Thank you for the interesting write-up, Carolyn. I think I’ll definitely be buying some things from this company in the future…The prices are great, and I hope that quality is what it is made out to be.
This company reminds me of Bonobos (which was discussed in the summer CORe curriculum) in that it seems to create an online order system and manage costs by minimizing inventory. One difference with Bonobos, at least in the Boston market, is that I can go to the physical store and try the clothes on. This personally helps me since I like to see how the clothes look/feel before I buy them, but perhaps the no-questions-asked returns policy will helps consumers get over this reservation.
I like Michael’s idea about allowing the customer to essentially pay a lower price if they are willing to wait for a longer delivery time. The stock-out issue, I would think, would tend to push away customers. Many people I know don’t buy a suit or tux until relatively close to an event, so these stock-outs may be pushing these customers to physical stores.
I also wonder about experimenting with a membership business model (similar to amazon prime). For example, could the company make expedited shipping free to members, or exclusive access to new styles/trends for a period of time? In other words, might there be a way to price-discriminate or create a business model wherein they are more optimally exercising their operating model?
Thank you for you post, Nikos. I think that DoorDash is a very interesting company that more efficiently matches labor demand and supply. Max raises an excellent point around the importance of density. Similar to how Uber’s competitive advantage in the ride-sharing business is the density of its drivers, and the subsequent consumer benefit of quicker rides, I think that density of delivery people will also be important. The denser the delivery person population, the quicker the delivery.
If we broaden the scope of delivery-person density to contract-labor density, Uber already has a significant market share of the contract labor density. I see this being a significant competitive advantage to uber. In addition, Uber can offer these laborers jobs during non-meal peak hours, which DoorDash cannot do. Uber may thus be the more attractive choice for contract laborers, and its underlying costs may be lower since a “ride” could combine a meal delivery with person transportation. This lower underlying cost model could be transferred to consumers, thereby giving consumers a better deal as well. If Uber seeks to compete in this space, what is DoorDash’s competitive advantage?
Thank you for your post, Quita. I think the Iora Health model is very interesting. To summarize, it’s business model is to charge a monthly fee per patient, and it’s operating model is optimized around improving patient health outcomes. The theory is that the business model complements the operating model, since doctors are not reimbursed on a volume basis but rather on the basis of the value they deliver to health outcomes.
One operational risk of this business model is the potential to withhold costly care because it would be unprofitable to provide it under a capitated system. This is similar to the issue that HMOs ran into in the 1990s. How can Iora ensure that it provides the appropriate care that might also be costly?
I think the financial question is also an important one here. Even if Iora is able to create value for the health system, will it be able to capture that value in the form of higher monthly fees? Are there perhaps ways to modify the business model to allow Iora to better capture the value? For example, could they base their fees on the patient-population’s long-term health outcomes? This latter approach seems appealing to me because it mitigates the risk of withholding care in a capitated system.