 |
|
|
|||||
To many watching from the sidelines, it can feel as if the global trade landscape is completely upending on a daily basis with no sign of slowing. To shine some much-needed light on the discussion, Flexport CEO Ryan Petersen assesses the biggest myths around trade and tariffs today, shares advice about avoiding jail, and gives insight into Chinas ability to weather volatility. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian and recorded live at the 2025 Masters of Scale Summit in San Francisco. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Myth No. 1 is, Don’t act on tariff announcements too quickly. Policy could shift again. I remember you telling me about Customs and Border Protection finding out about changes on Truth Social. Things just keep changing. We have a Supreme Court case that’s coming down the pipeline and it may, actually all the tariffs might just get refunded. And we’ll find that out in the next couple of months. And then, by the way, for sure the administration will claim that as a victory because the stock market’s going to go way up. But when you’re talking to clients, are they like, Yeah, we gotta do things. We don’t have to do things? Sometimes the best thing is to do nothing. You might say that’s actually an action. It could be a radical action to just say, Hey, we’re going to stay calm. Some changes in a supply chain take many years to play out, if you’re going to move your production to a new country. We’ve seen this where people said, “Oh, okay, China doesn’t work. We’re going to set up production in India.” And it turns out the tariffs on India are just as high as on China right now. So it is very difficult to make long-term decisions in a policy environment that changes so quickly. Are they looking over their shoulder at each other and saying, What’s that one doing? Should I be doing that? What can I do differently? Yeah, there’s a lot of that. It’s been very interesting. So we’re a customs broker to help companies figure out what duties they owe and pay them. And it’s a really complex world as you can imagine. There’s every variety of product out there. I’m used to being the expert when I talk to my customers. But now, the CEOsthey have to know their product at a level that I don’t. I don’t know every single product and every rule. And then I’m just like, I smile and nod, like, Yeah, yeah. It’s been really tough for us to be at that forefront trying to monitor what’s happening and interpret it for our customers and . . . give them advice: What decision should you make? Let’s move to myth No. 2: The government has a plan. Don’t worry, they know what they’re doing. Everything’s going to turn out great. It’s difficult to say. I think there’s maybe a plan. I don’t know if it’s a good plan. The reality is there’s actually some pretty good reasons for us to be concerned about the lack of industrial production in the United States. And one of the problems in life though is you get a bunch of people in a room and you say, Hey, we got this problem, we gotta do something, they’re going to do something. And it doesn’t always mean they’re going to do the right thing. Like, yes, tariffs may be an effective way to stimulate manufacturing. [But] the way they’ve been done so far, actually, I’ve met more companies that are shifting production offshore as a result of the tariffs because you have to pay duties on the components that are coming in and on the machinery that you use. These sorts of unintended consequences. Second-order impacts, maybe? Typical. Economies aren’t meant to be centrally planned. All right, let’s move to No. 3: China’s in a better position to adapt to trade volatility than the U.S. And I have to say that I’ve heard this exactly the opposite way too. I almost wrote this the other way, that the U.S. is in a better position to adapt to trade volatility than China is. Which is very illustrative that you could have written it both ways and it does illustrate trade is a positive-sum scenario. Both parties do trade because they’re both made better off by doing it. And this idea that you can win a trade war is sort of inherently wrong. You win a trade war by just not having one and doing trade in both parties. That said, the United States does depend on global trade less than China does. We’re self-sufficient in food and energy and they’re not. And that’s a big deal. They import, I think 80% of their energy. They import a lot of food from around the world. So if you’re talking about subsistence level, who’s going to survive in a terrible situation? We do depend less on trade. But that said, I think both parties, definitely both parties are going to lose. You have a lot of communications, you say, with CEOs here. Is there communication or information that you’re getting from contacts in China about how the trade war is impacting things there that maybe we’re not seeing as much? The thing that we’re seeingand it’s not just China; you see this on a global basisis when you jack up duty rates the way we have, you just create this huge incentive for fraud. For fraud? Yeah, for cheating. And it’s quite simple what’s happening. And it’s happening en masse. We’re spending a lot of time in D.C. trying to help them understand how this happens. The United States is the only country in the world, the only major country in the world, that allows foreign companies to import goods into the country without any kind of legal entity, physical presence, employees, bank account, nothing. You just, as a foreign company, fill out this form and you just get approved and you can start importing from overseas. Well then you just . . . mis-declare, you say the products are worth $10,000 when they’re worth $100,000. You just reduce your duty rate by 90%. And it’s very difficult for customers. We don’t have enforcement agents in other countries for trade compliance. We do for terrorism, for drugs, but not for trade compliance. Because it hasn’t been measurable, it hasn’t been worth it? Yes, exactly. And now the incentive is there. . . . There’s a bill in the Senate that’s being talked about and maybe Executive Order we will see to make it much more difficult for this type of fraud. But it’s not China-specific. I think this is like anyone in the world if you’re in a foreign country. You can take advantage of this. Don’t do that by the way. And if you’re an American company that’s buying from those people on those terms and they#8217;re importing for you, you are committing fraud. And I only have one rule in life: I’m never going to jail. I don’t have the personality for it.
Category:
E-Commerce
Three years ago, Patagonias founder Yvon Chouinard made an unprecedented move: he and his family gave away the company. Instead of selling the multibillion-dollar retailer or taking it public, they created a new trust and nonprofit that would use the companys profits to fight climate change and protect nature. In a new report that looks at companys impact over its 52-year history, Patagonia shares how the change has amplified its environmental work. While the companys day-to-day internal work hasnt changed significantly, were giving away a lot more money to protect the planet, says Corley McKenna, Patagonias chief impact officer. [Photo: Ken Etzel/courtesy Patagonia] The company has a long history of environmental giving. It pioneered an Earth tax in the 1980s to give 1% of its profits to environmental causes, later formalized as 1% for the Planet, an organization that thousands of companies have now joined. But the companys new structure enables giving at a much greater scale. Each year, as much as 98% of its profits can now be spent on climate action, after subtracting any funds needed for reinvestment in the business. (The company hasnt shared exactly how much cash goes back to the business itself, but it needs some funds for building retail stores, buying inventory, and having some money in a bank to weather unexpected events like a pandemic.) The remaining 2% of profits fund the companys purpose trust, designed to ensure that the company makes all decisions in line with its purpose to help save the planet, even long after Choinard and his family are gone. It’s really designed to lock in the values of the company,” McKenna says. A future CEO “can’t go rogue and take the company in a totally different direction.” Wetsuit repairs technicians Buddy Pendergast (left) and Hector Castro (middle) at our 2023 Wetsuit Forge repair event in New Hampshire. [Photo: Ryan Struck/courtesy Patagonia] Since the company restructured in late 2022, Patagonia has given $180 million to the Holdfast Collective, a group of five nonprofit trusts that the company created to fund environmental work. Thats compared to the $10-$15 million a year that the company gives away through 1% for the Planet. The funding has enabled many more of the type of projects that the company already supported. In Alabama, for example, it contributed $2 million this year to help conservation groups buy 8,000 acres in Georgias Okefenokee swamp, a unique ecosystem with rare and endangered animals, which was at threat for development of a new mine. In Alaska, it spent $3.1 million at a critical moment to prevent the development of another mine in the Bristol Bay watershed. In Australia, it helped purchase 92,000 acres of land. [Photo: Tim Davis/courtesy Patagonia] As Patagonia issues dividends to the Holdfast Collective, the funds are essentially spent right away. The goal is for hold fast to move that money to urgent needs quickly, says McKenna. A lot of philanthropies are creating endowments and they want to really save that money. The Chouinards feeling is the planet needs the money now. So [Holdfast] is trying to move it as quickly as possible. All of this adds to the work that Patagonias environmental activism team was already doing to support grassroots nonprofits working on issues like land protection, sustainable agriculture, and climate. That team works closely with the nonprofits, looking for ways not just to give money but for the company to elevate specific issues to get support from its customerslike helping establish Bears Ears National Monument, and then fighting the first Trump administration when it shrank the size of monument. Patagonia employees at the Protect Our Parks rally at Channel Islands National Parks Visitor Center in March 2025. Ventura, California. [Photo: Tim Davis/courtesy Patagonia] The environmental activism team is strategic about what it supports. This year, it worked with a coalition to fight against part of the reconciliation bill to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in the U.S. “That was a big win at a tough time,” says McKenna. “I think we wouldn’t be able to have these successes if we were tring to do everything, if we were trying to win every battle. We just can’t do that.” The company also continues to work to reduce its own environmental footprint, though the report acknowledges the challenges it still has as it reaches for climate goals. (Some 2025 targets, like a goal for half of its synthetic fabric to be made from waste, won’t be met on time.) It’s critical, the company says, for other businesses to also focus on climate actionboth in internal operations and in philanthropyat a moment when politics are moving in the other direction. “What we realize is it cannot just be Patagonia out here trying to do business differently,” says McKenna. Digging in at the Frontline Action on Coal camp in Queensland, Australia, where Patagonia Global Sport Activist Belinda Baggs (left) and friends rolled up their sleeves. [Photo: Emma Bäcklund/courtesy Patagonia] Businesses “definitely need to exist to do more than enrich a handful of individuals,” Choinard writes in the report, as he says that he’s been “working harder than an 87-year-old should” since giving away Patagonia. Companies can and should exist to solve problems. Corporate influence already crosses borders and shapes government policy everywhere. Imagine what could happen if interest groups and lobbyists prioritized planetary and human health over environmental deregulation. Or if even just a few multinational mega-corporations dedicated some of their profits toward doing good beyond what can be written off their taxes. Similarly, if enough companies join together and decide our planet takes precedence over profit, we can change the world. We could change capitalism for good.
Category:
E-Commerce
Its open enrollment season againthat period between October and November when workers must reacquaint themselves with deductibles, copays, and premiums. Many would rather wait at the DMV, sit through a three-hour work meeting, or attempt to explain social media to tech-challeged loved ones than spend their afternoon selecting an insurance plan. Thats why some workers are farming out everything on their health insurance to-do list to AI and social media. New research from HR tech company Justworks and The Harris Poll shows were entering the era of benefit burnout: Many people are not doing their own research on what plans are best for them, and instead of consulting HR, they’re outsourcing their decisions to artificial intelligence or crowdsourcing on TikTok. Some are simply hitting renew to avoid the stress altogether, potentially costing themselves and their employers in the long run. Its a precarious time to be doing that, and with rising premiums, open enrollment is set to be more stressful than ever. According to a study by health policy research and polling firm KFF, the amount health insurers charge for coverage on the ACA marketplaces is rising by an average of 26% in 2026. Justworks Benefit Blindspots Report, released earlier this month, found that 62% of zillennials (Gen Z and millennials) would entrust AI to help them decode benefits or compare plan options rather than try to figure it out themselves. Thats compared with just 29% of Gen Xers and boomers. Its not just AI. Gen Zers are also more likely to use TikTok, Instagram, or Reddit for research than to ask their employer or HR department for help. It doesnt always pay off: Nearly half forget or regret what plan they picked, according to the Justworks data, and 22% simply reenroll in last years plan rather than shop around. Healthcare is one of your biggest annual expenses, right after rent, yet 22% of people simply reenroll in last years plan without looking at the details, David Feinberg, SVP of risk and insurance at Justworks, told Fast Company. Take the time to review how your needs have changedsuch as new prescriptions, dependents, or health goalsbefore you simply reenroll in last years plan. The more expensive the plan is doesnt always mean it’s better, either. I see so many people default to the most expensive plan they can afford, assuming its the safest bet. In reality, the right choice depends on your actual health needs and risk tolerance, Feinberg said. A high-deductible plan paired with an HSA can provide you with savings for healthcare needs in the long term. Gen Zers and millennials are also leaving money on the table when it comes to flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and health savings accounts (HSAs). While 30% of zillennials have an FSA or HSA, only about 1 in 5 (19%) use one and understand the benefits of it, according to the Justworks data. Tax-advantaged accounts are one of the most underused benefits out there. You can use them for everyday needs like contact lenses or therapy apps, and if you invest your HSA early, it can grow tax-free for decades, Feinberg said. Its one of the easiest ways to build long-term financial wellness through your benefits. Thats where employers can step in, rather than leaving AI to fill the knowledge gap. Employers who meet Gen Z where they arewith digital tools, plain language, and proactive supportwill help close the confidence gap driving so much planxiety, he added. Luckily, some firms are already rolling out AI chatbots to answer staffs HR questionsa more solid alternative, perhaps, for workers whod boot up ChatGPT for tips instead.
Category:
E-Commerce
From fake apologies that spread like wildfire on social media (as was the case during the Astronomer CEO scandal) to companies facing backlash for using generative AI without safeguards, recent crises have shown how quickly brand reputations can unravel in the digital age. The rapid spread of misinformation online, combined with new risks tied to emerging technologies, has left organizations more vulnerable than ever. Companies that are not ready to deal with a crisis are putting their brands, reputations, and future at risk. There are three warning signs that your workplace is unprepared for the next disaster, scandal, or other corporate emergency. 1. Theres No Crisis Management Plan Unless a crisis management plan is in place, organizations will not know what to do when a crisis strikes, who will do it, how to do it, or why it should be done. For every minute a business delays in responding to a crisis, it will find itself in a defensive position and at a loss on the steps it should take to address the unfolding situation. Just as bad as having no plan is having one that has not been updated to account for the latest risks that can threaten the organization. Take AI, for example. According to research conducted by Riskonnect, 65% of surveyed companies do not have a policy in place to govern the use of generative AI by partners and suppliers. The reckless use of AI can result in fraud, plagiarism, and violations of intellectual property laws, all of which can create the risk of litigation and a crisis for businesses. The best and most effective plans should include these major categories: When and how the plan was prepared, updated, and tested The event or development that will trigger a crisis for the company Who has the authority to activate the plan What should be done and in what order to address the crisis What needs to be said about the situation, and who will say it Who should be told about the crisis, and how they should be notified Depending on the nature of the risks that companies can face, it is prudent to create separate crisis management plans for each of the risks. That is because responding to the threat of a lawsuit will be vastly different than responding to the death of the CEO, for example. The plans should be tested regularly to ensure they will work when needed. The plans can be evaluated through tabletop, field exercises, and computer simulations. Based on the results of the exercises, the plans should be updated and strengthened. Information about the plans should be shared with corporate officials and employees so they know there are protocols and policies in place that should govern how the company will respond in case of a crisis. 2. A Crisis Management Team Has Not Been Appointed Without a team in place to implement a crisis management plan, organizations will find themselves scrambling to figure out what to do and who will do it when a crisis strikes. The composition of teams will depend on the nature and size of organizations. For large companies, a team of five to seven people will usually suffice, and could include representatives from HR, IT, legal, marketing, public relations, and the board of directors. The team should meet regularly to practice working together under deadlines and pressure, test the crisis management plan, and make necessary adjustments to the team and plan. 3. You Dont Know What To Say When Theres A Crisis Silence is not golden when a crisis strikes an organization. The longer that you remain quiet about a crisis, the more likely it is that others will fill the vacuum and take control of the narrative. At the very least, businesses should prepare appropriate generic statements that can be issued immediately and then customized and updated as necessary. For example, if a lawsuit is filed alleging sexual abuse by a top corporate executive, one example of an initial statement is that We are aware that a lawsuit has been filed and will have more to say about it at a later date. But be careful about saying anything that could create a risk for litigation or liability in connection with the crisis. Consult with legal counsel to help minimize those risks. A qualified individual should be appointed ahead of time who will serve as the public face of the company when a crisis strikes. The best spokesperson will have a background in public relations or journalism and will have gone through media training. If you dont have anyone on staff to fill this important role, then consider retaining the services of a public relations firm or consultant who could serve as the public face of your company during this critical time. When the plans and teams are activated, corporate officials should resist any temptation to micromanage or second-guess them. Team members will have their hands full dealing with the matters at hand, and any efforts to interfere with their responsibilities will make their work that much harderand could extend or worsen the crisis. After the crisis has passed, a report should be prepared on how well the plans were followed, how well the teams worked to manage the crisis, and any lessons learned that can be applied to improve the organizations response to its next crisis.
Category:
E-Commerce
Marketers are setting the cultural conversation with their successes as much as their missteps. But which campaigns are creating healthy tension? When is the right time to walk back a rebrand? Autodesk CMO Dara Treseder breaks down branding and marketing lessons from the most high-profile campaigns of 2025, giving her unvarnished opinion on everything from Sydney Sweeney to Cracker Barrel and more. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by the former editor-in-chief of Fast Company Bob Safian and recorded live at the 2025 Masters of Scale Summit in San Francisco. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. [Sydney Sweeneys American Eagle ad] sparked all kinds of controversy and discussion about jeans versus genes. You and I talked before about what is healthy tension and toxic tension. So was this healthy tension, toxic tension? What does the reaction mean about where we are? Healthy tension is tension that moves the brand and the business forward. Great work must always have tension. If it doesn’t have tension, it’s not great and it’s not causing conversation. Healthy tension, when it moves the brand and business forward, it goes beyond awareness to drive actual acquisition and business results. Sometimes you can have awareness and instead of acquisition, you end up with alienation. So that is where instead of it being healthy, it goes into the toxic space. I think that they checked the box on tension, they raised awareness, but was it healthy? There was a lot of alienation. You don’t need a focus group to know that in this very polarized world that we are living in, when you use the word genes, and by genes I mean, G-E-N-E-S, and then you show only one demographic, they’re going to be people with thoughts, right? And there’s going to be a lot of energy around that. You don’t need to do a focus group or spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on research to get to that point. So there were some people that felt alienated. Did the awareness overall drive acquisition? We don’t know yet. I think a good example of a brand that jumped into the conversation and drove awareness and acquisition is Gap. They had a counter ad with Katseye and that drove a lot of acquisition and Gap sales on TikTok are through the roof. So that’s an example of healthy tension. Of using the tension to help? Of using the tension in a healthy way to drive not just awareness, but acquisition. I think, gone are the days where all publicity is good publicity. There’s some publicity we just don’t need, you know what I mean? All right, let’s try. Let’s go to number two. When Cracker Barrel fans responded to the removal of this old timer from the logo, right? They walkedand we’ve seen other brands backtrack, like HBO walking back Max, right? So are there situations, do you know, in the situations where it’s like, this is a cultural conversation that I’m losing. I can’t drive this conversation versus like I just made a mistake. First of all, brands have a lot of power because when we have brands where we’re having commentary from everybody, from the President, to your hairdresser, you’ve touched a nerve. And what I will say is, as a brand, Cracker Barrel had been experiencing a decline in sales. That’s why they said, what can we do to ignite or spark the next wave of growth for the business? So we have to give them kudos for saying, “hey, we can’t just keep going down the path we’re going, we need to change something.” Now when you are evolving a brand, you have to either adapt or you die as a brand. You have to evolve. So they got, check, we need to evolve. Now there’s the heart of the brand or the soul of the brand because what is a brand at the end of the day? A brand is the sum of the promises we make and the experiences we deliver. That is what it is. It is the sum of the promises we make and the experiences we deliver. The soul of the heart of the brand is at the core of that. For Cracker Barrel, it’s around that southern hospitality and comfort. That is a non-negotiable. I think with the logo change, I mean you all can see the second logo. It’s not exactly screaming Southern hospitality. It’s not really screaming anything. It’s pretty sanitized. It’s not screaming. It could be Panera Bread, you know what I mean? And so, if you are someone who, immediately you see this, you go to, this is changing southern hospitality and comfort. So all of a sudden you start to question what is this brand going to deliver? And so it affects the trust with the customer because you’re evolving something that is too core. So I think Cracker Barrel learned, hey, this is too core. We can’t touch this. Let’s look at other things that we can evolve. So I’m going to give them kudos for actually saying, hey, we listened and we’re going to not touch the heart or the soul of the brand. We will evolve something else. I don’t actually think it’s capitulation, I think it’s smart. I think it’s good stewardship of the brand. We’re not in a perfect world. We’re all going to make mistakes. I give bravery and courage for saying, hey, we messed up this. We’re going to go back. All right, so this is an image of the UK street wear designer, Tega Akinola. It’s part of Autodesk’s, Let There Be Anything campaign. Partnerships are so important for brands right now. So how do brands associate and get the most authentic partnerships with creators, celebrities? How do we think about making sure you get the right choice so you get the right ROMI, the right return on marketing investment? Yes. Show me the ROMI. Everything has to start with business impact. First of all, you have to figure out, how is this going to advance my brand objective and ultimately drive the results that I’m going for? So there are three key things you look at. First of all, is this an add? It has to be an add and a build. It should not be a detraction. And honestly, if it’s going to be neutral, don’t even do it. Do something else with your resources. So that add and that build is really important. The second thing is you need to be pushing not just for reach, but also resonance because reach does not equal resonance and you cannot compromise resonance for reach because if you are not getting both resonance and reah, you’re ultimately not reaching that new target audience and you’re not expanding your demographic to get the needed business results. I think the third thing is you have to make sure that whatever partnership you’re doing, it fits into the bigger picture and is a force multiplier, not a force divider. So that’s a third thing you need to look at. I think when you check those three boxes, whether you’re working with a creator or it’s a brand partnership, that’s how you get to ROMI. And if you’re thinking, what should the math be? I like to use a 1:3 ratio. So if I’m spending a dollar, I want to make sure that I’m making at least $3. If I’m not going to make $3, there might be a better investment for those resources.
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 »