Kavya Vardhane · Chief Marketing Officer · India
| Capacity | Committees |
|---|---|
| Ready to join | Customer and stakeholder committee, where constituted · Risk committee as a customer-communication contributor, subject to its wider requirements |
I am interested in a first appointment where a customer promise has consequences across the business and the board wants to examine them carefully. The closest fit is a consumer or service organisation with a meaningful distribution or branch network. Banking-adjacent work would need particular scrutiny of relationships and applicable requirements. I propose twenty-four days annually, subject to employer consent and a calendar that includes induction and exceptional demands. I would join an appropriate committee after assessing its remit and the board's existing knowledge; I do not claim immediate chair readiness. A useful appointment would let me contribute to oversight while maintaining clear responsibility for my present executive work.
Presented to the Board or a committee
Board discussions on customer communication and marketing investment
April 2020–present
Presented executive recommendations on acquisition reporting, translated explanations and customer communication; never served as a director.
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Proficiency assessment passed
In this fictional record I registered with the IICA Independent Directors' Databank and passed its online proficiency self-assessment in 2025. That learning step does not establish eligibility, independence or appointment to a particular board.
I would bring a view of the customer promise that connects commercial intent with ordinary understanding. A board sees strategy, growth measures and formal disclosures. It may have less direct visibility of the phrase remembered from an advertisement, the translated condition or the question a branch colleague hears repeatedly. My experience can help connect those observations with the account management presents, without treating an isolated anecdote as sufficient evidence of a wider problem.
I would also bring discipline to acquisition measures. Applications, opened accounts, funding and subsequent use describe different stages, with different operating responsibilities. I can ask whether the chosen measure supports the decision requested and whether its cost denominator remains consistent. That is a contribution to a board's collective assessment, not a claim to own every financial or risk question. I have presented to Naviratha's board as an executive since April 2020 but hold no directorship. A first appointment would require deliberate induction, financial understanding beyond my own budget and an appreciation of the company's duties to stakeholders other than its customers.
In the fee-explanation study, forty-eight of sixty participants understood the specified condition with the revised wording, compared with twenty-seven of sixty using the existing version. I supported the more explicit explanation even though it occupied space the campaign team wanted for a shorter message. Twelve participants still misunderstood the revised version. For a board discussion, both the improvement and that remaining difficulty matter. I would ask management how the explanation was tested, whose experience the study represents and what other evidence is needed before extending the conclusion. I would not equate a selected study with comprehensive compliance or assume that the board should approve individual advertisements. The oversight question is whether the commercial promise has been examined seriously enough for the commitment it supports.
The acquisition campaign's 18,000 applications looked more persuasive when separated from the 2,700 accounts meeting our stated day-ninety activity criterion. I kept both figures in the review and supported postponing an increase while retail colleagues examined the intervening stages. The ₹2.4 Cr campaign cost could be divided by several denominators, but those calculations did not describe the same result. I would bring that distinction to a board without treating the later stage as a complete measure of profitability or customer value. The relevant question is what management expects the next allocation to achieve and how the evidence relates to it. The board needs a coherent account of the relationship, including the work outside marketing, before treating an application total as the basis for further expenditure.
The safe scenario exercise found more participants identifying the intended independently verified bank-contact route after the revised card. Forty-eight of the 160 people receiving it still chose another response. I redirected ₹80 lakh of already planned communication budget towards the scenario approach and branch support, accepting fewer expected impressions. I did not claim a measured reduction in actual fraud or losses, because the exercise had not observed either. In oversight, I would ask whether the public account preserves that distinction and whether the next expenditure has an appropriate learning purpose. Customer-protection communication involves operational, risk and specialist responsibilities beyond a marketing exercise. A director should help management keep those responsibilities connected while resisting the temptation to turn a promising intermediate result into an outcome the evidence cannot establish.
I would begin by understanding how the prospective company earns income, serves customers and makes material promises. I would read its financial account with attention to the costs and obligations that sit outside the marketing function. Induction should include product, operations, risk and complaint-handling colleagues, so that my view is not limited to the organisation's public narrative. I would ask how recurring customer difficulties reach management and which of them are important enough to inform the board's discussion.
After that induction, I would bring the chair a short assessment of how the board currently hears customers and where my marketing experience could broaden that account. A customer or stakeholder committee may provide a relevant setting if one exists, while risk work would require attention to the committee's broader competence. I am not presenting myself as ready to chair either on arrival. During the year I would review the quality of my questions and preparation with the chair, including whether I was helping collective judgement or drifting into the executive detail that belonged to management. Learning the company's financial and governance context would remain a continuing obligation.
My executive employment makes a careful relationship review necessary. A prospective company could be a customer, an agency partner, a supplier or a competitor of Naviratha. Personal financial interests and any advisory commitments would also need to be disclosed through the appropriate process. I would not assume that an attractive customer-communication remit made those relationships manageable. Where consent or a credible conflict arrangement was unavailable, I would not proceed.
The same boundary applies to information. I would not carry customer records, unreleased product terms, agency proposals or confidential campaign findings between organisations. A board seeking specific commercial intelligence about my employer would be unsuitable. If the real need was for a defined piece of marketing work, an appropriately assessed advisory arrangement should be considered on its own terms instead of being disguised as a non-executive appointment.
My independence would need to be established for the particular appointment. I would disclose employment, agency relationships, financial interests and relevant business connections before any conclusion, and seek the required employer consent. A marketing title does not settle those questions.