This, I like - money in the bank. Staying there.

I'm not big on banks. They tend in my mind, and experience, to err on the far, bad end of 'necessary evil'. we're still smarting over being told there would be no start-up charges when we set-up our first Junkk.com, then finding there were, and that they had been taken without our being told to push us into unauthorised O/D, which then incurred a penalty! Plus I have yet to have any bank marketing dept. respond positively to our suggestion that while going 'carbon neutral' is dead spiffy and all, it is hardly PR we feel like covering, but would be interested if they launched something like a loan to help promote good e-practice (like a reduced rate on solar), like the car insurers have for hybrids.

Anyway, I must say that, although it has little to do with the environment (though a lot to do with waste), as a personal customer I do like the look of this Barclays banks on anti-virus deal, especially as, amazingly...  it's free! For once a win-win.

"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade"

It would be hard not to smile at that call to arms aginst minor adversity. And be inspired by its simple, homely truth.

I have just had the following, from the MAD* show:

The Mad* Show

It is with great regret that we have to announce that the conference and exhibition scheduled to be held at Earls Court has now been cancelled.

Whilst considerable expenditure has been made in marketing the event, the take up of tickets and sponsorship has rendered the event totally unviable. Accordingly we have taken professional advice and have been advised that we should take steps to liquidate the company.

The company does not have sufficient funds to place the company into creditors’ voluntary liquidation and therefore we, as directors, have placed Field Seymour Parkes (Solicitors) in funds, to issue a petition to wind up the company. We would expect the petition to be heard in 6-8 weeks and clearly it will not be opposed.

The directors repeat their sadness at having to take this action as substantial funds have been invested into the company. Thank you to everybody who has supported us throughout the project and we hope that the little we have done could one day *make a difference.

The Directors of The Mad* Group Ltd

It is no longer postponed; it is gone, with the hopes (but, hopefully, nothing else) of many who were seeking to take part with it. The organisers have put a lot in, and lost a great deal. So, sadly, have we. After the disappointment that was the Ideal Home Show's 'Green' themed - Not - event, this was one we were looking forward to to bring our message to a wider, and more empathetic audience. Plus of course the media. I was to be a speaker, and in heavyweight company, so there was a chance to have our reuse message noted and reported.

Again, it was not to be. But Junkk.com exists, and has been designed to evolve no matter what. Its core structures are easily maintained and the skeletons on which the data, ideas and information can be added by the public, business and authorities firmly in place an awaiting any and all contributions.

Time to make lemonade, people! Or, as it turns out, kill weeds (though it's looking like vinegar is better).

Re:quiem for Re:pair

I love my deck shoes. For decades they have conferred sockless casual
style to my feet on demand. And despite several serious bouts of
maintenance, they just got more and more comfortable. But now I fear
they have reached the end of the long road we had been walking together.

I had hoped against hope that a repair would be possible, but even if
it had (and most artisans simply shook their heads and did the Dead
Parrot sketch from Monty Python) the price to restore an already
shaky superstructure was going to be prohibitive - costs started at
£45. And just a few doors down there was a gleaming new pair for £40.
Not as nice, but.... affordable. And so it is. All I know is that I
will be carefully picking them apart as that tough weathered leather
will have a use... someday.

Meanwhile in my garage the dead decade-old dryer rests ready for a
weekend disassembly job. £50 call-out plus unknown parts and labour
to put it right, when a new one at £150 plus 3 years' warranty means
it is simply not worth it. And now, especially with summer upon us,
my airing cupboard conversion is already churning out nice, if
crispy, dry towels and saving a big electricity bill in the process.
So it will not be replaced.

I hope to soon report a positive story in the form of an actual
repair that was still worth it. Watch the ideas page!

Lots Choice

When I wrote that headline it was just a play on words based on a faintly remembered saying. It was only when I Googled it to find out the origins that I discovered - without meaning or wishing to get all theological on this - another relevant complement to the modern environmental/commercial relationship.

There is no doubt that there are out there a lot of good people, with lots of good intentions, trying to do a lot of good. A lot.

Warming to my notion that a lot of our problems are down to the fact that there are lots of us, as a consumer who has either asked for or simply gets exposed to green-group messages I have to say I'm feeling a little overwhelmed these days, 'cos there are lots! And there I'll draw the 'lots' bit to a close.

But sadly, despite the overwhelming volunteer, not-for-profit, charitable nature of all this activity and most of the practitioners, I can't help but have a small concern about the motivations behind it all; whether there is a slight shift of concern more to paying the mortgage and locking down the pension plan at Central Office Towers.

Hence I was more than interested, and impressed, by this commentary from Grist - How I Didn't Spend My Summer Vacation - a critical examination of how the youth are used by environmental organisations.

The author poses this valid question (and provides an answer I must say seems accurate, if not attrative): "But what if a listener got so riled up by the canvasser's description of climate change, deforestation, or urban sprawl that he or she wanted to get active -- lobby! demonstrate! organize! -- rather than give money? This person might be a great public speaker, a natural organizer, or a talented artist who could contribute more value to the movement with a week of volunteering than with annual membership dues. The hastily trained canvassers would probably suggest checking out a group's website and signing up for emails, but they're not really sure -- all they've been taught to do is ask for money."

It's a good article. Worth reading. I just wish there was more of a clearer solution to take away.

Do and Bloom. Not Doom and Gloom

In today's Guardian Blog there was an interesting and well-linked piece by Matthew Weaver, entitled Naturalist wisdom, discussing Sr. David Attenborough's pitching into the climate debate.

I was moved to reply, but directly rather than on the posting site, as I seldom respond to blog/forums of this nature as I find the often frustratingly unpleasant result to be flaming 'e-scalation. Which is why I don't have a reply feature on this blog, though I am reviewing this stance. 

Another reason is that often the effort put in is poorly rewarded. While adding to a debate is Oooooo...k, if it doesn't go anywhere then all that has happened is a venting. In some blogs (like the Telegraph), your company URL can be added, which does lead to fruitful relationships and makes the investment in considered time worthwhile.

Here at least I have some blog material, with or without a reply...:

"Can't fault a thing you have read, or quoted. In fact I'm pleasantly surprised to find most of those links you have provided already reside in my files. They are now mostly under the category 'Climate Change/Global Warming', which is already sadly vast, gets added to daily... and is now gathering e-dust.

I have pretty much given up worrying about it. At least, to clarify, what is causing it.

It would be wrong to say I don't care about the causes, but I really am overwhelmed by the amount of effort going into debating this issue. It is great that media such as the Guardian, Indy and latterly BBC have and are throwing their considerable weight behind it all, but to me it is still too much talk.

Quite simply, it is clear is that something is not going in the right direction, and whether it is through the earth tilting on its axis or the collective efforts of Hummer drivers is now moot. What is surely clear is that not doing anything, especially that which we need not, really makes little sense. 

And while I think it is tee-top-triffic that Sir. David has at last weighed in on the side of the Green Elite, I am slightly saddened that it is mainly to 'raise the alarm'. My ears are already ringing!

As an organisation that champions choice, I have very much respected his stance(s), but it is telling that I even now get a sense of 'don't do as I do, but worry about what I'm telling you enough not to do it too'. And that is a hard thing to swallow as I plan our camping trip to a local site up the road (no great eco-statement... simply broke. At least we may have a nice summer here in the UK).

Especially when we are getting a ton of mixed messages from the political and economic brigade that quite frankly are at total odds with what seems to me pretty obvious.

There is a finite amount of planet to live on, and off. The global population is expanding. This suggest an end-point. 

Most are also getting richer, and hence more land-hungry, material-acquisitive and wanderlusty, which inevitably means consumption and pollution. Which can only hurt the planet's ability to cope still further, and suggests the end-point is being brought forward exponentially.

As to the details, I am not qualified to even guess. Like most, I am just an average Joe.

I want to do what I can, when I can, how I can... if not for me, but for some future generation who may thank me for at least trying when at last I knew I should, and still in hope I can make a difference.

All this big stuff is waaaay to much for me. The only thing I know is that it is a shame to waste, and seek to devote my efforts to tangible, fun (if possible) ways to avoid this waste -  of  energy, time, money and stuff. 

It simply isn't sensible to throw away that which is unused (leaving a TV on standby), can be better used (not having a low energy bulb), reused (anything on Junkk.com!), repaired (ditto) or recycled (cue a horde of very well-funded initiatives whose public-moving messages and ROI I often question). 

We need to get this drummed into the public's mind, and in ways they will respond to, with skilled global brand-level marketing techniques and incentives leading the charge. Any life assurer will tell you the last way you sell a policy is telling folk they are going to die. You look for end-benefits (excuse the pun) they can respond to.

I hope I am not being too idealistic in seeing merit in more 'do and bloom' rather than so much, or at least in stronger complement to, 'doom and gloom'."

Money talking

I quite enjoy the Telegraph Business Club, and am often moved to contribute to debates. Sometimes I 'm quoted, sometimes perhaps not (one can become a tad prevalent). This was from the latest question posed (in blue, below). It does reflect a certain lack of faith in the current system, sadly:

"I know next to nothing about financial markets, and their contribution to the complex interactions that make up and are essential to driving a modern economy. I just have to presume that they are necessary, as they have been around for a heck of a long time, and an awful lot of folk are permitted to make an awful lot of money doing whatever it is they do. The best I can come up with is it all acts a 'buffer' between those making stuff and those who can help to fund them to do so. 

The thing I have had trouble getting to grips with is how all this lot get sustained when few actually make anything beyond their own salaries and bonuses.  At best most are facilitators to varying degrees of constructive processes. But from my reading of David's piece many are simply self-interested parasites actively damaging forward progress through, at best, the uncertainties created by second-guessing of their actions, or worse still by the damage that gets inflicted when these actions are taken for that 'quick buck'.

I was going to say I wouldn't mind if all this effort and money was consumed and made in the cause of skillful decisions, but without sounding like 'Citizen Smith' I must say I do. Especially when, like politicians and many business leaders, the rewards seem to flow in quickly when a lucky decision is made (or they're simply in the room when something good happens), but for some reason still get retained when they are not. At least football managers seem to reap the consequences of their positions and the decisions made whilst in them.

So to [the] question whether I think the stock exchange has become corrupted?... take that as a yes. But it's not just in this sector. I await a sense that any part of our society today has a view beyond making as much as possible tomorrow, literally,  at the expense of future considerations in the longer term."

Do you share my exasperation by the panic gripping financial markets? Stock indices are shaky, but nothing has really changed. When a company loses ten percent of its share value it does not mean it's doing ten percent less business or making ten percent less profit. It simply means City traders have taken a decision to withdraw some of their bets. 

I use the word 'bets' deliberately. Many City traders seem to know more about gambling than the real world of business. In real companies, managers take strategic decisions with a view to increasing sales and profits over a three or five year time-frame. But far too many City traders look no further than the next set of quarterly results. It is little wonder that one hears of so many companies like Marks & Spencer undertaking share buy-backs so they can get off the Stock Exchange and focus on satisfying customers rather than pleasing the packs of City lemmings. 

Not every City trader is a lemming, of course. Some wiser heads look at the bigger picture and make longer-term investment decisions. But most City traders follow the herd and scrabble around in pursuit of the latest opportunity to make a 'quick buck'.

Want proof? Look at Gizmondo Europe. This company was going to be 'the next big thing', making a hand-held computer game to rival Sony and Nintendo. It did not matter that the company bosses had dubious backgrounds. The City traders didn't care that Gizmondo was hardly selling anything, either. The market hype was loud enough for the firm to reach a market valuation of $1bn and the directors to spend £160m living the high life before the truth became apparent. Now the company is in liquidation. 

The principles of a stock exchange are totally sound, but it has become corrupted. If only investments were made to help businesses grow, rather than to help City gamblers get rich quick, the business environment would be far less volatile. What do you think?  

Now that's what I call an incentive!

Can't quote it as there is no online link, but I noticed a small
piece in The Sunday Times Driving section that More Than insurance is
offering a discount of up to 13% on insurance of hybrids.

Assuming this is a genuine deal (there is a funny trick marketing
folk can pull of bumping a price up only to discount it) this is to
be lauded as an incentive based idea.

Don't know if hybrid drivers are safer, though.

Guilt trips

Well, another question posed, another answer provided.

In a previous blog I'd noted a Sunday Times Travel piece that had
been carbon offset, and wondered whether this was a 'new and/or
unique' thing.

Well, I was reading this Saturday's Guardian, and came across their
Travel section, and the answer to the above is now 'looks like/not
any more', as it was littered with 'Non-flying' special logos, and
their own claim that 'This edition has been carbon offset.'

I was going to pounce on that, but inside it does have a piece about
how from this week on, the emissions created by writers will be offset.

It's better than nothing I guess, and digs them out of a slight hole
eyebrow-twitch-wise ( at least they noted the irony of Leo Hickman
flying to attend a summit in Geneva - I've yet to read the report so
we'll see what I have to say about what he says subsequently), but
let us not forget that we are only talking the consequences of travel
of a few individuals from one section of a major organisation, whose
jobs are to sell the joys of traveling the world to a readership in
the millions.

At least they are now setting an example, but how many will follow?

Before I do, I'd need a much better sense that this liberal guilt-
trip (currently voluntary) imposition is going where I know it's
doing some good. And I simply have no idea, because nothing so far
has been done to explain it to me in terms I can grasp and/or be
convinced by.

Dilemma Time Again!

No sooner do I write that earlier blog about ads than one comes my
way that pretty much falls into Junkk.com's lap!

It has everything I could hope for: lifestyle, end-benefit... and
built-in second use ideas. I count at least two. Not so sure about
the shower but the sun-lounger is actually already part of my
PEPTalkin' range.

But....

Why... oh, why... did this proof of our concept have to be for
bottled water, especially at a time when the desalinity advocates
(see another recent blog) are making the very fair point (if missing
a counter version that the amount we drink probably pales in
comparison to all the rest of purified tap water's uses) that making
a litre of deSal is waaaaay more energy efficient to a litre of bottled.

Yet another horn to sit upon I guess.

Reduce, repair, reuse, recycle... retrograde

The news was full yesterday of plans to try desalination in the Thames Estuary to solve the South East's water shortage problem. Oddly, nothing online has so far cropped up with my usual sources to quote the spin, so I'll need to add this later as and when it comes.

It's not an easy one to call. 

But I'd say using an energy-intensive system to whack out tons of greenhouse gasses to purify water that is now scarce because of climate change is not necessarily the way to go. 

Discourage (or better encourage alternatives to) unneccesary usage, fixing the pipes, popping in reclamation systems at every point is. And stop building more and more things that simply increase demand, like vast swathes of homes, doubtless en-greened by people's golf courses. 

This, I like.

Oh, the joys of the internet!

I was reading my Fortune mag when I came across a small piece about something called IdleAire. 

I did try the magazine site for a link to the piece, but nothing obvious popped up, but entering the name got me to the one above.

Using a whopping $320 million of VC funding, they are building a nationwide system for tuckers to shut off the engines they leave on idle, and plug in to a much cheaper and more eco-way of getting what they need.

It is claimed that CO2 emissions can be cut by 32 millions tons, and US oil imports cut by 2%.

What is not to like, except it takes a private company to do it?

Google reinvents TV ads with pay-per-click video

Google reinvents TV ads with pay-per-click video

Tue May 23, 2006 05:29 AM ET 

By Eric Auchard

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Google Inc. said on Monday the company is ready to help Web sites run video advertisements, putting the Web search leader into competition with television for the biggest chunk of ad spending.

Google is seeking to take the pay-per-click model it refined for text ads and apply the approach to video, cleaning up a nascent market where irritating splash ads distract users and limit advertisers' desire to spend money on the medium.

Google video ads first appear on Web pages as static screenshots in small television-screen like boxes. Only when a consumer clicks on the screen does the ad begin running inside the box -- instead of jumping off the page as many video ads do -- giving users control over how much or how little they view.

"We are offering a very, very non-intrusive ad product," said Gokul Rajaram, product manager for Google AdSense, which runs advertising campaigns across affiliated Web sites. "Only users who click on the ad see the video."

Google's AdSense network generates nearly half of Google's revenue, with most of the rest coming from Google's own sites.

The new "click to play" video ads complement Google's existing line-up of text, static image, banner and flash animation ads that run on the edges of Web pages of sites that use Google to deliver advertising for them. Google aims to make video advertising as simple to buy as these existing formats.

Video ads will be introduced this week, Rajaram said.

To make it easy for advertisers to use the format, Google will host video advertisements on its own computer servers instead of forcing customers to contract out with a third-party supplier as many video advertisers must now do.

Click to play video ads differ from the scattershot approach of broadcast TV advertising in that Google promises to measure the duration of how long customers, on average, watch any particular ad on a site before moving on to another page.

"It is very good for advertisers because they now know the user is engaged," Rajaram said in a phone interview.

"The targeting is more powerful than traditional broadcast TV," said Greg Sterling, an industry analyst with Sterling Market Intelligence in Berkeley, California.

For example, Sterling said one way Google plans to promote the service as a way for advertisers to test-market TV ads on the Web to determine the best ad for broadcast TV campaigns.

The Internet ad market grew 30 percent in 2005 to $12.5 billion (7 billion pounds). But that represents only 5 percent of the budget that U.S. marketers spend on all media, including newspapers, radio and TV, according to Internet Advertising Bureau data. U.S. ad spending on cable TV alone totalled $18.9 billion last year.

But analyst Safa Rashtchy of broker Piper Jaffray estimates that major advertisers in categories such as autos, finance, entertainment and consumer goods are shifting a growing amount of their spending -- 10 to 20 percent so far -- online.

Such brand name advertisers favour using richer graphical or video based elements in their advertising. This part of the market is where rival Yahoo Inc. has long dominated.

"Brand marketers will take notice. This is going to cause others like Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL to develop some of the same targeting," Sterling said.

"We will see an acceleration of video advertising from here," he predicted.

Losing the sizzle

I am beginning to feel like one of those folk featured in home video shows, where they are straddling a boat and the pier and the two are slowly con and diverging.

Junkk.com was born, initially as a hobby riding on the back of Firebird.com, the creative collective of which I am part. But somewhere along the line it became the dominant call on my resources.

Well now for reasons of I must return - at least for the day job - to the fold I know better, and with luck will have enough success again to feed the family and fund Junkk.com. The blog will continue, as will the ideas, but I guess the main areas to be curtailed will be the promotion and in-depth research. Well, the first was costing an arm and leg, and the latter is mainly well covered by other, better funded resources, so it should not detract from the site experience.

But there will always be overlaps.

Today I was reviewing the latest crop of press ads gleaned from the Sunday mags, with a view to doing Junkk.com 'adapts' to show how easy it would be to sell the product... and then the benefits of the packaging's second use.

And it struck me how easy my Junkk job is often made, because so many of the ads actually do show the packaging.

In many ways that struck me as odd, because the whole point is to sell the sizzle, not the sausage.

Plus it does stretch across the whole ad spectrum. I've added a couple more examples here.

One presumes these are intended to motivate the consumer, but where's the end-benefit to make me want to engage?

The branding is great, and all the copy boxes may be ticked, but really they are just so much wasted space.

And you know how I feel about waste.

I may not agree with what you say... so I won't pay any attention

Poorly recalled history time again ! Voltaire? The hero in Tale of Two Cities? Anways, one of the most impactful embodiments of the democratic ideal is the rallying cry that goes something like: 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight with my life for your right to say it'.

In an interesting twist, from that great defender of democracy, the USA, we have a possible new version which I have summarised above in my title, this time uttered by the President, when asked if he'll be watching Al Gore's new movie  "An Inconvenient Truth", to which he replied... 'I doubt it.

I have blogged on this before, and was about to again when I read in a recent Fortune that Steve Balmer of Microsoft had forbidden his kids to go near iPods and all things non-MSN.

I actually don't believe them, but if true, then it seems the height of stupidity to dismiss or blot out alternative or competitive viewpoints in this manner.

I for one keep intelligence on my friends close, and that on my enemies even closer still.

Listen to me. Just me. My job depends on it.

As it is a mercifully foul day (doubtless not enough to make a dent
in the reservoir levels, but certainly a boost for the garden and
enough to make me not pine for the outdoors as I potter within), I
was engaged in the rather depressing task of deconstructing the stand
we had prepared for the MAD* show.

And for something to do I had left the TV on and caught a polito-
theological programme called the 'Heaven and Earth' show. Quite
interesting.

One thing that caught my attention, for obvious reasons, was a debate
sparked by a bishop somewhere saying nuclear was wrong, and mixing in
a bit of Christian faith why. The main rallying call, which I
actually liked, was that we are only borrowing the future from our
children', but there was some other stuff about 'us' being custodians
of the planet too.

And mixing it up was a guy from a Christian Ecology group (maybe the
same one that never replied to my invitation to add the eco-church
stuff to Junkk.com) and some MP who has faith-driven affiliations
plus was pro-nuke. It was moderated by a cosy Gloria Hunniford, media-
celebrity extraordinaire (hold that thought).

The debate was pretty standard. Anti-guy made some fair points about
how we don't know what to do with the nasty lefts overs we already
have, so making more seems a poor option. The pro-guy made some
(possibly) fair points about it being the best option to avoid
further short term global warming.... if we insist of sucking juice
at the rate we are.

Cue sanctimonious 'it's more what we as individuals can do' all
round. And especially from main media person.

Well, one thing I could have done is switch off the TV. In fact I
could stop watching altogether. TV does a fair amount of sucking, by
which I mean of energy. But then what would happen to her/their
ratings, and hence her/their salaries?

So yet again, we seem to be in the zone of being exhorted to do
something by a collection of people, so long as it does not impinge
upon them.

Stick head in sand and it will go away

I just had to share this form the BBC Newsnight daily 'Watch us
tonight' email:

> Conversations with the Tax Office on the question of illegal
> immigrants have become a little surreal.
>
> "If a fake National Insurance number is used, do you flag it up and
> tell an employer?" we asked.
> "I'm not telling you", they said. "Is it a secret?" we asked. "I'm
> not telling you that either".
>
> Do we need investigative journalists on this programme or therapists?

Sadly I missed the show, but I rather suspect there was no one there
for Paxo to tear into.

As you know, I'm not that impressed with the extent or quality of
investigative journalism in the UK these days, and especially when it
comes to tenacity.

So I really hope that this is one that will not go away.

Who was this in our Public Services, paid by us, who took such a
stance? Why do they still have a job?

There is simply too much that we need to know and are allowed to
know, that can now be, and is dismissed by those responsible when it
is not convenient for them to share with us for purely personal
reasons of self-preservation.

It would make one heck of a smoothie

A bit of fun for the weekend.

I subscribe to a few rather odd 'e-wsletters, which can often prove distractions, but more often than not throw up a diamond.

One such is eatmail, who has passed on this rather hilarious, but very well done (doubtless claimed to be by some students to protect the guilty, but such things do not happen easily or come cheap) viral 'homage' to the gorgeous Sony ad.

And yes, as an advocate of not wasting, I guess I shouldn't like  nor promote this, or indeed the original. Maybe it would have been better if it had been sponsored by Innocent.

But that's the dilemma of being a creative soul; it's hard to make anything with consuming. 

Greening Your Eats

One of the many pleasures of staying abreast of all the stuff Junkk.com feels it should stay on top of, is making links across a series of seemingly disconnected sources.

For instance, I have been entertaining myself lately with the antics of some of our major retailers (at least, as reported), who seem to have lately decided to bathe themselves in green a lot more than before, and thus suitably washed are quite aggressive/defensive in staking their competitive claims to be first, best, most, etc.

I accept most of what follows comes from the Telegraph (it would have been more striking had it spanned a few other colour shades of media, but as a lot is pretty factual it's worth working with me on this), but you can try this - Sainsbury's wrestles with Tesco for environmental high ground from the Indy - but their links don't seem to hold up for very long.

As followers of my blog will know, I have cocked a few eyebrows at some of the claims being made in this arena, and also lamented how little they have been delved into by the mainstream enviro-media who reprint their press releases.

So first up, to set the scene from another source than myself, there's this from the Telegraph Business Club, initiated by a question: “I would like to know peoples viewpoints on the ever increasing cost of energy in the UK.”

To which an obviously well-versed chap has responded extensively, but I do pick out these words in particular: "It is fair to say that large businesses are being motivated to take proactive steps to save energy, most financially driven and little to do with their Corporate Social Responsibly standing."

Which now brings me to a few commentary pieces, firstly one from Sophie Brodie's Business Diary: Leafy Leahy refuses 'greener than thou' row, which refers to Tesco's 10-point plan to make the world a better place. This I imagine includes the '£100m investment' that so comprehensively underwhelmed me recently, but has also stirred 'a bit of a do' with Sainsbury’s Head Honcho, and then, in short order, that of Boots.

Thing is, so far pretty much all I have heard from these CEOs in this regard is stuff about improving their energy efficiencies. Bearing in mind that comment at the start, when you read Sainsbury's energy bill rises £75m, with the comforting opening line that they '... tried to calm fears that it would be forced to pass on escalating energy costs to shoppers, after its chairman suggested the company could not absorb all of its hefty fuel bills', you start to see what's what.

And to which Tom Stephenson has referred (another dodgy link, but it is accessible by link from the base of the one above) in his Business Comment: 'Passing on higher energy costs is a non-starter when you are scrapping for market share with the likes of Tesco and Asda.'

My simple observation to all this would be to ask: 'Where are the benefits to the green consumer?'.

Of course costs and profits simply get reflected in the price we pay at the checkout. But until I see much that is tangible by way of environmental initiatives that have a direct relationship to the buying public (making the store cheaper to heat or cool is great 'n all, but so what?), I really rather wish they'd stop behaving like the pols and insulting our intelligence with all these 'smoke and reflective panels' stories. They really are only about helping their bottom lines and very little about doing their genuine bit for the environment.

Addendum: I don't always follow the path laid out by Friends of the Earth, but they are without doubt sincere and can be tremendously effective. Just after I wrote this a press release came in (rather dramatically entitled 'Fight Corporate Abuse, which at first seemed extreme for self-interested greed, but on reflection is pretty fair) from them that is pertinent and does seem to point at some relevant action.

Mad* if you don't. And it looks like, for now... we won't

We have been looking forward to the Mad* Show. After a few major disappointments on the exhibition front, this seemed like the real deal. A good message. A good blend. A good audience. And I was to be a co-speaker in very good company, an illustrious crew who were likely to attract a media audience as much for what they had to say as their celebrity.

So it is with great regret, and no little frustration, that I share an email from Richard Dratton, MD of the Mad* Group, received last night:

Dear all,

I am writing to you to announce the postponement of the Mad* Show 2006.

We apologise for the short notice but we believe this is in the best interest of all concerned.

We are busy working on an alternative date and will announce this together with

our future plans within the next few days.

We would like to thank everybody for the huge support that we have received so far

and hope to continue our relationship with you into the future.

From all of us at The Mad* Group.

That's about all I know for now, though I did manage to contact their director of sales. It seems there were 'problems' with meeting the minimum exhibitor number requirements of the hall. This the same hall that managed about 6 enviro-stands out of 600 on a show (the Ideal Home) billed as 'Sustainable Living and Recycling' not so long ago. The hundred odd for Mad* would have been a wonderful focus for like-minded exhibitors and visitors to interact. A shame they could not pad it out with jacuzzis and patio heaters too.

All I can hang onto is the word 'postponed'. I can only imagine what it must be like for the organisers. But being selfish, it has thrown a major spanner into our already dented marketing efforts for the year.

All the news that's fit. Well fit.

Doing well at the moment PR-wise.

Our little bit of radio (still figuring out how to lift that off a steam driven cassette and upload digitally) was very good, thanks in no small measure to a very nice and professional interviewer, Nicola, who put me at ease and charged around all our Junkk features seeing great ways to talk about them. She also took some video too, which will be edited and uploaded later on in the summer.

It was going to be sooner, but by coincidence the Rural Media-organised feature by the Yarrantons was posted as well the other day, and this can be seen here and viewed via here.

So we do seem to be getting our message out slowly and surely.