Thank you for sharing! I was unaware of these initiatives that Mattel is working on and am surprised by the directions they are going in considering the privacy and child development concerns that you outlined. Your mentioning of the “traditional aspects” of toys made me think about the value proposition that Mattel provides with its Barbie products. The way I see it, these toys provide children with an opportunity for prompted make-believe and imagination. With a Barbie doll, a child can design the world that the doll lives in and use their imagination to create dialogue. In terms of value or product competitiveness, I see the dolls themselves, their clothes, and all props and accessories as sort of prompts or loose structures that the child can then use as a springboard for imaginative thinking and play. With these highly calculated and tailored interactive aspects being introduced to this mix with machine learning, does the value proposition of provoking imaginative play go away?
Thank you for sharing, Sada! While I agree that advertising agencies should be concerned about the improving capabilities of AI in this space, I still believe humans hold a couple advantages, at least for now. Machine learning requires extensive data that inevitably contains information on the past. Since one aspect of a great advertisement is being currently relevant, do humans have an advantage in terms of speed of data consumption? For example, if an ad were to feature a reference to a current pop culture phenomenon, how quickly could enough data incorporating the relevant content be fed to an algorithm for it to use this data effectively? My guess is that a human would beat an algorithm to the punch in creating an effective ad with reference to this piece of pop culture, though I may be wrong. Another aspect I thought about was humor and emotional content in general. I would love to know how AI-produced ads compare to those produced organically in terms of producing cleverly comedic or emotional content.
Thank you for this interesting piece. I think that in the shoemaking industry, personalization and additive manufacturing must be considered separately. While a trend toward the more prevalent use of 3D printing seems likely, I imagine it will be used just as much, if not more, for creating shoes of standard sizes and fits as it will for creating personalized designs. As its use is scaled up, I suspect the prices of 3D-printed shoes to decrease. Even assuming this eventual price decrease, I think that within the category of 3D-printed shoes, non-personalized versions will always be available as a lower-price option for people to choose over personalized pairs. I suspect that non-personalized shoes will always have demand on behalf of those desiring the freedom to return retail items, parents of small children who have to buy many pairs for growing feet and who want the option to pass down pairs to younger kids, and those who give shoes as gifts.
Thank you for this thought-provoking piece, Arting. Your question about whether incorporating more 3D printing into Chanel’s body of work would detract from its embodiment of timeless design made me think of further implications of this technology on Chanel’s design process. Your question addresses the quality and style of the designs and made me think additionally of the breadth of creativity within the designs. Instead of broadening the fashion house’s design portfolio, do you think the goal of incorporating more 3D printing could have the opposite effect and instead limit what kinds of ideas are brought to fruition? Would designers start having tunnel vision towards designs that would be a good match for 3D printing? I think @jlaydon’s suggestion of maintaining a balance between traditional manufacturing for Chanel’s age-old pieces and 3D printing for innovative designs could mitigate this concern in addition to hedging the risks of counterfeit production.
Thank you for sharing! I was surprised by Nivea’s choice to focus on specific pain points to narrow the range of crowd-sourced ideas. This almost seems counter-intuitive to the value of open innovation. However, I see how imposing these boundaries would help Nivea to maintain its ultimate value proposition, propelling innovation just within that defined space. I like your idea of inviting open innovation from beyond the consumer. Do you think this route bears any risk of losing connection with the consumer, especially if a supplier and an end-user generally have different incentives for what should make up a Nivea product?
Thank you for this interesting read. The question you pose about the effectiveness of civic duty versus financial compensation in terms of incentives is crucial for the public sector to address. I would argue that there exists a middle ground between these two ends of the spectrum. Perhaps civic duty could be publicly celebrated and lauded without financial compensation. Could initiatives that are set in place with a crowdsourced idea be named after the winning contributor? I also think this middle ground could be reached if there was simply more awareness around these open innovation opportunities. I believe your recommendation to centralize these open innovation efforts would help booster awareness. If there was a central body organizing these open innovation initiatives, it would be easier to generate broader, more consistent buzz around these opportunities and thus promote more participation.