Thailand has spent years building a startup ecosystem, funding accelerators, running pitch competitions, and producing a steady stream of tech graduates. The results have been mixed at best. Investment has lagged behind regional peers, and too many promising Thai startups have struggled to scale beyond the domestic market or attract serious international capital.

SITE 2026, the annual flagship innovation expo organised by the National Innovation Agency (NIA) under Thailand’s Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, is making a pointed attempt to change that narrative. Launched under the theme “Global Innovation Impact: The Year of Investment,” the event is scheduled to run from 25 to 27 June 2026 at Paragon Hall, Siam Paragon, expanding this year to include Nex Hall on the fifth floor and the SCBx Next Stage on the fourth floor to accommodate a growing programme.

Also Read: Thailand’s startup paradox: Where potential meets patience

The venue upgrade is a small but telling signal. SITE is no longer positioning itself as a showcase event. It wants to be a deal-making floor.

The capital context

The numbers underpinning SITE 2026’s investment pitch are worth paying attention to. According to NIA’s own data, startup investment in Thailand reached approximately US$120 million in 2025. More strikingly, capital ready to be deployed within Thailand’s innovation ecosystem has surpassed US$1 billion.

That gap, between available capital and actual investment, is precisely the problem SITE 2026 is trying to solve. The argument is that the money exists, the startups exist, and what has been missing is a sufficiently structured, credible platform to bring them together in a way that produces real transactions rather than networking card swaps.

“Innovation impact is no longer defined by novelty alone, but by the value it creates and the measurable outcomes it can deliver,” said Dr Krithpaka Boonfueng, Executive Director of NIA, at the event’s launch. It is a deliberate reframing, away from innovation as spectacle and towards innovation as an asset class.

What’s on the floor

The programme at SITE 2026 is built around several strategic pillars: future-focused technologies, investment-readiness, global connectivity, and economic multiplier effects. In practical terms, this translates into a dense three-day schedule designed to appeal to a broader audience than the typical startup expo crowd.

The headline draws include showcases of 100 future-focused startups and 100 market-ready innovations, startup pitching sessions, and Business Matching; the structured, pre-scheduled meetings that serious investors and corporates tend to prioritise over open-floor browsing. An International Pavilion will host delegations and participants from Japan, South Korea, China, Hong Kong, and Singapore, adding a meaningful cross-border dimension to the event that previous editions have sometimes lacked.

On the broader ecosystem side, SITE 2026 will also run youth innovation programming through the Startup Thailand League, as well as cross-disciplinary sessions under SYNC Design & Innovation and Maker Faire Bangkok — platforms that skew younger and more experimental, but serve as a talent pipeline for the wider ecosystem.

Global forums and thought-leadership sessions round out the agenda, with speakers drawn from government, venture capital, corporate venture arms, and the startup community itself.

The investment marketplace ambition

The most ambitious aspect of SITE 2026 is also its most difficult to execute: the attempt to function as a genuine investment marketplace rather than an inspiration conference.

Also Read: How Thailand’s NIA is driving global collaboration for Thai innovation

NIA is bringing together venture capital firms, corporate venture capital arms, international investors, and strategic partners under one roof, with the explicit goal of facilitating deal flow, not just deal discovery. For Thai startups, that means access to a concentration of capital and decision-makers that would ordinarily require multiple trips to Singapore, Tokyo, or Seoul to replicate.

For investors, the pitch is equally straightforward: Thailand is a market of over 70 million people with a growing digital economy, a manufacturing base that is beginning to integrate deeper technology layers, and a government that has, at least rhetorically, committed to making innovation investable. SITE 2026 is being framed as the most efficient single point of entry into that opportunity set.

Whether the rhetoric translates into signed term sheets is another matter. Thailand has made similar promises before. The difference this time, NIA argues, is that the infrastructure around the event –the matching mechanisms, the investor curation, the international pavilion — has been built with transactions in mind rather than optics.

Thailand’s broader positioning challenge

SITE 2026 does not exist in a vacuum. Thailand is competing for regional relevance against Singapore’s deeply entrenched investor networks, Indonesia’s sheer market scale, and Vietnam’s increasingly sophisticated manufacturing and tech talent base. In that context, US$120 million in annual startup investment is not a number that commands automatic respect from regional venture capital.

What Thailand does have is a government that is willing to use public infrastructure, NIA being the primary instrument, to de-risk and catalyse private investment in ways that more laissez-faire ecosystems leave entirely to the market. SITE 2026 is an expression of that approach. Its success will be measured not by attendance figures or the number of panels, but by whether the capital sitting on Thailand’s innovation sidelines finds its way into the hands of founders who can deploy it.

The expo is free to attend. Registration is open at site.nia.or.th.

The post Can Thailand close the gap between US$1B in waiting capital and US$120M in actual investment? appeared first on e27.

Singapore’s developers are among the most enthusiastic adopters of AI in the world, but a growing body of evidence suggests the AI infrastructure underpinning that ambition is falling dangerously short.

A survey of 196 developers and tech leaders conducted at API Days Singapore in April by customer engagement platform Twilio found that 96 per cent of respondents already use AI tools in their daily workflows. Yet for many organisations, broad adoption has not translated into meaningful outcomes. The culprit, according to the findings, is a fractured AI infrastructure that cannot support the demands being placed upon it.

Nearly half of respondents — 46 per cent — identified constant context-switching between disjointed tools as the primary source of friction at work. Poor integration between platforms was flagged as the single biggest barrier to achieving effective synergy between AI and enterprise automation.

Over a third of those surveyed (35 per cent) reported struggling with tools that simply cannot communicate with one another, while 24 per cent said they were contending with siloed data spread across multiple disconnected systems. For businesses that have invested heavily in AI tooling, the drag created by weak AI infrastructure is quietly eroding those gains.

Leadership gap stalls AI at the pilot stage

The underlying cause of much of this fragmentation is a lack of strategic direction from the top. Fewer than 30 per cent of respondents said their organisations had a clear strategic vision for AI deployment. Among founders and startup leaders, 41 per cent admitted they were still testing AI tools without a formal framework to guide adoption.

Also Read: “We want things to arrive the next day”: Indiegogo’s APAC head on why SEA is crowdfunding’s toughest market

When individual teams are left to select their own tools without a unified plan, the consequences compound quickly. Forty-one per cent of respondents said their data was now scattered across too many disconnected systems — a direct result of decentralised decision-making.

The consequences for delivery are stark. Nearly a third (31 per cent) of organisations without a formal AI strategy struggle to move initiatives into production. By contrast, only three per cent of organisations with a structured roadmap face the same problem. Robust AI infrastructure, combined with strategic oversight, appears to be the differentiating factor.

Misaligned priorities between teams are accelerating tool sprawl. Sixty-one per cent of software engineers ranked API availability among the most important criteria when evaluating new tools. Only 36 per cent of product managers shared that view, suggesting product teams are more willing to prioritise out-of-the-box functionality over long-term interoperability.

Without top-level coordination, those differing preferences quietly fragment an organisation’s data architecture, making coherent AI infrastructure increasingly difficult to maintain.

The stakes rise as agentic AI arrives

The urgency to address these infrastructure gaps is intensifying. Nearly 40 per cent of respondents said they are already building autonomous AI agents, while 25 per cent are integrating Voice AI to handle complex workflows. These systems — capable of scheduling meetings, processing refunds, and executing multi-step tasks — demand a level of cross-platform reliability that fragmented infrastructure simply cannot provide.

“Running next-generation models on fragmented legacy architecture is becoming a liability in today’s agentic ecosystem,” said Michelle Duke, Senior Developer Evangelist at Twilio. “The missing link is the connective tissue between these isolated systems.”

The post Singapore’s AI infrastructure gap is trapping businesses in pilot purgatory appeared first on e27.

Artificial intelligence is no longer just a technology trend. Across Southeast Asia, it is reshaping how businesses hire, how employees work, and what skills matter most in the modern economy.

From startups to large enterprises, organisations are realising that AI is not only automating tasks. It is redefining human value in the workplace.

The biggest shift is happening in talent strategy. Companies are beginning to prioritise adaptability, problem-solving, and AI collaboration over traditional credentials alone. In the AI era, workers are increasingly expected to work alongside intelligent systems rather than compete against them.

For Southeast Asia’s fast-growing digital economy, this transition creates both major opportunities and serious challenges.

Why AI is changing the workforce

AI tools are rapidly improving productivity across industries. Tasks that once required hours of manual work can now be completed in minutes using generative AI, automation software, and intelligent workflows.

Administrative work, customer support, content production, coding assistance, and data analysis are becoming increasingly AI-assisted. As a result, businesses are rethinking what humans should focus on.

Instead of repetitive tasks, companies now value skills that AI cannot easily replicate, including:

• Critical thinking
• Creativity
• Emotional intelligence
• Leadership
• Strategic decision-making
• Communication
• Relationship building

This shift is creating a workforce reset where human strengths become more important as automation grows.

Southeast Asia’s opportunity in the AI era

Southeast Asia is uniquely positioned for this transformation. The region has a young population, rising internet adoption, and rapidly expanding digital economies.

Countries like Indonesia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Malaysia are investing heavily in digital infrastructure and AI development.

At the same time, many businesses still face a shortage of AI-ready talent.

Also Read: Generalist or specialist? Building future-proof skills in the age of AI

This gap is pushing organisations to rethink recruitment and employee development. Companies no longer want workers who only follow fixed processes. They need employees who can adapt quickly, learn continuously, and use AI tools effectively.

The result is a growing shift toward skills-first hiring.

The rise of skills-first hiring

Traditional hiring often focused on degrees, years of experience, and rigid qualifications. In today’s AI-driven economy, many employers are placing greater importance on practical capability.

A candidate who understands AI tools, automation workflows, or data-driven decision-making may now have an advantage over someone with more traditional experience.

This trend is especially important in Southeast Asia, where access to elite education is uneven. AI tools are making knowledge more accessible, allowing more people to compete globally regardless of background.

Businesses are increasingly evaluating candidates based on:

• Portfolio quality
• Adaptability
• AI literacy
• Communication skills
• Execution ability
• Real-world problem solving

For many employers, learning speed is becoming more valuable than static expertise.

AI-ready teams need continuous learning

Building AI-ready teams requires more than simply adopting new software. Companies must also invest in workforce development.

Many organisations are introducing:

• AI literacy programmes
• Internal upskilling initiatives
• Cross-functional learning
• AI experimentation workshops
• Digital productivity training

Forward-thinking businesses understand that employees who know how to use AI effectively can significantly improve efficiency and innovation.

Also Read: Building the ASEAN AI archipelago: How Southeast Asia can secure its place in the global AI value chain

However, successful adoption also depends on company culture. Employees who fear AI may resist change, while organisations that position AI as a collaborative tool often see stronger engagement.

The goal is not to replace people entirely, but to help teams work smarter with intelligent systems.

Human skills are becoming more valuable

One common misconception is that AI will reduce the importance of human workers. In reality, many human-centred skills are becoming even more valuable.

AI can generate content and process information quickly, but it still struggles with empathy, trust, cultural understanding, and ethical judgment.

Businesses still rely on humans for:

• Leadership
• Negotiation
• Creative strategy
• Emotional connection
• Crisis management
• Relationship building

This is particularly important in Southeast Asia, where business culture often depends heavily on trust and long-term relationships.

As automation increases, human-centred capabilities may become the true competitive advantage.

Education must evolve faster

The AI talent reset also challenges educational institutions across Southeast Asia.

Many schools still focus heavily on memorisation and traditional testing methods, while employers increasingly need graduates with adaptability and digital problem-solving skills.

Also Read: AI’s tipping point: Why 2026 will separate the leaders from the laggards in financial services

Future-ready education should emphasise:

• Analytical thinking
• Creativity
• Communication
• AI collaboration
• Entrepreneurial thinking
• Digital literacy

This shift creates opportunities for online learning platforms, bootcamps, and industry-led training programmes that can move faster than traditional academic systems.

In the AI era, continuous learning is becoming essential for long-term career growth.

The future of talent in Southeast Asia

The future workforce in Southeast Asia will likely be defined by collaboration between humans and AI systems.

Workers who succeed will combine technical understanding with creativity, adaptability, and emotional intelligence. Meanwhile, companies that thrive will be those that invest in learning, flexible hiring strategies, and AI-ready cultures.

Artificial intelligence is changing what work looks like, but it is also redefining what makes humans valuable inside organisations.

For businesses across Southeast Asia, the challenge is no longer whether AI will transform the workforce. The challenge is how quickly organisations can adapt to the new era of talent.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.

Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post Human value in the AI era: What employers in SEA need next appeared first on e27.

If you want to really understand Southeast Asian gaming in a way that shapes product decisions, go-to-market strategies, and investment theses, you need to spend serious time thinking about Indonesia. Not Singapore, which punches above its weight as a regional headquarters, but has only four million gamers. Not Thailand, which is the most monetised market in the region, but operates at a fraction of Indonesia’s scale. Indonesia.

A gaming report by Southeast Asian gaming marketing agency Ampverse frames the numbers plainly: Indonesia has a population of over 280 million people and a gamer base exceeding 150 million. That is the largest gaming market in Southeast Asia by both absolute player count and download volume, and it is larger than the combined gaming populations of Thailand (35 million), Malaysia (20 million), and Singapore (4 million).

Also Read: The mobile-first myth that is costing SEA’s gaming industry billions

But raw scale is not the story. The story is the complexity. Indonesia is a market that consistently humbles companies that approach it with assumptions borrowed from elsewhere and consistently rewards those who take the time to understand it on its own terms.

Creator trust is not a marketing variable; it is the entry condition

The Ampverse report makes a point about Indonesia that deserves more attention than it typically receives: in this market, creator trust is “critical for discovery and adoption.” That framing elevates creator relationships from a channel choice to a market-entry prerequisite.

This reflects a specific aspect of how information travels in Indonesia. The country spans over 17,000 islands, with a population distributed across major urban centres like Jakarta and Surabaya, as well as hundreds of smaller cities and towns with distinct linguistic, cultural, and consumption contexts. National media reach is uneven. App store visibility is competitive. Traditional advertising is expensive and increasingly ineffective with younger demographics.

What cuts through all of that is peer recommendation, and in gaming, peer recommendation at scale is mediated by creators. A gaming creator in Bandung with 200,000 loyal followers may drive more meaningful installs and retention in that city than a national campaign costing ten times as much. The implication for both publishers and brands is that Indonesia cannot be approached as a single market. It is an archipelago of micro-communities, each with its own trusted voices and cultural reference points.

The localisation problem runs deeper than language

Most companies entering Indonesia know they need to localise into Bahasa Indonesia. What they underestimate is how much further localisation needs to go.

Also Read: Southeast Asia’s gaming boom is bigger than you think — and brands are still getting it wrong

The Ampverse report identifies cultural fragmentation as a key challenge for brands and publishers across Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia. Game mechanics, payment flows, community norms, humour, visual aesthetics, and competitive formats all carry cultural weight that a language translation does not address.

Payment infrastructure is a concrete example. Indonesia has a relatively low credit card penetration rate compared to more developed markets, and a large proportion of gaming transactions run through convenience store payments, digital wallets, and carrier billing. A publisher that optimises its payment flow for credit cards, as many Western studios still do, is effectively locking out a significant portion of its potential paying audience before the game even launches.

Price sensitivity compounds this. The Ampverse report describes Vietnam as “price-sensitive but highly engaged,” a characterisation that applies equally well to large segments of the Indonesian market. The implication is not simply that prices need to be lower; it is that the entire monetisation architecture, from pricing tiers to the cadence of in-game offers to the design of virtual goods, needs to be rebuilt around local economic realities rather than transplanted from a US$9.99-per-month Western subscription model.

Community investment is the actual retention mechanism

Indonesia’s gaming market has another characteristic that distinguishes it from most Western markets and from Singapore’s high-ARPU environment: community-driven retention. The Ampverse report notes that successful publishers in the region invest in community early and think beyond launch windows, a model that runs counter to the traditional publisher instinct to concentrate marketing spend around a game’s release date and then reduce investment as the title matures.

In Indonesia, the post-launch community is often the primary driver of growth. Players who are deeply embedded in a game’s community — its Discord, its Facebook Group, its guild structures, its local tournament circuit — churn at significantly lower rates than those who are not. They also recruit. The viral spread of games through peer networks in both Indonesia and the Philippines is not accidental; it is the natural outcome of deliberately cultivated communities.

For startups building gaming products or services for the Indonesian market, this points to a specific strategic priority: community infrastructure before performance marketing. The companies that have built durable positions in Indonesian gaming are not those that spent the most on user acquisition; they are those that built the strongest community flywheel.

What Indonesia tells us about the next five years

Indonesia’s trajectory over the next decade will shape the overall story of Southeast Asian gaming more than any other single market. The country’s median age is under 30, smartphone penetration in urban and semi-urban areas is near-universal, and internet penetration continues to rise. The pipeline of new gamers entering the market annually is substantial and structurally durable.

Also Read: SEA’s gaming audiences have outgrown your influencer strategy

The Ampverse report projects that the broader Southeast Asian gaming ecosystem will reach US$14 billion by 2030. A disproportionate share of that growth will be determined by what happens in Indonesia — whether local monetisation models mature, whether creator-led distribution scales efficiently, and whether publishers and brands learn to operate in the market on its own terms rather than on the terms they would prefer.

The companies that crack Indonesia do not just win Indonesia. They acquire the operational knowledge, community relationships, and localisation infrastructure that gives them a decisive advantage in every other price-sensitive, creator-driven, community-oriented market in the region. That is the real prize, and it goes to whoever is willing to do the hard work of understanding the archipelago first.

The post Forget Singapore. If you want to understand SEA gaming, start with Indonesia appeared first on e27.

The pantry on the eighth floor was unusually quiet that morning.

Several employees sat with coffee cups in their hands while large dashboards displayed customer behaviour, inventory movement, and real-time promotion analytics. Yet the discussion inside the room was not about sales targets or product shortages.

It was about something bigger. Talent reset.

“AI is changing retail faster than most companies are prepared for,” Bagas said while scrolling through a customer personalisation dashboard. “And honestly, the biggest challenge is no longer technology.”

Anne looked at him curiously. “Then what is the real challenge?”

“People,” Bagas answered calmly. “The workforce itself has to evolve.”

For years, retail companies focused on operational efficiency: lower costs, faster transactions, larger product catalogues, and more aggressive promotions. Technology mainly functioned as a support infrastructure.

But AI is changing the operating model entirely.

Modern retail systems are no longer passive systems waiting for customer actions. AI recommendation engines now predict customer behaviour, analyse shopping habits, generate personalised promotions, optimise inventory movement, and influence purchasing decisions in real time.

This transformation is creating a new economic reality inside retail organisations. And that reality is forcing companies into what many executives now describe as a talent reset.

What the talent reset actually means

The meaning of talent itself is changing.

Previously, retail success depended heavily on execution speed and operational discipline. Today, companies increasingly need employees who can combine business understanding, analytical thinking, technological literacy, and human empathy simultaneously.

Also Read: What great talent actually means in the AI era

The reset is happening across almost every layer of retail operations.

Marketing teams, for example, are no longer simply designing mass promotions for millions of customers. AI can already automate large portions of campaign distribution. The real value now lies in understanding customer behaviour patterns and designing meaningful personalisation strategies.

“Marketing people now need to think more like analysts,” Bagas explained. “AI can generate promotions automatically. But humans still decide what kind of experience should be created.”

The same shift is happening inside technical teams. Retail programmers are no longer only building cashier systems, mobile apps, or product catalogues. Increasingly, they are expected to understand recommendation engines, customer segmentation models, AI workflows, behavioural analytics pipelines, and automation architecture.

The role is evolving from software builder into business technology translator. A developer today may need to understand not only APIs and databases, but also why certain recommendation logic increases customer retention or why certain customer flows reduce cart abandonment. Technical skills alone are no longer enough. Business reasoning is becoming equally important.

Operations, inventory, and AI credibility

Operations teams are experiencing another form of pressure.

Inventory management used to focus mainly on stock availability. Now, inventory accuracy directly affects AI credibility. An AI system recommending unavailable products damages customer trust instantly.

Operational precision is no longer just an internal efficiency metric. It has become part of the customer experience itself.

“This is where many companies underestimate AI,” Bagas said. “They think AI alone creates transformation. But AI is only as strong as the operational ecosystem behind it.”

The human layer AI cannot replace

As AI automates repetitive tasks, human value increasingly shifts toward emotional understanding, judgment, communication, negotiation, and trust building.

Customer service teams illustrate this transformation clearly. AI chatbots can answer repetitive questions 24 hours a day. They can process refunds, explain delivery status, and recommend products instantly. But when customers are angry, disappointed, anxious, or emotionally frustrated, humans still matter most.

Also Read: From HR to talent flow: Why workforce management needs a supply chain mindset

“AI can predict what people buy,” Bagas said. “But humans understand why people buy.”

That sentence captured the heart of the entire transformation. Because shopping is rarely purely logical. Sometimes customers buy comfort food after a stressful day. Sometimes parents overspend because they feel guilty toward their children. Sometimes people shop emotionally during moments of uncertainty or loneliness. Human behaviour contains emotional context that AI still struggles to fully understand.

The companies that will win

This is why the future of retail will likely not belong to companies that simply deploy the most AI. It will belong to companies capable of redesigning human roles around AI.

The winners will be organisations that treat AI as a productivity layer while simultaneously investing in workforce adaptation, cross-functional thinking, and human-centred capability development.

Because the true talent reset is not about replacing humans with machines. It is about redefining what makes humans valuable in an AI-driven economy.

As the pantry discussion ended, employees slowly returned to their desks. Dashboards continued updating in real time. Recommendation engines kept learning from customer activity. Personalised promotions kept running automatically across mobile apps and digital channels.

And quietly, without dramatic announcements or headlines, the retail workforce itself was already being rewritten.

—

The post AI shopping companions and the talent reset in retail appeared first on e27.

Five years ago, companies were looking for a strong candidate with deep specialisation and years of experience working within established systems. Today, especially in AI-adjacent policy, research, and innovation work, I find myself looking for a very different kind of person: someone who can learn in public, stay humble, adapt quickly, and think across disciplines without becoming intellectually shallow.

We no longer look only for specialists who know one chapter extremely well. We look for people who can read the whole book. In our space, that means navigating technology, policy, communication, ethics, and human behaviour simultaneously.

The shift became clear to us during a recent hiring discussion for a project involving AI governance and regional policy engagement. We discussed that if two candidates applied at the same time, who would we want to choose? One candidate had an exceptional résumé and prestigious credentials but struggled to adapt when project requirements changed continuously. Another candidate had fewer formal achievements but quickly integrated AI tools, synthesised policy information across disciplines, and independently proposed workable solutions. Increasingly, organisations, including us, are choosing the second profile. This isn’t an isolated hiring anomaly. It mirrors a massive global shift.

According to the 2026 PwC Global AI Jobs Barometer, skills required for AI-exposed roles are evolving 66 per cent faster than those in non-AI roles, pushing organisations to rethink hiring metrics beyond static credentials.

Today, we look for people with strong soft skills, consistent judgment, and the ability to operate in resource-constrained environments. Experience under pressure often reveals whether someone can adapt, prioritise, and continue functioning effectively in uncertainty. Experience in using AI or AI automation has also become important. Looking back, only three years ago, AI proficiency was barely discussed in hiring conversations, illustrating how rapidly organisational expectations have shifted.

Also Read: Generalist or specialist? Building future-proof skills in the age of AI

When access to information becomes increasingly universal through AI, competitive advantage shifts away from memorisation and toward judgement, adaptability, communication, and the ability to navigate uncertainty.

What is happening is not only the arrival of AI, but also the transformation of the working environment, which now requires people with diverse capabilities. Forward-thinking institutions need individuals who are well-rounded and understand how to continuously develop within the framework of their roles. Undoubtedly, deep expertise remains valuable, but agile teams must combine that specialised knowledge with speed, adaptability, and cross-domain collaboration.

Many outcome-oriented organisations have started asking four important questions in hiring:

Can the employee interpret problems rather than simply execute instructions? Can the employee collaborate with AI critically without losing independent judgment? Can the employee think creatively across disciplines? Can the employee operate independently under uncertainty?

Traditionally, these questions were often initially answered through résumés or CVs combined with HR interviews. In some cases, organisations also use standardised testing systems to measure capabilities numerically. Today, however, many organisations are beginning to realise that traditional hiring signals alone may no longer accurately predict long-term adaptability in AI-driven environments.

Also Read: AI’s tipping point: Why 2026 will separate the leaders from the laggards in financial services

My advice is to learn how to work effectively with AI and see it as a colleague whose capabilities can complement your own. Always prove that the information generated by AI is accurate and not misleading. Make AI part of your work and decision-making process because we place importance on evidence of real-world thinking through interdisciplinary collaboration, problem-solving principles, and the ability to manage uncertainty in AI-generated information. At the same time, organisations must be careful not to confuse AI-assisted speed with genuine understanding or good judgement.

All of this constantly makes me think that the concept of “great talent” is changing and spreading across industries. In other words, every industry increasingly agrees that people with great talent are those who possess fundamental qualities such as adaptability, learning ability, communication skills, and decision-making capability. In the future, each of these qualities will become separate skills that require even deeper mastery. More importantly, these skills must be visibly demonstrated during real work situations.

One challenge many organisations are currently facing is that many still prioritise stability and predictability, which conflicts with the rapidly changing nature of today’s world. At the same time, there is also a risk that organisations may begin undervaluing deep expertise in favour of constant adaptability. The challenge is not replacing expertise, but combining expertise with the ability to evolve continuously alongside AI.

Some employees who succeeded under older models of work may struggle to adapt if they rely solely on established expertise without integrating AI into their workflows. This contrasts with the new generation of great talent, who are able to adapt to changing environments by working alongside AI.

The future workforce may not be divided between technical and non-technical workers, but between those who can continuously learn alongside AI and those who cannot. In that environment, great talent is no longer defined only by what someone knows, but by how quickly they can reinterpret, apply, and evolve that knowledge in changing conditions.

The post AI has rewritten the hiring playbook and most organisations have not noticed yet appeared first on e27.

Also Read: Oil crashed 5% but Bitcoin jumped US$4K, altcoins surged 2X harder: What’s driving this?

The post Why smart money is choosing semiconductors over Bitcoin: What can be done? appeared first on e27.

There is a moment, somewhere in the lifecycle of every major consumer platform, when the marketing playbook breaks. Banner ads stop working. Sponsored posts lose their edge. The audience, which has grown up inside the platform, develops an immunity to anything that feels like a paid placement.

In Southeast Asian gaming, that moment has already passed, and most brands are still running the old plays.

Also Read: The mobile-first myth that is costing SEA’s gaming industry billions

A gaming report by Southeast Asian gaming marketing agency Ampverse puts the structural shift in unambiguous terms: “Creators are not media placements; they are gatekeepers of trust.” In Southeast Asia, the report notes, a single creator can define how a game is perceived, and long-term creator relationships consistently outperform short-term influencer buys.

More than 50 per cent of gamers in the region regularly watch gaming content, and discovery — the moment a potential player first encounters a new game — increasingly happens through creators rather than app store rankings or paid advertising.

That is not a marginal shift. It is a fundamental restructuring of the distribution stack.

Why the influencer playbook fails in gaming

To understand why most brand campaigns in Southeast Asian gaming underperform, it’s helpful to examine how gaming creators differ from conventional social media influencers.

A lifestyle influencer operates on reach and aesthetic. Their audience follows them for a curated version of a life — the products they use, the places they visit, and the image they project. The relationship between influencer and follower is aspirational but relatively thin. A sponsored post slots neatly into that framework because the influencer’s identity is already partly commercial.

Gaming creators operate on trust and competence. Their audience follows them because they are genuinely good at games, genuinely entertaining to watch, and genuinely part of the same community. When a gaming creator endorses a title, their credibility is on the line in a way that a lifestyle influencer’s rarely is. Gamers can tell immediately whether a creator has actually played a game or is simply reading a script. The community does not forgive inauthenticity, and it does not forget it.

The Ampverse report captures this dynamic precisely: “Gaming audiences reward brands that participate meaningfully.” The word “meaningfully” is doing significant work in that sentence. It is not enough to pay a creator to post. Brands that win in this environment are those that enter through creators and communities, build long-term presence, create value rather than noise, and respect gaming culture on its own terms.

The creator economy inside gaming is structurally different

Southeast Asia’s gaming creator ecosystem has several features that distinguish it from both Western gaming markets and the broader regional creator economy.

Also Read: Gaming in SEA: Understanding the growing opportunity for SMEs and payment providers

First, community density. Discord servers, Facebook Groups, in-game guilds, and live tournament formats form the connective tissue of gaming communities across the region. The Ampverse report describes these structures as “the backbone of long-term engagement” and argues that successful brands and publishers treat communities as assets rather than audiences. This is not a metaphor; it reflects the reality that in markets like the Philippines, where the report describes a “highly social gaming culture” with games spreading “virally through creators and peer networks,” community infrastructure is the actual distribution mechanism.

Second, the primacy of live formats. Creator-led tournaments and live events consistently outperform static campaigns in Southeast Asia, delivering high watch time, repeat engagement, and organic social amplification. The report’s summary is pithy and correct: “In Southeast Asia, participation beats exposure.” A campaign that invites players to do something — compete, collaborate, contribute — will always outperform one that asks them to watch and click.

Third, the speed of creator-to-commerce crossover. The Ampverse report identifies an emerging trend that has significant commercial implications: gaming creators are increasingly launching mainstream consumer products. This is not peripheral to the gaming economy; it is evidence of how deeply gaming creators are embedded in their communities’ consumption behaviour. A gaming creator who launches a beverage, a clothing line, or a peripheral product is not diversifying away from gaming; they are monetising the trust they have built inside it.

The startup opportunity hiding in plain sight

The gap between what brands need and what the current market provides is, in startup terms, a problem worth solving. Most brands entering Southeast Asian gaming markets lack three things: the contextual knowledge to identify which creators are genuinely influential versus merely large, the infrastructure to manage long-term creator relationships at scale, and the measurement frameworks to evaluate performance beyond impressions and reach.

All three are addressable by technology. Creator intelligence platforms that map gaming community influence rather than follower count, relationship management tools designed for the cadence and format of gaming partnerships, and attribution models that account for community-driven conversion rather than last-click metrics; these are the products that the next wave of gaming-adjacent startups in Southeast Asia will be built around.

The Ampverse report notes that many global strategies fail because they are “copied from Western playbooks.” That observation extends to the creator strategy. Western influencer marketing infrastructure, which was largely built for Instagram and YouTube at a time when reach was the dominant metric, is a poor fit for a region where participation, community, and long-term trust are the actual levers of commercial performance.

Also Read: SEA mobile gaming surges: 1.93B installs and growing global influence

Brands that are still buying short-term influencer slots in Southeast Asian gaming are not just leaving money on the table. They are actively building a reputation for inauthenticity in communities that have long memories and loud voices. The creators who matter in this market are not waiting for brands to catch up; they are already building the next generation of distribution infrastructure without them.

The post SEA’s gaming audiences have outgrown your influencer strategy appeared first on e27.

Not long ago, turning an idea into something tangible required time, technical resources, and often a fair amount of patience.

Ideas waited.

They sat in notebooks, Slack threads, or development backlogs while founders debated feasibility, budgets, and timelines. Before anything could be tested, it typically needed approvals, specifications, and someone technical to bring it to life.

Recently, a late-night conversation reminded me just how much that assumption has changed.

The conversation that changed the question

It started with a WhatsApp exchange with entrepreneur and strategist Vicky Vaswani.

He had shared a book and pointed out something he found interesting – not the content itself, but a small interactive feature within the reading experience.

At first, I did not even understand what he meant.

I was looking at the landing page while he was referring to the book interface itself.

Then came the clarification.

The book was uploaded as a PDF, and almost jokingly, he mentioned that Seraphina – my AI twin – could probably summarise it.

Minutes later, the summary was done.

That was the easy part.

What caught my attention, however, was not the summary.

It was the interaction.

A linked chapter structure. A smoother mobile reading flow. Something that made static content feel more immersive and easier to navigate.

And almost instinctively, I replied: “I can take any PDF and make it into a digital flip page.”

Not as a polished offer.

Not as a planned product roadmap.

Just an observation.

Then came the question every founder eventually hears: “Do you have a sample?”

Historically, this is where momentum often slows.

You explain. You promise.

You say you will revert after checking with a developer or technical team.

You sell the idea through imagination.

Instead, I opened Lovable and started building.

Roughly 15 minutes later, there was a working proof of concept.

It was not formally launched. It was not meant to be perfect.

It was simply my interpretation of the idea Vicky had described – a digital reading experience paired with AI-generated summaries designed to make long-form content easier to consume.

His response was immediate.

And while the prototype itself was interesting, I quickly realised something more important:

The build was not the story.

What happened next was.

Also Read: Beyond the buzz: How AI and sustainability are reshaping design, manufacturing, and construction in APAC

The prototype that closed the deal

The following day, I was on a call with an existing client whose website I was helping develop.

During the conversation, I showed her the concept.

This was not something she had originally requested.

It was simply a proof of possibility.

She saw it. Liked it.

And chose to implement it immediately as an additional feature.

The top-up happened shortly after.

The commercial value itself is not the headline here. In fact, the amount reflected speed and optimisation more than the true value of the capability.

What mattered was the sequence.

A conversation sparked an idea.

An idea became a prototype.

The prototype changed the sales conversation.

And the sales conversation became revenue.

That progression would have looked very different even a few years ago.

AI is not changing how founders build, it is changing how founders sell

This is why I believe AI is not merely changing how founders build.

It is changing how founders sell.

Historically, entrepreneurs pitched possibilities.

They relied on decks, descriptions, and imagination.

Customers were often asked to visualise outcomes before they existed.

Today, AI-assisted tools are closing that gap.

Instead of saying, “Imagine if this worked like this.” Founders can increasingly say: “Here – try it.”

That shift matters.

Buyers rarely hesitate due to a lack of interest alone.

More often, they hesitate because of uncertainty.

They cannot visualise the outcome.

They fear making the wrong decision.

They struggle to bridge the gap between concept and lived experience.

A working prototype reduces that friction.

Not because it guarantees success, but because it transforms abstraction into something tangible.

Cheaper experimentation, compressed timelines

In many ways, AI has made experimentation dramatically cheaper.

And that changes the economics of entrepreneurship.

I have seen similar patterns emerging beyond my own projects.

In recent Money and AI Launchpad sessions, participants – many without traditional technical backgrounds – moved from ideas to live micro-SaaS applications within just 2.5 days. Alongside the build itself, they developed marketing visuals and promotional copy to support their launches.

Also Read: How sailing as a teenager prepared me for a career in tech and gaming

The real shift was not simply faster development.

It was compressed experimentation.

Ideas no longer needed months of commitment before validation could begin.

They could be tested while momentum was still alive.

Not replacement, leverage

This is perhaps where AI discussions often become misunderstood.

Much of the public conversation still revolves around replacement.

Will AI take jobs? Will it remove the need for people?

My experience has been different.

AI has not removed the need for judgment, taste, or strategy.

If anything, those skills matter more.

Execution, however, has become significantly cheaper.

Through my own workflows, supported by Seraphina and a growing ecosystem of AI tools alongside platforms like Lovable and systems we have long explored through People’s Inc. 360, I increasingly see AI functioning less as novelty and more as infrastructure.

And honestly?

I would have burned out doing this manually.

Not just the thinking. The execution.

Managing multiple ideas, testing concepts, supporting communities, refining workflows, and building across several initiatives simultaneously would have been unsustainable without AI-assisted execution.

This is why I often describe AI not as a replacement, but as leverage.

The founders benefiting most from this shift may not necessarily be those with the largest teams or deepest technical expertise.

Increasingly, they may be the ones who learn how to prototype quickly enough to test ideas before momentum fades.

AI did not eliminate the importance of good ideas.

Nor did it eliminate the need for human insight.

But it did make prototyping cheaper.

And in doing so, it may have quietly changed how modern entrepreneurship works.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post AI did not change how founders build, it changed how they sell appeared first on e27.

Most hyper-growth businesses are not solving a marketing problem. They are wrestling with scaling pains masquerading as one.

Here is the truth: the playbook that powered your first million in sales will sabotage you at ten million. What flourished amid disorder now overwhelms. Once agile teams falter in the tumult, while executives, previously decisive, become mired in deliberations over processes, coordination, and infrastructure, imperatives that emerged only with scale.

This reflects not a marketing deficit, but a transitional oversight.

Two marketing realms collide

Having led corporate marketing campaigns and mentored early-stage startups, I have witnessed two starkly opposing playbooks.

Enterprise marketing prioritises methodology, alignment, and scalability. It is rigorous, data-centric, and optimised for sustained expansion. Ample budgets support specialised teams, with every initiative rigorously evaluated for reproducibility. The emphasis extends beyond outcomes to their consistent replication.

In contrast, startup marketing embodies resourcefulness and velocity, fixated on proximate impact. Perfection yields to pragmatism; traction reigns supreme.

The critical error lies in presuming seamless transferability between these domains.

A fast-scaling firm transcends startup volatility yet falls short of enterprise maturity. It inhabits an interstitial phase where legacy approaches obsolesce, and nascent frameworks remain undefined.

The scaling pitfall: Where growth grinds to a halt

Misaligning marketing orientation yields dual pitfalls. Prematurely appointing an enterprise marketer begets premature systematisation for nonexistent challenges. Meetings proliferate; velocity diminishes. The nimble operation transforms into a ponderous vessel.

Also Read: The secret weapon of marketing? Why every business needs a CDP

Conversely, retaining a startup-oriented marketer indefinitely erodes efficacy. Proven campaigns wane; redundancy mounts. Growth plateaus, not from market exhaustion, but methodological limits.

Tactics themselves are not at fault.

Unlocking marketing at scale

The ideal marketing executive possesses these attributes:

• Constructs scalable processes devoid of bureaucratic excess, with discretion to adapt.
• Advances expeditiously while anchoring to strategic imperatives.
• Validates hypotheses through empirical analysis, adept in quantitative and qualitative realms.
• Excels amid constraints, leveraging them for ingenuity.

Such leaders are rare, yet instrumental in distinguishing plateaued companies from those achieving breakout velocity.

Spotting if you are snagged

Thriving organisations discern this inflection and recalibrate their marketing apparatus accordingly. I have watched too many high-potential ventures sputter by ignoring this evolution.

If your marketing efforts are falling short, use these simple checks to pinpoint the issue:

• Are you stuck in startup mode? Look for one-off campaigns with no repeatable blueprint, a knee-jerk rejection of any process, and constant crisis firefighting. These signs show you are clinging to early-stage habits that no longer fit your scale.
• Are you acting too corporate too soon? Watch for endless meetings, decisions stalled by alignment talks, and complex systems built for problems that have not arrived yet. This flips the script, putting structure ahead of speed.

These questions reveal exactly what to adjust.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.

Join us on WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post The top myth fast-growing companies believe about marketing appeared first on e27.