Xorte logo

News Markets Groups

USA | Europe | Asia | World| Stocks | Commodities



Add a new RSS channel

 
 


Keywords

2025-10-23 13:00:00| Fast Company

Elliott Hill spent his entire career at Nike. But he spent a full year as its CEO before giving his first media interview in the role. In mid-October, the company invited a select group of global journalists to Beaverton, Oregon, to see the latest in Nike innovations.  We tried a slew of ambitious products that will hit the market over the next year plus: mind-altering footwear, exoskeleton sneakers, and a jacket that inflates to keep you warm. And a few of us got to speak with Hill. Hill is the third Nike CEO Ive interviewed for Fast Company. Hes not as introspective or soft-spoken as the design leader Mark Parker. Hes not as unapologetic or headstrong as the bean counter John Donahoe. Truth be told, after our brief chat, Im still wrapping my head around who he is. But something about his mannerquick speech, a lean-forward posture, and a penchant for hitting you in the knee to make a pointthat makes it hard to avoid the obvious sports metaphor.  As he discusses reshaping his team and fixing Nikes culture, Hill sounds a lot like Nikes head coach.  For a full tour of Nike, dont miss my deep dive on the 48 hours I spent on campus. Below are my most pressing questions since Hill took over the company last year. And if theres any single takeaway, its that Hill doesnt like talking about structure (despite deeply restructuring the company to drive innovation again). Instead, he wants to talk about wholesalers, sport, culture, expanding the brand, and the greater possibilities lying ahead, as the company works under a new mantra developed by his new chief innovation, design, and product officer, Phil McCartney: Make epic shit. The interview has been edited for length and clarity. I think this is my fourth trip to Nike over the past 13 years. I would say, though, the energy feels really good on campus right nowwhether thats staged or not! By the way, that’s not by accident, right? If I may respond to that, I know that wasn’t really a question, it was a statement. But one of the first things that I, and we as a leadership team, wanted to do was to win back the locker room. You had to get back to a strong sense of purpose and culture. Because ultimatelyand it’s not just Nike, I think it’s any businessI’m a firm believer that if you have the best strategy in place and the right structure and the processes but you don’t have the right culture, you’re not going to have the success that you expect, and certainly won’t meet your full potential. So I’m glad that you at least see it and feel it. We’ve put a lot of time, energy, and effort into it. Culture is a nebulous term. It is.  It’s one of those words like love, which means a little bit too much, and it means something different to everyone you talk to. No question, it does. We’re close to 80,000 employees, which is why I think its important to try to define the type of culture that we want and expect. And we’ve spent a lot of time doing that . . . through how we communicate, through all employee meetings, through written communication, and just how you show up day to day.  We have a book. I don’t know if you’ve seen our maxims; it’s what we believe in. There are five maxims. And then each of those maxims has three to four actions. What can I and we collectively do to help bring those maxims to life? And I know it sounds, again, pretty textbook, but if you live them and breathe them, it does start to come to life and help to define what you want the culture to be. And, more importantly, you start to see it come to life. I am curious about structure. You completely restructured development teams when you returned to Nike. And they look like they did before [John] Donahoe, right? It seems like it’s a rewind to that structure, which was clearly proven at Nike for a long time. Is your plan fundamentally different than that?  Here’s what I would say: I’m a big believer in having clarity of purpose and strategy, and then that drives structure and processes. All of them have to work together to help deliver the type of results that we want to try to drive. And so the first thing we wanted to do is get back to strategy. Why do we exist? And our sense of purpose is that We exist to serve the athlete. It’s about inspiration and innovation. For all 8 billion consumers in the world, if you have a body, you’re an athlete. And the whole idea is, if we can invite consumers, more and more athletes, into the world of sport, fitness, and lifestyle, we grow the overall marketplace. So that really anchors in sport.  Then we said, Okay, what [is] important? We’re a consumer products company. People buy stuff from us. So we have to have the most beautiful, innovative, and coveted product, first and foremost. And then weve got to tell emotional, inspiring stories. And finally, weve got to pay it off in a marketplace where consumers shop. Not everybody shops Nikedirect.com or Nike digital commerce. And so that was the fourth action. We had lost how we connected with consumers down in cities that create influence. And again, whether it was cultural icons in those cities or sports icons, we lost some of that connectivity.  So those are the actions we put in place. And then you started to think, Oh, how do you do that across Mens, Womens, Kids [introduced by Donahoe], and its kind of hard to do! So we then decided, lets shift. Let’s take the $45 billion-plus of revenue, and let’s break it down by brand: Nike, Jordan, Converse. What are the sports that are most important? Let’s [have] small, cross-functional teams with a general manager who are empowered to run and move at the speed of the consumer.  This is what Im sayingthats classic Nike structure, no? You organized the company by sport rather than the Mens, Womens, Kids teams that Donahoe adopted. Yeah thats classic Nike structure. But what is different is, the whole idea is it makes us more responsive with consumers and athletes, and more competitive.  Let me just say, when I reported the last feature, when Donahoe was here, the criticism I heard from people internally at Nike was We left the structure that works.  Its not about structure! Everybody keeps going back to it. What is it [really] about? It’s about sports. Its Nike running. Its Nike basketball. It’s Nike training. It’s Nike football, soccer. Because the consumers who play those sports are very different. There are some who cross over, but the elite consumer who runs, or the everyday runner, could be very diferent than the elite footballer, soccer player, and/or the everyday soccer player. So they want and need different things from us, from a product perspective and a storytelling perspective. And oh, by the way, the competition in both of those sports is very different as well. So being structured by sport gives you the sharpness and crispness on the athlete or consumer that we’re serving, but it also gives us a sharpness and crispness against the competitive set as well.  And you empower [these teams]. You let them run.  Okay, what has changed then? First of all, what I have done is flatten my organization, so I have 15 direct reports now; 11 of them are new roles. I’m really excited about the talent that we have in the roles from the experience that they bring, the depth of knowledge in the industry, people from outside the industry who joined usthat helps round us out. So Im excited about my leadership structure. The challenge that I’ve given that structure is two things: It’s pretty simple, individually and collectively. Individually, each one of us should be inspiring and aspirational. People should look up and be inspired by and aspire to be us, individually and collectively. That’s our challenge as a leadership team.  What then is differentand I’ll just jump into product: We have three brand presidents, and we have one leader over innovation, design, footwear, apparel, and accessory. The craft of making product that cuts across all three brands will enable us to leverage what I believe is one of our strongest core competencies, and that’s product management. If we choose to add other brands, we can do that, so that then sets us up for the future. Once we get the machine running, generating the cash and the revenue that we all expect, it allows us then to leverage some of our core competencies for the future. You just touched on something that’s been on my mind, which is this idea of Nike being such a big brand. Wall Street or analysts can criticize Nike’s growth, but it’s a gargantuan company. It is profitable, right? And it’s touching a lot of the world all the time. I guess my my curiosity is and not all one percents of revenue are created equal! There’s a quote for you. Think about that. You know, no one really thinks about it: 1% of growth for us is $400 million to $500 million. Thats a company. We grow the size of a company annually! Scaling a company your size is daunting. You bring up this possibility of introducing different brands. I wonder if there can be a sort of monolithic brand like Nike, or even two or three others like Jordan and Converse. I feel like you need even more sub brands to reach more people. I think that might be a part of the conversation, and it’s our responsibility to set the structure up and our capabilities up, that if we choose to do that, we can do thatwe can use the balance sheet to go acquire brands if we choose to. Here’s what I would say: I still think there’s tremendous opportunity in the core of our business.  I didnt even mean acquire. I meant spin off. Of course. Spin off and create. And we have some that we’re already starting to see, Nike ACG being one of them, going after the outdoor industry that I think is roughly $130 billion total addressable market, going at it through trail. Very unique Nike way and point of view. Skims is another interesting opportunity. But even beyond that, we believe there’s tremendous growth still in the core. Because if you think about sport, it exists in every country, and we’re doing business in almost 190 countries. When we get down to countries, we’re not meeting our full potential.  In some of these countries, we haven’t been able to make the investments that we believe we need to make to inspire and attract the consumers in those countries as a truly global company. I could go through the list: Southeast Asia is a tremendous opportunity for us. Pick a country there, whether Malaysia, Indoyou pick it. We have tremendous opportunity to still grow there, when we run our offense, and we’re still in the process of getting our offense in place. Not only from a product creation perspective, but out into the marketplace, where we truly connect with consumers.  And the last thing I’d say, the sports industry is growing 3% to 5% a year. It’s about growing the overall marketplace versus getting worried about market share. And when we grow the marketplace, I like our chances of growing. Its a pretty intellectual sort of conversation, but I’ve seen it work, and I believe in it. When Trumps tariffs were announced, I remember being like, Does Nike have to pull a lot of manufacturing out of Vietnam? Obviously, we learned in the last quarter how much tariffs are cutting into profit. Its significant. $1.5 billion. How are you responding to that right now? And how much is that affecting your strategy? Is it worth shifting manufacturing internationally? Can you even get ahead of tariffs, given the changing rules week to week, given that a lot of other countries are being affected with really high tariffs, too? [Its] clearly making an impact. We talked about how we’ll offset it. The good news is we do have a sourcing base that we’ve built up over 50 years. Its global, and it’s expansive, and we’re pulling each of the levers to try to offset the tariffs at a super high level, working with our manufacturing partners to share in some of those costs, our retail partners. And then ultimately we have to, as a company, share in some of that. Were looking for efficiencies here, inside of our business and our own P and L to help offset that. So that’s what we’re doing, short term.  Longer termyou know, we can build factories anywhere. Setting up a factory and building lines, we know how to do. The challenge is, in our industry, we have tens of thousands of materials. Yeah, exactly that. It’s the supply chain.  Its the material sourcing that is the bottleneck. And so that is what we’re working on right now. The simple idea there, conceptually, is to go: Well, just make fewer materials. But then you change choice, and you put designers and innovators and creatives in a box. That’s what we’re working through right now. Were trying to figure out, Okay, can we, should we, and where should our manufacturing base be for the future? And it’s definitely something that’s top of mind.  Near term, I’m just telling our team, let a few of us deal with that, and you control what you can control. And that gets back to making beautiful products and telling stories and making sure our brand looks the way it should look at retail. Because that’s how we drive sell-through. So control what you control. Let a few of us deal with the tacticaland it is some tacticalmoves that we have to make around tariffs while also thinking strategically about what does the supply chain of the future look like? I haven’t checked out your new Project Amplify powered footwear yet, but I’m anxious to. I’ve used a couple of exoskeletons. I’m really bullish on these assistive technologies. And I’m curious: How key is that more electronic, or mechanical, innovation to Nike’s innovation pipeline of the future? Is it a really big growth category for you? We’ve yet to put a number on it in terms of growth. We’re still working through what webelieve it can be. We do think it’s, without question, a big part of positioning our brand as an innovative thought leader thats willing to think outside the box. I think the biggest [idea] we keep using as an example . . . If you look at the sales of mountain bikes versus e-bikesif you look at the growth curvemountain bike growth has slowed. And then e-bikes are [growing] because people want to go further faster. We think theres an insight there. How big [Nike exoskeletons] will become, I think the consumer is ultimately going to decide.


Category: E-Commerce

 

LATEST NEWS

2025-10-23 12:35:49| Fast Company

The government shutdown has reopened debate on what has been a central issue for both major political parties in the last 15 years: the future of health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.Tax credits for people who get health insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, expire at the end of the year.Democrats say they won’t vote to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate an extension of the expanded subsidies. Republicans say they won’t negotiate until Democrats vote to reopen the government. Lawmakers in both parties have been working on potential solutions behind the scenes, hoping that leaders will eventually start to talk, but it’s unclear if the two sides could find compromise.As Congress circles the issue, a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 6 in 10 Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about their health costs going up in the next year. Those worries extend across age groups and include people with and without health insurance, the poll found.A look at the subsidies that are expiring, the politics of the ACA and what Congress might do: Enhanced premium help during the pandemic Passed in 2010, the ACA was meant to decrease the number of uninsured people in the country and make coverage more affordable for those who don’t have private insurance. The law created state by state exchanges, some of which are run by the individual states, to try to increase the pool of the insured and bring down rates.In 2021, when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House during the COVID-19 pandemic, they expanded premium help that was already in the law. The changes included eliminating premiums for some lower-income enrollees, ensuring that higher earners paid no more than 8.5% of their income and expanding eligibility for middle-class earners.The expanded subsidies pushed enrollment to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. This year, a record 24 million people have signed up for insurance coverage through the ACA, in large part because billions of dollars in subsidies have made the plans more affordable for many people.If the tax credits expire, annual out-of-pocket premiums are estimated to increase by 114% an average of $1,016 next year, according to an analysis from KFF. Democrats push to extend subsidies Democrats extended those tax credits in 2022 for another three years but were not able to make them permanent. The credits are set to expire Jan. 1, with Republicans now in full control.Lacking in power and sensing a political opportunity, Democrats used some of their only leverage and forced a government shutdown over the issue when federal funding ran out on Oct. 1. They say they won’t vote for a House-passed bill to reopen the government until Republicans give them some certainty that the subsidies will be extended.Democrats introduced legislation in September to permanently extend the premium tax credits, but they have suggested that they are open to a shorter period.“We need a serious negotiation,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly said. Republicans try to scale the ACA back, again The Democratic demands on health care have reignited longstanding Republican complaints about the ACA, which they have campaigned against for years and tried and failed to repeal in 2017. Many in the party say that if Congress is going to act, they want to scrap the expanded subsidies and overhaul the entire law.The problem is not the expiring subsidies but “the cost of health care,” Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said Tuesday.In a virtual briefing Tuesday, the libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative Paragon Health Institute branded the subsidies as President Joe Biden’s “COVID credits” and claimed they’ve enabled fraudsters to sign people up for fully subsidized plans without their knowledge.Others have pitched more modest proposals that could potentially win over some Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has said he is open to extending the subsidies with changes, including lower income limits and a stop to auto-enrollment that may sign up people who don’t need the coverage.The ACA is “in desperate need of reform,” Thune has said.House Republicans are considering their own ideas for reforming the ACA, including proposals for phasing out the subsidies for new enrollees. And they have begun to discuss whether to combine health care reforms with a new government funding bill and send it to the Senate for consideration once they return to Washington.“We will probably negotiate some off-ramp” to ease the transition back to pre-COVID-19 levels, said Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, the head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, during a virtual town hall Tuesday. Is compromise possible? A number of Republicans want to extend the subsidies. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said most people who are using the exchanges created by the ACA “don’t really have another option, and it’s already really, really expensive. So I think there are things we can do to reform the program.”Hawley said he had been having conversations with other senators about what those changes could be, including proposals for income limits, which he said he sees as a “very reasonable.”Bipartisan groups of lawmakers have been discussing the income limits and other ideas, including making the lowest-income people pay very low premiums instead of nothing. Some Republicans have advocated for that change to ensure that all enrollees are aware they have coverage and need it. Other proposals would extend the subsidies for a year or two or slowly phase them out.It’s unclear if any of those ideas could gain traction on both sides or any interest from the White House, where President Donald Trump has remained mostly disengaged. Despite the public stalemate, though, lawmakers are feeling increased urgency to find a solution as the Nov. 1 open enrollment date approaches.Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire has been talking to lawmakers since the shutdown began, trying to find areas of compromise. On Tuesday, she suggested that Congress could also look at extending the enrollment dates for the ACA since Congress is stalled on the subsidies.“These costs are going to affect all of us, and it’s going to affect our health care system,” she said. Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti in Washington and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report. Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press


Category: E-Commerce

 

2025-10-23 12:18:00| Fast Company

Its been a wild 24 hours for the stock prices of Americas big four publicly traded quantum computing companies, which include D-Wave, IonQ, Quantum Computing Inc., and Rigetti. Yesterday, all four quantum firms saw their stock prices fall significantly along with a broader market selloffmostly related to fears about a growing trade war with China and disappointing tech earnings. But today, shares of the Quantum Four are up on the rumors that the Trump administration is interested in taking an equity stake in quantum computing firms. Heres what you need to know. Commerce Department reportedly interested Last night, the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Commerce Department was in talks with several quantum computing companies over equity stakes in those firms in return for federal funding.  Specifically, the Journal said D-Wave, IonQ, and Rigetti were in discussions with the federal government about the matter. The report stated that Quantum Computing Inc. and the privately held Atom Computing were considering similar arrangements. Fast Company has reached out to all the quantum firms named in the WSJs report. IonQ declined to comment. Others did not immediately reply. The exact terms of any such deal are unknown. However, the report states that minimum federal government funding awards would be for $10 million each. It is unknown how much equity the U.S. government would want in exchange for funding, though the level of equity and the amount of funding will likely be correlated. The funding would come from the Chips Research and Development Office, which is overseen by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The Commerce Department did not immediately reply for comment. window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}); The next frontier in computing That the Trump administration is reportedly interested in an equity stake in Americas quantum computing firms is of little surprise. This past year alone, the administration has taken stakes in chipmaker Intel. and rare earths mining operator MP Materials. The link between these two companies is that they produce products and materialsadvanced chips and rare earth elementsthat are seen as vital to Americas national security supply chain. Intels chips power everything from navigation systems to military technology, and MP’s rare earths are needed to make the components that go into critical electronics used by the government and military. Quantum computing differs in that, as of now, quantum computers dont play a critical role in powering the tools behind U.S. economic, military, or security power. But that is expected to change in the years ahead as quantum computers advance and have the potential to be more revolutionary than even AI. Quantum computers are different than the classical computers we use today. A classical computer operates using bits, where each bit of data can either be a one or a zero. However, a quantum computer utilizes qubits, where each unit of data can represent a one and a zeroor anything in betweenat the same time. This means that quantum computers can carry out computation tasks in a matter of minutes or hours that would take a classical computer thousands of years or more to compute. Given the potential for quantum computers to revolutionize everything from materials science to healthcare to communications and security, its no surprise that countries, including the United States and China, are deeply interested in the development of this technology. Quantum Four stocks jump on Thursday After the WSJ report broke, shares of the four publicly traded quantum computing companies spiked in premarket trading on Thursday morning. As of the time of this writing, all quantum four stocks are currently up significantly, including:  D-Wave Quantum Inc. (NYSE: QBTS): up 13% IonQ, Inc. (NYSE: IONQ): up 12% Quantum Computing Inc. (Nasdaq: QUBT): up 11% Rigetti Computing, Inc. (Nasdaq: RGTI): up 9% Todays price jump helps wipe out much of the losses that the Quantum Four experienced yesterday amid a broader market selloff. Yesterday, D-Wave closed 15% lower, IonQ closed down 6%, Quantum Computing Inc. lost 7%, and Rigetti lost 9%. Over the past 12 months, the stock prices of the Quantum Four have surged. As of yesterdays close, D-Wave was up 2,174%, IonQ was up 269%, Quantum Computing Inc. was up 1,215%, and Rigetti was up 2,831%


Category: E-Commerce

 

Latest from this category

23.10Trump administration sanctions Russian oil giants to pressure Putin to end Ukraine war
23.10New AI browsers could usher in a web where agents do our biddingeventually 
23.10Media has a trust problem. Could AI be part of the solution?
23.10How this Portland costume became a signature protest tool at No Kings anti-Trump rallies
23.10Paramount Skydance is in the lead for the Warner Bros Discovery deal. Heres why
23.10Tesla stock sinks today after earnings miss. Elon Musk seems more focused on building a robot army
23.10U.S. national debt skyrockets past $38 trillion, the Treasury Department reports
23.10Nike Mind is a calming shoe that sorta, almost makes you meditate
E-Commerce »

All news

23.10Water companies told to refund 260m to customers for poor performance
23.10Corporate debt surge: Commercial paper issuances hit highest since April
23.10Assaults on rail network more than triple in 10 years
23.10Oil prices surge 5% as Trump hits Russian crude with sanctions
23.10EPack Prefab bulk deal: BofA picks Rs 13 cr worth shares in smallcap after stellar Q2
23.10Trump administration sanctions Russian oil giants to pressure Putin to end Ukraine war
23.10New AI browsers could usher in a web where agents do our biddingeventually 
23.10Tesla shares fall 4% as margin pressures mount despite record sales
More »
Privacy policy . Copyright . Contact form .