Bira 91 and the lesson every entrepreneur should take away

Bira 91 was once one of India’s most talked-about startup success stories. 

Founded by Ankur Jain in 2015, the brand brought a fresh, urban, craft-beer identity to a market long dominated by conventional labels. 

It looked like a perfect founder story: a distinctive product, strong consumer appeal, investor backing, and a growing presence across bars, restaurants, and retail channels.

But the latest chapter in the Bira 91 story is a sobering one. 

Jain has stepped down from the board and executive roles of B9 Beverages as on 23 July 2026, after a settlement with lenders and investors. What began as a bold brand-building journey eventually turned into a case study in how rapid growth, weak governance, and regulatory missteps can overwhelm even a celebrated consumer brand.

The early years were all about momentum. Bira 91 tapped into a young, aspirational audience and made craft beer feel cool, modern, and accessible. 

The brand’s design language, product positioning, and retail visibility helped it stand out in a crowded market. For a while, it seemed to have cracked the code on how to build a premium beverage brand in India.

However, success also brought pressure. 

Expansion demands, high operating costs, cash burn, and a complex regulatory environment began to expose the cracks. In a heavily regulated sector like alcohol, compliance is not a side issue. 

It is the business itself. Any structural or legal change, if handled poorly, can trigger serious disruption across production, distribution, and sales.

That appears to be one of the biggest lessons from Bira 91. 

A business can have strong branding, enthusiastic investors, and consumer love, but still falter if its back-end systems are not built for scale. When cash flow tightens, salaries get delayed, employees lose confidence, and vendors start stepping back, the damage spreads quickly. 

The brand story may still shine on the outside, but the operating model begins to break down inside.

For entrepreneurs, the Bira 91 episode is especially relevant because it shows the difference between growth and durability. Growth gets attention. 

Durability keeps the business alive. Founders often focus on market excitement, funding rounds, and expansion milestones. But the real test comes in discipline: governance, compliance, working capital, and execution.

There is also a people lesson here. 

Companies do not scale on branding alone. They scale on trust. When employees, lenders, and partners begin to question leadership stability, even a strong consumer brand can lose momentum fast. 

That is why transparency and internal discipline matter as much as product innovation.

Bira 91’s story is not just about a founder’s exit. 

It is about the hard truth that many entrepreneurs learn too late: a great idea can win the market, but only a well-run company can survive it. For retail and consumer businesses, that is the real takeaway. 

Build the brand, yes. But build the system stronger.

Of Jeans, Joy and the Ghost of 501

It was one of those rare Chennai evenings — overcast, a hint of breeze, and a rare window in the calendar that allowed me to do something I genuinely love: walk into a store without a business agenda.

The Levi's store at Alwarpet was hard to miss. 

The EOSS signage was doing its job well — bold, beckoning, and promising that most magical of retail words: discount. I walked in, mildly curious, moderately optimistic.

And for a few minutes, I was genuinely delighted.

The bottoms section was a revelation. 

Buy 1 Get 1. Buy 2 Get 2. On jeans! From Levi's! In Chennai! Wow!

I have spent enough years on the shop floor to know that this kind of offer — on a brand that guards its price integrity like a fortress — doesn't come often. 

I quietly congratulated the brand for making the consumer feel genuinely valued. 

Then I asked for a 511. Or a 512. Or a 513 — slim fits, straight fits, the workhorses of the Levi's range. 

The staff member, sincere and well-meaning, began the search. It was the kind of search that took longer than it should have. Sizes were elusive. Variants were missing. After a fair bit of rummaging, what was found was a compromise at best. 

I smiled and moved on. Then came the question I already half-knew the answer to.

"Is the 501 — the button-fly, the original, the one that started it all — part of the EOSS offer?"

"Yes sir, it is."

"May I see it?"

A pause. More searching. A quiet, slightly apologetic reply: "Sorry sir, we do not have stock of size 34x32 or 34x34."

No stock.

Let me sit with that for a moment.

We are talking about the Levi's 501 — arguably the most iconic piece of clothing in the history of modern retail. A product that has been in continuous production since 1873. 

A style that doesn't need a trend cycle to justify itself. And here, at one of the more premium high streets of Chennai — right behind Boat Club Road, where the city's old money lives — it is on offer but unavailable.

Now, I won't be unkind. 

I have been in retail long enough to know that things are rarely as simple as they appear from the outside. EOSS runs hard. Inventory gets depleted fast. The supply chain between the brand, the franchise partner, and the store has its own rhythm and its own fault lines.

But here is the question worth asking, gently and professionally: whose watch did this fall through?

Is it a systemic gap in assortment planning — where the range was built for a different consumer profile and the 501 was simply never adequately stocked? 

Is the franchise partner operating on autopilot, reordering what sold last season without studying what the consumer at this location is actually asking for? 

Or did the Area Manager, during his last visit, not flag the absence of the hero product during the brand's biggest sales event of the year?

Any one of these, or all three together, is a merchandising failure. Not a catastrophic one. But a telling one.

Back in the day, I had deployed the assortment solution for Indian Terrain during Q2 & Q3 FY 23 — a brand I have had the privilege of working closely with, and one that has built a fiercely loyal following among the Indian male consumer — this precise gap was something we encountered and addressed head-on. 

The Brooklyn fit trousers, Indian Terrain's most versatile and consistently fast-moving bottom, along with Chinese collar shirts, Linen shirts of various colours, among other SKUs are the kind of styles and fabrics that a consumer walks in asking for by name — in his size, in his preferred wash, without negotiation. 

Ensuring that the Brooklyn — the fit that anchors the brand's bottomswear identity — was present in full size depth, across washes, at every door before a major festival season and / or the EOSS was treated as non-negotiable. 

Years later, I created the KAVACCH™ framework for brands which maps the alignment between consumer demand patterns and in-store assortment readiness — particularly ahead of high-velocity sale periods, when footfalls spike but the consumer's patience for "not available" is at its absolute lowest.

A consumer who walks in for that fit and leaves empty-handed does not just represent a lost transaction. He represents a quiet, invisible crack in the brand promise.

Levi's is a great brand. The store team at Alwarpet was warm and helpful. The EOSS offer was genuinely attractive.

But the 501 deserved to be on that shelf. It still does.

Footnote: My love affair with Levis is 32 years old.

Back in the year 1998, I got my first Levis. It was a 501. I had earned it, rather. I used to work as a waiter at the Baskin Robbins store in Chennai part time from 11am to 3pm, before attending college at 4pm, to scoop ice-cream and had paid it all by myself, around INR 650 or so from the exclusive store at Spencers Plaza.

Btw, for the last 3 decades and more, I have never worn any other denims other than Levis. I swear! Not just for the fits, but for the sheer pleasure of wearing it.

Beyond the Blueprint: Solving the "Dead Donkey Syndrome" in Family Enterprises

In the world of professional Strategy Advisory and Consulting, we often encounter a poignant, if dark, business parable known as the "Dead Donkey Syndrome." 

It describes a situation where an organization clings to a failing legacy - ”a dead donkey” - pouring resources into its upkeep, while ignoring the vibrant potential of a new path. 

However, there is a secondary, perhaps more subtle manifestation of this syndrome: the refusal to let go of the status quo even when a clear, revitalizing roadmap for transformation has been presented.

Consultants are often brought in to act as architects of change. 

We spend months analyzing market data, stress-testing operational models, and blueprinting ambitious futures - like transforming a sprawling multi-acre commercial asset into a multi-faceted ecosystem of retail, entertainment, and hospitality. 

We envision the footfalls, the synergy of integrated amenities, and the long-term sustainability that comes from a diversified property portfolio. 

Yet, time and again, we witness these grand strategies stall before they ever leave the boardroom.

Why does this happen? 

The answer rarely lies in the quality of the strategy itself. Instead, it is rooted in the complex dynamics of ownership - particularly in multi-partner or family-led enterprises.

When a business is governed by multiple stakeholders, the "Dead Donkey Syndrome" takes on a human dimension. 

Each stakeholder brings their own risk tolerance, their own emotional attachment to the "way things were," and their own interpretations of the future. 

A professional roadmap, no matter how data-backed or visionary, is inherently disruptive. It demands movement, and for many established businesses, movement feels like a threat to the delicate internal balance of power.

This creates a paradox of paralysis. 

The owners recognize the need for change - they wouldn't seek external counsel if they were entirely satisfied with the status quo - but the inertia of consensus-building is a powerful anchor.

They find themselves in a state of "strategic limbo" where they intellectually agree that a transformation is necessary, but emotionally and operationally, they are unable to commit to the execution phase.

They remain trapped in the comfort of the familiar. 

They continue to feed the "dead donkey" of legacy operations, hoping it will miraculously sprint, rather than embracing the hard work of building a new, agile entity.

For the consultant, this is a profound lesson in the limitations of expertise. 

Strategy is not just about the "what" or the "how"; it is entirely dependent on the "will". 

Without the unified, unwavering commitment of the decision-makers to prioritize the long-term vision over short-term inertia, even the most transformative blueprints become nothing more than intellectual artifacts.

Reviving a business requires more than a plan; it requires the courage to bury the past and the collective discipline to execute a new reality. 

Until that threshold of commitment is crossed, the strategy remains a silent witness to a future that could have been, but was never given the chance to breathe.