The 'F-word'

Life can be hectic - and stressful - at Junkk Towers, so that word is
heard a lot. And it is invariably directed at me:

'Focus!!!!!'

Of course, it is easier to say than to do, especially when there is
just soooooo much neat stuff to investigate, create... and share.

Also some recent events have contributed significantly to complicating
matters. Many good. Some perhaps less so. In fact I'm beginning to hate
my 'ra-ra' maxim that problems are merely opportunities that have only
just presented themselves, for solutions that simply await discovery.
No, mostly they are stuff I could do without and wish would go away.

On the up side, our Chiefs of Stuff and Prose and Comms headed off
recently to forge some worthy alliances. This seemed to show that when
I'm not around things work out a lot better, and the logical
extrapolation of that is... I should stay in my shed. So off I go.

Also our launch roll-out is 'imminent'. And our marketing agency is
getting serious interest all around, from schools, unis, councils.. you
name it. All, so far, except the number of sponsors we'd hoped for at
this stage. The very people with the most to gain are the ones who are
dragging their feet. And worse, we can't seem to get a handle of what
is inducing such lethargy. If we know we'd address it... if we could.

So rather than beat ourselves up on unfathomable issues, we're just
going to go and concentrate where we feel most comfortable. No more
worrying about corporate decision chains for now; we're targeting real
people, not targets.

We've built it, and we're going to devote our efforts to seeing if we
can make the people come.

Hence our focus is going to be on our core message and site function:
re:use. And we're devoting our efforts to getting this out, via our
roadshows, PR, etc, in the hope of getting the public enthused, and
onboard. And if the everyday folk back us, the media will take note.
And if the public and the media back us, then we figure that eventually
we'll get the corporate and commercial support we've been seeking.

And if we don't? Even if all else fails, the site is unique, it's
there, it's WYSIWYG, it's free and it can be used by one and all for
common good. It can, and will grow, no matter what.

That's a heck of a legacy already.

Lessons from New Orleans?

Here's my simplistic view of the whole planetary environmental problem.

There are now a lot of us.
Some of us can afford to buy stuff we don't need.
And we all like to travel a lot if we can.

Addressing even one of those issues effectively is political dynamite
no current statesperson I can think of, or even group of same, is/are
capable of, much less articulating, at least not at the same time as
staying elected.

Especially because of how things now get shared and perceived, thanks
to our being connected in a communications sense in ever more immediate
and intimate ways, which are not always helpful in getting considered,
balanced views. The stampede of hype and its thirst for short-termism
can trample any slowly developing shoot that needs time to adapt and
grow.

All topics for another time. But for now let me concentrate on New
Orleans.

A week or more on from Katrina, there seem to be many - in most cases
justified - angry questions raised and passions roused, but also a few
opportunistic camps being staked out that are getting in the way of
looking at this as objectively as I'd like.

'Maybe Bush will address global warming now'. 'The world's superpower
reduced to a 3rd world nation'. ‘It’s all the fault of school Moms’.

Responsibility for actions and (lack of) reactions maybe topics for yet
more blogs, for sure, but the main issue here seems to be that a vast
area was flattened or flooded, and more critically a modern city of
millions of souls was built below sea level, and the barrier designed
to keep it all out was designed to withstand a force a few notches down
from what can, and did, eventually happen. And this despite a lot of
warning, for instance...

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

D'oh.

But has there never been a category 5 hurricane before? Or is this just
the first time it came ashore where a whole bunch of people were
concentrated? It's a numbers game that can obscure what is actually the
problem and how best to solve it.

There seems no doubt that there is some nasty stuff brewing around the
planet, and 'we' are likely responsible for a significant percentage of
it and almost certainly making things worse, though I'm still trying to
get a handle on how much.

Unless the bigger issues in the mix get prioritised first, much that
grabs the headlines seems a tad like worrying about whether the
deckchairs on the Titanic were made from recycled cans and fairtrade
cotton (PC-alert! That's just making a glib point. Junkk.com’s efforts
at encouraging reuse are much less in the great scheme of things,
though we all become cumulatively significant).

And just like all the other positive-intentioned, proactive guys out
there, at Junkk.com we'll continue doing our little thing, because
that's all we can do. It’s also possible that beyond our inherent
usefulness to users, maybe we will have value beyond our service in the
future, when we have an audience who can be motivated to respond and
are significant enough be listened to. At the end of the day, it is the
actions of individuals which will count.

But for now, to those in power, activism and the media, I have one
thing to suggest:

'Focus, people... focus!

Don't look for the soft or symbolic targets; the easy victories. Ignore
the lobbyists from greedy corporations, and at other extremes those
eco-pressure groups with their own agendas. And don't pander to the
media's desire for ratings-rich stories. Now is the time to concentrate
on the big stuff.

All we need to do is prioritise what that is. Peat burning in
Indonesia? Air travel? Carbon-based power generation vs. nuclear?
Amazon logging? Please let's address them in sequence… pronto.

What's in a word?

I DEMAND that you read this. Not keen?

How about I ASK you to do so? Better?

Actually, I'd say I do neither. I write it, and you're welcome to read
it, but by inference I'd say I'm closer to inviting you than requiring
you to read, for free, and with no pressure, what I feel like sharing.

So I was a bit perturbed by the tone and words adopted by a BBC online
programme today, regarding anonymous surfing. It surrounded the age-old
debates about what a site can and should ask of its potential users.
It's public domain, so here is the URL to the online article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4207778.stm

I guess it was as balanced as any piece of journalism can be (they who
control the medium control the message, a fact is a objective as the
editor who oversees its inclusion... or not, and the writer’s choice of
adjective immediately confers a certain subjectivity to any sentence)
but I raised my eyebrow at some of what was written:

"We are not necessarily buying at these sites, and they do not charge a subscription, but they still demand we register our details before we take a good look around"

"They might want an e-mail address from you in order to send you the information you need in order to get onto the site; that's often quite a sneaky way of getting information out of you."

As this goes to the core of what Junkk.com is trying to do it hit home.
So as there was a request for feedback, I gave it. And in case it gets
consigned to BBC cyber-ether, here it is (aren’t blogs great!):

[Junkk.com] do not DEMAND details; to operate effectively we simply
need to ASK for them. It is an important distinction in terminology
worth making. The option exists to do some things without them, but to
use most of the site we do need them.

Why? Well for a start we have a localisation facility, and it's pretty
hard to tell you what's happening in your area if we don't know where
it is. To avoid any concerns about snail junk mail, we just ask for the
first block of the postcode to get a rough geographic area.

Other than that, we ask a name so we can greet in person on the next
visit, and an email address.

We need the latter because we invite uploads of information that can,
sadly, be abused. Hence our asking for terms and conditions to be
accepted, to focus minds on responsibilities and protect those taking
part for genuine reasons from those who may do so for those that are
less so.

Again questioning matters of terminology used, it is hard to see how
adopting a system to make sure you are who you say you are (at least
briefly) and are accountable for what you say or suggest is ‘sneaky’.

We are debating a few other requests, such as an age, primarily to try
and tune content more appropriately on subsequent visits. Doesn't it
make sense to deliver information to our different viewers in ways they
would enjoy and value more? And so what if the ads are complementary?

It seems odd that where money is involved there is less concern. eBay
is doing ok. And no one seems very worried about the ads in their
newspaper, or the commercials on their TV. How else does anyone imagine
one funds a free-to-user website? It’s not like we have a licence fee.
A few bits of personal information that are hardly intimate seem a
small price to pay. My spam filter deals with pretty much all unwanted
ads these days, and I can set it to accept newsletters that have
further information I do want.

At the end of the day, one just has to ask whether the value of what
you are getting, for free, outweighs the… er... what were the downsides
again?...

It should simply a matter of choice. But one wonders how long it will
be before minority agitation, legislation and fines follow (and not
necessarily in that order), and we end up all the poorer as a result.

I simply cannot understand the acres of scaremongering that gets
committed to putting off those less experienced on matters nettly and
emaily from enjoying the vast resources on offer. It simply falls into
the hands of those who seek more control by constraining those who seek
to offer as much as possible for free.

We'll do all in our power to make you want to use Junkk.com, and as
easy as possible to so. If there's an issue that's causing a problem,
tell us, and we'll change it if we can. But if, despite all our
efforts, you don't want to be part, then we're sorry not to have been
able to share all we'd like with you and sadly bid you a fond farewell.

Plus there’s always the ‘unsubscribe button or the 'delete' key.

Fin.

Neros 'R Us

We're pretty powerless against Mother Nature. New Orleans shows that.

When it comes to pollution, she's got some of the nastiest, smelliest,
global warmingest ways imaginable in her repertoire.

And as one looks at a contrail etch across the sky it's hard to imagine
how that, and the daily thousands more like it, stack up when the
planetary engine kicks over and the exhaust vents itself out of a Mt
St. Helens or Pinatubo.

There's not much that can be done about such events, especially on this
scale, because we have no control over them.

But we do over our own actions.

So I simply share the following from the news today, quoted from the
Royal Geographical Society's annual international conference in London:
'Burning peat bogs set alight by rainforest clearance in Indonesia are
releasing up to a seventh of the world's total fossil fuel emissions in
a single year'.

One seventh. 14%.

Now I'm sure there'll be some debate, and another bunch of experts who
will pop up to make a counter-assessment, but the RGS seem like a
pretty well informed bunch to me. So I'll go with these facts.

As you know, my greatest concern in the whole planet-saving debate is
global warming, and in turn that seems to be tracing back to greenhouse
gasses.

So anything that tackles these emissions gets my full attention. And I
really rather hope it will attract those others who profess to share my
concerns so that they commit as much effort to this... seventh... as
they do to the [how much?] popping out of the back of a Fiat Panda 4x4.

In saying this of course I do not advocate we do not still address all
other areas of man-created pollution and waste, as this would indeed
represent a joining the Hoe-down in the Forum. But not to prioritise
our efforts in the face of such information as above is surely
Emperor-level folly on an equal scale.

It will be interesting to see what noises get made by the major noise
makers about all this. I'm sure they'll need a conference about it. So
if it helps, Bali is right next door.

No waste like a TV waste... Nappy Every After?... #3

Having got back only in time to watch the last 5 minutes of last night's show, it is really not for me to offer much of a coherent review, but
I'll quickly plonk this up now in case it gets repeated soon or can be
located elsewww.here.

What little I saw seemed more balanced than previous comparisons. And the numbers on the nappy costs were telling. Again, I'm relying on fleeting memory, it was a weekly/daily (?) £8 on laundered green nappies, £6 on disposables and £3 on home-laundered greenies, which was a 60% saving on disposables. That's pure cash. but it does not factor in the work involved, though it was mentioned. And this is a major issue, even with full-time mums, which cannot be ignored.

Personally, I think this shows a clear opportunity. Green Nappies should be subsidised to make them launderable. Some kind of voucher system to encourage genuine use. Easy for me as a local taxpayer to say so, but it must be worth checking out the numbers, which I'm sure have been and 'it can't be done'. So let's look at them again, and see what can work.

For a family like the one shown, the amounts of money saved were obviously a real incentive, though I'd really like to find out what the heck they were doing before to 'waste' 60% on gas and another whopping
% on water (we're non-metered here, so that isn't an issue, though we don't abuse it).

At least it has got people talking, and that's all to the good. I'm feeling that I'd have preferred a broader spread of different families
and opinions. One size does not fit all, especially with kids.

Jumping through the oops

I have many abiding memories of my days in the ad world. Not all of
them good.

One high (well, low) on the list was looking at acres of
freshly-printed, palleted brochures all heading off to the recyclers
(or, in those days, more likely the incinerator) because the client guy
who briefed us didn't mention to the guy up and slightly to the left of
him in the pecking order what he had commissioned. Hence, what was once
approved now was not. And in fact all trace had to be eradicated...
pronto.

Which is why I love websites. I especially love our website because we
can pretty much do what we like with it. And change is but a matter of
moments, depending on the availability, skill and experience of the
necessary writers and designers. Those factors also have a bearing on
cost, too. But at least one is not looking at vast wastes of printed
material as well.

You can whip stuff out. Or you can pop some stuff in.

Last week we had a 'bit of a do'. For reasons not yet exactly clear, we
got some rather nice coverage in a rather useful weekly e-newsletter
publication from London Community Recycle Network

(thanks guys.. here's a little return favour: http://www.lcrn.org.uk).

Trouble was, the coverage was about something we're still finalising and had yet to post on site.
It was therefore with some relief that we were able to whip up a quick
'patch' to at least let any who clicked on know we were on the case.
Can you imagine matching that in hard copy print??

And yesterday we were in deep discussion with our nice IT guys

(http://www.sound-i.co.uk/ )

who have convinced us use the imminent introduction of our newsfeed from adfero

( http://www.adfero.co.uk)

to let them have a crack at the homepage and at least some of the subsequent
navigation to make the concept of Junkk.com easier to 'get' right away.
Plus we're looking at some serious fun functionality to make the site
even easier to understand and engage with. As we're racking up the roll
out, this will need to be.. soonish.

Exciting times. So... watch this space... well, backspace and look at
the one to the left.

ps: We've looked out of the window and decided to go camping again. If
we find a site (spontaneity is all) we'll be overnighting, so maybe no
blog tomorrow).

Cat skinning #101b - recycling vs. biodegrading

Having mused that it's all pretty much going into the landfill anyway,
because no one reads the logos in the first place, this is going to be a
bit of a contradiction in blogs.

This long (in the UK at least) weekend my family got all spontaneous
and decamped from home to encamp up the road at a local site. And if
you're wondering at the logic of that, frankly when you live in the
part of the world we do, piling up and down a Bank Holiday motorway
route to sit in some gorgeous bit countryside doesn't make much sense
when it's on your doorstep. And a good time was had by all.

Plus I was provided with a unique opportunity to study, in microcosm,
the stuff we bought, used and discarded over a three day period of
eating, drinking and abluting. Ironically, upon our return, I came back
to more than one advisory on how one should recycle responsibly on such
excursions, which sadly bore little relation to the facts and
practicalities of life under canvas, the facilities at the camps we've
ever visited to and one's predilection to do much more than survive
above squalour level until the next day.

For this reason I have also decided to create a series of articles on
such specific areas of activity, such as, in this case, Junkk Goes Camp.

Anyway, back to the point. As I was looking at the various recyclable
and biodegradable bits and bobs going into the carrier bag
(biodegradable, of course) 'bin', and it struck me that a lot of these
things could go in two directions, and it all rather depended on where
you were at the time.

I'm presuming that it is better to recycle than biodegrade (as you'll
gather, I'm having trouble with the correct way to articulate this
term), but as with all things it may be a case of the lesser of several
evils. If you can't recycle, at least biodegrading is better than
nothing?

Take my family's waste from the weekend. One big bin, and it all went
in. I'm presuming that little lot's headed for a hole. At least the
biodegradable part should, er, biodegrade.

But then I read that biodegrading actually generates greenhouse gases.
Now I don't know... yet… if the processes of recycling do too, and to
what level in comparison, but I'm guessing not as much (a lot of
unanswered questions here). So with biodegrading we're also heading for
a bit of a tug of war on the enviro-front between popping stuff in the
ground and letting it mulch away… and what that does for global warming.

You can tell I'm a bit confused as to what's best. On balance I'm least
in favour of global warming, and so I'm starting to question the whole
biodegrading thing which by my current best assessment is contributing
towards it. Stuff in the ground is unsightly, but stuff in the air is
proving hazardous.

I guess the moral to this is; don't get too close to nature. If you
care about it too much, it will do your head in. Don't worry, though.
Now I’ve asked a few dumb questions like this, maybe we'll soon have a
few smart answers.

Which Junkk.com will happily share in its info section when they come
in.

No waste like... a TV waste #2

I caught the last half of the second episode of the re-programme last night, and it's telling that it is not shaping up as a must-see, or even record, at least on a personal basis.

But professionally I'm kicking myself. It's the nearest thing we have to a complimentitor (in case I haven't explained this term before, we don't see ourselves in competition with anyone if the idea is to encourage good environmental practice. However, as commercial pressures revolve around audience share, then by definition we are seeking valuable attention from the same crowd, so there is a sense of competition at least. Other than that, we're doing our thing in a very different way). They are making waste at least mainstream and 'fun'.

I put ‘fun’ in quotes because what I did see again made me feel that it was at the expense of some less than credible guinea persons being set a variety of Big Brother-esqe tasks, with a lurking camcorder, video editor and snide voice-over to chart their hapless efforts. Do you empathise with such folk? Do you respond to nanny knows best? At Junkk.com we're aiming for 'a mate with advice'.

And again it didn't ring true, at least to me, on a practical basis. They were given a Toyota Prius, but I think I heard (one day we'll be sent review copies of such programmes) that they were told to use it only for long trips. Recalling Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear (salts for our now recumbent lovely PR lady!) isn't that when the electric component doesn't do its thing and in fact a small diesel is way better? And I really must find out what exactly comes out of its pipe - combined with the power station pipe - in comparison with the single pipe on most cars. Do they count the carbon emissions of electric generation at source?

Speaking of diesels, it was awfully quaint popping in Dad’s now converted van to the chippy to top up with sunflower and a saveloy, but I don't quite see Ross High Street coping with the town waiting in line to fill the tank using a funnel with a litre bottle.

And again we end with the savings. 'You now have £90 something quid, extra'. Um. Do they get to keep the £17k Prius? Who paid for the biodiesel conversion on the van? Yes, the savings would eventually add up on that but not, I suspect, before the car in question had bought that great end of life certificate in the sky. That’s the calculation I’m looking at for an LPG conversion on my R-reg Volvo. Does Gordo slap more tax on next budget?

It's good to see various worthwhile issues raised, but on behalf of real consumers I'd like them to be more constructively critical and pragmatic.

Speaking of which, we have heard back on the 'all waste' composter, though of course not from the guys who make it (who we had approached with an offer of free coverage). Galls me to say it, but I think we're going to have to get one from them, unless there are other guys out there. By all accounts it is intended to deal with dead bodies, but it takes a heck of a lot longer than the time period inferred in the programme, and that's before winter turns it into a cold storage for slowly... very... slowly… decaying animal matter. Nice.

Next week it's all about nappies. We know a lot about this through our involvement with Green Nappies

http://www.enviroability.org.uk/

(with BIG news on this soon!) and it will be interesting to see what the balance of facts to fantasy will be.

Cat Skinning #101a - Logo inertia

That didn't take long. I'm right back to those nice logos and labels
you see on stuff. Little swirly arrows with letters and numbers.
Percentages of recyclablity, biodegradability, etc.

And here at Junkk.com almost daily we see all the amazing technology we
see being committed to justifying these labels.

But...

Is anybody listening?

By anyone, I mean the person in the st.. well.. kitchen. Possibly the
carpark skip. As they survey the debris field left after preparing a
normal family meal, do they really conduct a serious audit of the
cardboard, bottles and polystyrene trays before assigning them to their
most effective re-use or recycling stream? I'm reckoning not.

Where they care enough and/or are supported by a kerbside scheme, it's
likely that the glass and metal goes in one box and the paper goes in
another. Maybe, just maybe, the plastic bottles (bathroom products
anyone) too. If we're keen and have the resources the vegetable matter
goes off to be composted (I'm still hunting down the 'all kitchen
waste' composter - it turns out we did get in touch with a manufacturer
months ago to find out more but they didn't reply... no surprise there,
they’d doubtless prefer to advertise for money in a trade journal).
Even the shopping bags may get bundled up and used, or taken back to
any retailer who will accept them.

But that still leaves a fair old pile. Cellophane wrapping, posted
magazine sleeves, blister packs and a myriad, usually black, trays.

It's all well and good having spiffy logos on all these, but it's a fat
lot of good if no one has much idea of what can be done with them.

So here at Junkk.com we're going to try and start addressing this
issue. A bit of brainpower on reuse. A bit of information and promotion
on recycling. I’m thinking of calling it ‘PEP talking’. And it must
have a spiffy logo, of course.

Now, will the guys who got the guys to pop the logos on there, and
those guys themselves, plus the guys who collect the stuff with these
logos on help us out here if we ask nicely?

No cost to them. Just sharing some info and maybe a bit of effort on
coordination.

Watch this space. All I hope is they won't see it as an opportunity to
dispose of a bit more virtually before they actually have to.

Cat-skinning #101

Early in the days of Junkk.com, I was in a far-flung outpost of the
empire to sell our wares at some conference or other. Holding my
gold-plated pass (it should have been for the price) I recall entering
a plush hotel lobby to be confronted with surrounding ranks of booths
from those more blessed with funds so as to actually afford a stall.

It was at this point I realised that it is simply worth not attending -
at least for us - unless you have one of these; the chances of bumping
into a useful connection are almost zilch unless you spend the day in
the loos, which has some drawbacks - socially and legally - depending
on one's gender.

But at least I could talk with these static guys. Trouble was, few
wanted to interact in any meaningful way with me. The minute it came
out that we were operating on a commercial model, the shutters came
down. 'Oh no, we only deal with charities or not for profits' was the
mantra. This distinction is one I intend to return to, as many
delegates from these 'acceptable' areas were busy parking very big, new
cars and heading up to their £300 per night rooms. I was tubing in from
sleeping on a mate's floor. Who is costing the public less? Hint: we
also don’t cost the public anything to operate.

Maybe such 'structured' thinking was responsible for the next thing
that stuck me having done my rounds. Almost every one of these guys
happily shunted off on me a brochure/pack (despite everything I at
least seemed to count to the volume of such items handed out, which
doubtless ticked a box somewhere), usually stuffed to the gunnels with
bits of paper and various disposable trinkets.

And all were handed over with the excited pitch that… ‘it's made from
[add percentage here] cardboard, and/or is/may be [fully] recyclable’.
I was then pointed at the large recycling bins at the exit kindly
provided by the sponsors. Keep the A4 paper; ditch the folder.

I'm afraid I had a problem with this. The process of producing and
disposing of the message seemed to take precedence to the message
itself. And it is a matter for another blog the way in which various
re-logos can slapped on everything… and that, seemingly, is the end of
it.

Which is why our Folda Holda was created. In any promotional effort, it
is inevitable that information needs to be shared, and in such a way
that it gets noticed, read, understood and retained… all in competition
with others. Hence we developed a solution that enabled us to provide
facts and figures that could be retained, but also found a second use
for the folder itself which, having done it's conveying/attracting job,
turns into a CD tower. And we only give it to those who really want
and/or deserve one. It’s too expensive otherwise, and I have no clue
how many we’ve shifted, but they are in good homes.

Yes, it is for sale. And I'd like to think that such innovative
thinking may prove better for the environment too. Even if it is
commercial.

Don't do as I do

OK, I'm at it again. Double standards. I have often claimed Junkk.com
is not in the business of getting in 'who's got the biggest green
todger' (not the nicest visual image I know) slanging matches, but on a
blog-basis I can't resist a slightly twitchy eyebrow every so often by
way of 'just wondering'. I think we’re allowed, because as a business
we accept that certain things are just necessary, and try to avoid
‘don’t do’ stuff on our pages.

Today, under the banner 'Talks renew vigour to tackle warming', the/a
(I wonder how many of them there are?) BBC environment correspondent
opens his piece with the following:

"Maybe it was the night cruise with ice crunching against the prow of
the boat and icebergs the shape and size of medieval castles floating
serenely past.
Maybe it was the helicopter flight over the ice-packed fjord to witness
one of the fastest-melting glaciers in the world.
Perhaps it was the expert presentations warning that if carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions continue to rise, the melting Greenland ice sheet will
drive up global sea levels. Whatever the reason, politicians from all
around the world visiting the Arctic on a fact-finding trip left
professing new determination that action to tackle climate change must
be taken everywhere. "

It goes on to explain that Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard
said she wanted to create a forum where politicians could enjoy
(operative word) a genuine dialogue on climate.

And at the summit, all leading nations agreed climate change was a
serious problem that had to be tackled.

Bless.

They went all the way up to the Arctic for a night cruise and
helicopter rides. And they came away agreeing that climate change was a
serious problem that had to be tackled.

Me, I just go online and find out the permafrost is melting and
Birmingham, West Midlands just got whisked by tornado, along with
Dorothy, to Alabama (which is quite near Kansas, I'm sure).

Is it just me, but are all those involved in telling us what we should
be doing perhaps missing some rather obvious tricks here? Like setting
examples?

No waste like... TV waste

Last week I watched a new BBC programme: No Waste Like Home. Basically a reality/makeover hybrid revolving around consumer environmental issues. So far, so planet-saving (they seem to have nicked a lot of the clichés we have already 'homaged' - the difference is of course subtle, like eccentrics being mad people only with more money).

And at this point, I must declare an interest, in that we (well, my family) applied for a slot, on the basis of 'any publicity...' . And no, we didn't get selected, which is getting to be a habit at the moment. But I think I know why. We were too normal.

Though it was not car crash TV... quite... it was clear that the primary objective was extremes.

I'll dispense with the other of the two families featured in three words: Stepford and Sons (ok, seven: plus daughters and wife). Some purpose built CGI (though it was real, I think, as were the occupants) eco-dream home. Then a few quick allusions to stuff that's great when you do it from scratch, but tricky and costly in the kind of home most of us live in. And that was about as much time as the programme spent on them, too.

Then we got to the other extreme... family. About as nuclear as you could hope in composition, plus the fact that they needed a power station powered by same in their garden to run their lifestyle.

And what a lifestyle! For reasons not fully explained (we should have a gas supplier so generous) they hadn't had a gas bill for a couple of years, and so it was ‘turn up that dial’ on the thermostat (the use of which, mysteriously, no one explained to them despite it being ok to install a full solar system on the roof). The place was also lit up like Margaret Beckett's office during summer recess, and they specifically bought pineapples to throw away.

The slightly sanctimonious voice-over left us in no doubt as to their wicked ways, complemented by an affable but rather peripheral presenter who tut-tutted and came out with statistics that meant little to me.

There was some car-crash, and the inevitable post-shoot editing, with the main victim being the hapless housewife. She actually did have a few good points to make (if anyone has tips on how to make a towel dry in the sun without ending up like an emery board I'd like to hear it. And also what one does when it rains which, in the real world, it does in the UK).

But the show did have some nuggets that I would have liked to have seen developed further. For instance the fact that there is no need to wash anything above 40 degrees as modern washers/powders are designed to work at that. My wife would take some more convincing on that, but it was just kind of stated and that was that. Also there’s a composter that takes dead bodies… well, meat and gravy. I wasn’t convinced about that. But if I can so dispose, then our weekly bin bag gets even lighter.

It ended with the £10,000 pa annum saving the family was in line to make if they followed the new regime. Minus, one presumes, the cost of the new solar system, the spiffy chicken run (no old stuff here - all brand new plastic huts) and if they all live in the dark wearing jumpsuits (a fashion trend I reckon the tweens may tire of ‘in, like, ‘bout a munnet, Vickuy!’) to save washing.

I'm afraid this show did not engage with me at all, as it completely involved, if I can say something so contradictory: unrealistic stereotypes. Neither was anything like my family, which is trying, and doing, its best, with mixed information and the practicalities of modern life almost all but ignored. Reuse was mentioned, but not in any way I could really get to grips with, at least in ways we're trying to do with Junkk.com.

But something is better than nothing, and getting people to think about re-everything is always to be lauded. Just so long as they don't alienate those who could be swayed in the process. Next week it looks like we have an Osbournesque teen saying 'whatever' when she gets grounded for leaving a light on.

Not another convert I suspect, but still good for ratings?

And the winner isn't...

I really must figure out how to check my blog archives. Somewhere back there is one I recall posting about our entering this awards thingy. It was a fair amount of work, and all last minute dashing over a weekend, but we made deadline. Plus it was only (hah!) about £30 to enter.

As you'll gather from the way this is going, we did not make the shortlist. I only found this out because I just had an email saying who had.

I really thought we were in with a chance, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Awards can be a real distraction, and an expensive one. But like a gambling addict, you always wonder what would happen with that next roll.

It's the same with a funding application. It's great when you 'win', but when you don't you're just left wondering why. Not always for sour grapes reasons, but it can be hard not to go: 'what...them? But ours was...' At least with awards you do get to see who won, as I have often had my requests to get more information on even the names of successful funding applicants provided, let alone why ours did not make the cut.

More pragmatically, to avoid future wastes of time and money, you really wish you knew if it was it not 'on brief'? Did it fall down the back of the cabinet? Was it pushed? Sadly, the rules of entry usually preclude those unbestowed upon from posing such questions.

As no one is doing what we're doing, there's nobody 'better', so below is a link to the guys who made it. If you have an idle 5, see how you think to they stack up against our offering in the various categories. Feel free to say 'you wuz robbed' to make me feel better.

http://www.startupsawards.co.uk/finalists2005.html

And may the best .com... make the greatest impact, and positive difference via their online audience.

Winners are not always those who win awards.

And a blog is much better therapy than punching out the wastebin.

The best **** for the job?

In these PC days, that **** stands for a term applying equal gender preference and descriptive correctness to those about whom this blog is about.

At one of (long story) my universities, I had my first real taste of organisational politics. A very popular and respected professor died, and obviously a successor needed to be found. I had assumed that the gently grazed quadrangles of academe would simply move in concert to arrive, unhurried and in a civilised manner, at the most appropriate choice, and life would continue as it had, and always would.

What transpired was feeding time at Jurassic Park. The gloves were off and the claws were out. Every half-baked doctor, senior lecturer and visiting whatever had kicked off their tweeds and were in full combat mode, slashing and burning their way to the top, taking no prisoners and laying waste to peaceful hamlets of teenage (or in my case, early twenties) naiveté and belief in the goodness of man (or woman).

Once the cement dust had settled, the victor got their spoils, and spoiled they were. Camps had been set up and though a hierarchy had been re-established, it was one based on fear. Because the person who made it was not the best choice for the department, the students or the profession, but the guy who had sucked up, been seen to be doing (at the expense of doing) and devoted most time to their careers at the expense of their job.

And so it continued. My father, a hugely successful and popular sales director, found himself shafted and sidelined within months of the firm’s founder, and his friend and mentor, dying and the 'board' taking over. Anyone from the old guard had to be removed, no matter what. Even if, as it transpired, the sales crashed as a result. Back then I wondered what the shareholders thought of that, unless the link was not made clear to them by the guys in char.. oh.. well.

Golly, I could go on. Suffice to say that in my 'employed' ad-career, every time a memo hit my desk saying ‘I’m pleased to announce a new... [senior to me anyway], I dug out my CV. Within a month I knew I’d be mysteriously ‘no longer quite who we need in this position’, when their mate was.

So I read with interest, and a certain deja d’oh, new research that suggests 'ambition, authority and assertiveness are the main characteristics that shareholders look for in a business leader but they are, in fact, the most likely traits to hold a business back… while staff sought leaders that nurtured, supported and empowered them and were willing to delegate key tasks and share knowledge; and managers who are willing to listen to what they have to say and engage in open and honest dialogue.'

I once pinned up one of those inspirational do-dads that said something like 'Truly great leaders only employ those who are [more talented] than them'. As the owner of my company I could but agree, though felt the need to add 'so long as you’re at the top or own 51% of the company.'

I was then at the peak of my then profession, and dealt only with the same level of those with whom we engaged. On the whole, they were a pretty good bunch. Now I am at the bottom, and am again having to work, alongside colleagues, with too many petty folks who would do more for their organisations, and those they are supposed to serve, if they spent as much time actually doing their jobs as trying to jostle for status, title and short-term points.

Fortunately, there are those who make the effort we invest worthwhile. They’ll be the ones reading this blog. And I’m pretty safe, thinking about it, saying the others will not.

I can only hope their current and future leaders are smart enough to figure out which ones are which.

Lord Lever had a point

There seem to be a few guys credited with this one, but I'll give it to his lordship for now. Basically this captain of industry said of his empire’s advertising: 'Half of the spend is wasted. Trouble is I don't which half'.

So I'll make a quick plug for Junkk.com here and suggest that 100% of any spend on promoting neat 2nd Use ideas for your products is pretty much certain to get exposed to the absolutely the right folk you are trying to reach with your 're-message'.

However, it won’t if I don't get cracking on making the site as useful as it can be to attract these fine folks. And I am concerned about my own percentages. Of time that is... ticking seconds lost forever.

I seem to be repeating the mistakes I made with my ad agency. The more established we got, the more time I was in meetings and the less time I spent creating. And as what I created pretty much was what we flogged, that was a problem.

I have just realised that I have barely whizzed around the site lately, and have certainly not measured a pack, taken its picture and uploaded same, much less had an idea to go with it. Plus I'm looking at about 200 separate emailed newsletters, just because was away on Monday. I really have to figure out RSS feeds asap!

So, if you call and Emma says I'm in the shed, please don't take offence. I have a planet to save... as soon as I've done the same for my business.

Strange things on a train

Yesterday I went to London. And it was very worth it. Because I'd been asked by our marketing agency to meet someone who is very concerned about reuse, recycling and waste in her sphere of work, which is the student population of London. Although it is really no surprise, the numbers of folks, and the consequences of their living and working in London even for just a few years, are quite staggering. And the nice part is that Junkk.com is already being seen as a potentially very good way to engage with this audience in the areas and ways we know, and perform, best. So look out for some rather fun new initiatives coming very soon!

Moving on, there's no real 'theme' to today's blog (at least none yet... let's see what transpires), but in getting to this meeting a few unconnected things became 'blogworthy', and I guess now’s as good a time as any to mention them.

We're still juggling with the optimum enviro/eco[nomic and logical]/convenience way to do the Ross to & from London trip, and for this one I opted for the train to Paddington from Newport option, with obvious consequent costs either side of that. What was interesting, and depressing, was that in the several weeks since I last did it, the cost of parking at the station had gone from £4 to £5.50. That’s a 37.5% hike which, I'd say, is a tad more than inflation. How on earth are we to encourage good travel practice when such things take place? And unless it is just a summer lull, I could have parked my car sideways across several bays and still had a 30m zone around it, so empty was the lot. Market forces?

Finally, the joys of train travel. Can't really fault it, though between the odd delay here and there my 1 hr 'buffer' was used up and I did only just make the meeting in time. But what I really loved was the total 4hr opportunity I had to read a book, which I have done almost as often as Victoria Beckham in recent years. Just too many emails, reports and articles around Junkk.com's business to fill the day!

Of course the book was about the same thing, but at least it was a book. And what a book it was, despite a misleading quote from that well-known person in this field, Ben Elton (?), saying 'Be scared. Be very scared. But be sure to read this book' (I would have re-written it, Get annoyed. Get very annoyed. Read this book and then get cracking on holding those responsible accountable). But let me recommend 'Rubbish' by Richard Girling.

For what it's worth, and if you're reading this it must be something, I really rate him and his writing, as it is what I aspire to with Junkk.com. He is agenda-free and in no camp but that of common sense, and owes nothing to any side, by they be arboreally amourous, bureaucratic box ticker or grasping capitalist. It is on the whole depressing reading, to be sure, but mainly for the vast waste of time, effort and money that's been worthlessly consumed so far in trying to address… waste.

I need to find him and hopefully make him aware of what we're up to. He posed a few notions I'd like to think Junkk.com would neatly address, and he would be a good person to have onside from whom to seek advice and, if we are lucky, endorsement. Or, if we're really lucky, constructive criticism. There are very few around capable of that skill and if we are to succeed it's one of the most valuable of all.

Any closer, and common sense gets it!

I loved Blazing Saddles. There were more iconic scenes of high satire delivered in a lowbrow manner than just about anything I can recall. And one of my favourites was when the black hero is surrounded and his foes are closing in. So he whips out his gun, holds it to his own head and says 'any closer, and the [originally a pejorative term reserved for one set of society about whom it was used in description by another, but now neatly co-opted for their own exclusive self-reference] gets it!'

Of course, the bad guys back off.Which is not quite the best analogy I needed for today's blog, but it's close enough. Shooting yourself is a poor method of survival in the real world. Even if it is the airline industry, so I should have mixed feelings. I wonder if BA’s stand down bought the planet a few more days?

I have never been in any job situation (straight from the ad world where employee rights, stability & security were non-existent, to self employed, where I was/am my employee and stability and security remain pretty much non-existent, but at least marginally more under my control) to really get to grips with the mentalities involved, but for the life of me I have never been able to figure out one thing in these cases.

And that is how anyone working for a company in a competitive environment figures the best way to protect their future, job security and improve their pay is best served by crippling it? It would seem the personal suicide is, to mix my metaphors, also alive and well in the UK.

I don't see me ever opting to use BA, especially in summer, and there are plenty of other airlines around to get me where I need to go. Marketing note: preference given to most fuel-efficient fleet.

Shame is, it's not really the fault of the management (for once, unless you count woeful (market) intelligence and hopeless contingency planning). And now it seems it may be a ‘plot’ by ‘elements’, that just makes the strikers all the more dumb to take the rusty nail from them and stick it in their own flesh.

Unless employees get to see the totality of their jobs in terms of responsibilities to their customers, their co-workers and ultimately themselves and their families, they pretty much deserve anything that happens to them.

Hopefully those others stranded to the four points of the globe with luckless passengers may share this notion with them upon their return.

Losing our deposit

Well, that didn't take long.

Emma has marched across to demand that we don't just comment, but actually do something about it. Deposits, that is. So I immediately reached across to my phone to dial... er... them.

So while that aspect of the hunt gathers pace, I can but do the only things I have been able to do for a while, namely write a blog first and then rope all and sundry in to figure out how to make things actually work. Well, at least we do have a website.

Emma has merely confirmed for the current yoof end of the market what I had remembered of mine, namely that instead of a bunch of over-subsidised schemes telling kids to do the right thing, her brothers used to do it because they got rewarded. One-munchkin search, collection, separation and delivery systems all in shorts and grazed knees.

So.. great. Now I have another task to fill my otherwise empty day, nights and weekends.

I'm thinking to start we need a poll, and possibly one using our localisation facility, so we can get some meaningful data to take to them when the time comes.

And on the not-too-unlikely assumption they remain under their rocks, maybe if it proves popular enough we'll just ignore them and just get on and sort out something ourselves. Which will show.. them and serve... them right.

You know, this is not so much a blog, but turning more and more into the Junkk.com job sheet.

On the hunt of them

With much gulping (which is also a small hamlet just down the road) we recently committed to a paid subscription.

Materials Recycling Week is pretty high on the 'does what it says on the tin' list of titles, so I won't waste much effort on what they cover, save to say a largish wadge is in areas we'll politely note and pass over (though as an ex CivEng some of those waste munching machines look way cool - I'm thinking of doing a Tomorrow's World type 'how it works’ - with cutaway - on the site).

But we did deem them worth staying abreast of as they also get first dibs on a lot of re-stuff in the consumer domain. Plus they were nice enough to write about us a while ago, so I don't feel the pain of the outward funds so keenly. It seems a worthy read: http://mrw.co.uk , to repay the compliment.

Opening my first edition, I was confronted by a very interesting article by their editor, Paul Sanderson, essentially posing various re-related consumer questions, such as why there were no longer any deposits on pop bottles any more. As it is one we at Junkk.com have been asked, and still don't know, I rang him to see if he'd had an answer. Seems not. And this is from the heart of the UK recycling universe!

Between us the best that we could come up with was that 'they' had said/decided that a) it wasn't practical, b) it wasn't financially feasible or c) the consumers didn't want it.

Now, especially on the latter, I have yet to meet a consumer who didn't see merit in it.

And frankly, we at Junkk.com see it as a great way to build something in that not only gets people to bring things back to regain the deposit, but as they are making the trip also get rewarded.

Now all I have to do is find 'them'.

If you have any hints where to start… much appreciated (which is just across the river from much gulping) :)

All the news that's fit... well fit

It's always a good sign when anyone comes to see us here for business. We're a tad in the boonies, and not so easy to get to, so when they make the trip we really appreciate it. And it almost always heralds the start of a beautiful relationship, because at worst it shows they like what we're up to and would like to help, and at best it shows that they can see the potential of what we're up to and the value of being part... and hence want to help. We don’t mind a little bit of mercenary forward-thinking when it endorses our concept.

So yesterday was a big day for us. Because we were meeting to discuss all sorts of issues surrounding our imminent dedicated daily news feed, with the lovely folks who will be providing us with it, Adfero (http://www.adfero.co.uk/).

The partnership now seems the most logical thing you could imagine, but the irony is that it almost never happened. They had a booth at both the recent Online Marketing Show and Internet World shows. So did we. In slack moments they popped by to see what we were up to. We reciprocated. But at no point did either side say 'you know, we could work together!' (Of course, that may be down to the communications standards on our respective stands).

It was only a few weeks later that I sat wading through a bunch of material we'd gleaned from the net that day, getting frustrated that we didn't have the copyright to reproduce it or the time to get in touch with the protagonists to rewrite it on Junkk.com. Then it sunk in. So I called. And they came. And we exchanged a lot of stuff. And they came again. And soon, very soon, we will have our very own homepage daily news, crafted to our audiences. Plus an ever-growing searchable archive on specific topics.

So a few mad panics this end in the next few weeks re-jigging the site design... again.

But it gets better, though, naturally, more complex. It hadn't really sunk in ('til Tom of Adfero mentioned it) that by doing this we were becoming even more valuable a resource. We'd be coming up with stuff in an area that's not very well covered, and in a style which is, well, pretty unique. This will attract an audience. So while WE are daily signing up for, receiving, reading and gleaning nuggets from countless sites and feeds on all sorts of topics, pretty soon we're going to be one too and have all sorts of folks doing the same for us.

Which means that on top of trying to get to grips with blogs, pods and whatever, I now have to grasp and master a whole new raft of initials like RSS and XML. Only this time there may even be money it, so I'm all eyes.