Business Strategy & Growth
Strategists, economists and entrepreneurs who help organisations identify opportunity and execute with conviction
Building brand value in Asia is not a translation problem. It is a strategy problem that asks Western playbooks to do work they were never designed for, and asks family-controlled businesses to professionalise without losing what made them defensible in the first place. Most boards underestimate how much of that distance is leadership work, not marketing work.
Most consumer businesses try to grow by cutting price, and most acquisitions destroy value instead of creating it. Owners and operating teams know the experience they sell is what customers actually pay for, but struggle to build an operating model that protects it at scale. The question is how to grow a multi-brand business through acquisition without losing the thing that made each brand worth buying.
Most organisations treat customer experience as a service function that reacts to complaints, surveys and churn. The work that drives loyalty, retention and pricing power happens earlier, in the design of the journey itself, and most leadership teams do not own it. The gap between stated customer-centricity and the operating model that would deliver it is where revenue quietly leaks.
Most founder and scale-up content is told by people whose biggest exit was a Series C round. Senior leaders who want a credible voice on building a category-creating consumer brand, surviving years of investor and retailer rejection, and selling to a global strategic for a number that moves the parent company’s results, have a very small shortlist. Authenticity and self-belief sound like soft topics until a founder has to convince a buyer at QVC, on camera, that the product actually works.
Most negotiation training teaches tactics, then leaves people to apply them in conditions where their own anxiety overrides the playbook. Senior commercial teams know the patterns: rushed concessions, defensive pricing, value left on the table at the close. The gap is not knowledge. It is what happens to skilled people when the stakes get real.
Boards now make commercial decisions inside a state-shaped landscape. Sanctions, export controls, AI rivalry and severed supply corridors are no longer background context, they are the terms on which growth, capital allocation and market access are negotiated. Most leadership teams have no internal capability to read these moves before they become balance-sheet events.
Most large consumer-facing organisations claim to be customer-led and operate as the opposite. Functions are measured on volume, conversion and cost, while the lived customer experience falls between them. Boards then ask why loyalty is eroding and acquisition costs keep climbing.
Most large organisations admire start-ups and fail to learn from them. The instincts that produce growth in a small team get diluted by process the moment a company tries to scale, and boards rarely hear the founder view in language they can act on. The harder question is what executive teams should actually copy, and what they should leave alone.
Customer attention has fragmented and the playbook for winning it has not caught up. Marketing teams are asked to defend brand share while also driving short-term revenue, often inside organisations that are restructuring or scaling at speed. The leaders who navigate this well share a habit: they hold the customer view steady while the operating model around them changes.
Senior leaders inherit organisations that need to change, then find the culture quietly resisting them. The hardest part is not the strategy. It is convincing risk-averse teams that the bigger risk is standing still, and giving them the licence to act on it.
Western brands keep treating international ecommerce as a translation problem. It is a channel problem, a payments problem and an ecosystem problem, and the platforms that win in China, the Gulf and Africa are not the ones that win in Europe. Leaders need to decide which marketplaces to build on, which to resist, and how to price the trade-off between reach and dependency.
Boards built their strategies on assumptions that no longer hold: open markets, cheap energy, predictable supply chains, and a US-led security umbrella. Sanctions, export controls, industrial policy and armed conflict now price into quarterly numbers, not just long-term scenarios. The question is no longer whether to factor geopolitics into strategy, but how to do it without freezing decisions or chasing every headline.