 |
|
|
|||||
Theres a quiet unraveling happening in business. You feel it in the glassy eyes of employees. You see it in customers ghosting once-beloved brands. You hear it in leadership meetings when someone asks, Why arent people sticking around? and no one has a real answer. The truth is that brand loyalty is fading. Not because people are distracted. Because theyre disillusioned. And no, a new logo wont fix it. The Belief Gap There was a time, not long ago, when brand was a kind of secular faith. We believed in Nike, Apple, or Patagonia. These brands stood for something, or at least they made us feel like they did. They gave shape to aspiration. They helped us orient ourselves in a world that often felt chaotic. But faith, as theologians have long known, requires more than symbols. And trust, once broken, is a difficult thing to restore. What used to bind uscustomer to brand, employee to companyis fraying. Not because people are fickle, but because brands became false idols. The modern brand machine promised meaning and delivered margin. They said people first, but meant until the next earnings call. Todays consumers are savvier, and employees are more vocal. Neither will tolerate brands that say one thing and do another. Theyre not impressed by slogans. They want to know what your company actually stands forand if your actions align with that claim. Theyre asking, Do I see myself in this? Do I trust this? Does this matter to me? And if the answer is no, theyre gone. The Quiet Collapse of Brand Meaning According to McKinsey, three out of four consumers have changed brands in the past two years. Meanwhile, research from MIT Sloan reveals that toxic culturenot payis the number-one predictor of employee attrition. Its not just bad bosses or weak onboarding. Its something deeper: a breach of belief. The breach happens quietly. The brand deck claims innovation, but inside, risk is punished. The values on the wall say people first, but layoffs come before leadership cuts. The company celebrates diversity in its marketing while sidelining it in its hiring practices. People notice. And once they do, no creative or bold rebrand can undo it. This isnt a customer service issue or an HR problem. Its a crisis of meaning. Brands Built for Yesterday Cant Survive Tomorrow For decades, brand loyalty followed a predictable pattern: identify a target audience, claim a point of view, build a story, develop an identity, and launch. Then, pour money into media and hope the message sticks. Meanwhile, culture, what it feels like to actually work there, was a separate track, typically owned by HR, reduced to perks and performance reviews. In an era where every employee has a microphone and every customer has a camera, the gap between what a company says and how it behaves is visible. Its searchable. Its shareable. The line between internal and external is invisible. The pandemic, political polarization, economic volatility, and a new generation of employees and customers have shifted the calculus. Today, people dont just want good products or clever taglines; they also want meaningful experiences. And when the story you tell the market doesnt match the one your team lives every day, brand loyalty dissolves. The Brands That Still Have Devotion? Theyve Earned It. Trader Joes, for all its cult-favorite snacks, has never been about product alone. Its about people. The staff doesnt feel like theyre trapped in a fluorescent prison. Theyre trusted, empowered, often joyful. That energy transfers. The experience feels human. It makes loyalty feel easy. Costco didnt build its billion-dollar business by playing it safe. It pays better wages than nearly anyone else in retail. Its benefits rival some tech companies. It knows that loyalty at scale starts with respect, not perks. And then theres Chobani. Its founder, Hamdi Ulukaya, didnt just democratize Greek yogurt. He redefined what it means to lead with conscience, giving refugees jobs and equity, turning profit into purpose without ever preaching about it. The brands moral backbone is the brand. None of these brands engineered loyalty. They didnt split-test their way into affection. They simply aligned what they stood for with how they behaved. The Old Brand Playbook? Burn It. You know the one: Identify your audience (our audience is . . . everyone!). Conduct market research regarding their preferences, values, and unmet needs, (probably just a hunch, its gotta be a millennial). Stake out a position (throw in a cheesy tagline for good measure). Develop your brand story (two people found an alpaca farm, cut out the middle man, and brought you a better poncho). Develop your visuals (fingers crossed this looks good for as cheaply as possible). Throw lots of money at marketing (nothing like wasting a lot of money to market a bad brand!). This formula used to work when people asked fewer questions. But today, a brand that only looks good is a brand thats already behind. Today, you cant brand your way out of a broken culture. You cant market your way past mistrust. You cant buy loyalty with a new logo and some values in a pitch deck. Rebuilding Loyalty Is a Leadership Mandate This is no longer a task for the marketing department. Brand loyalty has become a test of leadership and vision. Rebuilding loyalty isnt about going louder; its about going deeper. It starts with asking better questionsand being willing to sit with the answers. Ask your employees: What do we stand for, from your perspective? What do we ignore that truly matters? What would make you proud to work here? Ask your customers: What values should this company embody? Where are we falling short? What would make you proud to buy from us? What change would make you stay? These are not marketing questions. They are questions of identity. What youll find in those answers is not just sentiment, but structure, and a blueprint for rebuilding not just brand loyalty, but brand integrity. Loyalty Isnt Gone. But Its No Longer Passive. Lets stop pretending people are loyal to colors, fonts, or discounts. Theyre loyal to how your company makes them feel, to whether they believe youre worth their time, attention, and energy. The good news? Loyalty is still possible. Its just more discerning. The brands that will win in this new era wont be the noisiest. Theyll be the clearest. The ones who know exactly who theyre customer is and theyll run through brick walls to keep them. People arent loyal to campaigns. Theyre loyal to conviction. So dont just try to win loyalty back. Build something bigger:belief.
Category:
E-Commerce
Every few years, the tires on your car wear thin and need to be replaced. But where does that lost tire material go? The answer, unfortunately, is often waterways, where the tiny microplastic particles from the tires synthetic rubber carry several chemicals that can transfer into fish, crabs, and perhaps even the people who eat them. We are analytical and environmental chemists who are studying ways to remove those microplasticsand the toxic chemicals they carrybefore they reach waterways and the aquatic organisms that live there. Microplastics, macro-problem Millions of metric tons of plastic waste enter the worlds oceans every year. In recent times, tire wear particles (TWPs) have been found to account for about 45% of all microplastics in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Tires shed tiny microplastics as they move over roadways. Rain washes those TWPs into ditches, where they flow into streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans. Along the way, fish, crabs, oysters, and other aquatic life often find these TWPs in their food. With each bite, the fish also consume extremely toxic chemicals that can affect both the fish themselves and whatever creatures eat them. Some fish species, like rainbow trout, brook trout, and coho salmon, are dying from toxic chemicals linked to TWPs. Researchers in 2020 found that more than half of the coho salmon returning to streams in Washington state died before spawning, largely because of 6PPD-Q, a chemical stemming from 6PPD, which is added to tires to help keep them from degrading. But the effects of tire wear particles arent just on aquatic organisms. Humans and animals alike may be exposed to airborne TWPs, especially people and animals who live near major roadways. In a study in China, the same chemical, 6PPD-Q, was also found in the urine of children and adults. While the effects of this chemical on the human body are still being studied, recent research shows that exposure to this chemical could harm multiple human organs, including the liver, lungs, and kidneys. In Oxford, Mississippi, we identified more than 30,000 TWPs in 24 liters of stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots after two rainstorms. In heavy traffic areas, we believe the concentrations could be much higher. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, a states-led coalition, in 2023 recommended identifying and deploying alternatives to 6PPD in tires to reduce 6PPD-Q in the environment. But tire manufacturers say theres no suitable replacement yet. What can communities do to reduce harm? At the University of Mississippi, we are experimenting with sustainable ways of removing TWPs from waterways with accessible and low-cost natural materials from agricultural waste. The idea is simple: Capture the tire wear particles before they reach the streams, rivers, and oceans. In a recent study, we tested pine wood chips and biochara form or charcoal made from heating rice husks in a limited oxygen chamber, a process known as pyrolysisand found they could remove approximately 90% of TWPs from water runoff at our test sites in Oxford. Biochar is an established material for removing contaminants from water due to its large surface area and pores, abundant chemical binding groups, high stability, strong adsorption capacity, and low cost. Wood chips, because of their rich composition of natural organic compounds, have also been shown to remove contaminants. Other scientists have also used sand to filter out microplastics, but its removal rate was low compared with biochar. We designed a biofiltration system using biochar and wood chips in a filter sock and placed it at the mouth of a drainage outlet. Then we collected stormwater runoff samples and measured the TWPs before and after the biofilters were in place during two storms over the span of two months. The concentration of TWPs was found to be significantly lower after the biofilter was in place. The unique elongated and jagged features of tire wear particles make it easy for them to get trapped or entangled in the pores of these materials during a storm event. Even the smallest TWPs were trapped in the intricate network of these materials. Using biomass filters in the future We believe this approach holds strong potential for scalability to mitigate TWP pollution and other contaminants during rainstorms. Since biochar and wood chips can be generated from agricultural waste, they are relatively inexpensive and readily available to local communities. Long-term monitoring studies will be needed, especially in heavy traffic environments, to fully determine the effectiveness and scalability of the approach. The source of the filtering material is also important. There have been some concerns about whether raw farm waste that has not undergone pyrolysis could release organic pollutants. Like most filters, the biofilters would need to be replaced over timewith used filters disposed of properlysince the contaminants build up and the filters degrade. Plastic waste is harming the environment, the food people eat, and potentially human health. We believe biofilters made from plant waste could be an effective and relatively inexpensive, environmentally friendly solution. Boluwatife S. Olubusoye is a PhD candidate in chemistry at the University of Mississippi. James V Cizdziel is a professor of chemistry at the University of Mississippi. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
India is on the moon, S. Somanath, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, announced in August 2023. The announcement meant India had joined the short list of countries to have visited the moon, and the applause and shouts of joy that followed signified that this achievement wasnt just a scientific one, but a cultural one. Over the past decade, many countries have established new space programs, including multiple African nations. India and Israelnations that were not technical contributors to the space race in the 1960s and 70shave attempted landings on the lunar surface. With more countries joining the evolving space economy, many of our colleagues in space strategy, policy ethics, and law have celebrated the democratization of space: the hope that space is now more accessible for diverse participants. We are a team of researchers based across four countries with expertise in space policy and law, ethics, geography, and anthropology who have written about the difficulties and importance of inclusion in space. Major players like the U.S., the European Union, and China may once have dominated space and seen it as a place to try out new commercial and military ventures. Emerging new players in space, like other countries, commercial interests, and nongovernmental organizations, may have other goals and rationales. Unexpected new initiatives from these newcomers could shift perceptions of space from something to dominate and possess to something more inclusive, equitable, and democratic. We address these emerging and historical tensions in a paper published in May 2025 in the journal Nature, in which we describe the difficulties and importance of including nontraditional actors and Indigenous peoples in the space industry. Continuing inequalities among space players Not all countries space agencies are equal. Newer agencies often dont have the same resources behind them that large, established players do. The U.S. and Chinese programs receive much more funding than those of any other country. Because they are most frequently sending up satellites and proposing new ideas puts them in the position to establish conventions for satellite systems, landing sites, and resource extraction that everyone else may have to follow. Sometimes, countries may have operated on the assumption that owning a satellite would give them the appearance of soft or hard geopolitical power as a space nation, and ultimately gain relevance. In reality, student groups of today can develop small satellites, called CubeSats, autonomously, and recent scholarship has concluded that even successful space missions may negatively affect the international relationships between some countries and their partners. The respect a country expects to receive may not materialize, and the costs to keep up can outstrip gains in potential prestige. Environmental protection and Indigenous perspectives Usually, building the infrastructure necessary to test and launch rockets requires a remote area with established roads. In many cases, companies and space agencies have placed these facilities on lands where Indigenous peoples have strong claims, which can lead to land disputes, like in western Australia. Many of these sites have already been subject to human-made changes, through mining and resource extraction in the past. Many sites have been ground zero for tensions with Indigenous peoples over land use. Within these contested spaces, disputes are rife. Because of these tensions around land use, it is important to include Indigenous claims and perspectives. Doing so can help make sure that the goal of protecting the environments of outer space and Earth are not cast aside while building space infrastructure here on Earth. Some efforts are driving this more inclusive approach to engagement in space, including initiatives like Dark and Quiet Skies, a movement that works to ensure that people can stargaze and engage with the stars without noise or sound pollution. This movement and other inclusive approaches operate on the principle of reciprocity: that more players getting involved with space can benefit all. Researchers have recognized similar dynamics within the larger space industry. Some scholars have come to the conclusion that even though the space industry is pay to play, commitments to reciprocity can help ensure that players in space exploration who may not have the financial or infrastructural means to support individual efforts can still access broader structures of support. The downside of more players entering space is that this expansion can make protecting the environmentboth on Earth and beyondeven harder. The more players there are, at both private and international levels, the more difficult sustainable space exploration could become. Even with good will and the best of intentions, it would be difficult to enforce uniform standards for the exploration and use of space resources that would protect the lunar surface, Mars, and beyond. It may also grow harder to police the launch of satellites and dedicated constellations. Limiting the number of satellites could prevent space junk, protect the satellites already in orbit, and allow everyone to have a clear view of the night sky. However, this would have to compete with efforts to expand internet access to all. What is space exploration for? Before tackling these issues, we find it useful to think about the larger goal of space exploration, and what the different approaches are. One approach would be the fast and inclusive democratization of space, making it easier for more players to join in. Another would be a more conservative and slower big player approach, which would restrict who can go to space. The conservative approach is liable to leave developing nations and Indigenous peoples firmly on the outside of a key process shaping humanitys shared future. But a faster and more inclusive approach to space would not be easy to run. More serious players means it would be harder to come to an agreement about regulations, as well as the larger goals for human expansion into space. Narratives around emerging technologies, such as those required for space exploration, can change over time, as people begin to see them in action. Technology that we take for granted today was once viewed as futuristic or fantastical, and sometimes with suspicion. For example, at the end of the 1940s, George Orwell imagined a world in which totalitarian systems used tele-screens and videoconferencing to control the masses. Earlier in the same decade, Thomas J. Watson, then president of IBM, notoriously predicted that there would be a global market for about five computers. We as humans often fear or mistrust future technologies. However, not all technological shifts are detrimental, and some technological changes can have clear benefits. In the future, robots may perform tasks too dangerous, too difficult, or too dull and repetitive for humans. Biotechnology may make life healthier. Artificial intelligence can sift through vast amounts of data and turn it into reliable guesswork. Researchers can also see genuine downsides to each of these technologies. Space exploration is harder to squeeze into one streamlined narrative about the anticipated benefits. The process is just too big and too transformative. To return to the question of whether we should go to space, our team argues that it is not a question of whether or not we should go, but rather a question of why we do it, who benefits from space exploration, and how we can democratize access to broader segments of society. Including a diversity of opinions and viewpoints can help find productive ways forward. Ultimately, it is not necessary for everyone to land on one single narrative about the value of space exploration. Even our team of four researchers doesnt share a single set of beliefs about its value. But bringing more nations, tribes, and companies into discussions around its potential value can help create collaborative and worthwhile goals at an international scale. Timiebi Aganaba is an assistant professor of space and society at Arizona State University. Adam Fish is an associate professor at the School of Arts and Media at UNSW Sydney. Deondre Smiles is an assistant professor of geography at the University of Victoria. Tony Milligan is a research fellow in the philosophy of ethics at King’s College London. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||