I'm reminded of something Sir Richard Branson once said, "there is always a market for the best in the world, and cheapest in the world". To me this quote impl

I'm reminded of something Sir Richard Branson once said, "there is always a market for the best in the world, and cheapest in the world". To me this quote implied quite a few things: 1) There isn't much of a chance being 'in the middle' of price and quality--you'll get beat by competition that focuses on price or on quality. 2) Business is harder at the price end because it's harder to maintain a competitive edge. At this end of the market there are diminishing returns when trying to keep your costs low. You're also at risk of 'technological leap frogging' from competitors who discover a way of doing things cheaper than you. 3) Margins are always going to be tight because there is a race to the bottom. So, how does this relate to the article? Well I think Robo-Advice is on the 'cheap' end of the market and the solution for human advisers is to go up market. In this market, economies of scale are based on the size of your clients' investment portfolio. Sure there will be disruption but there will always be humans who want 'the best' and who will perceive robots to be inferior to humans. The challenge would be to market 'the human touch' as being better than a robot to maintain that perception to your target market. I think this logic can be applied to most other industries facing the same robot vs human prospects.