Shared posts

05 Feb 14:03

Fabletics Seeks New Subscribers By Opening Stores In Malls

by Laura Northrup

fabletics_ladiesFabletics is an athleticwear company for women that sells nice workout wear outfits for about $50. They operate on a subscription model: every month, you’ll get billed for a subscription unless you log in and decide not to buy anything that month. It’s like Columbia House for yoga pants. Yet the company is doing something sort of unexpected for a retailer that uses this business model: they’re opening a seventh real-life store, with the new one at the Mall of America in Minnesota.

Fabletics is part of the JustFab subscription-fashion empire, which sells nice private-label clothes and shoes to their “VIP members.” Members can log in at the beginning of every month and choose an outfit that they like, or opt out of receiving anything that month. If they don’t log in, they’re charged the membership fee of $40-$50 anyway.

In a recent speech that Buzzfeed News managed to get hold of, the company’s co-CEO compared the membership model to joining Costco or Amazon Prime, except that members don’t pay for their membership. Instead, he says, members are asked to commit to visiting the site at the beginning of the month.

“Instead of customers having to spend $50 a year, we ask for customers to make a commitment of their time,” he explained to the crowd at this year’s ICR conference. If they forget to log in, the company charges ’em $50 anyway.

The Fabletics business model is to offer discounts on a customer’s first purchase in exchange for signing up for a membership: this could be how the retail store works, or the point could simply be to get their products out there and find new customers that way.

(PRNewsWire via Chain Store Age)

FURTHER READING:
7 Things We Learned About The Shady Past And Problematic Business Practices Of JustFab
Fabletics And JustFab Keep Growing In Face Of Criticism [Buzzfeed]

24 Jul 20:26

Modernizing U.S. Foreign Assistance: A Glass More Than Half Full

by George Ingram
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (C) walks alongside Hospital Director Dolores Nembunzu (R) and Sister Mary Joseph (L) at the Fistula Clinic at Saint Joseph's Hospital, funded by USAID, in Kinshasa May 4, 2014.

Editor's Note: In this blog, George Ingram discusses the history and progress made in U.S. aid reform. For a more detailed look at aid reform over the last decade, read Ingram's latest paper, Adjusting Assistance to the 21st Century: A Revised Agenda for Foreign Assistance Reform.

Extending a helping hand to those outside our borders is as American as apple pie. The first documented case occurred within a decade of our birth as a nation, in 1794 when the Congress appropriated funds to aid refugees fleeing Haiti. Nearly every decade since the U.S. has extended aid to those in need and to advance our national interest. The Marshall Plan is remembered sixty years later as one of the great selfless and strategic actions by a world power.

It is because we as Americans understand that peace and prosperity in other countries and the world are vital to our interests as a nation—both the Bush and Obama administrations placed development as the co-equal of defense and diplomacy—that we care that our assistance programs are as effective as possible. An aid reform movement to reform our assistance policies and programs commenced around the turn of the century, built to a formal agenda by 2007, and is now entering a stage where assessment of what has been accomplished is possible. Administration initiatives that include reform elements extend from the Bush Administration’s creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) to the Obama Administration issuing a Presidential Policy Directive on Development and most recently creating the Innovation Lab at USAID. 

The aim of the aid reform agenda is to improve the effectiveness of U.S. assistance policies and programs. The assumption is, not that current programs are not useful or producing valuable results, but that they could be even more effective if better grounded in local realities, guided by a clear strategy and coherence, and more accountable to U.S. taxpayers and intended beneficiaries through greater transparency, evaluation, and learning. 

My recently published paper, “Adjusting Assistance to the 21st Century: A Revised Agenda for Foreign Assistance Reform” assesses the aid reform efforts of the past decade and suggests how that agenda can be moved forward in the last two years of the Obama administration. It identifies eight elements and judges how key Bush and Obama administration initiatives have advanced or impeded that agenda. While the reform agenda did not jell until the last years of the Bush administration, several of its initiatives did reflect key development lessons and jump-started the reform effort. The Obama administration has pursued the most comprehensive reform agenda of any administration and, while strong on policy commitment and initiatives, there is still work to be done on the implementation side. 

The degree of progress on aid reform is in the eye of the beholder. One’s assessment is a balance of expectations, objective measurements, and subjective observations. The graphic below depicts the eight elements of reform presented in the paper and makes an unscientific judgment of the status of each element and sub-component. I look forward to you making your own judgments after (or without) reading the paper and sharing them below.

Authors

      
 
 
27 Apr 04:00

Buy-And-Hold (And Lose For 10 Years?)

by Tyler Durden

"The Fed has created a world where the best action may be to cash out; not buy high - and wait. You can’t squeeze water from rock. Wait for the rain."

As John Hussman simplifies in the following chart - valuations matter (in the long-term - and that's the period we are constantly told to consider by the talking-heads and asset-getherers)

 

From here, anything can happen in the short-term... but in the long-run - it's clear where we go.

Source: John Hussman via The Burning Platform blog








18 Feb 07:25

Social Physics: How Human Social Networks Spread Ideas

Event Information

February 18, 2014
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM EST

Saul/Zilkha Rooms
Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20036

Register for the Event

Social Physics, by Alex Pentland

On February 18, the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution hosted an event to discuss MIT Media Lab Professor Alex “Sandy” Pentland’s new book. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread—The Lessons from a New Science (Penguin Press, 2014).

The event was moderated by Ann R. and Andrew H. Tisch Distinguished Visiting Fellow Cameron Kerry and included a presentation by MIT Professor Alex “Sandy” Pentland followed by a panel of Co-founder and Executive Vice President of Hunch Analytics Aneesh Chopra and Vice President of Governance Studies and Founding Director of the Center for Technology Innovation Darrell West.

Pentland described his coined term, “social physics” as quantitative science that describes reliable, mathematical connections between information and idea flow and people’s behavior – how ideas flow from person to person and how they shape norms, productivity and creative output. Coupled with new tools into collect and analyze big data on human interaction, the science of social physics yields insights on how large groups of people make decisions across disciplines, including health, finance, and politics.

Highlights from Pentland

  • Social physics as a term is “over two centuries old,” yet the challenges are very modern as they relate to ethical dimensions surrounding big data and policy making.
  • “As big data, things off of cellphones, off of badges, off of credit cards becomes available, it’s a little bit scary for society, but it’s a gold mine for social science.”
  • “Social Physics is when social science meets big data.”

Highlights from the panelists

  • Kerry named Sandy Pentland the “Father of Social Physics,” and discussed privacy in terms of big data.
  • Chopra argued that “individuals are taking possession of their own data,” and that there is a “whole economy forming around managing and sharing big data.”
  • West discussed how big data and social physics can affect government and that “data analytics applied to education and healthcare can be very challenging.” West also mentioned skewed incentives against risk taking in the public sector as a main obstacle in creating innovative solutions to governance problems.

To learn more about Social Physics, visit www.socialphysics.org.

Audio

Transcript

Event Materials

06 Feb 00:54

Thai protest leader mocks, PM defends rice-buying scheme

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand's fiery protest leader denounced the government's battered rice-buying scheme as corrupt and the prime minister leapt to its defense on Wednesday, days after an election did nothing to restore stability in the divided country.
27 Sep 18:09

Sunday Is National Coffee Day, Which Means Free Coffee If You Know Where To Look

by Chris Morran

You may scoff at the notion of “National Coffee Day,” but it’s one of the few holidays that (A) doesn’t require you to buy a card, throw a party, or decorate, and (B) results in free coffee for people willing to seek it out.

Parade — that thing in the Sunday paper that isn’t a coupon or a comic strip — recently posted a pretty good rundown of stuff that you can get for free on Sunday, Sept. 29.

Among the more tantalizing offers:
*Caribou Coffee is offering a free small coffee to folks who print out a coupon from its Facebook page.

*Dunkin’ Donuts will give you a free small hot (10 oz.) or iced (16 oz.) coffee on Sunday, but only if you download the “Dunkin’ Mobile” app and show the person behind the counter the onscreen offer. (Note: Some stores are reportedly not requiring the app for the freebie).

*Krispy Kreme is giving customers the choice of either a free 12-oz. hot coffee or a $1 Pumpkin Spice Latte (12 oz.)

Is anyone else sick of hearing the phrase “pumpkin spice latte”?

*Starbucks is offering free tastings of its new “Ethiopia” blend, and free mugs to customers who buy a pound of Ethiopa beans.

*Tim Hortons has a buy-one-get-one coffee deal for Sunday.

There are more regional chains getting into the free/discount coffee spirit this Sunday.

*Kangaroo Express will sell you 12-oz. coffee for only $.01, but only between the hours of 8 a.m. and noon.

*Wawa is giving away free 16-oz. coffees, but customers have to register online to have a coupon sent to them first.

*Some IKEA stores — but apparently not all — are offering free coffee on Sunday (including tastings in the actual showroom part of the building) and then celebrating National Cinnamon Bun Day next Friday by giving away free coffee with purchase of a cinnamon bun.


23 Aug 23:32

3 Ways to Overcome Impostor Syndrome

by Scott Eblin
Have you ever felt like there must have been some sort of mistake in the selection process that led to you being in the role you’re in?
22 Aug 16:13

A Photoshop Crash Course In Colorizing Black and White Photos

by Andrew Liszewski

If you've stared in awe at the recent influx of colorized black and white photos popping up online, wondering just how someone was able to bring such life to an image, here's your answer. Mads Madsen, a talented 18-year-old Photoshop artist, has created a detailed six-minute video documenting the process he uses to add color to historic images.

Read more...


    






16 Aug 03:59

Guest Post: Rising Inequality and Poverty: Can They Be Fixed?

by Tyler Durden

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

Conventional Left-Right ideologies shed little light on the structural causes of inequality or systemic solutions to poverty.

 
It has been widely reported that inequality is rising across the entire world, both in developing and developed economies--for example, In China, a Vast Chasm Between the Rich and the Rest and Britain's richest 5% gained most from quantitative easing.
 
 
Is this the result of capitalism, globalization, political capture by financial Elites, or are there even deeper forces at work? Foreign Affairs magazine recently published a long and thoughtful article entitled Capitalism and Inequality: What the Right and the Left Get Wrong. Here are two selections that give you a flavor of the article's scope:
 

"For most of history, the prime source of human insecurity was nature. In such societies, as Marx noted, the economic system was oriented toward stability -- and stagnancy. Capitalist societies, by contrast, have been oriented toward innovation and dynamism, to the creation of new knowledge, new products, and new modes of production and distribution. All of this has shifted the locus of insecurity from nature to the economy." 

"As the economist Friedrich Hayek pointed out half a century ago in The Constitution of Liberty, the main impediment to true equality of opportunity is that there is no substitute for intelligent parents or for an emotionally and culturally nurturing family. In the words of a recent study by the economists Pedro Carneiro and James Heckman, "Differences in levels of cognitive and noncognitive skills by family income and family background emerge early and persist. If anything, schooling widens these early differences."

The dozens of comments left by readers reflect the great confusion of opinions that swirl around the topics of inequality and poverty. Politically, it is verboten on the Left to discuss the role of family, parenting and cultural values in income inequality and poverty, just as it is verboten on the right to discuss the role of political capture by the financial Corporatocracy.
 
In general, I agree with the author of the Foreign Affairs article that capitalism's dynamism and constant flux of capital, labor and innovation places great demands on individuals, enterprises and governments to keep up. Stagnation can be a less stressful choice, but it is not a solution, as inequality rises as fast or even faster in stagnant economies.
 
So getting rid of capitalism per se does not serve to eliminate poverty so much as distribute poverty to everyone not in the Elite. Cuba appears to a fine example of this feudal dynamic.
 
Just as clearly, financial manipulation to serve political and financial Elites has greatly expanded income/wealth inequality (see the link above for an example), as the top 5% pull away not just from the bottom 40% but from the 55% below the top 5%.
 
The conventional matrix of poverty--poor education, near-zero family wealth and low social status--does not impede those immigrants to America who have strong families and a specific set of cultural values centered around education, thrift and investing the resulting savings in productive assets.
 
Though it is un-PC to make this observation, it is painfully obvious that values, parenting and family have a great deal to do with wealth inequality and poverty. In a less politically charged (and centralized) environment, common sense would suggest that the values that lead to rising income/wealth should be part of what is considered essential education.
 
As I have long argued here, education by itself is not a panacea: graduating 100,000 PhDs does not magically create a market for their expertise. For example, consider The Ph.D Bust: America's Awful Market for Young Scientists—in 7 Charts.
 
Though the article makes a closing reference to the robotics/software revolution often discussed here, very little is said about the obvious conclusion, which is a radical reduction in the need for human labor.
 
I suspect there is another dynamic in play that has been masked by massive credit/debt expansion: finance capitalism and the central state/bank are both on an S-Curve of diminishing returns. This means the return on money invested virtually everywhere is declining, meaning the pie of surpluses that can be consumed, saved or invested is shrinking. The State-cartel debtocracy's dependence on debt for "growth" no longer yields positive returns; it simply indentures future taxpayers to fund current consumption.
 
In broad brush, societies can choose between two forms of relatively stable but impoverishing feudalism--stagnant backwater or financial--or accept the existential risks of embracing innovation and experimentation, not just in narrow technological fields but across the entire economy, society and government.
 
Also in broad brush, incentivizing the values that favor wealth creation--thrift, investing, improving skills, entrepreneurial drive, flexibility, strong families--may be just as important as leveling the playing field, i.e. maintaining opportunity via maintaining access to education and social capital building. The key solution to accessible higher education is what I call The Nearly-Free University (November 15, 2012).
 
I think we can also conclude that ideologically derived beliefs about inequality and poverty do not shed much light on the actual dynamics, which are clearly multi-stranded and well outside the narrow confines of Left-Right rigidities.
 
The single greatest way to reduce inequality would be to radically lower the cost of basic living to where it was affordable to even those of low income. This idea remains the focus of much of my work: radically reducing the cost-basis of a high-quality, low-energy-consumption life. For an example, see my post on the Pareto Economy.

 


    






16 Jun 19:35

The Curse Of The Network Effect

by Nir Eyal
Curse

Editor’s Note: Nir Eyal writes about the intersection of psychology, technology, and business for Dashboard.io and on his blog NirAndFar.com. Follow @dashboard_io and @nireyal.

Ethan Stock lived the Silicon Valley dream. He had recently sold his company to eBay and emanated the tanned skin and relaxed composure you’d expect of someone who just cashed a big corporate check. But as we sat across from one another in a Palo Alto coffee shop, I was surprised by what he said next. “Mediocrity is worse than failure, you know?” For seven years before the acquisition, Stock served as the founding CEO of Zvents, an online guide for local events. Though he was successful by anyone’s standards, I could tell he was a guy who, like me, had learned some hard lessons.

“Zvents grew incredibly well,” Stock told me. “We were the largest events site of its kind, providing local listing in hundreds of markets and attracting over 14 million monthly unique visitors.” Zvents had done what so many tech companies dream of doing, they cracked the network effect and built a business that increased in value with each new user. The more event organizers posted to the site, the more useful the site became to people looking for things to do. Both parties loved the site and Stock’s company was in the middle, connecting visitors to events they otherwise wouldn’t find.

“But I learned the network effect isn’t everything. In fact, it became a liability.” Stock’s words confused me. How could being in such an enviable position of creating a valuable marketplace be a bad thing? “Getting paid was a bitch,” Stock said, and he began to unravel how certain marketplace businesses like Zvents can succeed themselves to death.

The Expectation of Completeness

Marketplace businesses exist to connect two or more parties, typically the buyers and the sellers. Investors love these businesses because they tend to grow quickly and spawn winner-take-all companies. A long line of successful Silicon Valley startups have found success providing a place for people to connect and transact. Examples of these kinds of companies include industry titans like eBay and LinkedIn but also include some of today’s web darlings like Uber and Airbnb. “Marketplace businesses are great,” Stock told me. “But there is a fatal flaw in some businesses that can hogtie their ability to make money — the expectation of completeness.”

Stock explained how Zvents had planned to charge event organizers to list on their site. “Once we reached critical mass and it was clear we were becoming the market leader, we expected event organisers would start paying.” Unfortunately, reality fell short of expectations.

Like many marketplace businesses, Zvents was catering to users who expected to find a comprehensive listing of all local happenings. To keep users coming back, Zvents had to ensure it was displaying everyone’s events — an incomplete list would send visitors looking elsewhere.

“When we asked event organisers to pay up, they said ‘what for?’,” Stock said. But threatening to remove a listing was not possible, Zvents needed them all to keep site visitors happy.

So Stock’s team offered event organizers better ways to reach users like sponsored placements, which displayed the listing more prominently on the site. But the attempt to finally get paid largely fell flat. “We certainly created value for them.” Stock said. “We were sending people to their events. We just couldn’t capture very much of that value. I guess it’s the old saying, ‘why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?’”

Just Like Google

“Google is similar if you think about it.” Stock told me. The comment surprised me given the tremendous success of the search giant juxtaposed with the Zvents story. “They also create much more value than they capture.”

He was right. When searching on Google, users also have an expectation of completeness. They come to the site to find all relevant results, every time. If Google decided to only display listings from paying advertisers, we’d all switch to Bing.

When considering the collective value of all the clicks on un-sponsored links, the company does give away the vast majority of the value it creates. Indeed, Google appears to be “giving away the milk for free.” The difference is that Google’s market is not limited to local happenings as was the case for Zvents. Google’s market is much, much bigger. In fact, it’s everything.

By organizing “the world’s information,” Google skims a proportionally tiny amount of value from a tremendously huge marketplace. The absolute number of people who buy a sponsored placement is large enough to keep the company humming, even though it only monetizes a tiny proportion of the value created.

Implications

The Zvents story should give pause to marketplace businesses going after niches. The expectation of completeness, and the resulting inability to monetize, may help explain the challenges faced by companies like Foursquare, RedBeacon, and many industry-specific job listing sites.

One way around the problem of completeness is to facilitate the transaction itself. Companies like oDesk, Etsy and Uber, ensure they are in the middle of the money by processing the flow of cash. It’s much easier to justify taking a cut when you hold the gold, particularly when doing so adds convenience and security to the transaction.

Without the ability to collect a share of each transaction, marketplaces serving users who expect completeness face a difficult challenge. Two options remain: either cater to a very large market, a la Google, or monetize a large share of the value created. The network effect alone just isn’t good enough.

TL:DR

  • Network effects are great but they don’t ensure a viable business model.
  • Though they may prove successful from a growth and engagement perspective, certain marketplaces can be very difficult to monetize.
  • Marketplaces where either the buyer or seller expects to choose from an exhaustive listing – so-called “complete” marketplaces – typically give-up far more value than they are able to capture.
  • Unless they facilitate the transaction itself, these businesses often find themselves in a bind.
  • Complete marketplaces must either cater to a very large market, à la Google, or position themselves to monetize a large share of the value they create.

Photo Credit: shutterstock


04 Jun 03:15

Why the IRS dance video shouldn't be a scandal

Steve Kelman explains why federal employees having a good time are not necessarily wasting taxpayer money.