What I'm watching is this: a complete inversion of conventional marketing wisdom, where the brands winning aren't the premium players or the budget disruptors, but something altogether more interesting ,the adequate middle. The "good enough" brands. The ones that business school professors would mark down for poor positioning.
And they're absolutely printing money.
When Premium Becomes Preposterous
Here's what's happened: inflation hasn't just made things expensive ,it's broken the fundamental psychological contract between premium brands and their customers. When a pair of Nike trainers costs what feels like a month's salary, something rather important happens in the consumer's mind. It's not that they can't afford it (though often they can't). It's that the transaction stops making psychological sense.
You see, luxury works when there's surplus value , when paying more delivers a feeling of gain, of winning, of getting something extra. But when inflation pushes prices into the realm of the absurd, that surplus evaporates. You're not buying status anymore; you're buying a creeping sense that you're being taken for a fool.
The economic term is "consumer surplus." The human term is "do I feel like an idiot for buying this?"
The Bottom Isn't Much Better
So people flee downmarket. Perfectly rational, you'd think. Except the bottom of the market presents its own form of stupidity. The cheap trainers fall apart. The knock-off perfume smells like regret. The budget smartphone makes you want to throw it against a wall (which, given its build quality, might actually improve it).
This creates what I'm going to call The Stupid Squeeze: premium makes you feel financially stupid, budget makes you feel functionally stupid.
Now, this is where it gets interesting.
The Two Sacred Conditions
Here's the crucial bit that most marketers miss entirely: the middle only wins when two very specific conditions exist simultaneously.
And I do mean simultaneously. Like a perfect storm, or a soufflé, or a marriage that get the timing wrong and the whole thing collapses.
Condition One: The Market Extremes Must Both Fail (In Different Ways)
This isn't one condition , it's two things happening at once:
Part A: Premium must be absurdly out of touch
Not just expensive. Not just "a bit dear." Premium must have crossed into the realm where it creates negative consumer surplus. The price is so divorced from reality that buying it doesn't make you feel successful , it makes you feel like you've been mugged by a logo.
Part B: Low-cost must fail to do the job
And I mean fail. Not "it's not quite as good." Not "well, you get what you pay for." The cheap option must be so inadequate that it doesn't fulfill the basic function you're hiring it to perform. It's not a compromise , it's a complete waste of money, just slower.
These two failures must exist together. If premium were reasonably priced, people would still buy it. If budget actually worked, people would accept the trade-offs. But when premium is absurd and budget is useless, you get a vacuum.
Condition Two: Your Middle Product Must Actually Do The Job
This is the non-negotiable bit. You must create something that does what the low-cost segment cannot do.
Not better than premium. Not as fancy. Not with all the bells and whistles. Just... competent. Adequate. Functional.
You're clearing a threshold , the threshold of "does this actually work?"
Both conditions. Not one. Both.
The Perfect Storm in Action
Let me show you how this played out in Tunisia with surgical precision:
Peak Sports
Condition One - Part A: Nike and Adidas ,courir , City Sport, Milano Store had become genuinely absurd. We're not talking "premium pricing" , we're talking prices so high they'd left the atmosphere entirely. No consumer surplus. Just surplus anxiety about your financial decisions.
Condition One - Part B: The cheap alternatives (market stall trainers, unknown brands) didn't do the job. They fell apart. They hurt your feet. They looked terrible after one wear. They failed at being trainers.
Condition Two: Peak Sports made trainers that actually worked. Comfortable. Durable enough. Looked decent. Did the job of being footwear that you could wear to play sports, walk around, live your life in.
Result? They own the market.
El Fawe7
Condition One - Part A: Premium perfumes had become ludicrously expensive. The kind of pricing that makes you think "am I buying fragrance or funding a small nation?"
Condition One - Part B: Cheap perfumes didn't do the job of perfume. They smelled chemical. They lasted about eleven minutes. They made you smell worse than if you'd worn nothing at all.
Condition Two: El Fawe7 at 40 dinars created fragrances that actually did what perfume is supposed to do. Pleasant scent. Reasonable longevity. Made you smell nice. The job was accomplished.
Result? Phenomenal success.
Infinix
Condition One - Part A: Samsung flagships priced in the stratosphere. Absurdly expensive. No surplus value , just surplus fear that you'd dropped a month's salary on a phone.
Condition One - Part B: The truly cheap phones (Evertek, Itel) didn't do the job of being smartphones. Terrible cameras. Crashed constantly. Couldn't run apps properly. Failed at phone things.
Condition Two: Infinix made phones that actually functioned as phones. Decent camera. Ran apps. Didn't crash every five minutes. Did smartphone jobs reliably.
Result? Market dominance.
Notice what's happening here? These brands didn't just identify a price gap. They identified a performance vacuum created by simultaneous failure at both extremes.
Why All Three Parts Matter
Let me be annoyingly, tediously specific about this because it's the entire game:
If premium were reasonably priced (Condition One - Part A fails):
People would still buy premium. Your middle option loses because premium delivers extra value , status, quality, cachet at a price that's psychologically justifiable. The surplus still exists.
If budget actually did the job (Condition One - Part B fails):
People would just buy the cheap option. Why pay more when cheap works fine? Budget becomes the rational choice.
If your middle product didn't do the job (Condition Two fails):
You're just slightly more expensive rubbish. You've positioned yourself between two bad options and offered a third bad option. Nobody wants this.
The magic , the actual money printing magic happens only when all three parts align:
Premium is psychologically absurd (no surplus, just stupidity)
Budget doesn't do the basic job (waste of money)
Your middle product does do the job (crosses the adequacy threshold)
This creates what I'll call The Goldilocks Lock: a three-part mechanism where all tumblers must click into place simultaneously.
Miss any one of them and you're just another mediocre brand with mediocre positioning fighting for mediocre margins.
The Sunglasses Opportunity
Which brings us to sunglasses , a category where all three conditions are blinking in neon.
Condition One - Part A: Designer sunglasses (Rayban, Gucci, police ) at 500-700 dinars for what costs 30 dinars to manufacture. In Tunisia's inflationary environment, this isn't premium , it's offensive. No consumer surplus, just anxiety about spending half a month's salary on something you might sit on.
Condition One - Part B: Budget sunglasses spectacularly fail at their basic job , and here's the kicker , at multiple jobs simultaneously.
Poor UV protection (actually harmful to your eyes) , distorted lenses that give you headaches , frames that snap if you breathe wrong , And crucially, they make you look ridiculous.
Cheap sunglasses have that unmistakable quality of looking cheap and the proportions are off, the finish is tacky, the styling screams "I bought these at a the souk ." They fail functionally and socially.
Condition Two: The opportunity is to create sunglasses that actually work on all dimensions , proper UV protection, decent optical quality, frames that survive normal use, and critically, designs that make you look good. Not cutting-edge fashion. Not runway-worthy. Just sunglasses that don't make you look like you're wearing your embarrassment on your face. Sunglasses that do what sunglasses are actually hired to do: protect your eyes, help you see, stay intact, and allow you to feel presentable in public.
At 50-80 dinars instead of 500-700.
Because here's the thing about sunglasses: they're the only functional accessory that sits on your face all day. People see them before they see you. The job isn't just optical protection , it's social protection too. Budget sunglasses fail at both.
The three conditions are perfectly aligned. It's almost unfair how obvious the opportunity is.
The Broader Pattern
What's happening in Tunisia isn't unique , it's just more visible because inflation has created a perfect laboratory. The same dynamics are playing out globally, just more slowly.
The successful brands haven't stumbled into success. They've identified markets where premium has become absurd, budget doesn't work, and they can deliver adequacy at a sensible price. All three conditions. Simultaneously.
This isn't about being "good enough." It's about being the only sensible option in a market of stupid extremes.
You're not offering the best or the cheapest. You're offering people the ability to make a defensible decision , to feel clever instead of foolish, to get the job done without bankrupting themselves or buying rubbish.
And that, dear reader, is worth considerably more than being merely cheap or merely premium.
It's worth being the only sensible choice when both extremes have failed.
Which doesn't fit on a business card, admittedly. But it does fit rather nicely in a bank account.
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire