Very interesting read!
The first thought that comes to mind is what would happen to the human capital that Nike employs, especially in emerging countries. I imagine once shoes are produced at scale via 3-D printing, there will be less human labor utilized – across the industry. Would this be transferable to the apparel industry?
Agree with the question whether economies of scale can be achieved with the level of customization proposed. Interesting to think about this process. How many 3-D printers will be required at scale? What would be the lead time from order to delivery and what would be the impact on price. I think as consumers, we may experience severe indecision, given all the choices.
On a separate note and I’m not sure if you came across this but is there ability to implement smart technologies in the shoes of athletes to understand the nuanced aspects of movement and speed? Kind of like a Fitbit in a shoe?
L’Oreal is doing some very innovative things! I enjoyed reading about the NEXT Challenge, which ACTUALLY enables employees to take risks. Social media, a low-cost tool for gathering consumer research and marketing, and the changing perceptions of what beauty is and should be has led to the proliferation of many beauty-related start-up companies doing very innovative things/designing and creating products for a wider base of consumers. I like the de-emphasis of IP and increased focus on speed to market – I think this can make a real difference in driving sales.
To your point about increased cooperation,I wonder if a partnership structure between internal and external parties would be feasible. In such a model, a group of internal employees would select what they thought were good/feasible ideas and would partner with external parties, ultimately becoming a “champion” of the idea. These champions could help re-shape these ideas in order to bring to market and help through the execution process, which could build strong alignment!
Do you see a risk of this strategy being easily replicated across competitors? If all of your competitors were to adopt this, would L’Oreal have a sustainable competitive advantage? Additionally, given the increased use of tech in beauty, will L’Oreal become a quasi tech company in the medium to long-term?
Credible news continues to be top of mind in this day and age. A huge positive of the Buzzfeed open innovation lab is sourcing relevant stories, which are applicable, relevant, and top of mind to many consumers. In aggressively sourcing (diverging the funnel) and narrowing the set of articles (converging), I would be curious to understand what factors Buzzfeed is utilizing to sort, select, and publish stories. I imagine an important factor of selection stems from the editor’s “gut/intuition” of what articles will be the “most” popular on Buzzfeed once published. I would be concerned that some editors may push radically controversial topics that don’t present balanced and thoughtful arguments through for the sake of attracting more consumers and gaining more “likes.” How does Buzzfeed think about quality, as it considers expanding its scale and scope? What is Buzzfeed’s process for verifying content and fact-checking? Again, we live in a world where media and published content is being carelessly quoted (by some) in mainstream conversations without any considerations for whether the content itself is truthful and accurate.
I think Buzzfeed’s growth and increase in reach will likely stem from its community at the grass roots. Other media sources have substantial reach and access to resources. I feel as through Buzzfeed’s reach can spread with an empowered fan base continuing to share articles on social media and utilizing word of mouth tactics via their peers, especially to gain access to the population that is not on social media. Consumers tend to be loyal to news sources and one way Buzzfeed can continue to scale is to make sure its open innovation platform continues to produce high-quality content.
Really amazing what PAWS is doing for animal conservation – excited for the impact!
I agree that larger sets of data provide more accurate patrol paths but collecting this data and truly understanding animal movements can be a time consuming process, especially in natural parks which have historically not had access to many resources and have previously not documented animal movements or have had consistent patrol efforts. Additionally, I recognize that there are only so many factors, which can be controlled. Has the company considered internal corruption and corporate governance structures, given a significant amount of conservation parks are in developing markets. The impact of a few bad actors could have severe consequences on not only the mission of animal conservation but also the data collection process, which could be applied broadly across all users of the product.
In thinking through extreme scenarios: floods, earthquakes, storms, and other adverse weather events could significantly reduce the predictability of animal movements, how does this technology ensure that patrol paths would still be viable under these circumstances. This risk is elevated as global warming continues to be on the rise.
Great summary of what’s happening in the market!
I think technology like this could provide chocolate products at a low cost to markets, which may not have access to a steady supply of chocolate products!
A few thoughts: pastry chefs sometimes charge a premium for what they produce, the quality of ingredients used and tend to emphasize the process of how the chocolate has undergone many processes to bring out subtle flavors. Would printing chocolate or “commoditizing” it (to a certain extent) mean that some pastry chefs would no longer be able to charge a premium for their products? Additionally, there continues to be a trend in the marketplace emphasizing healthy, organic foods – a trend which has sustained for some time and may continue to do so. How do you convince a pastry chef or consumer that a chocolate from a 3D printer is not “processed” and natural – is this a valid concern?
This was an extremely interesting read! Individuals are continuously looking to the internet for guidance on various medical ailments and Buoy’s product offers a better alternative than WebMD and other less interactive models to diagnose and triage. With regard to application, this product could help alleviate supply and demand issues in markets where patient to physician ratios are high, specifically in rural areas and developing countries. Patients who would have otherwise not been able to seek treatment are provided some baseline diagnosis. Additionally, patients who lack access to healthcare (i.e. no insurance coverage) have avenues for treatments.
However, there are some major concerns that Buoy should continue to think through. Patient/doctor relationships require a high degree of trust. How will Buoy’s app develop trust amongst users? What is the marketing strategy around ramping patient use at the onset of launch of this project. Second, will insurance companies be incentivized to aggressively push this product on their patient populations to save costs? Will they start mandating the use of the app prior to any doctor visit, which could adversely affect individuals who are severely ill, especially if the algorithm incorrectly diagnoses them.
How does the company think about the possibility of false negatives occurring, especially if patients are severely ill and may rely on this product for primary treatment. How will Buoy incentivize patients to report mis-diagnoses and continue using the app if misdiagnoses occurs. Lastly, the gut/intuition that physicians develop over many years of training seems hard to replicate across AI/machine learning. Given these concerns, I believe Buoy is a great aid to physicians but not a substitute.