So when Tony asked me to speak in this session, he asked me to talk about his literature institutions, also talking a little bit about my own work. So I'll try and do both. I'm going to try and give you a helicopter tour of the literature institutions. I'll be deliberately selective. I'll leave a lot of stuff, large chunks of the work will not be figured in that. I'm going to try to use the literature in the beginning to try and make an argument of how I can see my own work coming in. So it's going to be very select in the first part, but let's get started. So the first part really may go back pretty much where Tony was talking about, in the 40-50 years when we started thinking about the policy failure of the impetus of the institution in many countries. We had the rise of the Washington Consensus that Joe talked about earlier today. Literary markets, good governance reforms, promotion of democracy, civil society reforms, and a somewhat naive view that market-based reforms can lead to economic progress. So that was what we really saw in the 1980s. And then of course we saw very important critiques. We saw an argument and we saw essential experiences in Africa, in America, and some adjustment programs as implemented by the World Bank was mainly not successful. There were some examples of success, but mainly not successful. We also saw big bang market reforms in the transition economies, not really having the desired effects, and often leading to quite significant increase in inequality, and sometimes even poverty. Along with that, of course, we had more and no more evidence of the developmental states in East Asia, which are strong and effective states in my interventionist and disciplined capitalists, and certainly not free market economies. And along with that were really international efforts to fix governance problems, to good governance reforms, and new buddhists of age largely failed, both in terms of outcomes, but also in terms of addressing the root causes of the problems of weak institutions and corruption and so on. So we saw all of that, and so at that time then we saw this very clear institutional turn, institutional agencies. The bank was perhaps the first in this with the 2002 WDR, Building Institutions for Markets. And then very quickly followed DFID, the OECD, the IMF, DFID had its issued paper in 2003. OECD is really good report by Johannes Yatting in 2003. The IMF's World Economic Output on the Fund is a completely devoted building institutions. So then it was really a quite significant shift that we saw among the development actors. And along with that we saw also this rise of the new socio-economics NIE. And that was really, so the word new essentially was separate from the kind of work we saw, the old socio-economics of commons, Wablin, Mitchell. And we had several people, several key players involved. She had just named a few, besides of course the Nobel laureates, Ronald Coase, L.A. Ostrom, Douglas North, Oliver Williamson, and many others in this group. So we all saw very new theoretical work that came in from the set of economists. But also we saw a growing body of empirical research that showed that institutions understood as roots of the work of the game in a society are central to understanding why some economists perform better than others. We saw some very great empirical work called in June, 1999, as well as Donaldson Robinson, 2001, Roddy Subramanian, and again some examples. And commentating this body of work was the emphasis was on essential transaction costs and the information, and the argument was that to understand market failures, to understand the way transaction costs and information worked, and really institutions essentially evolved to lower transaction costs in the forms of the economy. So this whole focus was on how can we think of institutions that can lower transaction costs. And it was a very important body of work, and we got some great insights from this. But there was some limitation, and that's what I wanted to talk about. The limitations were that if it was the case that we have weak or poor institutions as a cause of growth and development, surely you could change the institutions. Why then do we observe survival appalling inefficient or extractive institutions? How do we then do the institutions persist once established? Why do we see part dependence on institutions? Then at that point it was quite clear understanding that we could not purely focus institutions as a cause of development. We have to think beyond that. And I think the particular question from the bottom really captures it. What the bottom says in a paper in World Development, questions of efficiency improving institutions change cannot really be separated from that redistributed institutions change when issues of collective action, bargaining power, class conflicts, mobilization, and struggle in the historical process are important. You could not see institutions, or historically, you could not see institutions up politically. That was really a fundamental insight we got from this kind of work that started coming in, and we had to understand political conditions under which growth-impeding institutions persist, and why we very rarely see growth-impeding institutions replacing growth-impeding institutions. Power and politics come central in understanding such a change in persistence. New books came along. This book by Asimoglian Robinson, Why Nations Fail? The Origin of Power Prosperity on Poverty? It's a book that David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister, was very influenced by. And also this other book by North Wallace and Weingas, Two Economic Historians, Douglas North, John Wallace, and the political scientist Barry Weingas, Violent Social Orders. Now, I would say that the first book, Asimoglian Robinson's Why Nations Fail, if you really had to understand Asimoglian Robinson's work, I would not use this book. I tend to find that the earlier articles by them, the 2008 paper in the Handbook of Economic Growth, is much more important, much more insightful than this book. This book is written for a very popular audience. But the second book was, in my sense, and this goes back to what we were discussing yesterday, an iconic book. An iconic book, it was an ambitious book. It was trying to provide a grand, unifying theory of development, bringing insights of history, economics, politics, psychology. We don't really get to see these books being written today as we saw in the case of Gunard Middler's Ancient Drama many years back. It was a fundamental book. And I think it really can essentially be a game-changer understanding economic development. So what was really important behind these books and behind the whole new literature that came in on the question of politics and power? Well, the first thing was to focus on elites. Elites make bargains between themselves and established institutions that align the distribution of benefits to underlying distribution of power. Institutions are not there by themselves. Institutions come from power, distribution of power, and we see in a particular society. That was a very important insight we got from this work. So elite bargains give us institutions that shape both social and political economic change. And therefore, as a consequence of understanding this elite bargain, the question of rent seeking, rent management, you can understand why elites often use rents to survive political powerful groups, to remain on site, to be with them, and make sure they don't go against them and build credibly economic elites by essentially sometimes offering their property rights or sometimes taking it away, or sometimes expiration, or sometimes not. So that first point was around thinking about how elites essentially manage rents between themselves. But along with that was also understanding that elites, the way elite bargains work is also in middle and lower groups where essentially public sector jobs, club groups to particular localities and groups, petty benefits to vote buying, and the mechanism elites use to stay in power. So that was the second insight that we not only saw a bargain between elites, but about the elite, elite and non-elites also. So that was very important in the way the literature then went. I'm going to try and summarize, I'll just very quickly go through what I think are the most important questions. The first thing is there's been a lot of focus on this point that essentially we have this argument that broad-based growth is due to inclusive economic work institutions. On the other hand, economic stagnation is due to persistence of extractive institutions. My own view is that just because the whole language and inclusive institutions are very, very fuzzy, as with Robinson, another issue is very useful. For example, one could argue that China with a sense of spectacular economic growth does not have inclusive work institutions. So in that sense, I'm not very convinced this particular part of their argument is very interesting. However, the part that I like and I think it's very interesting is the second part of the argument. The economic and work institutions are determined with a political equilibrium. That is the prevalent power relations which will determine the set of economic and work institutions that are more likely to emerge. So these students essentially go back to the question of who has the power. Of course they have a way of thinking about this which could be useful in some sense, which is that you see here that once you're in a situation where you have inclusive work institutions, maybe democracy, inclusive economic institutions, maybe inclusive property rights for all in the society, then it could be a situation where you're going to be all the time really somewhere here, but dependent. Or if you're going to be in a situation of extracting institutions, both in terms of political institutions and economic institutions will be somewhere here and if one of the other two said, you might move either in the direction. So that's the kind of way the thought through how exactly the change might happen and that's very easily nicely captured here with the argument that essentially institutions evolve, drift, and then it's a critical juncture and then you have institutional divergence. So that's an argument where you can see that a lot of the all institutional economics argument or the historic institutions comes in here and around the argument, around part dependency, and then the critical juncture argument where something happens in society, whether it's a coup, whether it's a commodity price shock, whatever it is, that leads to institutional divergence. Not the way it goes is perhaps somewhat different, but I want to just kind of slide through what I think the main arguments are. So in their argument, economic development is the transition from limited access orders to open access orders, LAOs or OAs. In LAOs, members of the ruling coalition use the privileged position to create rents which are the glue that holds together institutional arrangements between members of the dominant coalition. Violence is endemic in developing societies. The way it started to keep managed violence is making sure there's a rent sharing between them so that nobody starts the coalition. Of course, in contrast to that, we have open access orders where essentially the interaction between different elite groups as well as between elites and non-elites takes place to impersonal institutions and the rule of law is enforced impartially to all citizens. So you can see the contrast between limited access orders and open access orders and obviously the different, the reason economic development occurs is the movement from one society or one societal arrangement to another societal arrangement. And that will take place if elites need to find it in their interest to expand a personal exchange and by doing so incremental access, increased access to the organizations that create and sustained rents of society. So it's essentially the movement from developing countries to developing countries is essentially a feature of where the elites decide that they would like to see a change in their interest so that then we can go get to a point where we have impersonal exchange. Striking what is argument is the following, that we have a view in economics that rent seeking is a bad thing. We had this from Kruger, we had this from Bhagwati but this is a totally different argument. The argument is that rents are actually needed to keep societies stable and rents are needed because you need rents to make sure violence is in check. This is a very different way approaching rent which I think really makes us forward and the earlier view that rents by themselves are directly unproductive and I think that's something that is very helpful. But there are some limitations which my work builds on and that both frameworks try to explain long-term economic development, steady-state growth and not really about the kind of growth we see in the developing world. I'll talk a little bit about that. So obviously Asimov and Robinson emphasize the origin, we know the famous tweet in the AR 2001 and not while it's been a long time. The countries who made the transition from a limited access order to open access orders are Chile and South Korea. No other country. That's pretty depressing. And so then the question I would like to pose and that's something I want to try and talk about in the next few minutes is they're not able to explain medium-term growth or what I would like to call growth episodes. Their focus is really on long-term economic development, many years. That's the first problem. And then the lead to that is the question what triggers institutional change that can lead to growth, accelerations, collapses? If you agree that growth is not something that steady-state, it's not something that we seem to see happening slowly and continuously over time, how can explain that we see these countries going through this periodic boom and bust? And how can institutional change help explain that? The problem with Robinson is that institutional change as well, Robinson occurs through during critical junctures. There's moments in time when something happens, whatever it is. And the problem is in their view this is stochastic. So it's not clear under what circumstances politically could be that lead to economic growth will arise. Simply not clear. And that's a problem because we cannot really imagine institutional change something that happens where a critical juncture is set exogenously and there's reason why institutional change might occur. That is not very helpful. And that's exactly why we need to go behind the kind of argument that we're making around institutional change. Second problem, and again I'll talk about it's not very clear also the argument perhaps most has, well Robinson that what really matters for medium-term growth are the formal institutions, the rule of law, property rights that are absolutely codified, contract contracting institutions that are absolutely set in stone, are there other informal institutions? And again that's not very clear though I would say not where this wine glass is a much more better recognition of informal institutions. So if you just think about this, if you think about let's think about level of income and the level of quality institutions, the major institutions, whichever you want you can use very good quality, corruption, law and order, democratic accountability and the average of that, you can see fairly strong R-squares between the level of income and the level of quality institutions which is obvious. A country like the UK or a country like Finland has got very good institutions and under-rich countries that's obvious. The moment you start looking at the growth of GDP per capita GDP-PC or the initial institutions you see the R-squares drop to pretty much less than 10%. And then you start doing, correlate the growth of GDP per capita, changes the institutions, you get practically no correlation. So if the argument really is that institutions are important for economy development, how is it that we don't seem to see the kind of correlation you might expect within growth of GDP per capita the variable you would like to know more about and institutional change. So that's the problem. Now, the other thing, so I wanted to just talk a little bit about why we should think about growth in a different way and I'm going to try and summarize very quickly this particular slide. I've been working on this for quite some time and it's built on work that's been done by Ricardo Hausmann by Willis Tilly and Landprich himself. And it's just to make the point why do we need to think about growth not in the way we often do in economics, which is about steady-set growth. You've got to think about growth as essentially a situation where we have long-run growth averages masking distinct periods of success and failures. Countries grow and then countries collapse or stagnate. If you look at the distribution of growth rates in the world in a particular country, let's say in the UK and here we can see that the distribution of world GDP growth rates are in these bins minus 2, minus 2 to 0, 0 to 2, to the 4, 4 to 6 and more than 6, you can see the distribution of the world comes pretty much lined up across these six bins and the UK pretty much sits in these two bins which means you can never have experienced over 80 of your averages any growth rate less than minus 2 per capita or more than 4. The UK sits right in the middle of this and if you take any country in the OECD the old OECD, they're exactly in that place. Most OECD countries or almost all OECD countries haven't seen collapses nor have they seen rapid accelerations. Then you take a country like Ghana and Ghana is then everything. Ghana has seen remarkable growth collapses and Ghana has also seen quite remarkable accelerations. So when you see Ghana in this way and many other developing countries are in this kind of way that we see significant failures called collapses and significant accelerations that you start thinking isn't that much more interesting to understand than understanding longer growth. And that's the case that we need to think about growth in this falling way we need to understand what is it that takes a country from stagnation or crisis to miraculous stable growth. What accelerates what is that growth? And what is it that also over a period of 8, 10 years where a country might be growing why do we see this collapses? Why do we see these periods where we see fairly stable growth even rapid growth and then we see stagnation or a collapse? Why is it that only a small set of countries has stayed in these two boxes? And we know which countries they are. These station countries to a large extent and along with that Mauritius and Botswana. So why is it that we haven't seen except for those sets of countries most countries seem to follow this particular this particular pattern. So that's the question that we want to ask. And the book that we have done together I've done with Lant and Eric Worker Lant and Eric Worker is a book called Deals in Development published by OUP Adam is somewhere there I think Open Access and also I have a paper in World Development where I set out my initial thoughts on this particular argument but the book pretty much contains so it's a book that has our framework and it has 10 complicated studies five from Africa, five from Asia then we have a concluding chapter which summarizes the lessons and the policy implications. So this book came out late last year. So now let's go back again to this point. What is it that we should be thinking about when we think about growth episodes? The point here is that the purposiveness of informal de facto institutions particularly in developing countries which can neutralize or even counter the effect of formal institutions economic outcomes is central to the understanding of economic growth. It's no point thinking about good contracting institutions, no point thinking about rule of law, no point thinking about effective property rights if you do not understand what we really intend to see in the developing world are informal institutions doing the action. So here's where we focus on something called deals which are we are essentially are not rules we dictate the terms of investment decisions, what are deals? Deals are personalized relationships between the political, bureaucratic elites and economic actors. So a deal is a deal by his very nature, something I do with you but not with somebody else. So these are investor terms that are the predation of the selectively enforced. That is not the same thing as a law because a law applies to everybody. And to understand that, here's a set of figures which we take, I've taken from a paper by Land and and a quote that we get from a president for my friends, anything for my enemies the law. Now what do you see there? So we hear on this axis is the World Bank doing business indicators. This is a kind of measure of every country has official policy, what do you get a construction permit official policy 30 days, let's say that's what you see when you go to the country the country's investment decisions will say it will take 30 days. What we really tend to see in many countries the situation where actually even if it's official policies, whatever it is if actually what we saw was that even the 45 degree line, you're not. We tend to see that we are on this part of the of the figure where pretty much often investors can get their licenses or permits in a very short time, no matter what official policy might be. So that's the first point. The second point is, but yeah, that's fine. But even within a country, the same country, you have investors who get the licenses in a very short period of time and the investors who the licenses as the saying goes who essentially are to follow exactly the law. So it's telling us that this focus on rules in this case of doing business indicators is simply misplaced. What's really happening is possibly this kind of deals that investors are striking with bureaucratic actors, with the political we don't really know because you don't have that kind of information in this data set. But what is really interesting is we see significant variation in dealmaking within countries. That's interesting. So that's a snapshot. So then let's take that argument forward. So here's the way of thinking about it. Understanding variation in growth requires understanding difference between countries that institutions. That's a bad, I mean bad, into the formal institutions. Either they are there or they're not even enforced. So bad institutions in that sense. And therefore, we have a situation where we have a world, the rules capitalism world, most of the old ways in the countries, what happens to the typical firm investors determined by, primarily by the neutral application policies. And this protects both property rights and allows for creative destruction that it does not protect government rights to existing profits. Well, of course, there are exceptions. We know that. Perhaps in the US, we're moving a bit away from this. But on the whole, this is what we see in the old OECD. And explains a lack of variation in world regimes. This probably explains why we do not see boom and bust in the old OECD countries. On the other hand, in what we call the deals capitalist world, which are most developing countries, if not all, what we see are essentially firm investor specific arrangements which has little or nothing to do with neutral application policies because every specific relationship is a deal. This would obviously means that this is subject to change depending on the regime, the leader, the administration, and business government relations. And we're going to argue that deals themselves have very different features. We're going to say that they have what we call open, closed, and audit-resorted features. But the important point that I'm trying to make here is if you live in this part of the slide, then we're a very different world. The world we sometimes think that we are in if you believe that rules or the rule of law essentially is important understanding economic growth. So how are deals environments different? So here's a 2 by 2. So imagine a situation where a deal that a political leader or an elite offers to the economic actor. And in that situation it could be ordered. In other words, the political elite offers the deal to the economic actor and the political elite makes sure the deal is delivered. That we call audit deal. In contrast there's a situation where we have a deal that's either offered to a particular economic actor that either not delivered or cannot be delivered. We call them disordered deals. So this is a difference between ordered and disordered. For some of you can see essentially I'm talking about the credible commitment problem. Now on this axis we have open and closed and here again there's a difference between open where anyone can make a deal and there can be certain that the deal will be delivered versus closed deals where only those political connections can make a deal and there can be certain deal is delivered. This example is an example of retail corruption. A very nice example of this is a paper in Costly John Economics by Marion Bertrand and Sir Willi Norton where in Delhi till recently I believe after they read this paper they were changing his policy to get a license you could simply find an agent, not go to a driving test and get your license. If you took a driving test the chance of getting a license properly was much lower than going to an agent. Open audit deal. I want to get a license, a driving license I walk here and find an agent give the agent some money, the agent shares the money with the inspector, you get your license. So that is open audit deal. On the other hand a situation where political elites are essentially offering deals to only some of the people they favor is a closed deal. And obviously you can see that you can have open audit deals, open disorder deals open disorder is essentially what you see in the informal sector where often private enterprises promise something where they can never be sure that they will be delivered and a situation where we have closed disorder deals are essentially the situation. In fragile states the political elite might offer a deal but cannot deliver the deal just because the situation is so unstable. So we have essentially in this two by two a way of thinking about deals in any particular context in a deal's best world. So what does it take us? Now the other two I'm going to very quickly is really just two other parts of the frameworks. I'm just re-slipping the framework down to quickly explaining this other part which is quite important for us because we also have a way to think about rents where essentially we have rents again by two by two diagram imagine a set of economic, let's say firms with magicians who are essentially expert-oriented sectors facing market competition. Our work courses which are small-scale farmers, restaurants, retailers who are essentially producing domestic market and also face market competition. So these two sets of firms have different aspects of the state. What do they want? They want to state pretty much out of the way here. They want to state to do things for them like industrial policy but they want to state where essentially we would like the state to offer open order deals as much as possible. But here we have two other sets of firms, one are rentiers who are essentially the commodity sectors oil and gas mining and power brokers who are in the non-tradable sectors which are highly monopolistic power generations and so on. These sets of firms have an interest in closed order deals. Their whole survival really depends on making sure nobody else enters. That's what they survive on and therefore in a sense for these two sets of firms what they would really like to see are closed order deals. So that's one part of the framework and the other part here is the political settlement which we've essentially taken a lot from the work of Mustaq Khan others who work in heterodox political economy where the argument really is and this actually goes back to also as Mr. Robinson's notion of the political equilibrium there are their overlaps and similarities. The argument here is the balance and distribution of power between containing social groups, social classes on which any state is based understanding why is it that some firms, some capitalists get some deals and others don't and why is it that some of the deals are delivered and are not delivered. So we cannot understand deal making we cannot understand deals or institutions with understanding the political settlement and also the rent space tells us what firms want this tells us what we're going to get to see supplied from the political edits. So that's essentially very important and therefore the way we think about this framework is we have transnational factors and all which you haven't talked about commodity by shocks, whatever they might be the political settlement and the rent space interact to give the deal space in any particular country at any point in time and that can explain growth in such a transformation which then has its feedback loops back again here to explain why we tend to see this periodic boom and bust in economic growth. Now, so I'm going to actually I don't think I have much time not okay let me skip this bit okay let me skip this I just want to show you what we're trying to do here so imagine the argument that we get to hear from Asimov-Robinson and North Valley's Weingast so the argument they make is you go this way so you go from extractive to inclusive institutions or you go from limited access orders to open access orders you get here and then you're in a rules-based capitalist world which as I was saying in the NWW body of work essentially the Chilean South Korea's of the world okay so that's essentially the way to see economic development occurring as you move from here to here one direction however that's not the way it happens that's not the way it happens you could have a situation where you go this way but then elites do not want to be in this space elites actually feel that this is not what they want because this would mean rent dissipation rent destruction elites would prefer that you might actually go back here when they see a situation where this movement here is not something that's in their own interest and this movement essentially of so let me go back here this movement we see this way maybe this way but then back again this way is exactly what explains why we tend to see episodic growth I mean in our 10 case from Africa and Asia we document exactly how it's happened over time over 50 years or so for all these countries let me just sort of summarize this in one slide so what we are saying here and that's very different from the literature institutions and growth and economic development we are saying that economic growth is episodic which I think is pretty clear if you look at silence facts of growth it's pretty obvious but you're also saying that the business environment that we tend to see are defined by this which is different the way sometimes the world bank thinks about around doing business indicators and we are saying that even booms can generate the conditions for the next episode of stagnation decline if in fact the political institutions should develop themselves to bolster non-growth enhancing elite interests there's nothing linear about this argument about this movement there's nothing that tells us that once you're here in a boom you should carry on there's already things happening in this particular growth episode that can lead to a situation and you can have a decline or stagnation and therefore decline can bring about more decline collapses and stagnations are the norm not the exception in our world and so what I just saw here I can't go to the whole slide what I want to say is that we are in a situation where we have come a long way in the literature institutions we moved away from a situation where institutions have been historically or politically we are in a situation where institutions seem to be politically determined that's a big big change and certainly the work that we've seen from many people here have actually helped in that but we still haven't got a good explanation of institutional change this is what I'm trying to do in my own work where the institutional change to triggers are essentially in the politics of the economy and not exactly not due to critical junctures something that you can explain to a big model itself also, and this comes to the question around policy, there still is a problem that we think to think that we have to transplant best practice institutions in low income countries rather than worrying about best fit institutions probably cause the second best institutions I don't like that term because these are not second best these are first best institutions in the institutional countries we are in they are the best institutions we can do which are essentially trying to work with deals with rules but there's still a problem that we find that in many country context there is this problem that countries are in pressure to try and transplant institutions that it's going to see in the west into their own country context and so let me just finally say that essentially the literature we come to is now in a point where the country's political settlement is key to understanding economic development as the economy is we've got to go back and try and think through this economic growth, economic development can happen thanks


I'm Rosso Murray and this track is called Last On Us. It must be lost on us, cause it is our favorite game. You went to Steve, your mother, when I lost those six weeks to Cole. And you took a spell undercover, said it was the best mistake you've ever made. Oh, so far from innocent, so far from civilized. When one of us fall, the other's not far behind. It's your fault you started this. Why should I apologize? There's no hope at all. Let's somehow we manage to stop, screw what the other's this year. Part-time lover, part-time and not like they said it.


Good morning everybody, I'm Tommy O'Brien, coming to you live from TFNN, 9 a.m. Eastern Time Tuesday morning, 30 minutes to go until the opening bell and we got markets in positive territory quite a volatile overnight session. You had Mr. Peter Navarro throwing quite a wrench into things on Fox News as he said the phase one deal was over with China. But he didn't really mean it folks, so the president came out 15, 30 minutes later and clarified it's pretty unfortunate when you got to clarify your chief negotiators words. They're usually supposed to be pretty good with their words and guess what, not the case last night. Markets freak out and trade from 31 20 down to a low of 3060 he lose about 2% in a half hour. We get it all back as President Trump clarifies and says phase one deal with China, it's still intact and the market actually trades higher 31 42 you got the S&P is positive by 31 points right now NASDAQ NQ is looking to open at all time highs of 70 points at 10,195 on those comments last night you actually traded under 10,000 briefly the Dow up 285 we were down below 25,600 last evening right now trading 26236 you jump over to oil quite a drop in oil to the tune of about a dollar on Mr. Navarro's comments last night we trade down to a low at 9 o'clock at about 38, excuse me 3980 we're up this morning at 41 42 when you got gold up as well up $8 at 1774 nothing was spared last night folks you back it up even gold sells off last evening there's your nine o'clock down to 1758 and now we're trading 1774 terms of what else you have happening in the market that's the headline Trump says China deal fully intact after Navarro Royals markets we went over the charts and what was happening there one of the numbers I just covered in terms of the Euro trading higher you get the DAC DACs FTSE Kackerel all trading higher Eurozone PMI coming in at 47.5 they were only looking for a number of 42 and change much bigger than they were looking for a little bit of optimism for a faster recovery than they were thinking now here's the difference folks I want to pull up it's a this is the Eurozone right to give you an idea of what cases look like in the Eurozone don't be confused when you see something like that say oh everything's calming down it's really unfortunate folks that we couldn't crush this curve okay because this is what the Eurozone curve looks like and this is what the United States of America curve looks like vastly different and that's going to play out for vastly different effects in terms of Apple closing some stores Florida we're getting hit hard right now and you know if you can folks wear a mask out there there's a lot of people in Florida unfortunately not wearing masks I get it okay they're not fun and it's unfortunate I have to say it political that the president will lead from ahead because that is going to help get this curve down folks stay tuned Larry Pezzavento coming up live with trade what you see


It's so bright. Oh. Do you have your rings on? Of course, hun. We're married a couple. Welcome back to the channel, everybody. We are going to do a 200,000 subscriber Q&A. Even though we're a little late doing this. But you all sent in questions to my Instagram, which you should follow, Dr. Chalini at Instagram. And you should also follow on Vianna Chalini at Instagram. We need to get her to 10,000 followers on Instagram. And she may consider doing a YouTube if that happens. So nonetheless. Michael, just making stuff up. So we are going to pick questions off of YouTube and Instagram. They're for the both of us. So, let's get into it. Let's go. You still do that? No, we haven't done that in years. Oh, never mind. Here's the link for it a little bit. Just remember. Remember, you and I are doing this. Yeah. Do it like this. Okay, babe. Do you see how he treats me? What kind of finances, loans and grants did you use during your medical school and residency times? That's a good one. That's a good. So I was actually going to do a whole video on this because I think student debt in med school is a very important topic. I had a scholarship for swimming at University of Georgia. So I didn't have to take any loans out there, but I did have to take out a ton of loans for med school. A couple hundred thousand dollars. So that's cool. We're going to do a whole video on that. Probably discussing how to repay it and everything. Yeah. So like I'm excited to be done, be in a tending position, not excited to pay off loans. Sounds good. My plan is to pay it off in under five years, probably less. Does Adriana ever feel annoyed or upset when you get called in for a case or emergency and you have to ditch on family dinner or plans? Never. I always try to put myself in the patient's position. If there's an emergency, someone has to take care of the patient and that's Michael's time to do that. So I totally understand. And also being in medicine, I think you know exactly what's an emergency and how to cope with that. So no, I don't. When Michael's on call, I always plan my week of all my errands and stuff to do. So yeah. Oh, this is a good one. Have you ever had anxiety while doing a case? If so, how did you combat it? Yeah, 100%. I think you get anxiety, especially when you're starting out. Even in fellowship, when you're first starting fellowship, doing the more complex cases, I think it's only natural to be nervous and have anxiety to do cases because you're not born with these skills. I think that's normal and everybody has anxiety from time to time. The goal is to lessen that anxiety as you go along in your training, which I feel that happens. But I think once I start as an attending, that anxiety will come back a little more and then slowly taper off. So yeah. Okay. It's broke the table. Oh, this is funny. How did you all first start dating and didn't Dr. Anna play hard to get when you first asked her out? We always talk. We always live these moments. Why are you always so nervous? So I was a surgery PA and Michael was doing his intern year in surgery at the same hospital that I was working at. And the first time we met was I was rounding on my patients in the SICU and he was the SICU resident and I walked through those doors and it was love at first sight for him. But not for you? No. What is that about? It was love at first sight for me. She had some love at first sight.  No, you didn't really have a wall up. You flirted with me just as much. Sure. I definitely found Michael very attractive and got to know him and we knew that it was meant to be. So yeah. Advice for a new grad PA, salary negotiations, specialties to start out in, how you feel about your first few years as a PA. I know you have strong feelings about this. Okay. So I'm going to keep this short and sweet. If there's a specialty that you really enjoy during your rotations, I would say try to get a job in that specialty unless you're really unsure what you really want to do, then try to get a broad, like a broad based job, whether it's like emergency medicine, internal medicine, urgent care. But for example, if you really like orthopedics, then get the job in orthopedics because in the end, that's probably where you'll end up staying. With certain specialties, they will lobe all you as a new grad if there's a training period. Specifically speaking in plastic surgery, dermatology, aesthetics, you will have that six month training so you may have a lower salary. And then regarding like the hospital positions, there's usually like a base salary that they start all new grads in. Kind of look through like what the actual state per state is paying and then kind of always aim higher. I would say embarrass yourself with your first salary offer. If you don't embarrass yourself with that number, then it's not high enough. This is a good one. Have you considered a new fresh hairstyle marking your move into private practice? We were just talking about this. This is so funny. We were like, Michael just randomly came home. Last night.  To what? I don't have that many options per se. I don't know. Maybe you're going to ask your barber tomorrow. I mean, I'm in my 30s. I've received a hairline. I mean, what else am I going to do here?  No, thanks. Yeah. Then I look like I'm like 50 years old or something. So I don't know. I mean, I don't have any options. Send some pictures. Send me some pictures of a haircut so you think it'll look good on me. Yeah. I don't have that many options, guys. I'm sorry. All right. So this is a good one here. What is your age difference? Six years. Six years. Six years. I met her. Yeah. When I was 30. And I'm going to be 30 on Wednesday. Or June 2nd, since we don't know when this video is being released. Someone else said, how did you snag a 10 like Andriana?  If you got it, you got it. Is that your word of it? I don't know. I mean. Qualified by Dr. Chilini. If you got it, you got it. I mean, everybody gets lucky once, right? This was, I get lucky. Oh, honey, you didn't get lucky. I get lucky. That's sweet. All you. Okay. Do you want kids? If yes, how many kiddos? When do you plan on having children? Do you guys want kids? We should do one, two, three, go. And you put up how many kids you want. Okay. Ready? Yeah. One, two, three, go. I knew you were going to say that. I knew you were going to say that. I was trying to say four. Yes. We do want children when. I'm going to be like 85 by the time we have three kids. They'll come. Yeah. Don't worry. You guys will know. Yeah. Not yet, but they will. I don't care, but I always said if we have three boys, we'll have to try for a girl. She wants a girl so she can, yeah, take her shopping. All right. We got a whole bunch of Instagram questions as well. That was all YouTube. All right. So this one's for Adriana. What's y'all's opinion? There must be a Southerner. Let's go. What's y'all's opinion on the recent PA name change and the AOA recent statement? So the PA name was changed from physician assistant to physician associate. And then the AOA released a statement, but we were going to do a whole video on this, but just to touch base on it, I think it's a good change for us because I think the word assistant when it comes to patient care does not represent what we actually do. And it is confusing when it comes to them thinking that we are a medical assistant and not a provider. However, I do see where the conflict does come into play with the AOA statement. Anyway, we're seeing that now that there's different degrees of getting a doctorate in X and Y that providers can introduce themselves as hi, I'm doctor so-and-so or that. So we don't have a doctorate. No PA that I've ever met slash myself has ever said, hi, I'm doctor Adriana and I'm going to be your doctor today. No PA has ever tried to replace a doctor. But we'll do a whole video on that. Yeah. Probably. Does Adriana like that you're from the south? Go dogs. Go dogs. Sick of them. I'm from the south. Someone who was born and raised in New York. I think we become so close minded in a way of we just know New York. And if it wasn't for Michael being from the south. It sounds people in the south. Yeah, exactly. So a lot of people in the south don't go to the north and north don't go to the south. Yeah, that's true. So you just stay in your little bubbles and you like don't see one or the other and then like you think the other one's bad but then reality. Yeah. I love it. We lived in the south. I enjoyed it. Would you ever go back? This is what we were discussing when Michael was looking for jobs. I would go back if I didn't have family up in the north. Yeah, we were both considering it if the right job came about. Yeah. The problem is my family is so scattered. Her family is all up here. So. It kind of just made sense to be close to at least one side and then travel for the other side. Yeah. When we were in North Carolina we were trying for both parties and it was just a lot. I think this was a nice or a happy medium. We still have separate accounts or joined. How do you guys split those? Oh, that is a good one. We still have separate accounts. We don't have a joint account yet. The only reason is because of North Carolina, our bank, which is predominantly in the northeast. Oh yeah. We didn't have that bank in the south. So once we got married and she moved down there, we just kind of kept it separate. Then we moved up here during the Pandy-Wendy and. I don't know. We still haven't had time to like combine. Make an appointment at the bank to like go do this stuff and we both had to be off. And honestly, it's just been kind of really easy. Yeah. We will have it soon. I think it would just be easier for us to just kind of. So easy. It's just, it would be easier on me since like I manage all of like investments and like money and then I have to have a separate business account for like social media and stuff. But I mean it's so much easier having one central account to manage versus like blah, blah, blah, all this stuff. It's hard to like. Don't try to take over my account now. Please. I mean like this guy is just trying to come in and steal all my money over here. Steal all my money. Are you invested in figs? The answer is yes. Obviously you see me work for that company. I love them. And hopefully you've watched the video which will probably come out before this one about all that. What is your go-to restaurant in New York City? Go-to. Honestly, any place in the West Village. So good. So good. Oh, that's a good one too. Maybe. Hold on, my shirt's untied. I mean like having technical difficulties. These are two here. Makeup tutorial from Adriana. Is that in the future? Sure. If you guys want one. Not on my channel. Hey, you'll get a lot of views. Probably. Can Adriana start a like to know it please? I love her style. Sure. But I think you have to have a certain number of followers. All right. Comment below what follower count and she'll get it if you guys. No, I think you have to have like a certain number of followers on Instagram before. I don't know. I have to look into it. All right. Follow her on Instagram. Wow. This one, you must know him from the South. Best off-road SUV. I mean, you gotta go Jeep. I've had Jeep my whole life. Off-roaded in Jeep my whole life. Not so much anymore. Do some rapid-fire ones. Rapid-fire, rapid-fire. Cooking or takeout. We used to cook so much living in North Carolina. But in the city, it's just so good to try new restaurants. So easy. And so easy. So like we take out a little bit more than we should. We spend way too much money on takeout here. It's so easy. I mean, last night we were just sitting here. We were like, just craving Indian food. Indian food sent to our door. Michael's favorite cuisine, clearly. I love Indian food so much. So much. All right, rapid-fire. Let's go. Does Adriana make you sleep separately when you're on call? No. What? Oh, because I wake you up. Yeah. No. Sometimes I wake up. Sometimes I don't. I come in at any time in the morning and she's literally just knocked out in the bed.  When my phone rings all through the night, I can have like long conversations next to her in bed. She doesn't wake up. Sometimes. Calls, texts, pages, multiple phone calls. She still sound asleep and I'm next to her. I could never do that. How was your first date with each other? We actually went to Root & Bone.  So I took her to one of the only Southern restaurants in the city called Root & Bone. I took her there for our first date. Delicious. So Adriana, how proud are you of Dr. Cellini to finish a solo ship? Oh my gosh, I'm such a fangirl. I'm so proud. And I'm so happy. I feel like I'm finished too. Relief has set over both of us that we no longer have to endure this craziness. Well, I still have like two more weeks left, but nonetheless, as soon as that's done, no more craziness and we're officially done. All right. So that's it. I put down people just like an 80 minute video. Okay, that's it. All right. That's it. Adriana. Thank you so much. All right, guys. I hope you enjoyed this Q&A. We will do another video on a few of those topics that you guys mentioned, that we mentioned. Maybe I'll do some makeup tutorials. I don't know. We'll see. Follow her on Instagram. If you have any more questions, comment below. We'll try to do more of these. Maybe we'll do a live. Maybe it's kind of easy. Yeah. I wanted to do a live like rap and fire one of these, but I did it by the cord that connects it. Oh, there. You could do that. Oh, I didn't know. I'm like, you know, it has to be high quality and I have to put my camera up to the computer and I just didn't do it. We'll do that. It's coming. It's coming. I'm going to like live stream more and stuff. But other than that, like and subscribe to Dr. Chalini's YouTube channel. If you haven't already. Follow me on TikTok. Follow him on TikTok, Instagram. Follow Andran on Instagram as well. Andran Chalini. We'll put the link up here. Otherwise, we'll see you all on our next video. Bye. See you.


Hi, I guess it's a post-luncher Trying hard to stay awake a lot of people here. So quickly coming. I think because we're running short of time Just don't want to waste too much time around this without a jump straight to the topic. It's worth making of a challenger brand right and Trying to define I think for the last hour We were all sitting together and trying to define what exactly a challenger brand is and what are they doing? So literally the answer lies in that statement. So what are they doing? They're actually challenging. They're challenging everything from status quo They're challenging product categories. They're challenging customer experiences. So we have with us The entire panel of people who are actually running a bunch of challenger brands in itself, right? They are challenging my all these things that we were talking about. I'm gonna let them Kind of give you an intro into what they do Largely also to get a perspective. I'll start off with maybe if you guys could introduce yourself and Give your take on what you consider a good challenging brand or a good challenger brand or something and why is it so? Hi guys, good afternoon. My name is Anupam Boke and I run a brand called 2YM With RPS and Jimmy Goenker group. I am the chief marketing officer Well, 2YM is one of the challenger brands. Let's start it that way, but I think the Within the question is I think there is an intent to check whether a Large brand can also be a challenger brand. So I think a challenger brand is I define somebody who? challenges establish conventions for example, if it's a Payment online Paytm could be a challenger brand and it's possibly very large PayPal at one stage was a challenger brand if you're a car rental company. I miss is a challenger brand So I think wherever you are trying to change conventions and do something different Then I think the brand can dawn so there is not one brand which you can consider as you know an idol of Challenger mentality, but I think all the examples that I'm sharing Depending on what genre they are addressing which category they play they found a need gap or an Aspect which can be differentially delivered as a solution and they all took that challenge of stance So I think there are several Some of them I mentioned and I think these this is my list of challenger brands. We can discuss more when we go forward Hi, I'm Saurabh. I am founder of no broker No broker is a real estate platform that connects owners tenants buyers sellers Directly without any broker without any brokerage. I don't know if any of you know how much brokerage is paid in India Any any guess? No, no in terms of amount How many crores of or how many? Billion of millions of brokerage is paid every year 5000 crores 10,000 It's it's 19 billion dollars. It's one lakh 40,000 crores Every year one lakh 40,000 crores is paid as brokerage by all of us And I think no broker started from there. I I was living in Bombay and I paid a brokerage of 80,000 and it really hurt and and the broker came back again next year saying That is a tipping point and so no broker started in 2014. It's been six years We are present in six cities Mumbai, Bangalore, Pune, Chennai, Hyderabad, Delhi and CR Every year we do transaction worth 10,000 crores now We are saving 1200 crores in brokerage every year now Still we're just scratching the surface because the total amount is much much larger We have raised 850 crores in funding as of date Talking about the challenger brand. I think no broker of course is a is a big challenger brand because you're trying to disrupt The brokers who have been there and disrupt other players who are working with brokers But to my mind, I think one very strong Example which I always think and which has been some kind of inspiration when we started no broker is is a Company called craigslist. I don't know if many of you have heard about it It's a it's a classified in in the US and now they operate in actually 70 countries started in 99 as an email list and they started disrupting the classified which comes in in the newspaper So newspaper classified had thousands of people on ground that they were doing some revenue Craigslist has 50 employees. It does one billion dollar in revenue every year Per person per employee revenue highest in the world They've almost zero marketing expense because they realize that I think there's a simple customer pain point I don't want to look at a newspaper when everything every information is available online And one billion revenue and I believe their profit is some 700 million dollars So I really think that's a very very strong challenger brand My name is Wignesh and I'm the founder of the news minute We'd like to see ourselves as a very progressive digital only platform which focuses on the news space and our speciality is we focus only on the southern states Just focusing on the media sector, you know I see that a lot of independent websites are there which I consider as challenging brands to the legacy You know newspapers and publications which you know like the Times of India's and the NDTV's You know of the country we've always been used to Media outlets which are legacy-backed, you know Extending over many many years of you know their foundations From our perspective what we've done differently is we knew from the very beginning that we would never be able to a Defeat or disrupt times of India or an NDTV, but we always knew that we could challenge them in our own little way Okay So what we did is we started focusing on the news space which operated over the five southern states I mean when we started was four, but right now it's five And how we've done that is basically we've we've understood that you know a lot of the media narrative in the country is focused on What happens in Delhi and what happens in Bombay? There were a lot of very good stories which came out of the south especially, you know from a Hyperlopical perspective or even the tier one and tier two cities down in South which are never making it to do the national You know news Agendas in the last six years. I think that we've challenged that Cautioned very much and we've been able to bring South India from a news perspective on to the national, you know legacy brands Thank you. Hi. I'm Sai and I run marketing for Pesa Bazaar policy was our group so I think a very fortunate to be running the Quintet as you call the quintessential challenger brands because financial services largely was Actually largely was called as the push category where Either an agent would come and sell you an insurance or you know, you have to go to your nearest bank to get a loan And that that entire myth was a challenge and that status quo was challenged by By a category where you know from being a push category we became a pool category where you know Consumers started coming to us coming to the platform and started comparing and also we start One of the things that we started doing was we started even questioning the consumers We also challenge the consumers of the way they were buying So I'll also questioning the the status of moving the status quo of the consumer of changing this Mindset of the consumer of you know where they were buying so So I think that was These were two examples which I could think of that from from our own category that we could say that of the challenger brand having said that this Challenger brand is again as we were discussing today in the panel is not really Even a market leader can also be a Be a challenger brand. So So yeah, pretty much that Thank you, and after everyone I'm Siddharth. I work with AirAsia India It's a joint venture in the aviation space between Tata Sun's private limited in the AirAsia group AirAsia is actually a consortium of eight independent airlines operating in different countries When it comes to challenger brands and we were speaking about this a bit earlier I tend to agree with the point that a market leader can also be a challenger and essentially anybody who's entered the market at some point of time Potentially starts off as a challenger Even if you take controversial examples who are no longer challengers But the likes of a Google for instance or an Apple when they started off they were challengers If you look closer to when the gig economy started or even the likes of other disruptors in spaces where they have Essentially moved away from all models Taking the space of where an aggregator used to play Similarly in financial services to try I would argue that for instance a BNB is a challenger brand and If you look at other sectors entirely To the the sectors that come to mind particularly there is there's in financial services are an organization called transfer wise Which has challenged the status quo of transferring money across borders. It's a UK based company Which now has backing from Richard Branson Where you can transfer money across borders without any transaction fees that the banks typically charge and In the alcohol space for instance, there's a company called Brew Dog which is a punk IPA brand they make ills and They have challenged in many ways The foundation of what it stands to be beer they produce some of the strongest beers in the world going up to more than 50% alcohol content which is actually higher than whiskey and challenging the regulators in the model in which they're operating and to an extent in India there are organizations like Beta which have really challenged the market leaders in the way in which they're operating and gained a popularity So I would argue that those are sort of some of the brands and models. There are challenger brands today Thanks, sir. That's a lot of challengers sitting here with their perspectives on things It's interesting because everybody seems to have a point on what they see differently as a challenger, right? So there's somebody says you're actually saying market leader can also be a challenger, etc So if we had to put on a Challenger hat or if you had to build a challenger hat, what are the attributes? Do you what attributes do you see? That you need to have in them like one one attribute That's very important to build a challenger hat that I need to wear There are several but I think I will focus on how do you describe your target audience? and How do you? Describe your attitude Let me put it this way target audience. I in fact When you actually a challenger brand you can't go very large very wide So it is very important that you define your target audience very very clearly And maybe rather than other examples. I can share our own examples coming from two yam So we define our target audience as guilty snackers By the way Two yam Is a healthy snacking brand? We are baked and not fried and just to give you a context 95% of the snacking Options available today in the country are fried So every young consumer who is conscious about their health either they eat snacks in moderation Or they balance it off by saying chalo abhi khalate badmai I'll go for a walk or I'll go to the gym or I'll run it out Or I'll have a smaller meal in the mealtime and that's how they always are Guilty very conscious and they try to moderate or compensate So if we actually define a TG as guilty snackers, then suddenly You know everything starts to fall into place If you take this as an insight then your communication actually addresses that the innovations or whatever products that you do Addresses that the claims that you will make will address that but also Where are these guilty snackers? What is relevant to them because they are somewhat health-conscious then? Sports as a genre interest them because it is about health and fitness travel And you know of course these are mostly young so humor music these are the platforms which actually interest them So suddenly the whole description starts to come together But if you were to say a mainstream brand in snacking like lays or say bingo, they will address everybody So it is very very generic and wide but when you describe your TG audience It becomes very very specific because there is a very high chance that when you talk to them The reaction and the engagement is much larger. So I think this is one key criteria that you define your TG very very clearly Second is and I'll just possibly talk about two second is agility. I mean you have to move very very fast Try fast fail fast is really a challenge of mindset because you are experimenting You know you might have a view you might have a thought that maybe this can work But it is not proven because you are disrupting the norms and disrupting the convention So you're always trying it may work. It may not work. And that's why the idea is to experiment fast Do it to a smaller scale perhaps and even if you fail the damage is not that much So I think defining a core TG very very clearly and having a very Nimble and agile way of operating Is the two that I would highlight? So I have a little different take on that. I think What is important in my view is to Understand the customer pain point which has not been addressed and and that TG might not be niche also For example in our case when we said okay people don't want to pay brokerage that TG is not niche That is a very very large TG. Actually, no one wants to pay brokerage, right? So but I think the pain point was huge because like I said one lakh forty thousand crores of Hard-earned money going to a broker who's saying sir. It's got phone number here. I'll give you a little bit. It's going to get me a notax.com also So I think that customer pain point is something which is very critical whenever you are thinking of a Challenger brand second again from our example. I think Resilience is very important because when you're disrupting something, they'll be going to be a side effect for that I think so I was just mentioning that he somebody spoke to told that once we started no broker Within a year some 50 brokers came and attacked our office and started ransacking that now for for almost three months after that We were working from makeshift office. We didn't have a desk. We were working on mattresses for almost two months But I think what was important was that the entire team believed in the vision that We have to remove brokerage the entire team came across much much stronger and I think one conviction that yes We're doing something right. That's why people are are you know reacting to it? So that resilience is also very important when you're disrupting something when you're challenging something Okay, I'll answer this answer this question by referring to a story that we probably heard when we were in school So it's about David and Goliath. So I worked both in the corporate sector as well as in the Startup sector. I've been an entrepreneur for the last six years So when I was in the start in the corporate sector, you know, everybody referred to David versus Goliath and Goliath is this big Giant and David is a small shepherd boy who happened to kill You know Goliath so every time in the meetings that we went everybody's referred to you know be the David You know go and disrupt you know defeat the Goliath and stuff like that when I became an entrepreneur I realized there was another side to that story and that that side was basically 99 times or to the hundred times that David fights Goliath Goliath always wins. They'll never tell you but Goliath always wins There's one time that you know David will win and then I started You know thinking to myself is that why the hell did David win? There were two things One is he used a slingshot It was his weapon of choice. It was something that he's understood It was something that he's used before and he's something which is comfortable with the second thing was he knew what? Goliath's weakness was Goliath couldn't move that fast If it was a level playing field and then Goliath and David had to fight with Swords David would have lost in any other matter. Well, however you play it out It is a highly possible that you know David loses So when I became an entrepreneur the two things that I wanted to focus on was What is my strength? What is my strong point? What is my slingshot and for me? That was the access to the South market that we had It was my team It was the ability to work in a very you know agile Environment as much as possible and the second thing was understand my way You know the competitor's weakness and that was very clear because you know the national narrative was not focused on the Southern space So these two things I think is something that if you can get out of your head in the beginning stages of when you start your career You know start your entrepreneurship Journey I think that plays a huge role in defining what kind of product you become at a later stage It was a fantastic anecdote kind of you know summarizes this pretty much But you know I don't know if it's an attribute but one thing I think it a challenge band should do is is kind of keep making the The leader brand uncomfortable So someone who keeps making the leader and uncomfortable or keeps keep nudging them or keep making makes him think that you know Oh, why didn't we do it and and of course when they kind of find out the or challenge a brand is done There's and they put more monies and kind of you know overtake them That's fine, but a challenge a brand is someone these are attributes which I think Are very very problem where you know they keep nudging the the leader brand to Why can't they kind of you know keep quiet for a while? So so an example which from from our side was which which made The financial services the banks and everyone think that why didn't we think about it or our competitors? Why didn't we think about it was? we're the marketplace for we're now the largest marketplace for Loans, but like six years back we weren't And the basic the model was very simple people used to come to a platform compare choose for the best loan and then that and that customer used to go to the bank two problems used to happen eight out of ten consumers never used to get a loan and The bank uses a yeah the same thing that eight of ten ten of your customers don't get a loan and the reason for both used to be low poor credit score and That's when and and and this problem was happening for a lot of marketplaces, but we came with an innovation that now How do we solve this so we brought in the entire? Credit score to our platform and we started running the largest credit score program in the country Where in if you have to take a credit score? From the civil or anyone else you have to pay 500 rupees, but on our platform. It's absolutely free So when a consumer comes to my platform a He takes a credit score and he at the moment he gets to know his if it's great So it's good then he gets we say that you know you have a very strong chance of approval So we did we solve two problems We saw the partner problem we saw the consumer problem and that and and also became a great customer acquisition strategy You know free credit score was there and and it and that the the education around the entire credit score was very weak in in India so if we solve the bank problem we solve this problem and and a Lot of people started thinking the same way and also started following this The pattern, but we were not leader at that point of time But we're pretty much large at this point, but we also now believe that Even even even if you're a leader, but you also always should have a mindset of a challenger So so so but I don't know if it's an attribute But you when you keep making a leader uncomfortable That's that's something that I think could be an attribute Yeah, I think there's a lot of grain of truth in in that thing of agility and making people uncomfortable and that In essence a lot of challenger brands and there is a distinction between challenger brands and disruptors But I'm clubbing it to an extent because the mindset is very similar It is a questioning attitude that you need to take to establish norms whether that be Regulation that be consumers and the way in which they operate I mean Sony when they came up with their Walkman at that time right nascent needs or things like that There are even in today's environment a lot of brands which are looking at things in a completely different way There is an organization for instance in In India, which is now a unicorn called Rivigo which is a trucking logistics company and what they essentially looked at is the core problem of Consumers large organizations and the truckers themselves one of the fundamental issues that trucking had and people were moving away From the profession of trucking Because there was a sense of pride that was not associated with with it You were traveling on the roads for four or five days never at home You know moving from place to place not with the family There was rampant prostitution. There was aids. There was alcohol problems, etc. All of that And they brought a very simple model from another industry like airlines, which is a hub and spoke model Which is to do a relay trucking So you sort of if you're going from Bombay you travel to 100 kilometers You pick up another truck and travel back to whatever the destination is We changed the entire perception and the speed and agility in the way in which the entire logistics operations were working It gets rid of the whole sort of road tax problems. This is pre GST, etc and a lot of It often seems with the challenger brand when you look at where they finally reach Why didn't somebody else think of that and that's what the challenger brand brings to the table is this constant need for questioning the status quo and Doing things differently and continuing to do that in very different ways I mean you move from that to then saying how can I leverage technology to do something very differently? How can I be more agile and the advantage that it has over over? Embedded brands is the speed at which they can operate because embedded brands will take longer to change the nature of their operations It's like a big tank Moving like like the David and Goliath analogy. I think and I think that's that's a fundamental attribute of a challenger brand Thanks. It's interesting because the number of times I heard the word agility across this entire panel It's definitely the most key attribute as people are talking about it So if you were to look at agility and because that words come up and you said David and Goliath I have this very interesting question because it's then when it comes to a challenge of mindset, right? We look at startups It's very easy to wear that Challenger mindset and turn around and say this because agility David and Goliath these words are what you associate with the startup But then when it comes to established big conglomerates, right? How does it work in that scenario? How do you wear a a challenger hat? And I think I'm you can answer this best because part of an RPG group. It's There it's as a startup. I know it's easier to wear this hat We can the fail fast syndrome works here. How do how do you work on the same syndrome here? I think the large corporates DNA Does prevent you from doing something very disruptive and by the way, it's not it's not wrong To be honest it is just the scale and size is so huge that getting it wrong Can have huge damages and losses and that's why I think there is a bit of checks and balances a bit of research Which needs to be validated before you actually take an initiative and I'm talking more from a unilever point of view But if there are areas where you feel that the risk is low But there is a real need to actually change convention then you can also do that I can share if by the way there are Challenger initiatives happening in every large organization as well, but maybe the entire organization doesn't behave that way and I can share an example Again more relevant because it's coming from my own experience. We used to work on a brand called pure it One of my purity members is here Both are in different organizations now and this was I it was a challenger by design because Good quality water purifiers were coming at at least five thousand six thousand rupees and then when pure it was launched It was launched at eighteen hundred rupees Without any constraints or piped water or electricity or what have you and I think that was a great innovation But suddenly, you know by the way every challenger can also find a new challenger in in the fullness of time or in due course And then this was a time when Tata switch was about to launch The poster child or poster celebrity was Ratan Tata himself and he came on saying that We want to disrupt this and we want to give a purifier at one thousand rupees and suddenly we were scared and So what do we do? So it was I think August of 2009 when this announcement was made So actually suddenly a Goliath like Unilever got into a very David or a challenger mode And we said oh we can't let this happen because it was certainly a demise for purity There was a purifier launching at half the price. So we got the team together We put a device at thousand rupees. It was called pure it compact by the way What a purifier has at least 20 30 40 molded components So it takes that much time to create molds design it, but everything was done. We actually Designed it with no time we created a pilot mold which could give you a few Lack pieces but not more than that and that was done The molding happened in a third ship, which we never used to run in the molding department And hence it was suddenly extra time and you know capacity created and the molding was done. We created a prototype just a Prototype design and we created five six of them. We did trade conferences and before the first pure it compact was manufactured 50,000 pure it compacts was sold so booked just by showing the prototype so August to 2009 when the When the announcement was made by Ratan Tata mid-Jan 2010 pure it compact was launched Tata switch launched in March and that's it It never got launched only so I think I mean just the scare of what can happen to you and whether we can actually Just transform and and apply the team look at innovative ways of creating that capacity in doing it was one such example So I think To one to answer your question. Yes, it's not very easy But there are pockets where this thing happened come to think of it even if you look at large brands and you know Brands which have got and categories that have got massive penetration You will have very Generic growth of the category coming to your to your brand, but if you want to have Discontinuous Lifts in your growth then you have to still wear the hat of a challenge of mindset. Is there a new way to address that need? Is there a faster way? Is that a more convenient way and actually when you actually start to say okay? How can I improve the solution to that particular need? Innovation will happen and you know then suddenly you are the biggest guy But you can still challenge what they establish norms and take your brand to the next level So I think this can happen in large companies as well It's it's interesting because as as you were talking it was just Realizing that the largest advantage that a challenger brand brings to the market is actually to the consumer and It really depends on what the purpose of the organization is in In what they want to achieve from from the perspective of what what your brand purpose is in essence and it goes back to that Had taught us for instance not looked at launching swatch I mean you really were always had the opportunity to do a Purit compact Unilever would never have done that till there's another challenger so a lot of large organizations are forced to innovate Because somebody comes up as a challenger and if your brand purpose for instance, and it depends how you define it Do you for example get into the market saying that I want to I want to sell the largest number of water purifiers or do you want to get into the The market and see I want to be able to create accessible Cheap water for a large swath of the population Irrespective of whether I am doing it or somebody else is doing it Can I disrupt the markets or that the brand purpose is getting fulfilled? I've worked on a couple of sort of projects within the Tata group myself, which I've had various different levels of success and failure One of my first projects which I worked on was was the nano right and that started off with the same kind of mindset Is is the purpose of saying you know, how do you ensure that people have a safe mode of transport Versus the two wheeler model, but it forced the entire industry in a way even though the nano in itself didn't end up selling because of a large number of other macroeconomic and Environmental and political etc issues or ginger hotels for instance You know when it was in a very entrepreneurial stage and now there are a number of other brands in that and I think that that is Something that the challenger brings To the table even if the challenger is a leader that ultimately the consumer benefits from and that is why It's very important for consumers to continue to be evangelists of challenger brands because they will benefit from that the most the likes of an Obroker, you know, ultimately it is the it is the consumer who's getting them the benefit of that because there's an economic surplus That a leader or a challenger who's come out of the market is exploiting So it's almost a democratization of that that a challenger is bringing to the table This is for you because considering you don't have any competition. So what I've seen is, you know Most of the time in in in the larger organization Especially like an HUL and all that I think it's because of the nagging of the second You know player and the third player that you know, you're forced to you know, where a challenger had so what do you do? So I think we're very interesting So we started as a platform to connect onus tenants by a service directly without a middleman But I think like I mentioned for us the most important thing was looking at the customer pain point and Once we started doing these closures We realized that you know apart from paying the brokerage customer had a lot of other pain points one was okay I found the house, but broker used to get my rent agreement done broker used to get my legal documentation Then they said okay So we started doing rent agreements. We started doing legal documentation then they said okay, that's fine But you know, I'm buying a home, but I need a home loan. I need a packer and move what I need interior services I need a you know multiple other things. So now no broker is our one-stop shop you can find all these things on the platform and Very recently almost less than a year back So we spoke a lot of consumers and we realized that there is a pain in paying rent also There's a lot of friction in that people said okay after every month go on to the Website a lot of times it's cash and you know stuff like that So we we launched a platform called no broker pay you can go you can put your owners details You can put your details you can pay through any means you can pay through credit card You can pay through UPI and it's less than a year every month more than 500 crores is paid on as rent on no broker platform Through that means so I think My biggest thing is that keep listening to what the customer is saying keep listening to his pain points and keep on Innovating otherwise if we don't do that somebody else will do it So if you keep listening to customers and we need to keep improving that everybody's talking about pointing to be a challenger Right now if you look at it at some point does the challenger brand itself become a crowded market no like I can ask you this question stuff because Coming from aviation. I think every brand in this in the aviation segment right now is acting as a challenger brand So there was there were Airlines and then somebody challenged it and said let's make a low-cost airline now Somebody's come back as Vistara saying that let's come back with the old airline King Fisher tried the oh Let's disrupt it and challenge the stylish out of line So if everybody is trying to challenge do it does this become a stagnated space I what where are you at right now when it comes to how do you disrupt this market? I Think it does I think if everybody becomes essentially somebody comes in and challenges the market norms and then the entire market moves in that direction Because it sees that there's a differentiating opportunity over there But if everybody is differentiating on the same space which for example is where the aviation industry right now is in India, right? Everybody came in and is differentiating on cost and the consumer mindset therefore becomes that I need to purchase on the basis of price That is not a margin enhancing game And therefore it is imperative upon somebody else to come and bring a value proposition to the market that is That a consumer is willing to pay a premium for and That I think is the crux of what a challenger Brand needs to be able to do because it's easy to challenge a status quo if you you're challenging it without making a profit But how do you sustain yourself as an organization over a period of time? I mean Uber has done that with the geek economy. It's very challenging etc But it's not profit-making if you look at a large number of players in the online space E-commerce space across the world the largest companies in the world challenge our mindsets But they're not profit-making. Can you be a challenger and sustain over an extended period of time? That is where it you you're a true challenger because it's easy. I mean the telecom industry has had enough challenges in the market but What is it achieved either for the consumer or or you know in the largest space for the organizations themselves I Think adding to his point for example a hotel industry, which I can think of you know So people try to do multiple things like you mentioned ginger was there or across the world They were there were hotels and they were affordable hotels But I think what Airbnb did it just Spinned the entire thing into a totally different kind of a proposition Which was very appealing to the customers because they wanted that authentic experience They didn't want it to be the same You know same thing everywhere. They're going and at the same time for the owners who had that extra capacity Became a great business model So in a in a space like hotels where everybody was trying to do something very very similar Airbnb just pinned it into something totally different Keeping this so when we were doing this talk, right? So it's looking at the research and I was kind of looking up challenger brands because everybody is certainly Speaking about challenge of and these are not brands that were born yesterday. It's it's probably 2014 2012 and they are coming into the limelight today And when you look at what has brought them out so there's disruption a one of the key disruption has been say for example for consumer goods It's primarily been distribution right so older bigger companies own the distribution pipeline today That got disrupted with e-commerce multiple new challenger brands existed there marketing became a whole point Social media like when that came in a lot of people started using social to build their brands They said that hey, this is Suddenly I have access to social capital, which is free of cost etc today. We are sitting at a time where Nothing is free even social media is not free anymore. So the organic reach has died There is so there is still the need for the newer brands to come in to apply a Frugal strategy at some point a media strategy of sorts So do do you guys I mean because you guys were all built brands in that in the Challenger aspect of things do you see where How you can counter this like maybe you could help with this because the organic reach say for example on Facebook is Close to nil How do you today disrupt or challenge the new age other media brands? We obviously realized from the beginning that distribution was going to be a problem when we started out Facebook was very kind our Engagement and reach on Facebook was it was really really good and over the period of you know years They've made some algorithm changes and you know then after that like you said in 2020 right now If you don't pay any kind of money or your content will never be discovered Google on the other hand is a lot more better. I don't know Facebook Google people and all I hear So anyway, so they have an organic platform called discovery, which is on your basically on any kind of chrome chrome You know I mean not not not but the chrome browser on your phone So if you scroll down you'll you'll see a bunch of content suggestions and stuff like that So how do you get on to that platform that you can only get on to that and then you can only make sure that your organic reach Is high if your content is unique I've always believed that content is king luckily for us lot of the National publishers are still not focusing on the southern markets, you know When is the last time you got to know of a big political development in Tamil Nadu or a Karnataka? I'm asking you guys over here After Jailalitha died. I don't think there's been a lot of coverage on what's happening in Karnataka politics in Tamil Nadu politics or even Kerala politics Just to give any example in 2015 when Chennai was under floods and it was a very you know Dastic situation that you know the people in Chennai were facing, you know flood You know floods when I say floods, you know like water was breaching the first story and the second story of you know People's houses it took three days for the national narrative to actually come and reach Chennai and then do a ground story For us, it's always been stick true to the values of journalism that we believe in a ground story does travel a lot more than Somebody sitting out of Delhi and Bombay and reporting on the same kind of story Cultural sensitivity has worked big time for us. We understand the people that we are reporting on We understand the issues that we are reporting on a lot better than people sitting away from the where the issue is when you stick to these things and then you know you're able to Put out content on a regular manner, you know, you can't just come and put one story today And then you know forget about it. I think it will travel by itself and we've been Blessed with getting a lot more distribution happened, you know through that way and we're not totally and you know reliant on social media anymore my just two cents on this is For any internet company we follow this very simple rule of reducing dependency on Google and Facebook and build your brand build direct traffic acquire consumers and do CRM very strongly so over a period of time we we have a rule of you know 60 40 the day your direct traffic become 60 percent You're like making into real serious business because that's that's so that direct traffic is Equal to in the fmcg world is equal to a tomah So so the more you build brand the more direct traffic increases for internet business and that 60 40 rule kind of we follow and build brand do CRM and Reduce dependency on paid that kind of that would kind of work for us Well, I think you can oh, okay. Yeah, sure So I think also unique to your business. You have to think of What I think is sugar. I think that's something a challenger brand or a discipline So has to has to think of in our case. We realize that very early that Supply comes first. So you need to bring owners and sellers first. It's easier to bring buyers and tenants But how do we bring these guys? These are guys who are 40 plus who are not online Who are not searching on Google Facebook? I don't know So what we did was that when we were you know when we were very very small We used to go and click these pictures because all of the owners and sellers put a For sale or to let board outside the house with their numbers saying no brokers, please So we started clicking these pictures come back to our office call these guys and get the properties listed When we started growing up we thought that we have to do something about this because the last number of property So what we did was that we opened our app that anybody who sees these To let board or for sale board can actually click that picture upload on our app and it comes to our call center through an OCR and They call the owner list the property that is listed hundred rupees in the Paytm account So now as of today We get almost 30,000 such properties every month.  So at a very very low cost I'm able to bring that because a similar Cost of bringing it otherwise on other platforms people have paid more than thousand rupees and I will get it in hundred rupees So I think some kind of Disruptive thinking some kind of sugar. I think that is also required to make sure that your marketing cost is low Can I just one I think it's this is coming from FMCG? So I think and there are various ways you can leverage the assets that you invested and And just just focus on what assets you want to create And where you want to make the investment and whether those assets can be leveraged to really create awareness and reach Again coming from our example. So like Virat Kohli Has a cumulative fan following across social platforms of 85 million and he's your brand endorser. What would you do? So then you don't really have to invest in buying social space. You have to really create content where Which interests his 85 million followers and suddenly and I when Virat was getting married and a lot of talk was going on That's the time when we seeded to him as a brand and we created some Communication which was more Teaser based and then a solution based and you know in three days we got some 30 million views It was more than the views that his wedding got So it's like just create Content which is disruptive which is again breaking the corner. How can you expect Virat to really eat snacks? You know he's such a fitness icon, but actually he has been seen munching on Chips and what is his newfound love when he's getting married and actually just seed that content 85 million followers are following three days 30 million one of the most viewed content as the top 10 contents brand equity and all publishes on a monthly basis And that's where you go. So either you are able to create momentum by yourself or leverage something as a property Which actually has momentum IPL is one such big event So you can do something around it disruptively and the followers of that we'll have it Coombe was another event where suddenly, you know, you have something like 15 crore Visitors to Coombe every year and actually we created something called the world's largest oil lamp is again is record But because you know creating something disruptive caught the attention and we got free publicity So I think PR as a pillar is something which can be used very well invest and then leverage through the fan following that is there and I think you can bypass some of the Social media costs to achieve it Thanks. Well, I think we've run out of time I had one last question which I actually wanted to ask because that's been our biggest debate So the last one are that we were talking about but maybe I'll ask the question here You guys can think about it if you want to find some time outside because you would gather this the question was Can a market leader be a challenger? So we were debating about it saying so you you talked about how Apple was a challenger brand at one point But Apple was and then one plus became a challenger brand and then one plus became a leader and Xiaomi became a challenger brand So can a market leader continue to be a challenger or? Or can a challenger only be number two number three number four who's always probably working harder? That was the question. I don't know if you have time though. That would be the last one Yeah Oh, yeah, I think we can take a couple of answers. Can you yeah? Yeah, we can yes Now that you asked the question we should take a couple of answers Anybody asked you I think a market leader can be a challenger. I mean the two examples for that which I talked about Craigslist I think it's bigger than anybody else in terms of classified space. It's it's it's it's a market leader But still a challenger Airbnb again, I think, you know very very large still doing things very differently than What other people are doing so in again? I think it's the problem which you're solving It's the it's the it's the mind space which you're Addressing that is what defines a challenger not the market share probably My perspective when Apple became the leader I think this was when when they launched iPhone iPhone 5 around that time for five and six or whatever So if you look at the sick iPhone 6 7 and 8 and all that had that button over there That was the time when all the other challenger brands came with full screen displays It took you know, I think four or five years before they actually realized that oh, you know Maybe we should make a phone without a you know push button and then keep the entire display I think that's where they failed in being a challenger You know when you knew that the market it was inching towards something else They didn't read the customer properly they didn't realize and that's when they started losing out on a lot of market share I mean now I think they're back to number one But I think it's high time that every single leader brand Especially being nudged when they're nudged by the smaller brands that they take it a lot more important Make sure that you know they become challenges in themselves stagnation is probably the You know end point of anything brand career You know any kind of innovation? Thank you