This is a very interesting read!
I would like to know and understand how much of production goes to EU countries and how much profit that represents for the company. The importance of Brexit is that the UK will no longer be sheltered by the tariffs of the EU and I would like to see how big of an issue is this really to them?
I would like to understand the real negative implications for McLaren to move production entirely to the UK. As mentioned above, if its a hard Brexit then foreign car manufacturers will have to leave and McLaren will benefit for their remaining talent. In a Financial Times article, it is mentioned how the government is planning to give incentives and funding to companies that use local components for end products. It is also mentioned that the relationship with the government is what will ultimately give McLaren the competitive advantage. So I wonder how the company is going to foster this new relationship and make it into a strong benefit for their business.
Very interesting! Especially with what is currently happening in the world. It seems like the world is shifting to developed countries looking for a protectionist option in terms of trading and developing countries advocating for globalization.
It makes me reflect on what will be better in the long run? It makes sense in my mind that developed countries are looking for a protectionist option because of competition and the low prices other countries have to offer. The idea that people are being hired based on the low amount of money they are willing to receive poses a conflict for globalization. Although we agree or not with the idea of protectionism, we can all agree that its an idea that has spread through the world and is not going away any time soon.
Instead of debating whether it is better or not, we should start to reflect what elements of globalization are not working. Which elements are the ones that directly lead to this protectionist idea and the fear of free markets. By doing this we could improve the idea of globalization and the players that it has been benefiting.
Very interesting article! As an avid skier snow machines are present in our reality. There are two issues that make me a bit concerned in this article. One is the question of quality in the snow produced by machines vs natural snow. The other issue relates more to a concern of what is the industry doing to prevent 70% of the snow to disappear in the coming years.
In a Bloomberg article, it is mention that the quality of man made snow will never be the same as naturally made snow. The tradeoff here is that a day with snow beats a day with no snow. It also mentions how the quality of man made snow is improving thanks to technological advancements and accurate weather predictions. This goes to my second concern: is this enough for the industry?
Is the Skiing initiative not worries that 70% of the snow will be gone in future years? I wonder if there is anything they are doing to advocate for climate change. It really is surprising that instead of finding a solution to the real problem we are satisfied with developing new technologies that replace the natural processes.
Thank you for writing this article! As I read it I reflect on the role that each individual company has on what is the second most polluting industry in the world. The problem with many sustainable initiatives is directly link to the power of competition. The fact that one company has the responsibility to drastically change its operations to diminish the amount of greenhouse emissions and waste they produce is hindered by its competitors. Implementing these changes are without a doubt costly so all fashion companies should be held to a similar standard.
I think in this sense the responsibility to change the industry should come, in a way, through the consumers. We often forget the amount of power that consumers hold. If our own buying habits change, the fashion will have no other option but to adapt to out own standards. Is there a way Patagonia could partner with similar brands that advocate heavily for climate change and change de consumer perspective? How realizable is this?
I agree with what has been said above. There are several pros and cons that come to mind with outsourcing vs in house development. Outsourcing technology allows the company to make a smaller investment in technology particularly because they do not need to hire more labor or develop a new department. Secondly outsourcing would allow them to focus on their core business, creating chocolate products.
However, it could potentially be a good investment to develop their own technology if the economics allow. Since the world is moving to digital, developing their own technological resources could allow for greater customization in the process. They could be able to develop something that satisfies Ferrero’s needs and therefor make the process much more efficient. They would also be able to improve this technology as their business changes since the experts would be in-house and exposed to the company’s business.
As mentioned in the article Ferrero is now investing in technology for its procurement process. Are they planning to include technology in other operating processes? If so, maybe the investment will be worth the future benefits of having their own customize process but more importantly developers who are experts in the company’s core business.
Regarding your second question,
Loved this essay! It made me reflect on the experience of going to the movies. It is no surprise that attendance to movie theaters has been declining and we can partly blame digitalization and the shorter distribution windows for this. However, I’am a firm believer that the experience of going to the movies continues to be unique and many people still enjoy it.
Is there any way that the experience can be made into something more unique and entertaining to maintain consumer interest? Maybe WB should look into what makes the movie going experience better for the consumer. I also think that in order to incentivize consumers to continue to go to movies, studios should focus on quality rather than quantity in their products. There is an article that mentions the willingness for consumers to go watch a movie that has quality in the theater rather than the typical franchise movies. It seems like the industry has lost its creativity in some way and started producing revenue making films which are easier to wait for. I believe that if WB focuses on producing quality content it can also have a positive effect in theater attendance.
Finally I have to disagree with one of the points mentioned above. You mention how consumers would be allowed to download movies at a price of $30 dollars weeks after the movie is released in theaters. I think that this is a high price to pay for a digital movie. Considering that consumers can get the movie a few weeks after at a very low price. I also think that the problem here is not the price but the increasingly short supply windows in which a movie transitions from production to theater to online. In conclusion I think that WB should definitely concentrate in improving the movie-going experience since this is a unique experience for itself that cannot be replaced by watching a movie at home. There is something about watching a movie and sharing that experience with a bunch of strangers.