At least there's always someone worse off than you

OK, it has been a so-so week and today's fun and games with a few of our glorious media partners inspired that last, less-than-sunny rant.

So I have decide to share a bit of pure and simple fun.

Many will be aware of Dilbert, the iconic comic strip by Scott Adams which has been skewering with laser-accuracy and consummate wit the idiocies of corporate life and behaviour for years... lots of them. How each day he comes up with one that is both bang on and makes me laugh out loud is a wonderful mystery.

What many may not be aware of is you can have it delivered free to your desktop:

https://members.comics.com/members/registration/showDilbertLogin.do?aid=1

I guess his model is that you will be attracted by the associated merchandising, etc, but whatever it is I salute him, I thank him and I will help him any way I can. Like here.

Humour is the only way to stay on track in this crazy world.

Mystic Martin

Poor Emma. Today marks a full week since the last of our final installment of The TwelvE-ways of Christmas mailing, and having allowed enough time she was calling up the various journalistic recipients to make sure they simply had received them. That's 12 envelopes, 12 1st class stamps, 12 CD holders that all turn into calendars (well, except for £1.44's worth of 2sqcm paper - making this http://www.junkk.com/index.asp?parent_id=956&slevel=0z956 worth a visit - and some recycled/clable paper) and a Folda Holda that turns into a CD Tower.

But there had to be one joker in the pack. As I predicted in my Blog of Dec. 15: "Thing is, one part of the concept is to get noticed by hitting 'em 12 times with 12 sequential packs that assemble into a whole at the end, thus demo-ing the Junkk advocacy of loyalty-based ideas to reward folk as well the brands they stick with. Our one concern is whether we're going to cop it from some of the more 'T-huggable' (potential in those first four letters in future I feel) because we're 'wasting' resources with a multiple mailing. And it's true. We are being more wasteful than we could be. But that's the problem when it all gets finger-pointy; there'll always be a reason not to do something. So to do what you need to do, you just have to do what you hope is best, and accept some compromise is inevitable."

Yes, dear reader. To a girl who was only asking to confirm delivery, this environmental defender of the faith had to get on his high horse and, having been offended by the massive 'waste of resources' we'd subjected him to, moved on the preciousness of his time and thus, as a consequence, his consigning as not worthy of his attention anything that obviously has to be passed across a table in the required manner during a taxi-accessed, expenses-covered luncheon at The Ivy, or in a lobbyist-funded lap-dancing bar in Bangkok, having flown half-way around the world to hear a bunch of pols trade statistics with a bunch of eco-warriors.

This from a publication whose Sunday edition more often than not runs a series of specials when they could easily do it all in one, for the simple reason they want to keep us on the hook. And by virtue of having my address send me skip loads of 'we think you'd be interested in this' tat.

And, in the hushed tones of Yoda, there 'was one more'. For different reasons, but again we've had this one before.

She actually liked the site, but her paper 'was not going to run a free commercial for us!' For heaven's sake, we are free to the public, with a wealth of useful information, advice and opportunities to make a positive difference. Do we at least not warrant being brought to the attention of their readers?

And this from a medium that will commit acres to such pressing public concerns as a restaurant whose gimmick is they serve you in the dark (lower lighting bills I guess). But don't they charge for the meal? I rather think they do. And are Toyota giving their hybrids (I still can't figure the plural of Prius) away? The only difference in commercial model is we don't cost the public anything.

How I hate being right. What a bunch of hypocrites. Probably a good job it was not me on the line, as we may have got coverage for all the wrong reasons. But we need them more than they need us, so I won't name names... yet. But again I doubt they'll be reading this. If you ever do, you know who you are, and shame on you.

I rather think we'll quietly cut back our efforts at trying to engage with the anybody that thinks they stand a bit higher than the rest when it comes to the environment, especially when they set themselves up to speak for us, or to us, with such attitudes.

 

Blogged Down

Not my day with blogs.

Here's another experience of a niggle, and I truly hope our site
doesn't do the same thing to anyone, as it does seem prevalent
because we've had it a lot when signing up (or at least trying to) to
various newsletters, etc.

The irony is that this time I was trying to get on a blog networking
site. Again free, so it's hard to be too grumpy.

But of course it had a registration, and of course there was a
requirement for a username in addition to email, passwords, etc.

Fair enough.

But I have a very unique user name, so having got to the end of the
form it was not happy bunny time to have the whole thing go back to
square one because: 'User name already exists'. Pretty unlikely, but
possible.

So I tried again. Only this time the same thing happened because:
'email already exists'. I don't think so! I suspect it had logged my
previous attempt, but now I couldn't apply with my own email address.

With luck they will sort it out as there was a contact form, but...
sheesh. As I say, if we do it to you on junkk.com... sorry!

It reminds me of a time I had an online account with BT that required
a password, and it kept rejecting all my attempts, no matter how
obscure and how much I jumbled the letters and numbers up.

Eventually one worked. But I was well narked by then. So imagine my
embarrassment at a later date when I was discussing the account with
a very nice telephone support lady who asked for confirmation of my
password, which was: BTsuxbigtime4wastingmine. Fortunately, she
thought it was funny.

Stop press!

The previous one was sent in by email, but I'm adding this subsequently via blogger using Firefox. Hope it works!

No sooner had I sent this blog off than I got a confirmation from the site I was now subscribed. Go figure. This has happened before, with an error or failure message actually itself being in error. Trouble is this often results in repeat attempts and all sorts of fun creating duplicate entries without realising it.

Oh, and I also got a very nice email from the admin guys syaing they had got my feedback and would respond shortly. Hope they won't think I'm a nutter!

The importance of being Martin

As a Martin, I am always drawn to anyone who shares my name. I actually get two cracks at it, because it is my surname, though of course there are many for whom it is their first name.

One such is a chap called Martin Lewis. He runs a website called Money Saving Expert http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/, and perhaps as a consequence of this (or it may have been the other way around) is a regular feature on a variety of broadcast outlets, such as Radio 2. He is very popular, and very successful (probably as a consequence of the former). 

No wonder. He offers a lot of very useful free, money saving advice. I have to say that I find his weekly email newsletter a chore to read in layout terms, and the site is if anything even more difficult to get grips with (don't get me started on trying to figure out the Forum pages, let alone participate), but an audience of several hundred thousand is not something to be sniffed at, and he is to be applauded for attracting, and helping, so many.

Without him, I would not have found out this week about PetrolPrices.com http://www.petrolprices.com/ , which does just what it says on the tin. Got me to the cheapest fuel in may area right away. I also liked the fact that they did have a lot of additional extra info that are of relevance to our mission, so I have written to see if we can hook up.

Martin is another one we wrote to to do the same, and invested one of our TwelvE-ways of Xmas packs to do so. But by golly he has some firewalls and gatekeepers in the way, so I am hoping our message will get through.

Blog (below) standard

Writing this on a website that provides neat, free stuff makes it a
bit rich for me to grumble about another similar entity, but the
blogger I/we use for this very blog can be very frustrating at times.

When it works, it's great. But when it doesn't, it is hair-tearing
out time. And at the moment that's proving almost daily.

For one thing, it seems to be totally schizophrenic depending on
which browser I use, be it for reading or uploading. IE, Firefox,
Safari, Mozilla... all produce a different result, and seldom the
same one twice.

Sometimes I can edit, check spellings, play with type, add a picture
or insert a URL, and sometimes I can't. Often the feature to do it
isn't even there, or on other occasions it is, but doesn't work.

For this reason I started using the email upload feature, whereby you
create the blog as an email and 'send' it off to be published. This
has worked reasonably well, and at least enables hyperlinks, but you
still need to go back via a browser to add pictures. One frustration
is that if I create in Word (to check spellings), and then import as
an email, what uploads to the blog can be a real mess.

But lately even this is playing up, with typefaces bouncing around in
size and shape like yoyos. Often they appear off the blog format
screen. And when I try to correct them via the admin section, I end
up with a screed of code that is impossible to decipher. And the
latest quirk is sending it off only to find it never gets there. So
one day three will doubtless appear at once.

The long and short of it is that until I can bring this blog 'in-
house' (meaning money we don't have to spare), please bear with any
oddments that we can't sort our end. Including things like sloppy
spelling. I can see them, but I can't sort them out.

I wouldn't mind, but 'they' do have a help desk, and I have tried to
use it to resolve this, but no one has yet answered. As anyone using
Junkk.com knows, we do try and answer with issues on the site, and as
quickly as possible. So I can't figure why you'd have such a feature
and then not live up to it.

Now, let's see how this comes out onscreen. Fingers crossed!

A million housewives every day...

...knock back the bubbly, way hey!

Apparently, Sainsbury's sold more bottles of champagne than tins of
Heinz baked beans over Christmas.

The rest of the article goes on about all sorts of marketing and
affluence-related issues.

But I just can't get the fact that booze outsells a family food
staple out of my mind.

If you buy into some woods today, you're in for a big surprise

Let's start with some good news. It seems that to my growing list of enlightened media (with the exception of The Economist, who have just announced their updates are going paid subscription. Boo) giving at least some measure (extent and/or duration of access tba) of free access to information I can add the Guardian. At least I can now add a new political and social balance to those news feeds I have traditionally had access to (Telegraph, Times) and used (mainly by virtue of being delivering daily to my desktop, free... and with archive access), and whose news and opinions have doubtless shaped, if not influenced, some of my factual knowledge base... and possibly opinions. 

Now it kinda goes downhill from here. The Guardian is not what you call enviro-sceptic (no op-ed's from Jeremy Clarkson I'd hazard, though I'd bet a small nuclear plant he has something to say about the following within the week), so the front page I saw in the newsagents this morning stopped me dead.

Anyway, I came straight to the net to read more, and was greeted by this e-version, which was equally striking:

Global warming: blame the forests 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1684379,00.html

as it goes on to share, in what they deem a startling discovery, living plants may (let's cling on to that word for now) emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth's atmosphere. And methane is not helpful, warming-wise.

In what I'd say was masterful understatement, they go on to opine that it will also intensify debates (ya think??! I am braced for a reaction from 'interested parties' which will make the reaction to the Beeb's landfill expose look tame) on whether targets in climate change treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol should be based entirely on carbon emissions.

In an associated very interesting fact, bearing in mind my target-based systems phobia, is that suits like these  because, surprise, surprise - they are easily measured. Taking sinks into account is less popular, even though they remove carbon from the atmosphere. But they are more difficult to measure. So.. it may be wrong, but at least it gives us an easy result. Nice career if you can get it.

Before your break out the chainsaw, the report doesn't see planting forests as a bad idea, thank heavens, though that seems at odds with the headline to me. Author Dr. Mahli at least feels that "Putting a tree where there was no tree before locks up a lot of carbon and this [new research] perhaps reduces the overall benefit of that by a fraction". Phew.

However, on balance I must to confess to a having felt a bit of smug 'toldyerzoism' momentarily, but for all the wrong reasons. I just have a major niggle about the culture of keeping on doing stuff and buying off the guilt by whacking a tree in the ground to compensate. It seemed/s the wrong way to tackle things, sending a compromised message, and looking all too easy to fall into the hands of every shyster around trying to play it for what they can get. 

But I have alwasy felt that greenery.. was good. And I'll take some convincing I need to cut down my back garden and turn it into a forecourt. But John Prescott must be thinking the rapture has come, so look out Sussex!

Anyway, this blog is more often than not a way to see Junkk.com policy getting shaped, and this is a case in point.

On balance, we'll stick with reading stuff, sharing what we think is for real and valid, and let you decide. It isn't exactly the purest journalism (we don't, yet, have the budget to maintain 'Our Man In Havant'), but then I don't think very much of what the mainstream reports is either these days. We all see an item, maybe follow up, ask a few questions (but often not), and then whack it up there and see what happens to the ratings. 

At least this report was by a team from the Max Plank Institute (supported by an expert from Oxford University), published in Nature and picked up by various news organisations, including the Guardian, and thence via me to you here. And that's not a bad provenance chain, at least for the facts. I'm not quite so sure about the interpretations and/or reactions.

However, at least we will keep on sharing such stuff with a sprinkling of eye-twitch, a hint of 'is this really the case?', and wherever possible with a counter view to put beside it. But I do think we're going to play down our focus on the information side of such issues, at least in areas such as climate change. For one, a lot of other, bigger guys are already doing it. And frankly, it's just getting us in a spin, so I can only imagine what it's doing for those with less chance to collate and review the various resources daily. First something is good, then its bad. Where the heck does that leave you to do for the best?

But mainly I think we'll focus a tad more on doing what we are desingned to do best, and I know can only help: which is try to reduce waste and promote efficiencies through end-benefit driven ideas, information in a form the general public can engage with and respond to, along with support and, where possible, associated rewards of saved time, effort and money. Sound like a plan?

Computer says Woah!

With our reporting of news kicking into a higher gear now, and our Forums getting equally active, I am especially sensitive to the fast-evolving nature of story-gathering via the internet, both active and passive, along with the opportunities and problems presented by being open to contributions from individuals and organisations alike, whose provenance we are not always in a position to fully assess.

With the ramifications of the Wikipedia affair (previous blog(s)) still fresh in my mind, I therefore read with interest an opinion piece in a recent Sunday Times entitled "Still a place for marshals on the wild web's frontiers', authored by Barry Collins:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1964662,00.html

Starting with the potential problems presented by citizen journalists who can spark serious public unrest with irresponsible, if not plain inaccurate reporting, he goes on to raise the much more (and all things considered, this really is serious) worrying fact that the BBC has begun to remove the human “moderators” who filter comments by contributors to its website forums. Of course, I am sort of proving a few points here by assuming this to be true simply because it was in the Sunday Times, but I don't think my sharing this will result in riots, so I'll press on.

Apparently, instead of such moderators, Auntie has computer software primed to weed out obscenities and libelous comments is being tested during allegedly “noncontroversial” debates, with plans to extend it further. According to Pete Clifton, head of interactive news at the BBC, “We can trust our audience.” 

I am afraid I must share Barry's doubts on this, with a bit of an 'err, no'.

Even in the relatively uncontroversial world of Junkk.com's Forum, passions can run high. You need a human to keep things on track. And it's also hard to appeal to a computer to rectify things when matters of fact or opinion stray from what is true or acceptable. 

There is by all accounts a code of conduct being drafted by the National Union of Jounalists, and we will try and aquire this and obvioulsy abide by it. 

But frankly we think common sense and a practical appreciation of sound ethics should suffice.

Transports of delight?

A few weeks ago the Sunday Times carried an article by Michael Plain, President of Transport 2000, entitled 'The world tells us to take the train' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1964924,00.html (testing it just now the link still works, which was a pleasant surprise. I thought one only had a week's grace, so big up to the Times).

Now I admire anyone who is prepared to put their head above the parapet, but do confess an inherent bias against anyone who tells me to do anything (especially when they piggy back a bunch of other folk to add further weight to their views. A a quick tangent veer, this is why it really grates getting 'I have a mandate from the people' from pols who scrape through an election with a pathetic percentage of an apathetic turnout).

So I must confess my first thought was 'then how come you and your crew spend a lot of time whizzing about in all sorts of other, perhaps less environmentally-sound, methods of travel' when you are doing your job?'. 

The answer of course is, and he does admit it, because the job demands it. I can just see some City slicker telling the accounts dept. he's off on a meeting to Hong Kong by train, which will take about 3 weeks and cost a small fortune over and above his executive time. Or, for that matter, me getting us to our next meeting in Telford without driving (at least we swing by Emma's to pick her up en route).

So I'd say it's worth a read. There are some good points he makes, whilst acknowledging that there is no short cut or no magic solution to the problems of increasing car (no mention of planes, at least here) use across the world. 

I especially appreciated the following: "Improved transport is to most people part of an improved quality of life. Mobility helps people to find better work and better living conditions. It keeps families in touch. It helps in the creation of better facilities such as schools, houses and workplaces." Though I think a lot of rich media types in London often forget that this applies to many in the UK when spouting off about what we should stop doing.

But he rightly points out, as have I, that the problem is 'we' like to travel. He doesn't go into the fact that there are too darn many of 'us', with lots more to come, and so there'll be a lot more traveling in the offing. And it's in some of the areas with mega-populations this expectation is going to involve and upgrade to internal combustion-based methods. I fear this will make any efforts on our part pale in comparison, but that's no excuse for inaction, and we need to lead by example. Just... no deckchairs on the Titanic, please.

His piece is thoughtful, and balanced, but mainly a big list of problems (a failing I will admit to sharing, as I can offer few on this topic). I'm sure it is a pity that sheep herders used to walk two days to watch a polo match, but now use trucks. Who can blame them? That's two days not earning, so they now have a way to make a crust and have some fun.

But he does go on to suggest some solutions, which does keep me on side, though I may have some questions about the practical realities of their application vs. the ideals suggested. For instance, bearing in mind the lead about trains, we in Ross can only wonder what it was like when they used to come through here. I'm afraid that all the major centre to major centre links in the world will make no difference if, once you get there, you are stuffed getting to the place you actually want to be in a decent time and for a decent price.

That may be less of a concern for the likes of Michael, who concludes by casting doubt (probably correctly) on the corrective positive effects of market forces alone, and also reassures us that he will "continue to make travel programmes, secure in the knowledge that the terrible conditions he are experiencing are doing more than any government could to persuade people to stay at home". Er, right.

Anyway, check out the full text (especially if the link goes down) on the Transport 2000 site: http://www.transport2000.org.uk/

It's all part of the debate, and I did find the reader's forum exchanges worthwhile. But I have to say I thought the Editor's blog revealed a certain bias that to me compomises the tone I liked in Michael's article.

It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it

I may have to reinstate that Newsweek sub; it has proven a rich seam. 

I hadn't noticed before, but inside the front cover there's an ad from Chevron (strapline 'Human Energy'), headlined 'The World consumes two barrels of oil for every barrel discovered', and then poses the question: 'So is this something you should be worried about?'.

I have to say my first thought was that I'm a tad more worried the world is still rushing around devoting so much effort finding more of the stuff that is causing global warming, and not leaving it where it can do no more harm. 

But while reading on (who the heck reads body copy anyway?) they do sort of acknowledge the environmental side of things, though there's also still a fair bit on finding and burning the stuff as well. It's the economy, stupid!

Ho Hum. Anyway, they have a website where you can go to join in the discussion. Maybe I will.

http://www.willyoujoinus.com

 

Meanwhile, I read something interesting about our own homegrown biofuels as worthy alternatives, under the heading 'Energy expert says crops seen inefficient as biofuel'

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=10761464&src=eDialog/GetContent

Seems Lord Oxburgh, a former Shell Chairman, reckons waste products make a better biofuel than traditional British crops such as rapeseed and grain because of the energy it takes to grow them.

He made a few other interesting points, not least that the US is using maize for their efforts, which is the least efficient bio crop of the lot. No change there then. Hummm..er.

A stitch in time saves... a heck of a lot

I'm going to miss Newsweek. It provided a valuable insight into at
least what one section of another culture thinks about world events.
Sadly, it is the latest victim of our cost cutting measures, and
subscriptions are high on the 'but do we really need them?' list.
Well I suppose I could argue yes, as it, or at least its content
inspired this blog, which in turn filled some space on Junkk.com and
maybe even gave a person who reads it a reason to return. Hmmn. Tough
call.

Anyway, the story that inspired me was the fallout, if I can call it
that, from Mr. Sharon being struck down. What got me was how
everyone, from the rabbi next door in downtown Tel Aviv to the US
sate Department, were running around like headless chickens.
Derailing the peace process and lord knows what else being bandied
about amongst the wailing and moaning, with earnest Middle East hacks
looking to camera and sharing the shock of the moment.

For crying out loud. The guy was almost 80 and more than a few kilos
above the ideal. You might also suspect that his lifestyle may on
occasion have been a tad stressful. Did no one have a contingency in
mind for when (I'm pretty sure death still ranks as a sure bet, along
with taxes) this happened?

I'm starting to wonder. There used to be a sense that folk much
smarter than we were figuring out all sorts of 'what ifs' and putting
in place all the necessary 'what we do is's', and doing it with
decades in hand to plan and prepare. Now I'm not so sure. It seems
like we're seeing 'just in time' government in much the same way as
just in tin time car assembly, with all the ability to cope when part
of the chain breaks. And it's all for the same reasons, to save a
penny now and let someone else's career deal with the consequences.

I am not encouraged.

ps: In the same edition there was a feature, not exactly critical, on
how Scooters (you know, the kind battery-powered jobs that
predominantly senior folk race around shopping centres) have evolved
from medical need to lifestyle choice are now the new walking in the
US. As Charlie Brown would say: 'Good Grief!'.

Hitting the target gets tricky when there isn't one

I have used this blog before to express a certain... frustration... with the fact that, in getting our message across to potential business partners, it's not so much a problem what the message is, or when and how it is sent, but to whom it could and should be directed.

Only last week OLOV (Our Ladies Of Vision) sat us down and asked when was the last time we actually told our potential paying clients (big eco-aware brands, at least to start) what we're up to.

On hearing that we'd kind of busied ourselves in more fun, creative areas they kicked us in the financially most sensitive part of our pants and set us a short-term focussed task directed, much as with the Xmas major media campaign (results pending... fingers crossed) directed at six of the most promising brands across various target categories (fmcg, transport, energy, etc), plus their relevant support suppliers (ad & PR agencies, etc).

It's quite a task, but we have the bit between our teeth and are on the case of the 10-15 most relevant folk we believe can see the value of Junkk.com in complementing their efforts to reach and profit from selling to the consumer.

No one said it would be easy, but by golly these brands themselves do make it hard. We've lost count of the number of times our best laid plans get an unwelcome shock to the programme.

For instance,  one high on our list was of course Honda, being just down the road and with a major commitment to the cause. We don't know the reasons behind it all, but:

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/534617/simon-thompson-set-leave-top-honda-uk-role/

Even if the link doesn't work, the end part of the URL above kinda shows our dilemma. 

Simon was the Marketing Director. So I guess we'll be putting them on the back-burner for a while.

Or... maybe I'll drop him a line. We could do with a innovative top-line MD at Junkk.com. There is the small matter of salary, but if he's reviewing his options for a while, maybe a bit of still-on-salary gardening leave saving the planet may appeal?

Anyone got his number?

Customer Care

In the course of our research, we have signed up to literally hundreds of email newsletters. Most are of continual use, even when they come in daily, and we do make the effort to scope them out for those nuggets we can use and pass on with the site. These include specialist enviro/re:sites, news, some (but not all) marketing and IT-related ones.

Many, however, a re just a whopping great yawn, and simply fill up my in-box until I send them to my 'pending box', which I then usually purge unread each month. And almost all are to do with business. Big business. Small business. Start-up business. How tos. My Guide tos. 

It's a shame, because there are a few nuggets still to be had, which Business Bricks  http://www.businessbricks.co.uk/ and a few others I do read (though in posting that link to BB I did get reminded that his going to a 'come2mysite' vs. 'postaneletter2u' model is not working at keeping me in touch with him as it used to; a lesson to learn for Junkk.com and our proposed newsletters soon) will pretty much catch. 

Anyway, the reason is that they are all starting to sound the same and rehash the same old stuff. If you don't know it by now; you never will.

Which brings me to my blog. One of the truest maxims you will read is that the customer who cares enough to complain is the most valuable of all, and should be treated as such.

We are lucky to have such folk who use Junkk.com, but think it could be better. And then take the time to write and say so. 

For now I am flattered and pleased that there are more and more of them. Because, if we agree with them, it is no major effort on our part to respond; not just with a reply, but also by making the necessary changes. And with luck, as time goes by we'll see the proportion evolve more from problems that need solving to enhancements or additions that can be made.

Keep 'em coming, guys! And thank you.

You win some; you don't win some

Usually when we don't get something there is much stamping of feet and throwing of toys out of prams; I don't take rejection well. I also don't like missing out on a no-strings forty grand, which would have got us a lot further in our mission.

As you may recall (see a previous blog), we applied for some funding via the Shell Springboard initiative.

Well, ho-hum, we didn't make the shortlist. And it's hard not to be disappointed. But they were just so gosh-darned nice about it, and on top of the fact it was free to enter, with a really easy entry form and all, I really can't do much more than shrug and put it down to experience.

And I really recommend any out there who may be eligible to give it a go next time. As they wrote to us:

"We do hope that you will continue to follow this first, pilot year of the Shell Springboard fund and perhaps respond to future requests for entries.  Your application remains confidential and will be disposed of securely after the first winners have been announced.  Therefore, should you wish to enter in the future, the independent assessors will have no record of your previous application.

Updates will be available on the Shell Springboard website where you can also subscribe to our mailing list and find links to other funding sources that may be of help to you."

I think we will. And we'll pop it on the website under funding or whatever category we have for such info.

The only frustration is that we can't find out why we made the cut, which makes it hard to do better next time. My only fear is the 'widget from Wigan' factor, where such monies ALWAYS seem to go to tangible 'things', where we are just a little too virtual for judges to get their heads around. 

They do seem to like an invention they can see getting designed, prototyped, made and sold for a tad more than it costs to make.

So, as I told them we will, we'll be monitoring those who did apply and get featured, and happily put their stuff on our site if it falls in our re:mit.

Least we can do.

Here they are so far:

http://www.shellspringboard.org/?c=4

Man and machine

The tragic deaths of the cycling group at the weekend brought into
sharp focus for me the conflicting dilemmas of being caring parents,
letting one's kids roam free, engaging with environmental desires and
plain practical issues.

When I was my boys' age, 40 years ago, I went everywhere by bike, and
on my own. Today I would not let them near the road yet, and when
(if) we do as they get older, it will be with a parent at either end
and all the various protections imaginable, from helmets to
reflective gear, etc.

Not that this would have made a whit of difference in this case.
Likewise a few weeks ago, when I dropped them off at a remote pub for
a night hike with their Cub lodge. 20-odd kids and several leaders,
all with head lamps (literally) and bright yellow jackets, walking a
few miles mostly over farm land but also on the roads. I was not
awaiting their return at ease, having driven back and seen various
folk hurtling, legally, at 60mph down single lane A & B country roads
in the pitch black, vision good to the throw of of their headlights,
which of course do not travel round corners. And reflective jackets
don't generate light forwards as do oncoming cars.

It's a similar story in more urban settings. The stories I read of
cycling in the city do not make for happy reading.

And I'm afraid to say that, no matter what the system of power (even
if only distilled water exits the pipe), without a force field around
the bike, if a vehicle has mass and exceeds walking pace, in this day
and age I don't see how the two can safely coexist in the same zone.

Which means the car rules. Unless we can find a way of bring its
speed to a safe level remotely in the presence of such other traffic.
And that of course ignores the fact that pavements can be, and
sometimes are, mounted.

Our thirst for travel in vehicles has all but crushed our right to do
the same under our own steam.

Every little bit helps

Something topical as we approach 12th night.

Last night a TV commercial from Tesco caught my eye. At first it
seemed like a 'do the right thing' ra-ra bit of greenwashing with
some stats about the environmental costs of Christmas cards and how
they (Tesco) are doing their bit for trees and stuff. So far, so...
what.

I still have my doubts as to how powerful an incentive there is for
anyone to remember to stick the cards in the bag to drop off on their
next supermarket visit. However, it is Friday, which means good
timing for the weekend shopping, and it is most certainly pushing my
BTN (better than nothing) button.

But the bit that did catch my eye was at the end. Not sure if I
caught it properly, but this was where they seemed to be saying that
the cards collected were turned into budget toilet tissue.

In addition to liking the fact that there is clear evidence of
provenance at work (just collecting cards separately to throw in a
paper skip doesn't make much sense when I can just drop them in my
kerbside recycling collection bin to do the same thing without a trip
to the shops), it also suggest a clear incentive opportunity surely?
Bring in Xkg/some number/any cards, and get a money off coupon for
the very toilet tissue you are going towards producing.

That to me is linking the environment, the manufacturer, the retailer
and the consumer together in a mutually win-win scenario that makes
no demands on the public purse.

Re:wards 4 re:use. How very... Junkk.com.

Pushing my BTNN's

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:

 H J Heinz, Northern Foods, Geest Mariner Foods and International Food Partners (IFP) are among those granted UK public funds yesterday to develop less wasteful packaging.

The current tranche of about £500,000 (€728,000) in funding from government's Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is meant to encourage food and packaging companies to invest in more environmentally friendly containers for their products.

WRAP announced grants yesterday for seven projects to reduce household packaging and food waste from an £8 million fund directed at sparking innovation by companies.

Launched in November 2004, WRAP's innovation fund aims to reduce the amount of household food and packaging waste originating from the retail sector and ends up in the household bin. The new contracts announced yesterday take the number of projects to seventeen, with a combined investment of about £2 million.

WRAP's research indicates that 40 per cent of the contents of the average household bin originates from supermarket shelves. WRAP has set targets to reduce such waste by 310,000 tonnes through the fund.

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.

Yes, Junkk.com will run ads, for sure

Further to my last blog, and confusing me at least a lot further, under the headline 'Founder: No, Wikipedia Won't Run Ads... Probably' ClickZ writes to condradict last week's news report in Times Online. Apparently Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said he was misquoted and has no plans to introduce advertising on the Wikipedia site.

 "There are no plans of any kind, no announcement, no change in stance," he told them. "What I said is something I've been saying for five years. We don't believe we need advertising in order to survive. My view currently is that we're much better off without the advertising. It's better for our mission. It's better for our fundraising."

However, they go on to point out that Mr. Wales did hedge: "The question is going to arise as to whether we could better pursue our charitable mission with the additional money" that ads would bring, he said. "We have never said there would absolutely never be ads on Wikipedia."

Er... ok, then.

Just so it's quite clear: Junkk.com will run ads. We need the money. Bring 'em on! 

New year's resolutions

Back to work. And as it is traditional, let me make some resolutions:

* Exercise more & eat less.. All work and no play makes Peter an unhealthy boy. I also note that I do not have my best ideas sitting in front of the screen or in the office. However, as I am there most of the time:

* Do the day's filing every night

* Share one or more invaluable snippets of news or information daily (36 in a year? A snip!).

* Generate at least one good new idea every week

* Start making a profit. 

In that last noble aim, I am inspired by a piece today about Wikipedia. It's fairly obvious, but I had not until now appreciated that it was non-profit, with all that implies (good.. and groan-making). 

Founder Jimmy Wales has indicated that "at some point questions are going to be raised over the amount of money we are turning down." That's an odd way of putting it, but then that's why I groan when I see the words 'non-profit making'. They carry baggage that just doesn't seem worth the chest-beating. Do a good job. Don't charge. Make money from those who can afford it to keep on doing the good job.

But, it seems likely that ads would meet with disapproval from the volunteers who create entries. We've seen this before, perhaps a bit closer to home, with such as Freecycle. Someone has a great idea, they put a lot of effort, blood, sweat, tears and money into creating it, and doubtless a ton more into getting it out there. And then, just as it's doing something really amazing in the public domain, they hit the small matter of affording to keep on doing it. And having set out as one thing, there is a messy period trying to become another.

As some even more inspirational facts, Wikipedia now receives around 2.5 billion page views per month, with traffic doubling every four months. According to Nielsen/Netratings, it was the ninth-fastest-growing website in 2005. That's a spicya meatballs! 

It's also why we have never set ourselves out to be anything more or less than a commercially-based site. But why not? It is entirely possible to provide information and entertainment in an independent and objective manner with advertising. Why do folk get so excited when a website suggests it when they don't give it a second thought when they swith of the TV or radio, or open their morning paper?

1 - TEMPLATES

COMPETITION

WHEN:
WHAT:
WHAT... MORE?:
HOW MUCH:
URL:
COMMENTS: