Business, Observations

COVID-19 Policy Weighing Mechanism

Too many policy discussions surrounding COVID-19 create a false dichotomy between those who prioritize the economy against those who prioritize reducing mortality. Data cateloging the spread of the virus, the severity and mortality rates, and time to vaccine are inconstant and contested from all sides of the policy debate. As a result, months into the pandemic, we (the public) don’t have a universally accepted model that predicts the end of the outbreak.

This uncertainty forces governing bodies to make a choice for when, what elements, and how to resume a functioning society. In the US the choice for how and when to reopen are left to the cities and states to determine. In some ways this make sense. Because the desease spreads unevenly and different regions will experience different severities of outbreak, multiple solutions might perform better than a one-size fits all approach. On the other hand, devoid of national guidelines, chaos reigns supreme.

Pundits, armchair politicians, and anyone with a computer have been quick to criticize places for opening too quickly or being too hesitant, but rarely offer a competing weighing mechanism or policy timeline.

I propose that we use the aggregate life-year change as the weighing mechanism to determine if a governing body should pursue a specific COVID-19 policy. The life year is a natural bridge between the economic and mortality focused sides of the debate. The idea behind the life year is to look at the loss of years from expected life that are tied to each COVID-19 death on one side and the number of anticipated year increases from a policy change on the other. There have been a number of studies on life year changes from educational attainment, child abuse, and income. Arguments for ending rest-in-place policies often cite educational losses, increase in child abuse, and decreases in incomes as reasons to reopen society.

Using the life-year scale will face two significant challenges. Many will be uncomfortable with discussions of death in years rather than lives and consider the scale dehumanizing. The second relates to quality of data, because mortality rates are still in question, critics will reject this scheme. To that end, I recommend using a very conservative mortality rate. Use a number that is almost certainly higher than truth across all age groups (e.g. 2% aggregate).

My recommendation is not a novel one. In a recent Marginal Revolution post, Tyler Cowen introduced a study that used life-year analysis (although he did not explicitly recommend its use). A group of researchers from South Africa explored the question of COVID-19 lockdown policies and expect that over 26,000 years will be lost to South Africa’s lockdown policies.

This analysis could help state and local leads make informed, data-driven, policy choices and provide structure for the national debate on COVID-19 policy.

Business, Innovation, Observations

Has the internet destroyed brand loyalty?

Recently, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to learn a little about  brand loyalty for my job. The results are depressing. Most articles that consider Brand Loyalty forecast its its death. Consumers are increasingly willing to consider a new product or brand, in favor of sticking with a tried-or-true solution. Prior to the internet age, when information was relatively hard to come by, daily items cost more of our income, and brands had regional footprints, brand loyalty made sense. The risks associated with a product change were relatively high.

The internet brought extreme price competition, product availability, and increased information, to the average buyer. A purchaser in Wisconsin can now compare 250 retailers for glass cleaner based on price, average review, or active ingredient without leaving her house. It is now riskier for her to blindly purchase the brand her father used, especially if it is the more expensive option, than to purchase a well-reviewed, cheaper option. Consumers rejoice, brands despair.

Obviously then the answer to the title question is yes, right? Don’t forget Betteridge’s law. I find it more likely that loyalty has shifted to a new entity, rather than decreasing in an absolute fashion. Building on Ben Thompson’s work on Aggregation Theory, I posit that brand loyalty shifted from individual producers to retail aggregators. Aggregation theory focuses on how consumer technology companies that aggregate modularized suppliers — which they often don’t pay for — to consumers/users with whom they have an exclusive relationship at scale changed the profit landscape of retail competition globally.

One lesser explored impact, of a world where aggregators reign supreme, is how consumer trust and loyalty changes with the market shift toward aggregators. In an aggregator-driven market, consumer trust and experience shifts from the product to the marketplace entire. Brand loyalty may shift from the product to the aggregator as well. Consumers frequently choose to buy a more expensive option on Amazon over a cheaper price on eBay due to the differentiated perceived consumer and brand experience. Consumers are loyal to Amazon over eBay, even when the reviews on eBay are more honest and recent improvements in the return policy, and shipping practices bring the purchase process into line with Amazon. I google items using Chrome, I don’t Bing items using Edge; as a consequence Google recommends many of the items I buy. I am loyal to Google, even when its competitors offer better browsers and may recommend better items for purchase. Thompson argues that this loyalty and the market dominance it brings may cement the current tech giants as the preeminent companies of this century.

How does this impact traditional retailers? Brick-and-mortar retail brands that understand the aggregator economy and cultivate a strong brand image, independent of a particular product, are set to succeed in this new economy. After facing revenue loss in 2016, Target outlined a new retail strategy focused on reimagining their stores and building better employee and brand experiences. That strategy is working. The company is thriving in a market destroyed by digital competition.

The portfolio of Urban Outfitters is another successful example of building a brick-and mortar-store that leverages aggregator strategy. The stores within Urban Outfitters umbrella (Urban, Anthropologie, Free People, etc.) each cultivate a list of in-house “brands” making each store resemble a retailer of highly curated clothing from different suppliers. The strategy seems to have insulated Urban Outfitters from online competition; Urban has a strong digital presence and differentiated in-store experience. If Urban appeared to only supply a single house brand, its revenue curve may more closely resemble Gap’s, a primary competitor. The key differentiator of Urban Outfitters, is the strength of store brand perception; consumers are not loyal to any of the individual “brands” that each Urban Outfitters store has.

Traditional retail brick-and-mortar shops were left behind by more than just a shift to cheaper options, and the convenience of online shopping. They missed the boat on building a perception of a differentiated brand, opposed to a brand housing differentiated products (à la Nordstrom). To succeed in a highly competitive industry within the aggregator economy is to build a perception that your store, online or brick-and-mortar, will compile the best options and provide an experience with consumer choice.

In future research, I plan to identify how companies within traditional industries maintain brand loyalty in the internet age. These strategies center around extreme urgency to buy, creating an ecosystem, and creating barriers to switch through incentives.

Business

Thoughts About Meeting Icebreakers

Icebreakers should be:

  • Relatable–don’t ask an icebreaker about a certain show, game, or movie. Ask an Icebreaker about  movies, games, or shows in general.
  • Non-intrusive–Ice breakers should not make the respondent uncomfortable telling the truth. Note this point only applies to office/meeting ice breakers; some events may choose to use an intrusive ice breaker to force attendees to open up earlier than they intended.
  • Not too thought-provoking–I have been to a few meetings where the host asks an icebreaker question that causes all in attendance to respond with “umm…” before giving a defeated answer. One way to prevent ice breaker questions from causing overthink is to introduce a recency parameter in to the question. E.g Ask for the last song a person remembers listening to, instead of the person’s favorite song. Ask the attendants what was the last meal that excited you, instead of their favorite meal.
  • Open-ended–Icebreakers that are binary don’t allow the respondents to share much about themselves, and icebreakers that have an obvious best answer cause the whole room to respond with the same answer.
  • Finished within 10-15 minutes–If the icebreaker takes longer, then either the meeting was too large for the question/activity or the icebreaker wasn’t appropriate for the group.

 

Bonus thought, an icebreaker does not have to be a question. Often an activity will keep the meeting attendants more present than a question will.

 

Business

Financial Advice for the Financially Minded

If you are like me and want to actively manage your funds and investments, create an account on Robinhood (or some other trading application) and deposit an amount of money you are willing to lose. The new account is the only account you can manage. It should satisfy your need for control and prevent you from ever putting your actual retirement accounts at risk. Leave investing to the objective professionals.