Stephanie Chan

  • Alumni

Activity Feed

On April 29, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on HoloAnatomy: AR bodies, ARselves. :

Awesome post, Sonali – HoloAnatomy’s work is super interesting and seems like it could really revolutionize medical learning! I took an anatomy class in high school and would have loved to have access to the company’s technology at that time. I really like the idea of licensing the HoloAnatomy technology and training programs to universities and hospitals. Do you think leading universities and hospitals will be the first to take the plunge and adopt this type of technology, especially since they have the budgets, or do you think slightly lower-tier institutions will adopt first in order to try and differentiate themselves?

On April 29, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Matterport: Cool Product, Funky Business :

Really interesting post, Ravneet! Given that Matterport seems to be spreading itself thin across clients, are there specific industries that you think will be beneficial for Matterport to focus on in the next few years? Also, do you see the company wanting to make a product-to-platform play like Jaunt VR and other hardware-focused companies?

On April 29, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Jaunt – Making the Shift from Product to Platform in VR :

Great post, Dan! In my post about London’s Royal Opera House I wrote about an immersive film created in partnership with Jaunt using the Jaunt ONE camera. Your point about Jaunt trying to move from a product to a platform for content creation and distribution was interesting. YouTube and other video platforms like it are trying to build out their own capabilities for the production and distribution of VR content. What do you think it will take for companies like Jaunt to create their own platforms and challenge big incumbents in the video space for viewership?

On April 17, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Brandwatch- Social Listening and Analytics :

Interesting post, Megan! At my old job at Disney, social listening was definitely a growing part of the market research that was done before every movie premiere. The sheer volume of movie mentions as well as the sentiment of the different mentions were definitely important to track before opening weekend. It seemed like there were a ton of companies in the social listening space; I’m curious as to what kinds of firms actually use Brandwatch and whether they’ve actually made different decisions based on the learnings they’ve gotten from the data? Also, what are the competitive dynamics between Brandwatch and other companies in the space? Do you think there are network effects within the social listening provider space or can many different companies thrive?

On April 16, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on ZARA: Achieving the “Fast” in Fast Fashion through Analytics :

Great post Ravneet – I had never read about Zara’s extremely quick supply chain or hyper-local testing. I have a question for you about fast fashion in general, but especially for Zara since it produces and sells more distinct items than its competitors: it seems that many designers are not fond of the “runway-inspired” fashions sold at these stores and some have even sued stores for copying their designs. Do you think Zara and other brands like it are doing anything wrong, and if not, what recourse do designers have for “imitations” of their work?

On April 16, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Big Data for Music Festivals :

Interesting post Ophelia, I’d never heard of the Roskilde Festival before! I thought of this post since Coachella is going on right now and looked up attendance from 2016: apparently there were 99,000 people per-day in attendance during the six days of Coachella. There’s a pretty large opportunity for Goldenvoice, the concert promoter, to use data and analytics to improve the experience at Coachella and Stagecoach but I haven’t been able to find much on whether they are partnering with any companies like Roskilde did. Do you happen to know if Goldenvoice is indeed doing anything similar? I found an interesting article on the economic impact of Coachella 2016 here in case you are interested:

On April 7, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Coursera: The Past and Future of Online Learning Platforms :

Thanks for your post Kyla! As someone who signed up for a bunch of MOOCS on Coursera but who never actually followed through with them, it was interesting to learn about their value creation and value capture. I agree that the enterprise side of things seems like the way to go, especially given the prevalence of users like me who are likely to drop off the platform.

On April 7, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Tinder: A Platform After Your Own Heart :

Thanks for your post Megan! In my social circle, it seems like a lot of people who used Tinder early on have switched away to more specific and selective dating apps like The League. Do you think Tinder will ever move to a model that is a little bit less democratic and open to everyone in order to compete? Also, do you think the company will still be around in five years?

Great post Ona! Amazon’s missteps regarding Handmade brought to mind the company’s general struggles in the fashion apparel and accessories categories. I went to the Handmade website and it definitely seems out of sync with the intimate, cozy feel that Etsy is good at projecting. I wasn’t aware Amazon’s high commission fees. Thanks for posting.

On March 22, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Boaty McBoatface- Lessons From Failed Crowdsourcing :

Interesting post Jack! I’d never heard of this instance of failed crowdsourcing but it brought to mind the idea of democracy (and perhaps the most recent election) as a failed crowdsourcing effort.

It’s kind of a perverse thought experiment to think of democratic voting as subject to the same vetting, community engagement, and incentive alignment rules as crowdsourcing ideas (no one wants to advocate for actual “vetting” of voters in the US); however, one could make the argument that a democracy where voters are not informed properly really are not adding value to the process of electing an official (the equivalent of selecting the winning idea).

On March 22, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on HitRecord: Paving the way for crowdsourcing in entertainment industry :

Interesting post Ona! I had heard of HitRecord before but never really knew how it worked or what type of content it produced. While I find the idea of crowdsourcing creative projects like this very interesting, I think there are some tensions present in the process of content production that make me wonder about HitRecord’s viability. For example, generally the highest quality entertainment content is generated by a small group of people who have a very clear vision of what they are trying to accomplish and who work very selectively with vetted partners (filmmakers, editors, musicians, etc). Originality is very important and is a way of differentiating yourself from all the other people creating content out there. As a creator, I would be very hesitant to put my original work on a platform like HitRecord where it is meant to be downloaded, copied, and changed. Also, as Natalie mentioned above, a talented creator would likely not get compensated nearly as much for participating in collaborative work like this compared to what they might be able to get working with a small team of his or her own choosing. Do you think HitRecord generally attracts a lower tier of creators like I am hypothesizing?

On March 22, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on Julep: Going After Big Beauty With Crowdsourced Products :

Interesting post! Do you see Julep’s crowdsourcing edge to be sustainable? For example, what’s to stop a giant like Sephora, which already has massive scale and has implemented a lot of innovative ideas, from adopting some of the same types of crowdsourcing tactics to develop their own Sephora line?

Hello, thanks for your comment! I think your point is valid for top creators that have their own following: if they are big enough that advertisers are connecting with them directly through their managers, etc., then FameBit has lost its value add. However, because FameBit has historically concentrated on creators that aren’t big enough to be attracting that kind of attention or deal flow, I think it still has value for the vast majority of these long-tail creators. Also, because of the immense popularity of online video, I imagine there will always be more small creators to take the place of the big ones that eventually grow too big for the platform.

The authenticity piece is interesting. I think people are definitely aware that paid promotion is rampant; however, I do think most fans still believe that their favorite stars only endorse things that they actually like and would use. These creators know their own brand and I think they are very careful about anything that seems inauthentic since they could really lose followers (who are really the base of their stardom) if it’s revealed that they are fakes.

On February 7, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on 23andMe: Current personal genomics market leader turned market loser? :

Thanks for posting! I recently became a 23andme customer after researching different personal genomics products. I agree that it’s not the most robust product in terms of ancestry or genomic nuances, but it certainly does have excellent marketing and a friendly user interface. I was persuaded to buy the product after reading reviews that said you can actually take your own personal data and feed it into a different portal for more detailed and advanced health results for a small fee of $10-20.

It seems to me like 23andme fits the needs of most mainstream consumers who are simply looking for a bit of insight into their genes and family history. What would your ideal situation look like in which the company could remain accessible to the vast majority of consumers while also adding value to the scientific community through partnerships, etc?

On February 7, 2017, Stephanie Chan commented on How AwesomenessTV Became Awesome :

Thanks for your post Sijia! The relationships between YouTube and the most dominant and successful MCNs like AwesomenessTV are extremely interesting to me given that the two are at once complementary and competitive within the online video ecosystem.

Like you mentioned, companies like AwesomenessTV are building their own brand and growing their capabilities to become talent agencies and small studios. YouTube also has YouTube Spaces for creators to film and produce their own content and is starting to offer branded sponsorship opportunities to creators through their acquisition of FameBit so that creators can stay on YouTube and still make money outside of traditional ad revenue. It seems like there’s going to be a convergence in what all these companies are trying to do and that bumping into one another in the future will be inevitable. How do you see this tension playing out in the next few years as well as on down the line?

Interesting post, Alex – thanks! Your point about switching costs brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend who simply subscribed to Pandora’s premium service first and just never entertained the idea of exploring Spotify’s premium service as a result. I used to use Pandora’s free service before trying Spotify’s free and paid services but stopped using Pandora altogether because I believed Spotify premium’s value proposition to be a better fit for me and the way I use streaming services (on-demand listening, playlists, friends’ recommendations).

I noticed that my car sound system lists Pandora, but not Spotify, as an option for listening and was thinking that perhaps Pandora may have done a better job than Spotify early on in partnerships with automakers, etc. Do you know if that is the case, and if so, whether Spotify has been able to overcome this? It seems like it, given that Uber and Spotify are linked, but I was curious if you had more detail!