This is a very interesting angle to consider, especially when we compare to how another company, Indigo, tackled the issue of a costly development funnel in big pharma. I am really interested in the chip-in-pill concept discussed at the end of the post, but I also know I’m an engineer that is fascinated by pushing technology to the limits. How do you think consumer behavior could cause push back on a technology such as this? Could Pfizer get a large enough population of patients to trial this to make it successful?
I am a huge fan of seeing innovators like Brett use technology to improve real life products that can directly help the end consumer. Being an advocate of products such as UAVs in agribusiness, my mind jumped to the cost benefit analysis. What are the tangible before and after results a farmer can achieve because of this technology? In order for this system to be marketable we have to be able to prove beyond doubt that this is worth both the farmers money and time to understand and use the UAV. Given the costs will only continue to decline, if we can prove the incremental benefits of these UAVs, I am bullish on this type of company going forward.
There are not many companies that jump to mind who have successfully transitioned their brick and mortar business to online or vice versa. What will make Nordstrom’s different? It still seems like they have a tremendous physical footprint of stores that could become a cost burden as their percent of revenue shifts more and more towards their online channel. I agree with your post that Nordstrom’s has done a good job using social media to better suit new consumer behaviors, but will it be enough? Can they remain cost competitive when they are known for exceptional customer service when that is mostly a moot point online?
I really like the idea of this service as an opt-in to lower my potential interest rate on a loan. One area of concern that is clearly brought up here and in the comments is the risk of security and invasion of privacy. How should JP Morgan go about offering this service in a way that minimizes push back from the public, while enabling savings for savvy borrowers who are tolerant of this level of partnership with the bank? What risk does JP Morgan take by quelling the security concerns of the consumers and public? Will they need to evolve into a hyrbid of a data security company meets financial institution?
Seeing that this is a new company with little track record of a sustainable business model, how viable do you think this business model is? Given that they seem to only make money off of interest from un-invested cash and monthly premiums, albeit only for gold members, what happens if customers do minimize their trades and stay in the free segment of their business? Does this premium model have enough product differentiation to merit the price increase from free, and is there enough profit per customer for them to be profitable and grow in a low barrier to entry market?
I’m glad to see that Miller Coors is doing so much to improve their operational efficiency by improving conversion of energy into product. One area I think they could also consider for reducing their overall carbon impact is optimizing their production and distribution networks to minimize the amount their final product needs to travel to the customer. While the consolidation of factories may provide clear cost synergies across plants, how do you think Miller Coors should incorporate the added cost of an increasingly centralized manufacturing network that requires the company to use more gas transporting their product across the country and beyond?
As a frequent visitor the several Vail Resorts, I’m glad to see they are investing so heavily in the industry and considering how to mitigate the impacts of global warming for my skiing benefit.
From the investor perspective, do you think it is sustainable for them to only diversify and grow their global footprint without reducing more at-risk locations? It seems to me that the resorts that are most impacted by a few degree increase in average temperature would be prime targets for Vail to shutdown so they could redeploy the capital into colder climates or higher elevation resorts.
As we’ve learned in marketing, changing existing entrenched consumer behaviors is very, very difficult. One way for Impossible Foods to increase adoption of their product in the market is to target younger people who have not yet developed an absolute preference for regular protein products. Second, they could look to partner with specific food chains that have a similar mission or target market, such as Clover, a Boston based company that is vegetarian only. By getting a foothold in the smaller markets that have potential to grow, this company can be positioned very well to take advantage of the impending changes in the food business caused by climate change.
This article sums up a growing problem for all communities that are along the coastline and illustrates how communities, businesses, and government will need to come together to solve this issue. The Donald is actually effectively illustrating how individuals will need to form a collective to work together to solve these issues; whether it is conserving energy or investing in preventative flood measures, people will need to work together to implement short term and long term solutions. Another option that Donald Trump could investigate doing is using his organizations size to lobby the government to institute tax credit for business that invest in infrastructure that protects at-risk communities from the immediate threat of climate change.
If the resort continues to increase prices due to increased operating costs, effectively passing along the costs onto customers, how will the resort compete with others who find ways to contain their operating costs? Especially if there are other resorts that are positioned on higher elevation and are impacted less severely then Weisse Arena Gruppe resorts. One thing this resort should consider is how to improve profit margins on the non-skiing activities in order to maintain its pricing structure for its main attraction, skiing.