Sunday, April 30, 2017

Hard times for Whole Foods: 'People say it's for pretentious people. I can see why'

The upscale grocery chain is valued at almost $12bn, but six straight quarters of declining sales have led to speculation of a takeover bid. What went wrong?
 
 
Whole Foods’ share price has dropped by almost half since October 2013. Investors are petitioning the company to move faster with reforms.
Whole Foods’ share price has dropped by almost half since October 2013. Investors are petitioning the company to move faster with reforms. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images
Lunchtime customers at Whole Foods in Manhattan’s Union Square had little trouble expressing the shortcomings that have led the once high-flying, organic-focused retailer to become linked with a takeover.
“I love the sushi, but I wouldn’t shop here except maybe for a special ingredient,” said Argentinian software designer Benjamin Vinas. “People say Whole Foods is for pretentious people, and I can see why. It’s too expensive. I don’t have the budget.”
Vinas was not the only customer to express a similar point of view. Others said that for their groceries they went several blocks north and west to lower-cost rival Trader Joe’s, where products may not be so exquisitely selected but are, in general, more uniformly discounted.
Maria Johnson, a postgraduate student, said Whole Foods’ pricing, with some items marked competitively and other expensive, was inconvenient.
“I only buy body lotion and lunch here. And maybe spices,” Johnson said. “There are so many different price points you feel like you are missing out on the more fun, expensive things – and when you are shopping for the cheaper, more affordable things, you’re reminded of the things you can’t afford.”
But the views of Manhattan’s grocery shoppers point to only part of the problem for Whole Foods, sometimes called Whole Paycheck, which has been facing a backlash from consumers.
Founded in Austin, Texas, in 1980, Whole Foods Market, to give it its official name, has about 462 locations and a market value of almost $12bn. The chain helped make health food and organic food mainstream, and in its boom years shook up the food retail industry. Whole Foods had grand plans for a UK expansion too, opening its first outpost in Kensington in 2004 with plans for 40 more. But Whole Foods has stalled: like much of the retail sector, it faces economic headwinds including razor-thin margins, competition from other retailers offering organic food, and increasingly price-conscious consumers.
In February, the company announced it would close nine stores: in Chicago, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, and Georgia, and two each in Colorado and California. The closures, which followed six straight quarters of sales declines, represented the first downsizing since 2008. Founder and chief executive John Mackey explained that the business had changed because “the more conventional, mainstream supermarkets have upped their game. The world is very different today than it was five years ago.”
One rival chain, Sprouts Farmers Market, was found to be on average 19% cheaper than Whole Foods. Other rivals, including Kroger, picked up Whole Foods customers. Last month, Barclays advised that Whole Foods had experienced a “staggering” decline in foot traffic that it estimated at 3%, or roughly 14 million customers.
Whole Foods has long been the butt of jokes for its prices – although it disputes it is more expensive than it rivals – and its bougie products. Comedian John Oliver is particularly fond of its asparagus water.
The difficult transition from expensive behemoth to a more nimble grocery store is reflected in its share price, which has dropped by almost half since October 2013. Investors are increasingly petitioning the company to move faster with reforms.
An acquisition would underscore the consolidation of the US food retail industry as the sector prepares to compete against online retailers including Amazon, stores like Walmart and discount chains such as Aldi.
Earlier this week, the Financial Times reported that Cerberus Capital Management, the New York private equity firm that owns Albertsons and Safeway, had initiated talks with bankers about making a bid.
Other potential suitors include Jana Partners, an activist investor group that has amassed a 9% stake. In a regulatory filing, Jana said it wanted Whole Foods to “improve its technology and operations to better compete with larger rivals, shake up its board, and explore how much potential bidders might be willing to pay”.
Jana has proposed nominees to the Whole Foods board, including Glenn Murphy, a former Gap chief executive, and former New York Times food journalist Mark Bittman, who has argued that the chain needs simplifying.
Jana is run by 58-year-old yoga and health food devotee Barry Rosenstein. He has said he wants Whole Foods to learn from national chains while staying true to its mission.
Whole Foods’ own efforts at reform include the expansion of 365 smaller stores offering lower-priced products. The stores will stock about 7,000 items, far fewer than the 35,000 to 52,000 at a typical Whole Foods location.
Outside Trader Joe’s, Brooklyn homemaker Eva Lev said she rarely visits Whole Foods nowadays. “It’s like that Jim Gaffigan joke – Whole Foods on Sunday is just a refugee camp for people with too much money.” Lev added she prefers Trader Joe’s “because it seems like an everyman’s place, and you can still get organic”.

Saturday, April 29, 2017

Is The Blockchain About To Disrupt This $7 Trillion Industry?

 
Recently, I wrote about a small $100,000 trade of cheese and butter.
Why?
This one trade changed 400 years of history in just four hours.
How so? Normally, it would take 10 days to handle the paperwork. But this trade concluded in less than four hours.
The solution: a blockchain platform that streamlined the entire process.
While the trade was small, it was big for the $7 trillion trade finance industry.
What exactly is trade finance?
It’s when two companies in different countries want to buy and sell from each other. They use a bank to guarantee the transaction…
For more than 400 years, trade finance hasn’t changed much. It requires a mountain of paperwork. And all the parties involved spend a lot of time proving that they truly own what they say they own.
But that’s all about to change.
Today, we show you how the blockchain is changing the inefficient trade finance industry. And we’ll show you how to profit as well.

How the Blockchain Is Disrupting Trade Finance

The trend in blockchain and trade finance is accelerating.
In February 2017, a cargo shipment containing $25 million worth of African crude steamed its way to China.
The merchants involved sold the oil three times during the trip. Banks, agents, inspectors, and a commodity trading firm were all involved.
The traditional analogue solution involved hundreds of documents. And it took at least three hours to complete each trade.
But on this trip, each trade took less than 25 minutes.
The name of the project that made a 25-minute trade possible is Easy Trading Connect. It’s a partnership between Société Générale and ING.
And it works by moving the transactions to a private version of the Ethereum blockchain.
This particular transaction involved ING, Société Générale, and commodity trading house Mercuria.
Saving time wasn’t the only benefit of the trade.
ING reported that trader efficiency improved by 33%. And Marco Dunand, CEO of Mercuria, stated the blockchain reduced costs by 30%.
The blockchain is a savior for this manually intensive, paperwork-heavy process.
Physical documents have always been a problem. It opens up transactions to human error, fraud, and delays.
With the blockchain, all documents get digitized. That makes documents safer to move around. And it solves a lot of paperwork problems.
For example, Mercuria sold the oil heading to China three times before it arrived. Because of the blockchain, Mercuria, ING, and Société Générale all had access to real-time data. No one had to go searching for the original source documents.
Further, they were able to “auto-check” documents on a computer rather than doing it manually. That makes for a smooth process.
There’s a huge incentive to move to the blockchain. Santander estimates the blockchain will cut trade finance costs up to $20 billion.

What to Do Next

Easy Trading Connect proves the blockchain works to conduct business.
And the benefit of the blockchain in trade finance is obvious.
This is just getting started. Venture capital firms and financial institutions are pouring millions of investment dollars into the blockchain.
Right now, over 50 major financial institutions have in-house blockchain projects or relationships with blockchain startups.
Do you want exposure to the burgeoning blockchain bull market? The simplest way would be to buy a small amount of bitcoin.
Many new blockchain applications base their network on the bitcoin blockchain. And you need bitcoin to buy most other coins.
Doug Casey: As you probably know, I've been involved in the investment world going back to the '70s.
I've been pitched by "experts" on all kinds of investments. But for the most part, I've stuck to what I know best – investing in precious metals and real estate when I see a bubble forming, and getting out before it pops.
So you may be surprised to hear that I've recently become interested in a new asset class: cryptocurrencies.
I'm talking about Bitcoin and its offshoots.
At a recent investor's conference in Miami, I heard a presentation about this little-known market from a former hedge fund manager named Teeka Tiwari.
Teeka is extremely well-connected in this market, traveling all over the world meeting with experts.

Millennials owe a record amount of debt, and it could become a huge drag on the economy

Student debt protest OccupyOccupy Wall Street demonstrators protest against the rising national student debt in New York City. REUTERS/Andrew Burton
US consumer debt is approaching a record 20% of GDP, and millennials owe most of it.
Millennials — 21 to 34-year-olds — hold an estimated $1.1 trillion of the country's $3.6 trillion in consumer debt, according to UBS, as rising student and auto loans outweigh a drop in mortgages.
And all that rising debt is coming with rising default risks. A UBS evidence lab survey found that 52% of people worried about defaulting on any loan over the next 12 months were in the 21 to 34 age group.
That's not good news considering those same individuals are meant to be the largest source of spending on big-ticket purchase items like houses and cars over the next year (see the chart below). 
There is already evidence that millennials are changing their spending habits on smaller items where, according to Lindsay Drucker Mann of Goldman Sachs Research, millennials are willing to search for the lowest price on an item or patiently wait for the right deal to pop up.
"We see areas where millennials are willing to spend, but overall, they're not levering themselves up to make their dollars go further; they're being much smarter and much more conservative about their balance sheets," Drucker Mann said on a January  episode of Goldman Sachs' "Exchanges at Goldman Sachs" podcast.
Concerns about student loans, of course, have come up before. In early April, New York Fed President William Dudley said that “continued increase in college costs and debt burdens could inhibit higher education's ability to serve as an important engine of upward income mobility.”
But auto-loan debt is another matter. A growing amount of auto loan debt is coming from leasing, with 32%of millennials opting to lease in 2016, up from 21% in 2011, according to a January report from Edmunds. Among households making $50,000 or less, millennials made up 21% of lessees (the largest of any age group).
Should delinquent car payments become an issue because already-squeezed millennials choose to pay student loans first, lower-credit-score applicants could have a hard time financing car purchases. If that happens, automakers could be hurt.
And if big-ticket purchases begin to slow down, economic growth expectations may need to adjust. 
Screen Shot 2017 04 27 at 1.00.27 PMUBS

10 demographic trends shaping the U.S. and the world in 2017

(John Stillwell/PA Images via Getty Images)
(John Stillwell/PA Images via Getty Images)
As demographers convene in Chicago for the Population Association of America’s annual meeting, here is a look at 10 of Pew Research Center’s recent findings on demographic trends, ranging from global refugee and migrant flows to changes to family life and living arrangements. They show how demographic forces are driving population change and reshaping the lives of people around the world.
1Millennials are the United States’ largest living generation. In 2016, there were an estimated 79.8 million Millennials (ages 18 to 35 in that year) compared with 74.1 million Baby Boomers (ages 52 to 70). The Millennial population is expected to continue growing until 2036 as a result of immigration.
By some measures, Millennials have very different lives than earlier generations did when they were young. They’re slow to adopt many of the traditional markers of adulthood. For the first time in more than 130 years, young adults are more likely to be living in their parents’ home than in any other living arrangement. In fact, a larger share of them are living with their parents than with a romantic partner – marking a significant historical shift. More broadly, young adult geographic mobility is at its lowest level in 50 years, even though today’s young adults are less likely than previous generations of young adults to be married, to own a home or to be parents, all of which are traditional obstacles to moving.
2Americans’ lives at home are changing. Following a decades-long trend, just half of U.S. adults were married in 2015, down from 70% in 1950. As marriage has declined, the number in cohabiting relationships (living with an unmarried partner) rose 29% between 2007 and 2016, from 14 million to 18 million. The increase was especially large among those ages 50 and older: 75% in the same period. The “gray divorce” rate – divorces among those 50 and older – roughly doubled between 1990 and 2015.
Also, a record number of Americans (nearly 61 million in 2014) were living in multigenerational households, that is, households that include two or more adult generations or grandparents and grandchildren. Growing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. helps explain some of the rise in multigenerational living. The Asian and Hispanic populations overall are growing more rapidly than the white population, and those groups are more likely than whites to live in multigenerational family households.
3Women may never make up half of the U.S. labor force. Women accounted for 46.8% of the U.S. labor force in 2015, similar to the share in the European Union. Although women comprised a much larger share of the labor force in 2015 than in 1950 (29.6%), the Bureau of Labor Statistics projected the share of women in the workforce will peak at 47.1% in 2025 before tapering off.
For those women who do work, the gender pay gap has narrowed. Women earned $0.83 for every $1 a man earned in 2015, compared with $0.64 in 1980. The pay gap has narrowed even more among young adults ages 25 to 34: Working women in that age range made 90% of what their male counterparts made in 2015. At the same time, women continue to be underrepresented in leadership positions in the U.S. In 2017, women make up 19% of the U.S. Congress and about a quarter of state legislatures; some 8% of U.S. governors and 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs are female.
4Immigrants are driving overall workforce growth in the U.S. As the Baby Boom generation heads toward retirement, growth in the nation’s working-age population (those ages 25 to 64) will be driven by immigrants and the U.S.-born children of immigrants, at least through 2035. Without immigrants, there would be an estimated 18 million fewer working-age adults in the country in 2035 because of the dearth of U.S.-born children with U.S.-born parents. However, immigrants do not form a majority of workers in any industry or occupational group, though they form large shares of private household workers (45%) and farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (46%).
Public opinion has turned more positive when it comes to immigrants’ impact on the U.S. workforce. The share of Americans saying that the growing number of immigrants working in the country helps American workers increased 14 percentage points in the last 10 years, from 28% in 2006 to 42% in 2016.
5The U.S. unauthorized immigrant population fell in 2015 to below recession levels, and the share of Mexicans within this population declined. There were 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2015, lower than the estimated 11.3 million in 2009, the last year of the Great Recession, according to new Pew Research Center estimates. The Center’s preliminary estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2016 is 11.3 million, which is statistically no different from the 2009 or 2015 estimates (and comes from a different data source with a smaller sample size and larger margin of error). The 2016 preliminary estimate is inconclusive as to whether the total unauthorized immigrant population stayed the same or changed in one direction or the other. Mexicans remain the largest origin group of unauthorized immigrants, but their numbers have recently declined and their share of the 2016 preliminary data fell to 50%, the first time since at least 2005 that Mexicans did not account for a majority of this population. As the number of Mexicans decreased, the number of unauthorized immigrants from other parts of the world increased.
An estimated 8 million unauthorized immigrants were working or looking for work in 2014, making up 5% of the civilian labor force. The number was unchanged from previous years and the share was down slightly since 2009. Although the estimated number of unauthorized immigrant workers was stable at the national level from 2009 to 2014, 15 U.S. states had increases or decreases.
6The share of births outside of marriage declined for immigrant women from 2008 to 2014, but held steady for U.S.-born women. Immigrant women play an important role in overall U.S. fertility trends. Between 1970 and 2014, the increase in the annual number of U.S. births was driven entirely by immigrant women, while births to U.S.-born women fell. The important role of immigrant women in driving U.S. births stems from both the growth in the foreign-born population and the fact that immigrant women have, on average, more children than U.S.-born women.
7Globally, babies born to Muslim mothers will outnumber babies born to Christian mothers by 2035 – largely driven by different fertility rates.The number of babies born to Christian mothers (223 million) far outnumbered the number of births to Muslim mothers (213 million) between 2010 and 2015. However, an aging Christian population – especially in Europe and North America – and high fertility rates among Muslim women is rapidly changing the global religious landscape. The number of births to Muslim women is projected to exceed births to Christian women by 2030-2035, with the disparity growing to 6 million by 2055-2060.
Between 2010 and 2050, the global Muslim population is projected to grow 73%, while the Christian population will grow just 35%, about the rate of overall global population growth. In contrast, people who do not identify with a religion (“nones”) account for 16% of the world’s population, but only 10% of the babies born between 2010 and 2015, meaning that their projected share of the world’s population will decline.
8The shares of adults living in middle-income households fell in several countries in Western Europe. In seven of 11 Western European countries examined, the share of adults in middle-income households fell between 1991 and 2010. The share of the adult population that is middle income decreased in Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway and Spain (as it did in the U.S.), but increased in France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The largest shares of the adult population in middle-income households in 2010 were found in Denmark (80%), Norway (80%), and the Netherlands (79%), while the smallest shares were found in Italy (67%), the UK (67%) and Spain (64%). Each of the Western European countries studied had a larger share of adults in middle-income households than the U.S. (59%).
9European countries received a near-record 1.2 million first-time asylum applications in 2016. Some of these applicants may have applied for asylum in multiple countries or arrived in 2015, raising the total number of applications across Europe. The number of asylum applications was down only slightly from the record-setting 1.3 million applications in 2015. Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq were the most common countries of origin for first-time asylum applications in 2015 and 2016, together accounting for over half of the total. Germany was the most common destination country in Europe, having received 45% of applications.
10The U.S. admitted 84,995 refugees in fiscal year 2016, the most since 1999. More than half resettled in one of just 10 states, with the largest numbers going to California and Texas. Nebraska, North Dakota and Idaho ranked near the top for the most refugees resettled per capita, with rates over two-and-a-half times the national average. And almost half (46%) of the fiscal 2016 refugees were Muslim, the highest number for any year since refugees’ self-reported religious affiliation became publicly available in 2002.

'Skull Island:' The Epic Battle Between Walmart And Amazon

 
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
The epic battle between Walmart and Amazon is threatening to turn traditional retail industry into a ‘skull island,’ filled with shattered neighborhood stores, changing a decades old culture of shopping experience.
Once, neighborhood stores were an integral part of American traditional life, places to spend time outside home on weekends and evenings, browsing new merchandise and running into friends and neighbors.
Meanwhile, neighborhood stores offered hundreds of thousands of jobs to local employees, and sales tax revenues to local governments.
Simply put, neighborhood stores provided the kind of shopping experience that nurtured a sense of community across America, which can explain the affinity for these types of stores shared by Americans.
 
Then came the big gorilla of bricks-and-mortar retailing, Walmart.
Its large stores and everyday low prices were too much for smaller neighborhood stores and supermarkets. Many closed their doors soon after Wal-Mart invaded their territory.
That’s how Wal-Mart ended with close to a half-trillion dollars in sales, double the size of smaller country economies.
But Wal-Mart’s victory didn’t last long. Its business model was soon challenged by Amazon, the big gorilla of on-line retailing. Its remote location warehouses, prompt and expedient delivery, and razor-thin margins have given Amazon a price advantage over Wal-Mart. 
 
Worse, the proliferation of smartphone and tablets turned Wal-Mart into a storefront for Amazon.
But Walmart has been fighting back by expanding aggressively into Amazon space, forging the right partnerships and amassing the right talent and resources to compete effectively against the e-commerce leader.
That means more price wars, more shopping on-line, and more store closures.
In 2017 alone, RadioShack is planning to close 550 out of 1500 stores, Payless Shoes is closing 400 out of 2600, Limited 250 stores, and Bebe 180—see table.
Retail Store Closures In 2017
Company
Store Closures
RadioShack
550/1500
Payless Shoes
400/2600
Rue21
400/1100
The Limited
250
Bebe
180
Wet Seal
170
Crocs
160/560
JCPenney
138/1000
American Apparel
110
Kmart
109/735
Hhgegg
88/220
Sears
41/695
Source: Wall Street Journal, 4/23/2017
Store closures have spread even in upscale communities like Long Island.
“Long Islanders have seen major retailers file for bankruptcy in the last few years, bringing an end to well-known chains such as sporting goods retailer Sports Authority, apparel retailer The Limited, teen retailer Wet Seal, and Pathmark and Waldbaum’s supermarkets,” writes Newsday’s Aisha Al-Muslim.  
And rising interest rates are expected to make things worse, as heavily indebted retail chains will find it difficult to re-finance commercial mortgages.

Harris Teeter launches free-from shelf labeling

Dive Brief:

  • Harris Teeter has launched Free From 101, a new program that looks to encourage customers to make healthy food choices by identifying items that are free from preservatives, additives, antibiotics, artificial colors and sweeteners, according to the Shelby Report.
  • The items will be identified with blue explanatory bib tags on shelves throughout the store, making it easy for shoppers to find free-from products without having to read every product ingredient label.
  • Shoppers can also view the full list of 101 ingredients that the program tests for online.

Dive Insight:

Today's health-conscious consumers demand transparency from their grocery retailers, and are even willing to switch to a different store that they feel is more honest about its products. Harris Teeter's new Free From 101 program meets this need and saves customers time by clearly tagging free-from products on store shelves, a move that should capture shopper attention and strengthen brand loyalty. 
This initiative is somewhat similar to Giant’s implementation of HowGood ratings. HowGood researches and rates products based on sustainablity as well as fair wages for employees, ethical animal treatment and environmental impact. The creators of HowGood estimate that if their ratings were included in every one of the more than 6,000 Ahold-Delhaize stores in the U.S., it could effectively promote 18 million more sustainable products every week, and shift 8% of America’s food stream toward better buying practices.
The jury is still out on how much consumers really are paying attention to labels, however. An Innova report showed that 75% of U.S. consumers said they read the nutritional and ingredient labels of food products and 91% say food and beverage options with recognizable ingredients are healthier. Still, much research has been done on consumer psychology, which has shown that nutritional labeling gives the organization “compelling reasons to be pessimistic” about how much it impacts purchases.
Still, these shelf tags would be much easier to "read" than actual labels on the back of product packaging, and shoppers will likely appreciate this investment in transparency. It will be interesting to see if other grocers invest in similar in-store programs, and if these rating systems will negatively impact sales of traditionally unhealthy products.

Report Finds Fashion Supply Chains 'Not Transparent': Dior, Prada And Giorgio Armani In Bottom 10%

 
 
Photographer: Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg
Few fashion brands are implementing measures to disclose details on their supply chain, according to Fashion Revolution. Any ethical breaches within many of the world’s 100 leading brands may be undetected. Worse still, they may be undetectable.
Fashion Revolution, a campaigning NGO, assessed the transparency scorings of brands’ supply chains. The research was conducted through a combination of questionnaires sent directly to the brands and direct research from websites and published policies.
No brand scored higher than a 50% level of transparency. Such a score would require that brands publish “detailed information about assessment and remediation findings and detailed supplier lists from manufacturing right down to raw materials”. This requirement would be a basic provision in the eyes of many consumers.
 
The report noted that:
While we are seeing brands share their policies and commitments, there is still much crucial information about the practices of the fashion industry that remains concealed, particularly when it comes to brands’ tangible impact on the lives of workers in the supply chain and on the environment.”
The research, unlike many other similar studies, is extremely broad in the issues that it covers. It surveyed 28 different ethical topics, from animal rights, to corruption, to forced labor, to environmental protection.
 
Overall, the brands scored poorly. The average score for transparency was 49 out of 250.
Adidas, Gap, and Reebok are a in the top performing bracket. Among the worst scoring brands were Abercrombie & Fitch, Amazon, Dior, Giorgio Armani and Urban Outfitters.
Three brands published nothing at all about their supply chains. Only eight brands scored higher than 40%.
There were five main areas in which the research explored:
  • Policy and commitments: Published code of conducts and requirements.
  • Governance: The incorporation of ethical issues into procurement policies.
  • Traceability: The publication of supplier lists.
  • Know, show and fix: Tangible measures taken to enforce standards.
  • Spotlight issues: This year, the report focused upon money and power in the supply chain.
It was the first of these areas that was the best performing, with an average score of 49% across all the surveyed brands. But writing a policy document is the easiest task to perform – but perhaps the least impactful in ensuring ethical behavior. Within this area, we see 88% of brands applying forced labour codes upon their suppliers. By contrast, only 26% possess vendor code of conducts that covered notice periods and disciplinary action.
The area in which the researchers found the greatest weakness was in respect of traceability. This relates to brands’ publication of supplier information, their address, size and production details. Perhaps unsurprisingly for supply chain observers, few brands published anything beyond the first tier. 14 of the 100 provided details of second-tier suppliers. None provided information regarding raw material providers.
 
On ensuring that supplier staff have a reasonable quality of life, the report was critical:
34 out of the 100 brands have made public commitments to paying living wages to workers in the supply chain (such as through collective bargaining agreements or as part of the Fair Labor Association) but only four brands — H&M, Marks & Spencer, New Look and Puma — are reporting on progress towards achieving this aim.”
The implication here is that, aside from the published commitments, few tangible measures are undertaken to deliver the promise.
The inference of much of this report is that brands are aware of the ethical practices within the supply chain, but are reluctant to publish information. However, the truth may be more mundane, if worse. As we saw in the recent BBC investigation into Turkish fashion industry, many brands are outsourcing large portions of their supply chain to a highly fragmented supplier base. Such a cottage industry of patchwork producers is beyond the powers of most buyer teams to trace and monitor.
 
Simply put, the supply chain can be just a mystery to the brands as its consumers.
However, important reports, such as Fashion Revolution’s study, should highlight to the brands that they have a responsibility to know the ethical impact of their supply chains. Moreover, this research helps communicate to these companies that the public expects brands to ensure that ethical behavior prevails at all levels of chain.

Friday, April 28, 2017

What Is Generation Z, And What Does It Want?

And you thought you had just figured out millennials. It’s time to start wringing your hands about the new generation that’s about to enter the workforce. What do they even want?

What Is Generation Z, And What Does It Want?
[TOP PHOTO: STANISLAW PYTEL/GETTY IMAGES]
 
Poor Generation Z. The oldest members of this cohort are barely 18 and they’re already getting a bad rap. Media and market research companies have labeled them “screen addicts” with the attention span of a gnat. And the pressure: They only have the weight of saving the world and fixing our past mistakes on their small shoulders.
While generational research is an inherently messy process—older generations study “the kids” to figure them out—much of the recent research is awash in normative preconceptions, biases, and stereotypes. Gen Z deserves a fairer shake, and the rest of us need a more nuanced conversation: This group makes up a quarter of the U.S. population and by 2020 will account for 40% of all consumers. Understanding them will be critical to companies wanting to succeed in the next decade and beyond.
My firm Altitude set out to dig below the surface to understand not only what Gen Z were doing but why—in their own words. We worked with over a dozen 16- to 18-year-olds with diverse backgrounds from across the country through a series of in-depth discussions, video diaries, and daily interactive exercises designed to provide a glimpse into their lives. Our goal was to view the world through their eyes.
What we learned was surprising.
FLICKR USER RAFAEL CASTILLO

1: IT’S NOT AN ATTENTION PROBLEM, IT’S AN 8-SECOND FILTER


The recent headline-grabbing studies suggest that Gen Z attention spans have shrunk to eight seconds and that they’re unable to focus for extended amounts of time. However, we found that Gen Z actually have what we’re calling highly evolved “eight-second filters.”

They’ve grown up in a world where their options are limitless but their time is not. As such, Gen Z have adapted to quickly sorting through and assessing enormous amounts of information. Online, they rely heavily on trending pages within apps to collect the most popular recent content. They also turn to trusted curators, such as Phil DeFranco and Bethany Mota, to locate the most relevant information and entertainment. These tools help Gen Z shrink their potential option set down to a more manageable size.
Once something has demonstrated attention-worthiness, Gen Z can become intensely committed and focused. They’ve come of age with an Internet that’s allowed them to go deep on any topic of their choosing and learn from like-minded fans. Marcus, a 17-year-old from Connecticut, spent years exploring the corners of vintage sneaker culture online, eventually becoming somewhat of a “sneakerhead.” During his freshman year in college, he realized he could leverage this knowledge and started a side business flipping rare shoes.
Gen Z have a carefully tuned radar for being sold to and a limited amount of time and energy to spend assessing whether something’s worth their time. Getting past these filters, and winning Gen Z’s attention, will mean providing them with engaging and immediately beneficial experiences. One-way messaging alone will likely get drowned out in the noise.
FLICKR USER RAFAEL CASTILLO

2: THEY’RE NOT SCREEN ADDICTS, THEY’RE FULL-TIME BRAND MANAGERS.


The media has painted Gen Z as a bunch of socially inept netizens and older generations struggle to understand why they spend so much time online. In reality, Gen Z are under immense pressure to simultaneously manage their personal and professional brands to help them fit in while also standing out.
On a personal level, Gen Z seek immediate validation and acceptance through social media, since that’s where all their peers are and where many of the important conversations happen. They curate different social media personas in order to please each audience and minimize conflict or controversy. “We filter out whatever flaws we may have, to create the ideal image,” says Sneha, a 16-year-old from Arizona.

On a professional level, Gen Z are hyperaware of the negative stereotypes that have plagued millennials. As a result, they want to be known for their ability to work hard and persevere offline. “I’ve always felt like I needed to prove myself,” says Sneha. “Hard work eventually pays off.”
The majority of the people in our study also said that their ability to communicate clearly in person, specifically with older adults, was the number one skill that would ensure their future success. “I need to be able to look adults in the eye, give them a firm handshake and ask them how they’re doing,” says Liam, 17.
Between these two forces, Gen Z feel torn: They need social media to build their personal brands but resist being defined by it. They seek social validation and inclusion but are looking to differentiate themselves professionally. Companies that understand this tension will provide Gen Z the tools they need to reconcile and better manage their personal and professional brands.
FLICKR USER RAFAEL CASTILLO

3: THEY’RE NOT ALL ENTREPRENEURS—THEY’RE PRACTICAL PRAGMATISTS.


Recent reports have labeled Gen Z the “entrepreneurial generation” and highlighted their desire to forsake the corporate grind for their own startups. We found that while Gen Z like the idea of working for themselves, the majority are risk-averse, practical, and pragmatic. Their supposed entrepreneurialism is actually more of a survival mechanism than an idealist reach for status or riches.
Whereas millennials were criticized for their lack of focus, Gen Z are determined to plan ahead. Gen Z have been strongly shaped by their individualistic, self-reliant Gen X parents and they’re committed to avoiding the mistakes their meandering millennial predecessors made. “I need a job that will come out with money, otherwise college will be a waste”, says Marcus, 17. “I want to pick a career that is stable.”

To ease this anxiety, the participants in our study all claimed to be aiming for jobs in growing, less-automatable fields like education, medicine, and sales. And they’re obsessed with developing contingency plans to help them navigate the dynamic job market. While the media has singled out a number of high-profile entrepreneurial teen success stories, the majority of Gen Z in our study are biased in favor of career and financial stability. Entrepreneurship is seen as a way to not have to rely on anyone (or anything) else, and their version of it will likely be focused on sustainable “singles and doubles” ventures rather than Silicon Valley “home runs.”

THE SPACE IN BETWEEN

Society tends to either romanticize youth or criticize the things they’re doing differently. The reality of Gen Z, however, lies somewhere in between. They face many of the challenges that everyone faces in that life stage—transitioning from school to work, separating from parents, and forming their own identities. But they’re doing so in an ultra-connected, fast-moving technological age.
It’s critical that we recognize Gen Z’s differences and meet them where they are, rather than where we want them to be. Without empathy and understanding, brands risk being filtered into obscurity. As writer Logan Pearsall Smith put it nearly 100 years ago: “Don’t laugh at a youth for his affectations; he is only trying on one face after another to find a face of his own.”