaged
1.25%
Grand Total
100.00%
There are no rows in this table
The L2 reasonings are analysed below with top SSCATs facing this issues and the next steps
L2 Reasoning
L2 Reason
Count
Lever to address
Top SSCATs
Top Brands
Other reasons
16.05%
Would need more datapoints to analyse them. Will have to restructure the L1/L2 reasons options at an SSCAT level to gather more nuanced information
43 SSCATS (overall)
Listing top 10 sscats below
60 Brands (overall) Listing few brands below
Completely wrong product received
11.57%
WFR
45 SSCATs
53 Brands
Fake/Duplicate product received
10.83%
WFR
34 SSCATs
46 Brands
Material/build quality is poor
9.78%
ERM, would need to generate more UGC
29 SSCATs
44 Brands
Not value for money
8.34%
ERM, Pricing
37 SSCATs
43 Brands
Product looked old/ dirty/ used
7.89%
The top brands amonst these listings are below
35 SSCATs
42 Brands
Product was broken/damaged
7.71%
Brand/3PL
39 SSCATs
41 Brands
Material different from shown
4.66%
ERM, would need to generate more UGC
19 SSCATs
32 Brands
Product caused side effects (allergy/rash)
3.68%
Brand
19 SSCATs
27 Brands
Packaging was broken / torn / damaged
2.63%
Product not functioning/ working properly
2.31%
Colour/shade different from shown
2.03%
Late delivery/ Not received the item
1.47%
Wrong size delivered
1.44%
Size correct but too big/ too small
1.30%
Fitting not good
1.19%
Fabric/ Material quality is poor
1.02%
Incomplete product/ Part of the product missing
0.95%
Delivery boy took more money
0.74%
Delivery partner behaviour was not appropriate
0.70%
Bill /User Manual /Warranty missing
0.53%
Delivered to Wrong address
0.49%
Expired product/ Expiry date too close
0.46%
Design/style different from shown
0.35%
Quality of the design/ finishing is poor
0.32%
Product not comfortable
0.28%
Product was torn/damaged
0.21%
Bad sound Quality
0.21%
Product faded/torn/shrink after wash
0.18%
Product degraded/broke after use
0.14%
Product length too short/too long
0.07%
Low grade material/fabric used
0.07%
Both packaging and item were broken or torn
0.07%
Battery issues
0.07%
Size incorrect - too big
0.04%
Same design but completely different colour
0.04%
Product looked old or bad quality
0.04%
Material/fabric different from shown
0.04%
Got less quantity than ordered
0.04%
Completely different product received
0.04%
Bill missing
0.04%
Arrived too late
0.04%
Grand Total
100.00%
There are no rows in this table
Product Features to Explore
Product Roadmap | KR updates
Appendix
The instrumentation began with compiling an exhaustive list of problem areas, followed by evaluating each using the methodology outlined below (Oct '24). A summary of the approach conducted at that time is provided in the appendix for reference. For detailed workings, please refer to the link below:
1. Problem Identification & Input Collection
A comprehensive list of problems is compiled from multiple sources, ensuring all key pain points and opportunities are captured:
2. Problem Categorization
The identified problems are categorized using three key parameters, each rated as High, Medium, or Low:
a. Brand Priority (50% weightage)
Evaluates the strategic importance of the brand based on:
b. Man-Hour Effort Estimation (20% weightage)
Estimates the man-hours that can be optimized or saved, both internally (Meesho team) and externally (brand team), by resolving the problem.
c. I/O Escalation Metrics (30% weightage)
Measures the severity of the issue based on the volume of related escalations. Problems with a high number of escalations receive greater weightage.
3. Evaluation & Ranking
Each problem is assessed based on these parameters, and a weighted average score is calculated to create a stack rank—prioritizing problems by overall impact and feasibility.
4. KR Prioritization
Based on the stack rank, KRs are classified into:
5. Cross-Functional Support & Operational Feasibility
For each prioritized KR, the feasibility of execution is assessed, identifying whether it can be handled within the team or requires cross-functional collaboration (e.g., Tech, Product, Business, FE, etc.).
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ··· in the right corner or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.