This is a great article and it is very interesting to see how countries are thinking about these issues, especially with respect to the internet which is traditionally viewed as a medium that transcends borders. I agree with Steve on this one in that it should be on Facebook to meet any applicable laws in a given jurisdiction, and I would think that if the US enacted similar laws around data privacy then American users would want Facebook to comply. However, I think another consideration in this decision is the fact that Facebook may not have as much bargaining power in the discussion as one might think. To fdelabalze’s comment above, I would argue that there are already several larger players in the market which have a significantly stronger foothold in the social media space, including http://www.vk.com which is used by over 60% of the Russian population (compared to Facebook’s 14%) . While there may be room for some negotiation around timing, I think that if Facebook wants to further its goal of “bringing the world closer together” by keeping a presence in Russia, it will have no choice but to change.
Thank you for the insightful article. I agree with all of the points above, especially MY’s idea about collaborating with the government to address the negative effects of globalization. From my perspective, I also wonder how the competition is thinking about these considerations, since the focus really seems to be on the US Auto industry as a whole. If other manufacturers concede to the growing isolationism by reducing investments abroad, will that win them favor in the market relative to Ford? And is there potential for foreign automakers who have significant operations in the US to ramp up production and show that they can support the US labor force as well? It will be very interesting to see how this economic and political climate evolves.
Thank you for the interesting and well written article. I also see this as a potential issue for microbreweries in the future, and appreciate that the BA is being at least somewhat proactive in bringing this to their attention. One question that I had was regarding geographical decisions for microbreweries as a result of water prices. Right now some of the largest beer-producing regions in the US are also its driest, including places like Southern California which only recently exited the longest drought in its recorded history. Since particular regions are likely to be more or less vulnerable to these issues, might we see a shift in this geographic distribution, or potentially greater discussion around where to locate production facilities as concerns around water scarcity continue to rise?
This is a very interesting topic, thank you for the well written article. While it does seem that Tyson is taking steps in order to become more environmentally conscious and socially responsible (reducing water usage, investing in meat alternatives, etc.), I have to wonder how much of this can be considered “greenwashing” as a reaction to larger societal trends. I am in agreement that I would like to see bolder commitments from Tyson and other food manufacturers, especially with respect to greenhouse gas emissions – an area where Tyson likely has a significant negative impact, but does not seem to have a set target or goal. One additional question that this raises for me is the responsibility Tyson has to its shareholders versus society as a whole. For example, if Tyson shifted its portfolio to more sustainable plant-based products with significantly fewer environmental impacts but the change resulted in lower sales, will the market ever value this as a favorable trade-off?
Thank you for the well written article. I agree that the prospect of 3D printed clothing is very interesting and potentially disruptive if it can reach scale and popularity. Thinking about how this type of technology might grow: if this becomes more popular, will the decentralized and less capital-intensive nature of this technology result in an emergence of individuals or smaller organizations who can specialize in creating unique designs? And will customers, in general, be willing to pay a premium for these distinct fashions? Another potential issue I saw involved the designs themselves. With traditional clothing manufacturing there are checks in-place to ensure that a company’s products meet a certain threshold of quality and customer satisfaction. If customers have a large degree of flexibility in creating these designs, how can Ministry of Supply ensure that the product does not suffer from quality issues and potentially result in negative implications for their brand?
Very interesting article and insightful questions. As mentioned above Amazon fresh is a major player in this grocery delivery space and there are also other services like Instacart that enable deliveries from stores in close proximity to the customer. With this in mind, I wonder what the real competitive differentiation is for a company like Good Eggs, and also how valuable is this local focus in the eyes of the customer; Is it enough to command a premium and provide a solid foundation on which to build this company? As others mentioned above it may vary by geography or other demographics, but ultimately it seems that only time will tell.
Another interesting point I saw was around forecasting of customer demand. While great in theory, it seems that developing accurate models would likely require a significant customer base. How can Good Eggs scale up in order to generate this data, and what are the implications for Good Eggs if the numbers are significantly off? Especially since the goods are perishable, being forced to hold/dispose of excess inventory, or pushing it back onto the producer, could cause further operational and profitability concerns.