Strategy

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.

Not Every Customer is a Right Fit for You—and That’s Okay

December 19, 2024 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Not Every Customer is a Right Fit for You---and That's Okay In business, every sale may feel like a win, but some sales can actually harm you more than help.

In Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion, and Purpose (2010; my summary,) Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh illustrates the importance of parting ways with problematic customers. He recounts how, when it was a fledgling startup, Zappos identified a customer who exploited their generous return policy, ordering thousands of dollars in shoes only to return them frequently. Acknowledging the strain this put on their business and customer service team, Zappos chose to cut ties, issuing a full refund and politely refusing further business. This decision allowed them to maintain their high standards for customers who genuinely valued their service.

Not all money is good money. Certain clients can negatively impact your well-being—and your bottom line.

Filter out the wrong customers. Cut loose those who don’t fit. Over time, you’ll become adept at spotting clients you’ll regret accepting. Some customers simply aren’t worth your time and energy. Sometimes, it’s more cost-effective to refund their money and send them packing. Other times, it’s wise to discourage potential clients from buying in the first place. You might find yourself confidently saying, “Sorry, this just isn’t for you. Please don’t send any money my way.” It may seem a bit blunt, but it’s liberating. The payoff? You’ll build a fantastic group of clients who bring genuine joy to your work, significantly reducing negative stress for you, your team, and everyone involved.

Idea for Impact: Good business sometimes means letting go. Life’s too short to waste on the wrong customers. Filtering out those who aren’t a fit isn’t just smart; it’s vital for creating a fulfilling, enjoyable career. Work with those who inspire you.

Are Layoffs Your Best Strategy Now?

November 28, 2022 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

We’re in a demand slump; if you think downsizing will cut costs and shore up the bottom line, consider the unexpected consequences of layoffs.

Hefty severance pay, outplacement services, and other direct costs can add up quickly, and indirect costs can be substantial. E.g., losing experienced employees can precipitate lasting damage to your business. The direct costs can wipe out any short-term financial benefit if new hard-to-find employees are to be hired and trained within six to twelve months when the downtrend stops.

Then there’s the trap of believing that things will get better soon and downsizing the smallest number of people in anticipation of a quick turnaround. And when that expected miracle doesn’t materialize, you’ll wind up making successive cuts. That’s awful for the morale of the employees spared. The best employees won’t feel indebted to soldier on and may start casting around for new offers, terrified that they will be among the next to be cut.

Idea for Impact: Layoffs may not be the best strategy for grappling with hard times. Examine not just the cost of labor but also the value created by labor. Consider the trade-offs and try furloughs, pay cuts, job sharing, and scaled-down hours instead, depending on when you foresee business rebounding. You’ll spread the pain of the downturn more broadly, keep talented employees, earn loyalty, and better position your company for recovery.

The Loss Aversion Mental Model: A Case Study on Why People Think Spirit is a Horrible Airline

August 11, 2022 By Nagesh Belludi 1 Comment

When Spirit Airlines pivoted to competing on price in the late 2000s, it quickly gained a reputation not only for operational inefficiencies but also for its in-your-face, take-it-or-leave attitude towards customer service.

Where other airlines charged by-the-package fares for the flight experience, Spirit pared back service and introduced an a la carte pricing model. Charging for the “ancillaries”—i.e., everything optional, including water—allowed Spirit to keep ticket prices down and appeal to price-sensitive travelers willing to sacrifice the usual amenities for a lower ticket price.

In the ensuing years, the unconventionality of this business model did not go down well with customers. Much of the flying public’s frustration with Spirit had to do with Loss Aversion. That’s the notion that the emotional disappointment of a loss is more extreme than the joy of a comparable gain. If finding a cheaper fare on Spirit felt delightful, giving up some—or all—of the savings to purchase ancillaries and surrender the savings felt utterly miserable.

Passengers felt ripped off by these seemingly hidden fees, especially when the true cost of flying Spirit ended up greater than what the initial ticket price led them to believe.

Spirit became quickly convinced that there was a perception problem—its customers didn’t fully understand how its fares work. Particularly, first-time customers blindly presumed that Spirit Airlines works the same way as other airlines. In reality, there were no hidden or excessive fees, and passengers could only pay for what they need or want. In 2014, the airline introduced its “Spirit 101” campaign to educate customers and alter their perceptions. With time and the increased adaptation of the “Basic Fare” model and curtailed customer service by every other airline, passengers’ expectations have since been right-sized. Spirit Airlines has come a long way, and its customer service has improved vastly.

Further studies on loss aversion have shown that a cascade of successive fees is worse than the cumulative: i.e., three ancillary fees that add up to, say, $70, feel a lot worse than a single $70 fee. Appropriately, Spirit offers a “Bundle it Combo” package.

Why Investors Keep Backing Unprofitable Business Models

July 29, 2022 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Investors have heaped billions into Q-Commerce—especially the rapid grocery startups—hoping to hook consumers on the convenience of groceries that would turn up immediately, sometimes in minutes.

I’ve never really fathomed how the small-basket orders of low-margin groceries can endlessly compensate for the labor costs and overheads, even after discontinuing the generous referral bonuses, discount codes, and freebies enticing customers. The prospects may evolve if these startups subsist on ever more funding and develop massive businesses with efficiencies from scale. But then they’re right in Amazon’s wheelhouse.

Idea for Impact: Some business models are never created to be profitable, and investors should be wary of encouraging—and funding—loss-making propositions. The lure of backing an initial entrant, capturing market share, and then selling out to a more determined fool isn’t viable! Who needs goods delivered in such a rush for such charges, anyway?

How to See Opportunities Your Competition Doesn’t

November 19, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Harvard strategy professor Youngme Moon’s Different: Escaping the Competitive Herd (2010) describes how many companies pursue the same opportunities that every other company is chasing and thus miss the same opportunities that everyone else is missing.

In category after category, companies have gotten so locked into a particular cadence of competition that they appear to have lost sight of their mandate—which is to create meaningful grooves of separation from one another. Consequently, the harder they compete, the less differentiated they become … Products are no longer competing against each other; they are collapsing into each other in the minds of anyone who consumes them.

Moon argues that the companies and brands that see a different game win big. Such innovators don’t just try to outcompete their rivals at the margin. Instead, they redefine the competitive landscape by embracing unique ideas in a world crammed with me-too thinking.

European airline Ryanair unleashed a new wave of relentless cost- and price-leadership by charging customers extra for everything beyond a seat itself. If you want to check a bag, you pay extra. If you want an airport agent to check you in and print your boarding pass, you pay extra. If you want food and drink, you pay extra. Later on, Spirit Airlines took the price-obsession further by charging for carry-on bags too. After a rough rollout and customer defiance, paying for carry-on bags has become the new normal.

Idea for Impact: Being different is what makes all the difference. If you do things the same way everyone else in your field does things, why would you expect to do any better? What are you doing to raise your game—not just to stay in place, but to get ahead?

How Jeff Bezos is Like Sam Walton

November 1, 2021 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Walmart founder Sam Walton’s brilliant autobiography, Made in America (my summary,) was published a few weeks before his death in 1992. The penultimate page reads,

Could a Wal-Mart-type story still occur in this day and age? My answer is of course it could happen again. Somewhere out there right now there’s someone—probably hundreds of thousands of someones—with good enough ideas to go all the way. It will be done again—over and over, providing that someone wants it badly enough to do what it takes to get there. It’s all a matter of attitude and the capacity to constantly study and question the management of the business.

Jeff Bezos started Amazon just two years later. After eight years on Wall Street, Bezos dreamt up Amazon during a drive from New York to Seattle in 1994. His wife (now ex-wife) MacKenzie drove, and Jeff “tapped out a business plan on his computer along the way.”

Amazon began as a loss-making book e-tailer at the dawn of the commercial Internet and as the dot-com poster child in the late ’90s. It has since evolved into one of the world’s most valuable companies. Amazon has come a long way from its genesis as the curse of bricks-and-mortar booksellers and has diversified broadly into just about every adjacent business it could get its hands on.

Bezos’s and Amazon’s dominant leadership values echo those of Sam Walton and Wal-Mart: frugality, a bias for action, long-term focus, motivating staff to think like owners, and customer obsession.

The Everything Store (2013,) Brad Stone’s excellent chronicle of the rise of Amazon notes, “In his autobiography, Walmart’s founder expounds on the principles of discount retailing and discusses his core values of frugality and a bias for action—a willingness to try a lot of things and make many mistakes. Bezos included both in Amazon’s corporate values.” On an earnings call, Bezos famously declared, “there are two kinds of retailers: there are those folks who work to figure how to charge more, and there are companies that work to figure how to charge less, and we are going to be in the second, full-stop.”

All along, Bezos has made big bet-decisions that hurt it in the short term but created value in the long term. Amazon’s market capitalization has rocketed up from $4.55 billion in 2001 to $1.08 trillion before the Coronavirus/COVID-19 infected the stock markets. Amazon’s secret, in Bezos’s words, is,

We are genuinely customer-centric, we are genuinely long-term oriented and we genuinely like to invent. Most companies are not those things. They are focused on the competitor, rather than the customer. They want to work on things that will pay dividends in two or three years, and if they don’t work in two or three years they will move on to something else. And they prefer to be close-followers rather than inventors, because it’s safer. So if you want to capture the truth about Amazon, that is why we are different.

Amazon has not been consistently profitable over the years, and that is a deliberate upshot of how Bezos approaches business. Amazon cycles through periods of substantial investments that beget future revenue growth (with low profits) and periods of increasing profits as its investments ebb.

Bezos has maneuvered Wall Street into believing that he is just getting started—his “Day 1” philosophy has become something of a legend. “A big piece of the story we tell ourselves about who we are is that we are willing to invent … and very importantly, we are willing to be misunderstood for long periods of time,” Bezos asserted at Amazon’s 2011 annual shareholders meeting.

Not all of Bezos’s bets have succeeded. However, investors have come to acknowledge that his long-term initiatives will produce rich results several years down the road. Little wonder, then, that Amazon’s stock has defied short-termism by continually progressing upward even during quarters of little or no earnings.

Postscript: Bezos has been, until recently, the world’s wealthiest person since about 2018. Walton was the richest man from 1985 until his death in 1992. His inheritors, the Walton family, are collectively more affluent than Bezos!

Fail Cheaply

November 19, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi 1 Comment

One way to accelerate innovation is to undertake low-risk experiments.

Failures in the innovation process can be costly and time-consuming. It’s often wiser to try low-risk, low-cost, high-payoff experiments than ruminating endlessly.

Make your experiments cheaper. You don’t need to create a full-scale concept to test it. Find low-cost ways to test your assumptions. It may take time and iteration to find what works for you.

Engineers often use surrogate modeling techniques that use simple prototypes and mock-ups that are as representative as possible.
Counter to the phrase “it takes money to make money,” shrewd entrepreneurs know how to experiment multiple ways for minimal cost. Next, they scale up one or two experiments that have given them favorable results. The losses are small, and the potential gains much larger.

Idea for Impact: The worst way to fail is slow and big. Don’t eliminate failure. Only reduce the cost of failure.

When Growth Stalls: A Case Study of the iPhone

November 13, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

If you got an iPhone in the last few years, you don’t really need to rush to replace it with the new iPhone 12.

In a sense, Apple is relying on other businesses to make this new lineup a success. Despite Apple’s assertions that the new iPhone 12 supports fast 5G cellular networks, the prevailing 5G networks in America just aren’t fast enough yet.

Feature Stagnation

Arguably, there’s not much further for the iPhone to go. It’s been improved through numerous versions since 2007, and there simply isn’t much left to do. The entire experience is probably as good as it ever needs to be.

Beyond better power, speed, design, battery, cameras, and display, Apple faces the horizon of what’s expectable from a smartphone. After a decade of relentless growth and absolute dominance, innovation has exhausted. Progress will become increasingly inconsequential. Through it all, Apple has successfully sustained premium-position captivity and thrived even as new, low-cost competitors are emerging worldwide.

When Growth Stalls

Apple’s growth trajectory is likely to look different in the future. The bulk of Apple’s future growth prospects will come from existing customers and not new smartphone adopters. Apple has been focusing on newer software and services to expand the user experience and retain customers.

Apple’s core product is ex-growth. In that sense, Apple is now like Microsoft and Alphabet. Faced with product stagnation, both Microsoft and Alphabet responded by pushing into entirely new areas to spawn growth, but with patchy successes. When it’s dominant Windows and Office franchises were stalling, Microsoft pivoted and had big hits with the Xbox and enterprise software but failed with MSN, Bing, and mobile. Google diversified with Android and Apps but repeatedly missed on social.

Idea for Impact: No one, no matter how historically innovative and powerful, is guaranteed immortality

Successful companies—and people—must evolve their competence or risk becoming marginalized. The roots of sustained success lie in being aware, innovative, and adaptable. Don’t become too focused on taking care of today and forget preparing for tomorrow. Your business model could be fragile.

Best to Cut Your Losses Early: Lessons from the Failure of Quibi

October 22, 2020 By Nagesh Belludi Leave a Comment

Streaming startup Quibi is shutting down barely six months after going live. The Wall Street Journal reports,

Founder Jeffrey Katzenberg and Chief Executive Meg Whitman decided to shut down the company in an effort to return as much capital to investors as possible instead of trying to prolong the life of the company and risk losing more money.

Quibi (short for “quick bite”) was a late entrant into a crowded marketplace, and its short-form serial format aimed at short attention spans failed to get traction with teenagers and young adults amid the pandemic. The Week was puzzled by Quibi’s decision to not allow people to watch it on their television:

Among the early criticism directed at Quibi was the fact that it was mobile only, and users couldn’t watch the app’s original shows on their TVs. This was especially problematic at a time when many people were no longer commuting to work due to the COVID-19 pandemic and were, therefore, not in need of short content to watch on the go.

At heart, Quibi was just another fast food joint with the same menu as the rest. The Guardian wondered if anyone would give Quibi the time of day:

Quibi’s content felt less revolutionary than underbaked, slapdash concepts sledgehammering the viewer with abrupt hits of celebrity. The overarching theme was of celebrity names without thinking through what they would be doing that is interesting or novel. It offered little marginal benefit to the free celebrity fare on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or TikTok. Why pay for Quibi, when “if you want snackable Chrissy Teigen content, her social media provides that for you without this sort of hackneyed, first-thought courtroom set-up.”

Quibi’s only bona fide USP was its potential to piggybank on Katzenberg’s deep connections in the Hollywood establishment for content.

Idea for Impact: Investing money, energy, and time into something that’s not working is dreadful to admit, but it’s essential to come to terms with things that don’t go as planned, and your high hopes are dashed. Don’t hold on to an idea that doesn’t pay off soon enough. Best to cut your losses early—you’ll have the least sunk costs and the fewest emotional attachments.

Strategy

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?

Feature Stagnation

When Growth Stalls

Idea for Impact: No one, no matter how historically innovative and powerful, is guaranteed immortality

Wondering what to read next?

Wondering what to read next?