Cool topic, Tom! One of the things I find really interesting is finding a balance between gathering data and respecting peoples’ desire not to be monitored. How can we convince folks that, in certain scenarios, the gathering of specific information can actually be beneficial. In this case, it might improve customers’ overall experience shopping in a large retailer. As mentioned above, this data is already being tracked online, but clearly there is something customers are deeply uncomfortable with when it comes to tracking more live or in person information. Nordstrom took the route of not being transparent with customers. I wonder if there is any way to help customers be more informed. How would a company even go about explaining the test they are running? Is there any amount of marketing that could convince customers that they are not being monitored just for monitoring’s sake? I am not sure we will ever reach a stage where customers will buy into this idea, so it will be interesting to see how companies adapt and find new ways to gather information on customer behaviors.
As mentioned in a previous post, increases in government use of technology also requires increased cyber security. I wonder how the general population of India has reacted to government making a push to make more data driven decisions and as a result acquiring and tracking mass amounts of data on its citizens. Do people generally fear whether or not this information will be used for good or for more questionable activities? In my opinion, there seems to be a mixed reaction in the US. Americans generally do not like feeling “watched.” It will be interesting to see if sentiment around the government’s harnessing of data/information changes as cell phones and other tech become more penetrated in India.
This is very cool! Perhaps I am old school, but I actually thought that the different online/mobile offerings banks have started to offer were quite advanced and helpful. But taking a step back and thinking about all the different types of transactions that take place, I suppose that there is so much more banks can do to facilitate a seamless experience.
I really wonder how customers across many different demographics would adopt such changes to their banking experience. Would some skeptics think customer service might suffer as a result? Also, one of the studies sited in your blog mentions that over half of people who use banking services believe that the institution isn’t legitimate if there are no brick and mortar stores. I wonder how banks looking to move more in this direction will overcome strongly held customer perceptions.
Very interesting post, Sam! The transparency measures the IMSS has taken are definitely a step in the right direction. However, as I was reading this, I wondered who in the organization was leading this change. Is it just one person at the top? Are all employees bought into the idea? Since corruption has likely been an engrained way of doing business at IMSS, I think this shift needs to be instituted top down, but all parties must be bought in. Similar to class sentiments regarding the cases on corruption we’ve read, I’m worried about the longterm success of this big push to reduce corruption. As we have seen, if the entire culture of the organization does not rally behind this idea, corruption may continue to be a problem.
I am a big Nike fan and was unaware of all the cool sustainability work they are doing, so thanks for sharing! In our recent Nike case, we learned that the company attempted to make some sort of reusable Jersey for the Brazilian soccer team that didn’t really catch on. I wonder if Nike has plans to more outwardly promote the work they are doing given this initial lukewarm reaction. How will consumers at this point in time react to knowing their new (pretty expensive) shoes are in fact made of recycled materials? I think given where general sentiment is at this time, it could be a positive marketing ploy for Nike, but it is definitely risky. Will be interesting to see wha they do next!
I think partnering with other private businesses is a great idea. In my opinion, one reason to work with other companies who use similar resources and create similar products would be to share ideas on how best to approach combating climate change. One worry I have is that individual companies would be protective over the discoveries they’ve made. It will be interesting to see if, as the climate change situation worsens, the private sector and the public sector begin to work with each other in a more intertwined way.
I’m a huge Nutella fan, so very interesting write-up! I think out of all the options, I’d vote for #2 in the short term. It seems pretty ridiculous that they haven’t already enforced this standard–just seems like a minimum. Once sustainability measures are outlined, Nutella could look into investing in a larger number of producers that are geographically dispersed, and they would already have a set of guidelines for these new folks in their supply chain to follow.
My report was on a large player in the wine industry. One of the innovative ideas the industry is heading towards is creating new strains of grapes that require less water and can endure warmer temperatures. I wonder if there is an opportunity for Hershey to begin thinking about researching and engineering new types of chocolate that adapt to climate changes? Not sure about the potential health of affects of engineering cocoa, but as long a it tastes good, consumers might be okay with the idea?
Great post, Kent! One question I have is if Pepsi is sharing some of its best practices with other companies. Right now, I imagine they don’t. I’m sure their best practices give them a competitive advantage, which positively impacts their bottom line. ButI wonder what would happen if we lived in a world where companies, like Pepsi, actually worked together to come up with innovative ways to ensure the sustainability of resources we all use. Wouldn’t that be nice!