As individuals spend more time indoors, online streaming continues to thrive. Global over-the-top (OTT) media services have seen their subscriber numbers surge in the last number of weeks, with Netflix proudly declaring that they had 16 million new sign-ups in the first three months of the year as audiences continued to look online for entertainment.

Though we can’t share numbers, many of our own customers have also seen a marked increase in subscriptions and active users in the past few months.

However, the reality is that pre-pandemic, there was already a massive surge in streaming across Southeast Asia. As users continue to cut the cord, many anticipate a rise in consumption and revenue over the next few years from over-the-top (OTT) media services.

A report by Dataxis predicted that Southeast Asia would grow to 6.2 million subscribers by 2022 — and there’s no doubt that we are right on track!

During the economic downturn, digital service providers will be exploring how they can innovate and increase their revenue. But from the perspective of their customers, it is the relationship with their provider that holds the keys to everything.

Genuinely engaging with consumers to help them manage and subscribe to new services without being invasive requires excellent diplomacy.

However, digital service providers are surrounded by innovation. Replacing a legacy mindset with a new approach focussed on delivering value to customers can provide the elusive game-changer moment. For example, flexible merchandising and monetising through capabilities such as bundling and promotions can help both upselling and cross-sell capabilities.

Also Read: One billion downloads later, Amanotes is optimistic about the future of non-streaming music platform

Preparing for an age of uncertainty

The internet has offered viewers a lifeline during the global pandemic we are currently facing. Traditional TV has been replaced by on-demand entertainment where we can stream or download our favourite content for later viewing. But there is no room for complacency.

As OTT streaming services in Asia soon begin to lose their captive audience to the great outdoors, they will need to remain vigilant in these uncertain times and future-proof themselves for what lies ahead.

In addition to this, global players such as Amazon, Netflix, Apple, and Disney are flexing their virtual muscles and utilising their resources to compete to stay on top. As competition throughout the region continues to intensify, many predict that the consolidation which crippled the traditional cable distribution model will soon come to OTT services too.

Pitfalls to avoid during the pandemic

As streaming services were offered an opportunity to capitalise on increases in subscribers during country lockdowns, OTT platforms across Asia will inevitably be faced with profitability challenges in an increasingly crowded market.

We know that COVID-19 will pass, it’s only a matter of time, and when that does happen it will be critical for these platforms to keep evolving in tandem with the digital landscape in order to keep up with the demands of their digital-savvy customers.

Also Read: Streaming wars: Why are streaming giants spending big bucks on acquiring content

Understanding the need to entice consumers to keep membership for the coming months, not just during lockdown periods, will determine the future success of streaming platforms. We know that the inevitable drop-off rates will begin in the run-up to the removal of lockdown orders.

To thrive and survive, companies will need to adapt quickly with a more proactive rather than reactive approach and have the agility to respond accordingly with new bundles, services, and special retention offers to keep users on their platform.

How to adapt to the different markets in Asia

The business landscape is littered with cautionary tales of household names that have struggled to innovate. Giant companies that found the secret to success and attempted to keep relying on the old way of doing things, even when it was no longer relevant, endured a predictable demise.

An unwillingness to innovate, listen to their customers, and adapt, coupled with a refusal to evolve with the market will have devastating effects on any business. For any streaming service to be successful in Asia, it’s critical to have a deep understanding of payment and content preferences. It’s also essential to adopt a continuous learning mindset and avoid the temptation of replicating models that work elsewhere.

Every country and region is entirely different, and these variances must be identified from the get-go and given the respect they deserve. The ability to listen to your audience and quickly pivot both your systems and your people will help keep you on the course for continued success.

Integrated Revenue and customer management platforms are already transforming the world’s leading OTT services.  It’s these advances in technology that are enabling companies like Evergent to reduce time to market for products and services. But also finally begin to simplify the complex monetisation models and back-office processes so that they run more efficiently.

Also Read: Streaming wars: Why are streaming giants spending big bucks on acquiring content

Add these improvements together, and they dramatically improve the customer experience too. Enabling customers to digitally manage all aspects of their connected services provides superior customer experience and sets the stage for personalised offers that are much more likely to succeed.

Navigating forward in unchartered digital waters

Businesses need to be able to set themselves ahead of the crowd. Communications companies are delivering convenience with everything under one roof style packages. When everything is at their fingertips, it quickly becomes too much hassle to go searching elsewhere — moving forward, this is where the focus needs to be.

Communications companies are also well poised to capitalise on their subscriber bases to move the needle for their own services and for other services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, which they can help aggregate and monetise.

For OTT streamers this provides a valuable distribution channel – it’s a win-win situation for both sides.  In addition, platforms that can support monetisation of bundled services will invariably set these service providers apart for consumers.

Traditional TV fell out of favour for being too restrictive and limiting for digital consumers who demanded greater freedom. Customer expectations are also dramatically evolving. They want to watch what they want, wherever they want it, and on any device they choose.

Also Read: [Updated] From streaming music to preventing oil theft, meet the 5 startups graduating from ZILHive incubation programme

If companies cannot provide it, they will turn to one of the many other OTT providers or communications providers who can serve their needs. The positive side — these are all problems that can be turned into opportunities.

OTT streaming opens up greater localisation and greater niche capabilities that can be targeted towards specific market segments. Time to market, product agility, and seamless deployments are the secret ingredients to success in an increasingly digital world.

Although we may expect some consolidation in the industry, it will be platforms that serve their audiences with customised offerings for specific regions that will stand out in an increasingly crowded marketplace.

–

Register for our next webinar: Meet the VC: Vertex Ventures

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing contributions from the community. Become a thought leader in the community and share your opinions or ideas and earn a byline by submitting a post.

Join our e27 Telegram group, or like the e27 Facebook page

Image credit: Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash

The post An age of uncertainty: Why streaming services need to adapt to survive in Asia appeared first on e27.

Having kept their borders shut for close to a quarter, countries around the world are coming out of the daunting shadows of coronavirus as a ray of hope shows itself in the form of subsiding new cases.

As policymakers introduce new social distancing measures and people once again fill up office buildings, the world is, without a doubt, making its way towards the post-pandemic new normal. Nevertheless, amid the recovery, came the resurgence of a US-China dispute.

Being the world’s largest economy, it is said that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. Now the world’s biggest exporter, China poses a similar level of influence. Certainly, when the superpowers are engaged in a tug-of-war, the global supply chain is bound to be disrupted. In relation to that, emerging markets in Southeast Asia (i.e. Thailand and Vietnam) are expected to be beneficiaries of investment (factory) relocations due to their pleasant investment climate.

However, the Philippines, in particular, is expected to be one of the smallest beneficiaries, if not a loser. This is by no means arbitrary, as the country’s foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows have been falling incessantly since 2017, reaching a four-year low of US$7.65 billion last year when its regional peers experienced an uptick in FDI.

Once viewed as one of the most prospective emerging countries, why is the Philippines so unappealing in the eyes of foreign investors?

For starters, the Philippines lacks a nurturing climate for business investments. Referring to World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index as an indicator of investor-friendliness, the country was ranked at 95^th, compared to 2^nd for Singapore, 12^th for Malaysia, and 21^st and 70^th for Thailand and Vietnam respectively.

Also Read: Why it is important for tech companies to expand outside metro cities in the Philippines

To further elaborate, it was revealed that the Philippines is especially inadequate in providing credit and enforcing contracts, in which it ranked 132^nd and 152^nd respectively, in addition to other challenges such as cross border trading issues and property registration. Seeing that these factors have a substantial bearing on businesses’ sustainability as well as their ability to expand, it is hardly surprising that foreign investors are discouraged.

Other than that, the current Philippine government’s policies have also put pressure on foreign capital inflows. In anticipation of the Corporate Income Tax and Incentive Reform Act (CITIRA) from the government, investors remained wary of the future status of their tax incentives.

Currently still pending in the Senate, the CITIRA bill intends to reduce corporate income tax by one per cent every year, from the current level of 30 per cent to 20 per cent by 2029. Intended to spur foreign investment, the viability of the bill has raised a number of questions, as capital gains tax on unlisted shares of resident foreign corporations and nonresident foreign corporations is expected to increase from five to 15 per cent, prompting investors abroad to take a wait-and-see stance.

On top of that, political risks have also deterred foreign investors in recent years. The government’s “anti-oligarch” and “anti-big-business” rhetoric has raised doubts on regulatory bodies’ justness in reviewing and renewing contracts in the Philippines.

For instance, the state water regulator recently cancelled a 15-year extension of the water utilities’ concession with Manila Water and Maynilad after pressure from Duterte. The existing concessions will expire in 2022, instead of 2037 as initially agreed in 2009. At the same time, raging allegations of human rights violations in the country (think the killing of drug addicts) have also come under international investors’ radar.

As a result of the mentioned incidents, the Philippines is seen as a relatively unfavourable destination for investment with raging political instability.

Also Read: Grab launches new card to encourage cashless payments in the Philippines

Naturally, as an enabler of businesses, many have wondered if technological advancement could improve the status quo in the Philippines and, in turn, facilitate FDI inflows. Undoubtedly, by helping the unbanked and fostering credit, technology could make business processes more efficient.

Notwithstanding that, political risks and failures to enforce business contracts would surely weigh on investments. Thus, in order to spur FDIs, the government needs to take the sanctity of contracts and regulations to heart, thereby instilling political stability in the country.

–

Register for our next webinar: Meet the VC: Vertex Ventures

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing contributions from the community. Become a thought leader in the community and share your opinions or ideas and earn a byline by submitting a post.

Join our e27 Telegram group, or like the e27 Facebook page

Image Credit: Mara Rivera on Unsplash

The post Why technology alone will not save the Filipino economy appeared first on e27.

I recently wrote about whether the startup ecosystem in Laos was ready for a unicorn. This time we turn our attention to Cambodia today and explore if it’s ecosystem is ripe for the exponential growth as recently seen in Indonesia and Singapore.

Adopting a top-down approach, we will briefly analyse Cambodia’s macroeconomy before exploring deeper if the population is ready for the tech boom. Lastly, we will dive in to explore whether the ecosystem is strong enough to cultivate and support this growth.

Rocketing economic growth

According to World Bank statistics, Cambodia’s economy is spearheading the economic boom in the region with an average GDP growth rate of eight per cent between 1998 and 2018, making it one of the fastest-growing economies worldwide. As a result, Cambodia reached a lower-middle-income status in 2015 and the government aspires to attain upper-middle-income status by 2030.

All these statistics paint the picture of a booming economy ready to take on the powerhouses of the region and startups will play a key role in the transformation.

However, these macro indicators only represent the economy as a whole. Therefore, we will need to explore deeper if the anticipated tech boom can be supported by Cambodians.

Also Read: How student entrepreneurs can tap into the fintech ecosystem in Cambodia

Tech-savvy demographic

With a staggering 47 per cent of the population aged under 25, Cambodia’s greatest asset lies in its youthful population. Combined with a mobile and internet penetration rate of 120 per cent and 84 per cent respectively, it is safe to say tech-savviness resides among the top traits of the population. Instrumental to this growth? Cheap data plans.

With 4G data plans starting at US$1 for 10GB, it is small wonder why seemingly everyone in Cambodia utilises a smartphone. With access to the internet and its wide outreach, the sky is the limit for Cambodia as it looks to technology to drive its next phase of growth.

Deep diving into the ecosystem

Thus far, the Cambodian economy (economic growth fuelling increased business prospects and investors) and its population (high digital penetration resulting in citizens being constantly exposed to new technologies) look ready to support the growth of tech startups in the Kingdom.

However, the key to producing successful startups is the ecosystem in place to support entrepreneurs in the uncertain road to create a company. Given the novelty of ideas startups look to solve, it is paramount to have the right community providing advice and resources for them to navigate through the notoriously plentiful difficulties in their journey.

At this juncture, given the young demographic and high mobile usage statistics, the majority would have the view that Cambodians are youthful, tech-savvy and open to change.

However, we have missed the fact that the key consumers with the highest spending power in the economy are middle-aged career professionals that grew up before the tech boom swept across the country. Therefore, it is often opined that the Cambodian consumer market is not receptive to new ideas that startups propose.

Also Read: Will Laos be home to a unicorn someday?

What’s stopping them

BookMeBus founder, Chea Langda, certainly shares this view. BookMeBus was conceptualised in 2015 as a ticketing platform which allows travellers to book their bus tickets within Cambodia and across the borders of neighbouring countries. Chea shares specifically that there is a very little trust given to online platforms by locals and they often worry online products might not be authentic.

More than this, they have a stigma that buying things through an agent is always more expensive and full of scam. This myopic fixation has led consumers to forgo the pain points BookMeBus solves, convenience and cost-savings. Thus, consumers fail to fully value the service and utilise it.

He subsequently shared that while it would be difficult to change existing mind-sets, public marketing campaigns will go some way to reduce such concerns. Therefore, it is paramount that this key demographic would be receptive to new online solutions as startups, even with a great product and market fit, can only go so far without customers to generate substantial revenue to fuel future growth.

Another hurdle faced by startups penetrating the Cambodian market is the high unbanked population. Statistics have shown that 78 per cent of the population is unbanked and less than 15 per cent utilise mobile banking services. Therefore, it has been tough for B2C tech startups to provide the optimal consumer experience with both exorbitant payment processing fees and limited digital payment outreach hampering their overall service.

However, similar to how successful entrepreneurs view difficulties as opportunities, this problem looks ripe for fintech startups offering digital payments to enter the fray and solve it. Given the success of digital payments in Indonesia, it is not surprising that more than 50 new startups have entered to capture what could be a future goldmine.

Mentorship

The scarcity of mentors is a by-product of the relatively young startup ecosystem present in the Kingdom. Due to a lack of entrepreneurs with experience in the field of building and scaling a startup successfully, budding founders have few mentors to turn to for advice in times of need.

Also Read: Cambodia’s Muuve scores funding from Ooctane to take its food delivery service to new cities

Given that research has shown that mentorship is one of the most important needs for a startup to succeed, the fact that over 50 per cent of founders have zero or very infrequent mentorship, is chilling. The uncertain environment that startups operate in due to the novelty of the problems they solve makes it even more important for mentors to be present in the ecosystem to provide experienced guidance for these young entrepreneurs, where more than 80 per cent reported to be working on their first startup project.

Support

Despite the above-mentioned challenges faced by the ecosystem, there have been steps in the right direction to nurture startups in Cambodia. Corporate giants such as Axiata, Toyota and Grab have sponsored incubator-like programmes and hackathons in a bid to provide young entrepreneurs with the platform to pitch their ideas and resources to assist in the implementation of their business ideas.

Regulatory frameworks in the Kingdom have also assisted in priming the ecosystem for growth. Over the last three years, the government has introduced significant policy initiatives aimed at propelling the tech sector and startup ecosystem to the next level. In its five-year national development plan announced in 2018, an initial vision of Cambodia’s digital economy was panned out.

The National Entrepreneurship Fund, with an aggregate capital of US$5 Million, was launched in 2019 and took government funding dedicated to the tech startup ecosystem to US$12 Million. Therefore, by virtue of the amount of resources poured in the build-up the ecosystem, it is clear that policymakers view startups as the next key driver for economic growth in the country.

Eyes on Cambodia

Overall, despite the young startup ecosystem in Cambodia being inexperienced and local consumers taking time to warm to new technologies, I do believe it is ripped and ready to usher in a new era of growth. The ecosystem has been receiving increased government support, both financially and in the way of policies.

Furthermore, the increased attention from others in the region has led to the creation of a conducive environment for investors to enter and boost the confidence of budding entrepreneurs to take the leap and create startups that would ultimately fuel Cambodia’s economic growth.

–

Register for our next webinar: Meet the VC: Vertex Ventures

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing contributions from the community. Become a thought leader in the community and share your opinions or ideas and earn a byline by submitting a post.

Join our e27 Telegram group, or like the e27 Facebook page

Image credit: Remi Yuan on Unsplash

The post Is the startup ecosystem in Cambodia ripe for a new era of growth? appeared first on e27.

Throughout the years, we’ve seen and heard startups being labelled with terms that often come from the animal kingdom (one might be a mythical creature). Labels such as unicorns and camels seem to have shot up and gained interest over the years. We all love our labels — they sound good, make for a great short-cut to convey something and above all, add that extra bit of glamour.

But if we look closely at these words and all the associated buzz around them, we’d see that something is clearly rotten in the startup world. These labels have misguided many startups as they’ve been misconstrued and have lost their true meaning over time. It’s about time we started talking about losing the labels altogether and start focusing on what truly matters.

The animal kingdom

To help you better understand these labels, let us first take a look at some of the common ones and dissect what they truly mean. A common trend you’ll see is that they’re all labelled after animals.

Much alike to the startup world, the animal kingdom is made up of some strong personalities that exhibit unique characteristics and traits. We have seemed to liken them to the traits that stand out with certain startups.

However, the discovery of these animal labels did not happen overnight. The discovery of these animals came about with the ever-changing socio-economic and tech climate.

Here are some insights on the more notable animals in the startup world.

Also Read: For COMEUP 2020, the post-pandemic future will be led by startups

I believe the unicorn status has reached such ubiquity that it’s hard to kill. The other labels seem to be either a response to global situations or a response to the shortcomings of unicorns.

If we dissect the characteristics of these labels further, we will find that they’re based on the same fundamental set of startup traits. There is a lack of clear distinction between these labels and one would be safe to assume that these labels were unjustified.

It’s just a trend

Similar to how clothing labels come up with new fashion designs that trend. New startup labels come in trend over the years as well. However, there’s a little more science to why they came to be:

The Unicorn label came about in 2013, where startups were growing in valuation twice as fast as companies from startups founded before that. The growth was accredited to technological advancements, an increase of private capital available and fast-growing strategies among other things during that era.

Unicorns were once a rare breed, but in recent years, the stable of billion-dollar thoroughbreds has grown to about 350 unicorns around the world. In today’s world, unicorns represent more than a valuation figure. Rather, they represent a philosophy, an ethos and a process of building startups.

Fast forward three years in 2016, the Cockroach label crept up. During this period was where things got off to a very different start, with venture capital funding drying up amid wobbles for the global economy. This revealed problems in the business models of many unicorns and other fast-growing tech businesses. Most of which rely on VC money to fund their growth.

Also Read: 4 key growth metrics startups should watch closely

In the following year 2017, there was a realisation that unicorns were being rewarded for disrupting and razing non-profit and social enterprises comprising institutions like education, healthcare and journalism. This was when the Zebra label was introduced. The capital system at that point was failing society in part because it was failing zebra companies: profitable businesses that solve real, meaningful problems and in the process, repair existing social systems.

With the rise of “fake unicorns” with crazy valuations in 2018, the Rhino label entered the arena. It was the unicorn’s safer counterpart. SEA seemed to have the highest population of rhinos because it was entering the “golden age” of disposable income. Discretionary spending started to rise in a non-linear way and really great platform companies got built.

Fast forward to today in 2020, with the world facing a global pandemic, startups were one of the worst-hit groups of people. Startups outside Silicon Valley, however, seemed to be holding down the fort. In emerging markets, many companies have survived with less capital and ecosystem support. Thus, the label Camel came to be for their ability to adapt to multiple climates, survive without sustenance for months, and withstand harsh conditions.

What does this tell us?

That a slight change in the economic or tech climate might just bring on a new label that would most probably be attributed to another creature in the animal kingdom. But once again I believe it will just be another whimsical label covering the same narrative of “not being a unicorn.” As a founder, you should be more focused on being able to predict, identify and adapt to these ever-changing trends.

Labels offer no tangible value for founders

Why should we bother categorizing startups with labels if they offer no real tangible value? You might argue that these labels might give startup founders something to aspire to become or a way to model their startups after. But similar to religious dogmas and teachings, they all seem to converge in a similar end goal.

Also Read: 3 mistakes early stage startups in Singapore make in product development

All the models of these labels basically point startups in the right direction in terms of running and sustaining their operations. Whether you’re a startup unicorn or camel, your business is still being fueled by the man-hours and ingenuity you put into the company.

If you’re a founder and you’re chasing a label for the hype and buzz it creates then you may have to reevaluate your decisions. Many startups have crumbled under the hype and the buzz because they were focused on impressing their stakeholders and the media rather than focusing on their product and people.

One such startup that took that path was Theranos Inc, a consumer healthcare technology startup, was once valued at US$10 billion at its height in 2015. Its leadership claimed it would revolutionise the blood-testing industry. However, the technological breakthrough that CEO Elizabeth Holmes and former company president Ramesh Balwani touted was never demonstrated, and the assertions of Holmes and Balwani amounted to outright deceit.

The company raised more than US$700 million by deceiving investors for years about the company’s performance. At the end of this saga, Holmes lost control of the company, returned millions of shares, and was barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for 10 years.

The type of culture labels like unicorns breed has crept into the whole ecosystem in the most horrific way. Now, other startup founders also want the unicorn status and they are not shy to take the short-cut, or worst, the unethical route.

Chasing this proverbial label clearly seems to be doing more harm than good for founders in recent years.

It’s not about the label it’s about the business

Now don’t get me wrong. Not all startups aspiring to be the next big thing are destined for failure. Just like how we all have unique thumbprints, startups have their own unique business models and processes. They’re all running their individual races and they reach the finish line in their own unique ways.

Also Read: Tech for good: How 3 startups leveraged a messaging app to serve the community during COVID-19

Take the building and construction industry for example. You don’t see companies like Whiting-Turner on unicorn lists but yet companies like theirs have accrued billions in revenue without outrageous valuations. And that’s simply because they don’t fit in the prescribed label by definition.

So what are companies like theirs and many others doing right and what should startups be focusing on? I believe startups should be focused on the stuff that matters, like the following business fundamentals:

Revenue and profitability: The most common problem for startups is that they often do not have a clear path to profitability and return on investment. If your startup is focused or has a proven track record of actually building and scaling a customer base and bottom line then you’re already a step ahead from the others. Others being those that are less focused on the essentials and that is riding on their “innovative” concepts to rake in the moolah and customers.

Business model:  For a business to grow and succeed, it needs a strong backbone. A business model helps you define your customer value proposition and pricing. It provides a helpful guide on how to organise your business, whom you should partner with to generate revenue, and how to structure and manage your supply chain accordingly amongst other things.

Figuring out the right combination of partners, practices, and platforms isn’t easy. Getting it wrong is why so many startups fail. Likewise, getting it right is essential. Investing in things that truly matter like infrastructure and employees is a true indicator of vision and sound decision-making in a startup.

Sustainability: The market is actively looking for reasons to doubt billion-dollar-or-higher valuations. It’s important to take a step back and evaluate things like customer sentiment, the potential for brand growth, how well users respond to products, leaders’ pedigrees and track records, and so much more. That takes closer scrutiny and patience. Developing a resilient backbone indeed takes time, but in the end, it’s the type of framework that’ll weather turbulent market conditions and allow companies to go the distance.

Also Read: In brief: Investments in SEA startups double in Q2 despite pandemic; GreenPro invests in Ata Plus

Much the way all wildlife isn’t the same, all labels don’t share the same degree of long-term promises. No one’s interests are best served by prescribing a one-size-fits-all outlook to such a wide breadth of startups. Thus, focusing on the above-mentioned fundamentals should be the right approach moving forward.

The way forward

Startups are not cockroaches, unicorns, camels or rhinos — they are made by a group of people who can spot opportunities that others are not able to see yet and these people usually challenge the status quo. Building a successful startup is about grit, years of sacrifice, anticipating market volatility, managing the risk and, of course, a bit of luck.

Regardless of the labels used, there needs to be a change of focus in 2020. We need more founders focusing on startups that can actually be more self-sufficient or at least rely less on VC funds instead of dreaming and boasting about becoming the next unicorn. Instead of chasing after the labels, it’s high time we talk about becoming a fund-returning, profit-rich startup.

With innovation and tech growing at an unprecedented pace, no two startups can be described the same or be compared apple to apple. Our entrepreneurial journeys are unique to one another. That’s all the more reason to be cautious about the terms we use to describe startups.

In today’s environment, generalizing is both easier and more counterproductive than ever. I believe we can do better by simply shifting the focus away from the labels and double-down on what truly matters; building, growing and sustaining your business.

–

Register for our next webinar: Meet the VC: Gobi Partners

Register now: What is corporate venture building and why this is the right time to look at capturing venture opportunities across South-east Asia.

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing contributions from the community. Become a thought leader in the community and share your opinions or ideas and earn a byline by submitting a post.

Join our e27 Telegram group, or like the e27 Facebook page

The post Why we need to stop glamourising startups with fancy labels and focus on real metrics appeared first on e27.

Surviving the pandemic continued to dominate the theme in the Southeast Asian startup ecosystem in July.

One of the most notable funding rounds of the month was announced by Indonesian travel tech giant Traveloka, who raised US$250 million. The funding round was first reported by Bloomberg in early July, though the company had also confirmed at the end of the month.

Interestingly, Traveloka had to have its valuation decreased by 17 per cent from their last fundraising. In their official statement, the company admitted to having been “profoundly affected” though CEO Ferry Unardi noted some recovery in their key markets.

Another impact of COVID-19 is that it became a trigger for businesses to migrate to online platforms. Startups that are helping this process had also announced funding, such as Indonesia’s Buku Warung and AwanTunai. AwanTunai stole our attention with their debt funding announcement, once again proving debt funding as a promising alternative for startups.

From the fintech sectors, we covered StashAway’s US$16 million Series C and Payfazz’s US$52 million funding rounds. Always a favourite of investors, we also covered a funding round for Walrus.

Also Read: Meet the most notable later stage funding rounds announced in May

Another popular sector is new protein with Burgreens and Karana announcing their funding rounds to grow their businesses, which all work in developing the alternatives to meat.

As the awareness of environmental impact continues to rise, investors are also aiming for startups that are building solutions to solve environmental woes such as SOLshare.

A unique sector that had secured a funding round in July is Partipost, a platform that works with social media influencers.

In the Philippines, edutech startup Avion School also scored funding as edutech startup in the region continued to gain popularity.

We recorded at least 17 funding announcements made in July with Singapore and Indonesia continuing to dominate, at nine and five announcements.

Also Read: Here are the early stage funding rounds announced by SEA startups in May

What is coming up next month? As always, there will always be sectors that remain popular among investors such as e-commerce, fintech, and green tech.

For fintech specifically, we believe that Ant Group’s upcoming IPO is going to rock the Southeast Asian startup ecosystem, tightening the competition among e-payments services in the region.

As the region continues to battle the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, startups that are working to help conventional businesses migrate to digital platforms will be in demand. In a recent interview with e27, Marc Dragon of Reefknot Investments pointed out the available opportunities in the supply chain and logistics sector.

The recent downfall of Indonesian fashion e-commerce startup Sorabel will also provide some valuable lessons for startups in the same field. It is likely that we will see more funding rounds for fashion tech companies; however, as with the case of Traveloka, these funding will focus more on survival instead of growth.

—

Image Credit: Frank Busch on Unsplash

The post Startup funding rounds in July: Survival was the name of this game appeared first on e27.