Regarding your last question, I believe more consumers will be drawn to Adidas due to its strides in sustainability. 66% of respondents in a Nielsen report stated that they would be willing to pay a price premium for products from companies that had sustainability initiatives (http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/sustainable-selections-how-socially-responsible-companies-are-turning-a-profit.html). Therefore, Adidas shoes that use DryDye technology will be differentiated versus the multitude of other athletic sneaker brands in the market. These sustainable products build trust with the consumer and this message aligns well with Adidas’s positioning as a premium brand. I definitely recommend for Adidas to continue investing in the production of sustainable products. This investment will generate additional sales on differentiated products, resulting in a virtuous cycle where Adidas can then invest even more in eco-friendly initiatives.
Since we tend to focus on the effects of isolationism on US companies, it is very interesting to learn about the effects of US isolationism on a foreign corporation like Samsung. I believe the tension you mentioned between Samsung’s desire to support American jobs and existing safe guard restrictions will continue to exist in the current administration. Therefore given the unfriendly business environment for Samsung in the US, I wonder if it should start focusing its attention on gaining share in other markets with more favorable policies or more growth opportunities. I certainly agree Samsung should continue investing in China as you mentioned. With smartphone adoption increasing at a rapid rate in developing markets in South America and Africa, it may be beneficial for Samsung to increase its investments in those parts of the world instead of the US.
While Boeing has massively benefited from protectionist policies in the US, I wonder what the impact would be if countries that Boeing exports to start implementing more protectionist policies beyond just the cancelling of military contracts in the UK and Canada. Given that Boeing is the largest exporter in the United States (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/06/14/boeing-biggest-u-s-exporter-streamlines-defense-ops-as-new-services-unit-launches), there are major implications for the US economy and Boeing’s business if Boeing receives a taste of its own medicine. I imagine the impact would be the greatest in China and Russia, especially since Boeing is already facing competition from the new entrants Comac and Irkut. In order to compete, then, Boeing should not only invest in initiatives to lower its production costs as you mention, but also initiatives such as making its planes more fuel efficient so they are more appealing to clients from foreign airlines.
Regarding your second question, I think BAMTech has a much bigger opportunity by serving as a streaming platform provider than it does from trying to protect viewership of live baseball games. Given that content providers are increasingly moving direct to consumer, there is a huge market opportunity for BAMTech to gain new clients. For instance, BAMTech recently signed a $300 mil commercial partnership with Riot Games to stream League of Legends (http://www.espn.com/esports/story/_/id/18292308/mlb-bamtech-streaming-platform-inks-300-million-exclusivity-deal-riot-games-league-legends). Additionally, part of Disney’s strategic rationale for acquiring BAMTech is because BAMTech will power Disney’s upcoming ESPN and Disney-branded streaming services. In a world where the traditional cable bundle moves fully a-la-carte, these 100+ cable networks will all be looking for a provider to power their direct to consumer streaming services. My opinion is that people who want to watch baseball will always watch baseball, regardless of the other general entertainment options available.
Is the MLB shooting itself in the foot by selling its streaming platform to other (often competing) sources of entertainment?
Thank you for your incredibly clear description of all the players in the digital content supply chain! I would like to address your suggestion that Netflix should look into acquiring a smaller studio’s movie catalogue in response to Disney’s upcoming direct to consumer service. This would probably not make sense for Netflix because it has purposely reduced the volume of movies in its US library by 40% over the last 4 years (http://bgr.com/2016/12/06/netflix-movies-list-library-shrinking/). This is likely because acquiring movies is less efficient on a consumer viewing hours / $ paid basis and a larger portion of subscribers prefer to watch shorter episodic content and comedy specials instead. Secondly, many of the direct to consumer services (HBO Now, Showtime Anytime, upcoming Disney service) rely much more on branded, high quality movie content rather than movies produced by these smaller indie studios.