The Financial Brand: “Consumers are drowning in nearly indistinguishable offers, a reality my guest on Banking Transformed, Laura Ries, calls out in her newest book, “The Strategic Enemy: How to Build and Position a Brand Worth Fighting For”. Her antidote is intentionally counterintuitive: stop trying to be “better,” and instead become unmistakably different by defining, and then defeating, a single, visible foe. Ries argues that when brands rally around an “enemy,” and reinforce the fight with a memorable “visual hammer,” they earn a permanent slot in the customer’s mind.” More: “A strategic enemy is strategic in terms of it’s very important in your strategy. It’s always important to understand the enemy. But like I said, there’s many, but you want to pick that one. And the most important thing is you want to show what the contrast is.”
ET on Balaji Wafers: “The company, which started as a supplier of snacks at a movie theatre four decades ago, has seen its sales more than double since the pandemic. The Balaji model is essentially based on offering products 20-30% cheaper than national brands and ensuring steady volumes through economies of scale. It also controls almost every bit of operations with a large chunk of manufacturing on its own through its four factories and hardly any advertising and promotion. Most FMCG makers spend anywhere between 8-12% of their annual sales on A&P, but for Balaji, the A&P cost is miniscule…Chandubhai Virani, who cofounded Balaji with his two brothers Bhikubhai and Kanubhai in 1982, had told ET in 2023, “We don’t compete on pricing as our products are significantly cheaper than rivals. We don’t even have a sales target and just chase demand for high quality and affordably priced products.”…The company reported revenue of Rs 5,453.7 crore in FY24, a 11% increase. Profit after tax grew 41% to Rs 578.8 crore, according to the company’s filings.”
NYTimes: “I spoke with one of the most thoughtful, Joseph H. Davis, global chief economist of Vanguard, the giant asset management company. He has written a new book, “Coming Into View: How A.I. and Other Megatrends Will Shape Your Investments.” It takes a decades-long perspective. At its core is Vanguard’s proprietary model, which estimates a range of potential outcomes in what Mr. Davis calls a tug of war between artificial intelligence and an aging society. In a nutshell, Vanguard projects two main possibilities: (1) Technological breakthroughs, including but not limited to A.I., create a thorough revolution in productivity, transforming “how we do our jobs, driving faster growth and improved standards of living.” The company estimates a 45 to 50 percent chance that this will happen. (2) A.I. will be disappointing and won’t outweigh negative trends like rising fiscal deficits and an aging population. This version of reality will be characterized by inflation and economic stagnation. Vanguard assigns this outcome a 35 to 45 percent probability…“There are two paths,” Mr. Davis told me, “but only one’s going to play out.” Classic diversification, plus a tilt toward beaten-down value stocks, can protect you, even if A.I. is spectacularly successful, he said. “You don’t have to pick sides, you don’t have to be a hero,” he said.”
FT: “In How Progress Ends, Carl Benedikt Frey offers a detailed and compelling account of how entrepreneurial, institutional and cultural forces have shaped periods of technological advance and stagnation across the world. In doing so, Frey, an economist and economic historian, draws timely lessons for today’s policymakers as the race for supremacy in artificial intelligence and green technology continues. History, he shows, has long revolved around a binary debate: the need for a strong state to guide industrial development versus the role of the free market. That simple discourse continues today. But Frey adds important nuance. He highlights how the degree of economic decentralisation influences different stages of innovation. “Centralized bureaucratic management is most advantageous for exploiting low-hanging technological fruit and spearheading technological catch-up,” he writes. “Decentralized systems are better for exploring new technological trajectories.””
