The abrupt departure of Deliveroo from Hong Kong—a brand lauded for its creative campaigns and cult-like customer loyalty—has ignited a fiery debate: Can even the most polished marketing withstand the pressure of cutthroat pricing? The rise of Keeta, a mainland-backed food delivery platform that undercut rivals with aggressive discounts, suggests that in some industries, price might be the ultimate trump card. But what does this mean for Hong Kong’s asset management sector, a crowded arena with over 1,800 licensed firms? Does competing on cost eclipse the need for brand-building and storytelling? Or is this a false dichotomy in a business where trust and differentiation are paramount?

The Case for Pricing as King

In asset management, fees are tangible, measurable, and increasingly scrutinized. The global shift toward passive investing—fueled by low-cost ETFs—proves that pricing matters. Retail investors, especially younger generations, often prioritize expense ratios over brand pedigree. Platforms like robo-advisors have further democratized access, conditioning clients to expect “more for less.” In a saturated market like Hong Kong, where many firms offer similar products, competing on cost could seem inevitable. After all, if two funds promise exposure to the same market, why pay higher fees? Yet the Deliveroo-Keeta analogy has limits. Food delivery is a transactional, commoditized service; asset management is a relationship-driven business where trust and perceived value are foundational. A low fee might win a client’s first investment, but can it retain them during a market downturn?

The Branding Counterargument

Asset management thrives on intangibles: reputation, expertise, and emotional reassurance. Brands like BlackRock or local giants such as Value Partners have built decades of equity by positioning themselves as stewards of wealth, not just product vendors. For high-net-worth individuals and institutional clients—who drive the bulk of Hong Kong’s AUM—brand credibility often justifies premium pricing. A strong brand signals stability (critical in volatile markets), aligns with client values (e.g., ESG commitments), and fosters loyalty that transcends short-term fee comparisons. Moreover, in a post-COVID world, storytelling matters. Clients don’t buy products; they buy narratives—about growth, security, or legacy. Can a low-cost provider without a compelling brand message resonate with a family office planning intergenerational wealth transfer? Unlikely.

The Middle Ground: Value Beyond the Binary

The Deliveroo-Keeta showdown exposes a deeper truth: Price and branding are not mutually exclusive, but two levers in a broader value proposition. Consider how Apple dominates tech through premium pricing and cult branding, while Xiaomi captures mass markets with affordability and innovation narratives. In asset management, firms like Vanguard combine low fees with a mission-driven brand (“democratizing investing”), while active managers like ARK Invest charge higher fees but justify them with a visionary, media-savvy ethos.

Provocations for the Industry

• Can Hong Kong’s smaller asset managers survive purely on cost leadership, or will they be squeezed by global giants with scale?
• Does branding lose its edge in a digital age where algorithms direct investor choices?
• Could “hybrid” models—discount arms for mass markets, premium services for HNWIs—become the norm?
• Is the industry underestimating the rise of DIY investors who care less about brand and more about control?

Deliveroo’s exit reminds us that even beloved brands are not invincible. But asset management is not food delivery. The question isn’t whether pricing or marketing matters—it’s how firms can redefine value in a market where clients demand both fiscal pragmatism and emotional resonance. In Hong Kong’s relentless race for assets, the winners may be those who refuse to choose.