Author name: Shubranshu Singh

We in India are often fairly accused of irrational exuberance and premature celebration. Is the e-commerce bonanza another one such a delusion on our part? Are the valuations fed by hype? Are the business essentials geared for world leadership? ACI worldwide released a report ‘Prime Time for Real-Time’ in collaboration with GlobalData, on March 29, 2021. This covers entire year 2020 and ranks top 10 countries by Real-Time Payments Transactions. India tops the list with 25,478 million. China ranks second with 15,741 million. This is an interesting data point pointing to the development of the ecosystem as a whole. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] At present, India is witnessing a fight for dominance between the world’s foremost retailers – Walmart-Flipkart and Amazon, each with roughly one-third of the market in terms of share. Reliance Retail launched its own online retail platform last year. India has always looked askance at foreign retailers. They are prevented from selling their own goods or owning inventory. Technically, they are only marketplaces. Of course, being a son of the soil, Reliance has no restrictions and can do as it likes. With its $3.5 billion acquisition of Future retail it looks to be set for a hybrid, omni channel play. Like all other areas of digital activity, e-commerce has seen a game changing surge thanks to the disruption brought about by the Covid pandemic. Looking back, one can say Walmart timed it well when it bagged Flipkart at a humongous $16.8 billion price tag in 2018 and Amazon has grown its brand and business in admirable ways. Let us now turn to China. It is quite another mindboggling order of magnitude. Its e-commerce market is twice the size of USA, Britain, Germany, Japan and South Korea put together! China and India have the largest mobile based internet users and shoppers. In China there are a billion internet users. China has immense consumer clout given its size and numbers and the online commerce world is about a demand structure where “more is better”. Because China is so populous and is developing so quickly, it is responsible for a remarkable share of global change. India and China had a parity share of world trade through 1980s. In fact, back then, we had a lead though a marginal one. Then China took off. In the last 10 years almost half of the world’s GDP growth came from China. By Purchasing Power Parity rankings, China became the world’s number one economy way back in 2012-13. Between 2000-2010, India also saw its sharpest rise in PCI in a low inflation environment. Nowhere else in the world has Per Capita Income grown so much, so fast as in India and China over the past 30 years (1991-2021). This is why, in combination with mobile based internet access, e-commerce underwent explosive growth along with rapid consolidation.  Alibaba, JD dot com and Pinduoduo now account for more than 90% of e-commerce retail. Amazon has a share of only 38% in USA where it is numero uno. In China, e-commerce was a phenomenal pole-vaulting feat. America was a brick-and-mortar play that matured to ecommerce. In China it was e-commerce to start with. For Asians -in general-shopping online is a discovery, entertainment, a bargain value feast and a sense of community – rolled in one. The poorer they are the more they like e-commerce. They feel empowered and equal. Online platforms don’t smirk at them. Influencers, shoppers, and brands are fully involved in this heady growth. Network effects are virtuous. Discounting, in bulk, became a massive phenomenon. Platforms became community sites and providers of video entertainment. Because of the numbers involved – China now has the biggest apps. WeChat has 1.2 billion users. It has video streaming, social networking, opening, bargain deals all at one place. On China’s singles day, Alibaba – in a pre-sale of only 30 minutes – got $7.5 billion of sales. Whereas all of the e-retailers put together in India made $3 billion during the entire festive period starting from September 29 to October 4th, 2020. Pinduoduo is a social network worth $175 billion, and it enables groups to drive bargain deals with local merchants on staples and essential groceries. It is reaching revenues and valuations never seen before. In conclusion, we in India have a long way to go. There is no denying that we have what it takes to get there. We are in the race for global leadership but for that India must benchmark right, innovate for scale and think of the future. Above all, we should not be smug or deluded. We need to stay humble and hungry. http://www.businessworld.in/article/Mirror-Mirror-on-the-Wall-The-China-India-E-commerce-Comparison/15-05-2021-389792/#.YJ_eeh73WN0.twitter

Technology is an enabler, disruptor, value creator all rolled into one. The most valuable corporations in the world are young companies brought into existence and prominence by the power of internet technology. In the present world, technology appears, transforms and diffuses at ever faster rates. It impacts every aspect of life, jobs, industries, communities, the origin and wielding of power. It is even forcing us to reevaluate what it means to be human.   [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] It is estimated that the Internet of Things will comprise of 6 billion devices by 2025. All of these will be connected and monitored in real time. In such a world there is fierce inter-corporate inter-national and inter-bloc competition to gain the advantage. Proprietary technology, intellectual property, patents – these are matters of national, planetary importance. More as technology becomes the source of power, more the corporations become above the government or society. Twitter can bans a sitting US President. Facebook can ‘boycott’ a country but not the other way around. Is there any example of a better way? In my opinion it’s Wikipedia. It turned 20 years old this year. Its survival and success is a big deal This is the one flower from the field of early internet that bloomed. It is a great example of crowd wisdom, untainted by baser motivations. Open to all, written often by amateurs, it is ‘freely’ available and always evolving. It is a hope, dream and prayer, all- in-one. I go frequently to it via search. Writing this article made me aware that my familiarity has not bred any contempt. Wikipedia is vast and it needs to be as deep as it is expansive. My maternal grandfather had bought me the junior encyclopedia Britannica when I was a young boy and I had asked him if it had in it everything there is to know. He had told me “the more we know the more we realize we know very little”. He was right. Wikipedia is funded by donors, is ‘not-for-profit’ and open to us all to add to its content. Isn’t that a worthy model? No VC, PE, jealous sponsor, corrupting advertiser – there is something appealing in it. The underlying argument is that it focuses on readers and contributors. No algorithm dictates that one is more valuable than the other “customer”. Yes it is not an academically kosher source of knowledge. Scrutiny depends on subject popularity. Updating is patchy and the most referred articles get updated better.  References are often neglected. But that’s the point of “each of us needs to be a better version”. Only if we care, do things improve. No shareholder, no instant billionaire, no unicorn tag, no frenzy. Just good intent. Wikipedia began with its first edit on 15 January 2001, two days after the domain was registered by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. The Wikipedia project has grown rapidly in the course of its life, at several levels. Content has grown organically through the addition of new articles, new wikis have been added in English and non-English languages, and entire new projects replicating these growth methods in other related areas (news, quotations, reference books and so on) have been founded as well. Wikipedia itself has grown, with the creation of the ‘Wikimedia Foundation’ to act as an umbrella body and the growth of software and policies to address the needs of the editorial community. Wikipedia turned 20 years old this year. It has 53 million pages, 6.5 million articles and 310 active languages. It is amongst the most popular sites on the internet. It has many challenges like a smart evolution from desktop era design to the smartphone world. It needs to provide a ‘fact checker’ editorial structure. It needs more traction in Asia and Africa where it can be even more valuable. But it has the momentum to solve for these issues. Wikipedia is an example that tells us that a human powered, tech enabled not for profit success is not a Utopia.  We can say cheers to that! http://www.businessworld.in/article/Wikipedia-The-Utopia-That-Survived-And-Thrived/25-04-2021-387601/#.YIYiXBjq2_I.twitter

The pandemic has ensured that a new industry has rapidly come into existence which will eventually gross up to several trillion dollars of value. This is digitally enabled medicine. In the past. whenever the ‘digitization’ index for industries got put up for scrutiny – health care was usually ranked as conservative, high touch and low tech. It ranked much behind retail, entertainment, automotive, banking, etc. Healthcare remained an exception because it was privileged. Consumers went to meet physicians. Consultation was done face-to-face. Paper files were handed to patients. Metal filing cabinets in a clinic held your records. Even a doctor’s phone number was a rare data point. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] Now, faced with overwhelming disruption in the form of a pandemic every aspect of normal life is in a lockdown. However, health concerns have peaked. Consumers and healthcare providers are per force embracing remote diagnosis, internet enablement, continuous communication and data analytics. Video conferencing, tele-consultation, continuous device based reporting and computer assisted support are being made mainstream almost overnight. The entire value chain is under a high tide of digitization –including but not limited to – hospitals, medical practitioners, wellness brands, self-care apps, insurers, pharmaceutical retailers, technology majors and data processing companies. The source of much technological innovation –America- also finds that its healthcare sector is ill-equipped for such a change. It is a $3 trillion market by itself. This gives a sense of the value opportunity, globally. Sensing this opportunity, venture capital, private equity and corporate investment has flooded in throughout 2020. There are more than 100 listed unicorns (each $1 bn+ in value) in the healthcare space. Google, Amazon, Apple are all active players in this world. Google invested in AmWell, a telematic operator whose market value is in billions of dollars already. No matter the varying extent of public or private involvement, the market sees value everywhere. In China, jdHealth, the pharmacy run by jd.com made a whopping $3.5 Billion IPO in Hong Kong. The numerous data linkages and customer lifetime value is making investors salivate. A lot of lifestyle disease management – hypertension, diabetes, gut health, etc. will be managed and monitored by wearable / implanted devices reporting into a cloud. The bigger leap will happen when hospital basics can be kitted and rolled out at one’s home. It will need a lot of work on standards being defined, responsibilities being classified and contingencies being managed. Will I retain rights over my data if my watch, tooth sensor, armband, room sensor and refrigerator all report on me 24/7? Insurance – liability – settlements are another area where data management and set protocols will be severely disrupted. Will an Apple watch and Alexa replace my local physician? Will it be cheaper, faster and better scenario? Will my sensor be authorized to call an ambulance and auto invoke my insurance? There are hundreds of such questions, answering each of these links to supplementary questions. Each scenario has associated data streams and a multi stage , monetization potential . But this is most unlike a ‘pitch and start’ business adventurism. ‘Failing early’ is not an option for health startups. Partnerships, processes and moral ownership must all work, in tandem. That said, the digital healthcare industry has arrived and truly brought the future along with it. http://www.businessworld.in/article/Wellness-Healthcare-Digital-Technology-Gaining-Techceleration/11-04-2021-386227/

If the world has been displaced, can brands stay the same . Its time to plan for the inevitable shift from a ‘mass marketing model’ to a ‘brand-to-individual’ model? Recently, I was on a panel discussing the importance of culture creation by brands at a time of collective displacement in terms of lifestyles and expectations. It was debated whether a reassessment of our value system would emerge. It was my conclusion –based on experience – that the best way for brands to navigate these changes is to get closer to their consumers in their everyday lives. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] Brands are a part of culture. Some create it, others further it, while others are part of it. All brands create content but not all are able to create social impact and build culture. Cultural impact is a valid test for the greatness of a brand. Brands must have consumer orientation. If we understand displacement of the consumer, we will understand the best course for the brand to act as well. This demands intuition, active research and a lot of empathy. One only gets there by thinking, feeling and sensing. In an era of displacement, there can be a lot of untested approaches – what I would call ‘yellow flags’. Therefore it is important to guard against puffery, ineffective advertising, unempathetic fluff, vagueness and hollow calls to action. It is equally, if not more important to avoid cynicism. Therefore, in a changing world with displacement, scope is more important than scale. If the brand has value in the lives of consumers when the community is feeling this displacement, eventually it will gain scale and stand to benefit. Having a history of performance, specialization creates an advantage in terms of consumer preference. An ability to adaptively change course helps. That is what is demanded for meaningful differentiation. At their acclaimed best, brands are cultural systems. In times of flux and change, great brand creation opportunities exist. The actual market offering must make use of cultural content in the formulation of its marketing-mix. Denmark is not the same as India and they are both very different from Vietnam. Global brands must fully appreciate the cultural and social transitions to be made. Usually such understanding is systematically excluded from the insights and strategy stages with only a reliance on stereotypes proven by ‘data’. Corporate brand management enforces a top down command-and-control process that seldom has risk appetite for cultural innovation opportunities. It requires too much of an appreciation of the context. It also involves a willingness to punt – both missing as you go up the ladder where the stakes are higher. In a ‘normal’ world, the same product was for everyone. Mental and physical availability was achieved via advertising and distribution. The first goal was ‘to be famous before being liked’ and to rise above the cacophony of competing messages. Now, in an era of displacement, brands must elevate -with greater conviction-to the 1:1 model. Fundamentally, the 1:1 marketing model is not an enemy of scale. The challenge is how to figure out the full capability of tools and to know when and how to use them. Share of customer lives is as important as the share of the market. This demands a change of thinking from not only differentiating products but also differentiating customers. This brings me to my next point – Once brands reach the most relevant customers, they can connect well with them, motivate them and that is how they garner the ability to influence and lead the community as well. This allows them to build culture and at the same time, this keeps the brand at the top of the mind for consumers. Even as practising marketers, we don’t see it because the economic rationale for brand building has been given way more importance, while it’s sociological impact has been neglected. Consistency and commitment of brands is what creates culture. Those brands that achieve iconic status – are most frequently represented in popular culture and this actively grows the brand halo and leads to mythology for the brand. Brands are markers of trust, quality guarantee and community. Brands stand for a mission. And brands that stand for a culture allow you to experience a way of life or promote a way of life. If done well, every displacement will become manageable. http://www.businessworld.in/article/Brand-Bonding-In-A-Time-Of-Displacement/25-03-2021-384861/

Effie Asia Pacific is delighted to introduce Michelle Hutton, Vice Chair of Edelman Asia Pacific & CEO of Edelman Australia and Shubhranshu Singh, Global Head – Brand and Marketing at Royal Enfield as Heads of Jury for the APAC Effie Awards 2021. As a 25-year industry veteran, Hutton has built a reputation for inspiring clients to build brand trust to drive growth. She has led award winning teams and over the years she has worked with clients including Samsung, GSK, PayPal, Unilever and Kellogg. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] Based in Australia since 2019, she previously held global leadership positions for Edelman while based in London as Managing Director, Global Client Strategy, COO of Europe and Chair of the agency’s global brand business. Besides the Effies, Michelle has also served on other global creative and effectiveness juries and PR award shows in Asia, EMEA and Australia, notably as PR Jury President at the 2019 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity. Hutton is an active member of Edelman’s Global Women in Leadership program, was a founding Board Member of the Global Women in PR network and was previously a Board Director of The Communications Council in Australia serving on its Diversity and Inclusion Committee. She is also an active member of the International Women’s Forum and is an Advisory Board Member for Second Bite, one of Australia’s largest food rescue charities. “I’m honoured to be invited to be a Head of Jury this year to help select the best of the best work from our region. Never before has demonstrating the impact of marketing been so important as we all step up to steer brands through the global pandemic and beyond,” said Hutton on her appointment. Singh on the other hand, is the Global Head – Brand and Marketing at Royal Enfield. A thought leader and growth catalyst, he has two decades of global brand and category building experience on some of the most admired brands in the world, having held leadership positions in global corporations such as Unilever, Visa, Star-21 Century Fox earlier in his career. Singh has been instrumental in encouraging path-breaking work, creating much loved IPs, and inspiring large teams to go beyond. He also has the proven, rare ability to marry the worlds of cultural mainstream, storytelling, and technology rather effectively. Based in India, he is a prolific writer and writes a column for several publications particularly on brand building, consumer sociology, technology and trends. Shubhranshu expressed, “It is an honour to be a Head of Jury and see cases from across the Asia Pacific region, which is the world’s largest economic bloc as well as its biggest consumer opportunity. I look forward to judging some highly effective work by great brands and businesses. I’ve always advocated that brand and business are one and the same thing. I am excited to learn from experienced jury members and have rich interactions with them.” http://bwmarketingworld.businessworld.in/article/APAC-Effie-Awards-2021-Names-Michelle-Hutton-and-Shubhranshu-Singh-As-Heads-of-Jury/17-03-2021-384083/