Retail & Merchandising

Most tech prototypes are built to be sold. These are built to break the rules of physics. Would you use this phone? When people see a fully transparent smartphone prototype, the immediate question is always: "When can I buy one?" But they are missing the point. These devices aren't consumer products—they are high-stakes, multi-million dollar experimental platforms designed to accelerate hardware R&D by a decade. Right now, transparent display technology is accelerating at an unprecedented pace: Transparent OLED (T-OLED): Currently achieving 40% to 45% transparency in active commercial and transit deployments. MicroLED: Pushing the boundaries even further, targeting over 60% transparency alongside massive leaps in nits (brightness) and energy efficiency. The Investment: Industry titans like Samsung, LG, BOE, and Lenovo are pouring billions into these concepts not for immediate retail ROI, but to solve future manufacturing bottlenecks early. The real engineering challenge, however, isn’t the screen. It’s the invisible wall behind it. The Data Behind the "Impossible" Phone A modern flagship is a dense metropolis of opaque tech. To make a phone transparent, you have to completely re-engineer components that naturally refuse to disappear: The Volume Problem: Smartphone batteries occupy 35% to 45% of a device's internal volume. There is currently no commercially viable way to make high-density lithium-ion transparent. The Thermal Load: Modern mobile SoCs regularly generate thermal loads exceeding 10W+ during intensive AI workloads. Transparent substrates are historically terrible thermal conductors, leading to rapid overheating. The Optical Barrier: Image sensors require isolated, dark optical pathways. If light leaks into the camera housing from the back of the phone, the sensor is blinded. This is why today's wildest prototypes still hide their guts in thick bottom chins, utilize opaque side rails, or drastically sacrifice battery capacity just to maintain the optical illusion. Early OLED panels were dim, expensive, and suffered from catastrophic burn-in. Early foldable hinges failed after a few thousand folds. Early EV batteries lacked the energy density for practical daily use. Iterative, aggressive prototyping solved all of them. Today, Generative AI is accelerating this hardware loop even faster. By using AI-assisted simulation, engineers can model thermal dissipation, optimize structural layouts, and test thousands of optical design concepts digitally—compressing traditional 5-year R&D cycles into months. The prototype isn't a gimmick. It’s the blueprint for the future of human-machine interaction. #Technology #Innovation #AI #Engineering #OLED #MicroLED #FutureTech #Semiconductors #SpatialComputing #IndustrialDesign

One image just disrupted a £22 billion fashion empire more effectively than a thousand sustainability reports. 🔥 This isn't an official SHEIN campaign gone wrong. It's artist Emanuele Morelli's AI creation—a haunting visualisation showing what fast fashion's "affordability" really costs us. The image speaks volumes: a SHEIN billboard where the model's flowing dress transforms into a cascade of textile waste. Art communicating what statistics alone cannot. 5 uncomfortable truths this image forces us to confront: 1. The scale of fashion waste is staggering → 92 million tonnes of textile waste produced annually  → The equivalent of one rubbish lorry of textiles dumped every second  → Most fast fashion items designed to be worn fewer than 10 times 2. The business model depends on our amnesia → Constantly changing trends keep us buying  → Ultra-low prices remove financial friction  → Digital marketing creates artificial scarcity and FOMO  → We're trained to forget yesterday's purchases 3. The true cost isn't on the price tag → Environmental damage from production chemicals  → Microplastics shedding into water systems  → Supply chain ethics compromised for speed and cost  → Communities near production sites bearing health consequences 4. Our definition of "affordable" is broken → When clothing is cheaper than a coffee, someone else is paying  → True cost spread across communities, environments, and future generations  → Psychological cost of constant consumption never factored in 5. Solutions exist but require systemic change → Circular fashion models gaining traction  → Rental and resale markets growing rapidly  → Consumer awareness rising but needs to translate to behaviour While SHEIN isn't the only culprit in the fast fashion ecosystem, Morelli's artwork throws a spotlight on an uncomfortable reality we've normalised. What we wear reflects our values more than our taste. What is your wardrobe saying about yours? Image: Emanuele Morelli ♻️ Found this helpful? Repost to share with your network.  ⚡ Want more content like this? Hit follow Maya Moufarek.

Everyone thought FERRERO ROCHER would FAIL to sell ₹300 Rs chocolate in India where the most expensive chocolate cost ₹25.  In 2004, India's GDP per Capita was $624. (₹52,000 as per today's US-INR rates) What's worse is that as per NITI Aayog, in 2005, 55% of our population was multi-dimensionally POOR.  Now tell me: How could anyone spend money on CHOCOLATES when even feeding your child 3 times a day was hard? ➡️ To worsen things for Ferrero Rocher, the Indian market was full of affordable brands like Mondelez (Cadbury), Nestle, and other small players.  Then how did Ferrero Rocher manage to CREATE a new segment, and then DOMINATE it? Let's start with their positioning.  ➡️ Instead of targeting the bottom 95% of Indians, they targeted the top 5%.  This allowed them to DIFFERENTIATE themselves from the other's, and break free of the PRICE WAR. Then? They focused entirely on GIFTING. ➡️ Although Indians might be cost-sensitive when it comes to gifting (especially to relatives) - we become luxurious SPENDERS. So how did it manage to become the preferred brand for GIFTING? 1. Extra Price 2. Scarcity 3. Packaging and Feel 1️⃣ Extra Price In 2004, when they launched their first ever Ferrero Rocher, it cost ₹300 for a 12-piece box. That was DOUBLE the price of Cadbury Celebrations available then. Why? By then, Chocolate had become mainstream. Little ₹1 rupee chocolates became 'chillar' for us. And you couldn't gift 'chillar' to people, can you? 2️⃣ Scarcity As per a report in JRFM, Ferrero Rocher deliberately disallowed shops from having more than 2-3 Ferrero rocher boxes at a time. Why? Because scarcity drives demand. 3️⃣ Hazelnut Hazelnut is not very well known in India. It's too expensive and scarce. This became Ferrero Rocher's USP. Unlike other chocolates with the same 'milk and dark colour', Hazelnut gave Ferrero Rocher that 'premium feel'. 4️⃣ Packaging Unlike commercial brands, which try to REDUCE their cost of packaging, Ferrero did the OPPOSITE. They spent on packaging because it gave them: 1. Premiumness, and 2. Feel that it is perfect for gifting. --- Did you notice one thing? All of their strategies are designed to make them more 'premium' Because what I learned from them, is that ➡️ In today's era of mass production: Prmeiumness is what sells. So what do YOU learn from them?

This is the most underrated way to use Claude: (and it has nothing to do with writing or coding) It's competitive intelligence. Using data that's free, public, and updated every single week. Here's my extract step by step guide: Step 1. Go to claude .ai. Step 2. Select the new Claude "Opus 4.6." Step 3. Turn on "Extended Thinking." Step 4. Pick a competitor. Go to their careers page. Step 5. Copy every open job listing into one doc. (Title. Team name. Location. Full description) Step 6. Save it as one .txt or .docx file. Step 7. Search the company at EDGAR (sec .gov) Step 8. Download its recent 10-K or 10-Q filing. (Official strategy, risks, and financials - all public.) Step 9. Upload both files to Claude Opus 4.6. Step 10. Paste this exact prompt: "You are a competitive intelligence analyst at a rival company. I've uploaded [Company]'s complete current job listings and their most recent SEC filing. Perform a strategic intelligence analysis: → Cluster these roles by what they suggest is being built. Don't use the team names they've listed. Infer the actual product initiatives from the skills, tools, and responsibilities described. → Identify capabilities or teams that appear entirely new — not mentioned anywhere in the SEC filing. These are unreleased bets. → Find roles where seniority is disproportionately high for a new team. This signals executive-level priority. → Cross-reference the SEC filing's Risk Factors and Strategy sections with hiring patterns. Where are they investing against a stated risk? Where did they flag a risk but have zero hiring to address it? → Predict 3 product launches or strategic moves this company will make in the next 6-12 months. State your confidence level and cite specific job titles and filing sections as evidence. Format this as a 1-page competitive intelligence briefing for a CMO." What you'll find: → Products that don't exist yet but will in 6 months. → Priorities that contradict what the CEO said. → Risks they told the SEC but aren't addressing. This is what consulting firms charge $200K for. It took me 10 minutes. I used the new Claude 'Opus 4.6' for a reason: ✦ It read 60 job listing & a 200-page filing together.  ✦ And connects dots across both. ✦ It is superior in thinking and context retrieval. That's why I didn't use ChatGPT for this.

Heritage brands are having a moment but not the nostalgic kind. In the past 6 months, I’ve had more conversations than ever with FMCG and retail CEOs asking the same question: How do we evolve without losing what made us iconic? One CEO I recently spoke with said it best: “In order to grow, we’ll have to expand beyond the category that built us.” This from a French heritage brand that has sold over a billion units of one signature product, now facing flatline growth as consumer behavior shifts under their feet. This challenge isn’t unique. It’s playing out across legacy CPG, fashion, beauty, and retail. → The categories that built these brands? No longer guaranteed to sustain them. → The traditional talent playbooks? Often too rigid to reimagine the future. That’s why I teamed up with brand and growth strategist Linda De Vito to unpack what it actually takes to revitalize without erasing. Here’s what stood out: 1. Core values must be your north star. Heritage brands that scale into new categories without anchoring to brand DNA lose more than market share — they lose trust. 2. Think beyond your own box. Many traditional FMCG marketers are brilliant at operating within their category — but struggle to break out. This is where cross-pollination matters. Bringing in talent from adjacent industries (fashion, entertainment, digital culture) unlocks new creative energy. Sometimes the right person to ask “What if…?” is the one who’s never been in your category. 3. Test, learn, repeat. Linda put it perfectly: “You don’t need to go 100% in from the start.” Whether it’s expanding into adjacent categories or showing up on new platforms (like she did taking Hearst from 2 to 20 TikTok brand accounts), pilot first, then scale. 4. Case in point: New Balance. From “dad shoe” to fashion staple and they did it without abandoning craftsmanship. Or the LEGO Group, which built an entire adult fandom by tapping into nostalgia and creative identity. Their “Adults Welcome” line now anchors their growth story. The real shift? It’s not just category expansion. It’s cultural transformation. From product-led to brand-led. From transactional to relational. Because heritage isn’t just something you protect, it’s something you activate. One stat that jumped out: The global corporate heritage data market is projected to grow from $656.7M to $2.2B by 2030. That’s not just sentiment, that’s strategy. If you’re a CEO of a heritage brand navigating this crossroads, my advice is this: ✅ Know what must never change. ✅ Be brave enough to question everything else. Curious to hear: What’s one heritage brand you think is getting it right in 2025? Drop it below. #HeritageBrand #FMCGLeadership #BrandTransformation #ExecutiveSearch #ConsumerGoods #LindaDeVito #CPGLeadership #CategoryExpansion

Six years ago, I took over marketing at a company that went to 40 trade shows per year, and I cut that to 4. When I joined CoLab to lead marketing, we had zero conferences planned. I booked 2 the first year, and increased it to 6 the following year. What happened? Did my opinion on trade shows do a 180? Nope - the black and white pro - trade show vs. anti - trade show narrative is just an oversimplification. Most companies can go to at least a couple shows per year and get a positive ROI. Problem is - most companies are going to way more than a couple of shows per year and they have no idea which ones produce a positive ROI. You actually need a decent amount of rigor and discipline to figure this out. If you scale your conference spend too fast, you'll skip important retrospectives. It's easy to end up in the first scenario I described, where I had to cut trade shows by 90% in a year. Here's what you should do instead: 1) Start with a manageable number of conferences (no more than 1-2 per quarter, unless you have someone working on it full time) 2) Define success criteria going in: - You should have a qualified pipeline target - You should have tight definitions for what constitutes qualified pipeline, in the context of a conference - If you want to measure success based on other things (like establishing partnerships, moving in pipeline opps forward, etc.), figure those things out ahead of time too 3) After each show, do a retro and understand whether you achieved or missed your success criteria 4) If you missed, figure out why: - Is it a bad show for you? (e.g. not enough good fit ICP attendees) - Or could you make something of it, with some tweaks to your own execution? If it's the latter, you can go back again next year and test the new approach. Just like your email list, your trade show portfolio is something you should be constantly managing and "pruning" Most companies don't apply this level of rigor, which is why most trade show + conference programs are really, really wasteful. #b2bmarketing

The Evolving Face of the US Homebuyer The National Association of Realtors' (NAR) 2024 report provides a fascinating snapshot of the US housing market’s buyer profile that looks significantly different than it did just a few years ago. The data reveals a changing homebuyer. The average buyer age has climbed to a record 56, underscoring the impact of high housing costs and rising interest rates that have sidelined younger would-be buyers. For first-time buyers, the average age is now 38, nearly a decade older than it was in the early 1980s. These changes signal a more mature buyer who brings accumulated wealth and likely more significant financial security to the table. Additionally, a fifth of all home purchases were made by single women, a notable demographic shift reflecting both a societal change in homeownership goals and an economic shift in who can afford to buy. By contrast, single men comprised only 8% of recent buyers. This snapshot highlights what many are calling a “bifurcated housing market,” where those able to buy homes are increasingly established, wealthier individuals, often using home equity from previous properties to secure cash purchases or make substantial down payments. This market has been largely inaccessible to younger buyers, who continue to face affordability challenges, limited savings, and reduced opportunities for financial support in the form of lower mortgage rates. With affordability gauges near record lows, first-time homebuyers hold a mere 24% share of the market, down dramatically from the 40% share held in pre-Great Recession years. Rising prices and interest rates have compounded these barriers, leading to a market where nearly three-quarters of all buyers have no children under 18 at home, reflecting an older and more established buyer profile than in decades past. While this report offers a look back, the trends it captures underscore a potential turning point. Recent mortgage application data suggests that prospective buyers who had previously been priced out or sidelined may begin to re-enter the market as interest rates stabilize. If these sidelined buyers do return, particularly younger and more diverse demographics, the profile of the typical buyer could again start to shift, gradually increasing diversity in age, household composition, and race among homebuyers. At Havas Edge, we’re continually analyzing these demographic shifts to support brands in delivering timely, targeted strategies that meet the realities of today’s buyers and the anticipated resurgence of those who’ve been waiting on the sidelines. #RealEstate #Homebuyers #MarketTrends #HousingEconomics #ConsumerInsights

Killer graph. Out of the £130 billion online non-food purchases we make in the UK, £27 billion of them get sent back to retailers. Our research with ZigZag Global shines a spotlight on the significant challenge online returns cause in the industry, focusing on those consumers who consistently and intentionally over-order - the "serial returners". Key stats ➡️ Around 11% of online shoppers are serial returners (frequently over-ordering with the intention of returning many items) ➡️They account for 24% of all online returns ➡️Serial returners send back, on average, £1,400 worth of online orders per year, compared with an average of £650. ➡️ This amounts to £6.6 billion of returns. ➡️ Almost three-quarters of serial returners are under the age of 45, and they return more than 42% of all their orders. A 1/4 of serial returners admit to over-ordering just to reach a minimum order value (often to trigger free delivery) only to return goods they had no intention of keeping. The same proportion also said they had returned items after finding them cheaper elsewhere or on promotions. While 18% admitted to returning items having already used them for a short period. There is no silver bullet here that is going to fix this issue for retailers. A nuanced understanding of specific triggers and barriers is essential to effectively target returners through pricing and returns options. 💥 For many boardrooms debating whether they should charge for returns, my thoughts are: 💥 The returns equation transcends simple binary choices between free or paid. Retailers must architect differentiated returns propositions that align commercial realities with customer lifetime value. Smart retailers will segment their returns strategy by customer profitability metrics, leveraging AI to identify purchase patterns that predict long-term value. This enables dynamic returns pricing that protects margins while fostering relationships with truly valuable customers. The goal isn't to punish returns – it's to price them according to their true cost to serve, while rewarding profitable shopping behaviours. There's also a paradox at play where customer acquisition costs are optimised but customer profitability is compromised. Many retailers are essentially subsidising unsustainable shopping behaviours at the expense of margin, unknowingly targeting customers they could do without. The real opportunity lies in leveraging returns data as a predictive indicator of customer profitability. By applying advanced analytics to returns patterns, seasonal purchasing behaviours, and cross-category browsing and mining deep behaviour insights, retailers can enable proactive intervention before profitability erodes. This shifts the conversation from universal policies to personalised solutions that can turn returns from a pure cost centre into a strategic lever for customer engagement and loyalty. Full research is available to download here ⬇️ https://lnkd.in/e5paRNWC

Consistency isn’t boring. It’s branding. This BIC pen has looked the same since 1955. Same design. Same transparent barrel. Same blue cap. Bic knew it didn’t need to evolve the design of the product. By sticking to what worked, it has become iconic. Most brands don’t have that kind of discipline. They get bored to easily and change too much. If you change too much, you lose consistency and lose recognition. Great branding isn’t about changing everything all the time. And knowing what not to change is equally as important. A solid brand strategy should do two things: 1. Tell you where to stay consistent. 2. Show you where to evolve to stay relevant. Every brand has core brand assets (or codes)… distinctive elements that drive recognition. KFC has the bucket, the Colonel, the colour red and chicken. the LEGO Group has the brick, the yellow minifigure, the red square logo, and imagination. Bic has this pen shape, the blue cap, the orange packaging and the Bic Boy. When you protect those core assets, show up consistently, and then find relevant, creative ways to show up in culture that’s how you win. Not everything needs to change. Know what to keep. That’s the work.

For consumer-facing products or services, one of the best places for that to happen is Starbucks. I call it “the Starbucks Test”: Grab your laptop, set up shop at a Starbucks table, and approach someone in line. Offer to buy their coffee in exchange for their time. The deal? They listen to your two-minute pitch and spend a few more minutes discussing their thoughts with you. Do this 20 times, and in a few hours, for about $100, you’ll gain priceless insights. Chances are it will be even more cost effective than that, since you’ll probably get all the answers you need after just a few conversations. The key is asking the right questions. Skip the generic “What do you think?” Instead, ask pointed questions like: “After hearing that pitch, tell me: What does our company do?” “How does the service work?” “Who might use this, and for what purpose?” “Would you want to use it? Why? For what?” The answers to these questions will reveal the clarity of your messaging, as well as your future customers’ pain points, needs, and desires.