anlak storytelling
All kinds
Document kinds
Loading document kinds...

Primary corpus lens for browsing and insights. Selection lives in the URL.

All formats
Orientation
Loading formats...

Landscape, portrait, square, or unknown document geometry.

Unlock
slides · global inventory

Callout

Component collection for the active corpus filters, with each row opening the slide detail view.

Search Insights JSON Unlock
Matching slides 96,741
Current window 26,431-26,460
Pages 3,225
Rows per page 30
Component: Calloutclear collectionreset all
18 30 60

Component

26,431-26,460 of 96,741

filter-aware
13
The chart uses a Marimekko layout to show volume distribution across segments, with color-coded arrows indicating growth/decline outlooks.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
16
The slide uses a dual-chart layout to correlate broadband adoption with declining mail volumes across international postal services.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Evidence & Proof1 hit
17
The chart uses a regression line with an R-squared value of 0.57 to illustrate the relationship.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
19
The slide uses a dark green background typical of BCG decks. It includes a specific callout for the -44% change in First-Class Mail revenue.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next StepsLoop · Why Now1 hit
21
The slide uses a color-coded arrow system (green up, red down) to denote positive and negative trends for the USPS.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Impact & Next StepsLoop · Why Now1 hit
24
BCG branded slide, likely part of a restructuring or turnaround strategy deck.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
26
The chart illustrates the net impact of growth factors (Mail rebound, Organic growth) and diversion factors (Autopay, Online/Mobile presentment) on total volume.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
30
The chart uses a waterfall structure to show how various factors (rebound, growth, targeting, migration, online, email) bridge the gap between 2009 and 2020 volumes.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
31
The chart illustrates a volume increase from 32.1B to 38.0B, driven by various factors including organic growth, shifts from First Class, and online targeting.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
32
The chart illustrates a bridge from 23.7B to 26.2B volume.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
33
The chart uses a waterfall structure to decompose the net change in volume between two points in time.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
35
Uses Harvey balls to represent qualitative scores for service improvements.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
36
Uses Harvey balls to represent qualitative scores for improvement drivers.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
37
Uses Harvey balls to represent improvement scores.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
38
Uses Harvey balls to represent scores for online advertising improvements.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
39
Uses Harvey balls to represent qualitative scores for online ad improvements.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
40
Uses Harvey balls to represent qualitative scores for online advertising improvements.Projecting US Mail volumes to 2020 · BCG
Consulting deck Strategy consulting 1 hit
04
The table acts as a decision matrix for the four selected options.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Situation & Context1 hit
09
The table uses a qualitative scoring system (++, +, 0, -, --) to evaluate options.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
10
Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011)Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
11
The slide uses a traffic light system (green check, red X, question mark) to indicate implementation status for 8 options.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
12
The slide outlines why train operators are generally unsupportive of cost/revenue sharing unless they have direct control/influence (Option 8).Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
13
The slide is part of a series (2 of 2) and references a previous L.E.K. report on Alternative Railway Structures.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
15
The slide outlines a specific implementation strategy involving CP5 and CP6 periods.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
16
L.E.K. consulting slide regarding rail industry cost and revenue sharing.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
17
L.E.K. consulting slide discussing rail industry cost and revenue sharing mechanisms.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
18
The slide uses a central arrow to represent the 'Cultural change' required to bridge the two approaches.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
20
The slide uses a 'carrot vs stick' metaphor to describe the strategic approach to industry partnerships.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Problem & Complication1 hit
24
The slide clarifies that the study assumes no radical changes to the roles of train operators or Network Rail.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & ApproachLoop · Golden Circle1 hit
26
The table uses a color-coded matrix to show which components (NR costs/revenue, TOC revenue, TOC costs) are included or excluded for four specific options.Rail industry cost and revenue sharing (2011) · L.E.K.
Consulting deck Strategy consulting Beat · Solution & Approach1 hit