 |
|
|
|||||
Ozempic-maker Novo Nordisk turned to the actors from Apple’s 2000s “Get a Mac” ads to differentiate its GLP-1 medication amid a rising sea of competitors. On January 20, the Danish pharmaceutical company announced its “There’s Only One Ozempic” campaign starring Justin Long and John Hodgman. The actors are reprising their roles from Apple’s Mac vs. PC ads playing the personifications of a name brand and the alternativebut now for weight-loss drugs. [Video: Novo Nordisk] Long personified Mac in the original Apple campaign by dressing in a more youthful, casual way than Hodgman, who personified a stuffy, dorky PC by wearing glasses and a suit and tie with a closely cropped haircut. (Think Steve Jobs versus Bill Gates.) In the Apple ads, Mac was always portrayed by Long as more cool and capable. In the new Ozempic ad, Long personifies Ozempic, facing off in a mock game show against Hodgman, who plays all of Ozempic’s competitors wrapped up in one dull brown T-shirt. (His hardworking name is “Other GLP-1s for Type 2 Diabetes.”) Hodgman’s character gets the game show’s single question right after the host asks which GLP-1 is approved by the Food and Drug Administration to lower the risk of worsening chronic kidney disease. The answer is, of course, “Ozempic,” which ultimately makes his win bittersweet. The “Get a Mac” campaign was created by Apple’s ad agency TBWA\Media Arts Lab; 66 total spots aired from 2006 to 2009. In 2010, Adweek named it the best ad campaign of the 2000s for connecting technology to humanity. Now Novo Nordisk is hoping some of that magic can rub off. The new campaign aims to reassert Ozempic’s brand equity in the public sphere as it faces business headwinds. It follows both layoffs and lower sales growth at the company, even as its U.S. competitor Eli Lilly is ascendent. The ad also drops shortly after Novo Nordisk’s other GLP-1, Wegovy, hit the market in pill form. In such a competitive landscape, Novo Nordisk is working to make its brand name the standard. “There’s Only One Ozempic” plays up Ozempic’s unique selling proposition in a practical sense, as a solution to chronic kidney disease. But with a jingle based on the song “Magic” and a pair of actors remembered for selling computers, it’s also positioning its drug as the most desirable GLP-1.
Category:
E-Commerce
In the world of business, we tend to believe that success is a direct result of talent, resources, and a “great idea.” We expect that if a company has a track record of dominance, like Google, Amazon, or Apple, they are a sure bet for the next big thing. Yet, the history of innovation is littered with the wreckage of unexpected flops launched by industry giants. From the futuristic promise of the Segway to the early dominance of MySpace, these failures prove that even a massive war chest and a visionary concept cannot guarantee market survival. Here are some of the traps that companies fall into. The ‘Solution in Search of a Problem’ Trap One of the most common reasons for failure is based on “technology push” versus “market pull.” This happens when a company develops a sophisticated piece of technology and then hunts for a problem to solve, rather than starting with a genuine consumer need. Google Glass is a fine example. Technically, it was a marvel, an engineering feat that brought augmented reality to a wearable form. However, Google failed to articulate why the average person needed it. It lacked a defined purpose. The device made people uncomfortable regarding privacy (the “Glasshole” effect), leading to it being banned in bars and theaters before it even hit mass-market shelves. Similarly, the Segway was heralded by Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos as a revolution in urban transport that would “reshape cities.” But for the consumer, it was an expensive, bulky solution to a problem that didn’t exist. It was too fast for sidewalks and too slow for roads. It was a great idea in theory, but a failure in the real world. The Arrogance of Success Trap When a company is dominant in one field, it can become blind to its limitations. They try to force the approach of their successful core business into a completely different field. Amazons Fire Phone failed because Amazon treated hardware like its retail platform. They packed the phone with “Dynamic Perspective” (a 3D effect) and “Firefly”a button to scan products to buy on Amazon. These were clever technical features, but they served Amazons needs more than the users. Users wanted a robust ecosystem of apps and a reliable interface; they didn’t want a shopping cart in their pocket. Amazons immense success in e-commerce blinded them to the specific needs of the smartphone market. The ‘First Mover’ Trap It is a common precept that being first to market is an advantage. However, Friendster and MySpace prove that being first is a double-edged sword. Friendster had the great idea of social networking long before Facebook. It failed because it couldn’t handle its own success. The servers crashed constantly, and the site became unusable. This technical failure allowed MySpace to take the lead. But MySpace eventually fell into the same trap: It became cluttered with ads and customizable profiles, failing to evolve its user experience as the audience matured. These companies didn’t fail because their ideas were bad. They failed because they couldn’t scale as demand grew. The Timing Trap Bill Gross has studied what makes some start-ups succeed and so many fail. He analyzed the histories of 200 startup companies and compared five factors: the idea, the team, the business model, the funding, and the timing. You can see him relate his findings in his Ted talk, The single biggest reason why start-ups succeed. His findings were striking. The most important factor was timing, then the team, and then the idea. Many startup companies with great teams and innovative business ideas fail because the timing of their launch is unfortunate. And this can be down to luck. The timing trap applies to big companies too. If you launch a product too early, you have to educate the market which is expensive. If you launch too late, youre fighting for scraps. An idea might be great, but the world isn’t ready yet. For example, the online grocery business Webvan failed during the dot-com bubble (Webvan) because high-speed internet and mobile logistics weren’t mature. Twenty years later, the same idea is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Similarly, Google Glass might have succeeded today in an era of TikTok creators and remote assistance, but in 2013, the culture was far more sensitive to “always-on” cameras. Is it Just Luck? In his book The Black Swan, Nassim Taleb argues that we often underestimate the role of randomness in success. A sudden shift in the economy, a competitors unexpected move, or even a global pandemic can make a “great idea” look like a disaster, or a “mediocre idea” look like a stroke of genius. Luck plays a role, but “luck” depends on preparation and timing. Successful companies that fail usually have the preparation but miss the timing. They are so focused on their internal roadmap that they lose sight of the external environment. Lessons for Todays Leaders These failed ventures can teach us some powerful lessons: Solve a Real Problem: You should be able to explain the problem your product solves in one concise sentence. Leave out buzzwords like revolutionary, ground-breaking, or next-generation. Social Context Matters: Technology does not exist in a vacuum. How will people feel when they use it? How will others feel around them? Minimun Viable Product: Build a small cheap prototype or model and show it to discerning customers. Ask, Does it solve your problem? Would you pay money for it? What needs to change? Kill The Losers: Successful companies often suffer from “sunk cost fallacy.” They keep pouring money into a failing venture because they are too proud to admit the “great idea” isn’t working. Agility Over Ego: The ability to pivot is critical. When Slack found that their video games was a flop they switched to producing a communication tool. A great idea is just a hypothesis. The failures of Google Glass, the Fire Phone, and the Segway teach us that the market is a harsh laboratory. Success requires more than just a breakthrough in engineering. It requires an alignment of cultural timing, user-centric design, and the humility to adapt when reality contradicts your vision. Even the giants can fall. It is vital to look at the world through the eyes of the user and stop admiring your own designsno matter how brilliant they appear.
Category:
E-Commerce
Six years ago, Atari announced ambitious plans to build a gamer-themed hotel in Las Vegas, featuring an e-sports studio and a movie theater. The legacy video game companys management at the time saw hotels as a way to revitalize the brand’s name, which was largely a nostalgia play. “I love the idea. It’s something I’ve always wanted to do,” said then-CEO Fred Chesnais. “I always wanted to make an amusement park, and hotels could be the first step.” But now the company tells the Las Vegas Sun that the project has been shelved after “the deal didn’t come to fruition.” It’s the latest in a series of disappointments for Ataris lodging ambitions. Only one of what the company had hoped would be at least eight hotels across the U.S. is still in any stage of development. And construction has yet to begin on that project. Chesnais bought Atari in 2013 for just 400 euros following the company’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing (inheriting with it a debt load of 34 million euros). But he was replaced as CEO in 2021 and formalized his exit from the company in 2022. Despite his departure, the hotel plans pushed forward. Atari continued to look for potential land partners through 2024planning to make announcements in the first half of that yearbut was unable to secure a deal. Other planned hotels in Austin, Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, San Jose, and Seattle also are no longer being discussed publicly and have shown no progress since the company first revealed those locations. That leaves Phoenix, where Atari Hotels (now being run by Intersection Development) is still hoping to salvage at least part of the project. Originally expected to open in 2022, that location is now slated for a late-2028 grand opening, although even that date is hardly set in stone. The developer is appealing to Atari fans to help pay for the project. A fundraising page for the Phoenix hotel says the facility has raised $14 million and secured land (for a project with a total development budget of $124 million). Participants can make a minimum investment of $500, for which they will be part of the hotel’s loyalty program. Those who cough up $50,000 will receive a physical brick in the gaming-area walkway of the hotel, the builders say. (A “digital brick” runs $25,000.) Intersection aims to raise between $35 million and $40 million from investors as part of its next phase. Atari never positioned the hotels, even the Las Vegas one, as casinos, though the investment deck does mention a “state-of-the-art sports betting arena with immersive screens and premium gaming experiences. Instead, it hoped to blend video games, music, and entertainment in an immersive, tech-heavy facility, with a rooftop pool and “sci-fi inspired rooms” being promised for the Phoenix location. In recent years, hotels were just one of the ways Atari considered in its effort to revitalize the brand. In 2018, the company announced plans to launch its own cryptocurrencies: the Atari Token and the Pong Token. The company acquired a minority stake in Infinity Networks, which was developing a decentralized blockchain for digital entertainment platforms, and recruited Anthony Di Iorio, who cofounded Ethereum and Jaxx, to assist with the launch. The Atari Token peaked in 2021 at around 78 cents. Today, it trades for $0.0001935. Founded by Nolan Bushnell and Ted Dabney in 1972, Atari has been bought and sold numerous times through the years, often balancing on the precipice of becoming nothing more than nostalgia. In its fiscal 2025 earnings report released in July, the company reported a 14 million euro loss. Half-year results for fiscal 2026, released in December of last year, showed a net loss of 6.4 million euros.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Tesla Cybertruck is the new Ford Edsel, taking the crown from one of the biggest flops in American car history. Last year, the Cybertruck spiraled into market irrelevance while the rest of the EV market found its footing, as the pickup experienced the single biggest sales collapse of any electric vehicle in the United States. Elon Musks flailing company managed to move only an estimated 20,237 Cybertrucks in 2025. And thats counting the units that Musk reportedly bought for himself through SpaceX and xAI to avoid further ridicule. He had his private companies buy hundreds if not thousands of Cybertrucks, wrote Fred Lambert at EV blog Electrek. Thats an eye-popping 48.1% crash from the 39,000 units sold in 2024. Elon, seriously, stop this embarrassment and kill this polygonal joke already. I laughed at first but now its painful to watch. To understand the magnitude of this failure, the all-electric Ford F-150 Lightningan EV pickup so unsuccessful that Ford officially ended its production in December 2025 to pivot to a new hybrid modelstill managed to humiliate Tesla from the grave. Ford sold 27,307 Lightnings in 2025, making it the best-selling EV pickup truck in America. Both companies tried to buy their way out of trouble with heavy discounts and 0% financing offers. But while aggressive incentives helped Ford clear inventory and post growth, the same tactics failed to save the apocalypse-proof” pickup from becoming a sales armageddon. Think about that for a minute: A discontinued EV truck outsold the Tesla truck by nearly 7,000 units and got canceled. Come the truck on. I already called the Cybertruck a flop, but the final sales tally is even worse than I imagined. Its officially the biggest flop in decades, according to Forbes. This is especially humiliating when Musk overpromised sales of 250,000 Cybertrucks annually by 2025. Tesla reached barely 8% of that target. Cybertrucks at a Tesla dealership in October 2025 [Photo: Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images] Plenty of reasons for failure The reason for the Cybertruck’s collapse isn’t a mystery. Its not the EV slump. It’s the inevitable result of shipping a beta product to customers as a finished vehicle, a design failure since its inception. The truck isn’t just ugly, its fundamentally broken. In 2025 alone, Tesla issued recalls covering a combined 115,912 Cybertrucksmore than double the number of recalls in 2024. That averages out to 318 recalls per day. We are not talking about inconsequential software updates. These were dangerous, amateur-hour defects. The largest recall campaign involved 46,096 trucks that risked shedding their stainless-steel exterior trim while driving, turning the vehicle into a shrapnel grenade on the highway. Another 6,000 trucks were recalled because their optional light bars were attached with the wrong primer and could simply fall off. This follows a chronicle of disasters documented since Musk shattered the unshatterable pickups glass. Weve seen the “stuck pedal” trap that locked accelerators at full throttle, critical system failures where owners drove a mere mile off the lot before the truck died with a “red screen of death,” losing steering and braking redundancy, and misaligned doors and uneven surfaces that Musk himself admitted in leaked emails stuck out like a sore thumb. That’s just a selection of this disaster on wheels. As Adrian Clarkea professional car designer who now writes design critiques for the automobile publication The Autopiantold me when it was about to come out the factory line: The Cybertruck is a low-polygon joke that only exists in the fever dreams of Tesla fans that stands high on the smell of Elon Musks flatulences. Back then, Clarke also called out the terrible design choices that were going to lead to the bevy of manufacturing and quality problems, all part of the design and brand crisis that Tesla has been experiencing since 2023. Bu there’s a third component that completes the Cybertruck’s failure trifecta: Musk’s former bromance with Donald Trump and his DOGE antics. Turns out not all press is good press, as these moves killed the Tesla brand perhaps more than the model stagnation, deadly car accidents, and mechanical failures. Musks political radicalization led many of Teslas existing customers to regret their purchases and potential clients to avoid them, both in the U.S. and abroad. As dealerships got torched and cars vandalized, the Cybertruck arguably became “America’s most hated car. The 2025 sales figures just confirm what we have known for more than two years now. The Cybertruck is not the disruptor Musk sold to the world and Tesla shareholders. It is a finger-chopping brick that depreciates faster than used bridal dresses. An ugly failure that is doing nothing but draining resources and further damaging the brand’s reputation (if it still has one). Its time to bury what’s already dead, Elon. The experiment is over. Sink this polygonal mess deep underground, along with all your failed promises, and call it a day.
Category:
E-Commerce
From greater flexibility to a sense of ownership and the hope of financial gain, solopreneurship feels like the new American dream. However, there’s a hidden cost to that dream that has nothing to do with the unending hustle that comes with being both a business owner and that business’s sole employee. It’s the undeniable cost to the planet. In 2025, about 41 million businesses in the U.S. were run by a sole individual who is both its owner and only employee. As AI allows for solopreneurs to automate a growing number of tasks, the technology is enabling small businessesfrom gigs like content creation to event planner or even niche work like dog grooming or jewelry making, and moreto absolutely thrive with a team of only one. Therefore, while an individual with an idea may have needed an entire team to turn that idea into real cash flow in the past, it’s now completely feasible (and massively popular) to do so with the help of AI. That’s true for solopreneur Dan Mazei, who was formerly communications and marketing leader for organizations like Reebok, Tinder, Activision Blizzard, and Ford, and a long-time agency leader for major clients like Nintendo and Unilever. Now, Mazei runs his own business as the founder and principal of All Tangled Roots, a marketing consultancy for brands, with the help of AI. Mazei tells Fast Company that AI is crucial to his business model, as it can “level the playing field for a solo service provider against a sea of heavily staffed agencies” that are doing the same kind of work. That same is true for Samantha Levitin, a solopreneur and founder of Levitin Collective, a boutique PR firm working across lifestyle, wellness, hospitality, and consumer brands, in NYC. (She’s also a new mom to a 15-month-old baby.) Levitin says that AI enables her to manage the dreaded mental load that comes with running a business while being a parent. “Starting my own firm meant knowing Id be doing everything myself, and AI helped fill gaps that would normally require a small team, which I was used to,” Levitin says. The solopreneur adds that she began building her business while on maternity leave, and, ultimately, it’s given her both “flexibility and balance.” She says, “I intentionally designed the firm to be small . . . and AI gives me back time and mental space so I can focus on what matters most in my field: creative thinking, relationship building, and hands-on client work.” Still, we can’t talk about AI’s incredible power to turn dreams into reality without talking about the cost. While there are many challenges that may come from running a business made up of onesuch as working around the clock, or the significant financial risksthere are also clear environmental costs which are largely being ignored. According to a 2024 MIT report on the environmental impact of AI, the energy demands that come from both training and using AI are massive and growing all the time. In North America, electricity requirements increased from 2,688 megawatts at the end of 2022 to 5,341 megawatts by the following year, mostly due to the growing demand for generative AI. And experts worry we simply aren’t concerned enough about that stark reality. Noman Bashir, lead author of the environmental impact paper, and a Computing and Climate Impact Fellow at MIT Climate and Sustainability Consortium (MCSC) and a postdoc in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), says, per MIT, that the impact is massive but “everyday user doesnt think too much about that.” According to Bashir, the reason is two-fold. The ease of use of generative AI interfaces and the lack of information about the environmental impacts of my actions means that, as a user, I dont have much incentive to cut back on my use of generative AI,” Bashir explains. Jonathan Schaeffer, an AI researcher and CEO of a startup called Kind, agrees. Schaefer tells Fast Company that not enough attention is being paid to the hidden environmental costs of the widespread technology. AI tools can significantly increase the energy consumption involved, particularly from the massive data centers required to support cloud-based AI systems, the CEO explains. These data centers, housing thousands of servers running AI models, consume large amounts of electricity, much of which is still sourced from nonrenewable resources, contributing significantly to carbon emissions. Schaefer adds that the technology also comes with a hidden financial cost that most people dont realize they may end up paying for themselves. In many jurisdictions, the capacity to feed these data centers contributes to a significant increase in the price of electricity, a cost that is often passed on to consumers. Moreover, the CEO says that data centers require more than energy to operate, but “they also need cooling systems to prevent overheating” which would increase their environmental footprint further. According to Bloomberg, which analyzed data from DC Byte, electricity costs in areas located near significant data center activity rose 267% over a month when compared to data from five years earlier. Kevin Gast, cofounder and CEO of VVater, a next-generation water treatment company dedicated to using advanced technologies to address global water challenges, is mostly concerned with the pace at which AI is moving. “When you multiply millions of daily AI interactions across businesses worldwide, you’re looking at a significant environmental load that most people simply aren’t aware of,” Gast tells Fast Company. “Data centers are already using billions of gallons (of water) annually, and as AI becomes more embedded in everyday business operations, that demand is only accelerating. We’re seeing increased pressure on freshwater resources in certain regions, especially where facilities overlap with areas already managing water.” According to a 2025 global study from Arizona State University, freshwater resources have been drying up since 2002 at an unprecedented rate. On the bright side, Gast says solutions are being developed almost as quickly. “We’re seeing serious investment in closed-loop water recycling systems, advanced treatment technologies, and strategic facility placement in regions with better water availability and natural cooling climates.” He continues, The challenge now is accelerating that progress to keep pace with how quickly AI is being adopted across every sector.” While more and more individuals are certainly turning to AI to run their businesses, that doesn’t mean they aren’t all totally in the dark about its impact. Mazei says that, on a human level, he’s cautious of big tech’s “overreach”, such as “potentially integrating someone else̵s code into our most personal choices.” Still, the solopreneur credits the technology with helping him “choose a professional path that he didn’t believe was viable just a few short years ago.” As the cost of living continues to soar, and even talented and driven professionals struggle to find well-paying jobs, solopreneurship may find that putting aside their concern for the environment is a small price to pay for making good on the American dream that feels otherwise hard to come by.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] next »