Such an interesting article about how online is catching up to normal retailing. You would think that impulse buying at the cash register of a gas-station or a 7/11 is something that wouldn’t be able to be replicated. But if you actually think about it, the potential for impulse purchases online is so much larger than in traditional retail. The amount of times that I have got lost on Amazon.com and have ended up with a shopping cart filled with a bunch of things that I wasn’t planning on purchasing at the beginning of my experience is a very high number! As far as bloggers are concerned, we worked quite a bit with bloggers and influencers at my last company and the power that they wield is shockingly large! Our traffic and revenue numbers from a well placed blog endorsement were staggering.
Such an interesting read about an industry that has so much going on. I am interested in understanding how providers like AirBnB and Homeaway affect the behaviors of these large hotel providers. As more consumers see a growing market of substitutes to staying in a hotel does that make the urgency to be more tech savvy higher? AirBnB as most know is a very tech heavy platform that does most of it’s business from individuals coming direct to their site actually. Additionally, it was interesting to see that Expedia saw the writing on the wall and decided to purchase HomeAway for ~$4 Billion (https://skift.com/2015/11/04/expedia-acquires-homeaway-for-3-9-billion/) in order to start capturing that portion of the market.
Fantastic post about a topic that is so frequently discussed but rarely backed up with facts and figures. The first graph that you posted is so eye-opening and interesting. The fact that all other forms of meeting potential partners besides online or at a bar/restaurant have been declining is something I have anecdotally noticed but have never had the figures to support. With the proliferation of so many new applications and websites in this space it will be interesting to see which ones stick around and which ones will disappear. If I had to bet it would be the ones that focus on meaningful relationship matching and less on “hook-ups”!
Fantastic article about a topic that is commonly overlooked! We take for granted in the USA that credit scores actually are not always the best indicator of whether a consumer is likely to pay back their debt. This actually reminds me of the episode that John Oliver did on his job about how flawed credit scores and reports are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRrDsbUdY_k). I also know that a very large problem applies to recent graduates from schools who are denied cars, apartments or loans because they have a shallow credit history. But we all know that somebody graduating from HBS with a job at BCG is probably going to be able to pay down there loans, so it seems wild that they are being denied!
Great post! I think that this is a very interesting example of how doing somethings well for a certain amount of time does not mean that continued success is guaranteed. As we have seen with Gilt, they did a lot of fantastic things early on that led to hyper-growth however customers eventually did not feel that the value proposition was there for them in the long run. I am curious however besides the flash sales model with significant returns that led to Gilt’s demise is the online only channel actually a bad one. Amazon and Alibaba seem to be doing it quite well.
Very interesting read, thanks for posting kimber. I like your company selection because many people don’t synonymize consumer staples companies as having an impact on climate change when in fact they do! The initiatives that Coca-Cola has taken are a good start, but are they enough given the level of brand recognition that they have across the globe. With the leadership and impact that they carry should they take even more initiative to lead the food and beverage industry to be one of the industries that is at the for-front of combating climate change. Finally, as a company that sells a product that effectively “pollutes” the human body and has been proven as a contributor to diabetes doesn’t it seem a bit hypocritical that they are trying to save the environment but not people’s health? Maybe they’re just doing the minimum to keep regulators off their backs. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/08/05/soda-diabetes-link.aspx
Very interesting article about an industry that obviously has a very negative image when it comes to climate change. Many believe that at the end of the day the most important resource that is going to drive economies across the world is going to be water. So it is very interesting to me how water plays a crucial role in the mining industry. It baffles me that drinkable water would ever be used for such purposes when it could be used for nutrition of human beings. The move the use other types of water sources is one that makes a lot of sense and I’m sure will continue in the future. I’m interested to learn a bit more about the emissions side of what mining companies are doing. It’s good to see that they are focusing on water but is that enough?
Very interesting read Ahmad. I believe that it is upto some of the top energy companies in the world including Aramco to lead the charge in terms of significant energy efficiency initiatives. I have a question about the recent significant increase in supply to the market that Aramco has taken part in over the last year. As competition has increased from the American shale oil and gas producers Aramco flooded the market with oil to drive many of the American producers out of business, but in turn has created a supply glut that will see us have sufficient oil supply in the market likely through 2020. In effect this also drove a lot of renewable energy investments and companies out of business because the need for those companies in the near term is no longer there. Therefore, did Aramco’s flooding of the market with oil actually set us back in terms of renewable energy innovation?
Very interesting read and a nice topic that captures more of a broader view of climate change as opposed to a company specific one. Putting a price on pollution is a sure way to align companies bottom line incentives with incentives of governments to hamstring climate change. I do wonder though about countries like China and Russia who are still industrializing and still have large incentives to continue polluting. Granted China is the largest producer in the world and they did not pollute the world as much as the USA and Western Europe did over the course of the 1900s. They would argue that it’s unfair to ask them to slow down their production to be more environmentally conscious, while we were not environmentally conscious when we developed our countries. So if China and Russia don’t follow these rules and are some of the worlds largest producers do we have to cut our emissions even more to make up for them?
This piece is very interesting and highlights one of the critical businesses that has a lot to think about with rising sea levels. It’s intriguing to look at how a firm assesses flood risk in the face of our changing global climate. Not only are the worlds sea levels rising but the occurrence of volatile weather patterns are increasing as well. This I’m sure makes the job of the flood insurance company even more complicated. Also, I have a question about the psychological impact that purchasing flood insurance has on a homeowners view of global warning. Once somebody has purchased flood insurance, the presumption would be that they are now indifferent to whether their house floods or some would even welcome it in order to get a large payout and a new house. Therefore, are those who insure themselves against floods making themselves ambivalent towards climate change?