 |
|
|
|||||
Im always amazed at how easily we give our time to others without thinking, and then are mad later when it was wasted. What exactly did we think was going to happen? That everyone was going to be prepared, productive, and appreciative? Time has become the ultimate luxurywe never have enough of it, and are jealous of those that have it. For too many of us, endless meetings, back-to-back emails, and constant interruptions leave little room for focused, meaningful work. Additionally, in our effort to be nice or generous, we offer our time even when were running on empty. But what if I told you that much of this time theft could be prevented with a little more mindfulness, intent, and discipline? Warren Buffett is a great example: He once shared his calendar with Bill Gates, and it was practically empty, which Gates found shocking. But Buffett was making a pointthat one of the key reasons for his success is that he fiercely guards his time, knowing that people will take your time if you let them. Time is a nonrenewable resource, and we should be stingier with it. You can lose money and get it back, but you can never get it back lost time. Yet every day, unnecessary meetings and unproductive engagements hijack our calendars, diminishing both our productivity and morale. So why do we let it happen? Its time to rethink how we treat time: not just our own, but the time of our teams and colleagues. Time as a Strategic Resource Let me introduce you to the concept of time crime that is emerging in workplaces today. Time is now considered an asset, and too many people are wasting it. Its misused through poorly planned meetings, rambling conversations, and vague scheduling. This has an impact not just on productivity but missed opportunity, and as a result orgs have made bold moves to create strict policies on things like meetings. Theyve made it part of their culture change to treat time with respect, with scheduling a meeting becoming a last resort. The idea is about mutually respecting timeyours, and others. In 2023, Shopify ruthlessly cut all recurring meetings with more than two people, resulting in 322,000 fewer hours spent in meetings in one year. Can you imagine that impact? What would you do with all that found time? For Shopify, it meant more focus and more time for deep work. Alan Rankin, chief procurement officer at Moderna, shared an aha moment he had around time management, and it changed how he operates: I was invited to a monthly operations meeting where many senior leaders in the company attended. I was really struggling to make a meaningful contribution to the meeting. I started to put myself under pressure to contribute more and say intelligent things. Then I had the lightbulb moment: Is this what is best for the company or is this all about me? I decided to stop attending and see if anything in my universe changed. And guess what? Nothing did. And now I have more time. Revelations like this are impactfuland essential. While there are many ways time gets stolen, meetings are usually the biggest culprit. NBCUniversal, for example, has learned that fewer participants in meetings often lead to more productive discussions. For many business units, meetings include only the minimum number of people necessary to achieve the objectives, resulting in faster decisions and more meaningful input from all attendees. The Power of Less: Fewer People = More Productivity The power of “less” applies to emails, reports, committees, and most certainly, to meetings. Ive never heard an organization tell me they wished their teams had more of any of these. Have you? Less equals focus, especially during meetings. When too many people are involved, important voices get drowned out. By keeping meetings lean and mean, you create an environment where only people that can contribute meaningfully attend, resulting in less distractions and more deep work. Atlassian lets employees question the necessity of every meeting. To decrease meetings, they use tools like Slack to handle simple status updates, letting teams focus more on high-value work. The message is to use your time with intention, and to only hold meetings when absolutely necessary. Stealing time is unacceptable. When meetings are held less often, they become a valuable commodity, where teams become more focused and disciplined with peoples time. Even Google has developed guidelines to make meetings productive and purposeful. Because innovation depends on it. Their meetings are short, focused, and to-the-point, with strict rules about minimizing unnecessary participants. The goal is to protect employees’ time by stopping lengthy, irrelevant discussions that take away from deep work. These guidelines help teams be mindful of how they spend their time, as well as how they use the time of others. Respecting Time Equals Respecting People Employees who feel their time is valued are more likely to be committed to their work. Time is, after all, one of the most tangible forms of respect you can show someone. At my own company, FutureThink, we regularly “uninvite” people to meetings, emphasizing that they dont need to attend the meeting and can use their time for more urgent work. People love being uninvited because it feels like a giftand our culture emphasizes that you need to use your time wisely; if you waste it on the unnecessarythats on you. The goal is for people to understand that time is something worth protecting. Guard Time Like Its Your Most Valuable Asset Stop letting your calendar be overrun with things you do need to really do, and start using your time with intent. The next time someone asks for your time, ask yourself: Is this meeting truly necessary? Is this the best use of my time, and their time? Doing this will not only protect your own productivity but also foster a culture where everyones time is treated as the invaluable resource it truly is.
Category:
E-Commerce
Remember how much fun it was to shop on the internet a decade ago? If you visited the Goop website, Gwyneth Paltrow might introduce you to her favorite $75 candle or $95 vibrator. If you were looking for a lasagne recipe, you could find a good one on Food52along with recommendations for a baking dish hand-selected by former New York Times food editor Amanda Hesser. Watch-lovers flocked to Hodinkee to see what founder Benjamin Clymer thought of the cool new Longines or Omega timepiece (with a handy link to buy it, in case you really liked it). At their peak, around five years ago, all of these media companies landed millions of dollars in venture capital and had valuations well into the nine figures. Legacy media ranging from the New Yorker to Vogue took a page from their book, too, linking to products you could buy directly from the pieces published on their websites. Gwyneth Paltrow and Kerry Washington speak during a live recording of the Goop podcast, September 19, 2019 [Photo: Stefanie Keenan/Getty Images for Goop] But over the last two years, this generation of content-to-commerce pioneers has fizzled out. Goop has gone through multiple rounds of layoffs and its website is a shell of what it used to be. In 2024, Hodinkee was sold at a fraction of its former valuation. And last month, Food52 declared bankruptcy and is headed towards a fire sale. It’s worth asking what happened to these startupsand what comes next, as AI transforms the way we shop online. The rise and fall of Food52 The rise and fall of Food52 offers insight into what went wrong with the content-to-commerce model. Founders Amanda Hesser and Merrill Stubbs had come from the traditional food media. They saw a gap between legacy magazines like Bon Appétit and Food & Wine, which prioritized the perspectives of elite chefs, and amateur food blogs, which were flooding the internet. With Food52, they invited home cooks to submit recipes, which their team would test. The best ones would be featured on the site, alongside beautiful photography. The concept resonated and site traffic grew quickly. Initially, the company generated revenue from advertising and brand partnerships. But in 2013, the site launched a shop that sold kitchenware and artisanal ingredients that Food52 staffers recommended. This approach made sense says Dan Frommer, founder of The New Consumer. One of the biggest problems with shopping online is the overwhelming volume of products available. First generation content-to-commerce startups offered expertise and a point of view, which gave them the authority to recommend products. “They were offering curation, which was a valuable service at the time,” he says. No-Bake Granola Bars from the Food52 Vegan’s cookbook by Gena Hamshaw, ca. 2015. [Photo: Melissa Renwick/Toronto Star/Getty Images] Goop and Hodinkee followed similar trajectories. They began as blogs centered around a particular perspective and aspirational lifestyle, driven by their well-known founders. Over time, they built up enough trust with their readers to sell them products. (Food52 declined to comment on the story. We reached out to Goop and Hodinkee, but neither got back to us by the time of publication.) In 2019 and 2020, investors still believed this might be the future of retail. They pumped millions into their startups to grow their audiences, start new revenue streams like events, and start their own product lines. Food52, for instance, was valued at $300 million in 2021, after an $80 million investment from TCG (which also invested in Hodinkee). But this funding may have inadvertently led to their decline. With the influx of cash, these startups had a mandate to scale, but they all struggled to grow sustainably. By the start of this year, Food52 had declared bankruptcy. America’s Test Kitchen has reportedly agreed to buy it for $6.5 million, of which $3.42 million is Chapter 11 financing. Frommer argues that there were many idiosyncratic reasons why each of these companies failed. Food52, for instance, appeared to have bitten off more than it could chew. In 2019, it launched its own in-house kitchenware line; it also acquired two entirely new companies, the Danish cookware brand Dansk and the lighting brand Schoolhouse. “There was a lot wrong with the business,” Frommer says. “There were failures in strategy and execution.” But taking a step back, it’s clear that there were also broader issues with the content-to-commerce model that affected all of these businesses. What Didn’t Workand What Did Theseearly content-to-commerce platforms accurately identified that consumers were overwhelmed with the avalanche of products available on the internetand they also knew that taste could be monetized. Still, there were flaws with their model. For one thing, consumers often didn’t come to these websites with the intent to shop. They were there to take in the content: the recipes, listicles of clean beauty products, or a conversation with Ed Sheeran about his favorite watches. Only a small proportion of consumers would feel compelled to buy a product. Often, when a publication’s famous founder recommended a product, it would sell better; but over time, as the sites grew to have teams of writers, the sites no longer conveyed the distinct sensibilities of Paltrow, Hesser, or Clymer. Then there were the economics. It is hard to make money by marketing other brand’s products. These sites generated small amounts of revenue by selling products at a markup on their online stores or by making a commission by driving the customer to another brand’s website. All of these companies realized that a more profitable route was to make their own products, which they all did, from Goop’s beauty and fashion lines to Hodinkee’s watch straps and limited edition collaborations with brands like Longines. But this meant building out teams with expertise in designing and sourcing products, which was also a major investment. Finally, there was all the competition. Other media sites quickly realized they, too, could create a new revenue stream by linking to products. And some began doing it much more effectively. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times acquired Wirecutter for $30 million. Unlike Food52, Goop, and Hodinkee, Wirecutter was designed to help consumers at the moment when they were ready to buy a product. New York Magazine built its own product recommendation site called The Strategist, which has a similar model. “Content that really drives commerce is not just ambient recommendations around fun articles,” says Frommer. “It’s really purpose-driven content designed to help the consumer solve a problem. The majority of traffic to Wirecutter and The Strategist happens at the moment of needthey promote their humidifier recommendations when the winter air is dry.” The content-to-commerce model hasn’t disappeared; it has shape shifted. There are now massive players like Wirecutter that dominate the landscape. And at the other end of the spectrum, there are armies of individual content creators who recommend products to their followers on Substack, Instagram, or TikTok. It’s just the middle of the market that has collapsed. But as with everything on the internet, change is constant. And everything we know about how to shop online is about to get transformed by AI, which is already where many people begin their shopping journey. In many ways, AI agents are the ultimate blending of content and commerce: They offers product recommendations, personalized to the user, presented within a conversation. But what’s missing from AI is a unique point of view or sensibilitywhich is what the early content-to-commerce players excelled in. In an AI-driven shopping future, the winners wont be the smartest algorithms. It’ll be the ones that blend data with something that feels like taste.
Category:
E-Commerce
When a stranger smiles at you, you smile back. That is why, when Sir Ian McKellen (The Lord of the Rings, X-Men, Amadeus) walked on the stage in front of me, looked me straight in the eye, and smiled at me, I smiled back. It was the polite thing to do. It was also completely unnecessary, because McKellen was not actually on the stage in front of me. He smiled at me through a pair of special glasses. The reason for this unusual social interaction is called An Ark, which bills itself as the first play to be created in mixed-reality. Using Magic Leap glasses, the play blends the physical world with the digital realm, creating an unusually intimate theater experience. Opening January 21 at The Shedthe arts center in Manhattans Hudson YardsAn Ark tells a story of humanity through the perspective of four unnamed characters speaking to you from the afterlife. The charactersplayed by McKellen, Golda Rosheuvel of Bridgerton fame, Rosie Sheehy (a Welsh stage and screen actor, known for her work with the Royal Shakespeare Company,) and Arinzé Kene (a British actor and playwright who originated the lead role of Bob Marley in the West End musical Get Up, Stand Up!)appear to sit in a semi-circle that you, a member of the audience, are part of. From the second they appear on stage, their eyes peer straight into your soul as they talk directly to you for the length of the play, which lasts 47 minutes. The illusion, which some might find disconcerting, is that each member of the audience is the center of the attention. In a purely physical world, this conceit would be impossible to realize unless the play were performed privately, one audience member at a time. But with the help of technology, it was convincing enough to elicit an unconscious smile from meuntil my brain caught up to the trickery and the magic spell broke. [Photo: Marc J. Franklin/courtesy The Shed] The making of a mixed-reality play An Ark was written by British playwright Simon Stephens, who is perhaps most famous for his stage adaptation of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, and directed by Sarah Frankcom, a British director known for her work at the Royal Exchange and National Theatre. The mastermind is Todd Eckert, who both conceived of and produced the play. [Photo: Marc J. Franklin/courtesy The Shed] Eckert built a decades-long career in music journalism, film, and dance before embracing technology for its ability to liberate storytelling. In 2012, he joined Magic Leap as director of content development, where he helped pioneer mixed-reality hardware. Four years later, in 2016, he founded a mixed-reality studio called Tin Drum, bought 400 Magic Leap headsets, which he owns to this day, and set out to change what theater could be. First came The Life, a mixed-reality project with his long-time partner, the artist Marina Abramović. Then came Kagami, an ethereal, mixed-reality concert by the Japanese composer and pianist Ryuichi Sakamoto, who collaborated with Eckert to create the show before he passed away. Kagami, which first premiered at The Shed in 2023, and has since toured globally, was so dazzling that I wept when I attended a performance in Manhattan. Eckert is immensely proud of the work, but he says An Ark was even more ambitious. Nobody had ever captured four people simultaneously, he says of the underlying technology. [Photo: Tin Drum] The team gathered in London, where they rehearsed An Ark like you would rehearse a traditional play, from beginning to end, with no interruption. Then, they flew to Grenoble, in southeastern France, where 4DViews, the company that designed the volumetric video system that can capture all four actors in full 3D, is headquartered. In Grenoble, they filmed the play under the scrutiny of 48 cameras, including a cluster of two cameras that stood in for the eventual audience members. We ultimately got three full takes, Eckert recalls of the shoot, which took place in an entirely green room he’s previously likened to Kermit land. After three months of data processing, the play was ready for opening night. [Photo: Marc J. Franklin/courtesy The Shed] What’s next for theater? Theater is becoming an increasingly endangered art form. Since the pandemic, audiences have been slower to return to in-person performances, production costs have climbed, and public funding has shrunk. Across the country, regional theaters have been cutting back seasons and are still struggling to recover, while Broadway budgets now routinely reach into the tens of millions. As a result, ticket prices have risen, often putting live theater out of reach for younger audiences and first-time attendees. There is an entire community of people who feel art is not being made for them, says Daniel Sherman, a San Francisco-based artist who has been producing theater since 2010, and who also recently finished a play in mixed-reality (though it hasn’t been staged yet.) If we can add a tech component, and meet people where they are, maybe this could be the thing that brings in younger audiences, he says. One of the obvious promises of the mixed-reality technology is it could make theater more accessible. With no actors to tour, no sets to build or transport, and far fewer recurring labor and logistics costs tied to global touring, a mixed-reality play should be a lot more affordable than a traditional production. (A ticket for An Ark costs around $45.) There are other benefits, too. As producers around the world continue to rethink the genre, technology is increasingly being used not as a cost-cutting tool, but as a way to stretch what theater can do. In the Broadway production of The Picture of Dorian Gray, director Kip Williams used live video capture to allow a single performer (Sarah Snook) to inhabit multiple characters at once in ways that would be difficult to achieve through traditional staging alone. And in Briar & Rose, an augmented-reality childrens play that ran across Europe, Glitch studio combined physical performance with augmented reality technology, placing audiences inside a layered narrative space rather than in front of a fixed stage. [Photo: Marc J. Franklin/courtesy The Shed] Still, some have been skeptical of technologys potential for years. Sarah Frankcom, An Ark‘s very own director, used to be one of them. In fact, when Eckert first approached her, she refused the job, arguing, as Eckert recalls, that she was not interested in technology; she was interested in humans in a room. What made her change her mind? She experienced Kagami through the glasses. I was intrigued by how it put an audience in a different relationship to a live experience and the possibilities of its intimacy, she told me in an email. I was excited by the way it could summon up a communal experience. Frankcom says that working with this particular technology has reframed her ideas of what theater could be. This feels like the beginning of a new form, she wrote. And whilst there is no live acting in a traditional sense, Ive been very struck by how much an audience interact with the actors and how they laugh, cry and reach to hold their hands. [Photo: Marc J. Franklin/courtesy The Shed] What do we gain and what do we lose with technology? Is a play still a play if there are no live actors on stage? Perhaps that’s a matter of semantics. Or perhaps it helps to consider a definition of theater that doesn’t focus on the physicality of the experience, but rather the emotions that it conjures up. The technology promises cinematic realism, and it mostly delivers. While some glitches made the actors’ arms and feet flicker and stretch into their surroundings (glitches Eckert says he could fix if he had unlimited funds) their faces looked as real as they could through a pair of eyeglasses. The team also fine-tuned the distance between the actors and audience members so the experience feels as intimate as it would in real life. (You can’t ever see all four actors at the same time, forcing you to turn your head to stay engaged.) But there is only so much realism to conjure when all it takes to break the spell is to peek underneath the glasses and see a room full of bespectacled people staring into nothing. [Photo: Marc J. Franklin/courtesy The Shed] I like to think I would have felt the story in my bones if only the actors had delivered it to me in real life. But I will never be able to put my theory to the test because this exact play, in this exact configuration, could never be performed without technology. What can we do that’s not possible in any other way? Eckert first wondered when brainstorming what the play could be with Simmons. The idea, he says, was never to supplant traditional theater but rather to broaden its potential and having actors of such great caliber address audience members in such an intimate setting accomplishes just that. Art, I think, is ultimately a way of making sense of things that don’t make sense, Eckert told me after the show. If Ian McKellen ushered me off stage to guide me into the afterlife, it would not make sense without a strong sense of suspended disbelief. But here, in the hazy world that only mixed-reality can afford, it does.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||