• Alumni

Activity Feed

On November 20, 2016, KOGR commented on The Kings’ Way: How the Sacramento Kings have Gone Digital :

Such an interesting post! I definitely agree with your sentiment about the team’s performance and echo the comments of our classmates above. I am curious what they plan on doing with all of this customer data that they are acquiring. Do you think they will ever be in the business of selling this data to some of their sponsor and advertising partners? I could see the Kings becoming a data driven company partnering with car and beer companies to help them better target consumers if the team performance continues to be low.

Really interesting post! I find it especially intriguing how Warner is embracing digital to source new artists via YouTube and other amateur friendly platforms. I wonder what your thoughts are on Warner artists using the data it has access to in order to refine their creative process for future endeavors. Is this something they are open to or is it seen as a hindrance on the creative process to try to create something that is too targeted?

On November 20, 2016, KOGR commented on DirecTV Now: Cord Cutting and the Future of Television :

Interesting post, Sean! When DirecTV announced its new offering recently I was really surprised. With network subscriber fees ranging from ~$0.15 to ~$5.00, 100 channels at $35/month seems nearly impossible. The article below projects a single digit gross margin on the offering and Deustche Bank is expecting the gross margin to be as low as 1-2% before ad revenue. I really do wonder how sustainable this will be with TV networks expecting in some cases 7% annual increase in subscriber fees. I doubt consumers will accept annual price hikes so that DirecTV’s margin remains the same.


I also want to challenge your suggestion that channel by channel orders will indeed be cheaper for the consumer (though I absolutely agree that it will provide more flexibility). On average, if consumers were to put together their ideal list of channels, they would list roughly 15-20 networks. Let’s take CNN for example – it is included in most cable packages and therefore rakes in subscriber revenue from not only those who are heavy watchers, but also from those that pay for cable but never watch CNN. In an a la carte world, only the medium to heavy viewers would purchase CNN and therefore the offering would have to be priced higher for CNN to “remain whole” and make up for the lost subscribers vs when bundled in the cable offering. If every network did this, the 15-20 networks an average consumer would pay for very quickly ends up costing ~$35-45. Now that consumers no longer will be getting the cable / internet bundle discount, high-speed internet will cost them roughly $40-50. Together, this ends up being similar if not more expensive than current cable offerings.

I find this to be an extremely interesting topic, and I really appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the next steps BroadwayHD should take. I wonder what your thoughts are on how viewing current shows through BroadwayHD will spur social media buzz. One of the ways I get introduced to a new TV show is through my friends posting about it on FB or Twitter. This could be a powerful tool to drive more people to go see the show in person if the buzz is positive. It could, however, decrease ticket sales dramatically if the buzz is negative and spreads much quicker.

On November 20, 2016, KOGR commented on Netflix is Streaming! :

Quite an interesting post, Andrew. Netflix has certainly shaken up the cable industry and prompted content creators, such as HBO, to break with cable companies and offer direct to consumer streaming services. I am curious to hear what you think of more traditional content creators like Disney and NBC Universal offering DTC streaming services. HBO was already a niche offering as an upsell to basic cable subscriptions, whereas traditional providers like Disney need to think about their wide array of networks, like ESPN and Disney Channel, remaining whole in an environment of steep subscriber declines. Do these networks have enough brand power to exist as standalone services that consumers would view as “need-to-have?” With Netflix and Hulu aggregating content across tv networks and neglecting to brand them with their network affiliation, do consumers even associate their favorite shows with specific networks and therefore feel the need to purchase an ABC DTC service?

I also wonder about Netflix’s staying power now that these giant content creators see the negative effect the streaming service is having on the cable industry, and thus their subscriber fees and advertising revenue. In the beginning, digital licensing was seen as an incremental source of downstream revenue beyond syndication. The idea of Netflix as a threat and an alternative to cable was even conceived. Now that content creators see the effects of these previous decisions, will they continue to license their best content to Netflix? Will Netflix’s original shows prove important enough for consumers to continue paying for the service if their content library diminishes?

On November 7, 2016, KOGR commented on Climate Change and the Tea Industry :

What a great post! I am an avid tea drinker and I had no idea that the drink I enjoy daily could increase in price so dramatically in the near future. It sounds like TGB is taking important measures to combat climate change, especially with its efforts to create tea clones. I do wonder how TGB will approach the marketing of this product if they do indeed release it to the public. One of the benefits many people see in tea, especially in brewing loose leaf, is this idea of it being “natural.” Tea clones could really challenge that perceived benefit, so I am eager to see how TGB combats that issue.

Interesting post! I think you have highlighted a great company that has made significant strides in combating climate change. Like EM, I do wonder if Coca Cola had not been directly affected by the water shortage in 2004 if they would have done anything about it. Unfortunately, I think likely not. What they have done since this difficulty, however, is very impressive – surpassing their 2020 water target by over 15% and achieving this early demonstrates great commitment, but also the extreme change possible if other companies committed to attaining this. I agree with you that they cannot be satisfied and must push on to the next big goal.

On November 7, 2016, KOGR commented on Fish in troubled waters :

Really interesting post! Most often when I think of climate change, my mind jumps to obvious organizations like oil companies, but I appreciate you highlighting such a fundamental issue here. Echoing the comments above me, I do worry that ASG is fighting a losing battle here. Reducing emissions won’t put a dent in their problem, but I also fear the suggestion that many comments made regarding aquaculture may be problematic. In cities where climate change is a hot button issue, like Los Angeles, so are the fads to eat “natural” foods. Many individuals refuse to order fish until they have confirmed that it is “wild.” I wonder what your thoughts are on how to change this perception of the group that champions climate change to begin with.

What an interesting post, Shezaad! I had no idea what a “dirty” industry fast fashion was and how much water goes into the production of an article of clothing we all wear so regularly. I agree with your point on Levi’s incentives aligning in regards to its efforts to combat climate change. It is certainly convenient that these measures will actually reduce costs, as well as buy goodwill with the consumer. I would love to hear your thoughts on Levi’s initiative to buy 100% of its cotton from BCI-certified farms by 2020. In 2014, it had increased its percentage purchased to 12%, but I wonder what your thoughts are on whether there will even be enough BCI certified farms to meet the demand this 100% goal would require.

On November 7, 2016, KOGR commented on Mayday: Mother Earth Code 7700 :

Really interesting post! Given that Boeing is an industry that by nature pollutes the environment, they are making impressive strides to address the problem. With oil prices being so low, I agree that now is the time to invest in R&D to discover solutions that benefit both climate change, as well as Boeing’s future cash flows. I really like your point on geopolitics as well. As Boeing is an industry leader, it can use its market influence to enact change among clients and partners. Your suggestion of monetary incentives to bring this to fruition shows a sharp understanding of the reality of how to get this done. I agree that without such incentives, Boeing will not be as successful in making a difference.