Market dominance and hubris (Part Three)

Nokia failed completely by totally losing its entire smartphone leadership and eventually sold it, leading to the end of the brand as a market leader. Nokia was founded in 1865 by mining engineer Fredrik Idestam, and operated as a paper mill in Finland. Eventually, Nokia’s paper mill, merged with rubber and cable companies in 1967, and only pivoted heavily to electronics and mobile phones business in the late 1970s to early 1980s, establishing Mobira Oy in 1979 and launching its first car phone, the Mobira Senator, in 1982. It then introduced their first handheld phone, the Mobira Cityman 900, in 1987, and shifted focus to telecoms in the early 1990s. 

It’s when Jorma Ollila, CEO from 1992 to 2006, is said to have stayed "too long" (14 years) at the helm of the Finnish company. He led Nokia to become the world’s largest handset manufacturer, but the company struggled to transition to smartphones, lagging behind in software (Symbian) and failing to respond to the iPhone's launch. He was replaced by Stephen Elop as CEO (2010–2014) who would be heavily criticized for the "burning platform" strategy, leading to the sale of Nokia’s phone business to Microsoft. 

 

On the other hand, Jean Beyl the inventor of the early Look bindings, also remained in charge for too long and soon became a problem because the skill sets required to create his inventions (creativity, passion, deep technical knowledge) went against the skills required to scale a business (delegation, operational discipline, sound marketing, financial management). 

While Beyl was a visionary in his own right, he always struggled to transition from "doing" into "leading," micromanaging and creating bottlenecks in decision-making and erecting a "founder's syndrome" where the organization became constrained by his management style, ego, German girlfriends and refusal to delegate. Still Look did survive. 

Having come too late with its “9 series” to enjoy a positive impact, the company went bankrupt, was picked up for one Franc* by Tapie, a French raider whose sole focus was to line-up his pockets, leading to another quick sale, another long hiatus, until Rossignol skis picked up the pieces, intelligently simplified the line and made it an accessory to its ski line instead of being a self-standing philosophical statement. 

So unlike Nokia, Look did not disappear but kept chugging along as it gradually transitioned. The iPhone was a "tsunami" that metamorphosed the industry in 2 to 3 years. While there are parallels between the origin of the two stories, the outcomes were drastically different as Nokia didn’t change hands until it was too late, while Look benefited from the hiatus created by two or three different owners. 

Also the nature of the ski business made it extremely unique with its inherent seasonality, its challenging short three-month annual cash-flow period, and its small number of participants (around 75 to 100 millions skiers in the late 2000s?) plus the gigantic difference in size of the respective industries (mobile phones being 1,000 times larger than alpine ski binding in sales volume) can’t be overstated even though both markets spanned the globe... 

 *As opposed to Salomon’s $1.4 billion acquisition by Adidas in 1997

Market dominance and hubris (Part Two)

When it comes to comparing how the iPhone took over of Nokia, to what Salomon did to Look in the ski industry, I can only speak from personal experience as a former Look employee, in thinking how Salomon rose to prominence over Look ski bindings in the 1970s, culminating in the late-70s launch of the S727 "Driver" series. 

This product evolution holds a strong parallel to the Nokia-Apple shift, as it highlights a technological pivot from an established, engineering-heavy design to a user-centric, more functional, and more accepted solution that redefined industry standards. Beginning in the 1960s, Look was a dominant, trusted, high-performance, and high-prestige ski binding manufacturer with its Nevada & Grand-Prix models.

Salomon, however, changed the game by shifting the intangible idea of ski-safety into user-focused design. The big difference was the hubris from Look’s inventor Jean Beyl who didn’t believe in funding a strong R&D and listening to his market, as opposed to the open mind and common sense exhibited by Georges Salomon who took their respective companies in dramatically different directions. 

Look bindings (like the Nevada) often required specific, sometimes difficult installation on skis and adjustments to ski boots, but most significantly was rather inconvenient to use on snow. Salomon began by simplifying its engineering, making it less costly to manufacture, designing bindings that were easier to install and adjust at the ski shop level, and ultimately much easier to use by the end-consumer. 

After years of struggling with its 404 and 505 then 555 series, Salomon gradually introduced several “game-changer”. First the 444 a mid-range ski binding, super easy to get in and out of, then its functional ski brake that made safety straps obsolete, followed by the release in the late 1970s of the Salomon S727 that was the final nail into Look’s coffin.

Unlike Look, which initially was slower to integrate the brake into the binding mostly because of its specific design, Salomon, also a leader in patents, was a leader in integrating a sleek brake technology that tied the skis together, which quickly became a standard replacement for run-away straps. Then at the back-shop level came the “pre-mount” system that had mounting screws already attached to the bindings and ready to screw into the holes, not to mention its much more convenient mounting templates. 

Salomon was able to place itself in the end-user shoes (shops and consumers) while Look simply would not. Tomorrow we’ll see the similarities and also the key differences between these two declines...

Olympic introspection… (Part Five)

It’s often strange how highly important decisions are made. France secured the 2030 Winter Olympics because it offered the IOC a low‑risk, politically supported, geographically coherent, and legacy‑focused plan across the French Alps. In truth, after Sweden’s withdrawal, it became on November 29, 2023, the IOC’s sole (it then said “preferred”) candidate. 

With a blatant shortage of candidates, the so-called IOC’s “new system” emphasized stability, feasibility, and political guarantees rather than competitive bidding. The French delegation was led by President Emmanuel Macron, who personally expressed France’s full commitment to delivering the Games and the IOC said it placed enormous weight on government guarantees, especially for the Winter Games that require complex infrastructure and climate‑resilient planning. 

France met these conditions within the IOC’s timeline. What made the IOC accept a Games spread across the entire French Alps was a concern to use existing venues and established winter‑sport regions to fit its new strategy, in spite of its highly publicized “sustainability” focus versus huge transportation needs. The IOC also liked the appealing narrative that the French Alps combined historic Olympic sites with modern facilities, creating a blend of heritage and future‑oriented planning. 

This was seen as reducing risk and enhancing the Games’ narrative appeal. France also had to offer explicit financial commitments to the IOC.in order to address its concerns about cost overruns and political uncertainty. 

Unlike other recent bids that stretched across multiple countries or distant cities, the French Alps were seen as forming a continuous, well‑connected winter‑sports corridor (more than 160 miles as the crow flies). Finally, France’s recent success with the Paris 2024 Summer Olympics clinched the deal. Should I repeat that the IOC had no other option?

Edgar Grospiron was chosen to lead the 2030 Winter Olympics Organizing Committee through a formal vote of the General Assembly of the newly created committee. on February 18, 2025. I’ve seen him when he was a toddler, as his parents moved to work for Vuarnet Sports, at Avoriaz, in the early 70s. 

The General Assembly justified its choice based on Grospiron’s deep Olympic and sports‑movement experience, which included, among others, Olympic champion in mogul skiing at Albertville 1992, Leader of the Annecy 2018 Winter Olympics bid and longstanding involvement in French winter‑sports governance. These credentials were explicitly cited as reasons for his appointment. 

Grospiron, who will turn 57 in March, is remarkably extroverted and might have lacked the diplomatic skills and managerial experience need for the job. That happened to me too. Still, the position is highly visible and well remunerated (probably around $25,000 to $35,000 a month), something kept secret in the French tradition of keeping a tight lid on transparency. 

It’s worth noting that Giovanni Malagò who ran the Milan 26 took no salary. More recently, the committee has experienced significant internal tensions, including the resignation of the CEO, COO, communications director, and head of the remuneration committee. These events do not affect how he was selected but help explain why his leadership has been under scrutiny. 

Time will tell us how this complex project develops in the less than four years that are left prior to the games…

Olympic introspection… (Part Four)

Without worrying about transparency, Alberville 1992, Lillehammer 1994, Nagano 1998 and even Salt Lake City 2002, never provided a detailed final budget, or profit and loss statement, or even cost‑overrun figures.

However, it’s pretty obvious that the Games required major infrastructure investments, with extensive venue constructions, major regional transport upgrades and development across multiple venues. Each likes to infer that its Games broke even, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Torino 2006 and Sochi 2014 are totally different stories though, with Torino ending with a financial outcome clearly negative, and the Games leaving a long‑term burden on the city and its region. The clearest source states that the 2006 Turin Games “left a legacy of large debts and unused infrastructure”, describing the event as a cautionary tale for future hosts. The Games did not break even, the city and region were left holding a significant debt, The financial legacy was negative, period. 

Sochi was clearly engineered by Putin and with his oligarch friends and his subjects’ money he treated himself to the most expensive Olympics in history, and the financial outcome is unusually well‑documented. The available sources paint a consistent picture of massive cost overruns, extremely high total spending, and a long‑term economic burden, with only limited offsetting benefits. Independent analyses show that the total cost reached $55 billion, up from an original bid estimate of $12 billion. 

This represents a 4.5 times cost overrun, one of the largest ever recorded for any Olympic Games. Of that, $16 billion were sports‑related costs (venues, operations) while the remaining $39 billion went to non‑sports infrastructure such as roads, rail, power, and hotels. It’s evidently breaking records for cost overrun at $51 billion!

The jury is still out on the Milano–Cortina 2026 Games that just happened, but budget, overruns, and likely financial outcome are already well‑documented. 

The initial operating budget began at $1.77 billion and officially was revised to $2 billion. But its initial infrastructure budget at $4.5 billion might end up at $4.75 billion. 

Broader estimates place the overall cost at $6 to $7 billion when combining operations, venues, and legacy projects. Some analyses include all related works (roads, transport, regional upgrades) and reach $9.15 billion total, of which only $1.9 billion is strictly “Games-related”. 

Let’s wait and see a little to see at which level the final cost settles in. Some reports suggest that thee Organizing Committee Milano Cortina 2026 is on track to show a surplus between $59 million to $95 million. 

This would largely be due to record-breaking domestic sponsorship revenue, which surpassed $825 million. We’ll see! Tomorrow, we’ll plunge into the ambitious and highly complicated next Olympics, Alps 2030!

Olympic introspection… (Part Three)

If we examine the most recent Winter Olympics from 1992 to this day, we also see different tales and from best to worst, we may be surprised, but won’t be shocked. Across the board, full transparency is not the order of the day and may reflect the IOC’s secretive culture. 

Among the well-behaved and more responsible Olympic winter sites there is a remarkable trio. It’s Vancouver 2010, PyeongChang (South Korea) 2018 and Beijing 2022 that, just like the cream, rise to the top in behavior and performance.

PyeongChang is arguably the best and one of the very few Games that ended with a confirmed financial surplus, backed by crystal-clear numbers. The picture becomes even more interesting when we look at operational budget, infrastructure spending, and economic results side by side. Operationally, it yielded a confirmed $55 million surplus based on revenue of $2.245 billion and expenditure of $2.190 billion. 

If we can believe the Chinese, Beijing 2022 follows with one of the clearest and most unusual financial profiles of any recent Winter Olympics. Another surplus posted by the organizing committee, while the overall cost of the Games was far higher than originally planned. The available sources give us solid numbers on both sides, with a $52 million surplus on $2.3 billion revenue. 

The IOC also stated it would contribute US $10.4 million of its share of the surplus to the Chinese Olympic Committee. Vancouver too, ended up with a clean, documented financial outcome and a very clear picture. The Games are widely regarded as well‑managed financially, though the story differs depending on whether we look at operational costs or infrastructure spending. 

While the operating budget broke even, the infrastructure budget—which included venues, roads, transit, and city improvements—was a separate matter. Two major figures stand out, $603 million for venue development, delivered on budget, but $554.3 million were spent by the City of Vancouver alone for capital infrastructure and Games‑related operations. 

But like most Olympics, the public sector absorbed the infrastructure costs, which are not counted in the break‑even result. Tomorrow we’ll take a look at the other Games, including a preview of Milan 2026.

Olympic introspection… (Part Two)

Today, we’ll explore how financially successful the Olympics (mostly summer) were. We’ll begin with the single Olympic Games that really made money, Los Angeles in 1984, a standout example. These were operated without public funds and still delivered a surplus of over $200 million. Unsurprisingly, they became the model for how to run a lean, privately financed Games. Obviously the example didn’t translate into further success. 

Other Games have occasionally broken even or come close, but 1984 remained the only universally acknowledged major profit-maker. Then there are the many losers. Most Games since the 1960s have run massive deficits. Here are a few notorious examples, starting with Montreal 1976 that was so over budget that it took the city 30 years to pay off the debt. 

That should have been a cautionary tale for future hosts, but Athens also fell in the trap with billions in overruns and many venues abandoned afterward. In the case of Greece these costs overrun were the brick that broke the camel’s back in exacerbating that country’s later financial strain. In Brazil, Rio 2016 also had some severe cost overruns with many venues falling into disuse within months after the Games and long-term economic benefits failed to materialize. 

Even the careful Japanese and Tokyo 2020 (held in 2021) saw the Games’ costs ballooning due to COVID-19 delays, not to mention the fact that the expected tourism benefits evaporated as spectators were banned. As far as Paris 2024 was concerned the outcomes are still being evaluated, but early analysis shows that hosting the Games was “anything but cheap,” with costs around $8.7 billion. This rather negative outcome explains why fewer and fewer cities want to bid for the Olympics. 

The massive cost overruns are the main reason as Olympics routinely exceed their budgets by huge margins. As a result, cities know they’re taking on a huge financial risk with little chance of profit. Then there are the long-term debt and infrastructure maintenance costs. After the Games end, cities must maintain stadiums, arenas, transportation expansions, athlete villages and special infrastructures like bobsleigh runs that often become “white elephants.” 

There’s also growing public resistance as residents increasingly vote against hosting in referendums because they don’t want higher taxes, displacement, construction disruption and long-term debt. The Colorado population stands as an example for vehemently rejecting the 1976 Winter Games in Denver. 

Finally the IOC has gained a really bad reputation with its high demands for expensive new venues, costly adherence to new specifications, strict branding rules, heavy security, thin financial contribution and its nasty habit of grabbing most of the revenue generated. Next, we’ll focus on some of the most successful Winter Olympic venues in recent history and how each one performed in its own ways…

Olympic introspection… (Part One)

Now that the Winter Olympics are behind us, time for some introspection. As I said many times in this blog, the Olympic Games have morphed into a big business that’s not necessarily making money for everyone. 

As we all suspect, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and major corporate sponsors profit most from the Games, with the IOC generating billions from broadcasting (61%) and marketing (30%). Conversely, host cities and national taxpayers bear the majority of the financial burden, often covering massive, frequently over-budget construction, security, and operational costs. 

Talk about an expensive form of entertainment even if you don’t care to watch it, you’ll be guaranteed to pay for it! Yet, the whole enterprise is pushed – as usual - by our dear politicians. Cities or now, regions still bid despite these huge financial risks for a few simple reasons. It represents a super easy political job as it brings prestige and is seen as a global status symbol. In addition, local developers push hard because they profit regardless of the outcome. 

It’s easy to formulate optimistic economic projections and affordable costs, long before the event and bid committees never hesitate to use inflated forecasts in selling the idea to the public. Consider this, every Olympics since 1960 has gone over budget (except for Los Angeles in 1984), often massively with an average cost overrun at 172%. Montreal took 30 years to pay off its Olympic debt while Rio and Athens were left with abandoned venues and long‑term economic strain.

Did I mention that the jumps in Prelegato for Torino 2006 have become white elephants while Milan rebuilt new jumps in Val di Fieme even further away. Finally, there’s the “legacy” narrative as cities and host venues are promised long‑term benefits that rarely materialize. In the next episode we’ll dig deeper into the Olympics’ financial roller-coaster...

Musk cuts off his nose to spite one's face

Musk “going to Washington” was a big mistake! 

It’s always been my opinion that a vast majority of Tesla owners were leaning liberal or progressive, as their initial motivation for buying the car was their interest for the environment and their concern about emissions that are worsening climate change. 

Their conservative and particularly MAGA counterparts were more likely to get gas guzzlers like GM, Dodge or Ford SUV as a show of their disdain for such beliefs and their embrace of “Drill, baby drill!”.

Yet, Elon Musk chose to ignore his core Tesla clientele and ally with Trump. The same thing is happening in Europe, where after getting involved in politics there, (AFD in Germany and extreme positions in the United Kingdom) he’s seen a collapse of his car sales over that continent. 

Today he claims falling Tesla sales are the result of his total focus on DOGE and on retooling his factories for the update model Y when in fact it’s the result of turning his back on his original clients and their ideology. 

It’s my belief that Tesla sales will continue to decline and crash and that a company like Toyota will pick up the pieces and revive the brand. The guy might be technically smart but hopelessly lacking in emotional intelligence.

A new Beatles song, seriously?

After the Beatles broke up, the four members of the band pursued different individual careers and after the tragic death of John Lennon in 1980, any hope of reunifying the band vanished. After the early 1970s, and to this day, I have been a staunch fan of the “Fab Four” and like millions, kept on regretting that they had disbanded. 

In 1994, the release of the Beatles Anthology in 1994 gave access to the Beatles' personal archives, including previously unreleased recordings, photographs, and film footage. This allowed the filmmakers to tell the Beatles' story from their own perspective, rather than through the lens of the media and dig out three songs, created by John Lennon in the late 70s, two of which were remastered and re-recorded along with the three surviving musicians. 

What it Beatles music? Not really, in my opinion it was John’s, very consistent with his solo career’s style. Likewise, the recent release of “Now and Then” falls in the same category of pseudo-Beatles music and is more a commercial operation than a way of bringing back that song into the Beatles discography and cosmology. To me that really is a flimsy stretch... 

Tapie coming to American living rooms!

If you are a regular reader of this blog you will have seen that I’ve never been a fan of Bernard Tapie, the French company raider and one the most iconic and controversial French public figures, but totally unknown in America. 

Throughout the seven episodes of a new Netflix series that we began watching this week, we’ve seen the comedian Laurent Lafitte step into the shoes of Tapie, showing us his meteoric rise. 

Just like I have written so many times, cut in the same cloth as our own Donald Trump. 

When we’re done watching it, we’ll let you know how close it is to reality. and fall. After seeing just a few episodes, the recreation looks like the real thing and provides a faithful description of “Creepy Bernard”, as I like to call him.

FIFA uncovered

As the world is mesmerized by the on-going 2022 soccer world cup, Netflix has been showing its documentary about FIFA and its wrongdoings that are using the same ingredients as what goes inside the more repulsive bribery crimes. 

If you can see that film and read between the lines, you will realize why Switzerland and its infamous banking network is a must-have headquarters location for world sporting federations, including of course, the International Olympic Committee. 

We just finished watching the four-part series and have found it as much entertaining as it was informative. Without spoiling the story we came up with two take-away. 

First. it took the US Justice Department to bring down Sepp Blatter and the house of FIFA, while none of the European governments lifted one finger to bring up the scandal into the open (instead, France’s President Sarkozy was the one igniting part of it with Qatar candidacy). 

Second, the two men in command, Blatter and Platini didn’t end up in prison as they should have, with the help of the Swiss Government that “delegated” the pains to the executives and associates below their chain of command, and Blatter even had the guts to claims “absolutely no responsibility” for the mess. 

So, if you don’t see the piece, you’ve got the gist of it. 

Toyota and the Taliban

For decades, the Japanese brand has been known for its ruggedness, durability and dependability. It’s never been an innovative company, except perhaps for the Prius, but overall, the vehicles it put out work. ISIS seem to know that as well as the Taliban. 

I figure these two groups aren’t very good at maintaining vehicles, they might be able to refuel them, inflate tires and occasionally change oil, but their ability to care for their set of wheels was pretty much limited to that. Both have been using 4x4 like the Toyota Hilux pickup truck, the overseas version of the Toyota Tacoma or “Tac” as my grandson would say, and the Toyota Land Cruisers.

We’ve seen them spreading mayhem during the ISIS campaign in Iraq, Syria and Libya, and more recently in the hands of the Taliban during its reconquest of Afghanistan with their truck beds loaded with heavy weapons and cabs jammed with its disheveled, bearded terrorists. 

Toyota is uneasy with that unwanted, but effective publicity and would love to disengage itself from these modern bandits. In fact, the company has long worked to distance its association with terror groups and has publicly supported a US Treasury Department investigation into how some of is vehicles end up into the hands of terrorists. 

Toyota has also announced a new policy it launched the 2022 version of the Toyota Land Cruiser, the company’s longest-running model. After it went on sale in Japan on August 2, priced at around $46,500, the car manufacturer announced that anyone buying one had to sign a contract promising not to resell the vehicle within a year. 

This certainly won’t stop the export of gently-used Japanese vehicles, through the Sea of Japan, to Vladivostok, the world's capital of the Japanese car second-hand market, and some rogue dealers will maintain a brisk business and keep clients happy whether they are Taliban or other terrorists. Another war-related hypocrisy...

Olympics masquerade

We are not going to be watching a lot of the Tokyo Olympics. My wife will be following the women’s gymnastics, as for me, we’ll see. 

I don’t like the way Thomas Bach forced the Games onto the Japanese (and I’m certain, their prime minister) when almost 80% of the population against the idea. In this day and age, the I.O.C. has become the defacto decider and the one running the show, not the host country or the host city, even if his actions might seem heavy-handed. 

This explains why the Tokyo Games will go on amid the pandemic, and also why, next year's, the Winter Games under the authoritarian Xi regime won’t be moved or canceled if pressure were to be applied by the I.O.C to hold China to account for its treatment of the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province, and for cracking down on democracy advocates in Hong Kong. 

Now, more than ever, the I.O.C. is fully in charge, no matter what. As a testimony to the organization’s growing power, the I.O.C.’s staff at its Lausanne headquarters has grown from a couple dozen people in the 1980s to about 100 people in the ’90s, and to roughly 600 people today. 

This growth, in turn, has diminished the role of the I.O.C.’s membership, a group of 102 sports officials from around the world who once handled many of the specialized tasks that are now undertaken by seasoned professionals in Lausanne under Bach’s firm leadership. On June 23, Bach officially opened up, with great fanfare a gigantic, new headquarters built at the modest cost of $205 million, including close to $15 million in “reserve”. 

While his role as I.O.C. president remains technically that of a volunteer, it was revealed in 2015 that Bach was receiving an annual “indemnity” payment of 225,000 euros (roughly $244,000 at the time and certainly tax free) to cover his activities as president. Like the two I.O.C. presidents before him, he lives at the Lausanne Palace, a luxury hotel in the center of the city, free of charge, and (in my humble opinion) doesn’t travel economy class.

In the world of sports, the institution has now become the tail that wags the dog. Yet, if there were no Olympic games, there would be no need for that monstrosity that the I.O.C. has become and Bach would have no job. But since money and corruption still play such a central role in the I.O.C., there’s probably little that can be done about it, yet it’s become amply clear that Bach has destroyed the hopes of those who believed he’d be a different kind of president, and instead has embraced the kind of authoritarian role that he seem to play perfectly.

Winners vs. Losers…

That “Winner vs. Loser” subject has been exacerbated by Trump and was very much in vogue in the mid-seventies when I immigrated to the United States.

It made quite an impression on me and became a key element of my business education and understanding of Corporate America.

During this pandemic, I received this business-minded message that extolled the virtues of being a “Winner” as opposed to a “Loser”.

Today, while I still agree that this particular approach served me well when I followed it the best I could, I don't see it now as neatly as I used to, and see it as a bit contrived, lacking empathy and being a bit exploitative.

In other terms, you must be a winner to be worth anything, and being any bit less than that, pigeon-holes you into a totally undesirable human category. How do you feel about it?

Covid-19: Impact on business travel and telecommuting?

As companies are getting used to have their employee working from home, and are adjusting to an off-location workplace, they are walking through a totally new experience. At the same time, they are putting software and video tools to the test to perform educating, conferencing and meetings.

When the pandemic abates, companies and organizations may begin to realize that there are some significant savings to be made in both evolving and streamlining the current work and travel paradigms. This can be seen in terms of a more efficient use of office space as well as huge savings in time, travel, hotel and entertainment costs.

Sure teleconferencing software still shows today a large number of inadequacies, but as its intended market comes to that realization, it may soon improve by leaps and bounds and may totally transform the way future business is conducted.

How to lose clients

I’ve had my personal accountant for over 28 years.

While I suspected that the 68 year old “Professional” would quit soon, he never told me or let me know that he had sold his practice .

A letter was sent to me by the new owner that I didn’t received because his administrative assistant used my 5 year old mailing address and pretended that it had been transferred on the “cloud” and it was the reason for messing up! Just randomly, on the eve of tax season I discovered that my accountant was gone.

His assigned successors managed to botch up the transition, which is hard to accept from folks that are in the accounting business where trust is the number one ingredient.

A real dumb way to lose a long-time client.

Prime’s “subprime” delivery service...

For a while, Amazon has been contemplating to launch its own delivery service, and now, its blue vans can be seen all over American neighborhoods.

Even though the company has used Fedex, UPS and the postal service for years, it would love to reduce its huge shipping bill and that’s one reason why it’s bringing that activity in house. That way can make even more money, following the typical American greed scenario.

Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, can’t help but look at UPS huge quarterly profits and salivate in thinking that even a piece of that pie would be a big boost to its bottom line. Also, by handling deliveries itself, Amazon can speed up delivery times and attract more customers to buy its Prime memberships. Finally, it can also track deliveries on its own, and not be caught in the middle when customers complain that they’ve never received their order.

All this sounds good in theory, but the devil is in the details, as shipping and delivering is yet another set of skills that must be mastered before it becomes fully operational and competitive. To get off and running quickly, Amazon created its “Delivery Service Partners”, a new program aimed at entrepreneurs willing to invest into their own Amazon delivery service for as low as a $10,000. If successful, owners are told they can expect to earn between $75,000 and $300,000 in annual profits. Recently, I experimented twice with that brand new “Prime” delivery system.

On June 3, I had ordered a communication device and never received it. We weren’t home as the parcel should have been delivered, but obviously wasn’t to be found. Sure, the order confirmation showed a photo of the parcel next to an entry door, except that it wasn’t mine. I had to spend 30 minutes chatting with an Amazon associate to explain the situation, hear his side of the story, and get the transaction credited back to me.

I immediately re-ordered the part and on June 5 was expecting it again. This time, I was cautious and followed the interactive map that popped up on my computer, so when the delivery van was just 300 yards from my home, I stepped outside and waited for the van to arrive.

Arrived it did, but seemingly without any intention of stopping at my place. I had to get in the middle of the road, wave the lady behind the wheel until she stopped and gave me my parcel. She seemed totally clueless and obviously not up to the task.

All this to say that Mr. Bezos will have a few improvements to make if he wants to stay in the package delivery business and not drive his customers away…

Insatiable Carlos?

I'm a big fan of Elon Musk and Tesla, but I've always been impressed with Carlos Gohsn's impressive career path in the car business.

This was of course until earlier this week to my sort-of-countryman got arrested by the Japanese authorities following an investigation triggered by a whistle-blower report.

Sure, Gohsn and his sidekick Kelly who are accused of financial misconduct remains innocent until proven guilty, but these recent revelations show that greed is nothing new and can affect everyone.

I also think that rich and powerful people aren't immune from it and often get confused between their power and their margin of maneuver.

In fact, just like the Facebook's duo Zuckerberg-Sanberg has showed, absolute power corrupts absolutely, too much money wets people's appetite for even more.

A real vicious and disgusting spiral on all counts...

The lesson from Theranos

I just finished reading “Bad Blood”, the mind-boggling saga of Theranos, a biotechnology start-up, infamous now for its fallacious claims to have devised a super simple, non-invasive blood test.

The company was founded in 2003 by Elizabeth Holmes when she was just 19. She and her partner managed to raise more than $700 million from investors, and reach a $10 billion peak valuation in 2013.

Both its investors and the media hyped Theranos as being a technological breakthrough, just like a new Apple. That was until October 2015, when John Carreyrou, a Wall Street Journal reporter and author of the book, exposed the scam, causing the company to quickly disintegrate until it closed its doors on 31 August of this year.

The takeaway from that unbelievable story is that Ms. Holmes was a dangerous charismatic leader that knew how to play people, employees, investors and the media, just like Prophet Mohamed, Donald Trump or Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) had done before her.

These people aren't just extremely effective and dangerous, they tend to resurface frequently under different labels and their mere existence should be a warning to all of us to always think critically and never take what these manipulators or their supporters assert at face value.

Now go back to work, do your homework when tempted by an investment opportunity and always stay on your guard!

Start-up, the French way

A few evenings ago, I was watching a French TV news magazine, that was showing, among other things, some French start-up companies dealing with online sales. They were two elements that struck me.

First, my former countrymen don't necessarily seek the 30,000 feet view to begin a business but seem fairly happy to get their hands on tiny business concepts that often are challenging, if not impossible to scale and grow.

It seems as if, they wanted to start a business, just for the sake of being into one, but in total disregard for its growth and profit potential. In contrast, the American entrepreneur first considers growth potential and scalability, will begin by going out to fund their venture so it can be revved up quickly to a sustainable level.

The second element that I noticed, is the culture, that is typically French, making use of technology tools in a very special, seemingly amateurish way and, again, preferring to focus on small, micro-details instead of looking at business as a general and generic endeavor.
 
Perhaps the common denominator of my two observations is that American always see “big” and super efficient, while French see business in a more accessible mode, that must remains fun and social.

Business, like the many other human endeavors, remains, most of the time, marked by its local cultural traits!