How do I prevent ghost promoters in my mall activation campaigns in 2026?
2 min read
The India BTL Fraud Index 2026: city-by-city rankings of execution accountability
The first annual ranking of India's BTL execution accountability across 30 cities, 16 mediums, and 12 industries. Built on the gOGig platform's verified submission dataset. The reference document for every BTL story published in 2026.
India BTL Fraud Index 2026
Cities ranked by Execution Accountability Score. Higher score = lower anomaly rate, higher verification integrity, lower fraud exposure.
30Cities ranked
16Mediums ranked
12Industries ranked
22,500+Submissions analysed
For the first time in Indian marketing, BTL execution accountability has been quantified at the city level. The Index reveals which Indian cities verify what they spend, and which cities still operate on photo proofs and self-reported execution.
Methodology in five steps
Sample
22,500+ field submissions analysed between October 2025 and April 2026 across the gOGig platform. Stratified across 30 cities representing tier-1 metros, tier-2 cities, and tier-3 hubs. Covers 16 BTL mediums and 12 industries.
Verification dimensions
Each submission evaluated across 9 dimensions: GPS integrity, EXIF metadata, server-side timestamp, mock-location flag, image fingerprint uniqueness, accelerometer cross-check, geo-fence violations, clustering anomaly, and image quality.
Execution Accountability Score
100-point scale. Higher score = lower anomaly rate, higher verification integrity. Calculated as: 100 - (weighted anomaly rate x 100), with weighting by anomaly severity.
Tier classification
Cities classified into 5 tiers: A+ (90–100), A (80–89), B (70–79), C (60–69), D (below 60). Cuts are based on natural breaks in the underlying distribution.
Anonymisation
All findings reported by city, medium, and industry in aggregate. No individual brand, agency, or vendor is identifiable. This is a research publication, not an audit disclosure.
The headline ranking: India BTL Fraud Index 2026
| Rank | City | Accountability Score | Anomaly Rate | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mumbai | 88.6 | 11.4% | A |
| 2 | Bangalore | 87.9 | 12.1% | A |
| 3 | Delhi NCR | 86.3 | 13.7% | A |
| 4 | Hyderabad | 85.7 | 14.3% | A |
| 5 | Pune | 84.8 | 15.2% | A |
| 6 | Chennai | 84.2 | 15.8% | A |
| 7 | Kolkata | 83.4 | 16.6% | A |
| 8 | Ahmedabad | 82.6 | 17.4% | A |
| 9 | Chandigarh | 81.1 | 18.9% | A |
| 10 | Coimbatore | 80.4 | 19.6% | A |
| 11 | Surat | 79.2 | 20.8% | B |
| 12 | Gurgaon | 78.7 | 21.3% | B |
| 13 | Noida | 78.1 | 21.9% | B |
| 14 | Jaipur | 77.5 | 22.5% | B |
| 15 | Indore | 76.4 | 23.6% | B |
| 16 | Vadodara | 75.8 | 24.2% | B |
| 17 | Lucknow | 74.7 | 25.3% | B |
| 18 | Nagpur | 73.9 | 26.1% | B |
| 19 | Kochi | 73.2 | 26.8% | B |
| 20 | Visakhapatnam | 72.6 | 27.4% | B |
| 21 | Bhopal | 71.4 | 28.6% | B |
| 22 | Trichy | 70.8 | 29.2% | B |
| 23 | Patna | 68.9 | 31.1% | C |
| 24 | Kanpur | 67.6 | 32.4% | C |
| 25 | Ranchi | 66.5 | 33.5% | C |
| 26 | Raipur | 65.8 | 34.2% | C |
| 27 | Guwahati | 64.7 | 35.3% | C |
| 28 | Bhubaneswar | 63.5 | 36.5% | C |
| 29 | Varanasi | 61.8 | 38.2% | C |
| 30 | Agartala | 59.4 | 40.6% | D |
A 29.2-point spread separates the top-ranked city (Mumbai 88.6) from the lowest-ranked city (Agartala 59.4). Indian BTL execution accountability is not uniform - it is geographically structural.
Tier breakdown of the 30 cities
Tier A+ (Score 90–100, exemplary accountability): None of the 30 cities reached this tier in 2026. The bar for A+ is set deliberately high to leave room for improvement as the category matures.
Tier A (Score 80–89, strong accountability): 10 cities. Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad, Pune, Chennai, Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Coimbatore. Combined share of platform submissions: 51%.
Tier B (Score 70–79, building accountability): 12 cities including Surat, Gurgaon, Noida, Jaipur, Indore, Vadodara, Lucknow, Nagpur, Kochi, Visakhapatnam, Bhopal, Trichy. Combined share of platform submissions: 32%.
Tier C (Score 60–69, weak accountability): 7 cities including Patna, Kanpur, Ranchi, Raipur, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Varanasi. Combined share of platform submissions: 14%.
Tier D (Score below 60, poor accountability): 1 city (Agartala). Reflects very limited supervision density and significant rural BTL exposure. Combined share of platform submissions: 3%.
Regional accountability patterns
| Region | Cities | Average score | Average anomaly rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| West India | Mumbai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Indore, Bhopal, Nagpur | 79.3 | 20.7% |
| South India | Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Coimbatore, Kochi, Visakhapatnam, Trichy | 78.4 | 21.6% |
| North India | Delhi NCR, Gurgaon, Noida, Chandigarh, Jaipur, Lucknow, Kanpur, Varanasi | 74.4 | 25.6% |
| East & Northeast India | Kolkata, Patna, Ranchi, Raipur, Guwahati, Bhubaneswar, Agartala | 67.8 | 32.2% |
Regional spread highlights
West IndiaBest performing region
East & NE IndiaLowest performing region
11.5 pointsRegional spread
Profile cards: top 5 cities
Mumbai -- Rank 1
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 88.6 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 11.4% |
| Sample size | 3,540 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Visual merchandising, retail audits |
| Driver of strong score | High supervisor density, mature agency ecosystem, organised retail concentration |
| Top fraud risk | Manual reporting manipulation in promoter activations |
Bangalore -- Rank 2
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 87.9 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 12.1% |
| Sample size | 3,350 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Mall activations, technology sector field force |
| Driver of strong score | Tech-enabled vendors, high digital infrastructure, structured procurement |
| Top fraud risk | Lead generation fabrication at IT-park activations |
Delhi NCR -- Rank 3
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 86.3 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 13.7% |
| Sample size | 3,120 submissions |
| Dominant medium | OOH hoardings, transit branding, large-scale activations |
| Driver of strong score | Concentration of large enterprises and ad spend |
| Top fraud risk | OOH proof recycling across Gurgaon-Noida-Delhi triangle |
Hyderabad -- Rank 4
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 85.7 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 14.3% |
| Sample size | 2,070 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Pharma field force, retail visibility |
| Driver of strong score | Pharma cluster discipline, structured retail audits |
| Top fraud risk | Medical representative DCR manipulation |
Pune -- Rank 5
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 84.8 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 15.2% |
| Sample size | 1,890 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Auto sector dealer branding, residential society activations |
| Driver of strong score | Manufacturing belt visibility discipline |
| Top fraud risk | Wall painting recycled proofs in Pune-Nashik corridor |
Profile cards: bottom 5 cities
Agartala -- Rank 30
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 59.4 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 40.6% |
| Sample size | 385 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Wall painting, rural BTL activations |
| Driver of weak score | Sparse supervision, remote geography, limited verification history |
| Top fraud risk | Proof recycling and route deviation in mobile van campaigns |
Varanasi -- Rank 29
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 61.8 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 38.2% |
| Sample size | 450 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Religious tourism activations, FMCG retail |
| Driver of weak score | Fragmented vendor pool, low digital literacy in field force |
| Top fraud risk | Ghost retail coverage in semi-urban distribution |
Bhubaneswar -- Rank 28
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 63.5 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 36.5% |
| Sample size | 485 submissions |
| Dominant medium | FMCG general trade, OOH hoardings |
| Driver of weak score | Tier-2 transition still in progress, manual reporting dominant |
| Top fraud risk | Duplicate retailer onboarding in coastal distribution |
Guwahati -- Rank 27
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 64.7 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 35.3% |
| Sample size | 420 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Northeast distribution hub, retail audits |
| Driver of weak score | Geographic dispersion across NE states, limited verification baseline |
| Top fraud risk | Field force productivity leakage on multi-state routes |
Raipur -- Rank 26
| Metric | Detail |
|---|---|
| Accountability Score | 65.8 / 100 |
| Anomaly Rate | 34.2% |
| Sample size | 510 submissions |
| Dominant medium | Cement and paint BTL, rural extension activations |
| Driver of weak score | Distributor-dominated supply chains, sparse audit infrastructure |
| Top fraud risk | Wall painting proof recycling in semi-rural belt |
Download the India BTL Fraud Index 2026.
Sixty-page PDF with all 30 city profiles, all 16 medium rankings, all 12 industry rankings, methodology disclosure, and forward-looking trends. Free for industry research, press, brand teams, and investors.
Download the Index report →Cities by tier classification
| Tier A (10 cities) | Tier B (12 cities) | Tier C (7 cities) | Tier D (1 city) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mumbai | Surat | Patna | Agartala |
| Bangalore | Gurgaon | Kanpur | |
| Delhi NCR | Noida | Ranchi | |
| Hyderabad | Jaipur | Raipur | |
| Pune | Indore | Guwahati | |
| Chennai | Vadodara | Bhubaneswar | |
| Kolkata | Lucknow | Varanasi | |
| Ahmedabad | Nagpur | ||
| Chandigarh | Kochi | ||
| Coimbatore | Visakhapatnam | ||
| Bhopal | |||
| Trichy |
The medium ranking: 16 BTL formats by accountability
| Rank | Medium | Accountability Score | Anomaly Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bus & cab branding | 87.9 | 12.1% |
| 2 | Shop name boards | 85.5 | 14.5% |
| 3 | Visual merchandising | 83.8 | 16.2% |
| 4 | Vendor work completion | 83.2 | 16.8% |
| 5 | Pole boards | 82.1 | 17.9% |
| 6 | Wall painting | 81.6 | 18.4% |
| 7 | Technician verification | 81.2 | 18.8% |
| 8 | OOH hoardings | 80.4 | 19.6% |
| 9 | Retail visibility audits | 80.3 | 19.7% |
| 10 | RWA / society activation | 78.6 | 21.4% |
| 11 | Auto rickshaw branding | 78.1 | 21.9% |
| 12 | Sampling drives | 75.9 | 24.1% |
| 13 | Mobile van & roadshow | 73.5 | 26.5% |
| 14 | Promoter activations | 72.2 | 27.8% |
| 15 | Field sales visits | 65.8 | 34.2% |
| 16 | Lead generation activation | 62.4 | 37.6% |
Most accountable mediums (top 5)
| Medium | Why it ranks high |
|---|---|
| Bus & cab branding | Vehicle ID makes duplication detection straightforward |
| Shop name boards | Outlet-level photo verifiability with before/after |
| Visual merchandising | Outlet-level photo + compliance checklist combination |
| Vendor work completion | Multi-checkpoint workflow reduces single-point manipulation |
| Pole boards | Geographic discreteness limits cluster-style fraud |
Least accountable mediums (bottom 5)
| Medium | Why it ranks low |
|---|---|
| Lead generation activation | Lead validity inherently hard to verify, fabrication common |
| Field sales visits | Executor = reporter, GPS spoofing common, supervision sparse |
| Promoter activations | Duration manipulation, fake attendance, idle time inflation |
| Mobile van & roadshow | Route deviation common, geographic scope creates oversight gaps |
| Sampling drives | Stock movement difficult to track per unit at scale |
The industry ranking: 12 industries by accountability
| Rank | Industry | Accountability Score | Anomaly Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BFSI (banks, NBFCs, insurance) | 86.4 | 13.6% |
| 2 | Information Technology & ITES | 85.2 | 14.8% |
| 3 | Telecom & consumer durables | 83.7 | 16.3% |
| 4 | FMCG (modern trade focus) | 82.5 | 17.5% |
| 5 | Pharma | 81.8 | 18.2% |
| 6 | Auto & 2-wheeler | 79.4 | 20.6% |
| 7 | QSR & multi-outlet retail | 78.7 | 21.3% |
| 8 | FMCG (general trade focus) | 76.2 | 23.8% |
| 9 | Edtech | 74.5 | 25.5% |
| 10 | Real estate & construction | 72.8 | 27.2% |
| 11 | Cement & paint | 69.4 | 30.6% |
| 12 | D2C brands | 67.9 | 32.1% |
Why BFSI leads industry rankings
| Driver | Impact on score |
|---|---|
| Internal audit team strength | Highest in any sector |
| Regulatory compliance culture | RBI / IRDAI / SEBI oversight extends to vendor relationships |
| Procurement governance maturity | 3-way matching applied across categories |
| CFO engagement on marketing | Highest among industries |
| BRSR Core readiness | Most listed entities, earliest mover |
Why D2C brands rank lowest
| Driver | Impact on score |
|---|---|
| Lean teams | Limited bandwidth for verification |
| Recent entry to BTL | No legacy verification infrastructure |
| Fragmented vendor mix | Multiple small agencies, no standardised governance |
| Heavy promoter dependence | Format with second-lowest accountability |
| Cash-burn culture | Verification often deprioritised |
Cross-section: best city x medium combinations
| City | Best-performing medium | Medium-specific score |
|---|---|---|
| Mumbai | Visual merchandising | 92.4 |
| Bangalore | Shop name boards | 91.2 |
| Delhi NCR | OOH hoardings | 89.8 |
| Hyderabad | Technician verification | 89.3 |
| Pune | Bus & cab branding | 91.6 |
| Chennai | Retail visibility audits | 88.5 |
| Kolkata | Pole boards | 86.7 |
| Ahmedabad | Wall painting | 85.4 |
Cross-section: worst city x medium combinations
| City | Worst-performing medium | Medium-specific score |
|---|---|---|
| Agartala | Mobile van routes | 47.3 |
| Varanasi | Lead generation | 51.6 |
| Patna | Field sales visits | 53.4 |
| Bhubaneswar | Promoter activations | 55.7 |
| Guwahati | Sampling drives | 57.2 |
| Ranchi | Wall painting | 58.1 |
| Raipur | Mobile van routes | 58.9 |
| Kanpur | Field sales visits | 59.6 |
Cross-section: industry x city heatmap
| Industry | Mumbai | Bangalore | Delhi NCR | Pune | Patna |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BFSI | 91.2 | 90.8 | 89.4 | 87.5 | 71.4 |
| IT & ITES | 88.4 | 92.1 | 87.3 | 89.6 | 69.8 |
| Telecom & durables | 87.9 | 87.3 | 85.7 | 84.2 | 67.5 |
| FMCG (modern trade) | 86.5 | 85.4 | 84.1 | 83.7 | 66.2 |
| Pharma | 85.8 | 84.7 | 84.2 | 83.1 | 72.1 |
| Auto & 2-wheeler | 83.6 | 83.2 | 82.5 | 87.4 | 68.5 |
| FMCG (general trade) | 81.4 | 80.3 | 78.9 | 78.2 | 62.3 |
| D2C brands | 76.2 | 78.5 | 74.1 | 72.8 | 58.6 |
Cities sorted by sample size
| City | Submissions analysed | Share of dataset |
|---|---|---|
| Mumbai | 3,540 | 15.7% |
| Bangalore | 3,350 | 14.9% |
| Delhi NCR (incl. Gurgaon, Noida) | 3,120 | 13.9% |
| Hyderabad | 2,070 | 9.2% |
| Pune | 1,890 | 8.4% |
| Chennai | 1,690 | 7.5% |
| Kolkata | 1,345 | 6.0% |
| Ahmedabad | 1,310 | 5.8% |
| Other tier-1 (Chandigarh, Coimbatore) | 945 | 4.2% |
| Tier-2 cluster (Surat, Jaipur, Indore, etc.) | 1,820 | 8.1% |
| Tier-3 cluster (Patna, Ranchi, Raipur, etc.) | 1,420 | 6.3% |
Most common anomaly type by city tier
| City tier | Most common anomaly | Share of anomalies |
|---|---|---|
| Tier-A (10 cities) | WhatsApp metadata-stripped submissions | 32% |
| Tier-B (12 cities) | Recycled photo / image hash duplicate | 28% |
| Tier-C (7 cities) | GPS spoofing / mock-location apps | 34% |
| Tier-D (1 city) | Route deviation in mobile van | 41% |
Industry-specific accountability findings
| Industry | Top accountability strength | Top accountability weakness |
|---|---|---|
| BFSI | Internal audit oversight strong | Lead generation fabrication at branch events |
| IT & ITES | Tech-savvy procurement | Limited BTL volume creates control gaps |
| Telecom & durables | Dealer-level structured audits | Mall promoter idle time |
| FMCG (modern trade) | Photo-verifiable shelf execution | Quick-commerce dark store coverage gaps |
| Pharma | MR call reporting structure | Doctor visit timestamp manipulation |
| Auto & 2-wheeler | Dealership branding control | RWA activation duplicate submissions |
| FMCG (general trade) | Distributor network maturity | Ghost retail coverage in tier-3 distribution |
| D2C brands | Digital-first measurement instinct | BTL infrastructure under-developed |
Anomaly types ranked by frequency in 2026
| Anomaly type | % of flagged submissions |
|---|---|
| GPS coordinate mismatch with EXIF | 13.1% |
| Server timestamp deviation | 12.3% |
| Mock-location app active | 7.4% |
| Image fingerprint duplicate | 6.6% |
| Accelerometer inconsistency | 6.1% |
| Geo-fence violation | 5.2% |
| Clustering anomaly | 4.5% |
| Quantity mismatch | 3.7% |
| Image quality below threshold | 3.3% |
| Sequence anomaly | 2.8% |
Year-on-year forecast for the 2027 Index
| City | 2026 Score | 2027 Forecast | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mumbai | 88.6 | 91–93 | Rising (PBP adoption) |
| Bangalore | 87.9 | 91–93 | Rising (tech adoption) |
| Delhi NCR | 86.3 | 89–91 | Rising (enterprise BRSR pressure) |
| Hyderabad | 85.7 | 88–90 | Rising (pharma cluster) |
| Pune | 84.8 | 87–89 | Rising |
| Ahmedabad | 82.6 | 83–85 | Steady (ghost retail correction in progress) |
| Patna | 68.9 | 72–74 | Rising (tier-3 catch-up cycle) |
| Agartala | 59.4 | 62–65 | Slowly rising |
Expected new entrants to the 2027 Index
| Expected entrant city | Region | Reason for inclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Vijayawada | Andhra Pradesh | Rising distribution hub |
| Madurai | Tamil Nadu | Tier-2 retail growth |
| Ludhiana | Punjab | Manufacturing belt |
| Mangalore | Karnataka | Coastal trade hub |
| Dehradun | Uttarakhand | State capital activity |
| Mysore | Karnataka | FMCG hub |
| Nashik | Maharashtra | Agro-FMCG hub |
| Aurangabad | Maharashtra | Industrial activation cluster |
Citation guidance for press, research, and analyst use
All findings are free to cite for press, research, and analyst use. Cite the report title, sample size, and analysis window. Full PDF download includes raw tables for downloadable use.
| Citation requirement | Format |
|---|---|
| Report name | "India BTL Fraud Index 2026" |
| Publisher | gOGig Labs |
| Sample size | 22,500+ submissions |
| Analysis window | October 2025 to April 2026 |
| Methodology | 9-dimension verification engine, conservatively tuned, 1.4% false positive rate |
| Anonymisation | City, medium, industry-level aggregation only |
| Update frequency | Annual (next: 2027 Index in May 2027) |
| Source format | "gOGig Labs India BTL Fraud Index 2026" |
What the 2026 Index tells us about India
| Theme | Quantified insight |
|---|---|
| Geographic accountability divergence | 29.2 points between Mumbai and Agartala |
| Format accountability divergence | 25.5 points between Bus & cab branding (best) and Lead generation (worst) |
| Industry accountability divergence | 18.5 points between BFSI (best) and D2C (worst) |
| Regional pattern strength | 11.5 points between West India (best) and East & NE India (worst) |
| Best city x medium combination | Mumbai visual merchandising (92.4) |
| Worst city x medium combination | Agartala mobile van routes (47.3) |
| Largest year-on-year forecast gain | Bangalore, Mumbai (+3 to 4 points) |
| Most accountable industry | BFSI (86.4) |
| Most accountable medium | Bus & cab branding (87.9) |
| Most accountable city | Mumbai (88.6) |
The India BTL Fraud Index 2026 is not about which city is "bad." It is about where verification infrastructure has reached, and where it has not. Every laggard city is an investable opportunity for the next decade.
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Glossary
India BTL Fraud IndexAnnual ranking published by gOGig Labs measuring execution accountability across Indian cities, mediums, and industries. First published 2026.
Execution Accountability Score100-point measure of verification integrity for a city, medium, or industry. Higher = lower anomaly rate, more reliable proof, stronger procurement controls.
Anomaly ratePercentage of submissions failing one or more verification checks. Inverse-correlated with Accountability Score.
Tier classificationA+ (90–100), A (80–89), B (70–79), C (60–69), D (below 60). Used to group cities, mediums, or industries into accountability bands.
Field Execution IntelligenceThe category of verification platforms that produces the dataset for the Index. WhatsApp-native capture, AI-verified at submission.
Blind TrustOperating standard the Index measures against. Paying for on-ground work based on the executor's self-report.
Ground TruthWhat actually happened on the ground, independently verified. The reference state the Accountability Score moves cities toward.
Proof Before PaymentProcurement clause tying invoice approval to verified execution. The mechanism by which Index scores improve year-on-year.
BRSR CoreSEBI sustainability reporting framework. Drives audit-grade verification adoption, accelerating Index improvement among listed companies.
Verification dimensionsNine independent checks applied to each submission: GPS, EXIF, timestamp, mock-location, image fingerprint, accelerometer, geo-fence, clustering, image quality.
Sample weightingMethodology decision to not over-weight high-fraud submission types. Headline scores reflect natural mix on platform.
False positive rate1.4%. The platform's verification engine flags fewer authentic submissions as anomalous than competing approaches.
Download the India BTL Fraud Index 2026
Sixty-page PDF. All 30 city profiles. All 16 medium rankings. All 12 industry rankings. Full methodology. Forward-looking trends. Free for industry research, press, brand teams, and investors.
30
Cities ranked
16
Mediums ranked
12
Industries ranked
Written by
G
gOGig Editorial
Was this article helpful?
Your feedback helps us write better content.
