Where does it end?

According to a 2018 study by Cigna, loneliness is an epidemic in the United States. Approximately half of the 20,000 U.S. adults surveyed report feeling lonely or left out. Generation Z is found to be the loneliest generation. As always, I will explore the economic impacts of the new habits, needs, and preferences that Generation Z brings to the markets. 

Alcohol is extremely present in social situations, especially for Generation Z. About 4 out of 5 college students consume alcohol, and 50% of those consumers participate in binge drinking culture (Alcohol Rehab Guide). 

Alcohol in moderation is relaxing and provides a boost of dopamine, and acts as a “social lubricant” (Drug Rehab). Many people imbibe to destress or to ease social anxiety. However with the easy access to alcohol, and the binge drinking culture embedded in America, especially within college campuses, the consumption of alcohol can leave people feeling more disconnected than before. According to the Addiction Center, “binge drinking can be particularly damaging to college students struggling with loneliness and depression. Excessive drinking will only worsen these feelings and can lead to cyclical drinking behavior” (Addiction Center). 

While there are immediate health and safety consequences to excessive drinking, there are also long term effects that impact communities–and would most likely have a negative economic impact at large. While college introduces many people to alcohol in an unhealthy manner, they are then set up to be stuck in cyclical drinking that seeps into life past a college party culture. “A 2017 study found Americans are drinking more alcohol now than ever—more than 70 percent of all adults—and as a result, more people qualify for alcohol-use disorder.” (Newsweek). Walking the line of the “almost-alcoholic zone”, leads to “alcohol-related problems with their health, their relationships, and social lives and even their work, but don’t connect the dots between these problems and their drinking” (Newsweek). The effects of binge-drinking touch nearly every aspect of life, and it poses a threat to society at large. 

With all of this knowledge at hand, I strongly believe that alcohol companies have a civic duty to capitalize on responsible drinking, without sacrificing their financial motives. The alcohol industry is continuing to grow. As of 2019, the U.S. Spirits Market is valued at $29 billion, and in 2026 it is projected to reach $38 billion (Market Watch). People will not stop spending money on alcohol, but there is a way where consumers and companies can meet in the middle for quality, experience, and moderation. To combat loneliness, young people need a space where they can connect face-to-face to form meaningful relationships, according to Douglas Nemecek, MD, Chief Medical Officer for Behavioral Health at Cigna (Addiction Center)

According to a 2019 market report, “the past year has seen the continued growth of craft beer and craft spirits, an increased number of microbreweries, and a rise in experiential drinking (Beverage Daily). By the end of 2018, brewpubs, taprooms, and game-based bars saw a surge in popularity according to the same source. Consumers are more drawn to experiential locations than not. These bars with more allure than just alcohol provide a multi-sensory experience that allows consumers to slow down and connect over alcohol in a non-traditional way. According to a Nielsen report, these experiential bars allow for consumers to not just engage with the culture of the alcohol, but “a golden opportunity to engage with drinkers in a memorable, meaningful, and interactive way” (Beverage Daily). While these pubs and breweries are increasing in popularity and significance for America’s drinking culture, I believe that other alcohol companies will follow suit with heightening customer engagement and connection with one another in new ways.

Last year, Aramco became the world’s most profitable company. It made $111.1 billion in net income. To put this into perspective, Apple made $59.53 billion, Amazon $10.07 billion, Alphabet Inc. (Google) $30.73 billion. Aramco made more than all of the aforementioned combined.

            Aramco is a state-owned enterprise. Though, it is privately managed. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) announced that the company would go public. This offering is just a small step in his Vision 2030 plan. An economic and cultural diversification plan that has already made results both economically and culturally.

            MBS had a goal of the company’s valuation being as high as $2 trillion. No company has ever planned to go public at such a high value before. The company since then has been re-evaluated after a roadshow in the Gulf region. It is expected to be valued at $1.6-$1.7 trillion. 

            The plan for the company now is to go public on the local market by December 4 with the aim to go international. Aramco is set to sell 1.5 percent, 3 billion, of its total shares (the rest belonging to the government of Saudi Arabia) at $8-$8.52. Additionally, the company announced a “bonus share” option in which shareholders will receive additional shares if they hold the stock for a certain period. The company is expected and expects itself to surpass Alibaba’s historic IPO of $25 billion.

            There is a caveat. Things do not look as promising this year. Profits until the end of September are down 18 percent year-over-year, $68 billion. This is largely due to volatile oil prices. 

            The reason investors seem interested in a company such as Aramco is the growing cashflows the company is able to generate in terms of dividends. Currently, the company plans to pay a dividend yield of 4.5 percent based on a $75 billion payout. The devaluation is a benefit to investors, too. A lower valuation means a higher dividend yield, which is what investors are seeking in a company that would be vastly controlled by the Saudi government.

            Aramco originally set to go public last year in 2018 selling 5 percent of total shares to the public. The IPO plan was halted because it did not meet MBS’ evaluation of the company at the time. The public relations crisis that ensued when Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi, was murdered made foreign investors pull back. Also, it was delayed slightly this year as a result of the attacks it suffered by Houthi rebels in September.

Boutique fitness studios pop up on every street in every city as if they are the first to revolutionize a workout. The highly concentrated market of fitness studios challenges a multitude of these businesses from staying afloat. They offer promises of a fun and efficient workout and give their clients a sense of feeling healthy for a week for the one hour they spend in a workout class. As more and more studios open, the number of competitors increases, forcing changes in pricing. As an avid studio attendee myself, I always question how much I’m willing to pay for a certain workout. This is impossible to answer because of the tradeoff I see in getting in my workout. I will always crave a workout where I am surrounded by others who are doing the exact same moves I am doing, all while feeling a sense of community every time I walk into my favorite studio, Sync Yoga and Cycle. Clearly, prices have not reached my peak point where I must walk away from the workout studio experience, and I am not alone.

The emphasis on what we love to call “wellness” encourages high spending on workouts. Wellness is the rechristening of the word vanity. Our physical and mental health is a result of a societal need to advertise what we do to work on our personal wellness. A workout becomes an excuse to show your followers that you care about your health, but only a few hours later, the same person that spent $35 on a Soulcyle class can be seen posting their brunch photos of an unquestionably unhealthy meal. I then explore the true intent our Soulcycle lover has in advertising the morning workout. Is it truly for personal wellness or just to make sure everyone knows you’re on par with current trends? Every time someone chooses to post their workout, the true winner is the studio. Soulcylce will get the client’s $35 as well as a free advertisement with every post. This encourages a faulted system as studio owners begin to focus more on creating an Instagrammable studio instead of a product that is worth what a client is spending.

A growing number of Americans are joining fitness centers. In the past 10 years, visits to fitness centers are up 42%. This jump in people who seek out fitness through outside-of-the-home means seems to be an appealing business opportunity for those in the industry. Many of the boutique studio owners who took advantage of this opportunity may now see the consequences of pursuing a business that many others were inspired to create. There are only so many hours in a day, allowing a limited number of classes and, based on the size of the studio, a limited number of students per class. To maximize productivity is nearly impossible, so studios seek out other means for revenue generators, potentially compromising the workout.

What Soulycle has achieved is what many strive to match. They have developed a brand outside of the workout. They sell an endless amount of workout clothes, all branded with the Soulcycle logo, and more recently have strangely entered the home goods market. A workout studio has somehow developed so much trust with its clients that they can confidently enter an entirely different market. Soulcycle continually loses its top teachers, like Angela Davis, famously known as Beyonce’s favorite spin instructor, to more workout-focused companies. Those who value a workout over a brand are making it obvious that Soulcycle is no longer the peak of an instructor’s career, but now a stepping stone. Similarly, Soulcycle recognizes that the brand and products are the catalysts for success, not the workout class itself. Soulcycle will stay alive in this oversaturated industry because of its ability to create a brand-obsessed client base, while other boutique studios who may have the greatest workout but not the same cult-based following or picture-perfect decor cannot compete and will ultimately suffer.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-17/more-than-30-for-a-soulcycle-class-not-when-a-recession-hits

Since the establishment of the renowned Best Picture oscar, studios have campaigned for their movie to compete for the award, spending millions per year, even if there hasn’t been an oscar “bump” since 2012.

The change of the oscar “bump”

An Oscar “bump” is the winner or nominee of the best picture category gaining more viewership and box office money after the Oscars award show. There hasn’t been more than a 7 million dollar “bump” at the box office since the silent film “The Artist” won in 2012. So why do studious such as Netflix, A24, and Columbia pictures continue to spend 10-20 million dollars a year to campaign their films if the box office success after the oscar bump does not outweigh the costs? Is it because of clout within the industry to gain more rights to critically acclaimed pictures? Or is it because the economy and social structure has changed to where less people go to the theatre and more people view movies on their laptop on streaming services? How about both? Viewership matters most to studios so it does not matter if the film is being viewed on streaming services or the theatre? Or does it? Obviously, studios like Sony and Columbia pictures would love everyone to get off streaming services and go to the theatre if they do not have a partnership with the given streaming service. But Netflix, that is buying enormous amounts of oscar-nominated content, would love the bulk of their viewership to come from their streaming service. The economic incentive to promote these movies for studios is to gain even more rights to other critically acclaimed movies. There is a cutthroat competition that is ensuing between theatre-driven companies such as A24, Columbia, and Sony, and streaming service giants such as Netflix and Amazon Prime(which both spend and promote tons of movie content to get people to watch). Furthermore, the “Oscar bump” is and isn’t what it used to be. It has always been to gain viewership of the movie they promoted but it’s not completely in the theatres anymore. The bump is happening much more on streaming services and to realistically gather the revenue/profits made off of the promotion, streaming service viewership data would have to be included with box office money to get an accurate description of if promoting the picture is worth it. I can tell you this though, if it wasn’t making them money, they would not continue to spend millions to promote it!

Further information on the economic incentive.

It is just as important for an independent company to invest in critically acclaimed pictures to enter the cutthroat competition. A few years ago, A24 was just a small independent studio trying to enter the competition. Since 2016, we have seen an independent film company such as A24 rise to prominence after “Moonlight” won the studio its first best picture award in 2016. Since 2016, not only has A24 received the rights to huge box office successes such as “Hereditary” and “The Lighthouse”, but also critically acclaimed films that are supposed to be up for multiple Oscar nominations such as the upcoming releases of “Waves” and “Uncut Gems”, and the already released “The Farewell” and “The Last Black Man in San Francisco”. Its 2016 best picture winner, Moonlight, did not have a huge “Oscar Bump” with box office success or streaming services until late 2018 when it appeared on the Netflix streaming service. Although Moonlight did not garner an extreme amount of box office success or streaming service recognition after its best picture win, it catapulted the smaller/independent studio in A24 to a household name that will continue to have rights to critically acclaimed films for years to come.

Conclusion!

In conclusion, the economic incentive for studios to promote critically acclaimed films relies on how much they make off both streaming services and box office money, and the prestige the award gives the studio to gain rights to more critically acclaimed movies. Promoting the film then proves to be an investment for the studio. Yes, sometimes the studio will lose money if their picture did not get nominated or win when they spent 10 million dollars promoting it. But, a lot of the time it will make the studios’ money in the long run as the investment will pay off. This gives more of an incentive for independent studios to look at A24 as an example to promote and gain rights to a critically acclaimed picture that will lose them money in the short run, but in the long run, it will catapult them into a competition to gain rights to more and more critically acclaimed films.

In 2010, Adam Neumann started office-rental company WeWork in New York City on the idea of community. With shared workspaces now throughout America, the concept gives small businesses and startups a coworking space to bring their ideas to fruition. Basically, it’s an elevated office space that’s private, but not too private, with communal areas supplied with “free” micro-roasted coffee, Foosball tables and state-of-the-art printers, and it costs a lot of money to rent (a single desk in Downtown L.A. averages $450 a month and an office is about $850).

In August of this year, the company publicly filed its IPO paperwork with a private valuation of $47 billion. Since its initial announcement about going public, the company has started to unravel. In its attempt at expansion, the company has lost a lot. For the six months prior to June 2019, the company reported a revenue of $1.54 billion but with net income loss of $900 million. In addition, Neumann has been criticized harshly for how he has run the company and how he treated WeWork as his “personal ATM.” For example, he trademarked “We Company” and as he expanded its brands to WeLive, WeGrow and WeMRKT, convinced his company to pay him $6 million for the privilege of using the name (he gave it back eventually and reluctantly after).

Only a month after its initial IPO filing, the company announced it would withdraw from its IPO. Neumann has since stepped down as CEO, remaining involved as chairman, renaming new co-CEOs and leaving the company in the hands of SoftBank, one of WeWork’s biggest investors to bail out the company. And they paid Neumann $1.7 billion to leave. 

It’s a strange case and one that many are still trying to figure out. The Atlantic commented that “WeWork’s free fall from a projected valuation of nearly $50 billion to just $5 billion will likely be taught in business school, immortalized in best-selling books, and debated among analysts for years.”

Just last Thursday, the company announced it would be laying off 2,400 employees, 20 percent of its workforce, with an expectation of laying off another 1,000 more. Those whose jobs don’t transfer will lose them and won’t be paid severance or benefits. This has sparked outrage, especially because Neumann has pocketed over $1 billion and has left WeWork relatively scot-free, probably to vacation in one of his five homes (which has totaled to $80 million). 

The future of the company is hazy. SoftBank has revealed no concrete plan other than the new $1.5 billion it has invested to bailout WeWork and a vague outline of selling another $3 billion in bonds to investors, which may not be enough to save the spiraling company. While many blame Neumann, the fault also lies in the hands of SoftBank, which grossly overvalued WeWork and invested $14 billion at the start. Zealously pouring money into startups can be a dangerous gamble (re: the infamous Elizabeth Holmes’ Theranos) leading to overvaluation, and it’s unclear as to how WeWork will pull itself up from the ashes.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/business/wework-layoffs.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/wework-ipo-timeline-delayed-ceo-adam-neumann-scandals-explained-2019-9

https://www.businessinsider.com/wework-ipo-timeline-delayed-ceo-adam-neumann-scandals-explained-2019-9

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/082415/how-wework-works-and-makes-money.asp

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-founding-story-of-wework-2015-10

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1533523/000119312519220499/d781982ds1.htm

A growing number of people seek freedom from the limitations of cable television, leading to an inevitable epidemic – cord cutting. In 2018, nearly 2.9 million cable subscribers “cut their cord.” As more and more people cancel their cable television subscriptions, the growth of streaming services allows a recently discovered freedom to customize the personal viewer experience. As the want to subscribe to streaming service as the primary source of digital entertainment increases in popularity, media conglomerates are encouraged to explore the possibility of developing their own online service, perhaps eventually leading to an oversaturated market. With so many services to subscribe to, consumers re-evaluate their television needs and customize their watching experience by choosing to subscribe only to the services that offer the content they enjoy most. With this newly found freedom in viewership experience comes a growing sense of responsibility. As consumers piece together their own media and entertainment experience from a variety of options, they face unavoidable frustrations.

            The initial release of Netflix’s online platform, which allowed the streaming of movies and TV shows online, felt like a gift from our favorite media conglomerates. Netflix replaced the discomfort of driving to a nearby Blockbuster, spending too long figuring out what to rent, and the eventual need to drive back to drop off the movie after your allotted number of rental days. Consumers were infatuated with online streaming, which allowed Netflix to rapidly grow and eventually begin to release original content. Just a few years later, the consumption of online streaming has massively grown but with it comes a series of consequences that may not make the streaming as convenient as it was during Netflix’s early online days.

The convenience of a la carte subscriptions carries with it a multitude of potential issues for the consumer, the most prevalent one being cost. For all cable companies, the high-end options that have hundreds of channels and premium stations, cost over $100 per month. This monthly bill can add up quite quickly. This cost for cable may seem high, until compared to the cost of streaming. If one family chooses to subscribe to every streaming service (Netflix, Hulu, Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, HBO Max, Peacock, Discovery Streaming, and Quibi) soon to be offered, it would total close to $360 per month. Customers not only question whether to keep their cable subscriptions, but also which streaming services to keep, cancel and add. The combination of the costs of cable and streaming understandably leads to consumers choosing one over the other, the choice often being a combination of some of the streaming options. The creation of online streaming eliminates a need for cable as it offers almost all the content that might make cable feel like necessity. Streaming has completely disrupted the media and television market by creating platforms that prioritize ease of use and acquiring consumer-wanted content. It is not uncommon that people choose to pay for both TV and a streaming service. For live TV news, sports, and TV shows, many still turn to traditional pay TV networks. Forty three percent of US households currently subscribe to both cable and streaming video services, with this number expected to drop as more streaming services are launched. Without the availability of tons of streaming services, many see a need for both. In coming months many more streaming services will be launched and the integration of live entertainment into these streaming services can entirely eliminate the need for any cable service, lowering the percentage of households that subscribe to both. As households begin to eliminate their cable use, they must make decisions based on which streaming services offer the content they see value in. To subscribe to every streaming service, and therefore have access to all original and already aired content created by those networks, is financially infeasible for many households. This then pushes away many viewers from enjoying certain offerings because it becomes an unaffordable reality. To piece together an individual experience through streaming subscriptions seems exciting at first, but when considering the profound costs that come with this, it becomes more problematic. Just like cable, a consumer subscribes to a streaming service with thousands of options and they will never even crack the surface of what is offered on each platform. The consumer is still not getting the ultimate personalized experience. Cable and streaming both face a similar issue of charging a set price, even if you want just one channel or just one show. Simply put, streaming services do not eliminate the costliness of getting to the few shows or movies that a consumer may be seeking out. The continual development of streaming services by many of the large media conglomerates may lead to financial strain on households who seek out the diverse offered content from a variety of streaming services but do not have the monetary means to do so.

Cost of subscribing to multiple streaming services is not the only frustration consumers face when deciding where to invest their money in subscriptions. The freedom to choose between services comes with friction. As shown in the figure, the top two frustrations with streaming services are the disappearance of shows and the need to subscribe to multiple services to watch all the content they want. Streaming services often cycle through shows and movies, eliminating a few and adding another few per month. Media conglomerates recognize that Netflix became their only buyer, so they began to claw back content and will hold them exclusively on their streaming service. Die-hard fans and binge watchers of shows like The Office won’t be super happy to hear that once NBCUniversal launches their streaming service, Peacock, The Office will no longer be available to watch on Netflix. TV networks are pulling content from major streaming services so that they have more exclusive content on their soon-to-be streaming platforms. Twenty percent of Netflix content is provided by NBCUniversal, Warner, Disney and Fox. Once these respective companies launch their streaming services, Netflix would have lost a fifth of its online content. This forces customers to add other services or to live without some of their longtime favorite shows and movies. While many opt for several services instead of sticking to cable alone, nearly a half of subscribers are frustrated by the growing number of services they need to put together to get the content they want to watch. After subscribing to multiple services, consumers have access to so much content that they struggle to discover what they may enjoy. Forty three percent of consumers report that they give up searching for content if they can’t find it within a few minutes. Despite having so many options, consumers still feel finding a good show is hard.

The growing number of streaming services not only presents a challenge to household budgets, but also the ability of these streaming services to produce original content to entice viewers to subscribe. In 2018, 57 percent of paid streaming video users said they subscribed to access original content. Among millennials, this number is even higher, at 71 percent. Streaming services are spending billions to produce award-winning entertainment and many niche channels do not have the capital to compete. Powerhouse companies push out the less financially able through production of original content. But do these powerhouse companies themselves even have the capital to produce the content they continually release?

Let’s take a look at Netflix, currently the most popular streaming service in the world. The streaming service operates on a subscription-based model with over 125 million subscribers in over 190 countries. It’s only source of revenue is subscription fees and the site alone takes up about a third of all broadband in North America. It would seem reasonable to assume Netflix is making tons of money until hearing they announced they had 88% more original content on the site in just one year. Netflix has not had any positive cash flow since 2011. The cost of creating original content far outpaces the revenue being generated from the subscriptions of the hundreds of millions of viewers. The company continues to borrow more money than it is making with the hopes of future growth. The desperation to stay relevant and competitive in the market leads to growing costs in billions, leading to negative cash flow. An even larger issue for Netflix is the threat of non-loyal subscribers who will cancel their Netflix subscriptions and choose a few of their many other streaming options instead, which sparks this over-the-top spending on original content. Again, for many homes it is not financially feasible to subscribe to every streaming service, so households will become even pickier with the original content they want to watch, potentially leaving Netflix behind. To combat this issue, Netflix will continue to create content, spending even more, possibly leading to even more money lost because of the loss of some subscribers. So even the supposed powerhouse in the industry is struggling to compete with the soon to be streaming underdogs.  

In order to maintain relevancy in the market, streaming platforms turn to massive spending in original content resulting in a booming need for creatives in the industry. This ultimately results in negative cash flow as these services hope this spending may encourage more people to subscribe. Consumers are then challenged to strategically choose which services to subscribe to based on the content they seek, potentially proving to be problematic for their wallets. Streaming services compete for consumer attention as cable becomes less relevant and less of a desire in the household. The creation of online streaming shifted the entire entertainment industry to suit it, but is too many options of a good thing just too much inconvenience for the consumer?

Sources:

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/5/18124117/netflix-media-companies-remove-content-charts

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/technology/digital-media-trends-consumption-habits-survey/summary.html

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-10-10/streaming-wars-per-month-total-shocking-apple-hbo-disney-netflix

https://fortune.com/2018/04/29/viewers-cable-streaming/

https://www.investopedia.com/insights/how-netflix-makes-money/

https://www.techwalla.com/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-cable-direct-tv

https://www.techwalla.com/articles/what-is-the-average-cost-of-cable-tv-per-month

Late last week, a video of a man taking puffs from a hookah-esque device swarmed Twitter feeds. This was a promotional video for Delhi India’s very first oxygen bar- Oxy Pure. Oxy Pure touts that each pull from one of it’s mysterious, chemically colored oxygen tanks can grant a variety of benefits outside of clear breathing such as improving sleep patterns, digestion, headaches and serves as a remedy for depression.

This was a promotional video for Delhi India’s very first oxygen bar- OxyPure. OxyPure touts that each pull from one of it’s mysterious, chemically colored oxygen tanks can grant a variety of benefits such as improving sleep patterns, digestion, headaches and serves as a remedy for depression. Wow! Who would have guessed pollution-free air would be beneficial to human health?

In addition to coming in multiple flavors, such as lemongrass, Oxy Pure aims to offer Indian city dwellers relief. In early November, Indian public health officials declared a multiday layer of deadly smog a public health emergency. As a result of the terrible air-quality schools have closed, planes diverted, and people susceptible to toxic air particles have died. In fact, the World Health Organization deemed that Delhi’s pollution levels reached 50 times over what is generally considered safe.

It has yet to be seen if Delhi’s OxyPure is here to stay, but we could perhaps look to China for answers. Vitality Air, launched by Canadian Duo
Moses Lam and Troy Paquette started their business by selling ziplock bags full of fresh Canadian air on Ebay. In a few months, after marketing their product on China’s e-commerce website Taobao, they quickly sold out of hundreds of air compressed canisters. In fact, a range of oxygen brands can be bought in China including New Zealand air and Australian air.

But is this business model truly sustainable? Beijing citizens can get the above-mentioned oxygen for between $25USD to $40USD. Though the current oxygen market has little to no quality regulations, there are very few manufacturing fees outside of saying you went outside and bottled or canned some air. But even, would this play on scarcity be enough to fool people into thinking their health is improving. As Dr. Rajesh Chawla,
senior consultant in respiratory medicine at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital Delhi, put it:

“Even if you breathe in the so-called pure oxygen for two hours in a day, you will go back to breathing the polluted air for the rest of the 22 hours