Thanks for the article. It is very interesting indeed to find out that blockchain technology could be used in evening out the information available and ensuring that the contracts are not touched, creating a trust element. Furthermore, I agree that in certain conditions, Blockchain could help the enforcement of contracts i.e. when goods get delivered and the payment goes through. Nonetheless, I would be interested to find out more about technology that could enforce contracts in conditions where its not as straight forward as the delivery of a good, or when the metrics are more complex and require a human to determine whether the milestones are being reached – in the world of services for example. I am not a lawyer, but from my experience the greatest challenge in contracts is not the contract in itself, it is the detractor. Often a detractor has the power and resources to buy time (delay what he or she should pay) and to take the chance to squeeze the less powerful party into accepting a settlement because the latter does not have the resources to enforce it. Please check this link out about contract enforcement: http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/enforcing-contracts/why-matters. I therefore do not see how Blockchain technology could step in to enforce contracts, it can facilitate certain trading contracts but not all. Nevertheless, I agree that the biggest problem is the implications of decentralization of contract enforcement with input and coding errors, but decentralization is also delegitimization of the central authority . However, I disagree that cyberthreats could affect Blockchain technology, as Blockchain technology is less prone to cyber threats.Please check this link: https://script-ed.org/article/blockchains-and-online-dispute-resolution-smart-contracts-as-an-alternative-to-enforcement/
I have noticed that with the advance of technology, Education is changing away from grasping information to learning how to use information. I agree with Tiana that technology is doing that as it personalizes learning, enables interaction and focuses on the learning by doing method. However, I also agree with you Anonymous that Digital platform for Education may be better catered for fine-tuning skills. I am wondering whether there is opportunities to having traditional schools merge with digital platforms. The closest example I could find is the Alt School, although I believe that there is an opportunity to find other creative ways to bring the best of both worlds to schools. https://www.altschool.com/about
In answering Tiana’s question, as to whether HBS will be replaced by MOOCs. I do not believe that MOOCs will replace HBS. What MOOCs can do is that they can provide an additional platform for education. What MOOCs do is provide knowledge, they do not provide us insights, experiences, debate, etc. They also do not help us to learn from others, nor to learn by doing. 90% of the education at HBS is the collective learning of Case studies and the learning by Doing of Field courses. I believe what HBS has done well is understand the importance of the technological advances that MOOCs and other platforms are providing, and preemptively invest in teaching its case method and its core programs as an interactive course through its HBX platform. https://www.ft.com/content/674f02f8-ade8-11e3-9ddc-00144feab7de
Thanks MD. It is indeed an interesting blog on how technology is transforming Netflix’s operating model and how Netflix is taking advantage of big data to know what customers want and deliver their content accordingly. However, I am wondering whether using big data to understand customer’s preference could hurt Netflix in the production phase. I agree with the firm’s strategy to use big data for marketing and distribution, but for production of the content, I am afraid that Netflix would be constraining the content to what the data shows what we like. This might impede on the creativity of the production and might as well miss out on things beyond the data i.e. things that our behavior doesn’t translates into what we like or don’t like. Our behavior may be misleading sometimes and we might not know what we like until we actually watch something. I would go beyond that and point out that consumption may not be correlated with satisfaction, and although we might consumer something over the short-term e.g. an Adam Sandler movie, if we are disappointed by this movie, this may lead us not to watch the next one, so a 4-movie bet, may be a great bet. This is what’s happening right now, Adam Sandler’s first movie has a 0% rating and a 31% audience approval on Rotten Tomatoes. His second movie also has low ratings. So would a Netflix user watch the third movie when he or she who has been disappointed twice? These are a couple of articles worth looking at: http://www.grunge.com/12267/netflix-lost-adam-sandler-movie-deal/ http://www.indiewire.com/2016/05/the-do-over-review-adam-sandlers-awful-new-netflix-comedy-will-make-you-wish-hed-stop-trying-510400/
Great article Bouncer. It is indeed very interesting. I would be interested to look at what the competition is doing as well. It looks like Universal Orlando has built a wearable that can not only do what the Magic Band does, but also creates a way to have a 2-way interaction between the client and Disney. This interactive wearable could enhance the park experience by a lot. For more details, look at this link: http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/11/05/is-disney-worlds-top-rival-about-to-make-magicband.aspx .It would also be interesting to see how Disney responds. Disney is looking to launch the magic band 2 but so far, it has spared us the details about what the Magic Band 2 can do: https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2016/11/magicband-2-coming-to-walt-disney-world-resort/. If you are interested in rumors about what the new band can do, please check out this article: http://www.behindthethrills.com/2016/11/magicband-2-is-coming-to-walt-disney-world/
I would be interested to find out more about their true motives i.e. whether it is to decrease costs or contribute in mitigating climate change. I would also be interested to find out whether it is a marketing stint and whether they are doing this in order to increase MCD’s reputational equity.
Thanks for sharing that. You are making great points.
Although Newmont is mainly focused in producing gold (84% of sales), it also produces Copper (16% of sales). I am afraid that the climate-related risks would not diversify away by investing across these 2 commodities, as operations are very similar. The best way to diversify would probably be geographically. I do not know about diversifying with non-metals commodities.
I also hope that mining companies will not sacrifice their sustainability initiatives. I believe that they have a lot to lose in terms of reputation. However, this is to be seen.
Great point about the variability of ski resorts. I have seen that first hand in the Alps. This issue is affecting ski resorts globally: http://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2010/alps .
I also agree that the environmentally friendly practices may not be enough to reduce emissions. I can see the benefits of hedging the risks by merging with other resorts, but I don’t believe that it is a step in the right direction as it might artificially disguise the real problems that the industry is facing, and delay the search for long-term solutions to the problems we are facing.
What I would look at is technological innovation. http://ski.curbed.com/2016/5/11/11659314/summer-skiing-tahoe-woodward-boreal-snowfactory .It is probably not enough for ski resorts to mitigate for climate change. What they should be adapt in other ways, by using their investment to invest in R&D rather than merge with other ski resorts.
Great piece Noah. I think it would be interesting to explore further the emissions that ski slopes such as Dubai are emitting. Are these artificial ski slopes contributing to climate change? Could the indoor ski slopes of the future be carbon neutral?
It looks like political organizations act on vested interests, but businesses do too. However, It might be easier for a political organization to deny climate change – without affecting its reputation. The reason for that is that they appeal towards a base and this base may have also have a vested interest to deny climate change. Therefore, it looks like that some political organization may not be affected by reputational damage but on the contrary, it may feed in their reputational capital (like a win-win situation). On the other hand, most businesses would only be hurting their reputation (and this damaging their firm financially) with such claims.