Monthly Archives: March 2019

The American people are tired of bullshit from politicians and the media. It’s why they elected Trump as their president. Over the past two years, they’ve received shovels full of bullshit from the Democrats and mainstream media pushing a false Russia conspiracy narrative. The amount of bullshit they’ve consumed over the course of two years would make anyone revolt. And revolt they will.Even so, Democrats in the D.C. bubble will likely proceed with continued investigations and eventually impeachment proceedings. This will be as successful for them as it was for Republicans with President Bill Clinton.Many Independents and moderate Democrats will no longer know who or what to believe. They were already being pushed away by the extreme socialist wing of the party. Some will join with Republicans in 2020, more will stay home. But the result will be the same: fewer Democrat votes.Across the aisle, Republicans are angry and fired up. They haven’t been this motivated since the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. This energy will not quickly fade. For more than two years, the enthusiasm grew as they were being told they were supporting a traitor, with constant misinformation and lies from the media they will not quickly forget.The Democrats and their bullshit hoax have ensured Trump’s reelection in 2020.

What Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) Brands Are US Internet Users Aware of vs. Interested in Purchasing? (% of respondents, Oct 2018)

A quelques semaines de son introduction en Bourse, le leader mondial des VTC devrait officialiser le rachat de son concurrent basé à Dubaï pour 3,1 milliards de dollars.Après de long mois de rapprochement , Uber est sur le point d'absorber Careem. Selon des informations de presse dévoilées dimanche, le leader mondial des VTC va officialiser dans les jours à venir l'acquisition de son rival basé à Dubaï pour 3,1 milliards de dollars. Une annonce qui intervient à quelques semaines de l'entrée en Bourse de la société américaine.D'après l'agence Bloomberg , qui cite des personnes proches des négociations, Uber va débourser 1,4 milliard de dollars en espèces dans cette transaction, plus 1,7 milliard de dollars en titres qui seront convertibles en actions Uber, à un prix égal à 55 dollars par action.Valorisée un milliard de dollars en 2016, Careem revendique plus d'un million de chauffeurs et opère dans plus de 90 villes de 15 pays allant de l'Afrique du Nord jusqu'au Pakistan. La pépite de Dubaï est leader du marché des VTC dans la plupart de ces pays, notamment en Arabie Saoudite.Annonce prévue mardiSi Uber et Careem sont entrés en discussion il y a de cela plusieurs mois, le dénouement est attendu dans les prochaines 48 heures. Selon les personnes interrogées par Bloomberg, datent de plusieurs mois, les actionnaires de Careem, doivent accepter les termes de la transaction d'ici lundi soir avant une officialisation de l'accord dès mardi. Des informations qu'Uber a refusé de commenter.

In a statement, Brian Chesky, Airbnb’s chief executive, emphasized the company’s desire to expand into all aspects of travel. “A big part of building an end-to-end travel platform is serving every guest, whether they plan their trip a year or a day in advance,” he said.Airbnb, which is valued by private investors at $31 billion, is preparing to go public, though it has not specified a time frame. Ahead of that, it has expanded beyond home stays to appeal to a broader range of travelers. The company now lists boutique hotels, luxury hotels, activities and a hotel-like service called Airbnb Plus. In February, Airbnb hired Fred Reid, former chief executive of Virgin America, to strike more partnerships in the transportation industry.The San Francisco company is part of a coterie of highly valued start-ups, often called “unicorns.” Many of these unicorns are now moving toward the public markets, including the ride-hailing firms Uber and Lyft. Last week, Lyft unveiled its public offering prospectus, which showed that the company was growing quickly but was also losing money. Airbnb has turned a profit, excluding certain costs, for the past two years, the company said in January.

Le positionnement d’Orange Bank semble donc être un véritable enjeu. La cible des 35-55 ans pourrait être son point différenciant par rapport aux deux autres banques mobiles. Le fait qu’Orange se focalise davantage sur des profils qui disposent de plus de capital et peuvent trouver rassurants d’être adossés à une infrastructure française tout en profitant des innovations bancaires peut avoir du sens. Mais le manque de clarté sur son positionnement semble empêcher la marque de recruter efficacement dans l’une ou l’autre des catégories.La difficile progression du nombre d’abonnésCette difficulté pèse sûrement sur  la courbe de progression des abonnés d’Orange Bank, mais ce n’est pas tout. L’engouement a été moindre que prévu par l’opérateur. Le rythme des inscriptions avait pourtant bien commencé avec 100 000 clients acquis en seulement quatre mois, dont 30 000 en dix jours, l’opérateur recrutant notamment parmi ses propres salariés auxquels 40 euros de primes supplémentaires étaient accordés faisant grimper le tout à 160 euros à l’époque contre 120 euros pour les autres.On comparait même alors ses résultats à Hello Bank! (lancé en 2013 par BNP Paribas) à qui il avait fallu plus d’un an et demi pour passer ce cap des 100 000. Si Orange était parvenue à maintenir son rythme du début, l’entreprise aurait presque atteint ses objectifs aujourd’hui. Une difficulté à maintenir le rythme qu’a d’ailleurs reconnue Paul de Leusse, directeur général d’Orange Bank, dans un entretien accordé au Monde en octobre dernier. Il reconnaissait alors un tassement du recrutement des clients. « Orange Bank gagne entre 15 000 et 20 000 clients par mois » avait-il déclaré, contre 25 000 en moyenne sur les quatre premiers mois. Au vu du nombre d’abonnés au 31 décembre 2018, la moyenne est plus exactement aujourd’hui d’un peu plus de 17 700 par mois.Ainsi, naturellement, la rétention des clients est aussi un enjeu crucial pour la banque. Dans une interview accordée par Paul de Leusse au Parisien en novembre dernier, on apprenait que 5 à 10% des comptes ont été fermés au cours de l’année 2018 et que 30 à 40% des clients utilisent leur compte très fréquemment. La fréquence d’utilisation et la rétention des clients sont des sujets pour toutes les banques mobiles. Mais Orange Bank fait face à des défis bien particuliers. Très attendu, et pourtant reporté à plusieurs reprises, le lancement de la banque a été entaché par plusieurs bugs techniques dont se sont fait écho plusieurs forums de consommateurs: application qui se bloque sans raison, jugée trop lente ou peu intuitive, service client difficile à joindre… Nul doute que cela a eu une incidence particulièrement dommageable sur la réputation d’Orange Bank. Il n’y a par exemple qu’à faire un tour sur le site d’avis Trustpilot pour s’en rendre compte. 68% jugent le service « mauvais » et seulement 11% « excellent » au moment où ce papier est rédigé. Là où Revolut jouit de 75% d’ « excellent » (sur une plus grande quantité d’avis, près de 11 000 contre 39 pour Orange Bank). N26 de son côté comptabilise 68% d’ «excellent» et 17% de «mauvais» (un peu plus de 3 300 avis).

It would be easy to write survivalists off as loonies, but when the apocalypse arrives, it’s the rest of us who’ll look crazy. Even if you don’t believe global meltdown is inevitable, there’s value to be had in Bitcoin war games: envisaging worst case and “what if” scenarios that would test the digital currency to its limits. In a world with sporadic internet, Bitcoin would still survive. In fact, it would fare a lot better than fiat currency would in a world of “sporadic” banks, ridden with looting and widespread financial instability.If grandma didn’t get Bitcoin in more civilized times, she’s not going to grasp it now the world’s in flames and the enemy’s at the gates.Bitcoin can be sent and received without using the internet, such as over ham radio. The process is convoluted, though, and besides, when societal breakdown occurs, we’ll likely revert to a feudalist society in which locals trumps global. There’ll be no need to use bitcoin to buy stickers and other trinkets online because there’ll be no mailman or UPS driver to deliver it to your door. And besides, your letterbox will have been boarded up and the door barred to keep the zombies at bay.

If I was going to curb my consumerism, clothes seemed like a good place to start. The fashion industry puts a lot of stress on the blue marble we call home. According to a report from the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, the carbon footprint from textiles production in 2015 was greater than the CO2 equivalent of international flights and shipping combined. Our record for waste is no better: It's estimated that more than half of the "fast fashion" produced around the world is thrown out in under a year.OK, so, my singular avoidance of buying new clothes in the socially conscious Bay Area means very little in the big picture. But it was less about the act of shopping—I've never much liked it anyway—and more about a shift in thinking around ownership. Even before reading the New York Times piece, before Marie Kondo's book and Netflix show, I was feeling terrible about owning things I wasn't using. This new experiment became the textile equivalent of an app-tracking dashboard that exposed how much time I was wasting on my smartphone: I couldn't stop wearing clothes entirely, but I could be a lot more thoughtful about how I did it.Rent Is DueLike the Times writer Ann Patchett, I made exceptions to my own rules. I have problem feet (likely due to years of playing basketball), so I opted to buy new running sneakers that fit properly instead of the uncomfortable used Nikes I found at a consignment shop. At one point I bought a new wetsuit, so I wouldn't freeze in the Pacific surf. When my friends had babies, I often sent new, miniaturized clothing items as gifts, and when a last-minute video shoot for work required a wardrobe item, I ran out and bought two new but inexpensive shirts.Otherwise, I shopped at local consignment shops and Goodwill, scoured ThredUp and Poshmark, and eventually, hopped aboard the Rent the Runway train.Rent the Runway launched in 2009, and for a long time was focused on one-off rentals. Going to a gala? Rent a dress and wear it once. It was and still is a dream service for anyone who attends a lot of weddings.My own experience with one-time RTR rentals has been mixed. Last summer, I used the service to secure a formal dress before heading to a friend's nuptials in the mountains. The package arrived past its scheduled date, so I panicked and bought something else in the meantime, not knowing what shopping opportunities there would be at our final destination. (Rent the Runway issued a credit to use in the future as an apology for the delayed package). When I arrived at the wedding, another woman there told me she, too, had run into a problem with her RTR delivery.But Rent the Runway's monthly rental service—not for formalwear but for business attire—has been more useful than I could have imagined in this year of no-new-clothes. Since last May, I've been using the Update plan, which sends four clothes item each month. They arrive in a garment bag with a prepaid UPS label for returns. They smell delightful, and they are often things I never would have bought myself but finally have the ability to try. There's also an Unlimited plan, which includes four items but doesn't require you to send them back within a certain timeframe. You can swap out clothes when you feel like it. Two days later, you get new stuff.As its name suggests, Rent the Runway's inventory is firmly upmarket. Update costs $89 per month. Unlimited is $159 per month. If you love the idea of wearing Jason Wu, Derek Lam, Kate Spade, Diane Von Furstenberg—and having the option to buy from designer labels at a steep discount later—then, sure, it's a steal. For many people, including those who buy secondhand because that's what's in their budget, those monthly RTR fees are still more than they'd pay for clothing in any given month.

Aviva is launching what it claims is an industry-first subscription product as it looks to rebuild trust in an insurance industry it says is inherently “unfair” and has failed to reward customer loyalty.The new product, AvivaPlus, aims to offer simple, flexible insurance cover by allowing users to pay monthly at no extra charge and does away with charges for cancelling or changing a policy. It also includes a promise that renewing customers will – at a minimum – be offered the same deal as a new customer.Speaking to Marketing Week, Aviva’s retail and brand marketing director Tom Daniell says the product was developed to “face into” customer challenges and address significant pain points in the industry. He points to the fact that insurance comes second only to estate agents as the industry that is ‘least likely to give you the best price first time’ as a sign things need to change.“The ambition of AvivaPlus is to really start rebuilding trust and confidence within the industry of general insurance. There are practices within the industry we all experience that customers really feel have been unfair and not rewarding their loyalty to us,” he explains.This includes renewing customers paying more than new customers and extra charges. “There’s a whole load of what might be seen as the darker side of insurance products, he adds. “AvivaPlus is our opportunity to start from the ground up and redesign a new way of selling insurance to really answer and face into a lot of those customer challenges.”