 |
|
|
|||||
Hello and welcome to Modern CEO! Im Stephanie Mehta, CEO and chief content officer of Mansueto Ventures. Each week this newsletter explores inclusive approaches to leadership drawn from conversations with executives and entrepreneurs, and from the pages of Inc. and Fast Company. If you received this newsletter from a friend, you can sign up to get it yourself every Monday morning. The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos brings together an incongruous mix of celebrities (this year included Matt Damon, David Beckham, and Katy Perry, who was accompanying ex-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau), world leaders (President Donald Trump), and nonprofit leaders. The event also reliably assembles an unrivaled group of global CEOs who offer a window into where business is heading. Some CEOs see sunny skies ahead This year, though, I found the window very foggyand I wasnt alone. According toPwCs 29th Global CEO Survey, released at the start of the meeting, only about a third of CEOs (30%) say they are confident about revenue growth in the next 12 months, down from 38% in 2025 and 56% in 2022. Yet Paul Griggs, CEO of PwC U.S., says the American CEOs he spoke with in Davos are feeling much more optimistic than the survey would suggest. While they acknowledge that theyre dealing with high levels of uncertainty, theyre also more prepared to deal with complexity through new workflows and processes to keep them agile. I met with 10 CEOs today, and it was a day of optimism, Griggs says. Sharon Marcil, who leads Boston Consulting Group in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, is also seeing bright spots. A new report, BCG AI Radar 2026, finds that four out of five CEOs say they are more optimistic about the returns on their AI investments than they were a year ago. I do think 2026 is going to be a growth year, she says. Whos feeling blue? Most consultants I spoke with say European and U.K. CEOs are less confident than their U.S.- and Asia-based counterparts. AIs impact beyond the hype The impact of AI on jobs was also hotly debated at Davos. While most CEOs and executives continue to insist that AI will make work better by reducing mundane tasks, a few CEOs have started to talkpublicly and privatelyabout the roles AI will eliminate and the need to prepare workers for changes. Were focused on being completely honest with our workforce, says Kate Johnson, CEO of Lumen Technologies, a digital network services provider. Johnson says the company is committed to training employees for new roles in the organization but adds, We have to reimagine what the world will look like in the future, and [employees] need to imagine a world where their current job may not exist. Conversations about AI have also shifted away from applications (think OpenAIs ChatGPT) and agents (software that can make decisions and complete tasks) to infrastructure. Throughout the week, executives shared insights on the energy and networking capacity needed as data centers built specifically to support AI crop up. The big question now has gone from the potential to operational reality, says Aamir Paul, president of North America Operations at energy technology company Schneider Electric. (Fast Company partnered with Schneider Electric on a series of videos in Davos.) How do we make it happen . . . getting data centers built, getting energy access, getting it in a way that it doesnt affect retail costs and consumers dont have to take the burden, and doing it in a way where were still meeting our sustainability goals? These are daunting challenges that will require investment and inventiveness to solve. Luckily, one of BCGs recent business surveys saw a 14% uptick in mentions of innovation versus a year ago. Perhaps thats another reason for optimism in 2026. Your views on 2026 How are you feeling about the year ahead? Do you agree with the prevailing sentiment at Davos, or are you less optimistic about whats coming? Id like to hear your thoughts and why you feel that way. Please send them to me at stephaniemehta@mansueto.com. I may use your comments in a future newsletter. Read and watch more: Fast Companys Brendan Vaughan offers his take on Davos CEO insularity threatens dialogue goal at Davos CEOs at Davos are buying the agentic AI hype
Category:
E-Commerce
Im always amazed at how easily we give our time to others without thinking, and then are mad later when it was wasted. What exactly did we think was going to happen? That everyone was going to be prepared, productive, and appreciative? Time has become the ultimate luxurywe never have enough of it, and are jealous of those that have it. For too many of us, endless meetings, back-to-back emails, and constant interruptions leave little room for focused, meaningful work. Additionally, in our effort to be nice or generous, we offer our time even when were running on empty. But what if I told you that much of this time theft could be prevented with a little more mindfulness, intent, and discipline? Warren Buffett is a great example: He once shared his calendar with Bill Gates, and it was practically empty, which Gates found shocking. But Buffett was making a pointthat one of the key reasons for his success is that he fiercely guards his time, knowing that people will take your time if you let them. Time is a nonrenewable resource, and we should be stingier with it. You can lose money and get it back, but you can never get it back lost time. Yet every day, unnecessary meetings and unproductive engagements hijack our calendars, diminishing both our productivity and morale. So why do we let it happen? Its time to rethink how we treat time: not just our own, but the time of our teams and colleagues. Time as a Strategic Resource Let me introduce you to the concept of time crime that is emerging in workplaces today. Time is now considered an asset, and too many people are wasting it. Its misused through poorly planned meetings, rambling conversations, and vague scheduling. This has an impact not just on productivity but missed opportunity, and as a result orgs have made bold moves to create strict policies on things like meetings. Theyve made it part of their culture change to treat time with respect, with scheduling a meeting becoming a last resort. The idea is about mutually respecting timeyours, and others. In 2023, Shopify ruthlessly cut all recurring meetings with more than two people, resulting in 322,000 fewer hours spent in meetings in one year. Can you imagine that impact? What would you do with all that found time? For Shopify, it meant more focus and more time for deep work. Alan Rankin, chief procurement officer at Moderna, shared an aha moment he had around time management, and it changed how he operates: I was invited to a monthly operations meeting where many senior leaders in the company attended. I was really struggling to make a meaningful contribution to the meeting. I started to put myself under pressure to contribute more and say intelligent things. Then I had the lightbulb moment: Is this what is best for the company or is this all about me? I decided to stop attending and see if anything in my universe changed. And guess what? Nothing did. And now I have more time. Revelations like this are impactfuland essential. While there are many ways time gets stolen, meetings are usually the biggest culprit. NBCUniversal, for example, has learned that fewer participants in meetings often lead to more productive discussions. For many business units, meetings include only the minimum number of people necessary to achieve the objectives, resulting in faster decisions and more meaningful input from all attendees. The Power of Less: Fewer People = More Productivity The power of “less” applies to emails, reports, committees, and most certainly, to meetings. Ive never heard an organization tell me they wished their teams had more of any of these. Have you? Less equals focus, especially during meetings. When too many people are involved, important voices get drowned out. By keeping meetings lean and mean, you create an environment where only people that can contribute meaningfully attend, resulting in less distractions and more deep work. Atlassian lets employees question the necessity of every meeting. To decrease meetings, they use tools like Slack to handle simple status updates, letting teams focus more on high-value work. The message is to use your time with intention, and to only hold meetings when absolutely necessary. Stealing time is unacceptable. When meetings are held less often, they become a valuable commodity, where teams become more focused and disciplined with peoples time. Even Google has developed guidelines to make meetings productive and purposeful. Because innovation depends on it. Their meetings are short, focused, and to-the-point, with strict rules about minimizing unnecessary participants. The goal is to protect employees’ time by stopping lengthy, irrelevant discussions that take away from deep work. These guidelines help teams be mindful of how they spend their time, as well as how they use the time of others. Respecting Time Equals Respecting People Employees who feel their time is valued are more likely to be committed to their work. Time is, after all, one of the most tangible forms of respect you can show someone. At my own company, FutureThink, we regularly “uninvite” people to meetings, emphasizing that they dont need to attend the meeting and can use their time for more urgent work. People love being uninvited because it feels like a giftand our culture emphasizes that you need to use your time wisely; if you waste it on the unnecessarythats on you. The goal is for people to understand that time is something worth protecting. Guard Time Like Its Your Most Valuable Asset Stop letting your calendar be overrun with things you do need to really do, and start using your time with intent. The next time someone asks for your time, ask yourself: Is this meeting truly necessary? Is this the best use of my time, and their time? Doing this will not only protect your own productivity but also foster a culture where everyones time is treated as the invaluable resource it truly is.
Category:
E-Commerce
Remember how much fun it was to shop on the internet a decade ago? If you visited the Goop website, Gwyneth Paltrow might introduce you to her favorite $75 candle or $95 vibrator. If you were looking for a lasagne recipe, you could find a good one on Food52along with recommendations for a baking dish hand-selected by former New York Times food editor Amanda Hesser. Watch-lovers flocked to Hodinkee to see what founder Benjamin Clymer thought of the cool new Longines or Omega timepiece (with a handy link to buy it, in case you really liked it). At their peak, around five years ago, all of these media companies landed millions of dollars in venture capital and had valuations well into the nine figures. Legacy media ranging from the New Yorker to Vogue took a page from their book, too, linking to products you could buy directly from the pieces published on their websites. Gwyneth Paltrow and Kerry Washington speak during a live recording of the Goop podcast, September 19, 2019 [Photo: Stefanie Keenan/Getty Images for Goop] But over the last two years, this generation of content-to-commerce pioneers has fizzled out. Goop has gone through multiple rounds of layoffs and its website is a shell of what it used to be. In 2024, Hodinkee was sold at a fraction of its former valuation. And last month, Food52 declared bankruptcy and is headed towards a fire sale. It’s worth asking what happened to these startupsand what comes next, as AI transforms the way we shop online. The rise and fall of Food52 The rise and fall of Food52 offers insight into what went wrong with the content-to-commerce model. Founders Amanda Hesser and Merrill Stubbs had come from the traditional food media. They saw a gap between legacy magazines like Bon Appétit and Food & Wine, which prioritized the perspectives of elite chefs, and amateur food blogs, which were flooding the internet. With Food52, they invited home cooks to submit recipes, which their team would test. The best ones would be featured on the site, alongside beautiful photography. The concept resonated and site traffic grew quickly. Initially, the company generated revenue from advertising and brand partnerships. But in 2013, the site launched a shop that sold kitchenware and artisanal ingredients that Food52 staffers recommended. This approach made sense says Dan Frommer, founder of The New Consumer. One of the biggest problems with shopping online is the overwhelming volume of products available. First generation content-to-commerce startups offered expertise and a point of view, which gave them the authority to recommend products. “They were offering curation, which was a valuable service at the time,” he says. No-Bake Granola Bars from the Food52 Vegan’s cookbook by Gena Hamshaw, ca. 2015. [Photo: Melissa Renwick/Toronto Star/Getty Images] Goop and Hodinkee followed similar trajectories. They began as blogs centered around a particular perspective and aspirational lifestyle, driven by their well-known founders. Over time, they built up enough trust with their readers to sell them products. (Food52 declined to comment on the story. We reached out to Goop and Hodinkee, but neither got back to us by the time of publication.) In 2019 and 2020, investors still believed this might be the future of retail. They pumped millions into their startups to grow their audiences, start new revenue streams like events, and start their own product lines. Food52, for instance, was valued at $300 million in 2021, after an $80 million investment from TCG (which also invested in Hodinkee). But this funding may have inadvertently led to their decline. With the influx of cash, these startups had a mandate to scale, but they all struggled to grow sustainably. By the start of this year, Food52 had declared bankruptcy. America’s Test Kitchen has reportedly agreed to buy it for $6.5 million, of which $3.42 million is Chapter 11 financing. Frommer argues that there were many idiosyncratic reasons why each of these companies failed. Food52, for instance, appeared to have bitten off more than it could chew. In 2019, it launched its own in-house kitchenware line; it also acquired two entirely new companies, the Danish cookware brand Dansk and the lighting brand Schoolhouse. “There was a lot wrong with the business,” Frommer says. “There were failures in strategy and execution.” But taking a step back, it’s clear that there were also broader issues with the content-to-commerce model that affected all of these businesses. What Didn’t Workand What Did Theseearly content-to-commerce platforms accurately identified that consumers were overwhelmed with the avalanche of products available on the internetand they also knew that taste could be monetized. Still, there were flaws with their model. For one thing, consumers often didn’t come to these websites with the intent to shop. They were there to take in the content: the recipes, listicles of clean beauty products, or a conversation with Ed Sheeran about his favorite watches. Only a small proportion of consumers would feel compelled to buy a product. Often, when a publication’s famous founder recommended a product, it would sell better; but over time, as the sites grew to have teams of writers, the sites no longer conveyed the distinct sensibilities of Paltrow, Hesser, or Clymer. Then there were the economics. It is hard to make money by marketing other brand’s products. These sites generated small amounts of revenue by selling products at a markup on their online stores or by making a commission by driving the customer to another brand’s website. All of these companies realized that a more profitable route was to make their own products, which they all did, from Goop’s beauty and fashion lines to Hodinkee’s watch straps and limited edition collaborations with brands like Longines. But this meant building out teams with expertise in designing and sourcing products, which was also a major investment. Finally, there was all the competition. Other media sites quickly realized they, too, could create a new revenue stream by linking to products. And some began doing it much more effectively. In 2016, for instance, the New York Times acquired Wirecutter for $30 million. Unlike Food52, Goop, and Hodinkee, Wirecutter was designed to help consumers at the moment when they were ready to buy a product. New York Magazine built its own product recommendation site called The Strategist, which has a similar model. “Content that really drives commerce is not just ambient recommendations around fun articles,” says Frommer. “It’s really purpose-driven content designed to help the consumer solve a problem. The majority of traffic to Wirecutter and The Strategist happens at the moment of needthey promote their humidifier recommendations when the winter air is dry.” The content-to-commerce model hasn’t disappeared; it has shape shifted. There are now massive players like Wirecutter that dominate the landscape. And at the other end of the spectrum, there are armies of individual content creators who recommend products to their followers on Substack, Instagram, or TikTok. It’s just the middle of the market that has collapsed. But as with everything on the internet, change is constant. And everything we know about how to shop online is about to get transformed by AI, which is already where many people begin their shopping journey. In many ways, AI agents are the ultimate blending of content and commerce: They offers product recommendations, personalized to the user, presented within a conversation. But what’s missing from AI is a unique point of view or sensibilitywhich is what the early content-to-commerce players excelled in. In an AI-driven shopping future, the winners wont be the smartest algorithms. It’ll be the ones that blend data with something that feels like taste.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||