TOMFALL2017

  • Alumni

Submitted

Blue Bottle Coffee: Riding the “Third Wave”
TOMFALL2017
Posted on November 15, 2017 at 8:13 pm
Blue Bottle Coffee, backed by Nestle, now has the opportunity, resources, and--arguably--responsibility to walk the talk of environmental sustainability.

Activity Feed

On December 1, 2017, TOMFALL2017 commented on Beauty Inspired by Nature: Can The Body Shop Continue to Deliver? :

Very thoughtful piece! While the Bio-Bridges initiative is radical and clearly necessary, its immediate benefit is fabulous PR for The Body Shop. The real intended benefits will take decades to be realized (a la IKEA’s deforestation-reversal initiatives). I am more interested in what The Body Shop (or any other company) is doing today to ensure sustainable practices that have fewer repercussions to the environment. I am heartened to see that it is developing a more holistic approach to combatting climate change such as “educating” farmers and suppliers. Though my hope is that the firm goes past mere education and gets its hands dirty in implementation.

On December 1, 2017, TOMFALL2017 commented on Starbucks: Saving Our Coffee from the Threat of Climate Change :

Oh, Starbucks. What a delightful company.

Nestle/Blue Bottle can certainly learn a thing or two from Starbucks and how they have grown with integrity and a commitment to achieving a squeaky clean and efficient supply chain. Starbucks as the market leader has the privilege of setting expectations. Could they be doing much, much more? Additonally (and similar to the question that I posed in my musings on Blue Bottle) how does the firm make decisions when financial performance is directly odds with their environmental and sustainability standards?

I am excited to see how Starbucks continues to operate as a socially responsible business and set the pace for the coffee industry.

On December 1, 2017, TOMFALL2017 commented on The impact of Brexit on Kerry Group :

Wow! Very interesting read. This really brought home the complexity of Brexit and how, if not handled with extreme care, it could lead to serious issues for companies across the UK and Europe. In the short term, passing on extra costs to consumers in the UK seems fair as companies learn how to operate efficiently in a post-Brexit world considering that Britain voted wholeheartedly for the measure. In the long term, I think this provides a great opportunity for Ireland to develop infrastructure and renegotiate trade deals that could possibly benefit them in the long term.

On December 1, 2017, TOMFALL2017 commented on Content Globalization – A Script for Success? :

Netflix’s dilemma here is quite reminiscent of our marketing case on ZALORA in which the company chose to establish the infrastructure necessary to deliver it’s goods, allowing other firms (Amazon) to potentially benefit from its investment in the future at a fraction of the cost. After reading this piece, I was left wondering whether this should be Netflix’s battle to fight… it seems quite expensive and most likely non-replicable across multiple countries with strict and varying censorship laws. The obvious risk in sitting it out is a competitor establishing partnerships with telecom firms as the one you described.

Fascinating read. Thanks!

On December 1, 2017, TOMFALL2017 commented on Supply chain digitization: From fabric manufacturing to downward dog :

Fascinating read, Lia. I, for one, had no idea that Lululemon does not manufacture *any* of its products. So what is this company’s value-add? Literally the logo. This is highly disappointing considering that a pair of Lululemon stretchy long underwear costs upwards of $100. Capitalism at its finest, no?

RFID implementation is crucial! I totally agree with your point that “if the manufacturers were able to access, interpret, and directly make decisions based on consumer data, the time to deliver the goods will further decrease”. Lululemon needs granular insight into how their products are moving to even begin to understand how to improve operational inefficiencies, understand consumer tastes and trends, and innovate across the supply chain.

I am always so flabbergasted by products that I see in my favorite stores, often wondering how much of design choices are dictated by consumer tastes vs. designer inclinations. This definitely takes me back to our Gap case… if you’re not using data to inform product (and supply chain) design… you will inevitably lose.

On December 1, 2017, TOMFALL2017 commented on Adidas is clicking “print” on your next pair of shoes :

Excellent perspectives, Emily.

1. I wholeheartedly believe that our love affair with brands will exist in perpetuity because we are all irrational actors. As such, 3D printing and customization will be the death of brands that cannot compete, but the competitive advantage of brands that can.

2. “At the core of this creation process is the belief that digitalization will enable consumer-driven innovation and customization. Imagine a world where the consumer can design shoes to the exact size, shape and gait of each foot, creating a unique design that only she will have, and walk out the door with a bespoke pair that same day. This futuristic world may soon be a reality, according to Adidas.”

Until I encounter compelling evidence to prove otherwise, I am inclined to believe that such consumer-driven innovation and customization for footwear is wholly unnecessary for the masses, but a strong value add for sports organizations, individual athletes (perhaps marathoners), and consumers with unique health needs. I was actually surprised that Adidas’ strategy for 3D printing is for improving footwear customization instead of realizing manufacturing inefficiencies, streamlining manual processes, and reducing costs. I imagine that with 3D printing, Adidas could dramatically increase its machine utilization while reducing down time and set up time, as well as eliminating manual labor.