Quality stops being a currency
For decades, the TV business was simple. For the designers, and makers it was almost a moral mindset that superior engineering will be rewarded. Iconic Japanese brands like Panasonic and Sony built their reputations on the premise. They do not sell screens. They are known for vibrant and accurate colours, steady motions, and longevity. But now, the global market, including India’s, is quite blurred. This explains why Panasonic has exited the TV business in India, after it had earlier got out of washing machines and refrigerators.
In effect, the recent move ends the Japanese maker’s presence in the country’s mass consumer appliances. While Panasonic will sell TVs in a few select global markets, like Japan and parts of Europe, its India story has virtually ended. Still, one can contend that this is a market-specific decision rather than a global shutdown. However, the company remains in India to focus on areas such as B2B solutions, energy systems, automotive components, and industrial businesses. In essence, it becomes more of an engineering firm rather than an appliance one.
Sony, which obviously faces similar pressures, chose a different strategy. The rival stepped back from owning the entire value chain, and thus economics, of the TV business. It clicked a deal with China’s TCL for an asset-light arrangement. While the scale of hardware, and risks linked with panels sit with the Chinese partner, Sony retains brand and processing expertise. The differences between Panasonic and Sony, in fact, highlight something deeper than competitive missteps. They reflect the erosion of “quality” as a standalone commercial currency in one of the fastest-growing electronics markets.
Every year, 12-13 million TVs are sold in India. It is one of the world’s largest markets by volume. Sadly, it is possibly the most unforgiving. Most TVs that are sold are priced below INR 30,000. Hence, the margins are wafer thin, and competition is relentless. In such a scenario, the quality-operational traits that differentiated the Japanese brands, and made them top-of-the-mind recall, are difficult to translate into pricing power. Picture quality, which was once preferred by consumers, and formed the basic comparison among brands, is flattened due to tech standards, and changing consumption habits.
Mini LED backlighting, local dimming, HDR formats, and quantum-dot branding are no longer the markers of excellence. Each brand has embedded them in their models. Streaming compression narrows the visible differences, especially in daily viewing. The result is that the advantages that Panasonic prized earlier, and which buyers associated with it, are no longer valid, relevant, or valued. When the differences blur, as they have, buyers do not appreciate them, and are unwilling to pay premium prices. Without this support, margins come into play, even for volume-driven players, who thrive on quality messages.
India is not a unique market in this sense. But being a large one, it amplifies the trends, and the effects. In Europe, legacy brands can retreat into small, niche, and higher-priced segments since they are supported by public broadcasters, physical media holdouts, and a slower pace of replacement. In Japan, domestic loyalty and a mature retail ecosystem create space for premium propositions. India, by contrast, is a market beset with rapid comparison. Screen size, resolution labels, and price-per-inch dominate decisions, which are accelerated via online sales rather than showroom demonstrations, and sales.
Once considered an emotional purchase, or a desirable one, TV-buying is now a spreadsheet exercise. Consumers, who would blindly opt for a ‘brand’, a renowned one, ask how many inches can they buy for the same amount. Large is better, if the price is the same. Quality is perceived to be similar. Given this arithmetic, words and phrases like calibration and fidelity struggle to compete with the louder claims about brightness, gaming modes, or bundled streaming offers. Of course, quality does matter. But it is a part of the baseline expectation.
Chinese tech-product makers are particularly adept at this game. Firms such as Xiaomi, TCL, and others, built scale around open-cell sourcing, aggressive indigenisation, and rapid models churn. They opted for low margins to grab volumes, and retail leverage. They normalised features that commanded premiums. Indian brands adopted this, and often used ODM-heavy models to move quickly, and price sharply. Consumers were hooked to a new way of thinking; they expected more (features) for less (price), and then wanted the new features immediately.
For Panasonic, whose global TV business has been shrinking for years, India never became a strategic volume-led pillar that justified the trade-offs necessary to compete at the bottom-of-the-price pyramid. The corporate culture veered towards iteration, and long product cycles. Even as the Indian buyers reward speed and aggression. Hence, the initial exit from appliances, and later from TVs was not a sudden retreat. It was a recognition that the portfolio did not make economic sense. The margins vanished, and consumer expectations were tough to match.
Sony’s varied response illustrates an alternative way of living. By aligning with TCL, it conceded that owning manufacturing was no longer the best use of its capital. Instead, it chose to focus on the traits that still matter. These include image processing, industrial design cues, and brand authority. Sony acknowledged a truth that Panasonic did not. Survival in TVs, and possibly consumer electronics, depends on the ability to surrender parts of the value chain. Some tech firms made the transition from hardware to software, even vice versa. Others, like Sony, from hardware to design and branding.
However, the implications extend beyond brands. When firms built on the engineering-first principles step back, markets do not necessarily become competitive. They may become thinner. In such a scenario, retailers, rather than makers, gain leverage. While consumers enjoy the benefits of lower prices, and larger screens, the choices between business models, which is hidden, narrows. As the players that survive, fewer in numbers, focus on spectacle, and rapid turnover, the consumers subconsciously adjust, and shift their expectations.
In parts of Europe, public broadcasters’ emphasis on picture integrity, and a lingering attachment to Blu-ray and broadcast standards sustain the demand for calibrated displays. In East Asia, especially Japan and South Korea, brands benefit from trust and institutional support. The younger and digitally native Indian market skipped the intermediate stages. Streaming-first consumption, and online discovery compress the distance between “good enough” and “excellent.” Thus, Panasonic’s exit reflects how the rules of value have changed. Quality is repriced. Features need to be instantly visible and defensible. Or else, virtues and quality aspects struggle to survive. So do some firms.
