If you trace our evolution of mode of transport, from walking we moved to riding horses, to carts, to two wheelers, motorized four wheels and rails on land to ships with oars, then sails and motorized engines on sea and from monoplanes to biplanes and then jets in air! At each of these stages, was the other mode of travel threatened of extinction? Or does each still has its time and place? (More people I know walk these day for exercise rather than commuting, though. I relish doing Heritage walks in old Cities

We have had disruption from new formats like shopping centers / malls and even then there was call to announce the death of high streets. Each format / model / channel goes through its peak periods but will live as long as it’s valued by the consumer.

In British India, one could book a rail ticket from the Madras to Colombo, which included the last leg on a ship! If we remember, all that we are doing is providing a service and find the best way to do so, we are fine. The railroad millionaires of the US would have been way better off if they expanded to airlines. It is natural as long as you remember you are in the travel Business.

All this does not factor the PE impact on e-commerce though. The discounting due to this can mess up the scene if it persists, may even damage some brands beyond repair. But then, like in war times, casualties are a way of life.

Malls are in the business to achieve a good return on their investment and efforts as are retailers. Unfortunately, in more cases than we would like to believe, the Vanilla tenants are short-changed! Even more so if they are not part of a large chain or a multinational. This can potentially lead to a breakdown of relationship and even confrontation.

One way to avoid this is to draw up a reasonable agreement, one that is fair to all involved. The central basis being that both retailers and a Mall’s management are in this business together and one cannot thrive without the other. Demanding a fair arrangement via the legal route or government lobbying based on protection laws existing in the West, are other options.

However, I feel that a more practical, quick and sensible option would be to adopt a genuine ‘revenue share’ model. This means the retailer pays as rent, a fixed percentage of sales on a monthly basis without a minimum guarantee. Needless to add this arrangement should be reviewed / renewed after a mutually agreed period. There also could be parameters set with the overall revenue generation zone, category wise. Arbitrary, unilateral decisions is not conducive to a healthy relationship, I hope we all agree.

The rest of the agreement also needs to be modified to bring parity and true collaboration for future growth and stability:

• CAM charges need to get more transparent and uniform; they cannot vary substantially among Malls, without good reason
• Liability clauses should work both ways for failures on obligations or errors from both
• Infrastructure responsibility clearly lies with the Mall management and promised performance here needs to be assured.

With the true spirit of a joint venture, both Malls and Vanilla Retailers can flourish to maximise results, ensuring customer delight. After all, the customer is not only of the Mall or of the retailer alone. The customer is the same for both.

Utopian idealism? Maybe, after all that is the flavour of the season. So, let’s hope for the best. I readily concede that building and running Malls is not easy. But neither is running a retail store. That’s why true collaboration is the only way forward. One cannot dispute that.