Wednesday, January 04, 2006
A new year; a new acronym. Well, the first one of the new year more like.
Emma has forwarded me a press release that was surely destined to push all my 'Better Than Nothing. Not?' buttons and get me all in a tizz about the pros and the cons of it all.
Basically, in an edited form, I was exposed to the following:
Now anything that gets us to a better environmental situation is to be applauded, but there are the small matters of the cost/benefit ratios and who gains and who actually pays.
I'll have to admit to being a sensitive soul here, as Junkk.com has seen itself politely sidelined on grant monies more than once 'because we're commercial'. Which we are, by virtue of having an advertising model. But then we don't charge the consumer (they who stump up UK public funds) anything.
So if not commercial, what exactly are major blue-chip manufacturers and retailers to enjoy such largesse? Because I don't recall getting my beans for free.
And if the packaging currently being used is 'wasteful', then surely it simply makes financial sense to seek an alternative. So maybe it's more a case of what the public will swallow?
So I just have to wonder if instead of public money, these guys shouldn't be spending their own, which may inspire some real commitment to getting it all a bit more competitive, consumer-focussed and with some joined up behaviours between the techy Morlocks in the 4th basement of the factory, and the Eloi in marketing.
Because I'd like to see genuine commercial efforts being made to sell me on stuff that is good for the environment and I'll vote with my conscience and my wallet. Taking money from me to help someone charge me to buy their stuff smacks of taking from Peter to pay Paul, HJ, Marks, etc.
Posted by Peter at 5:48 pm