SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the maybe-they-can-play-on-my-lawn dept.
The Harvard Business Review has an assessment of how three companies (MassMutual, Starwood Hotels and Mariott) are using a new set of tools to connect with the younger generation of consumers:
[...] as MassMutual looked at ways to connect with Millennials, they learned something else: between the ages of 25 and 45 people make a lot of hard, grown-up life decisions, and they want and need help. Consequently, MassMutual made the risky decision to pivot from trying to sell products to Millennials (which they hate) to having conversations with them. MassMutual opened a storefront in the Boston suburb of Brookline called Society of Grownups. Reminiscent of a Starbucks, the storefront includes a coffee bar, a conference table in an open area, and a couple of meeting rooms. The company offered financial literacy classes, with topics such as "How to Buy a Home," and integrated them with classes on travel and wine.
[...] to keep up with these expectations for the latest and greatest in high tech services, Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide has launched two new services in certain hotels: smartphone-enabled room entry and a robotic butler. "SPG Keyless" allows one to bypass the front desk by placing a digital key on one's smartphone. The robotic butler delivers guest requests via the ubiquitous smartphone for items they may have forgotten, such as a toothbrush or cell phone charger.
Starwood CIO Martha Poulter told me that Starwood's strategy is to try to amaze their guests so they will share their experiences through their social channels.
[...] Food and beverages are relatively easy to change, but buildings and atmosphere are a bigger challenge. Marriott took underutilized hotel spaces and instead of standardizing a concept across their whole chain, created a food and beverage incubator ("CANVAS") that identified local food and beverage stars, gave them those spaces to do their thing, and even provided expertise to back their new ventures.
Originally spotted on The Eponymous Pickle.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gravis on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:24AM
in 2008, i learned that banks cannot be trusted. all the nice deregulation that ended in a global shitstorm was a huge mistake and from what i've heard, another shitstorm is brewing. i've also learned from the numerous breaches that companies don't care about security because good security costs money. then you have the whole thing with Mariott jamming wifi signals so that they can offer you their own... for a price. i've learned of all the companies claiming they are from island XYZ to avoid billions in taxes. then you got the H-1B1 mess and the list just goes on and on.
the takeaway from this should be that you cannot trust a corporation to do anything but the most sociopathic thing to get and keep money, regardless of the laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:01AM
Disagree: A corporation will do everything to maximize its profit. It doesn't single out the sociopathic ways in either way: If the most sociopathic way is the one promising the most profit, it will have no qualms to take it, but if the most profit is gained a less sociopathic way, that less sociopathic way will be taken, of course not because it is less sociopathic, but because it is more profitable.
Oh, and I don't agree with the "regardless of the laws" part either. If the laws can be exploited to increase profit (for example, taxation laws allowing multinational corporations to play tricks to legally reduce the taxation to a negligible amount), the company will certainly use that opportunity. So laws do have influence on the corporations.
(Score: 2) by GlennC on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:29PM
So laws do have influence on the corporations.
Laws (or rather, punishments for breaking the laws) have an influence only in that they add another factor to the equation.
If the profit to be made by breaking the law minus the fine to be paid if they're caught is greater than the profit to be made by following the law, then the law is of no consequence to the corporation.
The risk of getting caught is simply another input to the Risk Assessment process in the Planning stage of a project.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:09PM
The fact they have no qualms at all about selecting "the most sociopathic way" means that the corporation (ok, corporations aren't really people - the people making the decisions in the coroporation then) is inherently sociopathic in any strategy they implement, because sociopathy means you have no guilt or empathy. So, if the corporation chooses a strategy, that on the surface appears friendly and empathetic, that would really be a false facade - they don't care about the long term effect on you unless that permanently aligns with their increased profitability. Being motivated by profit above all else, with no guilt, no empathy, no qualms, simply is sociopathy.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 27 2015, @12:22PM
Yes, in many ways at once. The US government is close to default. The student loan debt bubble is bound to burst. Citizen disenfranchisement has reached epic levels. Those are just a few. Each of them is enough by itself to trigger a collapse.
Think how quickly New Orleans turned from a pleasant, modern metropolis to a no-man's land after Hurricane Katrina. That can happen everywhere.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:45PM
New Orleans turned from a pleasant, modern metropolis
Whaaa? Dude all my friends who moved there lasted about 2 months before turning around and coming back. I know of a few more dozen people who moved there and did the same thing. New Orleans was not a 'nice' place. Less so now.