MAM
Indian marketers most optimistic about brands performance in 2013: Ipsos Survey
MUMBAI: Indian marketers are most optimistic about the expected outlook of their brands in 2013, with 85 per cent confident that their band will perform better than 2012, according to Ipsos Asia Pacific Marketers Outlook 2013 Survey.
More than four out of ten (43 per cent) Indian marketers said their company has performed better than expected in 2012, in terms of sales across India; over three in ten (33 per cent) say it was same as previous year and about 24 percent believe it was worse than excepted.
Ipsos in India head of marketing communications Biswarup Banerjee said, “Understanding target audience and working on a shared strategy were top performing capabilities in 2012 but are less prioritized in 2013; while measuring campaign effectiveness and creative marketing solutions are the top priorities this year for Indian Marketers. This suggests that marketers are setting higher standards and becoming more result-driven in 2013.”
Improving overall marketing effectiveness/ enhance ROI measurements (68 per cent), building greater brand loyalty (61 per cent), develop more integrated marketing strategy (60 per cent), and to further develop the potential of digital media platforms (57 per cent) such as social networking sites, blogs, mobile, etc. are the key challenges of Indian marketers in 2013.
They expect better quality insights and creative thinking from their agency partners. Indian marketers think that social media; CRM and PR will take up a higher role in marketing communication plan.
Marketers are highly optimistic about their brand outlook in 2013, but are more conservative towards their respective industry outlook. Retail industry marketers are less optimistic about the outlook of their brands.
“With sectors from automotive to finance, healthcare to consumer products all demonstrating positive outlooks for 2013; we expect to see smarter spending and strategic deployment of always-limited-resources so that marketers can focus on communicating with their most profitable customers. Learning how to tailor content, channel, frequency and message to emotionally engage with key segments will be the difference between budgets well spent and money wasted,” added Banerjee.
In the Asia Pacific half of marketers plan to increase their overall marketing budget including media spend and brand investment, reinforcing the positive sentiment in 2013. Seventy percent of Indian marketers and 59 percent Chinese marketers’ have plans to increase overall budget for marketing investments in 2013.
For 2013, one-third of the marketers will be working on a budget between $1 million – $5 million. Consumer product companies are likely to have a much larger budget.
Ipsos Asia Pacific Marketers Outlook 2013 study had three fundamental objectives – to gauge business performance for 2012; to understand the outlook for 2013 in terms of business performance and marketing investment; and to evaluate current trends in marketing actions and strategies.
Ipsos interviewed 372 senior marketing professionals online in December 2012 – January 2013, out of which 30 percent respondents were from Mainland China and 19 per cent were from India. More than half the respondents in India come from consumer products, finance and healthcare industry.
Digital marketing channels are not surprisingly given a higher role in 2013, especially social media which is considered more important than online ads, and mobile marketing. Social media still has large untapped potential to reach huge mobile consumers base, especially considering the increasingly high mobile/ smartphone penetration in India.
“Marketers not only need to reinforce their presence in the social media space, but more importantly, to think about what they are going to use digital media for (e.g. customer engagement, brand building) and how to develop their unique positioning in this fast growing channel,” added Banerjee.
While social media / viral (21 per cent) are cited as the most effective medium in the next three years, TV (21 per cent) is still regarded as an important medium in the future considering the large number of uneducated population in India who patronise TV. So television in India still continues to resist the rise of digital channels in a large way.
Company websites (83 per cent), dedicated brand web page (80 per cent) and social networking sites (68 per cent) will be the most important digital media channels to be used by marketers’, therefore establishing unique positioning will become more important in order to differentiate from competitors.
For the majority of people, the true test of health insurance is not when they purchase a policy but rather when they have to use it. Additional paperwork, approvals, and payments can add to the already stressful experience of a hospital admission. For this reason, selecting the appropriate plan is just as crucial as knowing how claims operate.
Cashless and reimbursement are the two primary methods of using mediclaim insurance while in the hospital in India. Both are valid, both are widely used, and both have advantages and limitations. The more important question is which is simpler in practice, particularly in an emergency, rather than which is “better” in theory.
To answer that fairly, it is important to look at how each process actually works inside hospitals, what challenges people face, and what kind of situations make one option smoother than the other.
What Does Cashless Treatment Really Mean in Practice?
Cashless care is often promoted as the most practical way to use health insurance, and in many cases, it truly is. Under this system, you visit a network hospital partnered with your insurer, where the hospital contacts the insurance provider on your behalf, submits your medical records, and requests approval for treatment. If the claim is approved, the insurer directly settles the covered portion of the bill with the hospital, and you only pay for non-covered expenses such as deductibles, co-payments, or room upgrades, which can be a major relief for families who may not be able to arrange large sums of money quickly.
However, cashless treatment is not always as seamless as it appears. Approval is not instant in every case, as the hospital must submit medical reports, estimated costs, and justification for the treatment. The insurer then reviews whether the illness is covered, whether waiting periods have been completed, and whether the procedure is medically necessary. As a result, there can be delays in approval, especially for planned surgeries, but once approved, cashless treatment remains financially smoother since you are not required to pay the full amount upfront.
How Does Reimbursement Actually Work on the Ground?
Reimbursement works in the opposite way, where you pay the entire hospital bill first and later claim the amount from your insurer. This option is commonly used when treatment takes place in a non-network hospital or during emergencies when immediate cashless approval is not possible. From a paperwork perspective, reimbursement requires more effort, as after discharge you must collect all documents—such as hospital bills, pharmacy receipts, diagnostic reports, discharge summary, and payment proofs—and submit them to the insurer within a specified time, usually 15 to 30 days. The insurer then reviews the claim based on your mediclaim policy terms and reimburses only the eligible amount, deducting any non-covered expenses like non-medical charges or excluded treatments.
Although this process is more demanding, it offers greater flexibility, as you are not limited to network hospitals and can choose any facility you trust, which can be especially useful in rural or smaller towns with limited network options. In sudden medical emergencies, however, most families prefer cashless treatment because it removes the need to arrange large sums of money upfront, shifting the financial burden to the insurer and hospital. That said, cashless treatment does not always work seamlessly in real emergencies—if the hospital is not part of the insurer’s network or if pre-authorisation is delayed, families may still have to pay first and later file for reimbursement. In such situations, reimbursement becomes unavoidable rather than optional, which is why experienced policyholders often say that the ease of a claim depends less on the method and more on the hospital, the insurer, and how well-prepared the family is with documentation.
Which Is the One That Has Less Paperwork?
Cashless treatment usually involves fewer documents for the patient, as most of the communication between the hospital and the insurer is handled by the hospital itself, and you mainly need to provide your policy details and ID. In contrast, reimbursement places a greater documentation burden on the policyholder, where missing or unclear documents can lead to delays or partial claim rejection, making the process feel more complex for many people. That said, some patients still prefer reimbursement because it gives them a greater sense of control over their bills and treatment decisions, rather than relying on insurer approvals within the hospital.
Which Option Works Better With Different Types of Hospitals?
Cashless treatment works best in large private hospitals that have dedicated insurance desks and strong coordination with insurers, and in metro cities, the process is usually smoother because hospital staff are familiar with health insurance claim procedures. On the other hand, reimbursement works better when treatment takes place in smaller hospitals, specialised clinics, or government facilities that may not be part of insurer networks, where cashless options may not even be available. This is why having a medical insurance plan that supports both options is important, as it provides flexibility instead of limiting you to a single rigid process.
Which One Is Financially Safer?
From a family’s perspective, cashless treatment is financially safer because you do not need to pay the entire bill upfront, which is especially important for middle-income families who may not have access to large emergency funds. In contrast, reimbursement can pose a financial risk when hospital bills are very high, as arranging the money in advance can be stressful and sometimes even require loans or support from relatives, even if the insurer eventually reimburses the amount. However, reimbursement is not inherently worse; it simply demands greater financial readiness and patience.
So Which Is Actually Easier?
The simple truth is that cashless is usually easier to use, while reimbursement tends to be more flexible. If your priority is convenience and immediate financial relief, cashless is the smoother option. On the other hand, if your priority is freedom to choose hospitals and independence from network restrictions, reimbursement may feel more practical. Ultimately, the ease of either process depends on how well you understand your mediclaim policy, how organised your documents are, and how effectively the hospital and insurer coordinate during treatment.
Why Not Make Any Claim Process Smoother?
Regardless of whether you choose cashless or reimbursement, a few key practices can make all claims easier, such as renewing your policy on time, keeping your policy details easily accessible, choosing network hospitals whenever possible, maintaining all medical records properly, and understanding the exclusions and waiting periods in your plan.
Conclusion
There is no single “perfect” claim process under health insurance. While reimbursement offers flexibility, cashless offers financial comfort. Rather than considering one of them to be always better, the approach that will be the best one is to understand both and apply them accordingly to the situation at hand.
When you have a good health insurance plan, you can easily go either way without being overly stressed. Insurance companies may also take an active part in making the cashless and reimbursement journeys easier, with the example of such insurance companies as Niva Bupa Health Insurance that focus on more open claims processes, network hospital assistance, and provide families with systematic guidance. Both operations have a chance to work, turning insurance into a support system in sad times. The bureaucratic necessity becomes a support system when families get knowledgeable and prepared and when insurance companies provide useful services.
