Connect with us

Business

Sonos tries to get its groove back after upsetting loyal customers

Published

on

Sonos tries to get its groove back after upsetting loyal customers

Heath Evans really needed his Sonos speakers to work.

He and his wife counted on one of the three wireless devices he owned to play lullabies to help put their baby daughter to sleep.

So, in May, when Sonos released a new controller app that was so riddled with problems he couldn’t get the speakers to work, Evans was angry.

“We just need reliable music that plays lullabies while we’ve got a screaming baby trying to go to sleep,” said Evans, a 40-year-old entrepreneur in Australia who had received the speakers from his wife last year for his birthday.

Fed up with the time Sonos has taken to fully fix the app, the family has given up on trying to use the devices, which cost about $1,300. They’ve turned instead to a cheap speaker to stream music for their daughter’s bedtime.

Advertisement

Evans is among a legion of unhappy customers who are upset with Santa Barbara-based Sonos. Today, the company is still trying to mitigate the fallout from the app debacle and salvage its reputation as a powerhouse in the audio industry offering an array of portable, high-quality wireless speakers. The hit to Sonos’ brand has swung the door open for rivals such as Amazon, Bose, Apple and other tech giants that make smart speakers to capture more of the business’ customers.

“Sonos knows it is on precarious ground because while it has built up customer goodwill, it plays in a highly competitive space,” said Dipanjan Chatterjee, vice president and principal analyst at research firm Forrester in an email.

Over its more than 20 years, the publicly traded company has weathered tough times before, including the 2008 financial crisis. But its latest misstep is a multimillion-dollar blunder that has forced it to delay the launch of new products and lower sales projections for the pivotal final months of the year when they otherwise would be looking to capitalize on a holiday sales boost.

Sonos said it’s spending $20 million to $30 million to fix the app and provide more customer support — an emergency investment it hopes will win back the trust of customers and steady its financial footing. In the last six months, the company’s stock, which ended trading Thursday at $11.58, has fallen 39%. In the quarter ending June 29, it reported $397 million in revenue, a 6% increase over the same period last year, and $3.7 million in net income.

This week, the company outlined a plan to make sure it doesn’t have similar failures in the future, including improvements to how it tests products before they’re released, the appointment of a “quality ombudsperson,” creation of a customer advisory board, and extending its warranty for certain items, such as its home theater and plug-in speaker products. Executives agreed to forgo their annual bonuses for 2025 unless their turnaround plan succeeds.

Advertisement

“There are many wonderful brands that have made missteps, have gone out and apologized to fix things and won back the trust of their customers,” said Eddie Lazarus, Sonos’ chief strategy officer. “We’re going to be the next one in that line.”

Sonos was founded in 2002 by a group of entrepreneurs who set out to build something that is commonplace today but pioneering at the time: a wireless audio system that would enable people to play music over the internet anywhere in their home. They were working years before the start of popular streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora, as well as the launch of the iPhone.

In January 2005, the company released the ZP100, a device with a remote control that allowed people to stream music through their computers. The product garnered positive reviews including from Walt Mossberg, a tech columnist at the Wall Street Journal, who called the Sonos music streaming system “easily the best music-streaming product I have seen and tested.”

As in many startups, Sonos executives were worried about competitors . The first song played publicly on the ZP100 was the Beastie Boys’ “No Sleep Till Brooklyn,” a tune engineers could relate to as they hustled to improve the quality of the device before its release.

Appearing on the podcast “How I Built This with Guy Raz” this year, one of the founders, John MacFarlane, recalled the pressure he and others felt to unveil their first product in time for the holiday season — a goal they ultimately missed. Releasing the ZP100 before it was ready would have “killed the company,” he said.

Advertisement

“You had to have a great positive first experience if you’re going to build the brand on word of mouth,” MacFarlane said.

The challenge of striking a balance between moving fast and having a good product is still a challenge that Sonos and other tech companies have grappled with throughout their history. Apple faced backlash from its customers in 2012 when it released a Maps app that contained inaccurate driving directions, Chatterjee said. But Sonos is in a “trickier” spot because the app is part of what makes the company’s audio system function seamlessly for the 15 million households that use its products globally.

“Without that seamlessness, there is no ease of use, and without the ease of use, the company cannot command its premium price with consumers or its premium position in the market,” he said.

Sonos Chief Executive Patrick Spence has acknowledged that the company has let down its customers. He told investors in August after Sonos released its quarterly earnings that the company had to rebuild the app to address “performance and reliability issues” and position the company for growth as the company expands “into new categories and move ambitiously outside of the home.” Sonos released its first pair of headphones in June.

For some Sonos customers like Evans, Sonos’ response has been “tone deaf,” underscoring the trust the company still needs to win back.

Advertisement

“Why on earth would I care about a quality ombudsman? I’m a guy sitting in Melbourne nursing a baby in Australia with a speaker that doesn’t work,” he said.

Despite looking at the possibility of bringing back the previous version of the Sonos app, Lazarus said the company ruled it out because there were a lot of “technical concerns.” While the company has said it’s reintroduced many of the features from the old version of the app that were missing in the new one, he acknowledged the company still has work to do. He couldn’t say when the app will be completely fixed.

Other customers have found workarounds to still stream their music from their Sonos speakers even if the app doesn’t work.

Fearing issues with the rollout of the new app, 32-year-old product designer Matthew Mocniak said, he disabled his Sonos system from automatically updating the app but the solution worked only temporarily.

Mocniak, who lives in North Carolina and has spent more than $2,000 on Sonos speakers, said he’s able to stream music through Apple’s Airplay feature.

Advertisement

As someone who works in the tech industry, Mocniak knows rebuilding software can be harder than it looks. “It’s very easy to promise certain features or certain deadlines,” he said. “It’s also easy to forget that there are people responsible for that stuff on the other side.”

Ben Brown, a 49-year-old creative director in the United Kingdom, said his Sonos app still says his speakers are not connected. Instead, he’s been using Amazon’s Alexa assistant to play music on the speakers.

Brown, who also purchased multiple Sonos speakers for his home, said he was so frustrated that he felt the urge to throw the Sonos Roam portable speaker in the sea while on vacation.

“I would never have done it, really, but that’s how angry it makes you,” he said. “It’s those moments where you just want to take a speaker outside, eat some dinner and listen to some music.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

Published

on

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

As parents rush into malls for the final days of Christmas shopping, many will be armed with wishlists full of beauty products for their children.

Skin care is a fast-growing phenomenon among Gen Alpha, typically defined as those born from 2010 and on. Dubbed “Sephora kids,” the tweens and teens have been buying up products from buzzy brands including Drunk Elephant, Bubble and Glow Recipe and diligently following multistep, antiaging skin-care routines popularized on social media.

With kids becoming a powerful segment of the booming $164-billion global skin-care industry, brands have been catering to them with new products packaged in colorful, eye-catching bottles and jars.

Dermatologists say getting children into the habit of taking care of their skin is a good thing, but they’re urging parents to exercise caution as they splurge on holiday gifts.

“For pediatric dermatology, we always say to be very mindful and wary of active ingredients that are in products,” said Dr. Jayden Galamgam, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health. “A lot of the time, simple is better.”

Advertisement

What products are OK for my kid to use?

A gentle cleanser, a hydrating moisturizer and a good sunscreen are recommended and appropriate for any age.

“You don’t need to be using all these products; you don’t need a 10-step routine,” Galamgam said. “Use three products. Most don’t need anything more than that.”

Look for broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher; it should be worn daily and reapplied every couple of hours.

What products should I avoid?

Anti-wrinkle serums, exfoliants and peels are not appropriate for children. Avoid products containing potent alpha hydroxy acids, beta hydroxy acids and retinol, Galamgam said.

“I would definitely try to stay away from those, because they can cause a lot of irritation for kids,” he said.

Advertisement

Social media trends often encourage tweens to experiment with cosmetics that are inappropriate for their skin type or age, so parents need to look carefully at ingredient labels before buying, said Sam Cutler, founder of Beverly Hills-based tween skin-care brand Petite ’n Pretty.

“We want to caution parents about the growing trend of products marketed as ‘kid-friendly’ due to their bright, playful packaging, which can be misleading,” she said. “Many of these products are formulated for adults and contain harsh ingredients, such as hydroxy acids, retinoids and artificial fragrances, which are too aggressive for young, delicate skin and can cause irritation or long-term damage.”

My kid wants antiaging products anyway. What should I say?

You can talk to them them about the potential harmful side effects, and about the risks of following the advice of online “skinfluencers.”

“There are a lot of teens that are using these products inappropriately due to misinformation or wanting to fit in with their friends based on what they’re seeing on TikTok,” said Dr. Carol Cheng, a pediatric dermatologist and an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at UCLA.

“They’re easily susceptible. A lot of them don’t realize that these influencers are probably being paid to promote certain products.”

Advertisement

Is anything being done to protect kids from potentially harmful skin-care products?

In February, California Assemblymember Alex Lee introduced legislation to ban the sale of antiaging products to kids under the age of 13, but the bill failed to pass in the California Legislature.

Continue Reading

Business

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Published

on

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Before the answers to life’s questions fit in our pocket, you used to have to turn a dial. If you were lucky, Phil Donahue would be on, ready to guide you toward enlightenment. In a stroke of deluxe good fortune, Dr. Ruth Westheimer might have stopped by to be the enlightenment. He was the search engine. She was a trusted result.

Donahue hailed from Cleveland. The windshield glasses, increasingly snowy thatch of hair, marble eyes, occasional pair of suspenders and obvious geniality said “card catalog,” “manager of the ’79 Reds,” “Stage Manager in a Chevy Motors production of ‘Our Town.’” Dr. Ruth was Donahue’s antonym, a step stool to his straight ladder. She kept her hair in a butterscotch helmet, fancied a uniform of jacket-blouse-skirt and came to our aid, via Germany, with a voice of crinkled tissue paper. Not even eight years separated them, yet so boyish was he and so seasoned was she that he read as her grandson. (She maybe reached his armpit.) Together and apart, they were public servants, American utilities.

Donahue was a journalist. His forum was the talk show, but some new strain in which the main attraction bypassed celebrities. People — every kind of them — lined up to witness other people being human, to experience Donahue’s radical conduit of edification, identification, curiosity, shock, wonder, outrage, surprise and dispute, all visible in the show’s televisual jackpot: cutaways to us, reacting, taking it all in, nodding, gasping. When a celebrity made it to the “Donahue” stage — Bill Clinton, say, La Toya Jackson, the Judds — they were expected to be human, too, to be accountable for their own humanity. From 1967 to 1996, for more than 6,000 episodes, he permitted us to be accountable to ourselves. 

What Donahue knew was that we — women especially — were eager, desperate, to be understood, to learn and learn and learn. We call his job “host” when, really, the way he did it, running that microphone throughout the audience, racing up, down, around, sticking it here then here then over here, was closer to “switchboard operator.” It was “hot dog vendor at Madison Square Garden.” The man got his steps in. He let us do more of the questioning than he did — he would just edit, interpret, clarify. Egalitarianism ruled. Articulation, too. And anybody who needed the mic usually got it.

The show was about both what was on our mind and what had never once crossed it. Atheism. Naziism. Colorism. Childbirth. Prison. Rapists. AIDS. Chippendales, Chernobyl, Cher. Name a fetish, Phil Donahue tried to get to its bottom, sometimes by trying it himself. (Let us never forget the episode when he made his entrance in a long skirt, blouse and pussy bow for one of the show’s many cross-dressing studies.) Now’s the time to add that “Donahue” was a morning talk show. In Philadelphia, he arrived every weekday at 9 a.m., which meant that, in the summers, I could learn about compulsive shopping or shifting gender roles from the same kitchen TV set as my grandmother.

Advertisement

Sex and sexuality were the show’s prime subjects. There was so much that needed confessing, correction, corroboration, an ear lent. For that, Donahue needed an expert. Many times, the expert was Dr. Ruth, a godsend who didn’t land in this country until she was in her late 20s and didn’t land on television until she was in her 50s. Ruth Westheimer arrived to us from Germany, where she started as Karola Ruth Siegel and strapped in as her life corkscrewed, as it mocked fiction. Her family most likely perished in the Auschwitz death camps after she was whisked to the safety of a Swiss children’s home, where she was expected to clean. The twists include sniper training for one of the military outfits that would become the Israel Defense Forces, maiming by cannonball on her 20th birthday, doing research at a Planned Parenthood in Harlem, single motherhood and three husbands. She earned her doctorate from Columbia University, in education, and spent her postdoc researching human sexuality. And because her timing was perfect, she emerged at the dawn of the 1980s, an affable vector of an era’s craze for gnomic sages (Zelda Rubinstein, Linda Hunt, Yoda), masterpiece branding and the nasty.

Hers was the age of Mapplethorpe and Madonna, of Prince, Skinemax and 2 Live Crew. On her radio and television shows, in a raft of books and a Playgirl column and through her promiscuous approach to talk-show appearances, she aimed to purge sex of shame, to promote sexual literacy. Her feline accent and jolly innuendo pitched, among other stuff, the Honda Prelude, Pepsi, Sling TV and Herbal Essences. (“Hey!” she offers to a young elevator passenger. “This is where we get off.”) The instructions for Dr. Ruth’s Game of Good Sex says it can be played by up to four couples; the board is vulval and includes stops at “Yeast Infection,” “Chauvinism” and “Goose Him.”

On “Donahue,” she is direct, explicit, dispelling, humorous, clear, common-sensical, serious, vivid. A professional therapist. It was Donahue who handled the comedy. On one visit in 1987, a caller needs advice about a husband who cheats because he wants to have sex more often than she does. Dr. Ruth tells Donahue that if the caller wants to keep the marriage, and her husband wants to do it all the time, “then what she should do is to masturbate him. And it’s all right for him to masturbate himself also a few times.” The audience is hear-a-pin-drop rapt or maybe just squirmy. So Donahue reaches into his parochial-school-student war chest and pulls out the joke about the teacher who tells third-grade boys, “Don’t play with yourself, or you’ll go blind.” And Donahue raises his hand like a kid at the back of the classroom and asks, “Can I do it till I need glasses?” Westheimer giggles, maybe noticing the large pair on Donahue’s face. This was that day’s cold open.

They were children of salesmen, these two; his father was in the furniture business, hers sold what people in the garment industry call notions. They inherited a salesman’s facility for people and packaging. When a “Donahue” audience member asks Westheimer whether her own husband believes she practices what she preaches, she says this is why she never brings him anywhere. “He would tell you and Phil: ‘Do not listen to her. It’s all talk,’” which cracks the audience up.

But consider what she talked about — and consider how she said it. My favorite Dr. Ruth word was “pleasure.” From a German mouth, the word conveys what it lacks with an American tongue: sensual unfurling. She vowed to speak about sex to mass audiences using the proper terminology. Damn the euphemisms. People waited as long as a year and a half for tickets to “Donahue” so they could damn them, too. But of everything Westheimer pitched, of all the terms she precisely used, pleasure was her most cogent product, a gift she believed we could give to others, a gift she swore we owed ourselves.

Advertisement

I miss the talk show that Donahue reinvented. I miss the way Dr. Ruth talked about sex. It’s fitting somehow that this antidogmatic-yet-priestly Irish Catholic man would, on occasion, join forces with a carnal, lucky-to-be-alive Jew to urge the exploration of our bodies while demonstrating respect, civility, reciprocation. They believed in us, that we were all interesting, that we could be trustworthy panelists in the discourse of being alive. Trauma, triviality, tubal ligation: Let’s talk about it! Fear doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. Or if it did, it was never a deterrent. Boldly they went. — And with her encouragement, boldly we came.

Wesley Morris is a critic at large for The New York Times and a staff writer for the magazine.

Continue Reading

Business

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Published

on

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Party City, the party and costume supply chain with more than 70 locations in California including several in Los Angeles, is shutting down operations immediately and laying off its employees.

In an online meeting Friday viewed by Bloomberg News, Party City Chief Executive Barry Litwin told corporate employees that it would be their last day of work. CNN reported that employees would not receive severance pay.

“That is without question the most difficult message that I’ve ever had to deliver,” Litwin said in the video. The company will be “winding down” immediately, he said.

The chain, which has been in business for nearly 40 years and has around 700 locations, according to its website, could not handle a decrease in consumer spending triggered by everyday high prices, Litwin told employees.

Going-out-of-business sales began Friday, just 14 months after the company emerged from bankruptcy and four months after Litwin began as chief executive. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023 with about $1.8 billion in debt and emerged from the restructuring process under a plan meant to ensure its viability.

Advertisement

The company, however, continued to struggle and was considering reentering bankruptcy earlier this month, Bloomberg reported. The New Jersey retailer was falling behind on rent at some locations and running out of cash, according to the report.

Several retailers and fast-casual restaurant chains have struggled this year amid rising operating costs and inflation-wary consumers, including Big Lots, which is preparing to sell its stores, and Red Lobster, which filed for bankruptcy in May. Bricks-and-mortar locations in particular are scrambling to keep up with online retailers and big-box chains.

Continue Reading

Trending