 |
|
|
|||||
Think about the last time you made a purchase using your phone. Maybe you were at a coffee shop and when your turn came, you opened your payment app, tapped your phone on the payment device, grabbed your cappuccino, and were done. Quick and easy. Maybe too quick and easy. Did the coffee shop miss a chance to engage with you? Did Mastercard miss an opportunity to show how their brand made this priceless moment possible? Did you miss an opportunity to teach your 8-year-old daughter a lesson on the value of money? As business leaders in an increasingly digital landscape, weve learned to treat friction as a dirty word. Remove friction at all costs is the rallying cry of every customer experience and user experience design team. But what have we lost in the quest to reduce cart abandonments or boost transaction speed? By putting speed and efficiency above all else, are we missing opportunities to build connections between consumers and brandsand perhaps each other? Have we lost the space to reflect on the quality of a product, or the substance of an experience? Are we unable to take a moment to think about a choice we just made and wonder whether there are better ones? Not all friction is bad Friction, in any of its many forms, can be a positive forcefor teaching, adding value, creating deeper engagement, and fostering human connection. A process thats too quick and simple may not offer enough choice, lead to poorly informed decisions, or might even erode trust. An experience with the right kind of friction in the right amount can prove more valuable in the long run. Theres a well-known behavioral science principle commonly known as the IKEA effect. Referencing the global home furnishings giant, it refers to a phenomenon where consumers place more value on an item theyve invested time and energy in creating, which is why you refuse to throw away that $30 bookshelf you spent four hours putting together for your first apartment. The experience of building IKEA furniture is a form of friction that fosters ownership and personal value, even if the intrinsic value of the item is low. To be fair, our obsession with frictionless experiences stems from a legitimate fear: In a world of infinite choice, a single moment of frustration can send a customer to a competitor. But this relentless pursuit of speed and simplicity often results in a sort of non-experience, a homogeneous market where every brand looks and feels the same. The challenge is to find the right places to re-introduce friction, slowing the process to build and differentiate your brand, deepen customer relationships, or drive sales. You can start by dissecting your customer experiences and looking for three types of friction: imagined, demanded and created. 1. Imagined friction In our push towards a frictionless world, many customer experience designers have removed frictions that were never really customer challenges. QR codes were introduced as a means of contactless ordering at restaurants during the pandemic and many still remain in use. The ongoing justification is that it saves costs, allows for changes, and reduces staffing requirements. While these might all be true, its no longer a customer need, or a friction point in restaurant dining experiences. In reality, restaurant orders tend to be larger with physical menus because it allows for collaborative viewing and discussion between diners and provides servers an opportunity to upsell and encourage more human interaction between staff and guests. QR codes, on the other hand, only solve an imaginary friction, and have arguably made the restaurant experience poorer. 2. Demanded friction Almost every hotel chain has introduced digital, keyless check-in that can be done from your phone prior to your arrival at the property. At the same time, most hotel chains will acknowledge that the adoption of these technologies has been underwhelming. Most guests prefer to wait in line to check in, wanting to make eye contact with a hotel employee, announcing their arrival to a human, and perhaps chatting their way to a room with a view. The friction of a human interaction adds a degree of value, comfort, and reassurance. Brands should examine their customer journeys to discover points where efficiency and digitization remove essential customer connection points, including connection points customers actually demandeven if it means waiting in line after a six-hour flight! 3. Created friction IKEA isnt the only brand creating friction to their benefit. With more than 1,000 stores, TJ Maxx is one of the largest clothing retailers in the country. It employs what it calls a treasure hunt strategy, making shoppers rifle through an enormous selection of roughly organized goods to find bargains. The assortment constantly changes, and categories are merely notions: Youre very likely to find a soup ladle next to a decorative candle. But their loyalists, affectionately called Maxxinistas, fight through the friction to discover a hidden haul. Reintroducing the right kind of friction There are different kinds of friction: cognitive, emotional, and interactive. In our rush to make everything effortlessly interactive, weve brushed over the cognitive and emotionalthe humanaspects of friction. But research shows that customers are drawn to brands that align with their identity and values, not just those that offer the quickest transaction. By viewing friction not as a flaw but as a featureor as a moment to be humanbrands can design experiences that are more intentional, more aligned to need and, ultimately, more valuable. While no one would make the argument that the consumer experience world should make things slower, more difficult, or more inefficient, no one would suggest we design things to be less human. The trick is, and will be, to balance an increasingly digitized world with more humanity by creating more opportunities for attention, engagement, and connection. Oscar Yuan is chief strategy + growth officer at Material.
Category:
E-Commerce
We dont talk enough about what doesnt scale. Which is ironic, because we talk about scale constantly. Scale is the shorthand for success in just about every industry. If it cant scale, is it even worth doing? Thats the kind of thinking that floods strategy decks, venture capitalist meetings, and quarterly reviews. But heres the question I keep circling back to: Can it still matter if it doesnt scale? Because Ive seen real impact in spaces where scale wasnt the point. And frankly, it wasnt even possible. THE MYTH OF MASS = MEANING Theres a quiet arrogance baked into how we treat scale, as if the size of a thing is what determines its significance. But some of the most meaningful changes happen in small rooms, not big stages. Think about financial education programs in rural communities. Or credit-building initiatives that are culturally tailored for a single neighborhood. Theyre unpolished, localized, hard to replicateand deeply effective. Yet because they dont lend themselves to scale, theyre often dismissed or deprioritized. Scaling can absolutely expand access. But we shouldnt mistake repeatability for revolution. WHATS LOST IN THE RUSH? Heres what often gets left behind when scale becomes the headline: Nuance. What works in Memphis might not work in Minneapolis. Relevance. One-size-fits-all is rarely true in communities that have historically been overlooked or underserved. Feedback loops. When you scale too quickly, you lose the intimacy that invites honest feedback and real-time course correction. When we chase scale at all costs, we sometimes lose the very texture that made the original idea impactful. Small, sharp, and mighty. THERES POWER IN THE PILOT Ive watched high-touch, hyper-relevant initiatives change the trajectory of communitiesinitiatives that no one would label scalable. The FICO Educational Analytics Challenge is a great example. It started with a small set of universities, giving students hands-on exposure to real-world AI and data science problems. The goal wasnt to reach millions overnight. It was to invest deeply in students who otherwise might never get that kind of access. The early results were powerful. Students walked away with skills that shifted their career aspirations. One university even added a data science minor after participating. Those are outcomes that dont need millions of participants to matter. Sometimes, small is the strategy. Sometimes, we need depth before breadth. WHEN SCALE IS THE LEVER That said, scale still has its place. Especially when the problem is systemic. Programs like the Educational Analytics Challenge are now growing toward a repeatable framework that more schools can adopt, while keeping the student voice at the center. The lesson? Scale works when it builds from authenticity, not when it erases it. The key is not to romanticize smallness or villainize growth. Its to stay honest about what kind of impact were after, and whether our obsession with scale is helping or hurting that mission. WHAT IF WE MADE ROOM FOR BOTH? What if our strategies had space for pilots that werent polished, partnerships that were scrappy, and impact that wasnt measured solely by reach? What if we treated scale as a choice, not a default? And what if we stopped asking Will it scale? as the first question, and started asking, Will it matter? Thats the kind of question worth building around. Rukiya Kelly is head of corporate impact and engagement at FICO.
Category:
E-Commerce
As of yesterdays market close, Netflix is the only Big Tech company whose stock is trading at four figures, but that will soon change. The TV streaming giant, whose shares closed at $1,089 on Thursday, has announced that it will initiate a stock split next month. That will send the stocks price per share much lower, though it will not change the companys fundamental value. Heres what you need to know about Netflixs upcoming stock split. Whats a stock split? A stock split is when a company decides to divide the number of its existing shares in order to create new oneshence the term split the shares. A stock can split by any factor a company wants. For example, in a 2-for-1 stock split, for every one share of the stock presplit, there will be two shares post-split. Or in a 100-to-1 stock split, for every one share presplit, there would be 99 additional shares post-split. However, because new shares are being created in a stock split, the value of the stock is diluted by an amount commensurate with the split. Take a 100-to-1 stock split of the imaginary Company XYZ. If the share price of Company XYZ was $1,000 before the split, its new share price would be $10 after the split ($1000/100). Yet even though Company XYZs stock price is now 100 times cheaper, the company itself isnt worth less. A companys valueits market capis determined by adding up the total value of all its shares. How much is Netflix splitting the stock by? Netflix has said that it will split its shares by a ratio of 10-for-1 next month. This means that for every one share of Netflix stock (Nasdaq: NFLX) that exists today, there will be another nine NFLX shares in existence after the split. Netflix is by far the only major company to split its stock in recent years. In 2024, Walmart split its stock 3-for-1. In 2022, Amazon split its stock 20-for-1 and Tesla split its stock 3-for-1. And in 2020, Apple split its stock 4-for-1. More recently, this week, there have been rumors that Palantir Technologies may soon split its stock. When do Netflixs shares split? There are several dates to keep in mind when it comes to Netflixs upcoming stock split. The most important day is Monday, November 17, 2025. This is when NFLX shares will begin trading at their new post-split price on the Nasdaq. On this day, there will be 10 times more NFLX shares in existence than there are today. Another important date is Friday, November 14, 2025. This is the day that each shareholder of record will receive nine additional shares for every one share of Netflix they own as of the “record date. They will receive these additional nine shares after the markets close on November 14. The final date to remember is Monday, November 10, 2025. This is the “record date. Only shareholders who own NFLX shares after market close on this date will receive nine additional shares on November 14 for every one they own after market close on the 10th. What does this mean for investors and Netflixs share price? Netflixs 10-for-1 stock split means that, come Monday, November 17, NFLX shares will trade at 10 times less than their closing price on Friday, November 14. However, as explained above, this does not mean that Netflix will be worth 10 times less, because there will also be 10 times as many shares in existence. This also does not mean investors of record will see the total value of their NFLX shares decrease. Though the individual share price will be 10 times lower, investors of record will also have 10 times the number of shares that they previously did. So why is Netflix splitting its stock then? Stock splits have no effect on the fundamental finances or valuation of a company. But stock splits can have a powerful psychological effect on investors, particularly retail investors. Big institutional investors, like investment banks and hedge funds, buy stocks in dollar amounts$5 million or $100 million worth of shares in a single company at a time, for example. But retail investors often buy shares based on the stocks individual share price. And a single share priced at more than $1,000 often puts that stock out of reach for retail investors, who may just have a few hundred dollars to invest each month. By artificially lowering its stock price through a stock split, a company can make its shares more attractive and accessible to retail investors, which could actually help drive up the share price as more people buy into the stock at its lower price. But making a stock more attractive to retail investors isnt the only reason why companies split their stocks. Another reason is to make the companys shares more accessible to its employees, who can often buy shares via an employee stock purchase program. If a companys stock price is too high, employees may not even be able to afford one share per month. A lower share price can make it so that more employees can buy into the company. Indeed, the employee factor is the main reason Netflix cited for its stock split. The purpose of the stock split is to reset the market price of the company’s common stock to a range that will be more accessible to employees who participate in the company’s stock option program, the company said when announcing the split on October 30.
Category:
E-Commerce
Our financial system still treats teens like little kids who need to wait their turn. Meanwhile, by the time most Americans turn 13, they have a smartphone in their pocket and are actively participating in the economy. Teens are transacting regularly, and many are earning through digital channels, running online businesses, or pursuing a passion project. There’s a better way. SUPERVISION AND A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT We need to give teens supervised access to financial tools earlier in their lives. Let them learn financial responsibility through real experience. Help them build smart money habits in a controlled environment. By the time they hit 18, every teen should have the financial knowledgeand the confidenceto manage their money independently. Locking them out until adulthood is an outdated approach thats damaging the financial health of the U.S. consumer. On the flip side, granting full access to everyone turning 18 despite a lack of any meaningful financial experience is like handing someone keys to a car on their birthday without letting them practice driving. Its dangerous. It means a steeper learning curve, higher stakes, and tons of missed learning opportunities. Thats what we’re doing with money. Keeping teens sidelined doesnt just hold them back. It hurts the economy and undermines future growth. The rules of money were written for the few, not the many. Those with access build wealth and opportunitylike teens who get a debit card earlylearn to budget with guidance, and even get a chance to build credit before college. By 18, theyre ready for loans, apartments, and independence. Teens without those luxuries (read: a majority of the young U.S. population), are stuck using cash or borrowed accounts and enter adulthood with less real-world experience managing finances, and fewer options. The result is a system where the financial elite get a head start, and everyone else is forced to improvise with workarounds. THE COST OF WAITING Today’s teens are already an economic force. More than half report earning an income, and theyre not just working traditional jobs. Theyre running online businesses, doing creative work, and participating in the gig economy. In fact, two in five teens are earning through digital channels, outpacing those in older cohorts. And theyre completely reshaping what it means to be a consumer in America. Their demand for instant, flexible, digital-first experiences are already changing how businesses operate. Take buy-now-pay-later for example. What started as young people rejecting traditional credit cards has become a market worth hundreds of billions of dollar, with one of our brands, Afterpay, creating an entirely new payment infrastructure around transparency and avoiding debt traps. Over the next decade, teen habits will set the standard for how money is earned, spent, saved, and invested. Ignoring this shift isnt just overlooking the futureits missing whats happening right now. Instead of creating tools for a massive group of active economic participants, banks and incumbents push teens to borrow their parents’ accounts, deal with cash, or cobble together apps that weren’t designed with them in mind. In a world that’s rapidly going cashless, these workarounds aren’t just inconvenient. They delay financial learning, widen inequality, and leave an entire generation less prepared for adulthood. Lets fix the problem. ACCESS WITH PROTECTION At Block, we believe providing access and promoting safety are complementary. Through Cash App, we’ve built something different: a platform where teens can fully and responsibly participate in the digital economy while parents maintain oversight and control. With a parents or guardians sponsorship, teens can send and receive money, save, and even begin learning about investing in stocks and bitcoin. Parents get real-time transaction monitoring, customizable permissions, and a front-row seat as their teen learns responsible financial habits in a controlled environment. And this approach is working. Our data shows that teens are using these tools responsibly, and we’re setting teens up to develop confidence and capability in managing their money, two skills that will serve them throughout their lives. A CALL FOR CHANGE The technology to do this safely exists today, and the research backs it up. What we need now is a fundamental shift in how we think about young people and money. This means: Recognizing teens as active participants in the U.S. economy Building financial tools that balance access with protection Giving parents the right tools to guide their teens’ financial journey When we give teens safe, supervised financial access today, we’re not just preparing them for tomorrow. We’re accelerating the future of our entire economy. Owen Jennings is head of business at Block.
Category:
E-Commerce
Every technological revolution has its awkward adolescence. We’re living through AI’s right now. Recent research from Stanford and BetterUp has given this moment a name: “workslop.” It’s the flood of hastily AI-generated content that clogs inboxes, clutters presentations, and quietly erodes productivity. The email that reads like it was written by a committee of robots. The strategy document with oddly formal phrasing and zero original insight. The presentation deck that says nothing new. If this sounds familiar, you’re not imagining it. And if you’re a manager watching your team’s output simultaneously increase in volume and decrease in quality, you’re not alone. But here’s what history teaches us: this phase is predictable, necessary, and temporary. The question isn’t whether we’ll move through it. It’s how quickly we can get to the other side. Why Workslop Happens When personal computers arrived in offices, workers treated them as expensive typewriters. When the internet became ubiquitous, we spent years learning that you can walk 10 feet to talk to someone instead of firing off another email. Each time, we mistook the tool for the solution. We’re making the same mistake with AI. Only faster, and at greater scale. The core problem is one of delegation versus collaboration. AI will deliver increased speed and efficiency, but most organizations have accidentally encouraged their people to treat it as something to offload to rather than something to work with. An associate generates a client memo with Claude and sends it along, complete with the telltale “AI can make mistakes, please double-check” footer still attached. A manager asks ChatGPT to write a strategy document and forwards it without adding context, nuance, or judgment. This isn’t a technology problem. It’s a mindset problem that technology has exposed. When content creation becomes effortless, the cognitive work of thinking deeply becomes optional. And when it becomes optional, people can opt out. What researchers are calling “cognitive atrophy” is really just a gradual disconnection from the thinking process itself. We’re delegating not just the execution, but the strategy. AI will get you 70% of the way there, but someone still needs to own that final 30%, and right now it seems some people are checking out before the finish line. The Way Through The good news? Workslop isn’t a crisis. It’s a phase. Organizations that recognize it as such can compress what might take years into months. Start by redefining what you measure. The drive to do more with less can create pressure to crank out more work in the same time, with AI as the productivity multiplier. But leaders need to resist the assumption that one person plus AI should equal twice the output. If you’re still evaluating employees primarily on volume, you’re incentivizing exactly the behavior you don’t want. Prose and code generation are now commoditized. What matters is the quality of thinking that directs these tools. In your performance management processes, assess people on their judgment, their ability to steer AI effectively, and their capacity to iterate toward genuinely excellent outcomes. Draw bright lines. Leaders need to align on the AI vision, the guardrails, and how they’ll hold people accountable. Establish explicit standards for what constitutes acceptable AI-assisted work. Some organizations are implementing simple rules: AI-generated content must be marked during internal review. Client-facing materials must demonstrate clear human value-add. Any work bearing AI watermarks or disclaimers gets automatically returned. These aren’t punitive measures. They’re cultural signals about what professionalism means in an AI-augmented workplace. Without mutual commitment from leaders to embed these standards, the bright lines blur. Embrace experimentation, but guide it. The workslop phase exists because people need room to learn, and that requires a growth mindset, not a fixed one. Risk aversion kills experimentation. Moving through this phase means reframing failure as data, celebrating what you learn from missteps, and managers modeling vulnerability about their own learning curve. Managers can accelerate this shift by tapping into people’s intrinsic motivation for mastery. But experimentation without feedback loops doesnt create change. So have forums where teams share what’s working and what isn’t, and celebrate the wins and the learnings of human-AI collaboration. Learn from unexpected sources. Universities faced the workslop crisis before corporations did. Many have developed sophisticated approaches to maintaining rigor while embracing AI tools. They’ve created assignments that inherently require human judgment, implemented systems that flag low-quality automated work, and redesigned evaluation criteria to emphasize critical thinking over production. These aren’t perfect solutions, but they’re battle-tested ones that can translate to corporate contexts. Resist the delegation instinct. The most important cultural shift is also the simplest: don’t treat AI as your copilot. Treat it like a student, and you’re the teacher. This reframes the entire relationship. You’re not handing off work. You’re responsible for what that student produces, which means staying engaged in the iterative process, using tools to enhance rather than replace human judgment, and taking full ownership of outputs regardless of how they were generated. Organizations that successfully embed this mindset move through the workslop phase measurably faster. The upside? New Stanford research tells us that employees trust AI more when they can see it as a collaborator, not a closed system. An Unexpected Opportunity Here’s what makes this moment genuinely unique: the traditional corporate hierarchy of expertise has temporarily inverted. Right now, a brilliant 22-year-old who knows how to work with AI tools can create more value than their manager who doesn’t. This isn’t a threat to experienced leaders. It’s an opportunity. Junior employees have rare insight into what actually works, and smart managers are creating channels for those employees to lead the way forward. You’re not being replaced. You’re being offered a shortcut to expertise that would otherwise take years to develop. The companies that emerge strongest from the workslop phase won’t be those that restricted AI use or pretended the problems didn’t exist. They’ll be the ones that acknowledged the awkwardness, called it out, learned from it quickly, and built cultures where humans and AI genuinely complement each other. Experience shows us that the most critical cultural factors that will shape the success of AI include the degree of autonomy of teams to shape workflows, the measures and controls put in place, and what gets rewarded and recognized. We’re in the messy middle of the AI adoption curve. Workslop is almost certainly happening in your organization right now.The only question is whether you’re managing the transition or hoping it resolves itself. History suggests which approach works better.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] next »