Tag: jeff bezos

• Stubborn flexibility

  I’ve been having more coffee meetings over the last few weeks. And one of the things they are doing — besides making me jittery — is reminding me that at least two things happen during bear markets:

  1. Conviction gets tested.
  2. People get really creative.

  Let’s start with number one. It’s easy to have conviction in something when it’s obviously working and lots of other people are doing it. But what about when that is no longer the case?

  Take the example of Amazon. In this 2018 post by Fred Wilson, he reminds us that at the peak of the internet bubble in 1999, Amazing was trading at around $90 per share. Two years later it was somewhere around $6 per share. And it was not until 2007 that Amazon would start trading above its peak again.

  In hindsight, holding on was very obviously the right thing to do. But to do that from 1999 to 2007, you would have needed patience. And to have patience, you would have needed a high degree of conviction in Amazon as a company and in the internet as the harbinger of an important societal shift. That wouldn’t have been easy — just like many things today are not easy.

  At the same time, bear markets force people to get really creative — we’re now onto thing number two. In this case, it’s not a question of patience. It’s, “the thing I was doing before no longer works and I don’t know if/when it will work again, so I’m going to get creative and try something new.” Bear markets give you this wonderful opportunity because the opportunity cost of not doing the status quo disappears (or greatly reduces).

  On some level, though, these are two contradictory things: are we sticking to our guns or are we trying something new? But in my mind, you want both. This is not about saying, “lots of people used to want to buy cryptocurrencies and condominiums, but now a lot of people don’t, so I’m going to move onto the next hot thing.” It’s something more calculated than this.

  To return to Amazon, I think it’s akin to Jeff Bezos’ old mantra that you want to be stubborn on vision, but flexible on the details. Right now, lots of people are being forced to be flexible. But the vision part is what you still need conviction around. Otherwise, how will you get to where you want to go?

  2024.07.31

• Over 15% of retail sales in the US are now happening online

  

  Amazon was founded in 1994 and went public in 1997. By 1999, some 5 years after the company was started, only about 1% of total retail sales were being done online in the US. So you have to give it to Bezos, he saw what was coming and he got in early to help create it. This was not so obvious back in the mid 90s. The internet as a whole was still being viewed with skepticism, especially after the dot-com bubble.

  Today, online shopping represents over 15% of total retail sales. (See above chart from Charlie Bilello.) The pandemic pop is over, but it looks like we’ve returned to a pretty clear trendline — up and to the right. I guess the questions now are: When and where does this start to flatline? It doesn’t seem likely that this goes to 100% in the foreseeable future, especially if you include grocery. But it’s going to go a lot higher.

  For myself, if I were to exclude food/grocery, I would say that the vast majority (80-90%) of my retail purchases are done online. Even if I’m in a physical store, I’ll often pull out my phone to price compare. If it’s cheaper on Amazon, I’ll just order it there.

  Here’s another example.

  This past summer when I was in Park City, I discovered the brand Vuori. I had heard of them before, but I had never actually seen or touched their clothes. It’s great stuff. But instead of the store convincing me to buy something, it convinced me that I like the brand and that I should probably shop on their website at some point in the near future. And that’s exactly what I ended up doing. (Sorry Lululemon. You’re still my favorite.)

  All of this is perhaps obvious in a world where 15% of total retail sales are happening online. But I would imagine that the retail landscape and our cities will look very different when this number goes even higher. Our cities were different at 1% compared to today at 15%; so imagine what 50% or 80% might be like.

  2023.08.22

• Multiple paths to a quick yes

  I have heard a number of people describe this blog as covering all that is new. That wasn’t my explicit goal when I started writing it. My goal was simply to focus on cities and all the wonderful things that shape them. But it turns that new ideas form a big part of that and that I am very interested in new ideas. Change is what moves the world forward.

  Of course, there is no shortage of new ideas. We all have brilliant ideas. Maybe you’re looking at Toronto’s public garbage bins right now and thinking to yourself, “You know what, I have some terrific ideas for how these could be greatly improved.” And chances are, your ideas are good ones. The problem, however, is that ideas are fleeting. The real challenge is bringing them to fruition before they die.

  So here are a few thoughts that came to mind this morning:

  • There is a difference between incremental improvements and directional/fundamental change. Generally speaking, we tend to be naturally better at ideas related to the former than the latter. When we look at a Toronto garbage bin on the street and see it overflowing with rubbish and see all its side panels swung open, we intuitively see the problems. But it is less common to think about, oh I don’t know, subterranean garbage networks for moving refuse around or networked robots that come out at night and tidy our streets with purple brooms. This is also why when we come up with something new like a horseless carriage or an iPhone, we often name them after the thing we already know and are familiar with, even though it probably undersells how meaningful the change is. It helps our minds make the leap.
  • Many organizations have separate decision making processes that depend on the above. Amazon, for example, likes to ensure that incremental improvements have “multiple paths to yes” within the company. Again, these are the more intuitive kind of changes and so you don’t want some brilliant, yet fragile, idea to get killed by some naysayer along the way. You want as many of them being implemented as possible. On the other hand, ideas that might change the direction of the company are typically slowed down and carefully deliberated. This is a common split. “Major decisions” go up to some greater governance body; whereas all other day-to-day decisions just get made on the fly by those “in the field”. This is one way to keep things moving quickly.
  • On a related note, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote today about the virtues of small and flat partnerships when it comes to early-stage investing (but I don’t think the lesson only applies to this sector). In his view, the biggest venture winners — at least when it comes to early-stage companies — often come from the most “controversial and out there” ideas. And to make these sorts of bets it is helpful to have a small and flat team with a lot of trust. I found this particular insight really interesting because it implies that when you have the opposite — big and hierarchical organizations — you naturally start to lose your ability to experiment with non-consensus ideas. And so what you’re likely left with is just the intuitive and incremental stuff.
  • Recently, we also spoke about the argument that generations view change differently. Young people are often more open to new ideas, at least partially because they view it as a way for them to make their mark on the world. Older generations, on the other hand, often view change as a threat to their current position in the world. None of this is universally true, but think about how this often plays out with new housing. Young people view housing supply as a way for them to buy or rent something new and form their own household. Whereas already established households can view it as a threat to their community and their existing way of life.

  These are a broad set of thoughts. But if there are any lessons to extract from these bullet points it is perhaps these: One, consider the kind of decision that needs to be made. Is it something incremental and intuitive? Is it an obviously sound infill housing project? Because if so, you want multiple paths to a quick yes. And two, consider who gets a say and who controls the decision. Because the wrong group dynamic can kill even the best new ideas.

  2022.06.12

• Amazon’s delivery network is now the 4th largest in the US

  This is an interesting article about Amazon’s delivery network, which is now the 4th largest in the United States. Here are the numbers (most of which are as of 2019):

  • Since 2014, Amazon has spent $39 billion building out its delivery network. When you add in warehouses and airplanes, this number increases to about $60 billion. As of 2019, Amazon leased 97% of its fulfillment and data center spaces.
  • Amazon is becoming increasingly vertically integrated. Last year, Amazon delivered about 58% of the 4.5 billion parcels that it shipped to US consumers. This represents about 22% of all online retail deliveries.
  • Outside of the US, Amazon still handles close to 50% of its own order deliveries. By 2025, Bank of America Global Research is predicting that Amazon could grow to handle somewhere between 38% and 49% of all online order deliveries in the US.
  • Amazon is the 4th largest in terms of US package deliveries (2019), behind FedEx, UPS, and USPS (in that order).
  • Amazon’s fulfillment network roughly entails: receiving centers -> fulfillment centers -> sortation centers -> last-mile delivery stations. It’s a hub and spoke system with the physical real estate naturally getting smaller as you get closer to the end destination. For a lot more information on their network, click here.

  2020.06.02

• Amazon might be buying Zoox

  This week the FT reported that Amazon is in “advanced talks” to acquire the self-driving startup Zoox. This would be Amazon’s first acquisition in the space, though it did lead a $530M funding round in Aurora in early 2019.

  Zoox last raised two years ago and was valued at $3.2 billion. Rumor has it that its valuation will be less than that today. Some of its investors, according to FT, include Breyer Capital and the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board.

  The move seems reasonable. Amazon wants to build out its (driverless) logistics capabilities. It’s also in keeping with what we have been seeing from big tech. Companies that can are using this environment to be acquisitive, invest in the future and, hopefully, gain market share. It’s probably also inevitable that the self-driving space will see some consolidation going forward.

  If you go back to this post from earlier this year, Zoox and Aurora weren’t near the top in terms of R&D spending on autonomy. And it has become increasingly clear that this a giant problem/opportunity requiring giant funding capabilities. It’s going to take time.

  I recently heard Chamath Palihapitiya refer to Jeff Bezos as the greatest investor of our time — even more so than Warren Buffet. Why? Because he is consistently, and sometimes exclusively, investing in the future. Is this one of those moments?

  2020.05.27

• Global distribution of wealth

  Bloomberg recently came up with a new index to define the distribution of wealth across adults in the world. They’re calling it your “net worth number” and the scale ranges from -2 to 11. Sadly, because the gap is so significant between the rich and the poor, it is based on a logarithmic or non-linear scale. Here’s how they break it down:

  

  Logarithms of negative numbers aren’t a thing, and so, technically, if your liabilities exceed your assets (i.e. you have a negative net worth) you shouldn’t appear on this index. But Bloomberg has added those people — which could be students with debt, after all — into the -2 category of their scale. These are people with a penny to their name.

  Now, the number of adults in each bracket is purely an estimate. If you look at different sources, you will end up with different numbers. Bloomberg believes that there are 2,800 adult billionaires in the world (numbers 9 to 11); whereas Credit Suisse’s estimate is about 1,600. (I wonder if it’s easier to estimate the number of billionaires or the number of -2’s.)

  Still, it is eye-opening to see where most adults sit (at number 3) and how bottom heavy this index is.

  2019.10.06

• “We” is the language of leadership

  Kawhi Leonard doesn’t say very much, but when he does, he tends to focus the discussion less on himself and more on the achievements of the Toronto Raptors as a whole. He has said many times before in interviews that he doesn’t aspire to be the best player on the team; he aspires to win championships. It’s not about him. It’s about the team. And it’s hard not to respect that kind of humility.

  One the things that I try to be aware of in business and in life is how I use first-person singular pronouns (such as “I”) and first-person plural pronouns (such as “we”). The subtleties of language are important and there’s lots of research out there on this topic. Some have even tracked Jeff Bezos’ use of “I” and “we” in Amazon’s annual shareholder letters over time.

  Harvard Business Review also argued a few years ago that “we” is the language of leadership because it tells you where someone is focusing their attention. Studies suggest that when people are self-aware or insecure they naturally tend to use more first-person singular pronouns — they turn inward. Conversely, using pronouns such as “we”, “us”, or “you” suggest an outward focus or a focus on other people’s thoughts, opinions, and contributions.

  Of course, when you write a personal blog like this one, you naturally end up with a lot of “I.” But when I write about broader topics, such as city building or the housing market, I do try and shift the focus. These are our cities. These are our buildings, streets, and public spaces. We’re in this together. And I aspire to get even better at “we.”

  Oh, and go Raptors!

  2019.06.06

• Public perception of drone delivery

  

  Back in 2016, the United States Postal Service published a report on the public perception of drone delivery in the US. This was nearly 3 years after Jeff Bezos announced on 60 Minutes that Amazon was working on a drone delivery service and that it would arrive within the next 5 years (so by 2019). I think USPS was trying to figure out how to be, or appear, more innovative.

  Not surprisingly, the report found that Millennials were significantly more supportive of drone delivery (65%) compared to Baby Boomers (24%), who strongly dislike the idea. Generally, the report indicates that the percentage of people who think it’s a good idea declines with every preceding or older generation. Again, I don’t find this at all surprising.

  But what I did find interesting was that, irrespective of age, respondents were primarily concerned with some sort of “malfunction.” This was at the top of the list. Next in line were concerns around “intentional misuse,” such as drones being used to transport illicit goods or to spy on people and/or property.

  Closer to the bottom of the list was a concern that drone delivery “might make the sky less pleasant to look at.” My own view is that visual clutter and noise pollution are critical problems to address here. There’s talk of “drone highways in the sky”, but how do you really manage the sheer volume of drones that would be needed to service a dense urban environment?

  Photo by Goh Rhy Yan on Unsplash

  2019.06.02

• Experimenting at the right scale

  Jeff Bezos published his annual letter to shareowners this week. You can find it here. And as is his usual practice, he has attached his 1997 letter to shareholders at the bottom of it. This is his “Day 1” and he clearly likes the reminder.

  I was somewhat surprised to learn that 58% of physical gross merchandise sales on Amazon are now by independent third-party sellers. This number has been steadily increasing almost every year since 1999.

  And this is despite the fact that first party sales — products sold by Amazon — have grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 25% during this same time period. Amazon excels at the fulfillment component and you can have them do that for you as a third-party seller.

  There are a number of other interesting facts sprinkled throughout the letter, but I particularly liked the bits on “intuition, curiosity, and the power of wandering.” Here is an excerpt on how Amazon is working to scale the size of its failures:

  As a company grows, everything needs to scale, including the size of your failed experiments. If the size of your failures isn’t growing, you’re not going to be inventing at a size that can actually move the needle. Amazon will be experimenting at the right scale for a company of our size if we occasionally have multibillion-dollar failures. Of course, we won’t undertake such experiments cavalierly. We will work hard to make them good bets, but not all good bets will ultimately pay out. This kind of large-scale risk taking is part of the service we as a large company can provide to our customers and to society. The good news for shareowners is that a single big winning bet can more than cover the cost of many losers.

  A lot has already been said and written about accepting failure in life and business. Nobody wants to fail, but it can happen when you’re trying to “imagine the impossible.”

  The two nuances here are that failures should scale along with the company. And that “large-scale risk taking” can actually be construed as a service. It might mean that the impossible becomes possible.

  2019.04.12

• Open letter to Amazon

  Today the Partnership for New York City took out a full-page ad in the New York Times with an open letter to Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos, asking him to reconsider the decision to pull out of NYC. The letter was signed by a long list of prominent leaders in the city. Here is a copy (a PDF version can also be found, here):

  

  2019.03.01