Ladies and gentlemen, a very good evening and welcome to Eternal Limited, Q2 FY 2026 earnings conference call. From Eternal's management team, we have with us today Akshant Goyal, Chief Financial Officer, Albinder Singh Dhindsa, Founder and CEO of Blinkit, and Kunal Swarup, Head of Corporate Development. Before we begin, a few quick announcements for the attendees. Anything said on this call, which reflects outlook for the future, or which could be construed as a forward-looking statement, may involve risks and uncertainties. Such statements or comments are not guarantees of future performance, and actual results may differ from those statements. Additionally, please note that this earnings call is scheduled for a duration of 45 minutes, and we will be starting directly with the Q&A section of the call. If you wish to ask a question, please use the raise hand feature available on your Zoom dashboard. We will announce your name on the call and unmute your line, post which you can proceed with your question. We will wait for a minute while the question queue assembles. The first question is from the line of Garima Mishra from Kotak. Please go ahead. Hi, thank you for the opportunity. My questions are on the quick commerce business. First, this quarter witnessed a big increase in MTU addition for Blinkit. You did allude to higher ad spends and investments towards this in the letter. Is this set to continue, and hence we should expect elevated ad spends going forward as well? Hey Garima, this is Albinder. See, what we are seeing right now is that there are new consumers out there in the market, and if we are targeting them, we are able to onboard them at a reasonable marketing cost, which is why we spent more on marketing this quarter as well. So till the point that we keep seeing this trend, I think we will keep investing however much that we can to basically power more growth. So you should expect this to continue in the next quarter as well. All right, so in the same line, in the last quarter, you mentioned that every new customer cohort breaks even for you at CM level in month one itself. Right, is there any change to this metric, especially since MTU addition has gone up so much? No, we haven't seen that change yet, Garima, and that's why I think just to add into Albinder's point earlier, Akshant this side, I think that is why I think as long as we see a healthy CAC and a healthy LTV, we won't shy away from spending more on marketing because we're actually acquiring a good quality customer base. So Akshant, just on this point, is this strategy sort of change or modification, whatever you might want to call it, is this anything to do with what you're seeing from a competitive intensity perspective? Not really. I think it's also a function of the scale of the business. I think now that we are about 1,800 stores, it's a much wider geographical footprint. So our addressable market has also expanded in the last few months and quarters. And as a result, the CACs are not going up when we spend more because there is sort of operating leverage on the marketing costs now. All right, so maybe last question on this thread. How should we think about EBITDA break-even in the Blinkit business? I mean, the general understanding was this should happen sometime in the second half of FY 2026. How should we think about it in this context? Garima, that's not really a milestone we are focused on. I think for us, the way we look at the business is there are parts of the business which are more mature, which are already EBITDA positive, and we have shared that in the past. We've mentioned that the city is already north of 3%, adjusted EBITDA margin, so there is therefore a reasonable size of our business today, which is already reasonably profitable, and then there is cost of expansion, opening new cities, new stores, acquiring new customers, and eventually, the adjusted EBITDA that we report is a weighted average of these two sort of parts of the business, so I think this can keep changing depending on what kind of growth we see, what quality of growth we see, and how much we invest. Also, it's also linked to how competitive the market is and what the competition is doing. So we see at the adjusted EBITDA margin or break-even more as an outcome of all of these things and not really something that we are chasing as a goal right now. Got it. Thank you so much and wish you the best. I'll come back in the queue. Thank you, Garima. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Gaurav Malhotra from Axis. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi. Hi, good evening, everyone. Just had two, three questions, so first, when I see the NOV to GOV for quick commerce, that has sort of moved up, I think moved down by a couple of percentage points, so is it more of the ongoing festive season and the ongoing those different sales which everyone is doing, or there is an increased competitive pressure which you are seeing right now? Gaurav, it's mostly because of the mix change and mix of products. So this quarter has a couple of festivals as well. So we see primarily Rakhi being a big one. So that is one of the reasons that you will see that difference being there. Gaurav, just to add, directionally, I think as the share of general merchandise and non-branded products on the platform grows, we are likely to continue to see this trend. And therefore, you can see in our data that we have shared over the past four quarters, this metric has sort of consistently come down, which means NOV is a smaller and smaller percentage of GOV, which is also why we have highlighted that we believe NOV is a more relevant metric to track versus GOV. Got it. Now, just following up on what Garima said and sort of linking it up with the 3,000 stores, you have now given us by when you want to sort of go to that number. So is the higher marketing spend happening in the existing cities or because now you will be going to cities where there is no one else, right? So the marketing spend is more sort of skewed towards those newer markets and geographies? See, the marketing spend is still skewed towards the larger cities because we also have a significant amount of non-serviceability in the existing larger cities, and that's where the larger volume of the business is. But we are also spending significantly now in the emerging cities as well. And we have a significant footprint for those for which we are spending. Sorry, if I would just interject, I meant like on a per acquired customer perspective, on a CAC perspective, is there more spending happening in the existing, or you have to spend more in the newer markets where you have to sort of educate the people? Are you trying to ask whether the CAC for consumers in Tier 1 markets is different than the CAC for consumers? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That is not significantly different. Just last question, if you can just help us understand how do we think about the revenue? You have obviously given us full detailing in the shareholder letter. but suppose next quarter when you go to say 90%, then how should we sort of think of this revenue versus the gross profit versus the NOV, sort of that sort of formulation changing? If you can just give us some guidance on that, please. or not guidance, but just to understand how to sort of think about it. So Gaurav, because of the step change of 80%, you saw the revenue growth meaningfully increase, right? So I think that one step change has happened. Now it should be incremental from here because 80%-90% will result in some more dissonance in the comparable sort of revenue versus the past. But I think that step jump is behind us, right? If that was your question. Yeah. And just last question, if I may, so the remaining 10% inventory would be what? It would be like those higher ASP products or the low sort of frequency selling products? Or how do we think about the last 10% which you don't want to sort of shift to inventory? We still have sellers on the platform which are selling different products that we feel that the model is better for those products on a seller-driven model, and also, the sellers also prefer that they would stay on that model, so I think that's the difference which we will see, so it is to what Kunal was saying, if you're trying to estimate the percentage of NOV which comes across as margin. I think that is going to be more impacted by mixed change going forward rather than the change in the percentage of business which is on inventory versus not on inventory. Got it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Nikhil Choudhary from Nuvama. Please go ahead. Hey, thanks for the opportunity. My first question is on food delivery. Last quarter, we called out that we'll focus on driving growth and profitability will remain constant. But this quarter, what we have seen is that profitability actually improved while growth pickup is limited. So just wanted to understand, was there some change in strategy or the elasticity of, let's say, additional spend is not leading to higher growth? So Nikhil, hi. So I think the main delta here is the increase in platform fee that happened in the middle of the quarter, which we did not anticipate or estimate at the beginning of the quarter when we declared the last quarter's result. O ur increase in platform fee was more a reaction to what our competitor did. So I think that's why you see the growth in margin versus our earlier guidance of margin perhaps remaining flat. No, I understand that part. The point what I want to understand, let's say if we would have invested those additional earnings to acquire more users or gain more market share, we could have done that, right? So rather than, let's say, absorbing or letting the profitability flow through, I mean, that's what we choose to do rather than focusing on growth. So that's the decision I want to understand, yeah. So I think the decision on how much to invest for growth is a function of what kind of customer acquisition cost or reactivation cost for the monthly users that we see, right? So it's more driven by that rather than the specific P&L budget. And till the time these costs are reasonable and they make sense from a long-term LTV return perspective, payback perspective, I think we would naturally prefer to spend and grow the business. But we have to stop at a point where these numbers don't make any sense anymore, right? And typically, that's the zone, that's the sort of threshold line that we operate with irrespective of how much budget or P&L room we have to spend on growth. I hope that answers your question. Got it. it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fair enough. The second one on Blinkit, I think what you have called out that higher marketing spend is because of larger size. So is it fair to assume that this kind of elevated marketing compared to previous quarter will continue in future quarter as well? Yes, at least likely in the near term. And that's what Albinder mentioned in response to a previous question that we do expect these levels to continue at least for now. It has no implication from higher competitive intensity either, right? Yeah, that's another variable. And we are assuming that to remain constant when we give this guidance. I mean, if that changes meaningfully one way or the other, then this outlook can change. Got it. That's it from my side. Thank you. Thank you, Nikhil. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Aditya Soman from CLSA. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi. Good evening. So two questions. Firstly, on Blinkit, so you indicated that you've sort of plowed back some of the incremental contribution, if you were to call it that, or incremental profitability back into marketing spend. W ould it also be fair to assume that some of it has gone into price as well to make your products more attractive or make the products on the platform? Yes, that was the first point and one of the answers. Yeah. Question 7.1, essentially, that's what we mean there. Absolutely. So then when I see the difference in, obviously, contribution per order has improved, but EBITDA per order hasn't. S o that would be just a function of marketing spend and the gap between those two. It is an interplay between some gains in operating leverage and increased marketing spend, yes. Understood. Very clear. No, that was on Blinkit. S econd question on District, any sort of guidance on how you see the trajectory for sort of contribution of profitability playing out in District and how we should think of growth and profitability for that business? So Aditya, I think we should expect growth to be around the current levels of around 30% year- on- year. I think that is what we are expecting right now. P rofitability in percentage term should improve. But I think, as we mentioned also in question 11, we expect the absolute losses to sort of remain range-bound around the current levels. Fair enough. So around whatever INR 60 crore-INR 70 crore of losses and continuing under 30% growth trajectory, even in this current quarter, right, where the base I'm presuming is tough given that you have I'm assuming it's an important quarter for that business. It's possible, but I think our guidance is more at a maybe annual level because quarterly there can be seasonality on some of these events and concerts and movie releases or, let's say, IPL event and so on. So there is a lot of seasonality in this business, and a couple of weeks of swings can lead to one quarter not doing well versus same quarter last year. I think what we are trying to guide is more year-on-year growth than quarter-on-quarter. So yeah, I think that's, yeah. Fair enough. No, that's very clear. That's it from me. Thanks. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Ankur Rudra from JP Morgan. Please go ahead. Ankur, can you hear us? Seems like we have some technical difficulties. Moving on to our next participant. Next question is from the line of Manish Adukia from Goldman. Please go ahead. Hi, good evening. Thank you for taking my questions. First question is, again, a follow-up on food delivery. Now, since you mentioned that some of the factors that are causing headwinds are largely macro, in your opinion, for you to reach your medium-term guidance of 20%+, is it just that macro has to get better, or are there any other interventions that you could do to get to that higher number? And since one of the reasons that you called out is also expansion of quick commerce, which may have impacted food delivery growth, so could we conclude that as long as quick commerce growth remains elevated, which may be for some time in the foreseeable future, food delivery in the foreseeable future is unlikely to see any meaningful improvement in growth trends and 20% may be a more longer-term target than a medium-term target? That's right, Manish. I think that's how I would also characterize the current situation. I think in terms of your first part of the question, whether we are totally macro-dependent or can we do something else for the growth, I think, and it's not like I think those attempts to expand the market have not been done in the past, but I think the headwinds have been strong, including the soft discretionary demand in India in the last few months. But I think from our side, we'll continue to focus on creating newer use cases to order food from restaurants and hope that the macro environment improves, which will bring the growth back in the business to the levels that we think it should grow at. Sure. Thanks, Akshant, and sorry to push you on this one, but why keep that 20%+ guidance? Why not make it 15%+? I'm just trying to think, what gives you confidence that this is a 20%+ market and not a 15% market or whatever, low teens or mid- teens market? I mean, so guidance cannot be always close to the current growth levels, right? Then it's not really a guidance. So the reality is the current growth rate number, which is around 15%. W hether you give a guidance of 10% or 20%, you will have no basis for that, right? It's a judgment call. I think, I mean, in the last letter, we did say that this financial year, we are unlikely to be at 20%, and we are expecting a 15% sort of year-on-year growth. L onger-term, our view on 20% remains as of now. I f that changes, we'll communicate, but that's where we are right now. No, sure. Appreciate it. Thank you. And maybe just a couple of questions on the quick commerce business. I think, again, in the previous call, you'd called out that as you transition to 1P, the benefit of that also should be immediate. But now, given your focus on growth, I think, or focus on growth was always there, but this time you mentioned that it'll take four to six quarters. So again, what has changed between, let's say, the last three months for you to change that view on immediate translation of margin versus four to six quarters on 1P transition? So what we mean by four to six quarters is the time frame to fully realize it, right? What we meant last time, and maybe we can clarify if there was a confusion, is that the realization of the margin gains will start happening immediately, which has happened even in this quarter. T he overall margin accretion of 1% will take some while, right? Because it requires you to negotiate with brands, reassigning contracts directly with brands, and that process cannot happen at one shot, right? So. Right. Very clear. A follow-on on that, I mean, your gross margin, 300 basis points of expansion in the QC business, and I think contribution about 70. So that what you explained in the shareholder letter, that incremental 230 basis points of cost was all linked to the first mile bit and some bit of, let's say, gross differential, I don't know, in mix, et cetera. Just if you can explain that differential as to what drove that 230 basis point incremental cost. Was it all first mile, or was it something else there as well? No, so the entire margin expansion is not just on account of this business model change, right? So there is actually a meaningful margin expansion outside of that also. So right now, I would say with respect to the three percentage point upline, the gross profit increase, the cost side increase is on account of the supply chain costs that were moved from the sellers to us, right? S o we're not giving a split of how much of the contribution margin gain is because of the business model change and how much is because of other efficiency and operating leverage. I think that's what I wanted to highlight, that it's a combination of both. Thank you so much. Last question from me. Of course, overall growth for the business, especially on the quick commerce side, continues to be extremely strong. If you can, and I know you've shared this data in the past, if you can give us some color as to, let's say, your most penetrated or mature city, what is the growth looking like there? Would just help us build confidence as we think about your next couple of years because your store rollouts will aid overall growth, but would love to understand how maybe your top one or two mature cities are doing in overall growth. Manish, we do keep sharing these data points from time to time, and what I can say right now is I think nothing material has changed for us to highlight at this point, so if you had good confidence on the business last quarter, I think that should continue. Thanks a lot. All the best. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Swapnil Potdukhe from JM Financial. Please go ahead. Hi. Thanks for the opportunity. I have two or three questions. First on your storage expansion strategy and related to that. So obviously, you have mentioned that you plan to operate around 2100 stores by the December quarter and 3000 by March 2027. Now, if I were to just extrapolate that and ask you, what would happen to your NOV growth? Because you had earlier guided for 100% NOV/ GOV growth this year, b ut the kind of accelerated investments that you're doing on store side, will it be fair to assume that we could be at a very, if not 100%, but close to 100% kind of a growth rate on NOV in FY 2027 as well? Yeah. Yes, Swapnil, I agree. I think currently, if you look at the growth rate, it's much higher than 137%. So I do expect, therefore, the year-on-year growth to remain above 100% for the next one or two years at least. Got it. T he second question is with respect to the contribution margin not improving meaningfully, despite the fact that your gross margin has expanded 300 basis points. And then you alluded to the fact that there is some first mile related investments that you have done. Now, my question over here is, if you're getting into those first mile, at some point of time, you will also probably see some benefits of doing first mile on your own, right? I n that context, will it be fair to say that the 100 basis points of benefit that you're suggesting on because of the inventory-led model, that could actually be much higher than that over a period of time, not necessarily now, but one year, two years later? Swapnil, the overall percentage of our cost which resides in the first mile for brands is way too small to make a significant dent here. So it will not change. Okay. Got it. And the second question part is on your food delivery growth. So obviously, that 14% growth could have been much higher, in my opinion, given the changes that you had done on the minimum order value side. I mean, is there anything else you could have done, or is it because of the fact that you made that change in the mid of August, if I'm not wrong? The full benefit of that is yet to be realized, and possibly in the December quarter, you would see that benefit coming in. A part from that, is there any other trick up your sleeve that you can use to accelerate growth in the food delivery business? Yeah. So you're right, Swapnil. I think that full impact of that change will appear in the December quarter. O utside of that, as we also mentioned in the letter, that we only expect a slow uptick in growth rate in the near term, and there is no silver bullet that we have as of now. Got it. Got it. And just on your District business, so we have been in this INR 50 crore-INR 60 crore software loss range for the last couple of quarters. When exactly will we see these losses coming down? I mean, you have suggested around a similar kind of losses in the near term at least, but from a medium-term perspective, where will be the inflection point where we will start seeing some improvement in the losses in that business? So I think, Swapnil, from a, I think financial year 2027 should be better than financial year 2026 in terms of the losses in the business, right? That's how I would put it without really pinpointing a particular quarter, but I think it should happen in the next few quarters. Got it. Got it. Good. So those were my questions. So thanks a lot for the opportunity and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Ashwin Mehta from Ambit. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi. Thanks for the opportunity. Just one question. So Akshant, we've added almost 1,200 odd dark stores over the last year. Any sense that we can give either over the last two quarters or last four quarters in terms of where these dark store additions have happened? What's the proportion towards Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3? I s the skew towards, say, Tier 2, Tier 3 increasing in the recent times? Ashwin, so I think majority, more than 70%-75% of our store addition continues to be in the top 10 cities, right? and while the number of city count seems to be exploding, but the number of stores in these long-tail cities are really small, right? so majority of the business and the success of the business is still linked to how well we do in the top 8-10 cities, and that remains the focus. Okay. Okay. So do you envisage as you possibly densify some of these tail cities as well? Did the middle mile or the warehousing-related expenses also start to kick in at this point in time? If we are just kind of testing waters here, then maybe that is on a lower keel at this point in time. Would that be a fair assessment? Not really, Ashwin, because most of these tail cities are being serviced by warehouses which are also serving large cities, right? So there have been only very few locations or states where we did not have that backend, where we had to open a cluster, a bunch of cities, and then a warehouse to service them. I think our network design on stores already takes into account the fact that we have to be mindful of the backend warehousing cost a nd in locations where that doesn't make sense, because you don't have a large city that is already being serviced, we have sort of stayed away from expanding into those markets. So therefore, I think the cost of expansion into these tail cities is not very high at this point in time for us from a backend supply chain cost perspective. Okay. Fair enough, and the last one is in terms of there's this other segment where we put in our new initiatives. The losses there are now comparable to the losses on the going-o ut side, so any outlooks here? What is the area where bigger investments are going, and how should these trend? So Ashwin, most of these losses are on account of our expansion in the Bistro business, which is a 10-minute food delivery service that we are building. And I mean, I will try and give some update on that business in the next quarter, maybe, and I think we'll get some clarity on that. Sure, Akshant. Thanks and all the best. Thank you. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Abhisek Banerjee from ICICI. Please go ahead. Hi, sir. Thanks for the opportunity. My first question is with regards to the new MTU additions which have happened in this quarter. You mentioned that you've gotten some high-quality customers. So are these new customers into the segment, or are they coming from one of your competitors? I think, Abhisek, it's hard for us to clearly demarcate where the new customers are coming from. We just know whether they're new to platform or not, but we would think that for the majority of the customers that we are talking about, they would be new to quick commerce in general. Because we have the largest network of stores, so we are targeting the biggest geographies, and also we are spending for growth in the segment and targeting new customers, so that gives us a confidence that most of them are new to QC in general. Got it. So you also mentioned that the steady-state proportion of insourcing will be about 90%, right, inventory. Now, what is the 10% that you are kind of keeping outside? Are they the fast-moving items or the slow-moving items? Any color on that? So, Abhisek, there are some categories where I think it's operationally easier for us to work with sellers than actually directly source it from the manufacturer, right? So, I think those are a few categories which are a bunch of, actually, there's no large categories there, but a bunch of small products and SKUs that I think just operationally doesn't make sense for us to own directly, and that's why we're going to let sellers run that business. Got it. Now, so we have obviously built a positioning which kind of positions us as the player where customers pay for convenience, right? Now that you have competed a little bit on the pricing front, I mean, does that in any way impact our positioning in the restaurants? I mean, how to kind of look at that? Abhisek, I think our positioning is that we want to be a customer-first organization and do what is in the best interest of the customer. I think as we get larger and we get more efficiency benefits, what we would continue to do is also give our customers the confidence that Blinkit will also be the best-priced platform for them, right? Which basically means we have to run our operations a lot more efficiently. We have to pass those benefits on to the customer, and we think that that is the right thing to do for our customers. So we don't think of it as positioning it one way or the other, right? We are customers willing to pay us a convenience fee because they value the service that we provide. Part of the value that we also want to provide them so that they continue to value us even more is the confidence that we are also the platform which gives them the best access to products at the best possible prices. Understood. So this is very helpful. And I'm just kind of reiterating a point which some of the fellow participants also raised before this. If you can provide some color on the large cities and the smaller cities in terms of AOV, et cetera, that would be highly appreciated. Abhisek, it's not that different, I would say. We mentioned last time, I think the AOVs are not very different. The margins may be slightly lower in smaller cities as of now, but that's also because they don't have that kind of assortment that we are able to provide in larger cities in most cases. So yeah, so I think that's all that we want to share at this point. But we'll try and see if we can include more details in the future, shareholder letters. Understood. And finally, one last question on the food part of the business. Are we seeing a sequential improvement here beyond what we have seen in the last quarter? So as in, are we less upbeat on the recovery here, which is what the shareholder letter kind of gives the impression? So just trying to understand that a little more. Yeah, Abhisek, I think we have said that we expect a slow uptick in growth rate, but we do expect that growth rate will keep going up from here. Fair enough, sir. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you. Next question is from the line of Vijit Jain from Citigroup. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi. Thank you for the opportunity. My first question is the take-rate commentary that you have, the 300 basis points QoQ, some part, maybe nearly half seems to be coming from that first mile change. I wanted to understand if the majority of the rest came from advertising. There has been a lot of industry commentary recently around FMCG companies significantly raising advertising budgets on QC. And I'm just wondering if that is true and if you've reinvested those advertising revenues into customer acquisitions. Is that a reasonably accurate way of looking at this? So Vijit, I think what we are saying is that a large part of this 3 percentage points is on account of business model change. However, business model change is also leading to the cost going up. An increase in first mile cost is only a part of the reason of the cost going up, right? So when we moved this business from sellers directly on our platform, a bunch of supply chain cost, which includes first mile cost, went up. And hence, that entire gain on the top line margin because of the model change will not flow through to the contribution margin, right? Which is also consistent with what we mentioned in the past that the net flow through eventually should be 1%, out of which we have realized this quarter, and the balance will, I think, keep flowing through over the next four or five quarters, right? So I think just to be clear, this is the position on the impact of business model change on the top line and the margin. Outside of that, I think we haven't seen any major bump in ad revenue in the last quarter, right? Which we won't talk about in sort of business as usual on that front. Okay, got it. And my second question is, in question 7.1, you said that the QC marketing spend went up 4x, YoY, and I think 40% QoQ. And obviously, your user growth has also been pretty high to, I think, 2.3x, 25% quarter on quarter. So my question, I suppose, is when you say that your marketing spend will remain elevated, is that going to be proportionate to new user additions, or are you having to see incrementally as well some spends for retention work as well? It's mostly new user acquisition, Vijit. Got it. So in that sense, if you add another 3 million or 4 million, let's say, users in Q3, the absolute spend on marketing just goes up, commensurate with what you've seen in Q2 versus Q1. Is that accurate? Ideally, there should be some operating leverage there. Yeah. Right. Got it. And my second question is, in terms of these store additions that you're doing, right, 250 odd stores that you say you'll add in 3Q and then pretty similar, maybe 200 average beyond that. Should we think about this as from here on pretty steady, or will there be some spurts here and there? I mean, I'm just trying to understand if you're looking at it in terms of specific spurts or just a steady cadence based on plans you've made. I think it's very dependent on what we learn over the next few months as well. This is our current view, right? If we find an opportunity to grow even rapidly, we have a store opening which can possibly open a lot more stores every quarter as well a nd we will take that opportunity for them. Got it. M y last question, the costs related to the inventory model change that you mentioned, right? So are they all mostly above gross profits line or rather above contribution line, or is there some additional costs between CM and adjusted EBITDA as well in quick commerce? Everything is above CM. Got it. Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, in the interest of time, we will now take the last one to two questions. The next question is from the line of Manish Poddar from Invesco. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi. Thanks for taking my question, and first of all, Akshant and team, I think a great job in terms of executing on a lot of variables. As customers, we don't see the difference in terms of delivery when you all would have migrated 80% or 90% of the system. I think it's a great job on that front. I just have three questions, so the first one is, any idea you would have on the quick commerce side of the business, let's say, now how would your market share be versus, let's say, three or six months back on NOV basis then versus now? Hi, Manish. Thank you. So yeah, we do internally have a sense on market share. We do try and track it based on some sampling data that we do. But we're not sure about it because all our competitors are private companies. So I would not want to conjecture on the four numbers around market share unless they're public. Okay. And my understanding was that this marketing intensity, given you said that on the earlier question that your M3 retentions are good on the quick commerce side, I thought the marketing intensity of peers is going down, so your marketing cost or this CAC should come down. But this is not seeming to be the case. So what am I missing here? Manish, I think the understanding of this might not be correct because typically, if a space is growing and multiple people are spending, then everybody usually has access to a wider chunk of customers that they can target for conversion, and you will see lower CACs. Even if the other folks are not spending, we might be taking 80 or 90% of the overall growth in the segment, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we will get the lowest CAC. That's not how digital marketing works, which is the largest predominant portion of our marketing. Okay. T he final bit, let's say this 3,000 store target, let's say, by next year, how should we think about store reach, let's say, two, three, four years out? Let's say, if I had to think about it, how should one think of it from that lens? I'm just trying to think, let's say, generally, FMCG companies have thereabouts 8 million- 9 million outlets. Even if you think about, let's say, when we think about direct reach for a lot of FMCG companies, that's about 1.5 million-2 million outlets. Some companies also do three million outlets. I'm just trying to think, how should we think of this 3,000 number, let's say, two years out or three years out? I think currently, our viewpoint is that our current geographical footprint helps us cover about 20% of the overall targetable retail market that we are looking at, right? Of course, we are looking at a geographic footprint, not at a store-level footprint, right? W e believe that most of the profits and the high-quality profits that we can target reside maybe in the top 40% of the targetable market. So I think that's where we are. E ven with this 20%, I think we don't have the kind of coverage that would help us cover the entire geography. We've just gone and put a single store in a city like Asansol. We'll have to let it mature, see where that market goes. If it goes in the same proportion of population and GDP per capita that some of the larger cities have gone, then of course, that city has a potential to be multiple times bigger than where it currently is b ut that is something we will only take a call on once we have the proof points. So we want to be conservative in this expansion because our cost of supply chain expansion, building the footprint, going deeper into those locations, making a lot more products available is substantial. So we will take a call on this once we have more and better information. But then just Akshant, if I had to just think about it, when you're thinking about, let's say, 1,000 stores, let's say, in the next 15 months, post-December, I'm just trying to think, can this 1,000, is that just a number? And then probably six months out, you realize that you want to do 2,000. So you might actually do 2,000 also. Because I'm just trying to think, if the product fitment is right, balance sheet cash is there, there's an opportunity which is seeming to be in place, given what you mentioned on the earlier questions on unit economics in Tier 1 and Tier 2. Then I'm just trying to think, how do you think about 1,000 stores? I'm just trying to think, how does that number come across? Why can't I do 2,000 or 1,500? I'm just trying to gauge your mind just on that. Yeah. No, so I think you're right. I think we are also early in the business, so we'll respond to what we learn as we go along. I think this size is very clear to all of us that the opportunity is large, right? H ow large it is is still unknown. It's a function of how many categories become big in quick commerce. It's a function of how the business shapes up in the smaller cities. A s far as the pace of expansion is concerned, it's also a function of the bandwidth and prioritization that we do internally, right? So there may be a situation when, yes, the market is looking big and we have an opportunity to expand and we have the cash, but we can take a call to prioritize, let's say, efficiency improvement. So there's a cost of expansion or the profits we get from expansion goes up, right? So I think there are multiple dynamics at play in terms of choosing the pace of expansion. I would say because of that, we've been slightly conservative right now in our guidance in terms of timeline of getting to 3,000 so that we have some room to actually make changes to how we want to grow if we have to. Akshant, I squeeze in one more if that's fine? Yeah, sure. So if I had to just think about, let's say, inventory, let's say, SKUs available, how many SKUs would be available, let's say, in a city, let's say, like Bombay or Delhi versus, let's say, a Tier 2 city? And is the, let's say, the hero SKUs or the core cohort materially different? I'm just trying to think in terms of adoption of these categories in these cities is what I'm trying to think of. I understand probably short on time on a call, but I'm just trying to get some glimpse of that. Manish, so obviously, when we think of Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities, the availability of assortment to customers is multiple times lower than the larger cities. The primary reason for that is that the supply chain depth needed to make those products available is not there, and we have to build it from scratch. And that's a process which we are going through. And we have found reasonable success doing it so far, but you can be assured that that number is multiple times lower than what it is in a Delhi or Bombay or Bangalore. A Tier 3 city would not even be close to the overall number of SKUs there. Got it. Great, great, guys. Thank you and Happy Diwali. Thank you. Thank you, Manish. Happy Diwali to all of you. Thank you, guys. We will now conclude this conference call. Thank you for joining us, and you may now disconnect your lines.