 |
|
|
|||||
After Viagra came to market in 1998, women began clamoring for a drug of their own. But it has taken decades for the medical community to take women’s sexual health seriouslyand even longer to develop and approve a drug that improves women’s libido. A new documentary called The Pink Pill: Sex, Drugs, and Who Has Control, premiering at the DOC NYC film festival, explores the fight to launch Addyi, a drug known as the female Viagra. Directed by Aisling Chin-Yee, the film follows Cindy Eckert, the founder of Sprout Pharmaceuticals, who worked for five years to bring Addyi to market, which she managed to do in 2015. But just as fascinating, the film explores society’s perception of women’s sexuality and whether women have a right to sexual pleasure. The film also has an unusual backer. Knix, the underwear startup known for its period panties, provided the capital to bring this film to completion, and Knix founder Joanna Griffiths serves as an executive producer. It’s an interesting strategy that allows Knix to be part of a broader conversation about women’s rights while also potentially introducing the brand to new consumers. Joanna Griffiths [Photo: courtesy Knix] The Governments Effort to Block Addyi Low libido is a widespread problem among women. In this film, women talk about how their desire for sex can suddenly dry up, harming their romantic relationships and lowering their quality of life. But while men’s loss of sexual desire is treated as a medical problem, women’s sexual problems have been dismissed. Women describe their doctors telling them to drink some wine or read a steamy romance novel to get themselves in the mood. Then, in 2009, a German pharmaceutical company stumbled across a breakthrough. A medication originally developed to treat depression was found to improve women’s sexual desire. But when the company tried to bring it to market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected the drugciting concerns about its effectiveness and side effectsand it was abandoned. Enter Eckert, a pharmaceutical executive who had struggled with low libido herself. She believed it was worth taking on the FDA. She bought the drug from the German company for $5 million and went back to the federal agency to ask what trial data was required to approve it. But as she met the FDA’s demands, it kept coming back to her with new issues. Chin-Yees documentary makes the case that the FDA had a higher standard for Addyi than it did for other drugs because it was meant for women. For instance, one side effect of Addyi is sleepiness, which is true of many medications on the market. But the FDA wanted to block Addyi out of concern that a woman might take the drug at night, then fall asleep while driving her kids to school the next day. In response, Eckert poured more than $1 million into a driving study that showed women actually drove better after taking Addyi, likely because they slept better. “[Their concerns were] very much about protecting women because they might not make good choices,” says Dr. Anita Clayton, an OB-GYN professor at the University of Virginia whose clinical practice and research focus on womens mental health and sexual dysfunctions. Eckert was confronted with other FDA roadblocks for five years, and kept working to meet the organization’s requirements. During this period, the fight to launch the drug became a broader movement around a woman’s right to experience sexual pleasure, with many women’s organizationsincluding the Black Women’s Health Imperative and Jewish Women Internationaladvocating for the FDA to approve Addyi. There was also backlash. People argued that the drug wasn’t necessary because women are physically capable of having sex even if they aren’t aroused, whereas men cannot. Others argued that its normal for women not to enjoy sex after its no longer required for reproduction, such as after giving birth or entering menopause. In the end, however, Eckert managed to jump through every last hoop, and the FDA approved the drug for use in 2015; it became widely available in 2017. But the drug has had disappointing sales and has not become as successful as Viagra. In December 2024, however, Eckert’s company received $45.6 million in late-stage VC funding, and is currently generating revenue. So there’s hope that more women will feel comfortable talking to their doctors about low libido, and that doctors will prescribe Addyi. [Photo: courtesy Knix] When a Brand Becomes a Film Producer Knix founder Griffiths fell in love with The Pink Pill when it came across her desk two years ago when Chin-Yee was in the final stages of filming it. “It raises so many important questions about women’s sexuality,” she says. “It sparks so many further conversations about everything from our political climate to the role that sex plays over the course of a woman’s life.” In 2023, at the Banff World Media Festival, Griffiths announced that Knix was partnering with production studio Catalyst to launch Docs for Change, a project that would identify promising female documentary filmmakers and finance, develop, produce, and distribute their films. A large number of filmmakers applied, but The Pink Pill stood out because it shed light on an area of women’s health that has long been overlooked. The topic of the film isn’t directly related to Knix’s business, which is selling high-performance underwear and clothing, like period panties and teen bras. But over the years, Griffiths has tried to weave the brand into broader conversations that affect women. In 2021, for instance, the company launched Life After Birth, an art exhibit and book that documents how women’s bodies change after childbirth. Projects like this aren’t necessarily designed to market products, but rather to associate the brand with broader ideas. “We want our customers to know that we are advocating for them,” she says. [Photo: courtesy Knix] Frida, a brand for babies and new moms, did something similar when it recently commissioned a statue of a postpartum woman that is currently being exhibited around the world. Griffiths believes funding films and art is more rewarding than many of the other things that consumer brands spend their marketing budgets on, like expensive dinners and influencer trips. “You can spend $90,000 on a fancy dinner with beautiful florals for just small groups of celebrities and influencers,” she says. “But a film is by definition designed for a mass audience. The goal is to get as many people as possible to watch it.” To that end, Knix will help disseminate The Pink Pill via free movie screenings in the U.S. and Canada, and is working to find streaming services to carry it. Knix is also going to launch “screening kits” so people can host parties in their homes where theyll watch the movie with friends and then have a conversation about it with discussion questions. It’s a novel approach to marketing, but Griffiths believes its already paying off. “We’re already part of so many big conversations about women’s health,” she says. “We want to continue doing so.”
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
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
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||