• Alumni

Activity Feed

Hi Chris – thanks for sharing! I think the OEMs are going to have a tough time competing with Apple and Google, but as AT mentioned, they still have the upper-hand since they manufacture the car. In my mind, they are still failing to recognize their most important advantage: the whole car has the potential to be interconnected and become interactive. For example, why limit yourself to a tiny display next to the wheel when your front windshield can serve as your GPS (see BMW navigation system: http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/technology_guide/articles/head_up_display.html)? Are buttons and levers still relevant or should, for example, lights and wipers be automatized, voice recognition controls for the AC, etc.? There are so many ways in which GM could innovate and Apple and Google cannot!

On November 19, 2016, Juan commented on A Smarter P&G :

Very interesting take on CPG digitization! I didn’t know about the existence of ‘buttons’ until this week at Amazon’s company presentation, and it seemed like a great way to retain customers in the long run. However, I think that on their attempt to digitize and partner up, they fell short. Shouldn’t they partner with, for example, home appliances manufacturers? Instead of having the customer take the decision of purchasing an Amazon button, have them use it, etc., they should push companies such as Bosch, Whirlpool, etc. to integrate that technology in their machines, thus, eliminating one step in the consumer’s decision making process.

Very insightful post, user123213! I agree with all your points, but I’m just worried that they focus too much on people that already care for and enjoy art. While I’m not saying that the House of Cards audience and the MET visitors don’t overlap, I believe that a ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ approach might work better in order to source more visitors and engage a broader audience. In a way, they’re already doing that by being active in social media, instagramming, investing in VR, etc. But, what about partnering with media producers and distributors? How about getting MET content in Netflix or Hulu? Or partnering with the gaming industry to subtly appeal to a new audience?

On November 19, 2016, Juan commented on A Wholly Digital Whole Foods :

Hi Naomi! Great post. I have a doubt, though: does the Infor technology just allow Whole Foods to share info with consumers on the origin / environmental footprint of the product and a better supply chain management? Why wouldn’t they build that in-house? And, are WF consumers so worried about the sourcing of those products? I thought the whole point of WF’s value proposition was that consumers didn’t have to worry of those things, since WF already worried for them and made sure that all of their products were environmentally friendly. I’ve never shopped in WF, so these are real doubts – not challenging the premise of your post!

On November 19, 2016, Juan commented on Is The New York Times on its way to becoming old news? :

Very interesting article, Sairah! I, however, view this problem as with difficult solution in the near future – NYT’s brand, as you mentioned, is based on neutrality and journalistic integrity, while, as “O” mentioned in her first comment, new media is using strategies that might challenge that. I believe that, in making less impactful more neutral headlines for their articles, NYT is taking a stand against all those people that just roll through headlines instead of clicking to read the article’s core.
I view the future of journalism as more of a 360º experience: crowd-sourced journalism (user123123 dixit), live reporting, VR, co-collaboration with other countries’ media (as seen in the Panama papers, Wikileaks, etc.) to adapt to globalization, etc. However, an ad-based free model also challenges the neutrality of the paper, so partnerships with other media outlets to drive down costs, and big tech companies and distributors (Google, which benefits directly from their content) to drive top-line growth, are key for the future of the industry.

On November 5, 2016, Juan commented on Nike Tackles Climate Change :

Great analysis of the main initiatives and challenges ahead for Nike, Naomi. As I read through the article, it was clear that the company had identified their main sources of their carbon footprint and were developing the means necessary to reduce them through R&D and company-wide programs. However, do you think that Nike can actually monetize some of these initiatives by commanding a premium for sustainability on their products? Should they market those advancements or would their customers grow wary of the quality vs sustainability tradeoff?

Very insightful analysis of Coca-Cola’s business and its impact on sustainable water sources. I admire how you dismantle their takeaways on the whole water neutrality program, first, by raising the point of communities inequality and replenishment of water sources that might not be the same ones they’ve depleted, and second, by challenging their assumptions on how much water it takes to manufacture a bottle of Coca-Cola. However, I am deeply troubled by how they can actually force suppliers to adapt to more sustainable strategies without pushing costs up the supply chain. Coca-Cola has without a doubt inmense purchase power, but I wonder if by forcing their suppliers to evolve, they may be forcing them to be unprofitable. Wouldn’t a partnership between both suppliers and Coca-Cola create more value for both parties?

On November 5, 2016, Juan commented on Not So Fast: The Unglamorous Side of Fast-Fashion :

I completely agree with your take on next steps for the fast-fashion industry, but I wonder what ramifications this might have to its business model: by being more eco-friendly, they probably will need to raise prices on those t-shirts and they’ll end up impairing their whole image as an inexpensive fast-fashion retailer. That also might leave a gap for other competitors to enter their market, since demand has already been created and must be serviced. Also, by raising the issue of sustainability in their customers’ minds, they might decide that they do not need 63 clothing items every year and thus erode their own customer base. I would actually argue that the whole concept of fast-fashion should disappear if we want to really tackle the climate change problem.

On November 5, 2016, Juan commented on Delta – Combat Climate Change by Flying into the Future :

Sairah – very insightful analysis of the main environmental issues impacting airlines. My main worry is, should airlines such as Delta venture out of their core business and diversify into cleantech operations and R&D? Shouldn’t that fall on the shoulders of the manufacturers / regulators (as Nitchan mention)? With such low margins of operations, Delta has in my opinion one way of affecting change, and that is through the renewal of their fleet and, specifically, by purchasing from the most eco-conscious manufacturer, thus ‘rewarding’ sustainable behaviour over other metrics.

While I completely agree with you, Austin, that a change is needed within Delta to drive further fuel efficiencies -especially on their fleet renewal front-, and that further collaboration among agents (manufacturers, airlines, fuel suppliers) would be key for driving innovation, I would argue that ‘shutting down’ routes with low utilization might be tricky in terms of operations and financials. An airline constantly reviews their network to account for inefficiencies, and only maintains a route in operation if: i) it adds to the bottom line in itself or by contributing passengers to the general network (via connections, especially in a hub and spoke system); ii) there’s another kind of value for the company (i.e. reputation, agreements with local authorities, competitive threats); or, iii) it makes sense operationally for the aircraft to operate between those two points. I would, however, think of other ways to drive up utilization, e.g. mix model of cargo / passenger services, operation of smaller aircrafts, or alliances with other airlines that operate that route.