 |
|
|
|||||
Its easy to be charmed by the first delivery robot you see. I was driving with my kids in our Chicago neighborhood when I spotted one out the window last year. It was a cheerful pink color, with an orange flag fluttering at about eye level and four black-and-white wheels. It looked almost like an overgrown toy. When I told the kids that it was labeled Coco, they started waving and giggling as it crossed the street. Over the months that followed, spotting Cocos rolling down the sidewalk became one of our favorite games. Then, last fall, another type of delivery robot appeared. This one was green and white, with hardier all-terrain wheels and slow-blinking LED eyes. My kids and I tried to read the name printed on its side as it idled across the street: Peggy? Polly? I later learned that the green newcomer was a Coco competitor made by a company called Serve Robotics. Every Serve robot is christened with its own individual moniker. At first, my interactions with the robots were mostly polite. One slowed to a stop while my dog cocked his head and sniffed curiously. Another waited patiently while we crossed Lincoln Avenue on our daily walk home from school, giving my stroller right of way on the ramp at the curb. In principle, they seemed like an improvement over double-parked delivery drivers and careening e-bikes. But some of my neighbors were having more negative experiences. Josh Robertson, who lives around the corner from me with his wife and two young children, was unnerved enough by a standoff with a robot that he decided to start a petition: No Sidewalk Bots. Thus far, more than 3,300 people have signed, with nearly one-third of those submitting an incident report. Through the incident field, Robertson has heard about feet being run overa Serve robot weighs 220 pounds and can carry 15 gallonsnear-collisions, unwelcome noise, blocked entryways, and more. In one case, a man required stitches around his eye after stumbling into a robots visibility flag. Sidewalks are for people, Robertson says. Vehicles, in general, should be in the streets. Robertsons petition, the first so far in the cities where Coco and Serve operate, has revealed a groundswell of frustration over the strategically cute autonomous vehicles. In conversations with the CEOs of Coco and Serve, I got a close-up look at the arguments in favor of delivery robots, which the companies say are better suited to short-distance deliveries than 2-ton cars. If they have their way, whats happening where I live will soon be playing out across dozens of cities as these well-capitalized startups seek to deploy thousands of their sidewalk bots. But in a matter of months, my neighborhoods robots have arguably gone from novelty to nuisance. Silicon Valley startups are good at launching bright ideas, but bad at estimating their collateral damage. Are our sidewalks destined to be their next victim? From cute to concern In early December, around the same time the petition started to get local media coverage and gain momentum, I found myself sympathizing for the first time with the petitioners point of view. I was running an errand on a sidewalk that was crusted on one side with a thick layer of dirty snow when I noticed a Serve robot named Shima inching forward in my direction. It stopped as I approached, per Serves protocols. But in order to pass it by without stepping onto the snow, I had to navigate an inches-wide lane of space. If I had been pushing a wagon or a stroller, I wouldnt have fit. The tree-lined sidewalks in my neighborhood are among the reasons I love living here. Outside my front door, near DePaul University, there is a constant stream of activity: bedraggled undergrads, eager dogs, bundled babies, dedicated runners. Within a 10-minute walking radius, I can find coffee, ice cream, playgrounds, vintage shopping, two Michelin-starred restaurants, my doctor, and my dentist. I began to worry that delivery robots would change Lincoln Parks sidewalks for the worse. Why delivery robots are suddenly everywhere In the U.S., startups have been experimenting with delivery robots for close to a decade. Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the first were deployed in San Francisco. By 2017, the Bay Area city had become a hotbed for robot innovationand residents frustration. In December of that year, city lawmakers passed an unusually restrictive policy limiting companies to deploying just three robots and requiring that a human chaperone accompany them. But the idea of sidewalk-based robots remained attractive to both entrepreneurs and delivery companies. Zach Rash and Brad Squicciarini founded Coco in 2020; as UCLA undergrads, they had built research robots to assess transportation and accessibility issues on campus. The following year, Uber spun Serve Robotics out of Postmates (which it had acquired for $2.65 billion to bolster its Uber Eats business), installing Ali Kashani, who had led Postmates X, as CEO. The delivery economy is booming, with three in four restaurant orders now eaten outside of the restaurant itself. For eateries and the platforms that enable their deliveries, robots offer a way around the labor costs and unpredictability associated with drivers. In an investor presentation from last year, Serve projected that its cost of delivery, with increased scale and autonomy, could be just $1 per trip. Mass adoption of delivery robots is now possible because of recent technology advancements, says Rash, Cocos CEO, as he ticks off the list. We have Nvidia compute on the vehicles thats designed for robotics. Battery capacity has gotten a lot better, so you can drive multiple days without needing to recharge. Then, we have really robust supply chains around wheels, motors, motor controllersa lot of the basic stuff you need to drive these things. Put it all together, and Coco aims to operate a global fleet of 10,000-plus vehicles in select U.S. cities and overseas locations like Helsinki. Were delivering hot food, so [the robot] has to be able to get from point A to point B incredibly reliably every single time while maintaining a really low cost, Rash says. Though Coco, like Serve, is only as wide as the shoulder width of an average adult, it can tote four grocery bags or even eight large pizzas. It can fit all the types of things people need delivered, says Rash, but its incredibly compact, its safe, its energy efficient, and I think its the best way to shuttle stuff around our cities. For now, that stuff consists almost entirely of restaurant deliveries. Both Coco and Serve have partnerships with Uber Eats and DoorDash. But the vision for the two startups extends far beyond burgers and burritos. Someday our kids are going to look back and think how weird it was that a person had to be attached to every package that comes to our front door every day, says Serves Kashani, who believes delivery robots true transformative potential lies in last-mile delivery. I ordered a pair of climbing shoes for my daughter, and it was the wrong size, he says. It took two days to come, and then I had to deal with the reverse logistics of shipping i back and waiting for the next pair. Well, instead of ordering from Amazon, I could have ordered from a local store. [A delivery robot] could have shown up with two, three sizes. The robot could have waited while we tried the shoes and taken back the ones that didnt fit. So you have all these new types of things that people can do that werent possible before because last-mile was just too inefficient and expensive. Serve started 2025 with roughly 100 robots. By December, it had built 2,000. Thats a point where it makes sense for the Walmarts of the world to want to integrate because now theres a fleet they can access, Kashani says, noting that Serves robots can accommodate more than 80% of Walmarts SKUs. How Coco and Serve approach safety Coco and Serve, along with competitors like Starship (which raised a $50 million Series C last October and announced at the time it planned to have 12,000 robots by 2027), are all, in a sense, bets on autonomy. Behind the scenes, human operators are training the robots and stepping in to resolve problems. But the success of the model ultimately hinges on how well the vehicles learn to navigate neighborhoods on their own. Robot companies often point out that unlike self-driving cars, bots can usually just hit the brakes to de-escalate an encounter or avoid a collision. Its usually appropriate to stop, right? A car cant just stop; you might cause an accident, says Rash, acknowledging, though, that the sidewalk is a much less structured environment with a lot more chaos. If my robot stops in the middle of a sidewalk, nothing bad happens, echoes Kashani, adding that Serve robots have thousands of times less kinetic energy than a car. That also gives us some affordances. Because we are moving more slowly, we have more time to think. So we dont need as expensive of sensors, for example, or as many computers to achieve the same thing [as a self-driving car]. But despite those advantages, combined with years of training data, robots are still making mistakes. Social media abounds with robot bloopersand worse. In one recent example, a high-speed passenger train in Miami mowed down a delivery robot stopped at a crossing on the tracks. Stopping, in that case, was fatal to the robot. In my own experience, one of the challenges pedestrians encounter with robots is simply their unpredictability. Cocos robots tend to drive more smoothly, perhaps a result of the startups choice to have human pilots more involved. “Coco has been operating in Chicago for over a year with strong community support and without any major incidents or safety concerns,” Rash says. “Safety and community partnership are our top priorities.” Serves robots, in contrast, are more reliant on lidar and AI; their stilted driving often reminds me of the remote-controlled toy car my son used to drive as a toddler. A Serve spokesperson tells Fast Company: We are working closely with city officials and local stakeholders to ensure responsible deployments, and we are committed to being a positive, safe, and respectful presence in the communities we serve. Knowing that the robot is designed to cede to pedestrians is little comfort when its jerking back and forth right in front of you. Whats next for Chicago Robot deployment in Chicago is still, technically, part of a pilot program. Two city agencies, the Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection and the Chicago Department of Transportation, are jointly involved in licensing and assessment. If the City Council doesnt renew the pilot, Coco and Serves licenses will expire in spring 2027. This week, one city alderman began soliciting feedback from his constituents as Coco and Serve seek to expand into other Chicago neighborhoods. Robertson, who created the anti-bots petition, is calling for an immediate halt to the program. The delivery robots promised benefits are appealing, he acknowledges, from reduced emissions to lower congestion. But I think we should be skeptical [of those claims] and make sure were taking a data-driven approach, he says. What if robot trips replace bike trips instead of car trips? Or what if opening our sidewalks to these little vehicles leaves the total number of trips in the street unchanged? We need data. Then Chicagoans will be able to decide for ourselves if thats how we want to tackle emissions and street congestion. Robertson also raises the problem of enshittification, a term coined by author and journalist Cory Doctorow in 2022 to describe the perhaps inevitable degradation of online platforms over time as they seek to wring greater profits from their users. Eventually, these robot companies, even if they do save consumers a buck or two right now on delivery fees, theyve got to make a return for their investors, people like Sam Altman, he says. (OpenAI cofounder and CEO Altman has invested in multiple rounds of Cocos funding; last spring, OpenAI and Coco announced a partnership that will make use of Cocos real-world data.) Already, ads supplement Serves revenue, turning some robots into rolling billboards and inserting the commercial into the public way. Last month in Chicago was bitterly cold and snowy, the kind of weather that drains robot batteries and presents obstacles to even all-terrain robot wheels. After growing accustomed to seeing Coco and Serve on a daily basis, I found myself wondering whether they were even attempting to brave the frigid January sidewalks. But I cant say that I missed them.
Category:
E-Commerce
Burnout is best understood as a work-related psychological syndrome arising from sustained emotional and interpersonal strain. It has three core components: emotional exhaustion, characterized by chronic affective depletion; depersonalization, in which work becomes alienating and psychologically distancing rather than engaging; and reduced professional efficacy, marked by declining confidence, poorer self-appraisals, and a loss of self-worth. Importantly, burnout is not the same as stress. Rather, it is a pattern of responses to work stressors, and can also be distinguished from depression by its work-specific context. Burnout is best assessed via self-report questionnaires (psychometrics), and the below statements provide a simple checklist for evaluating its three components. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} 1. Emotional exhaustion (energy depletion) I feel emotionally drained by my work. By the end of the workday, I feel used up or wiped out. I wake up feeling tired at the thought of another day at work. I feel I have nothing left to give emotionally at work. 2. Depersonalization (psychological distancing and cynicism) I have become more cynical or negative about my job. I feel detached or emotionally distant from my work. I am less interested in what my job means or contributes. I find myself being more irritable, blunt, or indifferent with colleagues or clients. 3. Reduced professional efficacy (poor self-evaluation and self-perceived impact) I feel that I am not accomplishing worthwhile things at work. I doubt my effectiveness or competence more than I used to. I feel less confident in my ability to handle my job well. Even when I work hard, it feels like it does not make much difference. A workplace epidemic As with most modern workplace malaise, precise prevalence figures are elusive. Yet multiple surveys show burnout is widespread in the industrialized world (where working conditions are actually better). According to a recent Gallup study, about 48% of employees globally report feeling burned out at work, and three-quarters say they experience burnout at least occasionally. Regional data paints a similar picture. Surveys across Southeast Asia find that 62.9% of workers report high or very high burnout, and U.S. workforce research shows that roughly 31% of employees feel job-related stress often or always, a common precursor to burnout. Younger workers and those with high-demand roles typically report even higher rates, with some employer studies suggesting more than 80% of workers have experienced symptoms such as exhaustion or cognitive strain. Overlapping forces Burnout, like most behavioral outcomes, reflects the interplay of internal and external forces. Individual differences in personality and resilience shape vulnerability, while job design, organizational culture, and leadership determine exposure. The same role can exhaust one employee and leave another largely unscathednot because the pressures differ, but because their capacity to absorb and interpret them does. So, for instance, job control, or the degree to which individuals experience control over their jobs, is a consistent negative predictor of burnout: The less control you feel you have over your job and career, the more at risk of burnout you are. In contrast, when people are given autonomy and resources to perform their jobs, they will experience a sense of control and agency, which in turn increases employee engagement and motivation, and decreases exhaustion and depersonalization. Much like the difference between driving a car and being a passenger stuck in the back seat, having control makes even demanding journeys more tolerable. It increases motivation and engagement while reducing the emotional fatigue and cynicism that sit at the core of burnout. Personality as predictor But no matter how well jobs are designed, individual differences matter a great deal. Most notably, personality is a remarkably consistent predictor of burnout, with lower emotional stability (or higher neuroticism) standing out as a particularly strong risk factorincreasing vulnerability while eroding resilience. Meta-analyses evidence suggests that a substantial share of the variance in burnout symptoms can be traced back to personality, which in turn helps explain downstream outcomes such as job performance, absenteeism, and turnover. The implication is not that burnout is a personal failing or that organizations should select only the psychologically bulletproof. Rather, it is that prevention and support efforts should be unevenly distributed. Some employees are naturally more resilient and will weather demanding environments with little lasting cost. Others, equally capable and motivated, will require greater support, flexibility, and early intervention to avoid being pushed beyond their limits. Treating everyone the same may feel fair, but it is rarely effective. In practice, this means paying closer attention to those most at risk and designing support systems that recognize differences in resilience, rather than assuming that the same pressures will be absorbed equally by all. Situational factors To be sure, some features of work increase the risk of burnout for almost anyone, helping to explain the high prevalence figures reported earlier. These risk factors are, for the most part, intuitive. Chief among them is workload. When demands consistently exceed the capacity of individuals or teams, energy is depleted faster than it can be restored, making recovery impossible. Burnout, in this sense, is less a sudden collapse than a slow failure to recharge Workload problems are not limited to quantity. A mismatch can also arise from the nature of the work itself. Even moderate demands become draining when people lack the skills, inclination, or temperament required to meet them. Emotional labor is especially costly: Roles that require employees to display feelings they do not genuinely experience (perpetual enthusiasm, calm, or empathy on demand) create a form of psychological friction that accelerates exhaustion. Unsurprisingly, workload mismatches are most strongly linked to the exhaustion component of burnout, the first and most common stage of the syndrome. Another powerful driver of burnout is perceived fairness. A serious mismatch between individuals and their work arises when people feel they are treated unjustly. Fairness signals respect and affirms self-worth; its absence does the opposite. Perceptions of unfairness emerge in many familiar forms: inequities in workload or pay, favoritism in promotions, opaque performance evaluations, or grievance processes that deny employees a genuine voice. Such experiences are not merely irritating but emotionally corrosive. They drain energy, erode trust, and weaken the sense of mutual obligation that underpins healthy workplaces. Over time, persistent unfairness accelerates burnout by intensifying emotional exhaustion and fostering cynicism, as individuals disengage not because the work itself is unmanageable, but because the system governing it feels arbitrary or rigged. Likewise, burnout is more likely to take hold when a sense of community at work erodes. People function best when they feel socially connected to colleagues they respect and trust, and when everyday interactions allow for shared recognition, support, and even humor. Such connections do more than provide emotional comfort; they reinforce a sense of belonging and shared purpose. By contrast, work environments that are isolating, transactional, or impersonal deprive employees of an important psychological buffer against stress. Most damaging of all is chronic, unresolved conflict. Persistent tension with colleagues or managers generates ongoing frustration and hostility, undermines trust, and steadily reduces the availability of social support. Over time, the workplace ceases to feel like a community and becomes merely a site of strain, accelerating the path to burnout. The role of engagement A final and often overlooked point concerns the relationship between engagement and burnout. Intuitively, the two are negatively related, but empirical evidence suggests the connection is far stronger than commonly assumed. Meta-analytic findings indicate that the overlap is so substantial that engagement and burnout may best be understood as opposite ends of the same underlying continuum rather than as distinct constructs. Across studies, the average true correlation between burnout and engagement dimensions rises to nearly .80, with burnout explaining well over half of the variance in core engagement components such as absorption, dedication, and vigor. The broader pattern of correlates is almost identical, with vector correlations approaching .90, implying that what predicts burnout largely predicts disengagement in reverse. Complicating matters further, longitudinal evidence suggests burnout may also reshape personality over time: Higher burnout predicts subsequent declines in extroversion, challenging the assumption that more outgoing individuals are simply less vulnerable. Finally, job control is more strongly associated with cynicism and diminished efficacy than with exhaustion, a finding with important implications for practice. Given how frequently organizations track engagement, these measures may offer an early and scalable way to detect emerging burnout risks at both group and individual levels, often even before exhaustion becomes visible. Taken together, the evidence suggests that burnout is neither a passing fad nor a purely individual affliction, but a predictable outcome of how modern work is designed, managed, and experienced. It emerges where chronic demands overwhelm recovery; where control, fairness, and community erode; and where individual vulnerabilities go unrecognized or unsupported. Because burnout closely mirrors disengagementoften preceding visible declines in performance or well-beingit can be detected earlier than many organizations assume, especially through careful attention to engagement data. Ultimately, preventing burnout is less about eliminating pressure than about restoring balancebetween demands and resources, effort and reward, autonomy and accountability, and uniform policies and differentiated support. Organizations that understand this are not just protecting their people; they are safeguarding their capacity to perform. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
One of the things that I love about working for myself is that I dont need to ask anyones permission before making a decision. If I want to make a change, I go for it, on whatever timeline makes sense for me. But the freedom of solopreneurship can be a double-edged sword. Since you dont need approval from other people, nothing is stopping you from chasing every shiny tool, course, or strategy that promises to solve your problems. The ability to say no to distractions is an underrated skill for solopreneurs. Theres a difference between making strategic decisions and letting yourself be pulled in a million directions. You need to master the former and resist the latter. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-1.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-mobile-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Work Better\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Thoughts on the future of work, career pivots, and why work shouldn\u0027t suck, by Anna Burgess Yang. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/www.workbetter.media\/\u0022\u003Eworkbetter.media\u003C\/a\u003E.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.workbetter.media","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91457605,"imageMobileId":91457608,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} Questions to ask yourself when evaluating something new Before jumping on something new, run it through a quick filter. Ask yourself: What specific problem does this solve? (If you can’t name it, it’s probably a distraction.) Is this solving a problem I actually have right now? If I have this problem right now, is it urgent? Or merely annoying? What’s the cost of looking into this more? (Consider the time to learn something new, the time away from existing work, and the potential to derail other plans you may have.) Most shiny objects appeal to problems we think we have, not problems we’re actually facing. Or they dont address an urgent need, and it makes more sense to look into them later. If you ask yourself these questions, the answers can prevent you from hopping on the latest bandwagon when the shiny object doesnt actually make sense for your business. Im guilty of not always taking the time to stop and think. I vibe-coded myself a new website the other weekend. Did it solve a problem? Yes. Was it necessary at that exact moment in time? No. I put other things aside to tinker with the website. In hindsight, it wouldnt have passed the urgency question, and I should have stayed focused on other projects. Tactics to stay focused (when everything looks interesting!) As a solopreneur, you have to create your own guardrails. You don’t have a boss or a team to push back when you want to overhaul your entire tech stack or change your business model. If you follow a few constraints, you can stay focused. Set boundaries for yourself. Try a “no new tools” or “no new strategies” rule for a specific period of time (like 90 days) unless something is truly broken. This prevents you from making snap decisions. Keep a running list of things to try. When something catches your eye, write it down so you don’t lose the idea. I have a list in my project management tool called Ideas. I include a few notes to myself about why I think the idea might be good for my business. Review your list quarterly. When you sit down and look at your ideas list a few weeks or months later, some things will have lost their appeal. The ones that still seem worthwhile? Now you can formulate a plan and set aside time to work on them. If the answer is still, Not yet, but maybe someday, the idea stays on your list until the next time you review it. Develop the discipline to say “no” The solopreneurs who build sustainable businesses are the ones who learn to distinguish between opportunities and distractions. They know that changing directions too often holds them back. If you chase every shiny object, you sacrifice time you can spend on client work (or your personal time). You need to have the discipline to say “not right now” to most things that cross your path. Dont be like mevibe-coding on a whim because an idea popped into my head. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-1.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/11\/work-better-mobile-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"\u003Cstrong\u003ESubscribe to Work Better\u003C\/strong\u003E","dek":"Thoughts on the future of work, career pivots, and why work shouldn\u0027t suck, by Anna Burgess Yang. To learn more, visit \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/www.workbetter.media\/\u0022\u003Eworkbetter.media\u003C\/a\u003E.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"SIGN UP","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/www.workbetter.media","theme":{"bg":"#f5f5f5","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91457605,"imageMobileId":91457608,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||