The Wall Street Journal: “More than nine of 10 shoppers said they considered ‘same day,’ ‘next day’ and ‘two day’ delivery to be ‘fast,’ according to consulting firm Deloitte’s 2015 holiday survey of some 4,000 shoppers. At three to four days, only 63% called it ‘fast,’ and just 18% of shoppers considered five to seven days ‘fast’.”
“And customers for the most part are no longer willing to pay extra for expedited delivery. Shoppers on average said they would pay at most just $5.10 for same-day service, in the Deloitte survey. A quarter of shoppers said they wouldn’t expect to pay anything at all.”
However, absorbing the shipping may be worth it to some online retailers because it can reduce the return rate: “When you go to a store, you have that wonderful delight of carrying the bag down the street,” says David Maddocks, chief marketing officer of Cole Haan. “Online, after you click, you have to wait. And during that time you can fall out of love.”
The Wall Street Journal: “In some ways, the soda industry is returning to its early 20th century roots, when bottles were typically about 6 ounces and pop was a treat saved for a special occasion. It wasn’t until 1976 that 7-Eleven Inc. launched the 32-ounce Big Gulp at its convenience stores.”
“Now, once again, American soda drinkers ‘want to consume less but they still enjoy their favorite brands,’ said Marty Ellen, Dr Pepper’s chief financial officer. Dr Pepper is rolling out 7.5-ounce cans nationally this year, replacing 8-ounce cans it launched as an alternative to 12-ounce cans. Each 7.5-ounce can holds about 95 calories, compared with 150 calories for a 12-ounce can.”
This works out well for soda companies, which have stemmed losses by charging more for less: “At a Publix supermarket in Atlanta recently, a 12-pack of 12-ounce Coke cans was priced at $5.29, or 3.67 cents per ounce. An 8-pack of 7.5-ounce cans was priced at $3.99, or 6.65 cents per ounce.”
Mr. Ellen says the higher cost per-ounce aligns with consumer behavior because soda is still a “cheap treat.”
Those who are slower to adopt new products or services tend to be more loyal to their choices, reports The Wall Street Journal.
Typically, a late adopter is “a person who buys a product or service after half of a population has done so. Late adopters tend to share certain characteristics: They are skeptical of marketing and tend to point out differences between advertised claims and the actual product. They often value a product’s core attributes, ignoring the bells and whistles intended to upsell the latest model. They may not try something new until weeks, months or even years after the crowd has moved on.”
“It takes a long time to change late adopters, but once they’ve done all that research, and once they are convinced about a product, they are going to stay for a long time,” says Sara Jahanmir of the Nova School of Business and Economics in Lisbon.
Late adopters are also believed to have “important things to tell companies about the role new products should play. Because they tend to be highly critical, late adopters can be useful to companies perfecting their wares … By listening to late adopters of the old version of a product, developers can create a new version that is quicker to be adopted.”
Hyperallergic: “In plain terms, across the field, in museums, art institutions, performance forums, and even historical societies, the visitor’s experience is now being personalized. This means that not only is the visit marked by enhanced, interactive, and ‘dialogic’ engagement, but also there is an institutional recognition of the visitor as an independent maker of meaning who uses the museum in a variety of ways to fulfill particular, individual needs and desires.”
“Three key means of accomplishing this is first, recognizing visitors’ capacity to make meaning for themselves; two, partnering with them to discover what they personally want from the museum; and lastly, mobilizing the museum’s resources to meet these needs. These tasks can be met by, among other things, new curatorial strategies through which museums partner with visitors to develop activities and events: co-curation projects, and crowdsourcing exhibition content.”
“Visitors are no longer passive receptacles for the curator’s knowledge, but rather active, engaged participants.”
The Wall Street Journal: A new book attacks the trend toward open offices and embraces the virtues of focused thought. In “Deep Work,” Cal Newport “acknowledges the good intentions behind open offices: They are meant to encourage serendipity and teamwork. But he argues that burdening workers with perpetual distractions constitutes ‘an absurd attack on concentration’ that creates ‘an environment that thwarts attempts to think seriously.'”
The antidote is to expand “your capacity for ‘deep work,’ ruthlessly weeding out distractions and regularly carving out stretches of time to sharpen abilities … Most corporate workers, Mr. Newport argues, don’t have clear feedback about how to spend their time. As a result, employees use ‘busyness as a proxy for productivity.'”
“This presents an opening for people who are willing to tame these distractions … Such individuals cut down anything that could be outsourced ‘to a smart recent college graduate with no specialized training,’ and create rituals of delving into ‘the wildly important goal’ of their trade … No job is excused as too mundane for his approach, even in industries that value, say, rapid customer-service responses.”
“You don’t need a rarified job,” Mr. Newport writes. “You instead need a rarified approach to your work.”
In The New York Times, Nick Bilton offers several reasons why so much wearable technology has not worn so well. “First, almost all of them require a smartphone to be fully operational … a wearable becomes yet another gadget that we need to lug around. There’s also the fact that most of these devices are quite ugly … Then there’s the unpleasant fact that the technology just doesn’t seem ready … But the biggest issue may be the price … consumers just can’t justify buying a smartwatch that costs nearly as much as a smartphone.”
Geoffrey A. Fowler, writing in The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile extols the virtues of the Mio, which uses a metric called Personal Activity Intelligence (PAI), which tracks heart patterns rather than foot movement. “Mio’s hardware isn’t as elegant as others on the market, but PAI is the best example yet of how wearables can turn data into tailored, actionable advice, and hopefully longer lives,” Geoffrey writes.
“Unlike step counting, where you start over each morning at zero, PAI runs on a rolling weekly tally … Everyone’s PAI is a little different, by design. The formula takes into account your age, gender, resting heart rate, max heart rate and other unique signals. It’s personal Big Data,” Geoffrey writes.