My contribution to a board
I would help a board understand what its growth measures say about customers and what they leave unresolved. A rising enquiry count can represent new demand, repeated records or a change in reporting incentives. A popular partner can create an expectation the company cannot fulfil. I can follow the evidence from a household conversation to the commercial decision it is being used to support. My contribution would be especially useful when a company expands through intermediaries and directors no longer know the customer encounter directly. I would ask management to explain how the channel is experienced, whose interpretation has been tested and which uncertainties could change the investment case. I would also bring experience of withdrawing an attractive campaign when the proposed use of a customer's story exceeded its agreed scope. I have not served on a board, and this perspective would need to sit alongside stronger financial, legal and operating experience. I would contribute to collective oversight, leaving the design and execution of campaigns with management.
Judgement in practice
01Accepting a smaller number before deciding where to spend
The enquiry review reduced 8,600 entries to 5,934 distinct enquiries under the agreed method. That did not mean household demand had suddenly fallen by 31%; it meant the original report included 2,666 repeated entries. I supported changing the report even though it weakened the apparent reach of programmes my own function had funded. For a board, the relevant lesson is to establish what a measure represents before using it to approve more investment. I would ask how management treats uncertainty in the matching method and whether the incentives encourage several channels to claim the same customer. I would not perform record matching as a director or assume that deduplication alone establishes channel value. The board needs a credible account of the decision, including which relationships have been retained as uncertain and what further evidence would justify moving money. A smaller, more intelligible number can support a better commercial choice than an impressive total whose meaning changes between departments.
02Allowing an expensive creative asset to remain unused
Withdrawing the customer film meant accepting ₹9.6 lakh of production cost and replacing a planned launch asset. I did so after the proposed edit exceeded the permission scope and the customer declined a narrower public version. The issue was not whether the footage was engaging or whether a new form could be obtained under pressure. It was whether the company should publish that particular account of someone's life. In a board discussion, I would ask how management connects permission to the final use and whether teams can stop a campaign after substantial expenditure. I would want assurance about the process and accountability, not a seat in every edit review. Directors should understand when a commercial incentive makes a late withdrawal difficult. The useful question is whether management can recognise that situation and make a defensible decision before the cost already incurred becomes the sole reason to continue.
My first year on a board
I would spend the first year learning how the company reaches customers and how those relationships appear in its financial and risk reporting. With the chair's agreement, I would meet the leaders of sales, operations, finance and customer service, then examine a small number of representative acquisition decisions. I would want to understand the evidence available when each decision was made, rather than judge it only through a later outcome. I would read the relevant committee terms and ask where customer matters already receive oversight, avoiding a parallel review that adds work without improving decisions. My early questions would connect a growth claim with its underlying population, the cost of the channel and the experience of people who did not proceed. I would also seek induction on risks outside my expertise, particularly capital, credit or product obligations where relevant. Feedback from the chair would help me judge whether I was contributing useful challenge or drifting into an executive conversation about how to run the next campaign.
Conflicts and their management
A prospective company could use the same referral partners, agencies or research suppliers as Avirneli, or compete for the same household relationship. I would disclose those connections before discussing a seat and seek employer approval. Customer interviews, campaign economics and partner terms from my executive role would remain confidential. I would not offer to introduce another company's programme through Avirneli's branches or imply that a board appointment carries access to its customers. Independence and committee eligibility would need review for the actual company, together with applicable directorship and committee limits. A conflict affecting the company's central commercial decisions could make the appointment unsuitable even if individual meetings allowed recusal. My sixteen-day allowance includes preparation and travel but is provisional until the board calendar and likely demands are understood. If the role required more than I could reliably give, I would revise the commitment with my employer or decline it before accepting responsibility.
My independence statement
My employment and commercial relationships would need examination for the particular proposed seat. I would provide the disclosures needed to assess independence under section 149(6) and other applicable requirements, including SEBI LODR for a relevant listed company. A marketing title or a completed assessment does not establish eligibility for that appointment.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Avirneli Home Finance
Board acquisition and customer-research agenda; invited executive presenter
2023–present
Presented channel-spending choices and the limits of acquisition measures; no directorship or committee membership.