I have often wondered why there are multiple Starbucks in close proximity, even within the same block. If Starbucks is able to use data to drive customer’s decision-making, why do you think they haven’t been able to just have customers cross the street and walk to one location. I would assume that real estate is a high fixed cost and that the company would be better served by increasing utilization of each shop, rather than building multiple shops.
I find this incredibly interesting, because it would actually be quite logical for HBS to switch to this model over using scribes. Technology for voice recognition has substantially improved over the past few years. Switching to this method may enable even greater accuracy and faster reporting. Additionally, it would be beneficial for students to have greater transparency in how their participation is tracking. Access to data is the key to transparency.
I have only seen the FreeStyle machine in a very limited number of locations. Why do you think it hasn’t become more prevalent? Do you think that Coke was able to accurately predict the demand for the FreeStyle machines? Also, I’m curious what the impetus was for creating this machine. You mentioned that caffeine-free diet Coke was only available in less than 1% of dispensers. I would assume this meant their isn’t a strong demand for this drink; low availability would correlate with low demand. Thus, is it logical for Coke to make such drinks available?
You mentioned the success of “Life in a Day” on YouTube in generating over 11m views. Why do you not think this is replicable? If a YouTube creator was able to attract a major actor, do you think we could see blockbuster success levels? Many YouTube creators have garned hugely loyal fan bases. If multiple YouTube creators joined forces, they would already have insight on what viewers want to watch, and they would have star power. If they have been successful with short videos, what is the greatest limitation to their ability to succeed with longer movies?
This reminds me of Waze, “the world’s largest community based traffic and navigation app,” where drivers can report bad traffic conditions or accidents to alert other drivers. The model relies of individuals contributing to the community and alerting others with real-time data. Google acquired Waze for reportedly over $1b. Do you think ForeFlight would be something that could further Google’s model? Once the roads have been mapped, is the sky next?
This is a very interesting post. Lego is a product that has uniquely been able to span generations and maintain excitement amongst both children and adults. By crafting an initiative that is specific to adults (individuals 13+), it seems that Lego is attempting to maintain its older audience. Do you think that this idea could have been successful without limiting the age range? I would be interested in understanding how children could serve in the crowdsourcing process, although that may be limited by legal restrictions.
As a pet owner, I found this post particularly interesting and relevant. I was initially surprised to read that DogVacay is actually rejecting a large quantity of users who want to join the platform as hosts. This shows that building the largest possible installed user base is not always the end goal for platform-based companies. While this limits the network, it allows for greater quality control, and a stronger product.
What is the level of saturation amongst the dog owners side of the platform? There are an increasing number of pet startups, and with such a low cost to switching, how will this company be able to continue to create and capture value?
As you mentioned, Yoga Panda is incredibly similar to ClassPass. The primary difference in value creation seems to be that Yoga Panda is focusing on a smaller market. This seems counter-intuitive to what we have learned in class. Normally, a platform is most successful when it is able to build a large installed user base. By focusing on only a subset of the ClassPass market, it seems that Yoga Panda is prematurely limiting itself. You also noted that Yoga Panda does not restrict the number of classes or charge a subscription fee. Without the monthly premium, how is Yoga Panda able to capture value? Is it currently receiving revenue?
The value from Waze was only created once the installed user base reached a critical mass. Until there were a sufficient number of users on the platform, then the information presented was quite limited, and the value was low. How do you think companies like this are able to build the initial critical mass? Were any forms of extrinsic motivation (such as cash payments) given to the early adopters to support the initial value creation? This could have helped to solve your concerns around the moochers on the platform.
From this post, it seems that you believe infrastructure will allow Comcast to sustain its market position. You also mentioned competitors like YouTube or Amazon. However, I would argue that the latter companies are driven and differentiated by content, not infrastructure. So longer term, does this imply that infrastructure is more important than content? As more companies, like HBO, begin offering their product/service as a stand-alone outside of the core cable packages, will Comcast’s pipes be enough? Or, is Comcast a “loser” in content, but a “winner” based on its ability to differentiate its value capture across new industries, such as home security and high speed internet?
Do you think that a subscription model could be effectively leveraged by this company? While in-app purchases allow for some value capture, could capture be maximized in other forms, with a more stable recurring revenue stream? Several brands that have utilized freemium models have recently begun considering subscription models. For example, YouTube, which has historically been a completely free service, launched a subscription service for its music offerings, and plans to extend this business model across all of its verticals within the next year. Are the existing content and product features (value creation) capable of sustaining a new sales model (value capture)?
I spent this past summer interning with Google, specifically with YouTube. Hence, video technology was a topic heavily discussed, so I found your post highly relevant and interesting. In giving advice to content creators to help them grow their YouTube audience, one of the most tangible recommendations regarded video quality. However, many creators often cited the limitations imposed by high technology costs. Lower costs inputs would allow for new market disruption, as there is currently a large segment of the population that is excluded from high quality video production.
I question whether Ambarella has truly been successful. If a company has flown “under the radar,” then can it actually be considered a digital winner? A key aspect of value capture is from marketing. Ambarella has clearly been successful in creating value through its development of a sophisticated product. Now, the company must focus on reaching a larger audience to maximize value capture.