Is your business market-fit or just pandemic fit? Blue Apron, a meal-delivery company, is turning out to be a more pandemic-fit company than one which can thrive during normal times. The stock lost 25% of its value on trading today. Yet the main issue may be the sale sign it took off, according to Barron’s, “Blue Apron Holdings stock has lost more than a quarter of their value on Thursday after the meal-kit provider announced the end of a strategic review launched earlier this year, and that it is not pursuing a sale or other strategic transaction.”

Blue Apron, boosted by Americans eating in amid the pandemic, has become a victim of its own success. The meal-kit delivery company saw customers drop off by 7.5% during the third quarter as it struggled to meet an earlier surge in demand. While it’s expanding fulfillment centers and paring menu options to simplify production lines, those changes won’t be completed until next year. The New York-based startup, which went public in 2017, was one of the early business winners amid the contagion that took hold in March.

The numbers did not give Wall Street confidence and they moved in droves.

Blue Apron reported 357,000 customers in the quarter, down from 386,000 a year ago and 396,000 in the June quarter. Orders were 1.92 million, up from 1.73 million a year ago, but down from 2.2 million in the June quarter. Average order value per customer was $58.56, up from $57.60 a year ago, but off from $60.88 in the June quarter. Average revenue per customer was $314, up from $258 a year ago, but off from $331 in the June quarter.

You cannot afford to be pursuing pandemic-fit opportunities, losing insights on the durable market-fit ones. You need to think long-term even as you take care of today’s opportunities. When pandemic hit, many investors saw this company as a winner as many, locked out at home, ordered their services. But now that the world is open, customers are abandoning the company.  I do think Blue Apron should sell to Amazon and call it a day.

Binging Netflix movies and shows just got more expensive. The streaming giant has raised the price of its standard and premium plans to $13.99 and $17.99 a month, respectively, for new subscribers. Its basic plan stays unchanged at $8.99 a month. Current users will see the new fees over the next few weeks. Netflix last increased fees in January 2019, and the latest jump comes as streaming competition increases and subscription growth slowed following a pandemic boom earlier this year. Netflix says the increase will allow it to invest more heavily in the quality and quantity of its content. (source)

Improve your service delivery to make your consumers become customers. The greatest companies go beyond having customers – they engineer FANS out of customers. When customers are fans, great moments arise and glory awaits. Yes, it is about going beyond Needs and Expectations to Perceptions  of customers.

On that, I note the news that Netflix is raising prices of its products. Yes, this is a company which is under frontal and flank attacks from Disney+, Amazon Prime, and other video on-demand players, which to a large extent, are more affordable. Yet, the company is very confident that it is raising prices. That is the power of understanding that you have quality to keep the fans in your ecosystem.

According to Business Insider, Disney+ “is now available for a monthly price of $6.99 a month, or an annual rate of $69.99 a year. For these prices, subscribers get ad-free access to thousands of movies and TV shows, including programming from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, National Geographic, and 20th Century Fox.” So, the cheapest Disney+ package is $6.99  when compared with the cheapest Netflix which remains $8.99 a month, unchanged.

For Netflix doing this – increasing prices in some categories – it has a lot of confidence in its products; most would have expected it to cut prices to compete with Disney+. And that offers a lesson to everyone of us: winning in a competitive market cannot just happen via the lowest cost denominator. Build your tribe of customers, and have better cost positioning in markets.

It is one of those unfortunate things in the world: those who hired a cosmetic diva and a real estate flipper as trade advisers and negotiators are asking a Harvard graduate and MIT PhD to prove that she is qualified for a job. Reading Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s response to the United States on the World Trade Organization blockage is painful. But that is the world we live: you must be twice good to be half-celebrated. What can I say that her main competitor has not come out to endorse her. I mean how would the second in class, Ms  Yoo Myung-hee, feel if she actually gets this job? You lost the match but went home with the gold medal. Tufiakwa!

In the wake of United States’ opposition to the appointment of Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, as the director general of World Trade Organization (WTO), on the ground that she lacks trade knowledge, Okonjo Iwela-Ala has responded, refuting the claims with references to her past experiences in trade.

Her response reads below:

“I am a development economist and you cannot do that without looking at trade. Trade is a central part of development. So, I have been doing it. My whole career at the World Bank, I was working on trade policy reform in middle and low-income countries at the bank.

“As a finance minister, the customs service in my country reported to me. And that is all about trade facilitation. I helped my country’s negotiation with my trade minister on the ECOWAS common external tariffs. I don’t know how much more trade you can have than that.

“So those who say I don’t have trade, they are mistaken. I think the qualities I have are even better, because I combine development economics with trade knowledge, along with finance, and you need those combination of skills to lead the WTO. I think I have the skills that are needed. I am a trade person,” Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said.

Sure – it is about national economic positioning and the U.S. does not care. That should not surprise because in the rise of the REST, someone has to “feel diminished”, even abstractly. The US does not want that to happen and is defending its castle. Yoo’s South Korea belongs to the old club while NOI and Nigeria, along with the emerging world, are hoping. Blunt her and keep the old order. This playbook will not change because the title “superpower” is in the dictionary for a reason.

U.S. concern is clear – we have given so much for others to rise. Possibly, Yoo can reverse that since Ngozi will see things from the angle of the emerging world which seeks more opportunities which, most times, the developed world will have to give out. It is not a zero-sum game: someone has to win or lose in balance of trade because the message of the rise of all, and not few remains globally tribal.

Yet, I still believe that NOI will get this job. The amazing United States will come along because Yoo is already damaged (she came second) to be effective. The only credible contender is sister Ngozi.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s Response to US’ Objection to Her Appointment As WTO Head

There is no need to remind me that the U.S. government does NOT support an American citizen as the boss of the World Trade Organization, WTO; Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is an American through naturalization. Yes, the US Government is vetoing the ascension of Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala over the person she defeated, another amazing woman – Yoo Myung-hee of Korea. But note this: it would not matter. The internet has already broken into two – the U.S. and Chinese internets. Trade is going to be broken into two – the US and emerging world versions.

U.S. concern is clear – we have given so much for others to rise. Possibly, Yoo can reverse that since Ngozi will see things from the angle of the emerging world which seeks more opportunities which, most times, the developed world will have to give out. It is not a zero-sum game: someone has to win or lose in balance of trade because the message of the rise of all, and not few remains globally tribal.

But before you insult Trump, this is not a Trump policy. During Obama’s time, they did the same thing and blocked Madam minister. But that blockage was early in the process that few knew.

But poor Yoo – how would she feel after she was defeated and yet handed the trophy? This world is indeed intriguing. If they go ahead and install Yoo, it would be the same result: you take the exam, or win the game, but another takes the trophy. I am not sure how Yoo will function when she knows that someone had beaten her, and because of the sound of that person’s name, the job was given to her. Yes, since Ngozi is an American, you cannot say it was because of her nationality.

I wish the US had chosen a different path on this: why allow NOI to go this far before this veto? Perhaps they expected her to lose, but unfortunately, for them, she won. This is not democracy in any way.

Yes, I miss my Ovim village; we have complicated this world in the name of industrialization and civilization. It used to be the World Trade Organization but the superpower has updated it to the “United States” Trade Organization. You see why I like the Oriendu market in my village – trading there is easier!