Three tricks that brands are pulling on you. Most omnichannel brands in India don't actually operate as one brand with two channels/touchpoints. They operate as two businesses sharing a logo.
-
Price variation across channels: A QSR brand I frequent charges 30-35% more on aggregators compared to their in-store prices. Fair enough. The platform commission needs to go somewhere. But the online portions are also slightly larger. So it's not just "same product, higher price for convenience." It's "different product, different price, same name on the menu." The in-store customer pays less but gets less. The brand is quietly masking commission impact through portion manipulation instead of just being transparent about why online costs more. This breaks the product promise. If I go to the store expecting the "big meal" I got at home, I feel shortchanged. The consumer can no longer build a stable association with the brand. Is it premium? Is it generous? Is it value-for-money? The brand loses its definition.
-
Bundling/availability variation: A popular eyewear chain’s store apparently wouldn’t sell just a single pair of spectacles. You must buy a 1+1 bundle along with a membership. But on their website? Single pair, no problem. Same brand, same product range, completely different purchase rules depending on where you shop. The store is essentially penalizing you for showing up in person. The store manager isn't thinking "what's good for the brand?" They're thinking "my rent is ₹2L/month, footfall is limited, I need ₹X AOV to hit targets." That the website allows single-unit purchases is someone else's concern.
-
Hidden service/warranty modification: I was comparing prices for a recliner from a well-known furniture brand. Amazon had it for ₹500-1000 cheaper than their own offline store. Seemed like an obvious win. When you look closer, the Amazon listing carries a 1-year warranty. The same product bought offline comes with a 2-year warranty by default. They're funding the online discount by quietly cutting your post-purchase protection. The consumer who bought on Amazon doesn't know they got inferior coverage. When something breaks in month 14, they discover the truth. They don't think "well, I did pay ₹500 less." They think "this brand screwed me". The brand absorbs the reputation damage from a channel-specific decision.
Price discrimination is accepted. It is product discrimination that’s perceived as deception. They're delivering different things while pretending it's the same product. What these brands are doing is essentially borrowing against long-term brand equity to solve channel economics problems.