ResidentialBusiness

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Nothing is really new in conspiracy theories, but the churning morass of social media sometimes mixes up new combinations of old nonsense that bubbles up to the surface unexpectedly. Lately, interest in "Grabovoi codes" or "Grabovoi numbers" is high. The CIA is supposedly hiding Grabovoi codes, strings of numbers that one can concentrate upon in order to cure disease, get rich, and manifest a new car. This video, for instance, has been viewed over a million times in the last couple weeks: "You can search 'quantum healing codes' at the CIA.gov website and it has many different codes for many different things," This TikToker says, "for instance you would think of the part of your body that's hurting and repeat 55515 and, voila, pain starts to vanish," they add. Many TikTokers are into this. There are over 43,000 posts on the "Grabovoi" hashtag. It might seem like lightweight wish fulfillment, but I looked into where belief in the Grabovoi codes comes from, and it's way deeper than TikTok. The online world's belief in magic numbers is a case of historical telephone that can be traced to a convicted Russian conman, an American broadcasting tycoon who believed he could travel outside of his body, and the strange history of the CIA and KGB's research into the paranormal—it gets real weird, real quick. But first, do the Grabovoi codes actually work? Can you use Grabovoi codes to cure pain and disease and/or manifest wealth?No. But sometimes, kind of yes. There is a library of research about the connection between the cognitive mind and the perception of pain, and scientific research supports the general idea that if you are experiencing mild pain, concentrating on something else, like a specific number, could reduce the perception of that pain. But the number itself is irrelevant; it's the distraction that matters. All other claims about benefits from these numbers—that they represent frequencies connected to specific real life outcomes, that they can help you find love, etc.— are not supported by any evidence. Do Grabovoi codes come from the CIA?No. But kind of yes. Despite the claims of online believers, searching "quantum healing codes," or "Grabovoi" in the CIA's declassified files database does not result in a list of healing numbers. There is no mention of the inventor of the Grabovoi numbers, Grigori Grabovoi, in the files either. There is actually one "healing number" contained in declassified CIA files. But first... Who is Grigori Grabovoi?Grabovoi is the founder of the Russian group Teaching Universal Salvation and Harmonious Development. He claims he is the second coming of Jesus, can cure cancer, can teleport, and can repair anything, mechanical or electronic, remotely. In 2008, Grabovoi was sentenced to 11 years in a Russian prison for fraud after accepting payment to resurrect children slain in the Beslan school siege. He's served his sentence and lives in Serbia now. Among the hundreds of books (usually transcripts of lectures) Grabovoi has authored is Restoration of Matter of Human Being by Concentrating on Number Sequence, which lays out some of the Grabovoi numbers. Not all of them, though. Grabovoi tends to publish books of numbers for specific subjects, like Concentration on Numerical Sequences to Reset the Body of Cats. Grabovoi doesn't miss a trick. Which brings us to TikTok. Beginning around 2016, Grabovoi and his believers/followers started promoting his numbers and theories on Pinterest, TikTok, YouTube, and basically everywhere else, and they were spread by people connected with hashtags like #manifestation, particularly when Covid19 was at its peak. So that's why everyone is talking about Grabovoi codes, but it doesn't explain the CIA connection. That's because of Robert Monroe. Who is Robert Monroe?Robert Allan Monroe was a media tycoon who made a ton of money producing radio shows in the 1930s and 40s. By the late 1950s, Monroe owned a network of radio stations and early cable TV channels across Virginia. In 1958, this rich radio dude claimed he had a spontaneous out-of-body experience after listening to binaural sounds. To study the phenomena, Monroe used his considerable wealth to found the Monroe Institute. In 1977 the Institute published the The Gateway Intermediate Workbook, a collection of mental exercises and visualization tools designed to help people relax and/or project their consciousness across time and space. It advised people in pain to close their eyes and repeat "55515" to dull pain signals. Why this number specifically is not explained, but Monroe's whole thing was "hemi-sync" audio signals, aka "binaural beats," so the idea may have been that repeating a precise rhythmic sequence like "five-five-five-one-five" would echo pulsing audio frequencies. It's hard to say. Anyway, repeating this series of numbers is unlikely to have any more effect on pain than repeating anything else, and the research on binaural beats isn't promising. None of this changes the fact that the CIA had a real connection to the Monroe Institute. How the CIA connected to the Monroe InstituteThe Monroe Institute's workbook and other esoteric material were part of the CIA's reading room, and by the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, the U.S. Army and the CIA routinely sent high level intelligence officers to the Monroe Institute's campus, especially in connection with Project Stargate, the military's effort to create psychic soldiers and/or remote viewers who could project their consciousness anywhere they wanted. The "CIA connection" is the most compelling thing about TikTok's interest in magic numbers. The CIA and army intelligence are thought of as serious, smart people who deal in information the rest of us are not privy to. If they believe in magic numbers, it must be true, right? Well, yes and no. The CIA/military is a group of people, and all groups of people (even smart ones) can be bamboozled. Cold war paranoia leads to esoteric researchConsider the atomic bomb from a military, non-scientist perspective: If a split atom can level a city, is it that strange to believe the human mind has capacities we don't understand? Add to that the revelation that the USSR was conducting its own paranormal research, and you have a perfect storm. If we're wrong about this, the thinking that led to military paranormal research likely went, and the Soviets make atomic-bomb-level breakthroughs in the field of parapsychology, they'll bury us without firing a shot; it would be crazy to not look into it. And given the massive military budgets of the time, it was a tiny expenditure with a potentially nuclear-level outcome. (There's also the possibility that both the CIA and the KGB were purposefully deceiving one another about the extent of their research to make the other spend more. Things get shadowy during the Cold War.) Enter the Monroe Institute. Robert Allan Monroe wasn't a wild-eyed hippie. He wore expensive suits and had straight white teeth. At least on the surface, the Monroe Institute was taking a corporate approach to the mind/body connection. Its approach was structured, serious, and deliberately clinical. The Gateway Workbook is a step-by-step process instead of a leap of faith. The Monroe Institute was the kind of place the military might feel confident sending its men. The reality check of the 1990sResearch into remote viewing and other esoterica went on, seemingly with no tangible results. In 1989, Soviet Union collapsed without the help of psychic warriors or atomic bombs, and the CIA took a hard look at its paranormal programs in the mid 1990s. 1995's report "An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications," concludes, "OK, this was dumb and it never worked and we should stop throwing money at it." I mean, that's the gist. Anyway, the material was declassified so we could all take a look at how our taxes are spent. Which brings us back to TikTok. Everything the CIA releases has always been pored over by curious people, where it marinates with other "official" weirdness like UFO research and quantum mechanics until it gets spit back in altered form. The no-context architecture of social media seems designed to legitimize fringe ideas. A convicted Russian conman's magic numbers collide with a wealthy eccentric's out-of-body workbook that got filed in a CIA reading room, and suddenly a million people think the CIA has a secret cure for back pain. The low cost of entry of the Grabovoi codesI don't think too many people on TikTok really believe that they can manifest magic and get rid of pain by repeating a number, but like a paranoid military throwing a few million at psychic research in the remote hopes of a Cold War-winning breakthrough, the barrier to entry is low. When you're in pain or you're broke or you're scared, why not repeat some numbers to yourself? It can't hurt. But it won't help that much, either. Research shows that cognitively demanding tasks like puzzles or math problems are more effective ways to distract yourself from pain than repeating a number, and while learning about out-of-body experiences from the Monroe Institute (which is still around, by the way) might be interesting, there are better ways to relax and clear your mind. For instance, rather than spending $2,895.00 to sit around in a dark room in Virginia envisioning a tropical beach at the Institute's five-day "Gateway Voyage," book a trip to Bali. For the same price, you could actually be on a tropical beach, and stay at a luxury villa with a private plunge pool and a personal butler. View the full article

Executives from Guild and NewRez discussed the steps they are taking as participants in the pilot phase of the roll out of VantageScore 4.0 and FICO 10T. View the full article

In today’s competitive environment, retaining customers is fundamental for long-term success. You can boost customer loyalty through various strategies, such as personalizing interactions and implementing effective loyalty programs. Furthermore, leveraging data analytics can reveal important insights about customer behavior, enabling you to act proactively. Cultivating a sense of community around your brand likewise plays a critical role. These solutions can greatly improve customer experiences, but how do you start integrating them into your business model? Key Takeaways Implement personalized communication strategies using CRM systems to enhance customer engagement and loyalty. Develop effective loyalty programs with tiered rewards and immediate incentives to encourage repeat purchases. Utilize data analytics to identify trends, understand customer preferences, and tailor retention efforts accordingly. Foster community engagement through social media platforms, encouraging user-generated content for authentic brand interaction. Automate routine processes to improve response times and provide proactive support, enhancing overall customer experience and retention. Personalize Every Customer Interaction Personalizing every customer interaction is vital for nurturing loyalty and improving engagement. Studies show that 84% of loyalty program members are more likely to make repeat purchases when they receive customized experiences. Nevertheless, less than 50% of businesses currently provide personalized recommendations within their loyalty programs, presenting a considerable opportunity for advancing customer loyalty and retention. By leveraging Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems, you can track individual preferences and behaviors, which allows for more pertinent recommendations and personalized service. Recognizing generational differences in communication preferences is also important; younger customers often prefer digital interactions, whereas older customers may favor face-to-face engagement. Furthermore, implementing AI tools can greatly improve personalization efforts by analyzing customer data to provide hyper-specific recommendations. These strategies are key components of effective customer loyalty solutions that can profoundly impact your customer loyalty in marketing and overall business success. Implement Effective Loyalty Programs Implementing effective loyalty programs is imperative for businesses aiming to improve customer retention and drive sales growth. To define customer loyalty, it reflects a customer’s willingness to repeatedly engage with your brand. Your loyalty solutions should align with business goals by incentivizing behaviors like frequent purchases or referrals to maximize customer lifetime value. Research shows over 70% of consumers prioritize discounts and points, so immediate rewards are critical for engagement. Furthermore, incorporating gamification elements can augment customer investment; consider tiered rewards or exclusive access to keep participants motivated. Significantly, only 31% of businesses offer true omnichannel loyalty programs, presenting an opportunity for you to stand out with all-encompassing solutions. Regular tracking and analysis of your loyalty program’s performance is fundamental, allowing you to adjust strategies based on customer preferences and responses, ensuring your program remains relevant and appealing over time. Enhance Customer Communication To improve customer communication, you need to focus on personalized outreach strategies and proactive engagement techniques. By tailoring your messages based on customer behavior and preferences, you can greatly boost engagement and satisfaction. Regular check-ins not only anticipate customer needs but furthermore nurture a sense of trust, leading to stronger loyalty over time. Personalized Outreach Strategies In today’s competitive market, businesses can greatly benefit from adopting personalized outreach strategies to improve customer communication. By tailoring your interactions, you can markedly improve customer engagement and loyalty. Consider these key strategies: Utilize Customer Data: Leverage insights from customer behavior and preferences to send targeted emails with relevant offers. Segment Your Audience: Recognize generational differences in communication preferences, customizing outreach for digital-savvy younger customers and those who prefer in-store interactions. Implement AI Tools: Utilize artificial intelligence to anticipate customer needs, enabling you to deliver personalized recommendations at scale. Proactive Engagement Techniques Proactive engagement techniques are essential for enhancing customer communication and nurturing loyalty in today’s marketplace. Regular check-ins and automated updates about service outages can greatly boost customer satisfaction by addressing potential issues before they escalate. By anticipating customer needs through proactive outreach, you can enjoy higher retention rates, as 87% of customers seek improved service consistency. Utilizing Salesforce systems to provide customized tips based on product usage allows you to create personalized experiences that strengthen customer relationships. Automating routine outreach, like follow-up messages or satisfaction surveys, helps maintain engagement without overwhelming customers. Additionally, addressing concerns with personalized outreach can effectively turn negative experiences into positive outcomes, building trust and driving long-term loyalty. Utilize Data Analytics for Insights Utilizing data analytics offers businesses a potent tool to gain insights into customer behavior and preferences. By tapping into this resource, you can improve your retention strategies and create personalized experiences that resonate with your customers. Here are three key benefits of leveraging data analytics: Identify Trends: You can spot emerging patterns in customer behavior, allowing you to tailor your retention efforts effectively. Measure Effectiveness: Analytics helps you evaluate the success of your retention initiatives, enabling data-driven adjustments to improve outcomes. Spot At-Risk Customers: By recognizing early warning signs, such as reduced purchase frequency, you can proactively intervene to address customer dissatisfaction. Foster a Community Around Your Brand Cultivating a community around your brand can greatly improve customer loyalty, as engaged customers are more likely to advocate for your brand through word-of-mouth referrals. By creating online forums or social media groups, you provide a space for customers to share experiences, ask questions, and connect with others who share their interests. This interaction nurtures deeper relationships and brand attachment. User-generated content from community members considerably boosts brand authenticity, with 79% of consumers stating it impacts their purchasing decisions. Encouraging participation and feedback not only strengthens your community but also offers valuable insights for product and service improvements. When you actively engage with your community—responding to feedback and incorporating suggestions—customer satisfaction and loyalty can increase. In fact, 96% of Voice of Customer and Customer Experience professionals emphasize the importance of collecting and analyzing customer feedback to drive improvements. Building a community around your brand is a strategic approach to improving loyalty and retention. Provide Proactive Customer Support To truly improve customer loyalty, you need to provide proactive customer support that anticipates needs and addresses potential issues before they arise. Regular check-ins and timely updates can transform the customer experience, making individuals feel valued and informed. Anticipate Needs and Issues Proactive customer support plays a crucial role in anticipating needs and addressing potential issues before they escalate. By focusing on this strategy, you can greatly improve customer satisfaction and loyalty. Here are three effective ways to implement proactive support: Automated Updates: Send timely notifications about service outages or potential issues, preventing customer frustration and demonstrating transparency. AI Tools: Utilize artificial intelligence to deliver personalized communications, ensuring customers receive relevant information customized to their specific situations. Address Unhappiness: Reach out to customers showing signs of dissatisfaction to quickly address their concerns, turning negative experiences into positive outcomes. Regular Check-ins Matter Regular check-ins can make a significant difference in how satisfied your customers feel, especially when these interactions are designed to anticipate their needs and address any emerging issues. Engaging in regular communication is preferred by 70% of customers, highlighting the importance of ongoing relationships. Proactive support, particularly for customers showing signs of dissatisfaction, can boost retention rates by 25%. During check-ins, providing helpful resources and tips not just improves the customer experience but also reinforces your brand’s commitment to their success. Automating these check-ins allows you to scale personalized communications effectively, ensuring customers feel valued without overwhelming them. Proactive Communication Strategies Implementing proactive communication strategies can greatly improve your customer support efforts and boost overall satisfaction. By staying ahead of potential issues, you can create a more positive experience for your clients. Consider the following strategies: Automated Updates: Keep customers informed about service outages or delays, minimizing frustration. Regular Check-Ins: Reach out to customers showing signs of dissatisfaction to address concerns before they escalate. Resource Sharing: Provide helpful tips based on product usage to empower customers, improving their experience. Utilizing CRM systems can personalize these communications, tailoring them to individual preferences and behaviors. This proactive approach can lead to a 70% increase in customer loyalty, as clients appreciate brands that anticipate their needs and address them without delay. Automate Routine Processes As businesses endeavor to improve customer loyalty, automating routine processes emerges as an essential strategy for boosting efficiency and responsiveness. By employing AI agents to handle common customer inquiries 24/7, you can considerably reduce wait times, improving the overall customer experience. Automation likewise allows your human agents to focus on more complex issues, which leads to enhanced satisfaction. Here’s how automation can impact your business: Benefit Description Improved Efficiency Automation allows for 24/7 support, reducing response times by up to 70%. Better Customer Experience Freeing up agents for complex issues improves service quality. Increased Retention Rates Timely responses are vital for maintaining customer loyalty. Real-time Insights Automated processes provide data for informed decision-making and engagement. Incorporating automation in your customer service strategy can lead to higher retention rates and encourage repeat business. Actively Seek Customer Feedback To strengthen customer loyalty, you should actively seek feedback through effective surveys and social media engagement. By analyzing customer insights, you can identify pain points and make necessary improvements, ensuring that your services align with their needs. This feedback loop not just improves customer satisfaction but additionally nurtures a deeper connection with your brand, making customers feel valued. Utilize Surveys Effectively Surveys serve as a crucial tool for businesses aiming to improve customer loyalty by actively seeking feedback. By utilizing surveys effectively, you can gain valuable insights into your customers’ experiences and preferences. Consider focusing on these key strategies: Use open-ended questions: These allow customers to express their thoughts in detail, revealing specific areas for improvement. Collect feedback regularly: Consistent feedback helps you adapt your offerings and shows customers you’re committed to continuous improvement. Analyze results thoroughly: By examining survey data, you can identify at-risk customers and implement targeted strategies to boost satisfaction and loyalty. Incorporating these practices will improve customer experiences and ultimately drive retention, making your business more resilient in a competitive market. Engage on Social Media Engaging with customers on social media isn’t just about promoting your products; it’s also a fundamental way to actively seek feedback that can improve customer loyalty. By using these platforms, you can gather real-time insights, as 96% of Voice of Customer professionals utilize surveys to increase comprehension. This engagement cultivates a community atmosphere and encourages user-generated content, which strengthens brand loyalty as it lowers marketing costs. When you respond quickly to feedback, you build trust and credibility, since 87% of customers expect consistent service across all channels. Furthermore, encouraging customers to share their experiences can lead to valuable word-of-mouth marketing, driving new customer acquisitions and further increasing loyalty. Prioritize this interaction to boost retention effectively. Analyze Customer Insights How can businesses effectively understand their customers’ needs and preferences? Actively seeking customer feedback is crucial. By gathering insights through surveys and social media, you can pinpoint pain points and desires. Here’s how to do it: Implement Feedback Programs: Regularly collect and analyze customer feedback to track sentiment over time. This helps you adapt to changing preferences. Engage Customers: Involve customers in the feedback process, demonstrating your commitment to their needs. This nurtures trust and loyalty. Analyze Trends: Regular analysis can reveal insights that inform targeted retention strategies, leading to improved customer experiences. According to research, 96% of professionals in Voice of Customer and Customer Experience prioritize this feedback collection, crucial for enhancing satisfaction and retention. Ensure Transparency and Trust Transparency and trust are foundational elements in building lasting customer loyalty. When you communicate clearly about your policies and any changes, you promote trust, which influences 96% of customers’ purchasing decisions. Openly discussing how you use customer data and addressing rights boosts your credibility; 67% of consumers are more likely to stay loyal to brands that prioritize transparency. It’s vital to respond to customer concerns quickly, as 75% expect a reply within 24 hours, greatly impacting retention rates. Furthermore, honesty in product descriptions and managing customer expectations is key; 82% would switch to a competitor if they feel misled. By building trust through transparency, you can achieve a 25% increase in customer retention, as satisfied customers are more likely to make repeat purchases and advocate for your brand. Prioritizing these principles not just strengthens loyalty but contributes to sustainable business growth. Continuously Improve Customer Experience To nurture customer loyalty, organizations must continuously improve the customer experience across all interactions. This improvement is crucial, as 87% of customers desire improved service consistency across channels. Here are three key strategies to reflect on: Collect Feedback Regularly: Use surveys to gather insights on customer satisfaction. About 96% of Qualtrics and CX professionals rely on this method to identify areas needing attention. Implement Changes: Act on the feedback you receive. For example, The Home Depot have successfully adapted their inventory based on contractor suggestions, demonstrating the value of responsive change. Personalize Responses: Quick, customized replies to inquiries can turn negative experiences into positive ones, greatly boosting retention rates. Frequently Asked Questions How Do Loyalty Programs Affect Customer Spending Habits? Loyalty programs greatly influence your spending habits by encouraging you to make repeat purchases. When you earn rewards, you’re more likely to choose a brand over competitors, as the perceived benefits increase your overall satisfaction. These programs often create a sense of commitment, driving you to spend more to reach reward thresholds. Furthermore, personalized incentives can further motivate you to buy more frequently, in the end enhancing your overall engagement with the brand. What Are the Best Tools for Tracking Retention Metrics? To effectively track retention metrics, you can use tools like Google Analytics, which provides insights into user behavior and retention rates. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems, such as Salesforce, allow you to monitor customer interactions and analyze retention trends over time. Furthermore, subscription management platforms like Chargebee help track churn rates. Combining these tools gives you an all-encompassing view of retention, enabling you to make informed decisions to improve customer engagement. How Can I Measure Community Engagement Effectively? To measure community engagement effectively, track metrics like participation rates in discussions, the frequency of content sharing, and feedback on community initiatives. Utilize tools such as surveys to gather direct input from members, and analyze social media interactions for broader insights. Monitor user-generated content and assess overall sentiment through analytics. Regularly review this data to identify trends, adjust strategies, and cultivate a more engaged community, creating a space where members feel valued and heard. What Role Does Social Media Play in Customer Loyalty? Social media plays a significant role in customer loyalty by nurturing direct communication between you and your customers. It allows you to share updates, respond to inquiries, and create a sense of community. By consistently engaging with your audience through posts, comments, and messages, you build trust and familiarity. Additionally, social media platforms enable you to gather feedback, understand customer preferences, and tailor your offerings, ultimately improving customer loyalty and encouraging repeat business. How Often Should I Update My Loyalty Program? You should update your loyalty program at least once or twice a year, but consider more frequent updates based on customer feedback and market trends. Regularly assess the program’s performance, looking for areas to improve engagement and rewards. If you notice a decline in participation or changing customer preferences, it’s a good idea to revise your offerings. Keeping the program fresh and relevant helps maintain interest and encourages continued participation. Conclusion Implementing effective customer loyalty solutions can greatly improve retention rates. By personalizing interactions, creating rewarding loyalty programs, and promoting community engagement, you can strengthen bonds with your customers. Utilizing data analytics allows you to identify trends and proactively address concerns. Automating routine processes guarantees consistent communication, whereas actively seeking feedback builds trust. By continuously improving customer experiences, you not just retain customers but additionally cultivate a loyal base that supports your brand in the long run. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "10 Customer Loyalty Solutions to Boost Retention" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

In today’s competitive environment, retaining customers is fundamental for long-term success. You can boost customer loyalty through various strategies, such as personalizing interactions and implementing effective loyalty programs. Furthermore, leveraging data analytics can reveal important insights about customer behavior, enabling you to act proactively. Cultivating a sense of community around your brand likewise plays a critical role. These solutions can greatly improve customer experiences, but how do you start integrating them into your business model? Key Takeaways Implement personalized communication strategies using CRM systems to enhance customer engagement and loyalty. Develop effective loyalty programs with tiered rewards and immediate incentives to encourage repeat purchases. Utilize data analytics to identify trends, understand customer preferences, and tailor retention efforts accordingly. Foster community engagement through social media platforms, encouraging user-generated content for authentic brand interaction. Automate routine processes to improve response times and provide proactive support, enhancing overall customer experience and retention. Personalize Every Customer Interaction Personalizing every customer interaction is vital for nurturing loyalty and improving engagement. Studies show that 84% of loyalty program members are more likely to make repeat purchases when they receive customized experiences. Nevertheless, less than 50% of businesses currently provide personalized recommendations within their loyalty programs, presenting a considerable opportunity for advancing customer loyalty and retention. By leveraging Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems, you can track individual preferences and behaviors, which allows for more pertinent recommendations and personalized service. Recognizing generational differences in communication preferences is also important; younger customers often prefer digital interactions, whereas older customers may favor face-to-face engagement. Furthermore, implementing AI tools can greatly improve personalization efforts by analyzing customer data to provide hyper-specific recommendations. These strategies are key components of effective customer loyalty solutions that can profoundly impact your customer loyalty in marketing and overall business success. Implement Effective Loyalty Programs Implementing effective loyalty programs is imperative for businesses aiming to improve customer retention and drive sales growth. To define customer loyalty, it reflects a customer’s willingness to repeatedly engage with your brand. Your loyalty solutions should align with business goals by incentivizing behaviors like frequent purchases or referrals to maximize customer lifetime value. Research shows over 70% of consumers prioritize discounts and points, so immediate rewards are critical for engagement. Furthermore, incorporating gamification elements can augment customer investment; consider tiered rewards or exclusive access to keep participants motivated. Significantly, only 31% of businesses offer true omnichannel loyalty programs, presenting an opportunity for you to stand out with all-encompassing solutions. Regular tracking and analysis of your loyalty program’s performance is fundamental, allowing you to adjust strategies based on customer preferences and responses, ensuring your program remains relevant and appealing over time. Enhance Customer Communication To improve customer communication, you need to focus on personalized outreach strategies and proactive engagement techniques. By tailoring your messages based on customer behavior and preferences, you can greatly boost engagement and satisfaction. Regular check-ins not only anticipate customer needs but furthermore nurture a sense of trust, leading to stronger loyalty over time. Personalized Outreach Strategies In today’s competitive market, businesses can greatly benefit from adopting personalized outreach strategies to improve customer communication. By tailoring your interactions, you can markedly improve customer engagement and loyalty. Consider these key strategies: Utilize Customer Data: Leverage insights from customer behavior and preferences to send targeted emails with relevant offers. Segment Your Audience: Recognize generational differences in communication preferences, customizing outreach for digital-savvy younger customers and those who prefer in-store interactions. Implement AI Tools: Utilize artificial intelligence to anticipate customer needs, enabling you to deliver personalized recommendations at scale. Proactive Engagement Techniques Proactive engagement techniques are essential for enhancing customer communication and nurturing loyalty in today’s marketplace. Regular check-ins and automated updates about service outages can greatly boost customer satisfaction by addressing potential issues before they escalate. By anticipating customer needs through proactive outreach, you can enjoy higher retention rates, as 87% of customers seek improved service consistency. Utilizing Salesforce systems to provide customized tips based on product usage allows you to create personalized experiences that strengthen customer relationships. Automating routine outreach, like follow-up messages or satisfaction surveys, helps maintain engagement without overwhelming customers. Additionally, addressing concerns with personalized outreach can effectively turn negative experiences into positive outcomes, building trust and driving long-term loyalty. Utilize Data Analytics for Insights Utilizing data analytics offers businesses a potent tool to gain insights into customer behavior and preferences. By tapping into this resource, you can improve your retention strategies and create personalized experiences that resonate with your customers. Here are three key benefits of leveraging data analytics: Identify Trends: You can spot emerging patterns in customer behavior, allowing you to tailor your retention efforts effectively. Measure Effectiveness: Analytics helps you evaluate the success of your retention initiatives, enabling data-driven adjustments to improve outcomes. Spot At-Risk Customers: By recognizing early warning signs, such as reduced purchase frequency, you can proactively intervene to address customer dissatisfaction. Foster a Community Around Your Brand Cultivating a community around your brand can greatly improve customer loyalty, as engaged customers are more likely to advocate for your brand through word-of-mouth referrals. By creating online forums or social media groups, you provide a space for customers to share experiences, ask questions, and connect with others who share their interests. This interaction nurtures deeper relationships and brand attachment. User-generated content from community members considerably boosts brand authenticity, with 79% of consumers stating it impacts their purchasing decisions. Encouraging participation and feedback not only strengthens your community but also offers valuable insights for product and service improvements. When you actively engage with your community—responding to feedback and incorporating suggestions—customer satisfaction and loyalty can increase. In fact, 96% of Voice of Customer and Customer Experience professionals emphasize the importance of collecting and analyzing customer feedback to drive improvements. Building a community around your brand is a strategic approach to improving loyalty and retention. Provide Proactive Customer Support To truly improve customer loyalty, you need to provide proactive customer support that anticipates needs and addresses potential issues before they arise. Regular check-ins and timely updates can transform the customer experience, making individuals feel valued and informed. Anticipate Needs and Issues Proactive customer support plays a crucial role in anticipating needs and addressing potential issues before they escalate. By focusing on this strategy, you can greatly improve customer satisfaction and loyalty. Here are three effective ways to implement proactive support: Automated Updates: Send timely notifications about service outages or potential issues, preventing customer frustration and demonstrating transparency. AI Tools: Utilize artificial intelligence to deliver personalized communications, ensuring customers receive relevant information customized to their specific situations. Address Unhappiness: Reach out to customers showing signs of dissatisfaction to quickly address their concerns, turning negative experiences into positive outcomes. Regular Check-ins Matter Regular check-ins can make a significant difference in how satisfied your customers feel, especially when these interactions are designed to anticipate their needs and address any emerging issues. Engaging in regular communication is preferred by 70% of customers, highlighting the importance of ongoing relationships. Proactive support, particularly for customers showing signs of dissatisfaction, can boost retention rates by 25%. During check-ins, providing helpful resources and tips not just improves the customer experience but also reinforces your brand’s commitment to their success. Automating these check-ins allows you to scale personalized communications effectively, ensuring customers feel valued without overwhelming them. Proactive Communication Strategies Implementing proactive communication strategies can greatly improve your customer support efforts and boost overall satisfaction. By staying ahead of potential issues, you can create a more positive experience for your clients. Consider the following strategies: Automated Updates: Keep customers informed about service outages or delays, minimizing frustration. Regular Check-Ins: Reach out to customers showing signs of dissatisfaction to address concerns before they escalate. Resource Sharing: Provide helpful tips based on product usage to empower customers, improving their experience. Utilizing CRM systems can personalize these communications, tailoring them to individual preferences and behaviors. This proactive approach can lead to a 70% increase in customer loyalty, as clients appreciate brands that anticipate their needs and address them without delay. Automate Routine Processes As businesses endeavor to improve customer loyalty, automating routine processes emerges as an essential strategy for boosting efficiency and responsiveness. By employing AI agents to handle common customer inquiries 24/7, you can considerably reduce wait times, improving the overall customer experience. Automation likewise allows your human agents to focus on more complex issues, which leads to enhanced satisfaction. Here’s how automation can impact your business: Benefit Description Improved Efficiency Automation allows for 24/7 support, reducing response times by up to 70%. Better Customer Experience Freeing up agents for complex issues improves service quality. Increased Retention Rates Timely responses are vital for maintaining customer loyalty. Real-time Insights Automated processes provide data for informed decision-making and engagement. Incorporating automation in your customer service strategy can lead to higher retention rates and encourage repeat business. Actively Seek Customer Feedback To strengthen customer loyalty, you should actively seek feedback through effective surveys and social media engagement. By analyzing customer insights, you can identify pain points and make necessary improvements, ensuring that your services align with their needs. This feedback loop not just improves customer satisfaction but additionally nurtures a deeper connection with your brand, making customers feel valued. Utilize Surveys Effectively Surveys serve as a crucial tool for businesses aiming to improve customer loyalty by actively seeking feedback. By utilizing surveys effectively, you can gain valuable insights into your customers’ experiences and preferences. Consider focusing on these key strategies: Use open-ended questions: These allow customers to express their thoughts in detail, revealing specific areas for improvement. Collect feedback regularly: Consistent feedback helps you adapt your offerings and shows customers you’re committed to continuous improvement. Analyze results thoroughly: By examining survey data, you can identify at-risk customers and implement targeted strategies to boost satisfaction and loyalty. Incorporating these practices will improve customer experiences and ultimately drive retention, making your business more resilient in a competitive market. Engage on Social Media Engaging with customers on social media isn’t just about promoting your products; it’s also a fundamental way to actively seek feedback that can improve customer loyalty. By using these platforms, you can gather real-time insights, as 96% of Voice of Customer professionals utilize surveys to increase comprehension. This engagement cultivates a community atmosphere and encourages user-generated content, which strengthens brand loyalty as it lowers marketing costs. When you respond quickly to feedback, you build trust and credibility, since 87% of customers expect consistent service across all channels. Furthermore, encouraging customers to share their experiences can lead to valuable word-of-mouth marketing, driving new customer acquisitions and further increasing loyalty. Prioritize this interaction to boost retention effectively. Analyze Customer Insights How can businesses effectively understand their customers’ needs and preferences? Actively seeking customer feedback is crucial. By gathering insights through surveys and social media, you can pinpoint pain points and desires. Here’s how to do it: Implement Feedback Programs: Regularly collect and analyze customer feedback to track sentiment over time. This helps you adapt to changing preferences. Engage Customers: Involve customers in the feedback process, demonstrating your commitment to their needs. This nurtures trust and loyalty. Analyze Trends: Regular analysis can reveal insights that inform targeted retention strategies, leading to improved customer experiences. According to research, 96% of professionals in Voice of Customer and Customer Experience prioritize this feedback collection, crucial for enhancing satisfaction and retention. Ensure Transparency and Trust Transparency and trust are foundational elements in building lasting customer loyalty. When you communicate clearly about your policies and any changes, you promote trust, which influences 96% of customers’ purchasing decisions. Openly discussing how you use customer data and addressing rights boosts your credibility; 67% of consumers are more likely to stay loyal to brands that prioritize transparency. It’s vital to respond to customer concerns quickly, as 75% expect a reply within 24 hours, greatly impacting retention rates. Furthermore, honesty in product descriptions and managing customer expectations is key; 82% would switch to a competitor if they feel misled. By building trust through transparency, you can achieve a 25% increase in customer retention, as satisfied customers are more likely to make repeat purchases and advocate for your brand. Prioritizing these principles not just strengthens loyalty but contributes to sustainable business growth. Continuously Improve Customer Experience To nurture customer loyalty, organizations must continuously improve the customer experience across all interactions. This improvement is crucial, as 87% of customers desire improved service consistency across channels. Here are three key strategies to reflect on: Collect Feedback Regularly: Use surveys to gather insights on customer satisfaction. About 96% of Qualtrics and CX professionals rely on this method to identify areas needing attention. Implement Changes: Act on the feedback you receive. For example, The Home Depot have successfully adapted their inventory based on contractor suggestions, demonstrating the value of responsive change. Personalize Responses: Quick, customized replies to inquiries can turn negative experiences into positive ones, greatly boosting retention rates. Frequently Asked Questions How Do Loyalty Programs Affect Customer Spending Habits? Loyalty programs greatly influence your spending habits by encouraging you to make repeat purchases. When you earn rewards, you’re more likely to choose a brand over competitors, as the perceived benefits increase your overall satisfaction. These programs often create a sense of commitment, driving you to spend more to reach reward thresholds. Furthermore, personalized incentives can further motivate you to buy more frequently, in the end enhancing your overall engagement with the brand. What Are the Best Tools for Tracking Retention Metrics? To effectively track retention metrics, you can use tools like Google Analytics, which provides insights into user behavior and retention rates. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems, such as Salesforce, allow you to monitor customer interactions and analyze retention trends over time. Furthermore, subscription management platforms like Chargebee help track churn rates. Combining these tools gives you an all-encompassing view of retention, enabling you to make informed decisions to improve customer engagement. How Can I Measure Community Engagement Effectively? To measure community engagement effectively, track metrics like participation rates in discussions, the frequency of content sharing, and feedback on community initiatives. Utilize tools such as surveys to gather direct input from members, and analyze social media interactions for broader insights. Monitor user-generated content and assess overall sentiment through analytics. Regularly review this data to identify trends, adjust strategies, and cultivate a more engaged community, creating a space where members feel valued and heard. What Role Does Social Media Play in Customer Loyalty? Social media plays a significant role in customer loyalty by nurturing direct communication between you and your customers. It allows you to share updates, respond to inquiries, and create a sense of community. By consistently engaging with your audience through posts, comments, and messages, you build trust and familiarity. Additionally, social media platforms enable you to gather feedback, understand customer preferences, and tailor your offerings, ultimately improving customer loyalty and encouraging repeat business. How Often Should I Update My Loyalty Program? You should update your loyalty program at least once or twice a year, but consider more frequent updates based on customer feedback and market trends. Regularly assess the program’s performance, looking for areas to improve engagement and rewards. If you notice a decline in participation or changing customer preferences, it’s a good idea to revise your offerings. Keeping the program fresh and relevant helps maintain interest and encourages continued participation. Conclusion Implementing effective customer loyalty solutions can greatly improve retention rates. By personalizing interactions, creating rewarding loyalty programs, and promoting community engagement, you can strengthen bonds with your customers. Utilizing data analytics allows you to identify trends and proactively address concerns. Automating routine processes guarantees consistent communication, whereas actively seeking feedback builds trust. By continuously improving customer experiences, you not just retain customers but additionally cultivate a loyal base that supports your brand in the long run. Image via Google Gemini and ArtSmart This article, "10 Customer Loyalty Solutions to Boost Retention" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. The Asus ROG Ally is a Windows 11-based handheld gaming console, and right now, a refurbished unit is down to $389.99 at Woot—the lowest price ever recorded for it, according to price trackers. For context, the same device (used) costs $665 on Amazon, and the lowest it's ever been is $449.99. This deal runs for another four days or until the stock runs out. Shipping is free for Prime members, and Woot only ships within the lower 48 states. Asus ROG Ally $389.99 at Woot $665.00 Save $275.01 Shop Now Shop Now $389.99 at Woot $665.00 Save $275.01 The Ally runs a full, unmodified version of Windows 11 Home on an AMD Ryzen Z1 Extreme processor with 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD, so you’re not locked into one storefront or ecosystem. That means you can install Steam, Xbox Game Pass, Epic Games Store, Ubisoft Connect, GOG—anything that runs on a Windows PC runs here. That flexibility is a big part of the appeal for people who already have large PC game libraries. Asus also did a decent job of simplifying the experience with Armoury Crate, which pulls your various game libraries into a single interface, so you spend less time navigating Windows menus on a tiny screen. Battery life can drain pretty fast during demanding games, so this works best near a charger during longer sessions. You’ll also end up tweaking graphics settings fairly often if you want smoother performance in newer AAA games. Windows itself can occasionally feel clunky on a handheld, and while the RGB rings around the joysticks look fun at first, they can get distracting during darker games. Still, PCMag gave the ROG Ally an "excellent" review, and at this price—$275 below the current Amazon listing—it's a solid entry point into PC handheld gaming for someone who's been on the fence. Our Best Editor-Vetted Tech Deals Right Now Apple AirPods Pro 3 Noise Cancelling Heart Rate Wireless Earbuds — $199.00 (List Price $249.00) Apple Watch Series 11 [GPS 46mm] Smartwatch with Jet Black Aluminum Case with Black Sport Band - M/L. Sleep Score, Fitness Tracker, Health Monitoring, Always-On Display, Water Resistant — $329.00 (List Price $429.00) Apple iPad 11" A16 128GB Wi-Fi Tablet (Silver, 2025) — $299.00 (List Price $349.00) Fire TV Stick 4K Plus Streaming Player With Remote (2025 Model) — $29.99 (List Price $49.99) Deals are selected by our commerce team View the full article

AI is saving workers more than two hours a day. That sounds like an unqualified win, and in many ways, it is. But beneath the productivity headlines, something more complicated is happening. Employees are getting faster, but some are also getting less confident, less skilled, and less certain they can do their jobs without a machine doing much of the thinking for them. That tension is the defining workforce challenge of 2026, and most companies aren’t prepared to address it. New research from GoTo, conducted in partnership with Workplace Intelligence, surveyed 2,500 global employees and IT leaders on AI use and sentiment. The findings tell a story about a workforce caught between the tools that help them and the habits those tools are forming. Fifty percent of employees now say they rely on AI too much. Thirty percent say they can no longer function without it. And 39% believe their overreliance on AI is actively eroding their skills and making them less intelligent, a number that climbs to 46% among Gen Z workers. These aren’t fringe opinions. They are the quiet consensus of a workforce that adopted AI fast and is now reckoning with the consequences. The Pressure to Use AI Is Outrunning the Guardrails to Use It Well One of the clearest findings in the research is how much external pressure is shaping AI behavior at work. Sixty percent of employees say they feel pressured to use AI tools to boost productivity regardless of whether the task calls for it. That pressure, absent the right training and policies, is a setup for misuse. The numbers bear this out. Seventy percent of employees (up from 54% just a year ago) admit they’ve used AI for sensitive or high-stakes tasks, including legal or compliance work, decisions requiring emotional intelligence, and actions involving confidential information. These are exactly the domains where human judgment is most irreplaceable, and where AI errors carry the highest cost. The fact that this number jumped 16 percentage points in a single year suggests the problem isn’t slowing down on its own. Compounding this is an “AI workslop” problem that’s starting to tax the entire workforce. Forty-three percent of employees say they’ve submitted AI-generated content despite suspecting it was low quality or contained errors. With that in mind, it’s unsurprising that 77% percent say reviewing AI-generated work takes more time than reviewing human work. And 66%sixty-six percent say wading through other people’s AI output creates extra work for them. The efficiency gains from AI are real, but they’re being partially offset by a flood of under-reviewed, unreliable output that everyone else must spend time, energy, and resources to clean up. The Leadership Gap Is Where the Real Risk Lives What makes these findings particularly striking is the disconnect between employees and the leaders responsible for guiding them. Eighty-four percent of employees say their company could do more to encourage responsible AI use, however only 48% of IT leaders agree. That gap of 36 points is a signal that IT leadership is significantly underestimating the extent of the problem. The policy picture is just as concerning. Only 44% of IT leaders say their company has an AI policy in place at all. And among those that do, 77% of employees say the policy needs improvement. Meanwhile, 80% of employees and 60% of IT leaders acknowledge that most workers aren’t being properly trained to use AI tools. The infrastructure for responsible AI use, including the policies, the training, and the role-specific guidance hasn’t kept pace with how fast employees have adopted these tools. This is not a technology issue, not a generational issue, and not something that will self-correct as AI matures. Employees are not misusing AI out of laziness or bad faith; they’re doing it because they’ve been handed powerful tools without the context and enablement to use them well, and told implicitly or explicitly to produce results. When organizations reward output without asking how it was produced, they get exactly what they incentivize. What Companies That Get This Right Will Do Differently The same research that surfaces these problems also points toward solutions, and they’re not complicated. They require organizational commitment, not technological breakthroughs. The priority is building AI policies that work. That means policies employees understand, see as relevant to their daily work, and feel equipped to follow, not compliance documents that live on an intranet page. Given that 65% of employees say their employers have not equipped them with the skills they need as AI takes over more work, this must be paired with genuine training investment, including role-specific guidance on where AI adds value and where it doesn’t belong. The second priority is deliberate investment in human skills. Workers themselves identified the capabilities they believe will matter most in an AI-driven workplace: creative thinking, emotional intelligence, sound judgment, and the ability to know when to trust AI outputs and when to override them. These aren’t soft skills in the dismissive sense; they are the hard-to-automate competencies that determine whether AI amplifies a workforce or quietly hollows it out. They’re also the foundation of effective human-AI collaboration. The employees who will create the most value aren’t those who use AI the most, but the ones who know how to work alongside it. Workers should focus on contributing the judgment, context, and creativity that AI cannot supply, while letting AI handle the volume, speed, and synthesis it does well. Companies that train employees to operate in that partnership model, rather than simply handing them tools and expecting results, will be better positioned when the next wave of AI capabilities arrives. The third is cultural: leaders need to model what responsible AI use looks like, not just mandate it. Employees who see their managers using AI thoughtfully, knowing when to rely on it, when to push back on its outputs, and when to set it aside entirely are more likely to develop the same instincts. Policy shapes behavior at the edges; culture shapes it at the center. Eighty-eight percent of employees say AI has benefited them. That number should give every business leader confidence that the technology is working. But the same research makes clear that productivity gains alone are not a strategy. The companies that will win the next decade of work aren’t the ones who pushed AI adoption hardest. They’re the ones who built the organizational discipline to use it wisely, and kept their people capable, confident, and trusted in the process. View the full article

After filing for bankruptcy several weeks ago, a large franchisee that operates dozens of Carl’s Jr. restaurants in California is planning to cut loose some of its underperforming locations, according to newly filed court documents. Sun Gir Incorporated, the lead debtor in a group of affiliated Chapter 11 cases that were filed in early April, has asked for court permission to reject the leases on at least three Carl’s Jr. locations in the Los Angeles area. As of this week, the restaurants appeared to still be open. But they have been operating at a substantial negative cashflow for the franchisee, as documented in three separate dockets filed in federal court for California’s Central District. Sun Gir says the underperforming restaurants are burdensome, and that they impose financial losses on the franchisee “without providing sufficient economic benefit,” the filings reveal. The filings do not explicitly say that the restaurants will close, although that would be the typical outcome for a court-approved lease rejection. The franchisee has stated in the filings that it wants to focus on its more profitable locations as part of a restructuring. In a separate filing, Sun Gir said that it has hired National Franchise Sales (NFS), a business brokerage firm, to help it sell some of its Carl’s Jr. locations, but it did not specify which ones. The details of that process are still being worked out, with bids expected to be due in July and an auction potentially scheduled for August. It’s unclear how many jobs could be lost as part of the restructuring or any resulting closures. Sun Gir and its affiliates own 59 Carl’s Jr. restaurants in California. Together, they employ roughly 1,000 employees. The debtors are all affiliated with Friendly Franchisees Corporation (FFC), in La Palma, California, which is not directly named in the bankruptcy cases. FFC and its general counsel did not respond to requests for comment about the fate of the Carl’s Jr. stores. Why did this Carl’s Jr. franchise go bankrupt? In court documents, Sun Gir Incorporated cited a number of factors that have contributed to its Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Carl’s Jr. restaurants within its portfolio have faced increased competition, rising operating costs, and diminishing sales, all of which have added up to “financial distress.” Sun Gir is also among the restaurant companies that have blamed its precarious financial situation in part on California’s two-year-old minimum wage policy, which requires $20 an hour for workers at fast food chains. Tellingly, Sun Gir’s bankruptcy filings include detailed financial breakdowns of restaurant operating losses that begin on April 1, 2024—the day the minimum wage policy took effect. The bankruptcy cases were filed the following day. Recent research on the impact of that policy, including one March study led by an economist at UC Santa Cruz, has found that while fast food wages did indeed increase, some restaurant operators have reduced their work shifts as a result. Is Carl Jr.’s in trouble? The bankruptcy filings concern restaurants owned by a single franchisee and do not necessarily reflect the health or appeal of the Carl’s Jr. brand. Founded in 1941, Carl’s Jr. is known for its charbroiled burgers and other indulgent menu items. The fast food brand is owned by Tennessee-based CKE Restaurants Holdings, the privately held company that also owns Hardee’s. CKE declined to comment about the franchisee’s bankruptcy or any potential store closures. Carl’s Jr. has more than 1,000 U.S. locations, mostly in western states, with California being the state with the most Carl’s Jr. locations. How many restaurants are at stake in the bankruptcy? Friendly Franchisees Corporation says on its website that it operates 65 Carl’s Jr. locations, but its affiliated bankruptcy cases have stated 59 locations: 52 in Southern California and 7 in Northern California. It’s not entirely clear what accounts for the discrepancy. Sun Gir said in a court filing that one of its locations in North Hollywood closed two years before its bankruptcy petition. It’s possible that others have closed in recent years. Which Carl’s Jr. locations are closing or being sold? Sun Gir told a court that it wants to reject the leases on three underperforming locations. It did not respond to questions about whether the locations will be permanently closed or sold to another entity. The addresses are as follows: 19400 Ventura Blvd, Tarzana, CA 91356 165 E Duarte Rd Arcadia, CA, 91006 573 N Azusa Ave Covina, CA 91722 All three of these stores have been around for many years. The oldest of the leases, for the Arcadia store, dates back to the year 2000. However, that store suffered a net operating lose of $403,003 over a two-year period between April 2024 and March 2026, a court filing reveals. That makes it the biggest lossmaker of the three locations. For now, it’s unclear if additional locations could be impacted by future lease rejections. We’ve asked FFC for more details and will update this story if we hear back. This story is developing . . . View the full article

It used to be that my friend Kristin had a vague sense of how her husband’s day went. He’d come home with a story to share or sometimes he didn’t. Sometimes he seemed annoyed, and when he was in one of those moods, she didn’t press. They’d kick their feet up, pour some wine, and talk about the upcoming weekend. Now they both work remote and all of a sudden, she knows a lot more about her husband’s day. “I know how many times he’s opened the fridge,” she told me recently. “Seven times. Seven times before lunch.” She wasn’t angry when she said it. “I love him,” she said. “But I don’t know that I was meant to know this much.” You’re seeing too much I’ve been thinking about Kristin and her fridge for weeks. Working from home hasn’t just changed the way we work. It has also changed some marriages in ways no one expected. Couples used to have built-in distance. Before you got home, there was space to think about your partner, miss them, and feel grateful. These days, couples are with each other all day. They see each other’s stress spirals, doom scrolling breaks, things they said in meetings that bothered them, emails that didn’t make sense, phone calls they wish they could re-do. It’s a level of intimacy we never asked for. For some, it’s endearing. For others, it’s a lot. You used to get the best version of your partner when you walked through the door. But now you get the full, unedited version all the time. Little annoyances you never knew about build up because you’re around to hear them. Your partner is everywhere you are and it’s absorbed into your day. It can change how you see them. The who does what debate And when you are both home all day, you will need to renegotiate who does what. When one of you used to leave for work, a lot of things were just decided by that dynamic. One person handled what was happening at home. It wasn’t always fair, but it was clear. Now, it’s not clear at all. You both are there, both have jobs, and both look busy. So, all day long, there’s this unspoken conversation. Do they look more slammed than me? Who’s dealing with the laundry? Should I figure out dinner, or will they? You lose the space between you There’s another issue that is harder to name. You lose a little bit of mystery. When you worked in different places, you didn’t know the details of each other’s day. You asked about it and shared stories. That back and forth was a kind of connection. Now, you already know that important meeting went badly because you heard it through the wall. You know they are overwhelmed because you are watching it in real time. There’s less to share at the end of the day, less curiosity, and fewer moments to discover things about each other. And that matters more than we think. Research on relationships shows that small moments of curiosity and having genuine interest in someone’s day help keep a couple feeling close. Feeling consistently cared for isn’t about big gestures. What matters more is the daily habit of turning to your partner and saying, “Tell me what happened,” and waiting to hear the answer. When you already know everything, those moments may start to disappear. Create the break So, the question is, how do we still show up for each other when nothing feels new? The answer is: you have to create a little distance on purpose. Work in different rooms if you can; Take solo breaks to go outside; try not to eavesdrop; occasionally make plans to have lunch or take a coffee break away from home. And when the workday comes to a close, take a walk together, shut the laptop when chatting, ask about each other’s day even if you think you know the answer. It’s not really about knowing what happened. It’s the act of sharing and creating moments of connection. View the full article

Shark Tank investor Kevin O’Leary doubled down on his belief that true wealth requires at least $5 million in liquid assets. “You’d be amazed, how many wealthy people that say they’re rich do not have liquidity,” O’Leary said on Fox Business. O’Leary said he practices what he preaches, keeping at least $5 million of his own wealth in Treasury bills—short-term U.S. government securities that can be quickly converted to cash. The Canadian businessman argues that true financial security means being able to access your wealth at a moment’s notice, be it to weather an emergency or to seize an investment opportunity. A house, a private business, or illiquid assets may look impressive on paper, but in his view, they don’t count toward real wealth. Financial experts say the strategy has merit. Tech entrepreneur and FinlyWealth co-founder Abid Salahi told GOBankingRates, “Our data shows that clients with a higher liquidity ratio—typically 20 percent to 30 percent of their total assets—are better equipped to handle financial emergencies and capitalize on investment opportunities.” O’Leary acknowledges that hitting that number is no small task. “It’s very hard to get five million liquid because in this market that makes you $250,000 a year pretax,” he said. “You have a family of four and poo-poo hits the fan in your world and everybody loses their job, you can sustain a family on 250 pretax. That’s why it’s the magic number.” This isn’t the first time O’Leary’s made this claim. He had the same sentiments back in November. Even when you are tempted to spend or loan the money, he advises people not to. “That is not what it’s for,” O’Leary continued. “It’s there to guarantee your financial freedom and that of your family for the rest of your life.” O’Leary is not alone in that thinking. His former Shark Tank co-star Mark Cuban said that the first step to getting rich is having cash available. “You aren’t saving for retirement. You are saving for the moment you need cash,” he wrote on his blog. In 2020, billionaire investor and Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio declared that “cash is trash,” but by 2023, he had walked back on that position, stating, “Cash offers a good return without price risk. It also keeps my money as dry powder, so cash looks ‘pretty good’ to me.” O’Leary sees the $5 million threshold not as a finish line, but as a foundation: “I tell all my entrepreneurs, ‘That’s your goal.’ ” —Amaya Nichole This article originally appeared on Fast Company’s sister website, Inc.com. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy. View the full article

As large language models seep into everyday life, some worry the technology could trigger a mass political realignment. Chatbots, the theory goes, can be shaped by training data and system instructions to privilege certain worldviews, and users who interact with them daily may gradually absorb those biases at scale. But Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan cautions against assuming such a future is inevitable. LLMs may be powerful, he says, but that doesn’t mean they’ll influence people in the ways we expect, or even in the ways their creators intend. There are several reasons an AI-driven political shift may be harder to engineer than it sounds. Most people don’t closely follow political news, and it’s unclear how often they use AI tools for political guidance in the first place. And while chatbots can sound persuasive, and in some cases have encouraged disturbing behavior, there’s little evidence that they are fundamentally reshaping most users’ core beliefs. There’s also a practical tension at play. Companies may face pressure to steer AI systems toward certain viewpoints, but they are simultaneously competing on qualities like accuracy and reasonableness. It’s difficult to optimize for both at once. The dawn of the social media age was instructive, says Nyhan, who—along with coauthors—recently published a preprint chapter explicating some of the challenges of studying AI’s impact on politics. As many of us remember, the outcome of the 2016 election prompted serious concerns that social media platforms like Facebook had caused political polarization through biased algorithms and fake news. Still, a decade after that election, social science research is still open about whether social media actually had this kind of impact. Fast Company spoke with Nyhan about how, while technology can be transformative, human behavior can also be quite sticky. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. We did have this whole big discourse about whether social media had sort of caused massive political polarization. What were the lessons learned from that era as we think about AI? It’s important to recognize that we often hear new technologies and seize on claims about the harms that they’re going to create before the evidence is strong enough to really justify what’s being claimed. In this case, the evidence is pretty thin. Social media platforms are hard to study—but to the extent that we can evaluate it—it’s not obvious that social media has made our politics more polarized. They may have contributed in certain specific ways, but in a lot of cases, they’re reflecting the polarization of our politics back to us. I was one of the authors of a study that randomized exposure to like-minded sources on social media, which is one of the most frequently cited mechanisms by which social media could make people more polarized. When we reduced that exposure to like-minded sources, it had no effect on the polarization of people’s attitudes or vote choice. There have also been a number of studies that pay people to stop using social media for a period of time. Those similarly have quite modest effects at best. Though not necessarily zero, there’s certainly no evidence that social media is the primary cause of polarization. The fear is that these companies have a lot of control and have become funnels or information, particularly as more people switch from search engines to LLM platforms. There’s this fear that they’re going to sort of make us all Republican or Democrat. They do exercise a lot of power. [We talk] about the fear that authoritarian countries will influence the content of LLMs in problematic ways . . . I do think there’s reason to worry about the content on which elements are trained. At the same time, it turns out to be a lot harder to persuade people at scale than is typically assumed. AI chatbots can be pretty persuasive when people interact with them about controversial topics, but most people aren’t asking AIs what they should believe about climate change or who to vote for. Is there any evidence that these large language models do actually seem to exhibit some values internally that swing one way or the other in terms of left and right? People have administered various questionnaires to the LLMs to benchmark them against the attitudes they express against humans. When they are asked questions in that format, they tend to give answers that, on average, lean to the left. That’s likely reflecting the balance of the information that they’ve been trained on. It may also reflect, in part, the way the companies are developing them. Increasing model performance has tended to drive LLMs towards more accurate answers. What I mean by that is that AI companies are obviously in this race to develop better models against each other, and we’ve generally seen that models that perform better on the benchmarks they compete on are generally performing better at providing accurate, evidence-based information. Right? Of course, not always, and not perfectly. But the improvement has been quite rapid, and it’s actually so far proven to be pretty hard to have a frontier model that just gives you political output that you find appealing. Grok has really fallen off the cutting edge, and you can even see it reverting back to more standard types of answers when Elon Musk stops paying as close attention to it and badgering his engineers to manipulate it. It tends to revert back to saying things like climate change is real. View the full article

A flock of chickens living in a coop near Dallas, Texas, are ordinary birds. But they hatched inside 3D-printed artificial eggs in a lab at Colossal Biosciences, the Dallas-based “de-extinction” company. Colossal designed a new system that functions essentially like a natural egg. One of the company’s goals: to use it to bring back the South Island giant moa, a bird that went extinct in the 15th century. But the technology could also be used to help breed currently endangered birds. It’s not the first time that scientists tried to raise birds outside a natural shell. But previous systems, first developed in the 1980s, required a flow of oxygen and other interventions for the embryo to survive. (The oxygen also sometimes damages the birds’ DNA.) The new shell can sit inside an ordinary incubator. “We want to make sure that it is as close to an existing egg as possible,” says Ben Lamm, Colossal’s CEO. R&D took nearly two years. The new design uses a rigid titanium lattice, shaped like a partial egg, lined with a permeable membrane that can hold an embryo. The shell was initially “more egg-like,” Lamm says. “But then we thought if we’re going to be reimagining the egg, how do we reengineer it in a way that we get the most flexibility out of it?” Leaving the top open means that it can be attached to a microscope, for example, and easily monitored as the embryo grows. To test the system, the team carefully moved chicken embryos from regular chicken eggs to the new shell. When the chick is ready to hatch, it can pop through a thin membrane at the top; staff also monitor them to help them get out. Every chick that made it to term is now a healthy chicken, Lamm says. To raise a giant moa, the company would need to build a much larger version—the bird was as tall as 12 feet, with eggs as much as 80 times larger than a chicken egg. The company’s controversial process to bring back extinct species involves sequencing surviving fragments of DNA, comparing it with living relatives, and using gene editing to modify related species to produce embryos that are raised by a surrogate. (When Colossal announced that it had “brought back” dire wolves, many scientists argued that they were wolves with a handful of dire wolf traits, not actually dire wolves.) In the case of the giant moa, since no living bird is large enough to act as a surrogate for the egg, an artificial system is necessary. You might ask: why bring back this particular bird? Lamm’s argument is that we need the tools of de-extinction to deal with the current crisis; the moa is a way to learn. “If you look at the trend line, it’s forecasted that we could lose half of biodiversity in the next 25 years,” he says. “It’s better to have a de-extinction toolkit and not need it and not have it. Unfortunately, I do think you’re going to need some of these technologies.” For birds that are currently endangered, conservation organizations could use it to breed birds that are difficult to breed in captivity, and that don’t have readily available surrogates to raise eggs. Scientists could genetically modify other birds to produce the endangered species, which could be raised inside artificial eggs tailored to the right size for each bird. Of course, it doesn’t solve the bigger problem: if species are going extinct because forests are plowed down for farming or development, or because climate change is fundamentally reshaping ecosystems like the Amazon, raising more birds won’t mean that they can survive in the wild. Global governments need to deal with those issues, Lamm says, “but I think that giving some of these countries and some of these different NGO partners the ability to have the animals both in sanctuaries and in captive breeding locations is a solid start.” View the full article

The President’s excessive faith in military power is squarely within the US traditionView the full article

Fashion chain boss Isak Andic died while on a hiking trip with his son Jonathan two years agoView the full article

After losing a boardroom power struggle with Apple CEO John Sculley, Steve Jobs was exiled to a small building across the street from Apple’s headquarters. It was May 1985. He and his colleagues called his new office “Siberia.” Corporate reports stopped flowing to his desk, and executives stopped calling, leaving him bored and lonely. “It was amazing to see how ostracized he was in the Valley,” recalled Susan Barnes, a Macintosh financial controller who had previously reported to him. “It was really cruel.” Jobs is remembered as the visionary who returned to Apple, the company he cofounded, in 1997, and saved it from near-bankruptcy. But before the comeback, he made a series of leadership decisions that destabilized the company and left it drifting toward death. An overlooked truth: the instincts that made Jobs extraordinary, his perfectionism, his force of will, his refusal to compromise, also nearly destroyed Apple in its early years. After he left, Jobs spent twelve years failing at a company called NeXT, and those failures laid the foundation for Apple’s resurgence with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Here are five times Steve was wrong and learned from his mistakes: 1. He made himself the center of every decision By early 1985, Apple had splintered into warring factions. Jobs undermined Sculley to colleagues and challenged his every decision. “I am the board,” Jobs, Apple’s chairman, told one executive. Sculley’s supporters stormed the human resources department to complain. As one executive observed, no one knew who was really running the company. The civil war paralyzed Apple at the worst moment. Macintosh sales were declining, IBM and its clones were eating market share, and for the first time in its history Apple laid off employees, more than 1,200 of them, and announced its first-ever quarterly loss. The company secretly entered talks to sell itself to General Electric. By the time the board sided with Sculley and stripped Jobs of his authority, the internal war had already cost Apple months of progress. That autumn, Jobs left Apple and started a new computer company, NeXT. The pattern followed him. Ignoring the warnings of his cofounders, Jobs rushed out the first NeXT computer, called the Cube, in October 1988 with an unfinished operating system. The price was more than double what its target customers said they could pay. Selling only a few dozen computers a month, the company eventually laid off half its workforce and abandoned hardware entirely. When the founder becomes the only voice in the room, the company has nothing to fall back on when the voice is wrong. 2. He built for his own taste instead of the market Between the Super Bowl commercial, the famous keynote, and the promise of a “computer for the rest of us,” the Macintosh launch in January 1984 became one of the most mythologized product launches in American business. For the first hundred days, shipments were strong and the Mac looked poised to succeed. But the machine had no hard drive, extremely limited functionality, and a price tag of $2,495, almost $8,000 in today’s dollars. The first wave of buyers loved it. At that price, there was no second wave. The Mac was a beautiful machine that regular customers simply couldn’t justify buying. The commercial disappointment helped trigger the power struggle with Sculley, Jobs’s ouster, and twelve years of strategic drift that nearly killed Apple. 3. He shipped before products were ready and blamed his team when they fell apart In early 1985, Jobs pushed Apple to release the Macintosh Office, a version of the Mac aimed at corporate buyers. Its technical heart, a device for sharing files across office computers, was severely delayed and not ready to ship. The product landed to weak sales, accelerating the internal crisis that would end with Jobs’s removal months later. At NeXT, he repeated the pattern. After the Cube was released, NeXT cofounder Dan’l Lewin presented Jobs with a list of problems piling up. Rather than fix them, Jobs blamed the sales team. “We’re so far away from selling anybody anything right now,” Lewin pushed back. “You don’t want to hear it, but this is not a problem in sales.” So Jobs demoted Lewin and announced it in an email to the entire company. 4. He couldn’t kill what wasn’t working When Gil Amelio became Apple’s CEO in 1996, he kept hearing the same phrase from engineers: “Steve Jobs can get away with whatever he wants, so I’m going to do whatever I want.” By then, Apple had lost all focus. The company had released more than seventy products in a single year, including a $6,500 laptop that caught fire and had to be recalled. Apple had poured $500 million into a new operating system called Copland that never shipped. Nobody could decide when to cut their losses. Jobs spent a decade at NeXT making the same mistake, refusing to abandon his hardware business long after his advisors told him it was finished. But when he returned to Apple in 1997, he killed 70 percent of the product portfolio. The visionary who once couldn’t let go of the beautiful black Cube had learned, at enormous cost, that survival sometimes means letting go of the product you love. 5. He treated the people he needed as obstacles On Super Bowl Sunday in January 1985, Apple aired a follow-up to its iconic “1984” commercial. Called “Lemmings,” the ad depicted blindfolded businesspeople marching off a cliff. The message to corporate customers: you’re idiots if you don’t buy our product. At NeXT, Jobs called his distribution partner’s stores “ugly.” He blew off lucrative meetings arranged by his biggest investor, Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire and soon-to-be presidential candidate. So Perot delivered the lesson himself. At a dinner with NeXT executives and corporate customers in San Francisco, Perot asked all the customers to stand. Then he turned to everyone still sitting, Jobs included: “Now, everybody who’s sitting down, applaud these people who are standing up, because that’s why we’re here.” It took twelve years of humbling for Jobs to absorb these lessons. By 1997, he had learned to step back, delegate, and let go. He chose his battles instead of fighting every one. The tantrums that had defined his management style ebbed, and instead he listened to his lieutenants in Monday morning staff meetings, implemented their advice, and built an executive team at Apple that held together for eight years. “Sometimes I go for ‘best’ when I should go for ‘better,’” he later admitted, “and end up going nowhere or backwards.” It was the kind of admission the younger Steve could never have made. View the full article

Google recently announced its partnership with Accenture, Deloitte, and McKinsey—backed by a $750 million fund—to speed up enterprise adoption of its tech stack. I believe that rather than accelerating the successful adoption of AI, this partnership will kneecap it—and break down trust in the wider consultancy industry in the process. Why? Because the success of both of these things is premised on trust. Enterprises, having come through a rough period of hype-driven spending on artificial intelligence, are now looking for AI investments they can trust to deliver results. In that search, they’re turning to their trusted consulting partners to support them through the digital transformation. Yet through this commercial partnership, these big-ticket consultancies have tied their bottom lines directly to how much AI they can sell—putting this into direct conflict with their commitment to deliver results to their clients above all else. If Google’s sales goals and the needs of the enterprise clients diverge—which, as we will get on to, is likely to occur—then the consultants will have to pick a side. I don’t want to be too pessimistic about my own industry, but the cash-flush AI lab seems likely to win at least some of those tussles. Uncertainty and vulnerability But, is it all bad? Surely closer ties will facilitate more seamless rollouts, support faster execution, and offer discounts? There are certainly benefits. It’s also not uncommon for consultancies to have partners (my consultancy counts Xerox as a client and has clearance to sell Xerox solutions to other clients). The difference is that AI is developing at hyper speed. That creates uncertainty in humans and vulnerabilities in technology. Objective, balanced counsel is more important than ever under these circumstances. First, the “best” technology is constantly changing. Over the past three years, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude have each, at various times, pulled ahead of the others in terms of capability. Another DeepSeek-style challenger could come out of left field and displace them all tomorrow. An objective AI consultant should be promoting model flexibility for long-term resilience from shocks, including in prices. I fear Google’s new $750 million partnership—and, for what it’s worth, OpenAI’s very similar Frontier Alliance, announced in February—is selling dependence, which could very quickly lead to frustration with the technology and its new salespeople. Second, even the most technologically smart enterprise clients can’t, and may never, deeply understand AI; even its architects don’t really know how it works. These clients are in the dark—and are turning to consultancies to help them review their options, strategize implementation, and then execute it with guardrails. The consulting industry should be playing the cool, calm, and collected mediator role—cutting through the sales speak of Big AI and the pressure on and within enterprises to innovate with AI. If, instead, we’re further contributing to the furor or pushing our own agenda or that of a partner, then our clients may begin cutting us out of the loop. Third, enterprises are careful beasts. They have reputations to defend and many stakeholders to safeguard. Security and compliance are, rightly, high on their agenda. AI’s impact on these isn’t yet fully understood, but we know it to be massive. A risky play If consultancies are incentivized to sell AI and sell it fast, it seems likely to me that speed of adoption will increasingly The President security and compliance in consultants’ decisions and advice. That’s a very risky play, quite literally. Finally, because there has been such a rush to deploy AI quickly—fueled in part by large consultancies’ scaremongering—a lot of resources have already been spent on AI. Much of this poured down the drain, with little to show for it. Enterprises’ boards have had enough, and now need to see results. If, then, the consulting partners clients have trusted to deliver those results start sounding like AI salespeople, and seem to be neglecting long-term resilience—which comes with model flexibility, security, and compliance—or taking advantage of a lack of understanding of AI to upsell, then clients’ trust in these supposed paragons of objectivity, and the technology they sell, will nosedive. A July 2025 MIT report found that 95% of enterprise gen AI initiatives were delivering zero measurable return. This jolted the enterprise landscape and contributed to an AI-stock selloff. Consultants and AI labs should take note. Enterprise AI clients pay attention to results, and they need to see returns on their investments. If we now see AI rushed through by consultancies partnered with AI labs, then yet more dreary figures will emerge about unsuccessful AI initiatives. This will dampen appetite for AI and come full circle for both the consultancies and the labs—putting clients off them both in equal measure. View the full article

In 2011, a study of Israeli judges found that in the early sessions of the day, prisoners had roughly a 65% chance of parole. By the end of each session, that probability had fallen to nearly zero. After a break, it returned to 65%. The judges didn’t vary. The cases didn’t get harder. The types of prisoners didn’t change. What changed was the judges’ cognitive resources. I’ve thought about that study many times, working with leaders. Not because they’re making parole decisions, but because the underlying dynamic is the same. When cognitive load climbs beyond a certain threshold, the quality of thinking degrades in ways we can’t detect from the inside. The brain doesn’t send a notification. What it sends instead is a set of signals, many of which look like the opposite of the problem. Five stand out. You feel sharp One of the paradoxes of high cognitive load is that it produces a sense of focus. When the brain is overwhelmed, it narrows attention, conserving resources by shutting down peripheral processing. You are concentrating. You feel sharp. What you’ve lost is your awareness of everything outside this tunnel: the team’s emotional state, the signal buried in an email chain, the strategic risk sitting just adjacent to the immediate problem. I encounter this regularly with leaders under sustained pressure. They often describe feeling in the zone at precisely the moment their breadth of thinking has contracted most severely. Focus that comes with a loss of peripheral awareness isn’t a cognitive strength. It’s a cognitive symptom. Your confidence is up Here is the deeper paradox: the more cognitively overloaded a leader becomes, the more confident they tend to feel. Under high cognitive load, the brain falls back increasingly on what is often called System 1 thinking — fast, intuitive, pattern-based processing. The supervisory function that questions, second-guesses and looks for counterevidence — System 2 — is the first thing to go. The internal voice that says, “Are you sure about this?” goes quiet. Leaders interpret the silence as certainty. And research has repeatedly shown that individuals under cognitive load express higher confidence in their judgments precisely when their decision quality has degraded most. If you’ve been working at full throttle for several weeks and find you have unusually few doubts, that’s not necessarily clarity. It’s probably just that your self-monitoring has gone offline. You become more decisive Another consistent finding is that people under high load become significantly more likely to act quickly on new information — in studies, about 22% more likely. This matters because decisiveness is something leaders are encouraged to display. The executive who cuts through, doesn’t dither, and makes the call is celebrated by organizations. And sometimes their judgment really is good. But under cognitive load, the same behavior has a different cause. System 1 is operating without oversight from System 2. The decision may be fast and feel confident, but it’s quicker because it hasn’t been examined. So, if your decisions are all landing in the same direction of favoring speed over scrutiny, always pulling toward the familiar over the novel, then that pattern is worth interrogating. People start to irritate you more This one is less obvious. Research has found that high cognitive load reduces both behavioral and neural empathic responses. An overloaded brain is simply less able to read other people’s emotional states. This isn’t a character shift. It’s a resource allocation problem. The same neural processing capacity that handles complex reasoning also handles social inference, and when you’re cognitively overloaded, the brain economizes. Leaders in this state typically don’t notice the shift in their social processing. What they notice is that colleagues seem to be underperforming, or that meetings feel fractious, or that people appear harder to manage than usual. The irritation of frustration is then a secondary symptom. Because when you can’t readily interpret others’ reactions, their behavior becomes harder to anticipate, which makes it feel more difficult. You’re making dumb mistakes Finally, the most obvious and concrete signal. Under sustained cognitive load, working memory errors multiply; not in complex, novel tasks, but in familiar ones. Things like missing emails you’d normally catch, writing responses with simple errors, and walking into meetings without documents you’ve specifically prepared. Such out-of-character lapses are working memory failures – the brain carrying too many processes simultaneously, so routine execution is the first thing that drops. Most leaders attribute these to tiredness. They’re right that tiredness is involved. But the errors are often diagnostic of something deeper, like a memory system running over capacity, not just running slow. What you can do about it Most of the standard advice, rest more and take breaks, isn’t wrong, but it operates at the wrong level. Because it treats cognitive load as something to recover from rather than something to prevent. Take these two techniques. The first is what psychologists call implementation intentions: if-then rules set in advance about how you’ll make decisions under specific conditions. “If I’ve had fewer than four hours’ sleep, I’ll get a check on any high-stakes decisions.” The point isn’t the specific rule. It’s the pre-commitment, because when System 2 is depleted, you can’t rely on it to notice the depletion. So, you need a solution that engages in its absence. The second is chronotype alignment: wherever possible, scheduling your highest-load cognitive work at your neurologically optimal time, not when the calendar happens to be free. It’s not always possible, of course, but some redistribution may be. For most morning types, that’s two to four hours after waking. After that point, the windows for genuinely high-quality strategic thinking are limited, and decisions made in them carry the implicit costs documented in the parole study. Prevention, then, is better than cure. Not least because, after the fact, we may not believe we did anything wrong. Remember those Israeli judges? When told about the research findings, the judges didn’t believe them and disputed them. They were so confident their decisions had been consistent and fair throughout the day that it was easier for them to believe the data was wrong than that they were. Their confidence in their own judgment was, like all of ours, entirely unrelated to its actual reliability. View the full article

Every institution was once a design decision. Pierre de Coubertin didn’t stumble into the creation of the modern Olympic Games, he painstakingly designed them around a clear civic purpose: that sports could model fair play, international respect, and the ethics of effort over victory. Within two years of proposing a reestablishment of the ancient games, he convened leaders from around the world to codesign the International Olympic Committee; that first Olympic Congress led to the first modern games in Athens in 1896. Eight years after that, FIFA’s founding charter echoed the same ambition in service of administering the global game of soccer toward “friendly relations.” Today, both institutions have drifted so far from those origins that the contrast is almost darkly comic: De Coubertin worked without pay for decades; his spiritual successors at FIFA were convicted of accepting $150 million in bribes. Yet the underlying idea—that the power of sports to transcend political and cultural divisions gives them a unique social responsibility—has never been more relevant or more needed. The world’s largest shared cultural event, the FIFA World Cup, is anticipated to draw 5 billion viewers this summer. It comes to the United States (as cohost alongside Mexico and Canada) at a time when capacity for shared civic experience is at a historic low. That is either a tragedy or an opportunity. Where we go from here depends, as design decisions always do, on intentionality. On whether people with influence over sports choose to ask, seriously, what are sports actually for? A vision dedicated to humanity De Coubertin was not naive. He delivered his first public lecture on athletic chivalry in 1892, to an unsuspecting audience of French officials and academics, in full awareness that he was fighting against both the commercialism of the age and fractious national politics. It was a time of wars, political violence, and the technology-induced economic uncertainty of the Industrial Revolution. His core insight—borrowed from classical antiquity, British public schools, and the ceremonial sporting traditions of Native American tribes, who used lacrosse to settle disputes and honor shared beliefs—was that competitive sports create moral architecture. That when people play by the same rules, concede defeat with dignity, and respect excellence in an opponent, they are practicing something rarer and more valuable than entertainment. They are practicing civilization. He spent the next four decades building that vision without a salary or institutional backing, funding the early Olympics from his own inheritance until it ran out, and then from donations. When he died in 1937, his heart was buried separately at Olympia, Greece, at his request. It is hard to imagine a more literal expression of a life dedicated to an idea—though it was left to others in more enlightened times to expand his vision beyond his own prejudicial views on race and gender. FIFA’s founders understood the same thing. When they formed the federation in Paris in 1904, they were explicitly building infrastructure for international respect: a curated space where nations would compete and, in competing, learn to coexist. The World Cup, launched in 1930, was a physical expression of that: countries that could not agree on much else agreeing to show up and play by the same rules. What happened next is well documented: The institutions designed to model civic virtue became, over decades, vehicles for the concentration of private wealth and geopolitical power. FIFA’s Zurich headquarters became synonymous with corruption, culminating in the 2015 Department of Justice indictments. The most recent World Cup host selections have been defined more by lobbying, sovereign wealth, and geopolitics than by any coherent vision for the game’s civic code. The IOC has navigated its own version of the same drift. Scandal may be more associated with these organizations than civility. The founders would find the current state of their institutions not just disappointing, but structurally the opposite of what they designed. The 2026 tournament, with its eye-watering ticket prices and geopolitical posturing, is the latest chapter of that drift. The last shared space And yet 5 billion people will watch the World Cup this summer. That number demands to be taken seriously, as a responsibility and opportunity. While religion plays a smaller role in modern life and town squares have been replaced by algorithmic feeds, the U.S. surgeon general called loneliness a public health crisis in 2023. Gallup’s global employee engagement data shows most people feel disconnected from their work, their colleagues, and their communities. In this landscape of fragmentation, sports—specifically global sport at its largest scale—may be the strongest magnet we have to coalesce people around a shared experience that is genuinely emotional and cross-cultural. When Brazil’s Rebeca Andrade won gold in the gymnastics floor competition at the Paris Olympics, Americans Simone Biles and Jordan Chiles—who had just competed against her—spontaneously bowed to her in a gesture of deep respect and admiration. In front of a global audience, elite athletes discarded competitive or national animosity and instead modeled a refreshing generosity of spirit. This expression of moral beauty was celebrated around the world, and became one of the highlights of the Games. As an Olympics moment true to de Coubertin’s ideals of mutual respect and civility, it follows a legacy of athletes challenging popular prejudices, as Jesse Owens, John Carlos, Tommie Smith, and Cathy Freeman all did in prior Olympics. These moments demonstrate what’s possible. The question is whether we will protect the conditions that make them possible, or whether we will continue to strip them away in the pursuit of political gain, maximizing revenue, gambling integration, and the next broadcast rights deal. The stakes couldn’t be higher as the 2026 World Cup arrives in the U.S., a nation whose civic fabric is under extraordinary strain. Institutions are distrusted, and common ground is scarce. Consider that 8 in 10 people in the U.S. say they can’t agree on basic facts with the opposing political party. Almost every shared cultural space, from news media to social platforms, seems designed to drive us further apart in pursuit of “engagement.” The appetite for real, joyful shared experience is enormous and largely unmet. Whether sports step into their full potential or slide into commercial transactionalism is not predetermined by fate, but a product of design choices. The redesigners are already at work The good news is that the counter-design is already underway, in places where leaders chose long-term purpose optimization over short-term commercial optimization. After moving with his family to Oakland, California, one of the coauthors of this piece, Mike Geddes, experienced how a fiercely proud community was torn apart by the loss of every single one of its professional sports teams, who each abandoned the city for richer pastures over the course of a decade. In response, he cofounded Oakland Roots & Soul. Designed from the ground up to be the first purpose-driven professional soccer club in America, it raised nearly $4 million by offering fans equity in the team—the most successful community investment round in American sports history. The team now occupies the Oakland Coliseum, an iconic community anchor that would otherwise have sat empty. Having demonstrated that a community will embrace a sports team built around values, the urgency now is for the broader sports industry to redefine success, from profit extraction to long-term community and organization vitality. Other organizations are doing the same: Parkrun gathers more than 10 million people weekly in 2,500 communities across 23 countries: free, inclusive, and built entirely around participation. Unrivaled, the professional women’s basketball league cofounded by Olympians Napheesa Collier and Breanna Stewart, opened with the highest average salaries in women’s professional basketball history and full equity ownership for every player in the league. Savannah Bananas have taken baseball by storm, redesigning the game-day experience around a “fans first” philosophy to make it more affordable and appealing to families. In doing so, they have become a revenue and marketing sensation valued at more than $500 million. These are not charities. They demonstrate that a different architecture produces different outcomes, for fans, communities, and for the business itself. Simone Biles, who has defined herself as much by moral courage as athletic brilliance, was named the world’s most marketable athlete as recently as 2024. It turns out the civic instinct and the commercial instinct are more aligned than the current structure of global sports would suggest. A narrow window—and a clear purpose In a survey of 1,000 CEOs, 7 in 10 said they understood purpose as a strategic driver of business success. Sports leaders have been slower to catch up, but the logic is identical: The enduring, world-spanning power of sports owes everything to their encapsulation of humanity’s highest aspirations. Strip those out and you are left with an entertainment product competing in an extremely crowded market, with no particular reason for the emotional hold it currently has over billions of people. De Coubertin’s great insight was not sentimental. From an era of deep instability, distrust, and violence, he saw the potential to design sport as a space where shared humanity is practiced, with joy and celebration. Once again, that is one of the scarcest and most valuable things in the world. This summer will be a mirror held up to our culture, but it need not be the blueprint for what comes next. What we do with that reflection will depend on the choices made now, by sponsors, broadcasters, city governments, leagues, and the millions of us who decide what we show up for. Indeed, any future vision of boundless extraction based on how the planet’s people, economy, and environment have operated for the last 100 years will not survive the changes to come. The future of sports is not preordained. They will be defined by what we design—or by what we leave to chance. View the full article

Imagine walking into your elementary school library and finding it transformed overnight into a forest at dusk. Mossy green canopies arch over the bookshelves. Glowing mushrooms create a path between display cases. Twinkle lights flicker through the leaves like fireflies. This is the Everglow Forest, one of the recent book fair themes produced by Literati, a startup that currently runs about 4,000 book fairs a year. At some schools, librarians and PTA volunteers build it out into something approaching an art installation, creating a hand-crafted world that children want to wander through for hours. Wikipedia For a seven-year-old, clutching a crumpled twenty-dollar bill, the message is that books are magical and worth celebrating. “I view kid’s books as an art form,” says Jessica Ewing, Literati’s founder and CEO. “I want to make sure that we’re giving these books the treatment they deserve.” Ewing left a job at Google to launch Literati a decade ago. While hundreds of thousands of children’s books are published every year, Ewing realized many parents struggled to find high-quality books tailored to their child’s interests. Literati uses data to pair a child with the right books. It first applied this approach to subscription boxes, but three years ago, it expanded into book fairs, quickly becoming the biggest competitor to the Scholastic Book Fair. Last month, Literati was acquired for an undisclosed amount by Trustbridge, a private equity firm that owns many children’s book publishers, including Candlewick and Holiday House. With this infusion of capital, Ewing wants to grow the book fairs by expanding from the Midwest and South, into the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest. “The book fair is an experience that 33 million kids get every year,” says Ewing. “It’s such a cultural institution that no one had really taken an interest in changing it, so there hasn’t been meaningful competition in decades.” Ewing is betting that the kids—and their librarians—are ready for something different. And after a decade of building toward this moment, she finally has the resources to deliver it. Stitch Fix for Storybooks To understand how Literati ended up here—going toe-to-toe with the Goliath that has dominated the school book fair since most of us were in elementary school ourselves—you have to go back a decade. Ewing has always believed that pairing a child with a book they love could be a transformative experience, spurring a lifelong love of reading. From her career in tech, she had a sense that algorithms could help with this process. After all, we live in an age when Netflix, Spotify, and Stitch Fix use technology to help consumers find the next movie, song, or outfit they will love. Her original vision was to create a curated monthly subscription box, personalized to the child’s age, reading level, and tastes. She brought on a head of data science from Stitch Fix, and raised more than $100 million in venture capital. “We built a tremendous amount of tech and data science to be able to personalize the box to every child,” Ewing says. “We were building tech to make a very analog experience more magical.” But as the subscription business was growing, Ewing realized it was possible to bring Literati’s expertise to book fairs, which haven’t changed much over the years. Rebuilding the Book Fair From the Shelf Up As she gathered intel about Scholastic Book Fairs, she discovered that many librarians and volunteers found it laborious to set up the tables and books. (Scholastic has not responded to our request for comment.) Schools often didn’t raise much money from the event. And more importantly, Ewing found that the quality of products on sale wasn’t as good as it could be. There were lots of best-selling books, featuring popular characters and series, like the Dog Man, the Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Captain Underpants, and the Babysitters Club. Literati has these books too, but Ewing felt that there were many other great books coming out of children’s publishing that weren’t making it onto the tables. And interspersed among the books were many plastic toys and keychains. “I remember thinking this is a big opportunity,” Ewing recalls. “The book fair, to me, should be a work of art. This is the first—or maybe the only—bookstore experience many kids will ever have. It should be about book discovery, not toys and trinkets. And it should be beautiful.” In 2022, Ewing spotted her opening. Follett Book Fairs, which had launched five years earlier, was shuttering under the weight of pandemic losses. Literati swooped in, buying Follett’s entire book fair operation—the infrastructure, the inventory, the distribution centers, and the thousands of school relationships it had built. Overnight, the fairs were rebranded as Literati Book Fairs. Ewing set out to build the most elevated book fair experience possible. To take the pain out of setup, Literati designed roll-out cases that arrive prestocked with books—the whole fair unfolds in 45 minutes flat, sparing librarians and PTA volunteers the hours of unboxing and shelving that the job has traditionally demanded. Literati creates a seasonal theme for each book fair, which the company incorporates into its bookcases and signage, and schools can choose to add to with their own decorations. Recent ones have included Under the Sea, Everglow Forest, and Story Arcade. Ewing has been delighted—and a little astonished—by how far some schools run with it, treating the theme less as decor and more as a license to build. At the Texas Library Association’s recent annual gathering, Literati threw an Oscars-style awards ceremony for book fair coordinators, handing out trophies to the librarians and PTA parents who had built immersive installations on shoestring budgets. But the real star is the books themselves. Literati sells real trade editions—the same ones you’d find at your local indie bookstore—not the cheaper paper reprints that have long been a book fair staple. And every fair is curated. Literati’s software scans millions of titles, surfacing thousands that might work in a given school. From there, a human team hand picks the assortment that ships out, tailoring the selection to the community. There are many considerations shaping the books that are chosen, but the goal is for the stories to resonate with the life experiences and preferences of the students. Communities with students of South Asian heritage may see more books with South Asian protagonists, for instance, and more urban students might find more books in urban settings. Literati also offers books at a wide variety of price points, and makes sure the book selection maximizes students’ budgets. And after Literati has had a fair in a school, it will use sales data to parse what kinds of book did well there previously. “The book fair that would work for the Upper West Side is not the book fair that works for a Title 1 school in Texas,” Ewing says. “Those are two totally different experiences in terms of what both parents and kids want.” One thing you won’t find at a Literati fair: plastic tchotchkes. No pencil toppers, no slime kits, no erasers shaped like hamburgers. Ewing wants the books to do the work. The Economics of a Book Fair Literati has also rebuilt the economics of the book fair. Like other book fairs, Literati doesn’t charge to host an event and gives schools a portion of sales in cash or credit to use on the Literati website. Companies’ margins for book fairs tend to be quite low, and the business model only works at a large scale. This is why Scholastic has maintained its dominance for so long. But Literati’s innovation has been to layer online tools onto the in-person event—teacher and librarian wishlists, plus a direct-donation system—that let the broader community chip in toward a school’s library while the fair is running. As a result, schools using the new tools are pulling in roughly five times what they made before. One school that historically netted $2,000 from its fair recently brought in $13,000, thanks to additional donations from parents and the community. Ewing is especially proud that a large share of Literati’s clients are Title 1 schools, where high concentrations of students come from low-income families and where the library’s annual budget is often funded almost entirely by whatever the book fair brings in. Some librarians have asked why Literati doesn’t sell plastic toys—the junk, after all, drives revenue that can be funneled back into books. Ewing’s answer has been to keep building better fundraising tools, so schools can hit their numbers selling only what they’re proud of. “I don’t think schools should have to choose between raising money and raising readers,” she says. The strategy is working. The company has drawn partners like Steph Curry’s Eat. Learn. Play. foundation, which this year is funding a Literati fair at every school in the Oakland Unified district. Literati is approaching profitability. And in a category where competitors keep folding—Follett, plus the beloved Southeast regional player Bedford Falls—it has carved out a credible alternative to Scholastic. Decades, Not Quarters Now, Literati is ready to go bigger, and Ewing thinks Trustbridge is exactly the partner to get her there. The Hong Kong-based firm already owns a portfolio of acclaimed children’s publishers, including Candlewick and Holiday House, with winners of the Newbery and Caldecott medals on their shelves. “They have this thesis around children’s books,” she says. “They believe in the enduring value of quality over time, which is interesting from an investor perspective. They think in decades, not fund cycles or years.” Trustbridge took on Literati’s debt, refinanced the business, and made clear it was investing for value creation, not value capture. Literati, Ewing is quick to add, will stay an open platform—no favoritism for the Trustbridge publishing houses, no closed door to anyone else. The contrarian nature of the bet isn’t lost on her. “Book fairs is not where the hot money is flowing,” she says with a laugh. “It takes a long-term thinker and a big-picture thinker to get past the CapEx and think about what this can become.” Her own answer is starting to take shape: a year-round literacy partnership with schools that reaches well beyond the once-a-semester event, powered by personalization tech, data science, and fundraising tools that actually move the needle. For Ewing, the deal isn’t an exit. It’s an accelerant. “I’m not cashing out,” she says. “I’m doubling down.” View the full article

Your four-year-old needs a bike. The cheap ones from a big box store will work, sure—but they’ll be heavy, clunky, and harder for them to learn on. The premium Woom bike weighs half as much—but it costs $400. You want the best for your kid, but do you want to drop that much for something they’ll use for a few months? With a bit of internet sleuthing, you might come across an alternative. There’s a 50,000-person Facebook group devoted entirely to buying, selling, and trading used Woom bikes across the United States. And the brand noticed this group bubbling up. But Facebook Marketplace has limitations—transactions aren’t always secure, and buyers can’t easily search for specific models in their area. So the company has just launched its own resale platform on its website (it’s currently building up inventory). “Now you have a trusted way to feel comfortable,” says Lindsey Markus-Yosha, Woom’s head of marketing. “This is a way to have it backed by the brand and really showcase that long-term value of our bikes.” Woom is part of a broader trend. Over the last few years, parents have realized that they don’t need to choose between cheap, low-quality products and pricey, high-end products for their kids. Instead, 60% of American parents are now buying secondhand goods. The kids and baby resale market is projected to hit $12.8 billion by 2030, up from $7 billion in 2021. Now, premium brands like Woom want a piece of the action. It would be too costly and labor intensive to build a secondhand program themselves, so they’re partnering with Archive, a company with expertise in helping brands get resale up and running quickly. Archive has been focused on the children’s market, launching secondhand sites for the toy brand Lovevery and the clothing label Hanna Andersson. With each brand, the ultimate goal is to make resale a revenue driver. In the past, many brands saw secondhand as a threat to their business. Today, there’s a growing sense that it’s a gold mine to be claimed. The Infrastructure Problem Ryan Rowe started Archive in 2020 with cofounder Emily Blumenthal with the goal of creating a better system. Many eco-friendly brands wanted to launch their own secondhand programs, but it was prohibitively expensive to build the resale websites and infrastructure needed. “Only the biggest brands who had some very specific sustainability mission around it were able to enter the resale space,” Rowe explains, referring to labels like Patagonia and Eileen Fisher. “For everybody else, it was a very cost-intensive thing to do.” Archive’s business model was simple: make resale accessible to more brands by driving down costs through scale and offering flexibility. Their first customer was M.M.LaFleur, a women’s workwear brand. But the kids’ category quickly became a sweet spot. Children outgrow everything, parents hate waste, and quality products hold value even after multiple kids have used them. The company now offers three distinct models. For Woom, it’s peer to peer: Parents list their used bikes, other parents buy them locally, and the brand facilitates the transaction. Bikes are bulky and expensive to ship, but parents are willing to drive 20 minutes to save $200 on a premium product. For other brands, Archive handles logistics. They collect returned inventory, inspect it, photograph it, and manage the entire resale storefront. “Our goal is to make it happen at scale,” Rowe says. When Archive processes resale for dozens of brands at once, the pretransaction cost drops dramatically. They’ve built the infrastructure—warehouses, inspection protocols, pricing algorithms, customer service systems—that would cost a single brand millions to develop alone. But what makes Archive’s approach truly scalable is that profitability isn’t an afterthought. For years, brand resale existed primarily as a sustainability initiative—companies would launch programs knowing they’d lose money. But sustainability programs that don’t generate revenue get cut when budgets tighten, making it harder for resale to scale. “This is our reason for being at Archive—to displace fast fashion,” Rowe says. “If you spend $50 on a used item that cost $120 new versus a brand new item that cost $50, you can experience the difference in quality and you’re won over.” Making Money on Hand Me Downs For children’s clothing brands, the resale math gets tricky fast. Hanna Andersson had been talking about resale for over a decade. Kara Carter, the company’s head of product, had been seeing customers passing down pieces through siblings or selling them at local consignment shops. The brand’s durability and “room to grow” sizing meant items held up beautifully through multiple kids. But when it came to launching their own program, the numbers were brutal. A Hanna Andersson dress retails for $40 to $50. After a kid wears it, it might resell for $15 to $20. It’s impossible to build a profitable business around collecting, inspecting, cleaning, photographing, storing, shipping, and providing customer service for that $15 transaction. “If you’re reselling like a $200 coat, there’s enough dollars in there to still make money if you’re selling it half-off secondhand,” Carter explains. “But for us, it’s harder to make it make sense.” When Hanna Andersson’s team came across Archive’s peer-to-peer program, it was a breakthrough. By stepping out of the middleman role, Hanna Andersson could offer resale without drowning in overhead. The program, called Hanna-Me-Down, lets sellers post clothes on Hanna Andersson’s website; when someone buys, they send the product directly to the buyer. Sellers get 70% of the sale price in cash, or 100% in gift card credit toward new purchases. Over 80% choose the gift card. And those customers spend two to three times as much as the credit value at the core brand. The resale program has generated more revenue on Hanna Andersson’s main website and brought in new customers. Baby customers especially use Hanna-Me-Down as a test drive to see if the quality lives up to the reputation before committing to full retail prices. Finding Hidden Customers For Lovevery, the financial equation works differently but the principle is the same: Resale has to make business sense, not just environmental sense. Lovevery makes premium educational play kits designed around specific developmental stages, with price points ranging from $80 to $200. Cofounder Roderick Morris and his team always knew their products were durable, but didn’t realize just how much secondhand circulation was already happening without them. Lovevery had around 600,000 paying customers but over 5 million social media followers. Morris wanted to understand this massive gap, so the company toured homes of people who followed Lovevery on social media but had never bought anything directly. “Pretty much all these homes we visited had secondhand Lovevery products in them, purchased from Facebook Marketplace or consignment shops, that were very well loved and well used,” Morris recalls. This was a big miss because these parents didn’t have access to the emails that show parents how to use toys at different developmental stages, nor could they learn about complementary Lovevery products. Since Lovevery’s pre-loved marketplace launched in 2024, it has generated upwards of 54,000 visits. Over 10 months, sellers listed 21,000 units, with around 1,600 selling monthly. Most importantly, 58% of visitors to the resale site were new to Lovevery’s customer database. Customer acquisition costs in e-commerce can run $50 to $200 per customer depending on the category. Resale brings people in at a fraction of that cost. Woom Joins the Party For Woom, the newly launched resale program is a bet on replicating what other children’s brands have already done. Like Hanna Andersson, Woom is offering sellers the choice between cash or higher-value credit toward their next purchase—betting that most will choose credit and then spend even more. Like Lovevery, they’re hoping to convert the massive audience already using their products secondhand into direct customers who stay in their ecosystem as kids grow. “It aligns with our brand values of supporting sustainability and driving that long-term customer loyalty,” says Markus-Yosha, the marketing head. And yes, she confirms, “it’s certainly a revenue driver as well.” For years, brands worried that resale would cannibalize new sales. The data from Archive’s kids’ programs suggests the opposite: When done right, secondhand becomes a customer acquisition channel and a loyalty driver. Parents who start with a used bike might come back for a new one when their second child is ready. “There is a day that will come where people can land on a brand’s website and hunt for where’s the resale link,” predicts Rowe at Archive. For children’s products, where quality matters but lifespans are short, that day might not be far off. View the full article

Fifteen years ago, tech investor Marc Andreessen published his famous essay, “Why Software Is Eating the World.” He predicted at the time that technology companies were tremendously undervalued, and that low startup costs and almost infinite scalability would lead software-based companies to dominate every industry. You can see what he means. Today, the “Mag 7” stocks dominate the S&P 500 with market capitalizations in the trillions. Even startups like Anthropic and OpenAI are valued at hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, massive investment in data centers is reshaping industries from construction to energy. But not so fast. While recent advances in machine learning have been exciting, it’s still unclear how much real value is being created. The truth is that we still live our lives largely in the realm of atoms and that isn’t changing. That’s why software is unlikely to ever eat the world, and why many of the most exciting technologies of the future will be rooted in physical space. The economy is not digital In his essay, Andreessen wrote, “Today, the world’s largest bookseller, Amazon, is a software company—its core capability is its amazing software engine for selling virtually everything online, no retail stores necessary.” Well, not really. While software remains a core part of Amazon’s business, today the company is firmly ensconced in the physical world, with not only retail stores but also hundreds of warehouses and a massive fleet of trucks. It’s not just Amazon. Most of our economic lives are rooted in atoms, not bits. A quick examination of your monthly bills will likely show that most of your spending goes to things like housing, transportation, energy, food and, depending on your age, health care. That dwarfs what most people spend on phones, computers, and internet services. In fact, a report by the International Data Center Authority found that the digital economy accounts for a mere 15% of global gross domestic product. That’s a lot of money in nominal terms, but it’s still dwarfed by the other 85%. That’s why Amazon went to the expense and trouble of investing in physical spaces. Even Netflix, another company Andreessen touted, is opening up real-life entertainment centers. As much as we may seem glued to our phones, the physical world is where we live. It’s where we eat, work, meet each other, and have fun. It’s what nature evolved us for, which is why Zoom calls are never quite as satisfying as real-life encounters. Software has a big appetite, but the real world is simply too big and complex to be eaten. Still, there is genuine opportunity in using software to shape the physical world in ways that unlock enormous value. Matter is not digital Materials are something we interact with constantly, often without thinking about them. We want our clothes to be soft and warm, our tools to have high tensile strength so they can do work without breaking. Some things require specific properties, such as the ability to conduct electricity or resist shattering on impact. This has long been the realm of a fairly obscure field called materials science, and, traditionally, it has been something akin to a cottage industry. Scientists would begin with a set of desired properties and then, through a painstaking process of trial and error, often involving the testing of thousands of candidates, eventually find something useful. But in the early 2000s, an MIT professor named Gerd Ceder began developing computational methods to predict new materials. That eventually led to the Materials Project at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Now, rather than testing thousands of candidates, scientists could eliminate most of them through digital simulations and then test the ones that remain. As more materials data became available, two Stanford graduate students started applying machine learning to materials databases and found that they could dramatically improve development economics. The company they founded, Citrine Informatics, became a pioneer in the space and has attracted large players such as Dassault, Schrödinger, and Microsoft. Still, materials are not digital, so there will always be some loss in information when digital systems are used to model physical reality. However, we are beginning to see the emergence of non-digital architectures, such as quantum computers, that can model the physical world with far greater fidelity. Biology is not digital In 2024, Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Nobel Prize for their development of AlphaFold, an AI model that can predict, with incredible accuracy, the structure of proteins. This was a breakthrough of historic proportions because, much like computational approaches in materials science, it allows scientists to identify potential drug candidates hundreds, if not thousands, of times faster than with conventional methods. The potential is mind-blowing. In 2023, Insilico, a Hong Kong-based biotech startup, advanced the first AI-generated drug candidate into human clinical trials. And there are currently dozens of potentially life-changing drugs in the pipeline that were discovered in a mere fraction of the time that it would take using conventional methods. That’s impressive. But like materials, biology is not digital. No matter how ingeniously conceived and constructed, we still need to see how a therapy works on humans in the real world. We need to be sure that proposed cures are safe, nontoxic, and an improvement on existing molecules and methods. That, and not drug discovery, is what makes up the bulk of development costs. A 2024 paper suggested that AI discovery could double the overall success rate from 5% to 10% to 9% to 18%, which is significant. Still, the claims of the tech optimists that “AI will cure cancer” are more than overblown. Anybody who has spent any time in a hospital will tell you that healthcare remains incredibly labor-intensive, requiring capable, caring professionals. And there is an extreme shortage of them in the U.S., which software will do little to solve. We need to focus more on atoms, less on bits Fifty years ago, in 1976, life expectancy in the U.S. was 72 years, versus 78 today. American families typically had one car and one television. Houses were smaller, nutrition was worse, we polluted like hell, and there was no internet. We spent much less time with our screens and more time with each other. Today, it’s easy to see how many things have gotten better, but it’s just as easy to see how others have gotten worse. While in the aggregate, incomes have improved, most of that has gone to top earners, leaving many households feeling worse off. While we have amazingly cool gadgets, costs for basic needs, like housing, healthcare, and education, have soared. The truth is that we’re very good at innovating in the digital space because it’s fast, cheap, and low risk. But the real opportunities are in the messy, physical world. So we’re ending up with lots of incremental digital innovation and not enough transformational change in the real world. In sum, it’s hard to see how we’ve become meaningfully better off over the last 50 years. For all of the Silicon Valley blather, most American families are materially struggling and our mental health is declining. This isn’t because of some exogenous shock, but because of choices we’ve made. We have the technology to improve our lives, but the benefits are not accessible to most. What we have to reckon with is that the world is not digital. We live, eat, travel, and breathe in physical spaces, and no amount of algorithms and data centers will change that. As philosopher Martin Heidegger pointed out long ago, technology is less a creation than it is an uncovering. It brings us possibilities, but it is our responsibility to enframe and direct them in ways that will benefit us. We live in a world of atoms, not bits. Technology matters only if it makes our lives better. View the full article

In 1985, Intel was in trouble. Japanese competitors were dominating the memory chip market that Intel had helped invent. Inside the company, leadership debated what to do. During one conversation, Andy Grove, then Intel’s president and COO, asked CEO Gordon Moore a deceptively simple question: “If we were replaced tomorrow, what would a new CEO do?” Moore didn’t hesitate. “He would get us out of the memory business.” The two men looked at each other and realized something uncomfortable. They already knew the answer; they just hadn’t acted on it. Intel exited the market that had defined its identity and doubled down on microprocessors, a decision that reshaped the company and ultimately the technology industry. The lesson wasn’t just about strategy. It was also about the strategic courage to say no. But that only matters if it creates room for something better. Innovation needs judgment Most organizations celebrate experimentation. But after years working with large innovation portfolios, one pattern has become clear to me. The limiting factor isn’t the supply of ideas: it’s the ability to choose between them and identify the right process to take the winning one forward. Every organization accumulates projects that once looked promising but never quite gain momentum. The technology works, but the market is uncertain; or the prototype impresses internally, but scaling would take years. These projects rarely fail outright. Instead, they linger as “zombie projects,” shuffling along year after year, absorbing talent, leadership attention, and budget without ever becoming a real business. Over time, they quietly drain the most valuable resources innovation needs, starting with leadership attention. And because every dollar and person-hour you commit to these ideas is unavailable elsewhere, you must prove that the idea is worth it. The hidden cost of not deciding Large organizations are especially vulnerable to this dynamic. Not because they lack capability, but because scale changes incentives. Ending a project can feel like admitting a mistake. Multiply that behavior across dozens of teams and the result is predictable. Innovation portfolios become crowded. Decision cycles slow down. Resources are spread across too many bets. Unsurprisingly, only a small fraction of corporate innovation pilots ever reach scale, with roughly 95% of new product launches ultimately falling short. The problem is not statistical. It has more to do with not having the structure in place that allows you to filter ideas properly. Why resource allocation matters more than you think in innovation Let me be clear. It’s better to spend thousands evaluating an idea than millions fixing or unwinding it later, so you have to be ruthless about what passes through your filter. Research shows that dedicated transition teams can cut demonstration failure rates by around 50%. We have some well-known corporate examples of resource reallocation. Consider Apple’s turnaround in the late 1990s. When Steve Jobs came back, the company had dozens of overlapping products and a confusing strategy. One of his first moves was to cut the product line down to just a handful of core offerings. That brought focus back, and within a year, the company was profitable again. Stories like this can make failure seem like just part of the process. But the downside is that time and resources go into ideas that probably should’ve been filtered out much earlier. Ultimately, the innovation funnel matters more than the idea pipeline. In strong innovation systems, early-stage ideas face rigorous scrutiny. If the signals aren’t there, the project stops: not because it failed, but because resources are needed elsewhere. As a result, the surviving projects move faster because they aren’t competing with dozens of parallel experiments. Not only that, but leadership attention sharpens and investment becomes more decisive. Disciplined rejection in practice In practice, saying no is less about dramatic leadership moments and more about building the right systems, including defining clear continuation criteria before projects even begin. Teams know what commercial indicators must appear for a project to move forward. Portfolio reviews play a critical role in this. Leaders need to ask, if we were starting today, would we still invest in this? Culturally, organizations must also normalize stopping work. Teams need to understand that ending a project is not career damage. Leaders should actually reward those who identify when an initiative should be shelved, and openly acknowledge shutting down their own initiatives to help create that environment. Finally, companies need to broaden their thinking about pathways to market, especially when the capabilities needed to scale them don’t exist internally. An external partner might be able to move with greater speed and operational clarity, unbound by organizational limitations. The courage to cut Many describe innovation as a creative act. In large organizations, though, it looks much closer to capital allocation. Leaders are constantly deciding where time, money and attention should go. That’s why the ability to say no matters so much. Zombie projects can quietly drain time, talent, and money for years, simply because no one has the courage to kill them. Disciplined rejection is what creates the space real breakthroughs need to cut through the noise. But that can only get you so far. What happens next defines the success of the technology. The strongest organizations make deliberate choices about the future of the ideas that survive, with an honest evaluation of what it takes to see them through commercialization—whether that’s developing them internally or placing them with partners that have the skill and resources needed to scale them. Saying no is the first step. True advantage comes from making sure the right ideas actually go somewhere. View the full article

While smartwatches have spent the last decade fighting for our attention with buzzing notifications and glowing screens, a quieter revolution has been moving down to our fingers. Yes, the smart ring market has matured from a niche experimental category into a legitimate hardware battleground where the stakes involve more than just step counts. For anyone looking to track their health without (or while) strapping a small computer to their arm, the landscape is now crowded with options that balance high-end aesthetics with serious sensor arrays. Here are some to check out. Oura Ring 4 ($349 + $6/month) The Oura Ring 4 remains the undisputed heavyweight champion of the category, serving as the benchmark against which every other ring is measured. It starts at $349 and offers what’s arguably the most polished software experience in the business, focusing heavily on recovery and metabolic health through its revamped AI-driven insights. However, there’s a catch that’s become a point of contention for many users: a mandatory $5.99 monthly subscription to see anything beyond basic data. For Oura, the hardware is just the vessel for a recurring revenue model that emphasizes long-term wellness. Samsung Galaxy Ring ($399) Samsung has taken a different path with the Galaxy Ring, positioning it as the ultimate companion for those already living within the Android ecosystem. Priced slightly higher than the Oura at $399, it distinguishes itself by eschewing the subscription model, meaning the price you pay at the register is the end of it. Beyond its scratch-resistant titanium frame and lack of a subscription fee, the Galaxy Ring leans heavily into “Double Pinch” gesture controls that let you dismiss alarms or snap a phone photo with a simple tap of your fingers. The functional catch is Samsung’s walled garden. To get the full suite of features, including the advanced Energy Score—which synthesizes your sleep, activity, and heart rate variability into a single readiness metric—you really need to be paired with a Samsung handset, making it a brilliant piece of hardware that’s tethered to a specific brand of software. Ultrahuman Ring AIR ($349) For the crowd that looks at a heart rate graph and wishes they had more raw data, the Ultrahuman Ring AIR is the specialized tool of choice. Starting at $349 with no recurring fees, Ultrahuman leans into the “quantified self” movement by focusing on circadian rhythm alignment and metabolic tracking. It’s designed to play well with other biohacking tools, like continuous glucose monitors, providing a level of depth regarding how caffeine or late-night meals affect your recovery that other rings tend to gloss over. It’s less a general lifestyle accessory and more a dedicated instrument for those who want to treat their body like a high-performance machine. RingConn Gen 2 Air ($199) The market disruptor in this space is undoubtedly the RingConn Gen 2 Air, which makes a compelling case for being the most practical choice for the average person. With a starting price of $199 and no subscription requirements, it undercuts the major players while offering a battery life that stretches to a full 10 days. Its “squircle” shape isn’t just a design quirk, but an ergonomic choice that prevents the ring from spinning on your finger, ensuring the sensors stay aligned with your skin. While it lacks the brand recognition of Oura or Samsung, as a pure value proposition it manages to pack advanced sleep and heart rate monitoring into a frame that feels significantly lighter than its competitors. Amazfit Helio Ring ($149) Finally, the Amazfit Helio Ring carved out its own niche by targeting athletes who don’t want to choose between a ring and a watch. At $149, it’s the most affordable entry point into the premium ring space and is specifically designed to sync with Amazfit’s existing line of fitness watches. While it can function on its own, it excels when used as a recovery-focused companion piece, filling in the data gaps during the hours when an athlete might take off his or her bulky GPS watch to sleep. It proves that the future of wearables might not be about finding the one device that does everything, but rather about building a subtle network of sensors that disappear into our daily lives. View the full article

The government overreacts to popular opinion, which prompts a pendulum swing the other wayView the full article

Today’s biggest one-man brands benefit from the impression that no cycle can bring them downView the full article

Beijing has yet to step forward to fill the leadership vacuum left by WashingtonView the full article