Matt Poreda's Profile

Great choice of company to evaluate as it is privately owned. My view on their efforts is a bit cynical: it seems to me they were forced to those efforts by rankings and bad press. This type of PR was a threat to their operations, so they decided to position themselves as a leader in driving the change. The value of this PR pressure is unparalleled – without it companies would be hesitant to step on the path of sustainability, which is often very expensive at its beginning. But when the company is forced to join “sustainability club” it cannot leave it no more. This fact maximizes their efforts to make sustainability good for business in financial terms. And that drives other companies to join the race, as it gives them financial incentives, accelerating the momentum of fighting climate change.

I believe there is a huge potential for RHA to expand – not only geographically but also in terms of aid it provides. Volunteers might provide education that directly contributes to people’s elementary needs and rights, like self-defense or hygiene, but also teach them skills that might actually help them escape poverty, like English or Math. However, in order to do that in the systematic way, with needed quality and on the wide scale, RHA needs external funding, at least to empower the volunteers (give them professional training and resources needed to pass the knowledge to the ones in need). But most importantly, the organization needs continuity in leadership. Beyond the initial India team, more and more managers will be needed to supervise new markets: Those people, whose motivation and will to work for free might not equal the one of RHA’s founders, should be compensated at least to cover their costs of living to ensure they can be fully dedicated to the cause.

I would also use the external funding to build a platform for knowledge exchange and cooperation between volunteers and providers of food and other resources (e.g. hygiene products). That platform could be built in cooperation with corporate partners, using their technology and funding. For instance, I would consider partnership with Unilever to leverage their infrastructure and know-how gained on Shakti project.

Very thoughtful article. As demonstrate by customer survey statistics, this technology might greatly invigorate traditional retail, especially convenience formats. I share the concern of Amazon not being primarily in the traditional brick and mortar business. Traditional, international players, like Walmart or Tesco in Europe, are already working on similar technologies to install across thousands of stores they own. Therefore, as Amazon is lacking presence abroad (even in the digital area, not to mention brick and mortar), I would consider licensing this technology to traditional retail chains online under condition of analytics data sharing. That might be a foot in the door for Amazon to begin wider cooperation with those chains, or eventually, after aggregating enough data on consumer behavior, to enter the markets (but still focusing on e-commerce)

Very interesting article. Looking for new locations of Gigafactory without even having finished, not to mention having tested, the first factory of this size, is indeed a bold move that not many people but Elon Musk would make.

I agree that in the short term they must focus on growing the number of suppliers. I would consider closer cooperation with those suppliers and helping them improve their processes and reach Tesla’s standards and requirements. I believe that would be a more efficient way of eliminating a bottle neck, than just bringing all the processes and tasks under Tesla’s own roof.

In the long term however it might prove to be a right strategy. In order to win with the traditional players with very deep pockets, like GM, they must focus on maximizing efficiency and bringing costs to minimum, which might only be possible if they fully control the whole production process and build cutting edge factory.

This is one of the most important issues shaping how people think these days and in effect how our world looks like. Despite controversies of controlling freedom speech, I agree that big Tech must control the content they distribute via their channels. I also agree with the notion that there should be a coalition of top big tech players working on this topic together, but the standards should be set in collaboration with a representation of governments. I would recommend institutionalizing UN-big tech ethics committee for setting standards for published content. And beyond just counting on algorithms, big tech should actually invest in significant personnel to screen the content until AI is proved to be qualified enough to replace humans in this task.

Very thoughtful and interesting article. Netflix indeed cannot chill in the face of traditional players withdrawing their content from its platform. After all, exclusivity on Disney’s content helped the platform grow to its current position. Disney is by far in the best position to threaten Netflix’ dominance in the space. With its top notch franchises like Star Wars or Marvel, it might easily steal a significant portion of viewers away from Netflix after it launches its own original platform.

What Netflix should focus on in the short term is securing the deals with other studios (Warner Bros. NBC Universal) to lock their content, at least for the time being – to still offer the widest catalogue of top content. In the meantime, I agree, they should intensify on acquisitions. Production companies are key from the perspective of time-to-market releases, but I believe that actual IP is even more important. Hence, I would focus the budget on finding the next big franchise. And it doesn’t necessarily need to be in the US.

This is however a risky game and Netflix might fale to find such a deal. In the meantime, threatened traditional players will leave its platform, going direct-to-customer via their own channels (e.g. Hulu already belongs to 4 top traditional studios). And if traditional players decide to go further and bundle their content together, that might actually mean the start of the end of Netflix.

Very thoughtful and intersting article. Netflix indeed cannot chill in the face of traditional players withdrawing their content from its platform. After all, exclusivity on Disney’s content helped the platform grow to its current position. Disney is by far in the best position to threaten Netflix’ dominance in the space. With its top notch franchises like Star Wars or Marvel, it might easily steal a significant portion of viewers away from Netflix after it launches its own original platform.

What Netflix should focus on in the short term is securing the deals with other studios (Warner Bros. NBC Universal) to lock their content, at least for the time being – to still offer the widest catalogue of top content. In the meantime, I agree, they should intensify on acquisitions. Production companies are key from the perspective of time-to-market releases, but I believe that actual IP is even more important. Hence, I would focus the budget on finding the next big franchise. And it doesn’t necessarily need to be in the US.

This is however a risky game and Netflix might fale to find such a deal. In the meantime, threatened traditional players will leave its platform, going direct-to-customer via their own channels (e.g. Hulu already belongs to 4 top traditional studios). And if traditional players decide to go further and bundle their content together, that might actually mean the start of the end of Netflix.