Skip to navigationSkip to content
Zack Rosebrugh

Good afternoon.

ETFs are eating the market

Mining for silver

Ford goes electric

What makes a car a Mustang? Ford's new all-electric Mustang Mach-E is a crossover SUV that the company hopes is as fun to drive as a muscle car. It's an existential crisis on wheels.

Ford is mortgaging its future on the value of its past

Since this is actually my area, let me try something.

The short: This vehicle ain't for you.

The long:

It doesn't matter that Mustang enthusiasts don't want to buy it. It really doesn't.

Take the Jeep Renegade or Compass or Patriot. No Jeep enthusiast who has ever owned a Wrangler or a Cherokee wants

Since this is actually my area, let me try something.

The short: This vehicle ain't for you.

The long:

It doesn't matter that Mustang enthusiasts don't want to buy it. It really doesn't.

Take the Jeep Renegade or Compass or Patriot. No Jeep enthusiast who has ever owned a Wrangler or a Cherokee wants one of those smaller vehicles. You want a real Jeep. The Renegade is made in Italy, for Pete's sake. These smaller vehicles are for brand newbies that want a name but have less money to spend. Funky colors that look good on Instagram. It doesn't damage the Jeep brand, it just makes it more available. I hate those cars, so do real Jeep people. Have people stopped buying Jeeps?

...No.

Ford isn't selling these to Mustang owners. Fact: The yearly volume of the current 2020 Mustang is 65,000+ vehicles, 25% or more are sold overseas. So your "Mustang Enthusiast" opinion is irrelevant. You might just have to accept that.

This vehicle is for Tech folks who like the IDEA of a Mustang but don't want to pay for gas. They live on the coasts, they are eco friendly, need a reason to buy a domestic brand, and have way more money to spend on a car than you. I know this because I saw the press briefings before all of you. I was there when they brought in focus groups. I've seen it assembled at NMPDC when it was still Body-in-White. Ford knows what they're doing, get over yourself.

Very little about this car makes sense to me. I'm not sure why Ford felt compelled to muddy the Mustang brand with a crossover vehicle that looks very little like a Mustang. But then again, Porsche and Lamborghini make SUVs now, so I guess anything goes. I'm not sure if there's enough here to sway anyone

Very little about this car makes sense to me. I'm not sure why Ford felt compelled to muddy the Mustang brand with a crossover vehicle that looks very little like a Mustang. But then again, Porsche and Lamborghini make SUVs now, so I guess anything goes. I'm not sure if there's enough here to sway anyone from a Tesla, nor from a gas-powered muscle car. Maybe some men in the throes of a mid-life crisis men who also want to save on gas, though.

Putting the name “mustang” on this car is a bad joke. When you hear “mustang Mach e” it calls to mind, obviously, an electric mustang. This car is decidedly NOT an electric mustang, it’s a completely separate EV inexplicably called a mustang. It’s a four-door crossover, not a two-door muscle car, and

Putting the name “mustang” on this car is a bad joke. When you hear “mustang Mach e” it calls to mind, obviously, an electric mustang. This car is decidedly NOT an electric mustang, it’s a completely separate EV inexplicably called a mustang. It’s a four-door crossover, not a two-door muscle car, and has nothing in common aesthetically with a mustang anywhere.

None of this is to say that there’s anything actually wrong with the car— but it’s an absolute travesty of branding. Ford should’ve just come up with a new name for it. Mustang buyers wouldn’t even want this thing, and the name’s cachet does nothing for its target audience. All this does for Ford is irk their loyal mustang customers, confuse people who’d actually be interested in this car, and dilute their most recognizable brand.

Edit: to more specifically address Michael’s points, the problem isn’t that the name offends the Mustang’s greatness or anything— it’s that the car is so totally different from a Mustang that the name is just ridiculous. Porsche makes SUVs, but they don’t call them Carreras. Jeep makes that weird El Camino thing (gladiator, I think?) but they don’t call it a Wrangler.

If they’re not selling the car to “Mustang people” (and they obviously aren’t) why on Earth did they call it a Mustang?

The Mustang branding makes me want the car less. I’m not sure the typical Mustang demographic would care for a tech heavy SUV, and vice versa.

Why is the article so myopic? As if the whole world revolves around the US? Ford is a large company with a global presence - take a beat and think about the bigger picture, there are far more competitors in this space than just Tesla in the US. Look further afield and you may find open roads with consumers

Why is the article so myopic? As if the whole world revolves around the US? Ford is a large company with a global presence - take a beat and think about the bigger picture, there are far more competitors in this space than just Tesla in the US. Look further afield and you may find open roads with consumers who are eager to take a drive with a storied American brand - Mustang enthusiast or not.

It's no secret that American cars lag behind with innovation and style - they even keep the same names for decades. The fact that they decided to call the electric SUV a Mustang tells me that they aren't confident about its success and at the very least figure they can get their same customers to go

It's no secret that American cars lag behind with innovation and style - they even keep the same names for decades. The fact that they decided to call the electric SUV a Mustang tells me that they aren't confident about its success and at the very least figure they can get their same customers to go electric even though Ford has always stood for gas guzzlers. It just seems like they want to give Tesla a hard time. Then in an NPR interview, the CEO started talking about Trump policies being beneficial to the company. That this unsolicited dialogue even happened tells me their heart isn't in this car, they know who their customers are, and that new buyers aren't racing to get one.

Take note

The beauty business

Kylie Jenner's $600 million payday. Coty, the century-old beauty company, is shelling out the big bucks for a 51% stake in the youngest Jenner's booming cosmetics business—and access to her 270 million social media followers.

Kylie Jenner’s $600 million deal proves the power of celebrity beauty brands

I definitely think that celebrity plays a MASSIVE factor in the success of a brand; however, it's not a surefire ticket to success. Look at Blake Lively's failed venture - Preserve. She has a huge following and people adore her and yet Preserve never took off and she shut it down. At the end of the day

I definitely think that celebrity plays a MASSIVE factor in the success of a brand; however, it's not a surefire ticket to success. Look at Blake Lively's failed venture - Preserve. She has a huge following and people adore her and yet Preserve never took off and she shut it down. At the end of the day, you still need to have product market fit even if you're a celebrity, but the audience is an enormous boost at launch because instead of having to pay to get millions of eyeballs, you just market to your already engaged followers which builds natural momentum, but without a great product - it doesn't matter how many followers you have, they're not going to buy something they don't want.

Estee Lauder made its first Asian beauty acquisition. The company agreed to buy the two-thirds stake it didn’t already own in Have & Be Co.—parent company of South Korea’s Dr. Jart+ cosmetics—for $1.1 billion.

Estee Lauder to acquire shares of Dr. Jart+ parent it does not already own

If you haven’t been keeping your eyes peeled, K-Beauty is where the money is at. If celebrities loved creating their own perfumes in the early 2000s and YouTube propelled “makeup gurus” in the mid-2000s, K-Beauty skincare is the next phase. Look at Kylie Jenner, Bella Thorne, Miranda Kerr, and soon to

If you haven’t been keeping your eyes peeled, K-Beauty is where the money is at. If celebrities loved creating their own perfumes in the early 2000s and YouTube propelled “makeup gurus” in the mid-2000s, K-Beauty skincare is the next phase. Look at Kylie Jenner, Bella Thorne, Miranda Kerr, and soon to be many other celebrities forging their own skincare lines. If today entails celebrity branded skincare, K-Beauty is the next top tier—and Estée Lauder is very well aware of that.

International education

Indian students are set on pursuing their US dreams. Overall, Indians studying in the US climbed by 3% in 2018-19 but graduate students were down 6%. The American dream is alive and kicking but the path is not as straightforward anymore.

Trump’s visa clampdown hasn’t stopped Indian students from pursuing their US dreams

The fee structure and the lack of work opportunities to actually get a return on investment is a big deterrant for students, unless they opt for specialised STEM courses. That’s only further going to diminish the importance of liberal arts and other professional courses.

The growth, though, is a marginal 3%. The only bright spot being optional practical training.

Global health challenges

India's economic prospects

About that trade war

What will we do?

AI has leveled the playing field for companies. However, Forbes notes how they use the new technology and why will be key differentiators.

What Is The Future Of Enterprise AI?

So true - there is such a great opportunity for AI in the enterprise. "Enterprises are beginning to understand the consequences of the evolving artificial intelligence-driven automation ecosystem far beyond narrow artificial intelligence, crossing economic, commerce, education, governance, and trade supply chains."

From the test kitchen

You're all finished!

Close

MoviePass’s new business plan is to charge you whatever it wants

Read more on Quartz

From Our Members

  • I’m a MoviePass user and don’t use it nearly often enough but even seeing 1-2 movies a month is worth it with NYC theater pricing. The surge pricing is annoying but the reality is that the original model was not sustainable and I’d like to see this service continue so this will not affect my membership

    I’m a MoviePass user and don’t use it nearly often enough but even seeing 1-2 movies a month is worth it with NYC theater pricing. The surge pricing is annoying but the reality is that the original model was not sustainable and I’d like to see this service continue so this will not affect my membership status. If anything I’ll probably be more inclined to take advantage of the membership more often to get my money’s worth. I’m also not the type of person who goes to insanely popular movies during prime time so I’m not sure how much this will even affect me.

  • So far these incremental policy changes (such as the recently added rule that a user can only watch a particular movie once) haven't seemed to turn off customers.

  • I subscribed to MoviePass earlier this year, and these new pricing experiments haven’t scared me off yet. It’s still a crazy good deal, especially if you’re the kind of person who sees three or more theater movies per month. People can get all up in arms about changes, but the reality is that you’re

    I subscribed to MoviePass earlier this year, and these new pricing experiments haven’t scared me off yet. It’s still a crazy good deal, especially if you’re the kind of person who sees three or more theater movies per month. People can get all up in arms about changes, but the reality is that you’re still saving money! Take some time to adjust your expectations and be grateful you’re still not paying the ridiculous full price of a Friday night movie ticket. Granted, having vague expectations is another issue, since MoviePass has been generally unclear about how this will all work. But I’m going to ride it out and continue to take the discounts where I can get them! Obviously the best way to deal with peak pricing is just to be flexible and go to the movies not at peak times. And when that’s not possible, what’s $2-$5 to have that ideal night out? (Again, STILL a steal.)

  • This move was shortsighted and non-strategic. Let's face it, $10 a month was just too low and requires massive volume to be sustainable. This version of peak pricing fundamentally changes their model now and introduces partial downside protection to Moviepass' extensive variable costs - I get it. But

    This move was shortsighted and non-strategic. Let's face it, $10 a month was just too low and requires massive volume to be sustainable. This version of peak pricing fundamentally changes their model now and introduces partial downside protection to Moviepass' extensive variable costs - I get it. But to the customer, the idea of incremental surcharging simply opposes buying into a subscription. Optically, that might be a bigger hurdle to customers than just having increased the fixed fee or offering tiered subscriptions. I don't necessarily think that their core model and strategy were wrong, just the pricing and lackluster partnerships up until this point.

  • Just like many new subscription business models which have been already wiped out in China, a strong support of customer for cheap pricing won’t necessarily constitute the long term sustainability. Considering MoviePass has been “hemorrhaging cash” on this imbalanced model where they pay the full list

    Just like many new subscription business models which have been already wiped out in China, a strong support of customer for cheap pricing won’t necessarily constitute the long term sustainability. Considering MoviePass has been “hemorrhaging cash” on this imbalanced model where they pay the full list price to theaters and receive only less than $10 per month from users, it is like MoviePass is benevolently giving away its money just for the benefit of users; of course users would love it.

    MoviePass needs to find a way to monetize the big data of subscribers’ preferences over movie, but as I have claimed from the very beginning, MoviePass will be soon wiped out once the theater itself introduces the monthly subscription model and the largest player AMC has already decided to do it.

    https://newspicks.us/news/914964/

  • movie pass was a great concept but I've seen all over the news that they are losing money. They just don't have a good contract with the theaters to lower prices of admission so they aren't footing the whole bill. maybe the peak pricing will help a little but I don't see it solving their problem

  • I had actually never heard of MoviePass before... did I read that right that you pay $9.95 a month and can go to one movie a day, or did I misunderstand that? No wonder they are wanting to add surge pricing, there’s no way they are actually making money on that!!

  • MoviePass is a great concept, and I’d like to think most people are reasonable enough to see that a slight increase in what they’d typically pay will help MP thrive. It’s not a great business move to have such a low set price for a movie a day, especially when there are people who will take advantage

    MoviePass is a great concept, and I’d like to think most people are reasonable enough to see that a slight increase in what they’d typically pay will help MP thrive. It’s not a great business move to have such a low set price for a movie a day, especially when there are people who will take advantage of it every chance they get. Where I live, movie tickets range between $6-$10 for non-IMAX showings. I always thought $10 a month to see a movie a day was ridiculous. I don’t have MoviePass, but honestly, people seem to love it and aren’t jumping at the idea of a slight increase in cost - especially when it saves them money at the theater...unless they’re buying concessions, then they’re just in massive debt.

  • I think Moviepass is a good concept in a very good idea. I just thinking the business model Is understandable for the long term. What they to do is come up with a price that doesn’t have them hemorrhaging money. I would charge 20 dollars a month for 3 movies a week.

  • Agree with Patrick here — once you’ve trained customers on free or cheap, it’s brutally hard to ask them to up-value your unchanged service.

  • If you are an investor in this company, prepare for a write off. Once you stop subsidizing customers aggressively, you’re toast.

  • The original model is not sustainable. This may drive away a bunch of customers though.