With our beloved supermarkets - Supermarket chain stops petrol sales - still flogging petrol how many days after the silicon story broke with the great advice that 'it should be alright' in some stations, it is a confusing time to be a motorist.
And just when you thought those in power could not screw it up any more, well... enjoy...
'Pay as you drive' schemes are in disarray
Showing posts with label SUPER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SUPER. Show all posts
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
BOGOF
If you're poor, ethical shopping means 9p beans
Having just read elsewhere some comments made by the NFU, and Mr. King's retort, I am not so sure it is in fact a win-win for 'everyone'.... especially the cause of helping the planet heal.
Many eco-initiatives that are proven to be effective, if only on an EnviROI (as opposed to going green without going into the red) basis, are a matter of making a conscious decisions to save the planet before the wallet.
Sadly supermarkets and their officers seem more concerned with profit and career first... and exclusively. Actual ethics only seem to kick in when the PR or CSR value is worthwhile. And a lot of media are happy to oblige them.
Telegraph - Dairy farmers warn of industry 'meltdown'
Times - Farmer's Challenge - Sounds like a quiz game!
I rather thought they have been. For a while.
But there is rather a problem with faith in toothless, old-boy or
downright lobby-phobic quangos these days.
So... to whom else is he suggesting they do this?
The purchasing munchkin with power over verbal contract
or no contract ever again, perhaps?
And, while we're at it, we'll ask all the other nasty folk around the
place to jolly well stop being beastly and play fair.
Yo! Ah,madinner'sbad! We've put out a ' noddymouse
sanctimonious fatwah. That'll see you, Jimmy!
Bless.
Having just read elsewhere some comments made by the NFU, and Mr. King's retort, I am not so sure it is in fact a win-win for 'everyone'.... especially the cause of helping the planet heal.
Many eco-initiatives that are proven to be effective, if only on an EnviROI (as opposed to going green without going into the red) basis, are a matter of making a conscious decisions to save the planet before the wallet.
Sadly supermarkets and their officers seem more concerned with profit and career first... and exclusively. Actual ethics only seem to kick in when the PR or CSR value is worthwhile. And a lot of media are happy to oblige them.
Telegraph - Dairy farmers warn of industry 'meltdown'
Times - Farmer's Challenge - Sounds like a quiz game!
I rather thought they have been. For a while.
But there is rather a problem with faith in toothless, old-boy or
downright lobby-phobic quangos these days.
So... to whom else is he suggesting they do this?
The purchasing munchkin with power over verbal contract
or no contract ever again, perhaps?
And, while we're at it, we'll ask all the other nasty folk around the
place to jolly well stop being beastly and play fair.
Yo! Ah,madinner'sbad! We've put out a ' noddymouse
sanctimonious fatwah. That'll see you, Jimmy!
Bless.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Shopping the Supermarkets
I accidentally left my PC TV link on this am, and so when I came to the office I managed to watch this programme: Shopping the Supermarkets
I'm glad I did. What a damning indictment of the system that exists and, indeed, is permitted.
Here's the blurb:
Milking the Suppliers?
We all love supermarkets, but who pays the price for the cheap food we buy? We meet three characters who can tell us first hand. Nigel has been growing lettuces for supermarkets for 27 years but has just been dropped by a supermarket because he can't compete on price; Victoria thinks she makes the best range of pestos in Britain and has one chance to pitch them to Sainsburys; and Somerset dairy farmer Chris is reluctantly selling his cows because he can't make a living from milk.
Having worked most of my life in the ad game, I am well used to the irrational whims that accompany single folk in positions of power within a marketing organisation. This laid bare the consequences.
It also showed up the hoops that decent folk are put though by committees of middle managers, with matrices and other Brent-speek holding sway over loyalty, relationships and logic.
Sickening. It explains, if not excuses, the problems we are having getting these guys to even talk to us. And we are trying to make them money!
My only slight reservation about the programme was who was featured and who not. Sainsbury cooperated and treated their subject ( a woman so destitute she was down to her last new Range Rover) to an order. Somerfield did not and came off badly, though it seemed deservedly so.
I'm glad I did. What a damning indictment of the system that exists and, indeed, is permitted.
Here's the blurb:
Milking the Suppliers?
We all love supermarkets, but who pays the price for the cheap food we buy? We meet three characters who can tell us first hand. Nigel has been growing lettuces for supermarkets for 27 years but has just been dropped by a supermarket because he can't compete on price; Victoria thinks she makes the best range of pestos in Britain and has one chance to pitch them to Sainsburys; and Somerset dairy farmer Chris is reluctantly selling his cows because he can't make a living from milk.
Having worked most of my life in the ad game, I am well used to the irrational whims that accompany single folk in positions of power within a marketing organisation. This laid bare the consequences.
It also showed up the hoops that decent folk are put though by committees of middle managers, with matrices and other Brent-speek holding sway over loyalty, relationships and logic.
Sickening. It explains, if not excuses, the problems we are having getting these guys to even talk to us. And we are trying to make them money!
My only slight reservation about the programme was who was featured and who not. Sainsbury cooperated and treated their subject ( a woman so destitute she was down to her last new Range Rover) to an order. Somerfield did not and came off badly, though it seemed deservedly so.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
OK, tell me how to get past his genius gatekeepers
Terry Leahy: Don't blame us: we can't get rid of all packaging
"As we work to reduce our environmental impact on every level, we will continue to look for ways to cut excess packaging and offer our customers rational choices."
I'd say we are one. I've been trying for 3 years. And M&S. And Boots. And Morrisons...
I've just written to the Indy's Editor:
Dear Sir,
"As we work to reduce our environmental impact on every level, we will continue to look for ways to cut excess packaging and offer our customers rational choices."
I'd say we are one. I've been trying for 3 years to get through. And M&S. And Boots. And Morrisons...
Can you help us get past the pen-pushing, bean-counting, career and hence profit-obsessed minions inbetween initiatives like ours and Sirs Terry and Michael, etc and their new-found green commitments. Or indeed Ministers like Miliband, Bradshaw, etc, as they keep churning out more 3rd sector, we must engage with social entrepreneur guff?
Our site is free. It gets good editorial. The public likes it. It makes the environment fun. And it needn't cost anyone (biz, gov or tax/ratepayer) a penny. In fact, by finding ways to reuse packs and packaging it may even add to the marketing, PR and CSR stories of these businesses in a very non-greenwash manner.
When are people going to stop talking long enough to listen to others outside their elite circles who may have complementary solutions on offer.
If you can help I'd be grateful.
BBC - Ask Tel
"As we work to reduce our environmental impact on every level, we will continue to look for ways to cut excess packaging and offer our customers rational choices."
I'd say we are one. I've been trying for 3 years. And M&S. And Boots. And Morrisons...
I've just written to the Indy's Editor:
Dear Sir,
"As we work to reduce our environmental impact on every level, we will continue to look for ways to cut excess packaging and offer our customers rational choices."
I'd say we are one. I've been trying for 3 years to get through. And M&S. And Boots. And Morrisons...
Can you help us get past the pen-pushing, bean-counting, career and hence profit-obsessed minions inbetween initiatives like ours and Sirs Terry and Michael, etc and their new-found green commitments. Or indeed Ministers like Miliband, Bradshaw, etc, as they keep churning out more 3rd sector, we must engage with social entrepreneur guff?
Our site is free. It gets good editorial. The public likes it. It makes the environment fun. And it needn't cost anyone (biz, gov or tax/ratepayer) a penny. In fact, by finding ways to reuse packs and packaging it may even add to the marketing, PR and CSR stories of these businesses in a very non-greenwash manner.
When are people going to stop talking long enough to listen to others outside their elite circles who may have complementary solutions on offer.
If you can help I'd be grateful.
BBC - Ask Tel
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Some see grasping commercialism and waste. I see a free gutter guard.
Now, I'd best start by saying it's a pity it's a flyer stuck through my door. No probelm with an ad for a freebie, and I know the logistics are impossible to get around, but hey.
Anyway, tucked down there is a 'twofer' on my kids' summer squash.
But the product is also already on Junkk.com with an idea.
Anyway, tucked down there is a 'twofer' on my kids' summer squash.
But the product is also already on Junkk.com with an idea.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Shssssh, you don't know who
Another BBC Breakfast TV piece, another eyebrow-twitch.
This time it was about the power of supermarkets crushing small suppliers and shops.
At one point we had the usual bouffant and blonde 'interviewing' a besuited talking head from some ministry or body or whatever. So far, so pointless.
But towards the end, my ears pricked up when it transpired this guys did actually have powers to impose sanctions*. 'What are they?' asked the bouffant. 'I'd prefer not to go into that now,' said the suit, unchallenged. Er, why? Was it a secret? Seemed like the key point of the deal to me. Another media triumph. Meanwhile, back to the skateboarding duck...
*Reuters - Supermarket probe reports early findings - Or, not, possibly???!
BBC - there you go
This time it was about the power of supermarkets crushing small suppliers and shops.
At one point we had the usual bouffant and blonde 'interviewing' a besuited talking head from some ministry or body or whatever. So far, so pointless.
But towards the end, my ears pricked up when it transpired this guys did actually have powers to impose sanctions*. 'What are they?' asked the bouffant. 'I'd prefer not to go into that now,' said the suit, unchallenged. Er, why? Was it a secret? Seemed like the key point of the deal to me. Another media triumph. Meanwhile, back to the skateboarding duck...
*Reuters - Supermarket probe reports early findings - Or, not, possibly???!
BBC - there you go
Friday, January 19, 2007
Three times lucky!
I like Newsnight, One of the few progs with teeth. Just watched last night's on the PC.
And lo, the blog allowed me to kill 3 birds (is that a PC-accepted phrase anymore?) with one email ('scuse the BB repetition; it's been a busy week).
"Just watched the programme on my PC – nice feature, well done (which has a bearing on the first of today’s topics).
Licence Fee
I was transfixed by Ms. Wark’s interview with, one presumes, the guy who signs her pay cheque. But at least one of them had figured out who funds it. I’m afraid I don’t think he came off too well on this. Without rewinding to review again, I came away with two main impressions. One is that the choice is seen by him to be between ‘quality’ and toys. While they are a factor in the former, I’d have also thought numbers of bodies, how efficiently they deliver ‘product’ to consumer and what they get paid to do so would be worth looking at too. It may have helped to swing those of us not on indexed-linked salaries with competitors at every turn, and who wonder why it requires a UK reporter (and crew?) to go to the other part of the world where there is BBC representation, to film a 30’ filler on global warming. It is classic civil service ‘empire-build first, delivery later’ thinking at its worst. We then come to the matter of salaries and bonuses, especially at the top. What is the point equating the BBC with the private sector? It operates totally differently. And I’d imagine anyone going into it at executive level would know that. The compensation for not dripping in cash is (was) security and the chance not to dig through the barrel base further and further in search of the ratings to justify one’s fiscal worth in comparison with the private sector. As with ‘stars’ such as Ross, Moyles, etc, I simply just don’t buy the argument that you have to compete by playing ‘this any price talent’ game. Working for the BBC gives you access to a whole country in developing the skills (and in terms of stars, audience) upon which to forge very nice careers internally or onwards. It’s lazy management, and nothing less, that leads to clinging on to existing staff no matter what, when a simple ‘Sorry, we’ll miss you’ could suffice. And don’t come back with that ‘we need to attract top talent’ argument. It’s out there. You just have to stay on top of where it is and be ready to move.
Big Brother
I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?
I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.
From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.
And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.
The day people don’t notice and discuss differences (I’d prefer celebrating them rather than trying to homogenise us all) between each other is when we are all clones, and even then I’m sure we’ll still do it.
Pathetic. Shame on the whole sorry cabal involved and feeding off it all. Including those rushing to be offended, preferably on a guest slot.
Green
Gosh, dilemmas. I don’t envy that poor chap from Innocent. I wonder if he imagined he was running into the same kind of deal as the DG? Here to stick it to Tescos (maybe not: they are a supplier, after all) and find oneself lumped along with them in the nasty capitalist expansion stakes. Not quite the same, or fair, to be so simplistic. but Ms. Wark did raise some pretty critical issues.
If we really are serious about this planet saving thing, we to grasp that there are lots of us, getting to be more and more, most of whom have little else to do than earn, aspire, and hence purchase in an upward spiral that has only one end point that I can see, if left unchecked. So while oodles better than a Tesco air-flown mango I’m sure (if a few aisles apart), as a clearly ethical business that started in a fair stall and now is expanding globally, making and distributing and all that stuff, it must be hard to weigh the various considerations.
I myself suffer the same daily concerns with my business (it’s very hard to create anything new without adding to the environmental costs), and often find myself shy of the ideal by demands of family and immediate, vs. far, future. But I do try and avoid getting hit by my own boomerang and mouthing off too much on what others should do whilst not doing it myself (a long, growing and depressing list developing in this regard), and so far have managed to produce a service and, with luck soon, products that actually serve to reduce or reuse when they hit the marketing stream. And not a target in sight!
Finally no, I didn’t rush into carb-con offsetting either, but fear that the essential wisdom of something like this has been tainted in the public’s eyes by some much-ballyhooed efforts being poisoned chalices or schemes designed more to serve agendas and salaries than any decent, global (Kalahari bushmen breathe the same air we’re thinking of trading) environmental ROI.
Back to work:)"
And lo, the blog allowed me to kill 3 birds (is that a PC-accepted phrase anymore?) with one email ('scuse the BB repetition; it's been a busy week).
"Just watched the programme on my PC – nice feature, well done (which has a bearing on the first of today’s topics).
Licence Fee
I was transfixed by Ms. Wark’s interview with, one presumes, the guy who signs her pay cheque. But at least one of them had figured out who funds it. I’m afraid I don’t think he came off too well on this. Without rewinding to review again, I came away with two main impressions. One is that the choice is seen by him to be between ‘quality’ and toys. While they are a factor in the former, I’d have also thought numbers of bodies, how efficiently they deliver ‘product’ to consumer and what they get paid to do so would be worth looking at too. It may have helped to swing those of us not on indexed-linked salaries with competitors at every turn, and who wonder why it requires a UK reporter (and crew?) to go to the other part of the world where there is BBC representation, to film a 30’ filler on global warming. It is classic civil service ‘empire-build first, delivery later’ thinking at its worst. We then come to the matter of salaries and bonuses, especially at the top. What is the point equating the BBC with the private sector? It operates totally differently. And I’d imagine anyone going into it at executive level would know that. The compensation for not dripping in cash is (was) security and the chance not to dig through the barrel base further and further in search of the ratings to justify one’s fiscal worth in comparison with the private sector. As with ‘stars’ such as Ross, Moyles, etc, I simply just don’t buy the argument that you have to compete by playing ‘this any price talent’ game. Working for the BBC gives you access to a whole country in developing the skills (and in terms of stars, audience) upon which to forge very nice careers internally or onwards. It’s lazy management, and nothing less, that leads to clinging on to existing staff no matter what, when a simple ‘Sorry, we’ll miss you’ could suffice. And don’t come back with that ‘we need to attract top talent’ argument. It’s out there. You just have to stay on top of where it is and be ready to move.
Big Brother
I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?
I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.
From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.
And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.
The day people don’t notice and discuss differences (I’d prefer celebrating them rather than trying to homogenise us all) between each other is when we are all clones, and even then I’m sure we’ll still do it.
Pathetic. Shame on the whole sorry cabal involved and feeding off it all. Including those rushing to be offended, preferably on a guest slot.
Green
Gosh, dilemmas. I don’t envy that poor chap from Innocent. I wonder if he imagined he was running into the same kind of deal as the DG? Here to stick it to Tescos (maybe not: they are a supplier, after all) and find oneself lumped along with them in the nasty capitalist expansion stakes. Not quite the same, or fair, to be so simplistic. but Ms. Wark did raise some pretty critical issues.
If we really are serious about this planet saving thing, we to grasp that there are lots of us, getting to be more and more, most of whom have little else to do than earn, aspire, and hence purchase in an upward spiral that has only one end point that I can see, if left unchecked. So while oodles better than a Tesco air-flown mango I’m sure (if a few aisles apart), as a clearly ethical business that started in a fair stall and now is expanding globally, making and distributing and all that stuff, it must be hard to weigh the various considerations.
I myself suffer the same daily concerns with my business (it’s very hard to create anything new without adding to the environmental costs), and often find myself shy of the ideal by demands of family and immediate, vs. far, future. But I do try and avoid getting hit by my own boomerang and mouthing off too much on what others should do whilst not doing it myself (a long, growing and depressing list developing in this regard), and so far have managed to produce a service and, with luck soon, products that actually serve to reduce or reuse when they hit the marketing stream. And not a target in sight!
Finally no, I didn’t rush into carb-con offsetting either, but fear that the essential wisdom of something like this has been tainted in the public’s eyes by some much-ballyhooed efforts being poisoned chalices or schemes designed more to serve agendas and salaries than any decent, global (Kalahari bushmen breathe the same air we’re thinking of trading) environmental ROI.
Back to work:)"
Green. Greener, Greenest.
I think we need a new colour: Greener than green?
It's hard to keep up with it all, much less make much sense of it. Maybe that was the intention?
As I listen to last night's Newsnight (can't believe Ethical Man's piece has been called 'Costing the Earth') on the same subject, here's a selection to choke on along with me as I try and digest it all:
Guardian - You've checked the price and calorie count, now here's the carbon cost
Telegraph - How sinful is your shopping basket?
BBC - Tesco boss unveils green pledges
Indy - Tesco's entrance takes the climate change campaign on to another level altogether
Indy - Tesco invests £500m to create 'green consumer revolution'
Interestingly, as I write, I listen to one of Innocent's top bods struggling to defend their ethical stance that they actually exist to sell more and more, which causes more and more carbon. Interesting dilemma. I wonder if he felt it worth appearing.
Finally, I note that Tescos are planning on selling half price energy light bulbs.
I add here an ad (and their les than green original) I worked up and sent their marketing people over two years ago with a pitch for Junkk.com. I guess this is their reply... nick it.
Talk to the man himself
I'm going to try: Tesco Chief Executive - Your Questions
Here's what I wrote:
"What about supporting other areas of environmental good practice, such as repair and reuse?
There are sites such as http://Junkk.com which are trying to find second uses for your products as they are now in the first instance, and maybe later on could encouarge you to build in (or ask your suppliers/brands to do) second uses to the design.
And the best part is, it could add a new attraction to the product for almost no extra cost!"
Here's what I wrote:
"What about supporting other areas of environmental good practice, such as repair and reuse?
There are sites such as http://Junkk.com which are trying to find second uses for your products as they are now in the first instance, and maybe later on could encouarge you to build in (or ask your suppliers/brands to do) second uses to the design.
And the best part is, it could add a new attraction to the product for almost no extra cost!"
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Selling beans. No longer counting them. Apparently.
A few days ago I noted the coverage of the M&S green announcement, and felt this was one that needed time to settle.
Happily, others are still paying attention: No figure on M&S's green payback
To whom I felt moved to write (plus a ps on EDF snitching on pot growers):
"Thank you for your piece today, which will make a nice counterpiece in my blog to the mostly uncritical gush that has been accorded this announcement in other quarters.
It has not been my experience that anyone in marketing, especially retail, has not put a price, first, and as high as possible, on anything they do. This has to be a new one.
However, with this new found hue, maybe my little organisation, which does no more than offer free (with paid ads if they want to push something genuinely, planet-savingly, consumer-benefittingly green they sell or do - only not going 'carbon neutral' because, as you say, they should have done ages ago and it really only helps their own bottom line, PR and CSR at AGM time) opportunities for them to upload their product data for reuse and recycling info purposes (which one would have assumed a savvy marketer would see as a possible ADDITIONAL sales opportunity), as has such as ecover, maybe they may feel like getting back to us after 3 years trying to get through the minions, using such e-dm as our Folda-Holda.
We cost them nothing and could make them money, after all. But maybe looking good is more important and needs more attention than actually doing good.
Rgds, Peter Martin
ps: Shining a light on EDF's true role in joint supply-side issues
I was recently at a seminar at the Science Museum where one of my co-presenters was extolling the virtues of hemp as source of textiles, etc. In eco-terms it is even way ahead of bamboo for instance. However all our enthusiasm for the potential (myself included) was dampened slightly when the speaker was asked how we grew it at home... you know the rest.
Still if EDF does feel like making a contribution to global warming in synergistic areas, it may be worth looking at!"
Happily, others are still paying attention: No figure on M&S's green payback
To whom I felt moved to write (plus a ps on EDF snitching on pot growers):
"Thank you for your piece today, which will make a nice counterpiece in my blog to the mostly uncritical gush that has been accorded this announcement in other quarters.
It has not been my experience that anyone in marketing, especially retail, has not put a price, first, and as high as possible, on anything they do. This has to be a new one.
However, with this new found hue, maybe my little organisation, which does no more than offer free (with paid ads if they want to push something genuinely, planet-savingly, consumer-benefittingly green they sell or do - only not going 'carbon neutral' because, as you say, they should have done ages ago and it really only helps their own bottom line, PR and CSR at AGM time) opportunities for them to upload their product data for reuse and recycling info purposes (which one would have assumed a savvy marketer would see as a possible ADDITIONAL sales opportunity), as has such as ecover, maybe they may feel like getting back to us after 3 years trying to get through the minions, using such e-dm as our Folda-Holda.
We cost them nothing and could make them money, after all. But maybe looking good is more important and needs more attention than actually doing good.
Rgds, Peter Martin
ps: Shining a light on EDF's true role in joint supply-side issues
I was recently at a seminar at the Science Museum where one of my co-presenters was extolling the virtues of hemp as source of textiles, etc. In eco-terms it is even way ahead of bamboo for instance. However all our enthusiasm for the potential (myself included) was dampened slightly when the speaker was asked how we grew it at home... you know the rest.
Still if EDF does feel like making a contribution to global warming in synergistic areas, it may be worth looking at!"
Suits who, Aunty?
In my time I have had occasion to doubt, and take issue with the BBC's ability to remain objective. Or, more and more, the provision of free ads to those who may or may not deserve it. While one presume no money changes hands, one can only wonder what happens 'in kind' (I challenged a piece a while ago that devoted 30 minutes to cosmetic tourism, where a full crew had a week at one resort in South Africa showing little more than slappers having their t&a jobs to great acclaim, and doubtless ratings. No mention of any other options, or indeed the risks).
As it does cross into areas of enviro-concern (suit-miles, local trade, etc), I took issue (in the form of some questions) on its complaints/Newswatch site (which seems to have melded):
"I realise there is a continual fine line being walked in sharing items of consumer interest, but what is it, who sets it and who polices it?
Take this morning's Breakfast TV item on cheap suits.
While it could have been a legitimate piece on outsourcing, global trade, consumer demand and ethical practices, I felt it was little more than an ad for a one week store promo, for which the BBC happily provided free air time. I got the price, how long, where, and that they were machine washable. Even vox pops of impressed shoppers. At no stage were any of the other issues, or indeed alternatives mentioned more than in passing.
Some poor UK craftsperson's venue was used (at least in the slot I saw) to make the commercial, but at no stage was he offered an opinion on quality, etc.
Is my licence funding major supermarkets’ marketing now?
No wonder our retail industry is heading to out of town megamalls with such assistance."
As it does cross into areas of enviro-concern (suit-miles, local trade, etc), I took issue (in the form of some questions) on its complaints/Newswatch site (which seems to have melded):
"I realise there is a continual fine line being walked in sharing items of consumer interest, but what is it, who sets it and who polices it?
Take this morning's Breakfast TV item on cheap suits.
While it could have been a legitimate piece on outsourcing, global trade, consumer demand and ethical practices, I felt it was little more than an ad for a one week store promo, for which the BBC happily provided free air time. I got the price, how long, where, and that they were machine washable. Even vox pops of impressed shoppers. At no stage were any of the other issues, or indeed alternatives mentioned more than in passing.
Some poor UK craftsperson's venue was used (at least in the slot I saw) to make the commercial, but at no stage was he offered an opinion on quality, etc.
Is my licence funding major supermarkets’ marketing now?
No wonder our retail industry is heading to out of town megamalls with such assistance."
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Not just spin... this is M&Spin
And so the game of who is greener, quicker continues between the nation's retailers. I think I will reserve personal comment a wee while until I have had a chance to digest fully the slew of 'stuff' being issued, beyond saying that something is probably better than nothing. I just hope it is all sincere. Certainly it will be interesting to see what happens to the missive I will soon be sending - again - to senior management in these organisations. Maybe some gatekeeper minion will not pop it in the 'oo-er, too tricky' basket this time.
Here's a small round up of the last 24 hrs:
AP via Forbes: M&S Aims to Become Carbon-Neutral by '12
BBC - M&S Rose goes green in pursuit of profit
Indy - Take a close look at the produce on offer
Indy - slight fly in the ointment, though I thought they were in earlier with 'something' - Tesco follows M&S with climate change move
BBC Newsnight - Ethical Man
I merely note for now that aims are always good, if vague. As is 'much of'. And while there is some cautious welcome from commentators across business and eco-disciplines, there is also a fair bit of... warranted... eye brow twitch ready and waiting. A lot of this, like Tesco a while ago (and again, here) is merely housekeeping to boost internal profits. Not much of real value to the consumer. I also take the point about lumping ethical and eco together to get some rather murky mix of what is 'good'. The question is for whom?
Here's a small round up of the last 24 hrs:
AP via Forbes: M&S Aims to Become Carbon-Neutral by '12
BBC - M&S Rose goes green in pursuit of profit
Indy - Take a close look at the produce on offer
Indy - slight fly in the ointment, though I thought they were in earlier with 'something' - Tesco follows M&S with climate change move
BBC Newsnight - Ethical Man
I merely note for now that aims are always good, if vague. As is 'much of'. And while there is some cautious welcome from commentators across business and eco-disciplines, there is also a fair bit of... warranted... eye brow twitch ready and waiting. A lot of this, like Tesco a while ago (and again, here) is merely housekeeping to boost internal profits. Not much of real value to the consumer. I also take the point about lumping ethical and eco together to get some rather murky mix of what is 'good'. The question is for whom?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)