3 ms·

This is the "cold start" problem, which they mention in the post ("What do we do about clients who recently signed up and have no past history on the service?")

This is the "cold start" problem, which they mention in the post ("What do we do about clients who recently signed up and have no past history on the service?") along with how they attempt to mitigate it. It's not surprising that their approach doesn't work for all users (as it would appear that it didn't in your case). I'm curious though, how much feedback does their system need in order to converge? E.g., how many ratings would you need to provide before receiving well-fitting clothes?

perseusprime11 9y ago
Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Most of the clothes they sent are from their own brands which makes me wonder what is new about this model. Anybody retailer can ship their clothes if they are willing to process the returns for free.
- gumby 9y ago
  I'm not in B2C or really any consumer play, and haven't looked at SF closely. But: I assume it's an execution play. Anybody can sell their books and electronics online (well, they could before Amazon started, yet amazon exceeded). Anybody can make clothes, yet Inditex is a monster. And why is there more than one restaurant. SF's claim is that their tech is a differentiator, and they are a tech company (unlike, say, Target or Blue Nile). There are a couple of thoughts about "in store brand": their business plan may have required tighter control and visibility into the dimensions and materials of their product (dimension for the reasons discussed in the article and its footnotes; material because stuff that is tried on not in store and returned may need to be more durable, I don't know). It makes the plan more complex, but perhaps improves execution enough that it's worth the expense. In the long run, if they really have a tech advantage they have the option of expanding beyond just in-house product or simply splitting into sub brands, or both.

perseusprime11 9y ago

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Most of the clothes they sent are from their own brands which makes me wonder what is new about this model. Anybody retailer can ship their clothes if they are willing to process the returns for free.

gumby 9y ago
I'm not in B2C or really any consumer play, and haven't looked at SF closely. But: I assume it's an execution play. Anybody can sell their books and electronics online (well, they could before Amazon started, yet amazon exceeded). Anybody can make clothes, yet Inditex is a monster. And why is there more than one restaurant. SF's claim is that their tech is a differentiator, and they are a tech company (unlike, say, Target or Blue Nile). There are a couple of thoughts about "in store brand": their business plan may have required tighter control and visibility into the dimensions and materials of their product (dimension for the reasons discussed in the article and its footnotes; material because stuff that is tried on not in store and returned may need to be more durable, I don't know). It makes the plan more complex, but perhaps improves execution enough that it's worth the expense. In the long run, if they really have a tech advantage they have the option of expanding beyond just in-house product or simply splitting into sub brands, or both.