 |
|
|
|||||
What happens when venture capital and government pull back from science entrepreneurs at the same time? Many scientists think were about to find out, and are looking at how we can preserve our countrys innovative leadership. While others are pulling back, at Activate were leaning in and asking, What should we teach the scientist founders we support so they can find the opportunity in this crisis? History lesson History has a lesson for us: the U.S. saw a boom in deep-tech between 1870 and 1920 even though neither venture capital nor government grants existed at that time. Moreover, much of that technology was commercialized by teams of fewer than 10 people. Consider, for example, a particularly famous startup founded by two brothers. In 1892, some of America’s most famous science entrepreneurs, Orville and Wilbur Wright, capitalized on a growing craze for bicycles in the U.S. by opening a bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio. In 1896, the U.S. Governments War Department allocated $50,000 (about $1.9M in 2025 USD) to the Smithsonian Institution, the closest thing to a national lab at that time, to develop a powered flying machine. In 1899, in response to this very public market signal and to growing competition in the bicycle industry, the Wrights began to pivot toward developing an airplane. In their historic moment, they demonstrated powered flight in November 1903 and went on to earn their first revenue (totaling about $3.8M in 2025 USD) in late 1908 and early 1909. Financing deep tech Commercializing deep tech took the same decade then that it does now. This makes sense: we can make much more complex technologies today, but the core loop of design-prototype-test-revise continues to move at the speed of human thought and observation. Without grants or venture investment, financing deep tech then was very different, but it was not impossible. The Wrights continued to own and operate their bicycle business (with substantial assistance from their sister Katherine) over their entire entrepreneurship journey, only divesting in 1908 once the airplane was sure to pay the bills. From bicycle to airplane The bicycle shop provided the funds, skills, team, and facilities needed to develop the airplane. Funds: The bicycle shop was consistently profitable, allowing the Wrights to support themselves and invest in their airplane research. Skills: The Wrights started by selling and repairing bicycles from a variety of brands, graduated to assembling bicycles from components and selling them under their own Van Cleve and St. Clair brands, and eventually invented components (such as improved wheel hubs) for their cycles. Team: Charlie Taylor, whose many contributions to the first airplane include designing and building its aluminum engine, began working with the Wright Cycle Co. as a contract machinist in 1898 before joining full-time in 1901. Facility: The workshop and tools in the bicycle shop doubled as the laboratory for testing and building prototypes for the first airplane. When the Wrights finally closed the bicycle shop, it was to fully convert it to a workshop for their airplane business. Today’s science entrepreneurs have a lot they can learn from this model. For one, even when venture capital investment is available, opening a bicycle shop before developing an airplane is often the way to go. Were advising our Activate fellows to find products and services that customers will buy today and that build the team, skills, and assets they need to bring their transformative technologies to market. The genius of the Wright brothers wasnt just in being first in flight, but also in seeing how the airplane could grow out of their bicycle business. Three questions In my job as managing director of Activates Boston community, I have long-term coaching relationships with 20 science entrepreneurs. Right now Im telling them to ask themselves three questions: How do I grow the long-term value of my airplane? How do I grow the short-term value of my bicycle shop? How do I tighten the connection between the two? In an uncertain economy, supporting science entrepreneurs is more important than ever. They have the skills needed to build bicycle shops that deliver unglamorous but critical products and services for the millions of deeply technical niche markets that underpin our modern world. They also have the creativity and tenacity to leverage their day-to-day work to invent entirely new industries that meet our countrys most pressing needs. We need to publicly recommit to these often unsung science heroes so that we can set themand our countryup for success.
Category:
E-Commerce
Last month, an AI startup went viral for sending emails to customers explaining away a malfunction of its AI-powered customer service bot, claiming it was the result of a new policy rather than a mistake. The only problem was that the emailswhich appeared to be from a human sales repwere actually sent by the AI bot itself. And the new policy was what we call a hallucination: a fabricated detail the AI invented to defend its position. Less than a month later, another company came under fire after using an unexpectedly obvious (and glitchy) AI tool to interview a job candidate. AI headaches Its not shocking that companies are facing AI-induced headaches. McKinsey recently found that while nearly all companies report investing in AI, fewer than 1% consider themselves mature in deployment. This gap between early adoption and sound deployment can lead to a PR nightmare for executives, along with product delays, hits to your companies brand identity, and a drop in consumer trust. And with 50% of employers expected to utilize some form of agentic AIfar more advanced systems capable of autonomous decision-makingthe business risks of clumsy AI deployment are not just real. They are rising. As AI technology continues to rapidly evolve, executives need a trusted, independent way of comparing system reliability. As someone who develops AI assessments, my advice is simple: Dont wait for regulation to tell you what AI tools work best. Industry-led AI reliability standards offer a practical solution for limiting riskand smart leaders will start using them now. Industry Standards Technology industry standards are agreed-upon measurements of important product qualities that developers can volunteer to follow. Complex technologiesfrom aviation to the internet to financial systemsrely on these industry-developed guidelines to measure performance, manage risk, and support responsible growth. Technology industry standards are developed by the industry itself or in collaboration with researchers, experts, and civil societynot policymakers. As a result, they dont rely on regulation or bill text, but reflect the need of industry developers to measure and align on key metrics. For instance, ISO 26262, which was developed by the International Organization for Standardization, sets requirements to ensure the electric systems of vehicles are manufactured to function safely. Theyre one reason we can trust that complex technology we use every day, like the cars we buy or the planes we fly on, are not defective. AI is no exception. Like in other industries, those at the forefront of AI development are already using open measures of quality, performance, and safety to guide their products, and CEOs can leverage them in their own decision-making. Of course, there is a learning curve. For developers and technical teams, words like reliability and safety have very different meanings than they do in boardrooms. But becoming fluent in the language of AI standards will give you a major advantage. Ive seen this firsthand. Since 2018, my organization has worked with developers and academics to build independent AI benchmarks, and I know that industry buy-in is crucial to success. As those closest to creating new products and monitoring trends, developers and researchers have an intimate knowledge of whats at stake and whats possible for the tools they work on. And all of that knowledge and experience is baked into the standards they developnot just at MLCommons but across the industry. Own it now If youre a CEO looking to leverage that kind of collaborative insight, you can begin by incorporating trusted industry benchmarks into the procurement process from the outset. That could look like bringing an independent assessment of AI risk into your boardroom conversations, or asking vendors to demonstrate compliance with performance and reliability standards that you trust. You can also make AI reliability a part of your formal governance reporting, to ensure regular risk assessments are baked into your company’s process for procuring and deploying new systems. In short: engage with existing industry standards, use them to pressure test vendor claims about safety and effectiveness, and set clear data-informed thresholds for what acceptable performance looks like at your company. Whatever you do, dont wait for regulation to force a conversation about what acceptable performance standards should look likeown it now as a part of your leadership mandate. Real damage Not only do industry standards provide a clear, empirical way of measuring risk, they can help navigate the high-stakes drama of the current AI debate. These days, discussions of AI in the workforce tend to focus on abstract risks, like the potential for mass job displacement or the elimination of entire industries. And conversations about the risks of AI can quickly turn politicalparticularly as the current administration makes it clear they see AI safety as another word for censorship. As a result, many CEOs have understandably steered clear of the firestorm, treating AI risk and safety like a political hot potato instead of a common-sense business priority deeply tied to financial and reputational success. But avoiding the topic entirely is a risk in itself. Reliability issuesfrom biased outputs to poor or misaligned performancecan create very real financial, legal, and reputational damage. Those are real, operational risks, not philosophical ones. Now is the time to understand and use AI reliability standardsand shield your company from becoming the next case study in premature deployment.
Category:
E-Commerce
In today’s marketplace, “authenticity” has become a buzzword that brands strive to embody. Consumers will tell you they are drawn to companies that appear genuine, transparent, and aligned with their personal values, and brands are certainly paying attention. However, the concept of corporate authenticity is complex and often misunderstood. While it seems easy enough to decide whether a person is authentic and honest (which does not imply we are good at it), it is rather more difficult to attempt to judge a corporation on whether it is true to itself or lives up to its values. Unlike individuals, corporations are open systems with diverse stakeholders, making the pursuit of authenticity a challenging endeavor. The impression or view a collective of individuals may hold on them represents less in the form of a tangible or concrete reality, and more in the form of an urban legend or story. As Yuval Harari notes, corporations are shared mythsPeugeot is not a car, it is a story. In line, research shows that we often anthropomorphize brands, attributing human characteristics to them. This tendency is encapsulated in Jennifer Aaker’s seminal work on brand personality, which identifies five dimensions: sincerity (think Patagonia, known for its environmental activism and ethical sourcing), excitement (Red Bull, with its adrenaline-fueled branding and extreme sports sponsorships), competence (Toyota or Microsoft, projecting reliability and expertise), sophistication (Chanel or Rolex, evoking elegance and luxury), and ruggedness (Jeep or Harley-Davidson, built around toughness and adventure). These categories help marketers craft emotionally resonant narratives, but they can also misleadcreating the illusion of consistent, humanlike traits in organizations that are, in reality, anything but unified or coherent. The Pitfalls of Virtue Signaling Indeed, assigning brands personalities also sets them up for moral scrutiny. Once a company claims to be sincere, competent, or sophisticated, it invites consumers to hold it accountablenot just for performance, but for being honest in what it claims, and doing what it says. Thats where things often fall apart. Take the example of punk beer brand BrewDog. In 2022, the company launched an aggressive advertising campaign to distance its beers from the human rights abuses associated with the World Cup, even promising to donate sales of its Lost Lager to fight human rights abuses. But the story became more inconvenient when it emerged the company had a partnership with a distributor in the Gulf, and would continue to show World Cup matches in its pubs. As it turned out, the road from punk rebel to self-serving hypocrite turned out to be rather short. On the other hand, Targets recent decision to double-down on its commitment to DEI despite the growing list of multinationals (including Meta, McDonald’s, Ford, Walmart, Amazon, Harley-Davidson, and Disney) deemphasizing or halting their existing DEI programs, appeared to trigger a consumer backlash (at least according to its CEO). Then there’s H&M, which promoted a Conscious Collection to highlight its commitment to sustainability, only for watchdogs and NGOs to uncover greenwashing practices and ongoing exploitative labor issues in its supply chain. While consumer perceptions of insincerity may not always be fair or reliable (and there will never be a shortage of social media trolls praying on any corporate decision, including the decision to not say or do anything about anything), the fact remains that if you make a claim to be responsible or ethical, it is only a matter of time before consumers start looking under the hood to see whether your actionsand your political spendingare aligned with what your firm says it cares about. In the digital age, where every claim can be fact-checked and memed within minutes, performative values are not just ineffectivetheyre often self-handicapping. Is This Brand for Real? A Consumers Guide to Authenticity If you’re wondering whether a brands values are more than just marketing spin, here are a few practical ways to find out: 1. Is the cause connected to what they actually do?Brands are most credible when they support issues tied to their core business like a bank promoting financial literacy, or a food company addressing supply chain working conditions. If the cause feels random or like its chasing headlines, thats worth questioning. 2. Is the message matched by meaningful action?Look beyond the ads. Are they investing in real change, or asking you to do all the work? If a brand promotes sustainability but spends more on ads than actionor emphasizes consumer behavior over their ownit might be more about optics than impact. 3. Are there big gaps between claims and criticism?Compare what a brand says with how its covered in the press or watchdog reports. If theyre celebrating progress on diversity or climate, but facing lawsuits or fines in the same areas, thats a red flag. No brand is perfect, but consistency matters. 4. Who owns the topic inside the company?Real commitment goes beyond marketing. If sustainability or DEI is led by senior leadership and tied to company performance, that suggests seriousness. If its buried under PR, it may be more about image than impact. 5. Are they transparent about whats not working?No company gets it right all the time. But the best ones admit mistakes, revise targets, and explain why. Honesty is often more powerful than perfectionand its a key sign that the values are real, not just rehearsed. 6. Do they walk the talk politically?Some brands say one thing in public and back different things behind closed doors. If you care, tools like OpenSecrets.orglet you see whether a companys donations and lobbying match their stated values. The Role of Leadership Brand authenticity must be cultivated from the top down. Leaders set the tone for organizational culture and values. When executives embody the principles they espouse, it reinforces authenticity throughout the organization. Conversely, a disconnect between leadership behavior and corporate messaging can undermine credibility. That said, we should also acknowledge a sobering truth: we will never truly know whether a leader is authentic in the sense of being true to their internal values. Self-knowledge is hard enough for individualslet alone for those interpreting others from a distance. But, as one of us (Tomas) argues in a forthcoming book, Dont Be Yourself: Why Authenticity is Overrated and What to Do Instead, that kind of inner authenticity may not be what matters most anyway. What matters is whether leadership behaviorregardless of motiveresults in positive, prosocial outcomes. Are decisions advancing the well-being of employees, customers, society, or the environment? If so, perhaps we shouldnt care whether the driver is conscience or capitalism. To put it bluntly: we don’t need leaders to be saintswe need them to behave decently, even if theyre doing it to protect the brand, preserve investor confidence, or attract talent. In fact, many of the best corporate decisions are made precisely because they’re strategically ethicalnot because the CEO had a moral epiphany during their morning meditation. Sure, there are rare and admirable cases where executives have chosen the harder, more ethical path even when it hurts profits (Target, as mentioned above)pulling out of exploitative markets, paying fair wages despite pressure to cut costs, or refusing to greenwash in favor of slower, more meaningful change. But those leaders are exceptions. We should appreciate them, not expect them as standard. Disregard of decency Still, even in a world where profit is king, some companies stand out not for their lack of idealism, but for their flagrant disregard of decency. These are the firms that exploit labor, abuse data privacy, pollute freely, or thrive on addictive productsnot incidentally, but as a matter of business model. Whether or not their leaders are being “true to themselves” is beside the point. What matters is that theyre consistently making the world worseauthentically or otherwise. In this light, corporate authenticity should be judged not by introspection but by impact. Not by consistency with internal values (which are often opaque), but by observable behaviors, externalities, and the lived experiences of stakeholders. Or to put it differently: if your authentic self is toxic, exploitative, or unethical wed rather you fake it. And heres the punchline. The most responsible organizations today are often the ones that dont fetishize authenticity, but instead institutionalize accountability. They build feedback loops, audit their culture, measure ethical risks, and reward good behavior even when its not performative. In other words, they focus less on being real and more on doing rightwhatever the motive may be. Pretend Responsibly: Why Corporate Authenticity Is About Impact, Not Essence Kurt Vonnegut famously noted that We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be. The same warning applies to companies. In todays hyper-transparent, hyper-skeptical world, brands are in a constant state of performancetelling stories, signaling values, curating identities. But heres the rub: those performances shape reality. The way a company chooses to present itselfsincere or performative, strategic or self-expressivewill influence how it treats people, how it allocates resources, and how it responds when the spotlight moves on. So yes, corporations must be careful what they pretend to be. Because the story becomes the strategy. The persona becomes policy. And even if the motive is opportunistic, the consequences are real. Corporate authenticity is not about soul-searching or storytellingits about alignment and accountability. If a companys public commitments match its operational decisions, if it treats people decently even when no ones watching, if it chooses to mitigate harm instead of maximizing plausible deniabilitythen its doing something right, regardless of how authentic it feels. To be sure, it is preferable to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than the wrong thing for the right reasons! In short: dont ask whether a company is being itself. Ask what kind of self its choosing to performand whether that performance is making anyones life better. In the end, the best brands arent the ones that feel most authentic. Theyre the ones that behave responsibly, or at least manage to mitigate, if not avoid, bad behaviors relative to others.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||