They are a public company and the strategy was very VERY public. You can listen to the earnings calls. It's not like they wanted to hide it. It actually went EXTREMLY well for a year or so. I agree that it was a bad decision, but the logic wasn't stupid. Just a misunderstanding of what made the company valuable.
I always wonder why the monday morning quarterbacks who think these are such obvious choices in the moment aren't millionaires though. If it was that easy to see it was not good at the time, just buy some puts or short the stock or buy the stock of a competitor. Free money for 15 minutes of reading an article!
I'm not saying that I could do better but just curious about this specific case. I mean, I know that in the web bubble most of us thought that what COVID-19 brought was there to stay forever (shift to mostly online, 100% white collar remote work etc) but from a corporation like Nike which should have a different point of view, I would expect a different line of reasoning as well.
And I've been in enough companies to see that the pitches about "we are going to do this next" are always painted as a bright future and there is no "if it goes wrong we will do X instead", because it will never go wrong.
It went great because they started it in the pandemic when essentially all shopping shifted to online, and at that point, why not buy direct from Nike vs online from Macy’s or whatever.
I totally see why they thought the strategy was a hit but hindsight is 20/20 and it seems now that this was a correlation and causation mixup. They should have been asking why they were losing mindshare to their competition instead of asking how they could wring more profit out of the same customer base.
Also, ironically, the pitch was supposed to be a win win: If we cut out the middleman and stop spending so much on sponsoring athletes and sports, we can pass those savings on to customers, bringing us more sales at lower cost to consumers and higher margin for us because our cost structure is lower.
Turns out people don't always want lower-priced products.
Huh? I would echo the sentiment of you recalibrating what a normie is. This is a crazy take. I would guess that fair amount of people have no idea that Facebook rebranded to Meta, let alone what goes on in and around the company.
Meta products are entertainment, not water and power, comparing them to that is so overblown.
Plenty of people don't use IG or Facebook at all, and plenty of people just go on every now and then and enjoy the experience and leave.
Here's what I found when I googled "polling on Mark Zuckerberg":
> Roughly 54% to 70% of Americans express an unfavorable view of him
> Zuckerberg is viewed negatively by both major parties. Democrats and Republicans alike report high rates of disapproval regarding his influence and leadership.
> Dislike for the Meta CEO spans all age groups, though younger adults display particularly high skepticism.
YOU GUYS are so far out of touch to say normies don't hate and distrust the people behind Meta. They will use the products but this is not a positive reflection on the brand at all.
You are playing games. You implied that people's feelings for FB would prevent people from being the target audience.
Clearly that isn't true.
Now you're hyper focusing on how people feel about FB, and not whether it precludes them from being the target market. Convenient.
And before you respond saying "I never said they aren't the target market, just that they hate FB". To which I say, reread the damn conversation. You're obviously drawing a relation between hating FB and not being the target market. Even if you're now scrambling to back out of that claim because we've shown you 3 billion reasons why you're wrong.
Also, if "The Odyssey" is coming out and and you know I love Nolan, and Netflix is getting paid to promote it, would you rather them NOT recommend that to me?
These types of things are natrually constrained. If you send me too many ads, or bad content, I leave. So you are incentived to do a good job.
You could make the argument that you just need to be incrementally better than the other streaming service, but then you are giving away potential advantage and profit.
If that's true, people will leave for bigger libraries and netflix will have to rotate into quantity. That hasn't been the case so far (net flix is killing everyone in terms of subscribers/growth YoY), but doesnt mean it can't be, especially with the paramount merger potentially going through.
I think it's been a little bit proven that it's more about specific shows (friends, seinfeld, how to lose a guy in 10 days, etc) that just mass amount of quantity, but we'll see
That's the whole problem. If you have tons (100s of thousands or more) of labels, then you have "structured" data, but how do you correctly classify that scraped item into the correct label?
Putting all the labels into the LLM is super expensive per call when you have millions of items to classify.
You can't reduce the number of labels becasue they are correctly organizes/structured. This class of problem exists in many different domains.
Or just put in more than 10 words of effort, e.g. a better prompt and bounding boxed prompt edits, and all that stuff would be fixed now.
reply