caferacer17

[caferacer17]

Reflecting on Inclusivity in Fashion: A Look at Savage Fenty and Industry Trends

When I read the paper "Fair & Lovely vs. Dark is Beautiful," it made me think about the evolving definitions of beauty in the fashion industry, particularly in how brands like Rihanna’s Savage Fenty are navigating these waters. The paper explores the historical and cultural influences that have shaped beauty standards in India, emphasizing the damaging effects of idealizing fair skin. Similarly, Savage Fenty emerged was a game-changer in the lingerie industry by championing inclusivity, celebrating diverse body shapes and racial backgrounds—deviating from the traditional norms set by brands like Victoria's Secret and Calvin Klein. Per one of their investors, the brand was a leader in growth around the 2020s and was poised to become an increasingly relevant brand.

However, a recent revisit to Savage Fenty's website revealed a curious shift: while the women’s section continues to promote body positivity and inclusivity, the men’s section seems to have reverted to more traditional, perhaps 'aspirational' models. This observation raises questions about the sustainability and impact of inclusivity in fashion. Is there a discrepancy in how body positivity is embraced between genders? And importantly, does the shift in the men's section suggest a challenge in maintaining aspirational appeal while promoting inclusivity?

This brings us to a broader industry dilemma: how can fashion brands balance the creation of 'healthy' beauty stereotypes while remaining aspirational and profitable? The decline of Victoria's Secret, following its pivot towards more inclusive marketing, points to the complexities of this issue. The case from "Fair & Lovely vs. Dark is Beautiful" reinforces the importance of ethical considerations in how beauty standards are marketed. It seems imperative that the fashion industry find a middle ground where diversity is not just a trend but a permanent and celebrated fixture that does not compromise the 'aspirational' quality that drives fashion forward.

[caferacer17]

Experimenting Our Way to Success: A Tale of Innovation in Latin America

While diving into the academic paper "Four Products: Predicting Diffusion" from 2008, I couldn't help but reflect on my own experiences with a startup in Mexico named Moons. Moons aimed to shake up the orthodontics market in Latin America with their affordable clear aligners, a product that had barely scratched the surface in terms of market penetration, hovering around 2%.

The high price tag of traditional orthodontics meant that most people just couldn’t afford them. Moons wanted to change that. They weren't just introducing a product; they were trying to craft a brand through a direct-to-consumer model. This approach required experimental thinking because the product was relatively new to the market and education and awareness was needed—something the founders of Moons were particularly good at.

Their method? Use experiments to predict and understand demand for a new, not widely understood product. The critical experiments? Figuring out the right price point and choosing the best markets. The founders set up several campaigns on social media, advertising different prices. They built a simple landing page where real transactions occurred. They found that pricing the treatment at $800 resulted in $25k in revenue in just a few weeks.

Next was choosing which market to dive into. Based on the cultural importance placed on aesthetics, they predicted countries like Colombia and Venezuela would be more receptive. The experiments in Colombia were particularly successful, confirming their hypotheses. When Moons finally launched, both in Mexico and Colombia, the response was more than encouraging. Despite Colombia’s smaller size and lower pricing, the adoption there was phenomenal, thanks to the cultural alignment.

This journey with Moons was a practical lesson in how valuable low-cost experiments can be. Just as "Four Products: Predicting Diffusion" underscores, understanding the potential value of a product through cultural and economic lenses is crucial. It’s about more than just having a groundbreaking product; it’s about smartly navigating the market introduction with well-planned experiments to guide the way. And for Moons, this approach wasn’t just theoretical—it was a formula for real-world success.

[caferacer17]

Beto Te Presta - fast cash and the need for speed

Reading the article "Why AI Customer Journeys Need More Friction" in HBR about the importance of "friction" in AI-driven customer experiences made me think about the many products that abuse the use of AI and frictionless digital experiences. The article discussed how some friction is actually good because it can prevent customers from making hasty decisions that aren't in their best interest. This idea really struck a chord with me, especially when thinking about a loan app I've known about in Costa Rica, called "Beto Te Presta."

This app prides itself on being able to disburse unsecured loans in just 15 minutes. At first glance, that sounds incredibly efficient—no waiting, no paperwork, just quick cash. But then, you start to wonder: Is it really good to make it that easy for someone to take on debt, especially when the interest rates can hit as high as 100% p.a.?

The article made a solid point about differentiating good friction from bad. Good friction can help ensure that people are making informed, deliberate decisions rather than impulsive ones. In the case of "Beto Te Presta," the lack of friction—the sheer speed and ease of getting a loan—might actually be more harmful than helpful. Most of these loans aren't for emergencies; they're often for discretionary spending, which might not warrant such urgent, rapid borrowing.

It feels a bit predatory to allow—or perhaps even encourage—people to make such significant financial decisions so impulsively. There's definitely a need for some kind of friction here, something that makes a person stop and think, "Do I really need this loan? Can I really afford to pay it back at such high interest rates?"

So, while technology that reduces friction can make our lives a lot easier, it's worth asking: when is it too much of a good thing? Just because we can make something faster and easier doesn't always mean we should, especially when it comes to financial decisions that can have long-lasting impacts.

[caferacer17]

That Time I Ate Amazing Sushi in Osaka

Over Spring Break, I got to visit Japan and one of the places I was super excited about checking out was Izakaya Toyo in Osaka. It’s this famous spot from the Netflix show Street Food Asia that really makes you look forward to the food.

The place itself is just a small street food stand where the owner, Toyo, cooks right in front of you. Standing at a basic table, drinking a cold beer, and just being in the middle of a busy street in Osaka added so much to the whole vibe. Toyo puts on a real show when he’s cooking, which makes it all even more fun.

Now, the sushi there? It was probably one of the best I've ever had. But, after reading this paper called "Fine as North Dakota Wine," it got me thinking. The paper talks about how sometimes we think something tastes better because we expect it to be good. Like, maybe part of why I loved the sushi so much was because of everything happening around me. The cool air, the smells, the whole street scene, and watching Toyo do his thing made the food seem even more awesome.

It’s like, the sushi wasn’t just sushi. The whole setting made it special. I was on an adventure, alone in a cool new place, and all that probably made the sushi taste even better. So, maybe it wasn’t just about how the food was made but also about where I was eating it and what was going on around me. It was an experience I’ll never forget, and it really showed me how much the setting can bias how much you enjoy a meal.