Friday, August 29, 2014
Google's Project Wing is a secret, drone-based delivery system
Google has been working on self-driving cars for some years now, but the company has just revealed that it is working on yet another ambitious and autonomous vehicle project. According to the BBC and The Atlantic, the secretive Google X team has been working for two years on Project Wing, a drone-based delivery system that sounds a lot like the Amazon drones that CEO Jeff Bezos announced last year.
However, while Google says these vehicles can be used for delivering goods, the project's main focus doesn't appear to be appeasing shoppers who need things right away. Instead, it sounds like Google envisions using these drones in disaster relief scenarios — they could theoretically deliver supplies to areas in need. "Even just a few of these, being able to shuttle nearly continuously could service a very large number of people in an emergency situation," said Google X's Astro Teller to the BBC.
Despite that noble goal, Google did say in The Atlantic that these vehicles can also be used to deliver goods to buyers, just as Amazon hopes to do. The company now has dozens of people working on the project (more are expected to join soon) with the goal of delivering things to people quickly via these small, "self-flying vehicles."
The vehicle itself consists of four electrically-driven propellers with a wingspan of about five feet; it weighs just under 19 pounds and can take off and land without a runway. According to the BBC, the entire weight of the craft and the item it is delivering is only 22 pounds — which means these drones won't be delivering an Xbox to your front door. Its computer is near the tail section, while the power is near the front of the plane. Onboard is GPS, cameras, radios, and an inertial measurement sensor that's made up of accelerometers and gyroscopes to help the craft determine how it's positioned.
GOOGLE AND AMAZON ARE BOTH STAKING CLAIMS IN THE DRONE DELIVERY SPACE
While developing the project, Google found that people wanted to grab the packages from the drone, which could have injured them because of the tiny propellers. That's where the design for the package delivery by string came from, which was designed by a one of Google's mechanical engineers. The string is actually fishing line, while the small grip is called the "egg."
Google envisions a system that is controlled in part by computers as well as people. Controllers will be able to oversee what the drones are doing and take control. That could be useful in cases where packages could get stuck. And Google says it plans to use some of those human interactions to help improve the automated software, like it's done with its self-driving car program.
Beyond Astro Teller, Google recruited Nick Roy from MIT to lead the project; he took a two-year sabbatical to help get it off the ground. But Google's been working on this for some time — Project Wing was originally envisioned as a way to deliver defibrillators to people who were having heart attacks, but Google ran into issues with that idea because it would involve being integrated into 911 and emergency services. Of course, the company still faces plenty of challenges getting it off the ground in the US — in fact, the company has mostly been testing Project Wing in Australia, which has more "progressive" ideas about the use of drones compared to Google's home country.
Indeed, Google's drone program might be further away from reality than its self-driving cars — but it sounds like the company is going to use all of its considerable power to push the initiative forward, including getting in with the regulatory boards that'll ultimately decide whether Google's crafts can take to the skies. It's gonna take conversations with the public and with regulators. But so far in the conversations we've had over the last two years, and more intensely over the last couple months with regulators, I'm cautiously optimistic that everyone wants the same thing," Teller said to The Atlantic.
Here's Why Alibaba Is Becoming A Huge Threat To Amazon And eBay
- AUG. 29, 2014, 12:58 PM
Alibaba is expected to IPO in September and a new financial report from the company reveals that the Chinese e-commerce giant continues to grow at a blistering pace. The company's growth pattern, and its recent entrance into the U.S. market, makes Alibaba a serious threat to e-commerce giants like Amazon and eBay.
Alibaba is growing ~50% annually in volume terms.
The gross merchandise volume (GMV) — or, the value of all merchandise — sold on Alibaba's e-commerce sites reached $248 billion in 2013, 52% more than it sold in 2012.
GMV in the second quarter of 2014 was $82 billion, which is 45% more than the same quarter last year.
Alibaba sells 4X as much stuff in dollar terms as eBay does, and it's growing much faster.
It's useful to compare Alibaba and eBay because they are both marketplace businesses — meaning they don't actually own the merchandise they sell. Rather, retailers, merchants, and consumers use their sites to sell directly to consumers.
Alibaba owns two main e-commerce sites.
- Tmall, an Alibaba site where retailers sell directly to consumers, grew 81% year-over-year in the second quarter.
- Taobao, where consumers sell to other consumers, grew 33% year-over-year and still accounts for the majority of sales via Alibaba.
Mobile commerce is driving an increasing share of Alibaba's business.
One in three dollars that flowed through Alibaba's e-commerce sites came from mobile shoppers last quarter, up from 12% one year earlier.
For context, 30% of eBay's GMV comes from mobile.
More than a quarter billion people bought something through Alibaba in the second quarter.
Alibaba's customer base is already far larger than eBay's, and it's growing much faster.
Alibaba is still very dependent on Chinese shoppers.
Less than 1 in 10 revenue dollars from Alibaba's e-commerce sites come from customers outside China. However, with the recent launch of its U.S. site 11Main.com, that could soon change. For comparison, almost 40% of Amazon's revenues come from outside North America.
Bain’s 50% stake in Toms shoes shows faith in socially-minded business
The ethical shoe company is valued at $625m despite selling a relatively dull product and giving half its stock away – does Bain’s investment recognise that purpose can drive profits?
What is the key to profit for the next generation of consumers? Bain Capital thinks it is purpose.
Last week, the private equity firm took a 50% stake in Toms, a socially-conscious footwear company valued at $625m (£377m). Toms pioneered the “buy one give one” model of conscious commerce. They give a pair of shoes to a child in need for every pair they sell.
Toms will use this capital to expand more rapidly than it otherwise would be able to on its own. Bain will bring operational expertise including a new CEO to oversee the expansion and leverage its experience growing retail brands such as Canada Goose, Michaels and Dunkin’ Brands.
So, has Toms sold out? With Bain Capital in control of half the company and running the management team, will Toms be able to stay committed to its one-for-one model? Blake Mycoskie, founder and chief shoe giver of Toms, thinks so. He said, “We need a strategic partner who shares our bold vision for the future and can help us realise it. We’re thrilled that Bain Capital is fully aligned with our commitment to One for One, and clearly they have the expertise to help us improve our business and further expand the scale of our mission.”
Those are nice sentimental words, but is it really in Bain Capital’s interest to retain the social mission of Toms? Isn’t their purpose at odds with making profit?
Traditional business thinking dictates that profit and purpose are at odds with each other, that doing good will cost the company money. Toms stands as a counterintuitive example of purpose actually driving profit. The company has sold and given away 20m shoes. With its least expensive shoe selling for $54, the company has generated over a billion dollars of sales.
Increasingly, consumers would rather do good with their purchases than give to charity. A recent survey from marketing company Good Must Grow indicates that for the second year in a row, 30% of US consumers plan to increase their purchases towards socially responsible companies in the coming year. Meanwhile, only 18% plan to increase charitable giving in 2014, a decline from 21% in 2013. A recent Nielson study also shows that consumers place a premium value on these products; 55% of global consumers are willing to pay more for products from companies that are committed to positive social and/or environmental impact.
Additionally, millennials – Toms’ target demographic – particularly want their purchases to have purpose. According to the 2013 Cone Communications CSR Study, 72% of millennials believe that they can make a positive social and environmental impact through their purchases and 51% check the packaging to ensure social and environmental impact. However, only 31% of millennials will conduct further research on the impact claims of a company they are buying from.
The “one-for-one” model is perfectly crafted for a millennial consumer who wants to feel good about their purchases but needs a clear, simple and tangible means of understanding the social purpose of the company through point-of-purchase marketing.
Though a new CEO will take the reins of day-to-day operations, Mycoskie, who still holds a 50% stake in the company, does not plan to abandon his post anytime soon. Instead, his focus will shift to expanding new categories.
So far Toms has expanded beyond shoes into sunglasses in 2011 (for every pair purchased, Toms will help give sight to a person in need), and to coffee in 2014 (for each bag of coffee beans sold a person will get clean water for a week, and for every cup of coffee sold someone gets water for day.)
A quick glance at the domains and the trademarks owned by Toms gives some indication of the vast array of products and services Mycoskie is considering including such as tea, cocoa, luggage, hotel services, news services, wearable technology, ticketing, credit cards, student loans, bicycles, water and wine. One of their trademarks is “You drink, we dig”, which might hint at a partnership with Charity: Water, with whom they have collaborated in the past on both special edition shoes and sunglasses.
The question remains whether Toms can translate the success it has had with shoes into other categories. Given its success at selling a relatively boring canvas shoe, it stands a good chance of infusing purpose into other boring products like credit cards and student loans thereby grabbing the millennial wallet-share.
Perhaps Bain Capital will retain the social mission at Toms precisely because that is what will drive higher profits. “As a firm and as individuals, we are strongly aligned with the principles of the One for One movement and its contribution to the global community,” said Ryan Cotton, a principal at Bain Capital.
Should they have taken a risk on a millennial consumer motivated by purpose to drive profit for years to come? Well, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
The Cost of Cheap: The True Price of A Good Deal
Aug 27 2014
- 1,071Views
- 40Likes
- 11Comments
Discounts, clearances, and sales are permeating retail channels and winning consumers hearts. Today, full price is synonymous with over priced regardless of the product and the value it brings to the consumer. Buyers are turning to the Internet and manufacturer websites to circumvent paying more than what they perceive the product is worth. Along with convenience, low price is the driving force behind why many consumers choose to shop online. Avoiding retail stores and the retail mark-up makes sense to financially conscious consumers. But what are the real costs that bargain hunters are making for these insane deals and discounts? They risk losing diversity within the retail market (both online and in physical stores), product quality, and the health of local and national economies.
Original Photography by Chris McClanahan, "Closing Time", 2011
Retail brings diversity to the marketplace by having a variety of products, brands, and price points to choose from. Retailers rely on consumer dollars to pay rent, employees, taxes, and other overhead costs. These fixed and variable financial responsibilities make up the retail store cost structure. The rock-bottom product price that retailers can offer (without pricing so low they will lose profit) is traditionally higher than the online deals of brands and manufacturers. This is due to the differing cost structures and profit models between brand websites and brick and mortar retail stores.
Included in the ‘retail mark-up’ are the values that the retailer provides to the customer- customer service, consultations, fitting rooms, atmosphere, and the ability to touch, feel, see, hear, or taste the product. Brand websites cannot provide this experience, and the lack of ‘service’ is reflected in the price.
Ann Zimmerman, writer for the Wall Street Journal, is unsure about the future success of retailers with buyers focusing so much on price. She writes:
Lower prices are one of the main reasons people choose Internet-only emporiums over traditional retailers. If brick-and-mortar stores can't compete on price, it is unclear how successful they can be with tweaks to merchandising and customer service.
This question of retail success also applies to large retailers.
Original Photography by Will Fisher, "Untitled", 2011
In effort to maintain low prices, many manufacturers make lower quality goods to remain competitive. Naturally, lower-quality products result in lower material costs and those savings are passed along to the consumer. The price the consumer pays for lower quality goods is lack of craftsmanship, originality and longevity of the product.
In fact, Peter Doeringer, a professor of economics at Boston University and expert on global textile and garment markets, said:
Mass manufacturers tend to stick with durable fabrics, simple patterns, and much less style…Advertisers created an image that people accepted: a less stylish image that leant itself to standardization. Consumers were actually marketed away from style and induced and seduced with low price. (Shell, p45)
With such standardization to control costs, consumers risk losing individuality.
Original Photography by Su Neko, "School of Fish", 2006
Another expert, Phil Ciciora, says,
Consumers may revel in the convenience of online shopping, but the low prices on the Internet are often accompanied by even lower product quality, warns new research co-written by a University of Illinois business professor. Yunchuan "Frank" Liu says 'when manufacturers bypass retailers and sell directly to consumers online, product quality can suffer.'
An additional tactic to keep prices down and still make profit is to cut employee wages or eliminate retail jobs entirely. As a result, low wages attract cheap labor, which results in a decrease of customer service quality. In the words of President William McKinley:
Cheap merchandise means cheap men, and cheap men mean a cheap country, and that is not the kind of Government our fathers founded, and it is not the kind their sons mean to maintain.
Even if retailers thrive, driving prices down to remain competitive has it’s own consequences; the retailer receives less profit and communities receive less revenue in taxes. A question some industry professionals are asking now is, “Is the low-cost model sustainable?”
Ellen Ruppel Shell, author of “Cheap: The High Cost of Discount Culture”, writes,
How is it possible…a $8.98 dress could be designed, sewn from real cloth…packed in a shipping container, shipped thousands of miles, unloaded into a truck powered by diesel fuel, driven smack across the country, unpacked by human hands, hung on a hanger, and displayed for at least a day or two on a Manhattan shop floor? The answer to this questions is that it is not possible, or for that matter, sustainable. (Shell, 53)

Original Photography by Iain Farrell, "Sign of the Times", 2012
Mark Stiving goes on to say,
Any competitive advantage you may gain with pricing is not sustainable… If you adopt low price as your strategy, then your business must be continually focused on lowering and controlling costs…You are attracting the price buyers, customers who are not loyal, but are looking for the lowest price. Once a competitor figures out how to sell a similar product for less, they will charge lower prices and you will struggle.
An additional sacrifice consumers make by shopping online directly with the brand is the well being of their local communities. Portions of local funding depend on the taxes collected from the stores and sales revenue. These taxes go towards necessary construction, local growth and development, public safety, health, and other amenities that add value to the community.
Original Photography by Will Fisher, "Abandoned Department Store", 2011
With brand price wars increasing, retailers continue to be put out of business due to the inability to compete. Because of this, buyers are forced to spend their dollars online or in neighboring towns or cities, which takes even more revenue away from their local community. The local multiplier affect (the recirculation of funds within a community) is compromised, and as a result, the community suffers and entire communities may be forced to relocate.
Nationally, direct brand-to-consumer sales may lead to market monopolization, brand elimination, increase in unemployment, and weakening of retail supported industries (media, industry publications, trade show organizations, advertising agencies, wholesalers, distributors, real estate, etc.).
Nationally, direct brand-to-consumer sales may lead to market monopolization, brand elimination, increase in unemployment, and weakening of retail supported industries (media, industry publications, trade show organizations, advertising agencies, wholesalers, distributors, real estate, etc.).
While the low price bargains of brand websites are appealing to consumer wallets, the domino effect of ‘cheap online products’ creates a gloomy future for retail and our local communities. In the long run, consumers risk losing product quality, variety, and retail diversity in the market. This puts the prosperity of local communities in danger, and in extreme cases may cause once thriving communities to turn into ghost towns. In the never-ending search for a better deal, we, as a society, risk nearly everything.
US Open courts mobile fans with location-based messaging, streamlined content
By Mark Hamstra
August 28, 2014
The United States Tennis Association launched new apps for smartphones and iPad tablets for its two-week, showcase event, with content tailored for each device. The association executed a careful strategy not only around the content displayed, but also around the advertising that appears within the apps.
“Last year was the first year that mobile eclipsed desktop, and that’s why we went mobile-first this year,” said Nicole Jeter West, senior director of ticketing and digital strategy at the USTA. “We are making sure fans can get all of the information they need, no matter where they are or what device they are using.”
Last year the US Open Web site garnered 419 million page views, including 178 million from smartphones and 41.7 million from tablets. This year the USTA is seeking to drive as much mobile traffic as possible to the apps, while still offering an m-dot site as well.
Armonk, NY-based IBM has been the US Open’s technology partner for the past 25 years and created the apps, among a host of other tasks the technology giant executes at the event.
Beacon test
The wide-scale use of location-detecting beacon devices has not been rolled out at the US Open this year, but the USTA is conducting a limited test. Beacons at the entrances to the event prompt a message to fans offering tips on how to best enjoy the event and encouraging them to download the app.
Advertisers in the app, which include American Express, Ralph Lauren, esurance, Mercedes-Benz and United Emirates, also have the ability to send location-based push messages to app users based on location using geofencing technology. Last year advertisers could only send static location-based push messages, but this year those messages can contain rich media.
The m-dot site, which is adaptively designed to detect mobile devices, encourages app downloads.
Ms. Jeter West said that last year the USTA noticed that app users were highly engaged with static push notifications they received, often going back into the messages in their in-boxes after first receiving them.
“We were very strategic in our messaging last year,” she said. “We wanted to make sure we are not over-saturating fans with too many messages.”
This year the USTA is taking a similar approach. It is limiting push alerts to two per session, and making sure those alerts are spread out within the session.
“We are also looking to make sure it is relevant to the person based on their location,” Ms. Jeter West said.
Most of the push notifications, such as those from Ralph Lauren, seek to drive users to the advertisers’ booths or retail outlets on the US Open grounds in New York. IBM partners with messaging vendor Urban Airship to deliver the push notifications.
Streamlined experience
The mobile-optimized Web site and apps seek to offer a user-friendly experience in which content has been edited down for consumption on the smaller screens, Ms. Jeter West said.
“The m-dot site is really sort of a stripped-down version of the dot-org site,” she said. “We learned from past years what people were looking at on their mobile devices, and over the years we have streamlined the content for mobile.”
The iPad app offers graphic representations of data.
IBM’s data-crunching capabilities deliver an increasing volume of statistics to Web site visitors and app users around the event, including data that tracks ball and player movement and analyses of players’ tendencies.
In addition to live scores and schedules, the apps also include Twitter feeds and a feature called TrendCast that allows users to follow social media commentary match-by-match. An interactive game called the Live Predication Challenge allows users to guess outcomes of individual matches.
This year is also the first time IBM is using an instant live-score update feature in the apps that often delivers scores faster than television broadcasts, said Stephen Hammer, events practice leader with IBM Interactive Experience.
“We are really focused this year on delivering the mobile experience through the apps,” he said. “We’ve tried to streamline the experience and make smart use of content.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






