Business Model Innovation
Speakers who challenge how organisations create, deliver, and capture value in shifting markets
Most organisations still market and price as if customers make rational decisions. The gap between how buyers actually think and how sales, marketing and pricing teams are built to sell is where revenue leaks out, where innovation stalls on launch, and where well-funded campaigns quietly underperform. Closing that gap is a psychology problem, not a channel problem.
Founder-led brands collapse in the same places they get built: at the seam between creative authorship and capital. Most creative founders sign away control they do not understand, and discover the cost only after the work has scaled. The hard part is not making the thing. It is keeping the rights, the team, and the conviction intact long enough to do it twice.
Consumer brands keep buying reach and getting compliments. The harder problem is converting attention into shelves, repeat orders and category credibility before the moment passes. Most marketing teams can describe what worked on TikTok last week; few can explain how to build a product business that survives the spike.
Most consumer brands die in the gap between a founder’s instinct and the operational scale needed to compete. Building something distinctive is hard. Building it again, after selling, walking away, and starting from a kitchen table for the second time, is a different problem entirely. Senior teams want to know what survives that journey, and what gets left behind.
Retail strategies built on quarterly drops and full-price churn are running out of room. Consumers are shifting spend from ownership to access, and the operational economics of rental, resale and subscription look nothing like wholesale. The question for retail leaders is whether a circular model can be run at margin, not whether it should exist.
Most organisations pursuing sustainability are optimising a fundamentally flawed model of reducing the harm their products cause rather than reconceiving what those products are designed to do. The materials, manufacturing processes, and supply chains built around a linear «take-make-waste» logic were never designed with circularity in mind, and incremental efficiency gains cannot resolve that structural problem. When regulators, investors, and consumers begin demanding genuine accountability for material lifecycles, the gap between what organisations have built and what they are now being asked to demonstrate becomes strategically acute.
Design and brand instinct often sit one floor below the commercial decisions they could reshape. Leaders treat them as decoration on a strategy already set. The competitive opportunity is the reverse: businesses that let design lead the category, the customer proposition, and the physical product win share, attention, and meaning.
Most companies fall in love with their solution before they have proved the problem is worth solving. The result is launched products no one needs, growth plans that stall at the pilot stage, and innovation portfolios that consume capital without producing category leaders. Senior teams need a discipline for finding problems large enough to justify the work, and the conviction to abandon the rest.
Most organisations know what they want to look like; far fewer understand how entrepreneurs actually build a brand from nothing with limited capital and no existing market. The practical question is not a chief executive’s question. It is an operator’s: how do you negotiate supplier terms, design an experience, and finance growth when the idea is still a sketch and the competitors are ignoring it.
Most large incumbents have approved AI pilots and lost months to them without changing the underlying economics of the firm. The board wants to know which decisions actually move the cost base, which create new strategic risk, and which protect the franchise from competitors building agentic operating models. That question rarely gets a clean answer inside the existing technology function.