Persuasion

Consumer Power Is Shifting and Consumer Packaged Goods Companies Are Struggling

July 24, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Consumer Power Is Shifting and Consumer Packaged Goods Companies Are Struggling The much-whispered unraveling of Kraft Heinz underscores a broader sector-wide malaise: the steep, stubborn erosion of organic growth across consumer staples. Giants like PepsiCo, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, and India’s Tata Consumer Products face similarly constraining headwinds.

Saturated demand is the culprit. Consumers are maxed out on toothpaste, detergent, packaged snacks, and syrupy fizz. As categories mature and volume plateaus, traditional growth levers feel obsolete. Intensified global competition tightens the vise—especially from nimble, cost-efficient regional brands that operate hyper-locally across developing markets.

Consumer behavior is bifurcating. Price-sensitive shoppers are gravitating toward store-label substitutes: affordable, dependable, brand-agnostic. Meanwhile, high-intent buyers seek premium offerings reflecting health priorities, sustainability values, or cultural identity. Together, these forces compress mid-tier incumbents from both ends.

To recapture relevance, legacy players are pivoting—acquiring smaller, health-forward, culturally attuned brands with traction. This isn’t experimentation. It’s survival. Growth now hinges on swift, intentional entry into wellness-led micro-markets.

Consumer Packaged Goods Companies are Facing Saturated Demand PepsiCo’s acquisition of probiotic soda brand Poppi and Mexican-American snack label Siete Foods signals a clean-label, culturally conscious shift. Tata bolstered its portfolio with wholesome foods brand Soulfull, fusion brand Ching’s Secret, and Ayurvedic company Organic India. Unilever doubled down with Pukka Herbs, sustainable staple Seventh Generation, and offbeat grooming line Dr. Squatch—plus a stake in Esqa, Indonesia’s first vegan, Halal-certified cosmetics brand. Colgate and P&G followed, acquiring mission-driven favorites like Native, Hello Products, and Billie.

These investments reflect more than market strategy. They mark an ideological realignment. Today’s buyers demand clarity, simplicity, and purpose. With processed goods under scrutiny and marketing spin losing its shine, ethos has emerged as premium currency.

The staples sector isn’t merely evolving—it’s self-disrupting. In place of legacy inertia, a nimble, value-led strategy is taking root. The possible Kraft Heinz breakup embodies that shift.

Of Course Mask Mandates Didn’t ‘Work’—At Least Not for Definitive Proof

July 17, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

We will never definitively prove whether mask mandates worked during the COVID-19 pandemic—not with the crisp authority of pharmacological trials—because the circumstances themselves resisted clarity. Proper Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) would have required a moral obscenity: randomly splitting a population, enforcing strict mask-wearing protocols for one group and none for the other, then deliberately exposing both to infectious conditions.

Intentionally subjecting people to a deadly virus under strained public health systems—merely to pursue statistical precision—violates basic ethical norms. Moreover, the real world is inherently hostile to clean variables (a topic I explored when discussing why airline boarding is a mess): mask adherence fluctuates, viral variants evolve unpredictably, and public behavior veers between paranoia and apathy. Isolating the signal of mask mandates in this noise is akin to seeking symmetry in a kaleidoscope.

Perhaps the most sobering takeaway is that future efforts to evaluate sweeping health interventions will confront the same empirical turbulence and ethical dilemmas—making “absolute” answers perpetually elusive. Even much-cited studies, such as the Bangladesh mask trial, invite selective interpretation. Hopefuls and skeptics alike will highlight findings that align with their beliefs.

Yet despite all this indeterminacy, masks occupied a peculiar place in the public psyche—a signal of intent, a behavioral nudge. Their utility became less a question of virology and more one of psychology: the low cost and plausible benefit lured even the doubtful into compliance.

The broader lesson is clear: public health policy, like rhetoric, thrives not in absolutes but in persuasion, compromise, and the murky middle. And it is in that middle where humanity must weigh its choices.

Most Writing Is Bad Because It Doesn’t Know Why It Exists

July 10, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Most Writing Is Bad Because It Doesn't Know Why It Exists Ask anyone who has ever written something that actually worked—a punchy social post, a compelling blog entry, a persuasive ad, or even a user manual that finally made sense—and they’ll tell you: it didn’t begin with confidence or inspiration. It started with motive. Real motive. Before the first sentence hit the page, there was already a reason burning behind it. Writing wasn’t a search for clarity. It was the final execution of it.

In college editing classes, students are often introduced to the concept of exigence in rhetorical theory. This aligns perfectly with the idea that strong writing needs two things: a clear thesis and a compelling motive. While the thesis is usually straightforward, the motive—that deeper reason the piece truly deserves to exist—often leaves students blank. Ask why they wrote a particular essay, and the most common answer is, “Because it was assigned.”

That’s not a motive. That’s compliance. And it’s exactly why so much writing feels hollow. The form may be polished, but the pulse is missing.

Writing without motive is like swinging a sword at fog. There’s motion, but no impact.

What readers truly want to know is this: What gripped the writer’s mind hard enough to make them sit down and wrestle with a blank page rather than scroll TikTok or eat cereal straight from the box? Why this topic, and why now?

Idea for Impact: If a writer can answer that—whether it’s obsession, frustration, or a question that won’t let go—the piece gains traction. The spark becomes visible. And maybe, just maybe, the reader will feel it too.

Flying Cramped Coach: The Economics of Self-Inflicted Misery

July 3, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Flying Cramped Coach: Economics of Self-Inflicted Misery I fly often. I’m in airports often. And I’m consistently amazed at the plaintive bleating from the rear of the aircraft—as if indignity were somehow sprung upon them unannounced. But no one ends up in seat 36B by accident. Airlines today offer a deeply tiered experience—you’re not just buying a ticket; you’re buying the version of reality you’re willing to endure.

At the heart of aviation lies the cold arithmetic of skybound economics. Premium-class offerings fund the airline. Their plush seats, elevated service, and eye-watering prices (often paid for by employers) generate the profits that justify the entire operation. Coach serves as flying ballast—necessary, but optimized for volume rather than value. Every inch is monetized; every amenity, unbundled.

And flying passengers isn’t even where the real money is. Airlines have discovered that their most lucrative business model isn’t in the skies—it’s in your wallet. Delta pulls in nearly $7 billion a year from its partnership with American Express. American Airlines sees even greater windfalls, with co-branded credit card deals expected to generate $10 billion annually, adding $1.5 billion to pre-tax income. In some quarters, the frequent flyer program outperforms the flying business itself. Your loyalty is more valuable than your seat.

So when the knees start knocking in economy, remember: that seat wasn’t designed for your comfort. It was engineered for margins. Flying economy dares you to expect less—for less. It strips away the last pretenses of customer care and replaces them with transactional realism.

The harsh truth is that airlines have worked—and are still working—very hard to normalize a flying experience where discomfort isn’t just endured, but willingly bought at a discount. They offer precisely the misery we’ve paid for, right down to the punitive carry-on policy and the millimeter of missing legroom. To complain after the fact is to weep at the altar of one’s own bargain-hunting.

Some Influencers Just Aren’t Worth Placating

June 27, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Recent news of Carnival Cruise Group’s decision to ban two “influencers” after a run of negative reviews has sparked a spirited debate online.

Many are quick to label the move as corporate censorship, but a closer look reveals it’s often just basic business sense. This wasn’t about silencing genuine critique—it was about a company recognizing that some forms of “feedback” are merely thinly veiled demands from the perpetually aggrieved.

These influencers weren’t ordinary customers offering fair assessments. Their dissatisfaction seemed to operate as a business model, consistently leveraged for perks like free cruises, suite upgrades, and even a comped wedding. When complaints reliably yield such significant compensation, dissatisfaction ceases to be an affliction and instead becomes a profitable asset. To be banned for one’s “opinion,” when that “opinion” primarily consists of a tiresome enumeration of petty defects after repeated indulgence, isn’t martyrdom—it’s simply mistaking self-importance for actual consequence.

More broadly, this incident reflects the growing commodification of outrage in the digital age. Social media thrives on grievance, and the influencer economy demands perpetual dissatisfaction. Negative reviews generate more engagement, effectively turning critique into performance rather than honest, balanced appraisal. The notion that discomforts—however generously compensated—constitute a public service worthy of widespread dissemination speaks volumes about the peculiar vanity of our time.

Carnival’s move isn’t a crackdown; it’s a necessary correction. Businesses have their limits—budget cruise lines cater to specific market segments and set clear expectations. When influencers review these companies as if they were luxury brands and consistently post negative reviews based on unmet, unrealistic expectations, they unfairly damage the company’s reputation. Removing those who ceaselessly publicize a company’s purported defects, even after extensive placation, isn’t suppression—it’s long-overdue pragmatism.

Criticism is healthy, but the expectation that companies must endlessly placate serial complainers isn’t consumer advocacy—it’s entitlement masquerading as accountability.

This Single Word Can Drastically Elevate Your Productivity

June 23, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Don't Agree to Less: Say 'No' and Focus on What Matters

You’re working hard, but you still feel stuck when it comes to making real progress. It’s easy to blame demanding clients, a tough boss, or family obligations. Maybe you fall back on familiar excuses like ‘stuff happens’ or ‘if only this’ or ‘if only that.’ Or you might even complain that the world isn’t moving fast enough for you.

But the real issue is your inability to decline what isn’t essential. Saying ‘yes’feels easier—you don’t like turning people down because you don’t want to be the bad guy. And there’s always that nagging thought: “How long could this really take?” While those reasons may feel valid, they’re just excuses.

Every time you say ‘yes’ to something, you’re inherently saying ‘no’ to something else.

You can’t keep saying ‘yes’ to everything without consequences. And those consequences often show up as stalled progress and stress. Important things end up taking a backseat. If you’re not focusing on what truly matters to you, you’ll get overwhelmed, irritated, and ultimately unhappy.

The good news is, you can change this dynamic. You have the power.

Start by creating a clear list of what’s important to you at work and at home. It’s okay if work priorities are at the top or if family comes first. The key is knowing what matters to you.

Once you have that clarity, use your list to filter your time-allocation decisions. When a new request or task comes your way, check if it aligns with your top priorities. If it’s important, that’s great! Just remember, prioritizing it will push other things down your list, and you might not get to those.

If the request doesn’t align, simply decline it.

Don’t take on anything that won’t move you closer to where you want to be.

Just say ‘no.’

That one word—‘no’—is incredibly powerful. The initial discomfort of saying ‘no’ will fade quickly, but the long-term benefits will last. This isn’t about being selfish; it’s about being smart with your time and energy.

Don’t agree to something when you know you can—and must—say ‘no.’ If you keep saying ‘yes,’ you’ll have no one to blame but yourself for not making progress on what truly matters.

Don’t agree to less.

The Barnum Effect and the Appeal of Vagueness

June 2, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

When was the last time you cracked open a fortune cookie? No Chinese takeaway feels complete without this crunchy treat and its mysterious message inside. These tiny slips of paper often claim to offer insights into your future or personality, and many read them with curiosity. However, how much truth can really be hidden inside a mass-produced cookie?

Humans Seek Personal Meaning in Fortune Cookie Messages Most fortune cookie messages are vague, allowing for personal interpretation. None of these offer specifics—no details about time, place, or context. Because of this ambiguity, readers can easily connect the message to something in their own lives. “A pleasant surprise is waiting for you” could apply to anything from a surprise visit to an unexpected windfall. “The harder you work, the luckier you get” shares a motivational cliché. “You know how to have fun with others and enjoy solitude” covers two opposite traits, increasing the chance it resonates with anyone.

This phenomenon is explained by the Barnum Effect, where people see personal meaning in broad or generic statements. Named after the pioneering American showman P. T. Barnum, whose entertainment appealed to all tastes, the term highlights how people accept vague messages as uniquely relevant to them.

Several factors contribute to the strength of the Barnum Effect. Personalization plays a key role—when a message is framed as being specifically “for you,” it becomes more convincing. Positivity also boosts acceptance, as people are naturally more inclined to believe favorable descriptions or predictions. The perceived credibility of the source matters too; messages from trusted or well-known individuals are generally more persuasive. Finally, individual personality traits can influence susceptibility—those who seek external validation or approval are more likely to accept vague or general statements as personally meaningful.

Generic Horoscopes: People Seek Relevance, Find Comforting Validation The Barnum Effect, also known as the Forer Effect, describes a psychological phenomenon where individuals believe that general personality descriptions are tailored specifically to them, even though these descriptions are vague enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect helps explain why people often believe in horoscopes. Horoscopes typically use broad and positive statements that resonate with many, creating a sense of personal validation. People tend to focus on the parts of the horoscope that seem to fit their lives, a phenomenon called confirmation bias, while overlooking the parts that don’t. Additionally, the desire for comfort, guidance, and a sense of control during uncertain times can make the seemingly personalized insights of horoscopes appealing.

The Barnum Effect also explains the appeal of online quizzes that categorize you, such as those suggesting which fictional character you resemble or your Hogwarts house. These quizzes often yield flattering results with general positive traits associated with desirable categories. Despite being based on broad answers, the resulting descriptions include appealing and relatable attributes, fostering a sense of recognition and surprising accuracy, even if the connection is weak. The enjoyable nature of these quizzes and the positive self-perception gained from the association further strengthen belief in their validity.

Similarly, the Barnum Effect clarifies why people find online quizzes linking superficial choices like car color to personality to be accurate. These quizzes offer broad, positive descriptions tied to different options, presenting traits individuals often want to claim. Despite a likely tenuous connection, the Barnum Effect makes these general statements feel personally relevant. Focusing on perceived alignments and overlooking inconsistencies reinforces belief in the quiz’s insights, and the self-reflection it prompts can also contribute to this feeling of accuracy.

So, next time you’re tempted to believe a fortune cookie’s prophecy—or an online quiz result—remember how easily we can be swayed by generic, feel-good predictions.

Be Skeptical of Generality: Recognize and question vague statements that could apply to almost anyone. Look for specific, unique details instead.
Actively Seek Disconfirmation: Don’t just focus on what seems to fit. Consciously look for parts of the description that don’t resonate with you.
Consider the Source and Objectivity: Evaluate who is providing the information and whether they have any biases or motivations to appeal to a wide audience.

Idea for Impact: It’s part of human nature to read meaning into vague predictions and statements. A little skepticism can go a long way.

How to … Address Over-Apologizing

May 31, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

The tendency to over-apologize frequently originates from anxiety, an inflated sense of responsibility, or diminished self-esteem. This may manifest as preemptive apologies or over-explanations, prompted by a fear of negative evaluation. It can also be a learned behavioral pattern, developed during childhood or as a mechanism for conflict avoidance.

Rather than instructing overapologizers to “stop apologizing,” it is more effective to offer reassurance by stating, “You have no need to apologize.” In instances where apologies are misapplied, gently redirect their attention to the pertinent subject.

The Abilene Paradox: Just ‘Cause Everyone Agrees Doesn’t Mean They Do

May 19, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Imagine this: your boss invites you to her housewarming party. She intentionally seeks an intimate gathering and isn’t particularly thrilled about your presence, yet she invites you because she thinks you might want to join the fun. So, you attend, even though you’d rather take a scenic hike with your kids, convinced that your boss is genuinely excited to have you there.

This scenario illustrates a curious phenomenon where individuals in a team make choices that contradict their true desires. Each person assumes that the others are on board, so they stifle their honest feelings to fit what they believe is the group consensus. There’s a sociological term for this phenomenon: The Abilene Paradox.

Take another scenario: in a meeting, the HR manager suggests a wellness program designed to reduce stress, trusting it’ll be a crowd-pleaser, even though she thinks it’s a bit foolish. Each team member harbors doubts, seeing the program as a distraction, but nobody speaks up. Afraid of being seen as a downer, they all nod in agreement, despite thinking it’s a terrible idea. In this case, a group makes a collective decision that contradicts the individual preferences of its members, often due to poor communication and a desire to avoid conflict.

The Abilene Paradox is a groupthink mistake that highlights the pitfalls of collective decision-making, resulting in wasted resources and frustration within the team. George Washington University management professor Jerry B. Harvey coined the term in his 1974 article, “The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement.” The name stems from an amusing anecdote about a family trip, which can be summarized as follows.

On a blistering summer afternoon in Texas, a husband and wife languished on their porch, feeling utterly bored. The husband suggested a road trip to Abilene, thinking it would provide a refreshing change of scenery. Little did he know, his wife had reservations but kept quiet, hoping to please him. Their daughter, eavesdropping on their conversation, also opted not to voice her disinterest, believing she should join them if her parents wanted to go.

They packed the car and hit the road, despite none of them truly wanting to embark on this adventure. The journey was filled with discomfort and dissatisfaction. Finally, as they settled down to eat in Abilene, the truth came to light: none of them had wanted to go in the first place. Each family member had gone along with the plan, driven by false assumptions and a desire to avoid conflict, leading to a decision that nobody genuinely supported.

The Abilene Paradox underscores key ideas:

People may wrongly assume everyone agrees, creating a false sense of consensus—False Consensus.
Individuals often stay silent to avoid conflict, leading to decisions no one truly supports—Desire to Avoid Conflict.
Poor communication keeps people from sharing their real thoughts, reinforcing the paradox—Communication Breakdown.

To combat the Abilene Paradox and avoid agreeing to decisions that no one truly supports just to evade conflict, foster a culture that encourages open disagreement—your team should feel safe voicing differing opinions. You’ll make decisions that genuinely reflect the group’s interests. You’ll avoid false consensus and ensure you gain authentic buy-in from everyone involved.

Consider a tense cricket match as an example. Two batsmen at the crease find themselves in a dilemma when one hits a powerful shot toward deep cover. Both instinctively start to run, assuming the other wants a run, but they’re well aware of the risk of a run-out. Yet, neither communicates their intentions. The fielder hits the stumps just as one batsman reaches the crease, resulting in a narrow run-out. This example illustrates that clear communication—such as calling “yes” to run or “no” to stay put—could’ve prevented the misunderstanding and reduced the risk of a run-out.

Idea for Impact: Just because everyone’s enthusiastically agreeing with you doesn’t mean they genuinely support your idea. Keep that in mind when everyone claims to love your latest and greatest suggestion.

Airline Safety Videos: From Dull Briefings to Dynamic Ad Platforms

May 1, 2025 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Air India's 'Safety Mudras' Video: Blend Of Safety And Cultural Heritage

On every flight, as the safety video or briefing commences, most passengers treat it as mere background noise, having seen it countless times. Yet, flight attendants deliver these life-saving instructions with the consistency and enthusiasm of Broadway performers. What began decades ago as a simple aviation mandate has lately transformed into a creative explosion.

For most people, time feels elastic—stretching painfully in moments of boredom and discomfort, yet slipping away too fast in joy or deep focus. We crave engagement. A well-known Harvard experiment demonstrated just how powerful this need is: when faced with an empty room and nothing to occupy them, most participants chose to administer painful electric shocks to themselves rather than endure the silence. This seemingly irrational response underscores a deep truth—humans will go to great lengths to avoid boredom, even if it means experiencing discomfort. When our attention isn’t engaged, even irritation feels preferable. This insight carries significant implications for how brands captivate audiences and sustain their focus.

Airline safety videos serve as a compelling illustration of this phenomenon. Initially, these videos were little more than regulatory formalities—a necessary briefing mandated by aviation authorities. In the 1980s, airlines presented these messages in a standard, unremarkable manner. Although the absence of strict presentation guidelines allowed for some creativity, airlines largely adhered to the conventional script, resulting in minimal innovation for many years.

Then, in 2007, Richard Branson’s Virgin America took a bold step by transforming the routine safety video into an unexpected and entertaining experience through the use of cartoons and humor. This creative risk not only reinforced the airline’s unconventional brand identity but also captivated a captive audience. Soon after, other airlines began to adopt similar approaches, initiating what could be described as a “novelty arms race.” By 2009, Air New Zealand further pushed the boundaries with its “Bare Essentials of Safety” video, featuring flight attendants adorned with body paint that cleverly integrated safety instructions with the brand’s identity. Delta’s “Deltalina” video, famous for a finger-wagging anti-smoking gesture, ironically let humor overshadow the actual safety spiel.

Delta's Iconic Flight Attendant Deltalina, Famous For Finger Wagging In Viral Safety Video In the subsequent years, confronted with a surplus of repetitive safety instructions, airlines sought increasingly innovative methods to engage passengers. This evolution extended beyond mere creative makeovers. By 2020, airlines began to view their safety videos as valuable advertising platforms for cross-promotional opportunities. For instance, United Airlines introduced a Spider-Man-themed safety video that incorporated iconic superhero imagery into its life-saving instructions. Air India’s latest, “Safety Mudrās,” beautifully blends essential safety instructions with India’s rich cultural heritage, using classical and folk dance forms to create a mesmerizing visual experience.

As airlines increasingly personalize these presentations—sometimes even tailoring content based on seating class or passenger data—they are tapping into a lucrative market that merges engagement with data-driven advertising. One example of this shift is United Airlines’s launch of Kinective Media last year, a platform that utilizes travel behavior insights and personal data from its MileagePlus loyalty program to tailor personalized ads and content. Spearheading this initiative is MileagePlus CEO Richard Nunn, who was appointed in 2023—an especially notable choice given his expertise in advertising technology and digital media, rather than the airline or loyalty industries. Ultimately, the transformation of airline safety videos from tedious regulatory exercises to dynamic, branded content demonstrates how the human desire to escape boredom can drive innovation.

Idea for Impact: As brands continue to refine their engagement strategies, the distinction between the essential and the creative increasingly blurs.

« Previous Page

Persuasion

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?