In startup conversations, few phrases raise a quieter red flag than this one: “I want to sell to everyone.”

It’s usually said with optimism. Sometimes with ambition. Often with confidence. But almost always, it signals a deeper issue, not of scale, but of clarity.

Founders don’t struggle because they think too big. They struggle because they think too vaguely.

The most expensive confusion in the go-to-market

A brand cannot speak to a first-time founder the same way it speaks to a seasoned operator. A product cannot sell to a solo creator the same way it sells to an enterprise team. And yet, many early-stage startups attempt to do exactly that, flattening their message in the hope of maximising reach.

The result is predictable. Messaging becomes generic. Value propositions blur. Sales conversations stretch. And the product slowly morphs into something that tries to please everyone, and resonates deeply with no one.

When a founder says “everyone”, what they are really saying is: “I haven’t made the hard decision yet.”

Luck, budget, and brute force are not a strategy

Of course, there are exceptions.

With enough capital, distribution power, or sheer luck, a broadly positioned product may still find traction. But luck is not a repeatable system, and brute force is not a defensible moat.

In the early stages of a company, clarity consistently outperforms scale. The startups that move fastest are not the ones shouting the loudest; they are the ones that know exactly who they are speaking to and why.

Also Read: Revisiting “Something Ventured”: What the birth of venture capital still teaches Founders today

What strategic clarity looks like in practice

Founders who build multiple businesses quickly learn this lesson the hard way. Different products require different audiences.
Different audiences require different languages. And different problems demand different promises.

An AI platform designed to act as a founder’s digital twin, Seraphina AI, for example, is not competing with generic productivity tools. It is built for people who already have opinions, frameworks, and a voice, and want leverage, not replacement.

A female founders community, Royal Visionary Society, focused on freedom, sustainability, and long-term well-being, is not optimised for founders chasing growth at any cost.

A speaking ecosystem, Speakers Society, designed around placement, positioning, and monetisation, is not for hobbyists looking to overcome stage fright.

A marketing automation platform, People’s Inc. 360, built for operational scale, is not meant for teams that equate growth with hiring more people.

Each of these businesses succeeds not by expanding its audience indiscriminately, but by narrowing its focus deliberately.

Different doors. Different conversations. Same strategic discipline.

The quiet advantage of being clear

The strongest brands in the ecosystem share a common trait: restraint.

They know who they are for. They know who they are not for. And they design their product, messaging, pricing, and systems around that decision.

This clarity shows up everywhere, from onboarding flows to sales conversations, from roadmap decisions to customer support.

Trying to appeal to everyone does not make a company more inclusive. It makes it forgettable.

Also Read: Bridging innovation and market success: The role of a commercial co-founder in biotech startups

The hidden cost of over-inclusivity

When founders avoid choosing a clear audience, the costs compound quietly:

• Product roadmaps bloat with edge cases.
• Marketing messages lose sharpness.
• Sales teams struggle to qualify leads.
• Customers feel vaguely interested, but never fully committed.

Most churn is not caused by poor execution. It is caused by unclear positioning.

People do not leave because a product is too specific. They leave because they never felt seen.

A simple clarity test for founders

Before worrying about traffic, funding, or scale, founders should be able to answer three questions clearly:

• Who should immediately feel understood when they encounter this product? Not impressed. Understood.
• Who is this deliberately not built for? Every strong brand repels by design.
• If this product disappeared tomorrow, who would genuinely feel the loss? If the answer is “anyone”, it is probably no one.

If these answers are unclear, the problem is not distribution. It is positioning.

Conviction is the real growth lever

The companies that scale well are not the ones that hedge their message. They are the ones who commit.

They choose a lane. They build with intention. They speak directly, even when it means being misunderstood by those outside their audience.

Because in a crowded ecosystem, clarity is not a limitation. It is leverage.

And real growth does not come from dilution. It comes from conviction.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva

The post If you’re building for everyone, you’re building for no one appeared first on e27.

Startup ecosystems are often portrayed as bottom-up systems driven by founders, venture capital, and technological breakthroughs. That view is incomplete. In practice, startup ecosystems are also downstream expressions of state power, shaped by policy decisions, institutional participation, and geopolitical alignment.

This US withdrawal from international climate and energy institutions alters the conditions under which startups are built, financed, and scaled, where climate and energy governance are strategic infrastructure for global markets.

The climate-energy stack the US stepped away from

The US withdrawal spans a broad range of climate, energy, and environmental institutions. Together, these bodies form the global climate–energy operating system. They do not build grids, finance startups, or operate markets directly. Their influence is structural rather than transactional.

Climate science bodies establish baselines that flow into regulation, finance, and insurance. Energy agencies coordinate definitions of “renewable,” “transition,” and “clean” that underpin procurement and investment decisions. Nature and forestry platforms shape land-use rules, carbon markets, and supply-chain traceability. UN coordination mechanisms align agencies, donors, and reporting frameworks across borders.

These institutions sit upstream of markets. They determine what is measured, how it is measured, and which activities are recognised as legitimate or investable. Startups rarely engage with them directly, but their outputs shape the environment in which startups operate.

By withdrawing, the United States is not exiting climate or energy markets. It is exiting the multilateral rule-shaping layer that influences how those markets evolve globally.

Survival without the US does not mean neutrality

From a financial perspective, most affected institutions are likely to survive. European governments, Japan, Nordic states, and philanthropic actors can backfill near-term funding gaps. Many of these bodies already operate with diversified funding sources and experience donor volatility.

Institutional survival, however, should not be confused with institutional neutrality or effectiveness.

Also Read: Code, power, and chaos: The geopolitics of cybersecurity

As US participation recedes, three structural shifts are likely. First, agenda-setting power (and hence influence) concentrates among the remaining major funders. Second, standards and methodologies evolve according to the regulatory philosophies of those still at the table, gradually redefining what becomes “normal” or “default” in global markets. Third, even modest funding disruptions can slow research cycles, narrow mandates, and reduce technical ambition.

For startups and investors, the critical point is not collapse but tilt. The global climate–energy regime becomes less US-centric and more shaped by European regulatory logic, Asian industrial priorities, and Global South adaptation needs.

That tilt matters because it reshapes the assumptions embedded in products, platforms, and business models.

The fiscal reality: Small savings, large signals

From the US federal budget perspective, the direct savings from withdrawal are modest. The combined reduction in assessed dues and typical voluntary contributions amounts to tens of millions of dollars per year.

Measured against a federal budget and annual deficits exceeding a trillion dollars, and rapidly rising interest costs, these savings are economically immaterial. They do not alter the debt trajectory or meaningfully expand fiscal space.

Markets, however, respond less to absolute numbers than to signals of power and intent. A decision to step away from rule-writing institutions sends a strong signal about priorities, alignment, and future engagement. That signal reshapes expectations about where standards will be set, where capital will flow, and which jurisdictions will define the next generation of market rules.

The financial impact is small. The geopolitical signal is large, and the market price signals.

What this means for corporates: The end of a single global rulebook

For large enterprises, the immediate impact is not loss of market access but loss of predictability.

As climate and energy governance fragments, companies face growing divergence between US, European, and Asia-Pacific standards. The assumption that a single global compliance strategy will suffice becomes increasingly untenable. Firms operating across regions must navigate multiple definitions, reporting regimes, and certification systems.

The strategic response is operational rather than ideological. Climate and energy policy must be treated as trade policy, supply-chain policy, and security policy. Scenario planning must assume fragmentation, not convergence.

The era in which global companies could rely on a single, slowly evolving rulebook is ending.

What this means for startups: Geopolitics enters the product roadmap

Startups experience these shifts earlier and more acutely than incumbents. The most exposed ones are climate tech, energy software, grid and storage systems, ESG and climate data platforms, supply-chain SaaS, carbon markets, advanced materials, and industrial automation.

The core challenge is that global scalability becomes more complex. Different blocs increasingly favour distinct standards, data requirements, and compliance pathways. A product designed around US regulatory assumptions may encounter friction in Europe or Asia—not because it lacks technical merit, but because it no longer aligns with how legitimacy is defined.

For founders, the implications are practical. Go-to-market strategies must account for regulatory geography alongside customer geography. Early product decisions may need to anticipate multiple standards regimes. Policy and regulatory expertise may need to be integrated earlier than in previous startup cycles.

There is an opportunity embedded in this complexity. Startups that can bridge standards, abstract compliance, or translate between regimes gain value as fragmentation increases. In a splintered system, interoperability becomes a competitive moat.

Also Read: How cybersecurity companies can build trust through digital PR

What this means for investors: Repricing policy risk

For investors, the withdrawal changes how climate and energy risk should be underwritten. Policy convergence can no longer be assumed. This increases jurisdictional risk, complicates exit pathways, and heightens sensitivity to political change.

Capital will increasingly favour companies with geographic optionality, diversified revenue exposure, and resilience to policy shifts. Business models that depend heavily on continued US federal leadership or multilateral climate mechanisms will be discounted.

The investor question shifts from “Is this aligned with climate policy?” to a more strategic inquiry: “Which political system does this company scale under?”

Geopolitical literacy becomes a core investment competency rather than a peripheral concern.

Supply chains: Where geopolitics becomes physical

Beyond software and data, the effects propagate into physical value chains. Critical minerals, energy hardware, batteries, grid equipment, and industrial manufacturing face higher coordination costs, greater reliance on bilateral agreements, and increased exposure to sanctions and political risk. Governments must now work a lot harder to find bilateral partners, as multilateralism now breaks up.

For startups embedded in these chains, technical excellence alone is no longer sufficient. Understanding geopolitical context—who controls resources, who sets standards, and who provides security—becomes central to long-term viability.

Conclusion: Geopolitics as a startup variable

This is not a story about climate virtue or environmental ambition. It is a story about how state power reshapes markets and innovation ecosystems.

The US withdrawal from international climate and energy institutions saves little money, but it changes who writes the rules that govern future markets. That shift increases complexity, raises the premium on geopolitical awareness, and alters competitive dynamics across the startup stack.

For founders, executives, and investors, the implication is clear:

Geopolitics is no longer background noise. It is a core variable in startup strategy, capital allocation, and scale.

Those who understand this will adapt early. Those who do not will experience it as friction they cannot fully explain—until it becomes a constraint they cannot escape.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva

The post When nation-states shape startup outcomes appeared first on e27.

In the high-growth markets of Southeast Asia, a recurring frustration exists among fund allocators and regional strategists: The funding gap. You identify a venture with a brilliant solution, provide non-dilutive funding and grants, and the project delivers great short-term results. But the moment the funding cycle ends, the venture struggles to secure independent funding, and the momentum evaporates.

This is not just an operational problem; it is a structural failure. When an otherwise strong venture is rejected for a follow-on institutional fund, it is rarely because its idea failed. It is because they lack structural alignment with the allocator’s logic.

The rigour gap: From pilot to audit

Institutional fund allocators, from foundations and development banks to multilateral agencies, do not invest in upside in the same way a private seed investor might. They invest in the removal of systemic risk.

For a venture to be ready, it must withstand a level of audit rigour that most early-stage ventures are not built for. Rejection often stems from the fact that while a venture is operationally fast, it lacks the institutional legacy required to track and justify funds to a fiduciary standard. If the internal operations are not built for transparency, the venture is an institutional mismatch, regardless of how viable the solution appears to be.

Avoiding the funding cliff

The biggest pain point for fund allocators is the project cycle cliff. Allocators want to know that their fund is a catalyst, not a life support system.

They reject ventures that appear to have a fund-seeking model rather than a fund-ready model. A fund-seeking model relies on the next check for survival; a fund-ready venture uses non-dilutive funding and grants to build financial sovereignty. If a venture cannot demonstrate how its operations survive long after the funding cycle closes, it represents a failed evaluation metric for the allocator’s portfolio.

Also Read: The cold logic of the angel: Stop funding dreams, start funding plumbing

The logic gap: Why market traction is not a proxy for institutional readiness

This is where the distinction becomes critical for growth operators. In the private sector, specifically with Venture Capital, validation is often proven by revenue and rapid market capture. VCs buy your future and your speed to market.

However, an institutional fund allocator funds your proof. They require technical validation benchmarks for data privacy, clinical safety, or financial inclusion that the private market often overlooks in the early stages. A venture can have massive market traction but zero technical de-risking. To an institutional allocator, that traction is unproven because it has not passed the technical hurdles of the sector’s rigour.

Real-world examples of structural alignment

Consider the case of Zipline, the logistics venture. While their core funding came from venture capital, their early deployments in the region were enabled through formal government and institutional partnerships. These relationships required strict operational, safety, and regulatory compliance. These institutional engagements served as de-risking mechanisms that helped demonstrate to private investors that the venture could operate under real regulatory constraints. By meeting these institutional standards early, Zipline provided the operational validation that supported later equity investment.

On the other side, consider an impact-driven social venture (registered as a non-profit) like One Acre Fund. While they prioritise social outcomes, they operate with the operational discipline of a scaled retail system. Grants and philanthropic funds are not treated as subsidies, but as a risk fund used to design, test, and refine agricultural interventions.

What distinguishes them is operational rigour. Performance is measured with audit-level precision, unit economics are tracked closely, and program effectiveness is evaluated continuously. For institutional funders, this shifts the posture from funding activities to a delivery system capable of converting funds into measurable funding outcomes.

Professionalising the funding answer key

To bridge the gap between private sector speed and development sector rigour, a venture must move from being the Hero who survives by grit to the architect who builds by system.

This requires what I call the allocator’s logic, which means building a venture structure that mirrors the answer key reviewers use when evaluating multi-million dollar funds:

• Systemic transparency: Financial and operational reporting must be built for an institutional audit, not just a pitch deck.
• Funding longevity metrics: Defining clear indicators for how the venture generates independent funding or survives once the institutional cycle ends.
• Outcome sovereignty: Showing that the venture is building a proprietary methodology that can be replicated across Southeast Asia without the founder’s constant intervention.

Also Read: In Southeast Asia, cybersecurity is booming, but funding is not

The strategic value of a non-dilutive fund

Securing non-dilutive funds and grants is not just about the money; it is about the signalling effect. When a venture passes the rigour of an institutional allocator, it tells the rest of the market that the venture is de-risked. This makes future equity rounds or strategic exits much cleaner, as the institutional legacy has already been established.

For the growth operator, this fund protects ownership when valuations are at their most vulnerable. For the fund allocator, it ensures that their deployment leads to a permanent shift in the regional market, rather than a temporary pilot that disappears when the budget does.

Closing the gap

We must stop treating non-dilutive funds and grants as free money and start treating them as high rigour funds. The ventures that succeed in Southeast Asia over the next decade will be those that can speak both languages: the language of private sector speed and the language of institutional rigour.

In the institutional world, the best venture does not always win; the most prepared structure does.

After 15-plus years in the regional trenches, I have seen that the scar tissue you build by professionalising for institutional funds is the same asset that makes your venture unignorable to strategic partners in the long run.

Build for rigour, and the capital and the impact will follow.

—

The post The hidden reason institutional fund allocators reject otherwise good ventures appeared first on e27.

Imagine this.

You’ve just read a brilliant guide on giving feedback.

You’ve mastered the frameworks: Radical Candour, HHIIPP, GAIN – and you’re ready to build a high-performance culture. You pull a team member aside to deliver a piece of well-intentioned, perfectly structured critical feedback. You’re humble, helpful, and immediate. But instead of a constructive dialogue, you watch the light in their eyes die as the team member retreats into a shell of resentful compliance.

A week later, their LinkedIn status quietly flips to “Open to Work”.

What fresh hell is this? You did everything by the book.

Here, we’ll explore the concept of psychological safety and why this is the most brutally practical predictor of your team’s success. We will dissect what it is, what it isn’t, and how to diagnose its conspicuous absence – especially within the nuanced cultural landscape of an Asian startup.

What psychological safety actually means (and what it doesn’t)

The definition

Let’s be honest. “Psychological Safety” sounds like something you’d discuss at a corporate retreat involving trust falls. Harvard’s Amy C. Edmonson, who put this concept on the map, defines it as a “shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.”

In simple English, it’s the feeling that you can speak up, admit a mistake, ask a “stupid” question, or challenge the status quo without being publicly flogged for it.

This isn’t just a nice-sounding theory. When Google embarked on its Project Aristotle to build the perfect team, they crunched data from hundreds of teams. They found that the single most important dynamic – not individual brilliance, not team size, not even co-location – was psychological safety. It was the secret sauce that allowed talent to translate into results.

The critical misconceptions

Many founders who pride themselves on a high standard or “tough” culture instinctively recoil from the term. They equate safety with softness. They mistake it for a lack of accountability. Let’s dismantle these myths.

• Myth: It means lowering standards. Reality: It means creating an environment where people feel safe to stretch and strive for high standards without fear of blame if they fall short.
• Myth: It’s about being “nice.” Reality: It’s about being direct, candid, and challenging, but with a foundation of respect and a shared commitment to learning. It’s not about avoiding conflict, but about engaging in it productively.
• Myth: It eliminates accountability. Reality: It’s the very thing that enables accountability. When people feel safe, they are more likely to take ownership of their mistakes, making it possible to hold them accountable for learning and improving from them.
• Myth: It’s for weak or fragile teams. Reality: It’s the defining characteristic of the most resilient, innovative, and high-performing teams. Fear-based cultures are the ones that are truly fragile, as they are unable to adapt to change or learn from failure.

Here lies a paradox for all founders to understand: the goal is not to create a comfortable, low-pressure environment. The goal is to pair high psychological safety with high standards. High psychological safety + high standards = The learning zone. This is where innovation, resilience and sustainable high performance live. Without safety, high standards simply create an Anxiety Zone, a toxic pressure cooker of burnout and attrition.

Also Read: Are you a human resource?

Why psychological safety is the #one predictor of team performance

The hard data on performance and retention

Let’s talk numbers. The data shows an alarming outcome about the cost of fear.

• Your best people are leaving: A 2024 BCG study found that employees in low-safety environments are four times more likely to quit within a year (12 per cent, vs three per cent). For diverse talent, the numbers are even more stark: High safety increases retention by 4x for women and BIPOC employees, and 6x for LGBTQ+ employees. In a talent war, you are unilaterally disarming.
• You’re bleeding productivity: Gallup research connects a climate where opinions are valued to a 27 per cent reduction in turnover, a 40 per cent drop in safety incidents, and a 20 per cent boost in productivity. Fear is expensive. It’s a tax on every single action your team takes.

What these numbers represent is the unlocking of human potential. In a safe environment, people stop spending energy on political manoeuvring and self-preservation and start spending it on what you hired them for: solving hard problems. They ask for help, they admit mistakes, they share half-baked ideas that just might be brilliant, and they tell you the truth, even when it’s ugly. For a startup, where learning speed is the only true competitive advantage, this isn’t a luxury; it’s the entire game.

Diagnosing psychological safety — Is your team actually safe?

The Founder is often the last to know about the kingdom’s rotten problems. Forget the obvious – the shouting matches, the public sharings. The real indicators of low psychological safety are far more insidious. The silence in your meetings isn’t consensus, it’s a symptom.

The subtle signs Founders often miss

• The absence of bad ideas: If you’re only hearing well-polished, safe suggestions, it’s not because your team is brilliant. It’s because they are terrified to share the messy, half-formed thoughts where real innovation begins.
• The echo chamber: Your ideas are met with vigorous, uncritical agreement. This isn’t a sign of your genius; it’s a sign that your team has learned it’s easier to agree with you than to engage in debate.
• The proliferation of process: When people are afraid to use their judgment, they cling to process like a life raft. They will follow a bad process to the letter, because the process can’t be fired.
• The backchannel: The real conversations are happening on Slack DMs, in hushed whispers by the coffee machine, and in post-meeting debriefs where everyone says what they really think. The meeting itself is a theatre.
• The solo hero: People would rather struggle alone for days than ask for help and risk looking incompetent. They are optimising for the appearance of competence, not for the speed of execution.

The ultimate litmus test: The flow of bad news

If you want one, brutally simple diagnostic, ask yourself this: When was the last time someone on your team brought you truly bad news, early?

Not after it was already a multi-alarm fire, but when it was just a wisp of smoke. As Amy C. Edmonson warns, “If there’s no bad news, remind yourself: It’s not that it’s not there. It’s that you’re not hearing about it.” The silence is not golden. It’s the sound of your company failing in slow motion.

Also Read: Embracing sustainability: A circular design perspective on e-waste

The Asian startup context — Cultural challenges you must navigate

Now, for our readers in Singapore, Hong Kong, and beyond: if you’ve tried to implement a “speak truth to power” culture and been met with horrified silence, you’re not alone. While the principles of psychological safety are universal, their application is not. For founders in Asia, simply importing Western frameworks without cultural translation is a recipe for failure.

The power distance problem

The hierarchical nature of many Asian societies and different communication norms create unique challenges that must be understood and addressed. In many Asian cultures that score highly on Hofstede’s Power Distance index, the social fabric is woven with threads of hierarchy and deference. Challenging a superior isn’t just a disagreement; it can be perceived as disrespect.

The concept of “saving face” isn’t just a weakness; it’s a fundamental social lubricant.

When a Western-trained founder encourages their team to “challenge everything”, they think they are fostering innovation. But to an employee raised in a high-context, hierarchical culture, they may be asking them to commit a deeply uncomfortable social transgression.

Lost in translation

The very language of psychological safety is a stumbling block. As we’ve noted, “interpersonal risk taking” is a foreign concept. When you ask a team member if it’s “safe” to take a risk, they are likely thinking about financial or project risk, not the risk of disagreeing with you in a meeting. This cognitive mismatch renders most standard surveys and one-size-fits-all approaches useless.

Adapting psychological safety for Asian startups

Building psychological safety in Asia requires you to be a cultural translator, not a doctrinal importer.

• Reframe the mission: Don’t ask people to challenge you. Ask them to honour the company’s mission by stress-testing ideas. Frame dissent not as a challenge to authority, but as a duty to the collective goal.
• Create structured channels: Don’t start with open-floor debates. Begin with structured, safer channels. Use written feedback, 1-on-1 sessions, or even anonymous tools as a bridge. The goal is to build the “muscle” of dissent in a way that feels culturally accessible.
• Lead the face-saving mode: You, the founder, must be the first to “lose face”. Publicly admit your own mistakes. Thank people for correcting you. When you demonstrate that your own ego is secondary to the best outcome, you give your team permission to do the same.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva

The post Before you can give feedback: Creating the culture where it can be heard appeared first on e27.

Innovation is often framed as the domain of executives, R&D teams, or product leaders. Boards are traditionally viewed as monitors of risk, finance, and compliance. But in Asia’s fast-moving markets, innovation is a core governance responsibility. Boards that fail to actively oversee innovation risk stagnation, missed growth opportunities, and competitive irrelevance.

The future-ready board does not replace management in innovation but provides strategic guidance, challenge, and oversight, ensuring that investments in growth initiatives align with long-term value creation.

Why boards must own innovation oversight

Several forces make innovation governance a board priority:

• Rapid digital disruption: AI, cloud platforms, fintech, and platform ecosystems are transforming entire industries.
• Global competitive pressures: Companies in Asia compete with both established multinationals and agile startups.
• Investor expectations: Growth and innovation metrics increasingly influence investor confidence and valuation.
• Complexity of capital allocation: Boards must ensure innovation budgets are optimised, ROI is monitored, and strategic alignment is maintained.

Boards that fail to actively engage risk leaving executives unchallenged, increasing the likelihood of misaligned innovation investments.

A board framework for innovation oversight

Effective boards oversee innovation across strategy, risk, and culture:

Strategic alignment

• Ensure innovation initiatives align with long-term business objectives.
• Evaluate emerging markets, technology trends, and customer needs as part of the strategic agenda.
• Assess portfolio balance: core, adjacent, and transformational initiatives.

Risk-return oversight

• Monitor the innovation pipeline with clearly defined success metrics and stage-gates.
• Encourage scenario planning for high-impact, low-probability innovation failures.
• Understand regulatory, reputational, and operational risks associated with new initiatives.

Talent and culture enablement

• Assess whether the organisation has the right skills, mindset, and leadership to innovate.
• Promote cross-functional collaboration and experimentation while maintaining accountability.
• Monitor incentives and culture to ensure innovation is rewarded and risk-taking is disciplined.

Also Read: Cybersecurity and data governance in the boardroom: A strategic imperative for Asian boards

Key questions boards should ask

Boards should challenge management with questions that drive both oversight and strategic value:

• What are our innovation priorities, and how are they linked to corporate strategy?
• How do we balance short-term performance pressures with long-term experimentation?
• Which emerging technologies or business models could disrupt our market?
• How do we track adoption, impact, and ROI of innovation initiatives?
• Are we building an organisational culture that supports disciplined risk-taking?

The answers allow boards to influence direction without micromanaging execution.

Innovation metrics for boards

Boards can measure innovation through a combination of leading and lagging indicators:

• R&D expenditure relative to revenue
• Time-to-market for new products or services
• Success rate of pilot programs and proof-of-concepts
• Adoption and engagement metrics for digital solutions
• Strategic alignment and contribution to long-term growth

Tracking these metrics ensures that innovation efforts are measurable, monitored, and aligned with enterprise value.

Boards as guardians of responsible innovation

Innovation carries inherent risk — regulatory, reputational, financial, and ethical. Boards must ensure that growth initiatives:

• Comply with laws, regulations, and industry standards
• Incorporate ethical considerations, especially for AI, data, and sustainability initiatives
• Maintain transparency and accountability in decision-making
• Include clear escalation and reporting mechanisms for unexpected outcomes

Boards that integrate these principles create responsible innovation, safeguarding enterprise resilience while enabling growth.

Also Read: Forward-looking governance: Why Asian boards must think like futurists

The independent director’s contribution

Aspiring independent directors bring value by:

• Providing cross-industry insights on emerging technologies and business models
• Challenging assumptions and encouraging robust debate on strategic bets
• Ensuring balance between risk and reward in innovation investments
• Supporting management in building a culture of disciplined experimentation

Their independent perspective enhances governance while empowering executives to innovate boldly yet responsibly.

Conclusion: Growth governance as a board imperative

Innovation is no longer optional; it is a strategic requirement. Boards that integrate innovation oversight into governance:

• Protect against wasted investments and strategic missteps
• Accelerate value creation by guiding strategic experiments
• Strengthen enterprise resilience by balancing risk and reward
• Foster an organisation-wide culture of disciplined innovation

For Asian boards, the challenge is clear: shift from passive approval to active governance of growth initiatives. The boards that do so will lead companies to sustainable, long-term success in increasingly competitive and unpredictable markets.

This article was first published on The Boardroom Edge.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Header image credit: Canva

The post Innovation oversight and growth governance: Boards as enablers of strategic opportunity appeared first on e27.

The story began when I witnessed my mother struggle with a mobile application to monitor her pension salary. What should have been a simple authentication process turned into repeated attempts to scan her face, adjusting angles, moving between rooms, and changing lighting, only to end with the app crashing without explanation. 

When she asked me to contact customer service, I realised something more troubling. There was no clear support channel, no customer service, just an application that failed silently.

Her story was just another dramatic episode. Days later, I tried to extend my vehicle registration after being informed that the process was available online. But the application told another. After following every instruction, I discovered that the “online process” didn’t actually exist. The only option left was to queue offline, again.

These experiences highlight a deeper issue beyond technical glitches. Many public service applications are built to digitise procedures, not to serve citizens. Empathy and user experience are treated as secondary priorities in this case.

Premature digitalisation 

Digital transformation in public services is always branded to build a seamless process. However, it contradicts what the user experiences in real life. I gathered several feedbacks from public service apps users, such as:

Source: Taken from BPJS Google Playstore Review

Source: Taken from Andal by Taspen Google Playstore Review

 Source: Taken from National Digital Samsat Google Playstore Review

User reviews on Google Play Store for applications such as BPJS, Taspen, and the National Digital Samsat reveal a consistent pattern. Despite high star ratings, recent reviews continue to surface unresolved issues, such as failed authentication, unclear instructions, system errors, and a lack of responsive customer support. Even in early 2026, many of these complaints repeatedly happened.

What makes this situation more problematic is the lack of choice. These applications are not optional. For many services, they have become the primary and the only gateway. When digital access fails, users are left without clear alternatives, trapped in a system that offers neither guidance nor accountability.

This approach ignores the diversity of users that public service apps must serve. Platforms like BPJS and Samsat cater to citizens ranging from young adults to elderly citizens, while Taspen primarily serves users above 60 years old or retirees. Designing a single experience without adjusting to different levels of users only creates exclusion. As seen in cases like elderly users struggling with basic authentication flows, the result is not empowerment, but frustration.

Also Read: Building for fragmentation: How ASEAN SaaS leaders architect optionality into a paradox

The intention behind digitising public services is valid. However, launching an app is not the finish line. Digitalisation requires continuous user education, clear instructions, regular improvements, and accessible human support. Without these, “going digital” becomes a one-time project rather than a long-term commitment.

What ultimately emerges is not a lack of technology, but a lack of empathy. Many public service applications are designed to satisfy bureaucratic workflows, while human–computer interaction is treated as a secondary priority.

Next step: Mitigation

Criticising premature digitalisation will not solve the situation. The most important thing to focus on is how these public service apps can accommodate the needs of the users while fulfilling the requirements of being seamless and user-friendly. 

• First, empathy must be treated as the core design principle, not as a secondary concern. This means conducting user research across age groups, regions, and levels of digital literacy. Understand that some Indonesian users are elderly citizens, and these people require closer attention during the research.
• Second, digitalisation is created to cut off long bureaucratic processes. Make sure that the app can shorten the administrative procedure and help users avoid long queues at the offline counter.  
• Third,  public service applications need clear and transparent accountability. Features like step-by-step guidance, error message, customer service button, and dedicated customer service agents are not luxurious features; instead, they are all essential infrastructure. So, when the system fails, users can easily contact the person in charge.
• Lastly, an app must be treated as a living product, not a static prototype. Continuous update, usability testing, and an endless iteration process are necessary to maintain trust from the users.

Digital transformation succeeds not when all processes are moved online, but when a technology reduces anxiety, genuinely helps the lives of people, and builds a supporting ecosystem.  

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Header image credit: Canva

The post When public service apps forget the people they serve appeared first on e27.

Search is no longer just about ranking links. AI systems now quote sources. If you appear in those answers, your brand gets visibility, trust, and most importantly, clicks. If you don’t, you disappear.

A March 2025 SEMrush study found Google’s “AI Overviews” surfaced in 13.14 per cent of all US queries, nearly double the share from January. Brands that appeared in these AI answers saw conversion rates 4.4x higher than traditional organic traffic.

But how do you earn visibility without resorting to shortcuts that could backfire?

What the data shows

SEMrush analysis highlights how fragmented the AI landscape is.

• ChatGPT leans heavily on Wikipedia and Reddit, with tech sites like TechRadar and G2 also surfacing.
• Google AI Mode cites productivity blogs and platforms like Zapier, Medium, and LinkedIn.

In finance, the split is just as stark: ChatGPT draws on Reddit and Wikipedia, while Google AI Mode prefers Bankrate, NerdWallet, and Investopedia.

The lesson: each AI engine has its own source bias. Founders can’t assume one article in a mainstream tech or business outlet guarantees coverage everywhere.

This fragmentation is why PR leaders need to think of AI visibility as a portfolio strategy. Just as financial advisors recommend diversification, content strategists should diversify their evidence assets across formats, publishers, and domains. The more touchpoints an LLM has to draw from, the more resilient your brand’s visibility becomes.

Actionable takeaways

• Know the answer marketplace: AI search is the new SEO, but success depends on verifiable evidence and trusted sources, not keyword stuffing.
• Invest in PR strategy, not just spend: Early-stage founders often push budgets into visibility at any cost. But AI systems reward authority and credibility, not press release blasts.
• Build “evidence assets”: Think beyond brand storytelling. Publish FAQs, explainers, glossaries, and data-backed studies that answer canonical questions clearly. These assets are the ones LLMs like to cite.
• Turn PR from awareness to performance: PR has long been seen as a tool for credibility and brand awareness, but AI search is changing that equation. When your coverage or evidence-rich content is cited in an AI-generated answer, it can drive measurable traffic and conversions. Not just impressions. In this sense, PR now plays directly into performance metrics like clicks, leads, and customer acquisition. The shift is clear: evidence and citations translate into action, not just awareness.
• Understand AI question types: LLMs handle “how,” “what,” and “compare” questions differently. Audit how your industry is being represented, and design assets that map to those question patterns.
• Treat visibility as a flywheel: Once you appear in AI answers, the effect compounds. More citations build more authority, which reinforces discoverability across engines. This is where strategic patience pays off.
• Balance brand and community signals: SEMrush data shows that community-driven platforms like Reddit surface heavily in ChatGPT. Participating ethically in these communities, by providing expertise rather than self-promotion, can help seed organic visibility.

Also Read: When streaming prices ignore how people actually watch

The playbook: PR for AI discoverability

A repeatable framework is emerging:

• Discovery map: Build a query universe that covers your company, its category, competitors, and the key problem statements.
• Authority stack: Anchor your narrative in authoritative explainers, expert quotes, and third-party validation.
• Citable assets: Create pages that LLMs want to reference. Resources like fact sheets, FAQs, and original or proprietary data sets.
• Structure for machines: Use schema.org markup, consistent entity naming, canonical URLs, and alt text. For example, add FAQ schema to common questions, keep your company name consistent across pages, and describe charts/images with meaningful alt text so machines can interpret them.
• Distribution blend: Focus on earned media and credible third-party research citations. Avoid over-relying on sponsored or paid placements.
• Refresh cadence: Update statistics, add new references, and log changes transparently. Recency signals matter for both crawlers and model trainers.

Measurement: A new scorecard

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. Traditional SEO metrics miss the point. Instead, track:

• Share-of-Answer (SoA): Per cent of queries where your brand appears in LLM responses.
• Cross-engine coverage: Presence across ChatGPT, Google AI, Perplexity, and Gemini.
• Citation diversity: Are you showing up via one placement or multiple?
• Answer drift: How stable is your visibility week over week?
• Evidence depth: How many of your assets provide original data or primary sourcing?

Leaders who adopt this scorecard not only understand their brand’s presence but can benchmark competitors and adjust strategy accordingly. Imagine being able to quantify that your rival is cited in 60 per cent of “best AI tools” answers, while you only appear in 20 per cent. That’s actionable intelligence.

AI traffic is overtaking traditional search

Semrush data shows that AI search traffic is rising rapidly and could soon rival or even surpass traditional organic search traffic. This trend is more than a technology shift. It’s a competitive warning. If you don’t begin optimising for LLM visibility now, competitors could establish themselves in AI results and capture the lion’s share of exposure and visits. While the foundations of LLM optimisation overlap with SEO, the two are not identical. The first step is understanding your brand’s visibility within AI-driven results and treating it as a distinct channel.

Also Read: AI at machine speed: What 2026 holds for cybercrime and enterprise security

Ethics: guardrails that matter

The temptation to “game” LLMs is real. How is this done? Through prompt injection, synthetic citations, or manipulating community forums. But the risks are higher than in SEO. A single flagged manipulation can result in removal or worse, reputational damage.

UNESCO’s guidelines on AI ethics stress building trust and accountability. For PR, that means:

• Disclosing conflicts of interest.
• Auditing assets for bias.
• Avoiding misleading statistics or unverifiable claims.
• Differentiating fact from opinion clearly, especially when quoted out of context.

Ethical visibility lasts longer. Tricks don’t.

Checklist: before you publish

• Does this asset answer a clear question in plain language?
• Is it backed by verifiable, citable data?
• Is it structured for both humans and machines?
• Would I be comfortable if this were quoted, without context, in an AI answer?
• Does it align with the principles of transparency and accountability?

If the answer to all five is yes, you’re building for the right kind of visibility.

From a PR perspective, the same checklist applies to press materials and media kits too. Ensure that press releases cite reliable data, founder quotes are attributable and accurate, and fact sheets present details in a clear, structured way. These assets often become the raw material that journalists and AI systems alike draw from.

Closing thought

AI search is shifting PR from link placement to evidence placement. The brands that win won’t be those who find loopholes. They’ll be the ones that publish reference-grade content, earn citations in trusted outlets, and build credibility that machines and people recognise.

The opportunity is clear: treat AI visibility as a long-term reputational asset, not a quick growth hack. Just as SEO rewarded brands that invested in quality over gimmicks, LLM-driven search will favour those who combine ethics, structure, and consistency. For entrepreneurs and leaders, the play is simple: earn your citations.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Header image credit: Canva

The post PR for LLM search: How to earn citations without gaming algorithms appeared first on e27.

Across industries, organisations are racing to adopt new technologies, particularly AI. But as adoption accelerates, a gap is becoming increasingly hard to ignore.

According to PwC’s 2025 Digital Trust Insights, 66 per cent of technology leaders now say cyber risk is their top concern. Yet only two per cent of organisations have achieved true, enterprise-wide cyber resilience.

This disconnect reveals a deeper issue. Cybersecurity is still treated as IT hygiene or operational insurance, rather than what it has become: economic infrastructure. Trust is the invisible layer that determines whether AI, digital commerce, and platforms can scale sustainably or stall under their own risk.

When AI adoption moves faster than governance

AI has unlocked enormous value, but it has also expanded attack surfaces faster than most organisations can respond.

The same PwC survey found that 67 per cent of organisations believe generative AI has increased their cyber attack surface. Inside companies, this shows up in familiar ways: employees experimenting with AI tools outside approved systems, browser-based agents automating tasks, and informal workflows built on powerful but poorly governed technology.

Innovation rarely waits for governance. But when guardrails lag too far behind, trust erodes quietly.

A clear example can be seen in the growing risks around AI prompt injection. OpenAI has acknowledged that prompt injection is a long-term security challenge that may never be fully solved. These attacks can manipulate AI systems into unintended actions, misinterpret user intent, or expose sensitive information — often without users ever seeing what went wrong.

The consequence is subtle but significant. Users may not understand the technical failure, but they experience the fallout. Confidence weakens. Adoption slows. Trust becomes fragile.

Platform-level trust requires structural security decisions

At scale, trust cannot be sustained through messaging alone. It requires architecture, governance, and oversight.

As digital platforms grow larger and more influential, cybersecurity is increasingly treated as a public trust issue rather than a private technical concern. Few examples illustrate this shift more clearly than TikTok’s US restructuring.

Also Read: Why protecting data today means proving you can restore trust

In January 2026, TikTok signed an agreement to divest 45 per cent of its US operations to a consortium of American investors, including Oracle, Silver Lake, and MGX. Under the new structure, Oracle will serve as TikTok’s trusted security partner, responsible for securing and managing US user data, auditing national security compliance, and replicating a US-specific version of the platform’s algorithm under new jurisdiction.

This move is not just about regulation. It reflects a broader reality: data residency, infrastructure control, and third-party oversight are now prerequisites for trust, not optional safeguards. For platforms handling massive volumes of personal data, cybersecurity decisions increasingly shape whether users, regulators, and partners remain willing to engage.

Security is becoming a user-facing trust signal

Cybersecurity is no longer invisible to users, whether platforms want it to be or not.

Recent Cybernews research, as cited in The Guardian, uncovered around 16 billion exposed login credentials circulating through infostealer malware datasets, prompting widespread warnings to reset passwords and strengthen authentication practices. At the same time, credential theft surged by 160 per cent in 2025, now accounting for one in five data breaches, driven by AI-powered phishing and Malware-as-a-Service tools.

These numbers matter because they translate into everyday experience. Compromised accounts lead to forced password resets, suspicious login alerts, and locked services. When trust breaks, users rarely make noise. They disengage quietly and permanently.

This is why security measures increasingly double as reputation management.

Meta’s global anti-scam campaign offers a clear illustration. In 2023, consumers reported losing more than US$10 billion to fraud, a 14 per cent increase year-on-year. 40 per cent of reported social media scams involved online shopping, often leaving victims without the products they paid for.

In response, Meta dismantled over two million scam-related accounts globally. These actions are not just enforcement measures. They are visible trust signals, designed to show users that protection is happening in real time, not buried in policy documents.

Trust drives commerce, especially in emerging digital markets

In digital commerce, trust is not a compliance cost. It is a growth multiplier.

Nowhere is this clearer than in Southeast Asia. According to Lazada and Cube’s research, nearly 90 per cent of online shoppers in the region are active in curated, high-trust Mall environments, and 90 per cent are willing to pay more when buying from these spaces. Notably, eight per cent of respondents are willing to pay over 30 per cent extra for what they perceive as a trust premium.

Also Read: Trust remains travel’s defining currency: Inside travel’s next operating model at MarketHub Asia 2026

These findings reinforce a critical point. Payments, identity verification, live commerce, and cross-border transactions all rely on cybersecurity as a foundation. When platforms feel safe, commerce flows. When they do not, growth stalls.

Cybersecurity is economic infrastructure, not insurance

Taken together, the pattern is clear.

AI is increasing exposure. Platforms are restructuring around security. Consumers are withdrawing trust when risks feel unmanaged. Commerce is rewarding safer ecosystems.

Over the past year, I have personally received multiple notifications informing me that my passwords were exposed in data breaches. Some platforms forced immediate resets. Others quietly suggested updates “as a precaution”. None of these moments felt dramatic on their own. But collectively, they changed how I interact with digital services.

I hesitate before connecting to new apps. I am more selective about where I store payment details. I think twice before adopting new tools, even when they promise speed or convenience.

This is what cybersecurity looks like when it becomes economic infrastructure. It not only prevents worst-case scenarios. It determines who gets to participate confidently in the digital economy and who opts out.

Security, in this context, is no longer insurance against rare disasters. It is the foundation that allows digital systems to function at scale.

Trust is what allows innovation to scale

Innovation moves fast. Trust determines how far it goes.

Security is often framed as the opposite of speed. In reality, it is what makes speed sustainable. When users trust platforms, they experiment more. When businesses trust infrastructure, they invest deeper. When ecosystems trust their safeguards, innovation compounds instead of stalling.

The next phase of the digital economy will not be won by those who ship the fastest features or adopt the most advanced AI. It will be shaped by those who treat cybersecurity as a trust layer rather than a technical afterthought.

For founders, this means building security into product decisions early.

For platforms, it means making protection visible and meaningful.

For policymakers, it means recognising cybersecurity as critical economic infrastructure.

Because in a digital economy built on speed, trust is what allows progress to last.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Header image credit: Canva

The post The trust problem behind AI adoption and platform growth appeared first on e27.

From Wall Street to Asian bourses, from oil futures to digital currencies, the message is clear: risk appetite has evaporated, and a defensive crouch has become the default stance. This is not merely a localised correction or sector-specific adjustment. This is a full-scale recalibration of market sentiment, driven by artificial intelligence anxieties, robust economic data that complicates the rate-cut narrative, and a commodity complex under siege from supply gluts.

In my view, what we are witnessing represents a significant stress test for the interconnected global financial system, and the results so far paint a sobering picture.

The epicentre of this week’s turmoil lies squarely on Wall Street, where fresh concerns about the long-term implications of artificial intelligence on commercial real estate and software sectors triggered a violent selloff on Thursday. The Nasdaq Composite plummeted 2.03 per cent, erasing weeks of gains in a single trading session. The S&P 500 fared only marginally better, dropping 1.57 per cent as investors scrambled to reduce exposure to growth-oriented names.

These are not trivial declines. They reflect a fundamental reassessment of valuations in sectors that have carried the market to record highs over the past year. The AI revolution, once celebrated as a catalyst for unprecedented productivity gains, has now become a source of anxiety as market participants question whether the technology will disrupt more businesses than it creates.

This flight from risk assets has produced a predictable but nonetheless significant rotation into safe havens. United States Treasuries rallied sharply, pushing the 10-year yield down to approximately 4.09 per cent, its lowest level since early December. This move tells us something important about investor psychology right now.

When capital flows aggressively into government bonds amid strong economic data, it signals that fear has overtaken greed as the dominant market emotion. The traditional playbook would suggest that robust employment figures and resilient consumer spending should push yields higher. Instead, the opposite has occurred, revealing the depth of concern about potential dislocations in equity markets.

The commodity complex has not escaped the carnage. Oil prices fell more than 2 per cent after a devastating report from the International Energy Agency projected a record global crude surplus of 3.7 million barrels per day in 2026. This figure represents a supply glut of historic proportions, one that threatens to keep energy prices depressed for the foreseeable future.

For oil-producing nations and energy companies, this outlook presents serious challenges to fiscal planning and capital expenditure decisions. For consumers and central bankers, lower energy costs could provide some relief on the inflation front, though the broader economic implications of a weakening commodity complex remain concerning.

Gold, traditionally the ultimate safe haven during periods of market stress, has also stumbled. The precious metal tumbled below the US$5,000 per ounce mark as strong jobs data dampened hopes for immediate interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. This development highlights a fascinating tension in current market dynamics.

Also Read: Stablecoins are becoming ‘dollars as a service’ for emerging markets

Investors want protection from equity volatility, but they also recognise that a strong labour market gives the Fed little incentive to ease monetary policy. Higher-for-longer interest rates diminish the appeal of non-yielding assets like gold, creating downward pressure even during periods of elevated uncertainty.

Perhaps the most instructive lesson from this week’s market action comes from the cryptocurrency sector, which has declined 1.55 per cent over the past 24 hours, bringing its total market capitalisation to US$2.28 trillion. What makes this move particularly significant is not its magnitude but its correlation structure.

The crypto market now exhibits a 93 per cent correlation with the S&P 500 and an 89 per cent correlation with gold over the same period. These figures demolish any remaining arguments that digital assets function as uncorrelated portfolio diversifiers during stress events. When correlations approach unity across asset classes, it tells us that macro forces, specifically interest rate expectations and dollar dynamics, are driving all boats in the same direction.

The institutional dimension of the crypto selloff deserves careful attention. Bitcoin exchange-traded fund assets under management fell to US$$93.32billionfrom\; US\$$97.31 billion the previous day, indicating sustained selling pressure from professional investors. This was compounded by US$$98.45million\; inBitcoinliquidations\; over24hours,with\; US\$$80.21 million representing long positions that were forcibly closed.

The combination of spot selling and leveraged position unwinding created a negative feedback loop that amplified the downward move. In my assessment, this dynamic represents one of the most vulnerable aspects of the current crypto market structure, where institutional flows and derivative markets can interact in ways that accelerate price moves beyond what fundamentals would justify.

Also Read: Markets on edge: AI rally fizzles as crypto plunges below US$2.42 trillion

Looking ahead, the technical picture for Bitcoin centres on the US$$65,000to\; US\$$66,000 support zone. A decisive break below this level could open the door to a swift decline toward US$50,000, a scenario that Standard Chartered has publicly identified as possible.

The key near-term catalyst will be the FOMC meeting minutes scheduled for release on February 19, which could provide crucial guidance on the Federal Reserve’s interest rate trajectory. Until then, markets will likely remain in a holding pattern, with participants reluctant to commit capital until they have greater clarity on the direction of monetary policy.

My view on the current situation is that we are experiencing a necessary and ultimately healthy correction in asset prices that had become stretched by optimism about technological transformation and monetary easing. The AI narrative, while powerful, had pushed valuations in certain sectors to levels that assumed perfection in execution and adoption.

Reality rarely cooperates with such assumptions. Similarly, the expectation that central banks would rush to cut rates despite solid economic data always seemed premature. Markets are now adjusting to a more realistic assessment of both opportunities and risks.

The path forward will depend heavily on whether institutional investors interpret current price levels as buying opportunities or as warnings to further reduce exposure. Daily ETF flow data will provide the most immediate signal of sentiment. A return to consistent net inflows would suggest that professional capital views the selloff as a dip worth buying. Continued outflows would indicate that de-risking has further to run.

For now, the burden of proof rests with the bulls, who must demonstrate that support levels will hold up against persistent macroeconomic headwinds and technical pressure. The markets have spoken clearly this week, and their message is one of caution, recalibration, and respect for the powerful forces that shape global capital flows.

—

The post Markets in freefall: AI fears trigger US$4B Bitcoin ETF exodus appeared first on e27.

In the high-stakes wealth hubs of Singapore and Bangkok, the definition of a “premium service” is being rewritten. For the region’s wealthy and rapidly expanding mass-affluent segments, traditional wealth management—characterised by scheduled quarterly reviews and static PDF reports—is losing its sheen.

In an era of instant gratification, convenience has become the new currency.

A recent executive insights report, “From Pilots to Production: How Banks Turn AI into Revenue” by Dyna.AI, GXS Partners, and Smartkarma, argues that the promise of AI in wealth management is not only about efficiency. More significantly, it is the ability to bring a higher level of personalisation to customer segments that were previously uneconomic to serve. That capability matters enormously in Southeast Asia, where roughly half of adults have historically remained unbanked or underbanked.

Also Read: Southeast Asia’s banks have entered the AI revenue era

At the same time, a new tier of wealth is emerging across the region—digital entrepreneurs in Jakarta, family-owned conglomerate heirs in Manila, tech founders in Ho Chi Minh City, and high-earning professionals in Kuala Lumpur—who now demand more sophisticated advisory services.

RM co-pilots: from chatbots to strategic partners

At the centre of this shift is what the report dubs the “Relationship Manager (RM) Co-pilot.” These are not simple chatbots. They are sophisticated generative AI systems that synthesise large volumes of data (portfolios, market trends, transaction histories, public filings, social sentiment, and client preferences) to surface relevant investment ideas in near real-time. With these tools, relationship managers can reduce their research time by a reported 95 per cent, freeing them to focus on client strategy, behavioural coaching and bespoke planning rather than data mining.

That speed matters in markets where time-sensitive information can mean the difference between capturing an investment window or missing it entirely. For instance, RMs advising clients exposed to Indonesian commodities or Philippine remittance flows can quickly pull together macro signals, regulatory developments and company-level disclosures to form a coherent client narrative.

Commercial wins and measurable uplift

The commercial impact is already measurable. The report cites a leading multinational bank that saw advisor sales rise by 20 per cent year-on-year after deploying an AI coaching tool. For Asia’s largest private banks, the revenue uplift from scalable personalisation is being counted in hundreds of millions of US dollars annually.

Put bluntly: AI is transforming wealth management from a series of scheduled meetings into an ongoing, data-driven engagement model that keeps the bank present in the client’s financial life.

In practice, banks in Singapore and the UAE are piloting AI-powered concierges that provide seamless portfolio briefings and personalised investment insights during client sessions. In Hong Kong, private banks have used AI to produce rapid scenario analyses for clients considering exposure to opportunities in the Greater Bay Area.

Across Southeast Asia, similar deployments are enabling RMs to bring high-quality, timely investment ideas into conversations–making each interaction materially more valuable.

Mass-affluent: the strategic prize

The mass-affluent opportunity is the real strategic prize. Historically, high-touch advisory was too costly to extend below a threshold of millions in investable assets.

AI changes the unit economics. By automating routine prep and using predictive analytics to recommend a “next best action,” banks can offer a private-banking experience at scale—delivered digitally, affordably and with enough personalisation to resonate. That means middle-aged professionals in Manila with modest but growing portfolios, young tech founders in Jakarta, or dual-income households in Ho Chi Minh City can enjoy richer advice without a four-figure advisory fee.

Also Read: From invisible to investable: How AI is unlocking ASEAN’s MSME goldmine

Local fintechs are already experimenting with scaled advice models. Robo-advisers in Singapore and Malaysia that began as low-cost portfolio managers are increasingly layering human-in-the-loop advice powered by AI insights, creating hybrid offerings that appeal to aspirational clients who want a touch of bespoke guidance without the traditional price tag.

Adoption challenges: trust, governance and change management

Yet deployment is not the same as adoption. The whitepaper cautions that a model can be technically “live” for months before frontline staff actually trust and use it. “Getting a model ‘live’ is fast; getting people to use it takes longer,” the report notes. Cultural and operational factors matter.

In the Philippines, uptake only accelerated once a retail bank began reporting weekly on the tool’s revenue impact rather than solely its algorithmic accuracy.

In Malaysia, banks that paired AI tools with change management—such as training sessions, show-and-tell meetings, and champion programmes—saw far higher and more durable adoption rates.

Regulation and data governance are additional considerations in Southeast Asia’s diverse regulatory landscape. Singapore’s precise data and fintech framework make it a natural testbed for advanced RM co-pilots. Elsewhere, banks must navigate varying data-localisation rules and privacy norms while ensuring models are explainable to clients and regulators.

That reality has encouraged hybrid approaches: keeping sensitive data onshore and using federated learning or encrypted compute to benefit from cross-border models without transferring raw client data.

Speed to context—the ability to deliver relevant context in minutes, not hours—is the intangible competitive edge. One UAE-based wealth manager quoted in the report said, “AI gives me the context I need in minutes, not hours. My conversations are now about the client’s goals, not about me searching for information.”

The same dynamic is playing out across Southeast Asia, where RMs are discovering that AI-driven preparation increases client satisfaction and, crucially, client retention.

Also Read: Why traditional wealth strategies are failing India’s new-age investors

For banks in the region, the message is straightforward. The “new luxury standard” is digital. Those that successfully embed AI co-pilots into RM workflows will deepen share of wallet with existing high-net-worth individuals and capture the vast, underserved mass-affluent market—arguably the region’s most dynamic growth segment.

Implementation requires more than technology: it needs governance, frontline training and metrics that link AI usage to commercial outcomes.

Southeast Asia is approaching a tipping point. As wealth proliferates across cities from Singapore to Surabaya, clients will begin to expect the immediacy and relevance that AI enables. Firms that treat AI as an augmentation of human advisors rather than a replacement will find themselves offering a genuinely new category of service: accessible, personalised and continuously engaged wealth management that, for the first time, feels like true private banking for many more people across the region.

—

The image was generated using AI.

The post AI is making wealth management feel like concierge service appeared first on e27.