Ok, so you need to get to the USA first.
Into space - on a shuttle simulator
Love it. I hope this may be required reading for all billionaires
considering Virgin Galactic, whose contributions to atmospheric
emissions doesn't seem likely to be very positive to global warming.
ps: Is that the guy from Life on Mars? Appropriate if it is, considering
the topic
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Hydrogen, hydrogen, the magic fuel...
...comes from nowhere, and goes back there too!
Or not.
As often mentioned, I like the idea of hydrogen, but not until its creation's enviROI makes sense, and that includes not viewing it, along with many other alternative fuels, as a substitute to just keep on doing more and more of what we fancy anyway.
Hydro boat turns sea green
And the sky, er, blue?
I'd like to find out more about how this eradicates its carbon footprint.
I can certainly see how hydrogen as a fuel will be kinder in terms of
exhaust emitted into the water, but how will this fuel be created in the
necessary volumes without some consequence to the atmosphere?
Or not.
As often mentioned, I like the idea of hydrogen, but not until its creation's enviROI makes sense, and that includes not viewing it, along with many other alternative fuels, as a substitute to just keep on doing more and more of what we fancy anyway.
Hydro boat turns sea green
And the sky, er, blue?
I'd like to find out more about how this eradicates its carbon footprint.
I can certainly see how hydrogen as a fuel will be kinder in terms of
exhaust emitted into the water, but how will this fuel be created in the
necessary volumes without some consequence to the atmosphere?
I wonder if they'll fly into collect the award?
Thanks to my latest issue of recycle now's newsletter (snappily entitled RCN Newsletter, showing they really know who to avoid the spam filter and delete key), I now know who are the country's green, er, 'heroes':
Revealed: the nation’s green heroes
A new survey for Recycle Now has revealed the nation’s favourite environmental heroes. We asked over 1400 UK adults which celebrities they felt were the greenest.
Here are the results:
1. Prince Charles
2. Bob Geldof
3. Sting
4. Chris Martin
5. David Cameron
6. Bono
7. Richard Branson
8. Madonna
9. Cameron Diaz
10. George Clooney
Who would you have picked?
I was sooo tempted to reply. But, like this fine example of journalism, will remain mute. Speechless even.
Revealed: the nation’s green heroes
A new survey for Recycle Now has revealed the nation’s favourite environmental heroes. We asked over 1400 UK adults which celebrities they felt were the greenest.
Here are the results:
1. Prince Charles
2. Bob Geldof
3. Sting
4. Chris Martin
5. David Cameron
6. Bono
7. Richard Branson
8. Madonna
9. Cameron Diaz
10. George Clooney
Who would you have picked?
I was sooo tempted to reply. But, like this fine example of journalism, will remain mute. Speechless even.
Your tax money at work
Politeness 'missing from society'
Britain needs to do more to promote good manners, Tony Blair's "respect czar" Louise Casey has said.
She gets paid for this?
Britain needs to do more to promote good manners, Tony Blair's "respect czar" Louise Casey has said.
She gets paid for this?
Book 'em, R2D2: Mistaken segregation, 3 counts!.
It's about cars, but it could just as easily soon be about our waste system.
Call for car number plate revamp
"...horrendous. You are guilty until you can prove you're not. It's the first time that I've thought that English law is on its head."
Amazingly, it seems by taking the human element out of the monitoring, proof and prosecution...'the problem has grown because of the amount of camera-based enforcement... which relies on computer records on who [is responsible for what]'.
No mention of not going straight to fine with burden of proof being for the innocent to provide.
Welcome to the New Britain. You are... welcome to it.
Call for car number plate revamp
"...horrendous. You are guilty until you can prove you're not. It's the first time that I've thought that English law is on its head."
Amazingly, it seems by taking the human element out of the monitoring, proof and prosecution...'the problem has grown because of the amount of camera-based enforcement... which relies on computer records on who [is responsible for what]'.
No mention of not going straight to fine with burden of proof being for the innocent to provide.
Welcome to the New Britain. You are... welcome to it.
The media and the message
Brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green
Thank you for an interesting and inspiring piece in Media Week (though if the comments about Eastbourne in MediaBitch are anything to go by, we are facing a tough crowd with the message), and for introducing me to John Grant, who seems a like-minded soul, and hence to buylesscrap... ditto. I've written to ask them if RED has replied to their letter.
You rightly raise the issue of greenwashing which, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, is in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard.
But I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
You mention Andy Bond facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green. As an example, I would point at the RE:tie design that we just did rather well with: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/04/whos-clever-boy-then.html &
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/couldnt-express-it-better.html
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
Rgds,
Peter Martin
JunkkMale/Big 'Ed
ps: I look forward very much to next week's issue on the big corporates' green cred. Having lived with what they say, but often do differently, (with good and bad experiences on both counts to share - in many cases I think the media is unfair in its reporting of some measures) I will be interested to see how it pans out.
Thank you for an interesting and inspiring piece in Media Week (though if the comments about Eastbourne in MediaBitch are anything to go by, we are facing a tough crowd with the message), and for introducing me to John Grant, who seems a like-minded soul, and hence to buylesscrap... ditto. I've written to ask them if RED has replied to their letter.
You rightly raise the issue of greenwashing which, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, is in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard.
But I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
You mention Andy Bond facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green. As an example, I would point at the RE:tie design that we just did rather well with: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/04/whos-clever-boy-then.html &
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/couldnt-express-it-better.html
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
Rgds,
Peter Martin
JunkkMale/Big 'Ed
ps: I look forward very much to next week's issue on the big corporates' green cred. Having lived with what they say, but often do differently, (with good and bad experiences on both counts to share - in many cases I think the media is unfair in its reporting of some measures) I will be interested to see how it pans out.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Gotta ask. Gotta tell.
I recall, a few years ago when the latest disability legalisation came out, getting a bunch of what amounted to extortion emails from 'consultants', who had 'noted' that our site was not as compliant as it could be and would, for a fee, not report us.
I got rid of them all by pointing out that it had been briefed from the outset to be as all-embracing as possible (with a Bobby rating taboot), and if there were areas we could improve would appreciate being told where they were so we might address them. Why would I not? Reaching out in any way practicable - note that - simply improves our audience base. Never heard back.
So I must say that at the time, and still, the way it all got inspired, imposed and handed over to such folk with legislative backing really p*ssed me off. I even recall a poster on the topic, with a wheelchair-bound individual in a judge's wig, waving a gavel, saying 'We're out to get you!'. Not, I felt, the most engaging way to inspire cooperation.
And with a website, especially one that is user-driven, there are many factors afoot, from design considerations to how editorial may or may not get perceived by the majority of the audience, who can take a number-penalising hike if one panders to some demands.
Hence this struck a chord: eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays
Now I could care less what you orientation is, and our site is not configured to exclude anyone, save for the consequences of some disabilities that we really are in no position to address.
So, in many ways, should anyone choose to ignore the possible reaction of other users by failing to be all-inclusive, this simply seems a matter of 'why not?', closely followed by 'more fool them,' topped off by 'ignore the silly so and so's'.
eHarmony can obviously afford the changes required, but for a site of our size a failure to offer certain additional options can be financially punitive, especially when we are free to kick off. So demanding we add stuff at our expense would seem... unfair.
But it's more the principle of the thing, and now a gay bar in Australia has won the right to exclude heterosexuals it looks like there may be a slight unravelling taking place.
I'm all for protection from abuse, but this all simply smacks of a bunch of chancers trying to make a fast buck in the name of what should have been something noble, by abusing a poorly-considered bit of PC legislation (which seems to be most of them).
I fear there will be few winners bar the lawyers. As always.
I got rid of them all by pointing out that it had been briefed from the outset to be as all-embracing as possible (with a Bobby rating taboot), and if there were areas we could improve would appreciate being told where they were so we might address them. Why would I not? Reaching out in any way practicable - note that - simply improves our audience base. Never heard back.
So I must say that at the time, and still, the way it all got inspired, imposed and handed over to such folk with legislative backing really p*ssed me off. I even recall a poster on the topic, with a wheelchair-bound individual in a judge's wig, waving a gavel, saying 'We're out to get you!'. Not, I felt, the most engaging way to inspire cooperation.
And with a website, especially one that is user-driven, there are many factors afoot, from design considerations to how editorial may or may not get perceived by the majority of the audience, who can take a number-penalising hike if one panders to some demands.
Hence this struck a chord: eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays
Now I could care less what you orientation is, and our site is not configured to exclude anyone, save for the consequences of some disabilities that we really are in no position to address.
So, in many ways, should anyone choose to ignore the possible reaction of other users by failing to be all-inclusive, this simply seems a matter of 'why not?', closely followed by 'more fool them,' topped off by 'ignore the silly so and so's'.
eHarmony can obviously afford the changes required, but for a site of our size a failure to offer certain additional options can be financially punitive, especially when we are free to kick off. So demanding we add stuff at our expense would seem... unfair.
But it's more the principle of the thing, and now a gay bar in Australia has won the right to exclude heterosexuals it looks like there may be a slight unravelling taking place.
I'm all for protection from abuse, but this all simply smacks of a bunch of chancers trying to make a fast buck in the name of what should have been something noble, by abusing a poorly-considered bit of PC legislation (which seems to be most of them).
I fear there will be few winners bar the lawyers. As always.
Letters from the front, and at the back
A guy gave me his card the other day, and it really needed to be about a foot wide to get in all the letters after his name, some of which were.. a stretch. I afraid it all rather left me feeling that one last set was rather in order: Pl. Onker.
This ran though my mind today as I read my welcome letter from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. I feel like I have joined a Post-it note!
Anyway, it was addressed to [me], A Inst Pkg. How cool is that?
Now, at first blush it looks like I, as an aspiring planet-saver, have gone over to the Dark Side, lured by Darth Shrinkwrap, but I deem it a very worthy attempt on my part to try and engage with, understand and hence report on what is after all a very significant part of all Junkk.com is involved with.
All things considered, it's a pretty affordable membership I'm surprised a few other media who see fit to critique this industry would do well to embrace.
This ran though my mind today as I read my welcome letter from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. I feel like I have joined a Post-it note!
Anyway, it was addressed to [me], A Inst Pkg. How cool is that?
Now, at first blush it looks like I, as an aspiring planet-saver, have gone over to the Dark Side, lured by Darth Shrinkwrap, but I deem it a very worthy attempt on my part to try and engage with, understand and hence report on what is after all a very significant part of all Junkk.com is involved with.
All things considered, it's a pretty affordable membership I'm surprised a few other media who see fit to critique this industry would do well to embrace.
You are what you read?
I was having my morning trawl through the onlines, when this caught my eye.I simply note that, with all that is going on in the world, a cross-section of Guardian Unlimited readers gave the top four slots to footy, and the fifth to a fashion show.
At least it was ethical.
Bless.
May is so over
I just read a short, but interesting piece in the Indy.
And without apology, but due accreditation, print it fullishly here, with a few highlights of my own:
All goods may be labelled with 'carbon footprint'
A new eco label may show the environmental damage done goods and services in shops. The Government has begun a "carbon footprint" project to work out how to count emissions from everything from crisps to flights [Let us pray the enviROI derived is genuine, and that we, the public, are able to get to grips with it such that it is not just another vast, money-sucking box-ticking exercise].
The scheme, which could be the first step towards an international standard [like all previous efforts at local - we seem to have two health standards already, so the packs are going to get pretty crowed with this guff - and global cooperation have been successful so far. No reason not to try, but I do trust the basis is not so much to line consultants' pockets in the effort as to actually move policies] for measuring the greenhouse effect, will [well, that's more positive] be used on packaging to allow consumers to weigh up [so it's back to us doing the tricky stuff again, is it? And doubtless fined if we don't do it right. What about a bit more effort on what goes into the system at the front end????!] the climate change impact [please.... make it an effective measure!] of different products [I... we... are going to stand there, assessing - if we are able - every item going into our baskets. This is asking us to weigh apples vs. oranges, literally]
The Carbon Trust, a government body briefed to create a low carbon economy [with how much money to be blown on salaries and comms, with almost no ROI and/or enviROI that is publicly accountable to an effective degree?] is developing the scheme with companies such as [why these guys? Are they enough? Are they being funded or helping out for free...if so big up to them. If not... hmnnn.] Tesco, Boots, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and BT. A panel of technical experts will take around 18 months [Dome. Olympics. NHS. Air traffic. Need I infer more?] to finalise the measurement of stages such as production and transport.
Announcing the plan yesterday, the Environment Minister, Ian Pearson, said: "Businesses are looking for ways [Looking's good. Finding is better. Committing the best] to reduce their impact on the environment. To help them achieve that we need a consistent way [Just like the health standards, eh?] to measure these impacts that businesses recognise, trust and understand." [Let's not forget the consumer recognising, trusting, understanding... and being able to engage with in a meaningful way, as well]
That's an awful lot of doubts I have raised from just a few paras. I wonder why? Maybe it is because this consumer doesn't recognise much so far in this area that has made sense, trusts little these protagonists do to actually have my kids' future enviROI at heart, or ever get shared in a way that is understandable of capable of rational engagement.
But we can hope this time it will be different. Here's hoping the mainstream media stay on their case (packaging pun intended).
Guardian - Carbon labels to help shoppers save planet
Treehugger - Carbon Footprint Labels for UK Produce
In the piece I read, in the Independent, the announcement was littered with words like 'may' and 'could', which usually presages a lot of money getting spent on a bunch of consultants, and then sod all of any use happening once the requisite boxes have been ticked.
There is also the small matter of what happened with the health composition labelling. In some places we get a traffic light system, and in others a row of figures that look like the periodic table.
It's going to get pretty crowded on the side of each pack, and I have my doubts anyone will have the slightest clue what they are looking at, much less be able to make a coherent decision based on it. I for one have not bothered to scrutinise each item I select. For start, what am I comparing? Apples and oranges? Well, of course a Spanish orange may be better than a South African apple, but who on earth is going to get into that????!
If there is any serious intent to make a difference here, it needs to be at the in-point, not throwing it on the poor blooming consumer to try and sort out the fudge government and industry are trying to shuffle around.
So do I feel my kids' future is being protected by this? Well, may... be... not.
And without apology, but due accreditation, print it fullishly here, with a few highlights of my own:
All goods may be labelled with 'carbon footprint'
A new eco label may show the environmental damage done goods and services in shops. The Government has begun a "carbon footprint" project to work out how to count emissions from everything from crisps to flights [Let us pray the enviROI derived is genuine, and that we, the public, are able to get to grips with it such that it is not just another vast, money-sucking box-ticking exercise].
The scheme, which could be the first step towards an international standard [like all previous efforts at local - we seem to have two health standards already, so the packs are going to get pretty crowed with this guff - and global cooperation have been successful so far. No reason not to try, but I do trust the basis is not so much to line consultants' pockets in the effort as to actually move policies] for measuring the greenhouse effect, will [well, that's more positive] be used on packaging to allow consumers to weigh up [so it's back to us doing the tricky stuff again, is it? And doubtless fined if we don't do it right. What about a bit more effort on what goes into the system at the front end????!] the climate change impact [please.... make it an effective measure!] of different products [I... we... are going to stand there, assessing - if we are able - every item going into our baskets. This is asking us to weigh apples vs. oranges, literally]
The Carbon Trust, a government body briefed to create a low carbon economy [with how much money to be blown on salaries and comms, with almost no ROI and/or enviROI that is publicly accountable to an effective degree?] is developing the scheme with companies such as [why these guys? Are they enough? Are they being funded or helping out for free...if so big up to them. If not... hmnnn.] Tesco, Boots, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and BT. A panel of technical experts will take around 18 months [Dome. Olympics. NHS. Air traffic. Need I infer more?] to finalise the measurement of stages such as production and transport.
Announcing the plan yesterday, the Environment Minister, Ian Pearson, said: "Businesses are looking for ways [Looking's good. Finding is better. Committing the best] to reduce their impact on the environment. To help them achieve that we need a consistent way [Just like the health standards, eh?] to measure these impacts that businesses recognise, trust and understand." [Let's not forget the consumer recognising, trusting, understanding... and being able to engage with in a meaningful way, as well]
That's an awful lot of doubts I have raised from just a few paras. I wonder why? Maybe it is because this consumer doesn't recognise much so far in this area that has made sense, trusts little these protagonists do to actually have my kids' future enviROI at heart, or ever get shared in a way that is understandable of capable of rational engagement.
But we can hope this time it will be different. Here's hoping the mainstream media stay on their case (packaging pun intended).
Guardian - Carbon labels to help shoppers save planet
Treehugger - Carbon Footprint Labels for UK Produce
In the piece I read, in the Independent, the announcement was littered with words like 'may' and 'could', which usually presages a lot of money getting spent on a bunch of consultants, and then sod all of any use happening once the requisite boxes have been ticked.
There is also the small matter of what happened with the health composition labelling. In some places we get a traffic light system, and in others a row of figures that look like the periodic table.
It's going to get pretty crowded on the side of each pack, and I have my doubts anyone will have the slightest clue what they are looking at, much less be able to make a coherent decision based on it. I for one have not bothered to scrutinise each item I select. For start, what am I comparing? Apples and oranges? Well, of course a Spanish orange may be better than a South African apple, but who on earth is going to get into that????!
If there is any serious intent to make a difference here, it needs to be at the in-point, not throwing it on the poor blooming consumer to try and sort out the fudge government and industry are trying to shuffle around.
So do I feel my kids' future is being protected by this? Well, may... be... not.
Our children. Their planet.
I was going to leave well enough alone, but I do feel there are lessons to be learned from the plight of a little blonde girl and the fate of the entity which will, with luck, serve to sustain her grandchildren. If this is the best the best of our media can, or seeks to be, heaven (in its most faith-embracing form) help us all.
The McCanns' plight
I just watched last night's 'debate' (the inevitable Newsnight book-end extreme twofer), and frankly even such as the BBC needs to look in the mirror.
Yes, there was a picture of the child posted at the beginning, but once that obligatory 'of course it's all about her' platitudes were out of the way the rest was anything but.
Other than a tad more 'awareness', which seems to be justification for anything the media sees a rating in, and for which the cunning or the desperate will willingly serve up the source material, I learned nothing more about what has been, is being or could be done to get this kid back. To actually DO something of value that will have a positive result.
Not that I believe there is such a thing as an expert (at least one who would subject themselves, their profession or their expertise to the trivial nature and possibly deleterious glare of any forum our media can create these days), I would have liked to know from some experienced sources if these tactics were effective, and how and where the media and public can be motivated to help effectively. Or, if considered more beneficial, belt up and back off.
Sadly, all I took away from this was, as pointed out here in this thread and, to be fair, somewhere in that odious, self-serving broadcast exchange, little to do with next steps to finding her and those like her, and a lot to do with the agendas of a bunch of folk I could really care less about and/or should know a lot better.
Meanwhile, as Mr. Paxman is inevitably prompted to say, time is running out, so moving on....
The McCanns' plight
I just watched last night's 'debate' (the inevitable Newsnight book-end extreme twofer), and frankly even such as the BBC needs to look in the mirror.
Yes, there was a picture of the child posted at the beginning, but once that obligatory 'of course it's all about her' platitudes were out of the way the rest was anything but.
Other than a tad more 'awareness', which seems to be justification for anything the media sees a rating in, and for which the cunning or the desperate will willingly serve up the source material, I learned nothing more about what has been, is being or could be done to get this kid back. To actually DO something of value that will have a positive result.
Not that I believe there is such a thing as an expert (at least one who would subject themselves, their profession or their expertise to the trivial nature and possibly deleterious glare of any forum our media can create these days), I would have liked to know from some experienced sources if these tactics were effective, and how and where the media and public can be motivated to help effectively. Or, if considered more beneficial, belt up and back off.
Sadly, all I took away from this was, as pointed out here in this thread and, to be fair, somewhere in that odious, self-serving broadcast exchange, little to do with next steps to finding her and those like her, and a lot to do with the agendas of a bunch of folk I could really care less about and/or should know a lot better.
Meanwhile, as Mr. Paxman is inevitably prompted to say, time is running out, so moving on....
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Dell Hell, Redux
They may make reasonable kit at a decent price, but by heavens their customer service system is enough to make one want to hit the blog wires and pen some bile just to vent off the steam.
A wee while ago, I had a message on my answering machine in a lilting Irish brogue, to the effect that I had a new customer service manager, and it was she. No number, no email in complement... no idea how this would end up.
Yesterday the replacement warranty offer on one of our older PCs expired. I had a letter saying it could only be handled by phone, so a few days ago I dialled that fateful number and ended up in a very dark place.
Endless robots who spoke a kind of English listened to what I was trying to say, ignored it and told me what they had been told to tell me. Twice I was cut off. A few score times I was transferred around the world to be asked the same damn question about my inside leg measurement I'd given previously.
And all the while I kept asking... pleading... that they got a message to my account manager that I'd like to talk about this with her. All said they would do so, and now what about this warranty?
I even emailed.
The result? Well, no call back, it has expired, and you know what? I think I'll use the PC 'til it dies and then not bother replacing it. Or buy one from someone who understands customer service. Oh, and the importance of doing what it takes to ...sell.
Dell, you really need to figure out where you are trying to be, and how you are not helping yourselves get there.
Phew... now I feel better.
BBC - PC maker Dell to cut 7,000 jobs
A wee while ago, I had a message on my answering machine in a lilting Irish brogue, to the effect that I had a new customer service manager, and it was she. No number, no email in complement... no idea how this would end up.
Yesterday the replacement warranty offer on one of our older PCs expired. I had a letter saying it could only be handled by phone, so a few days ago I dialled that fateful number and ended up in a very dark place.
Endless robots who spoke a kind of English listened to what I was trying to say, ignored it and told me what they had been told to tell me. Twice I was cut off. A few score times I was transferred around the world to be asked the same damn question about my inside leg measurement I'd given previously.
And all the while I kept asking... pleading... that they got a message to my account manager that I'd like to talk about this with her. All said they would do so, and now what about this warranty?
I even emailed.
The result? Well, no call back, it has expired, and you know what? I think I'll use the PC 'til it dies and then not bother replacing it. Or buy one from someone who understands customer service. Oh, and the importance of doing what it takes to ...sell.
Dell, you really need to figure out where you are trying to be, and how you are not helping yourselves get there.
Phew... now I feel better.
BBC - PC maker Dell to cut 7,000 jobs
And a side order of soap with your shampoo, sir?
Only organic for me darling
I have no problem with folk blowing their hard-earned any way they like, especially saving the planet in the process, even if it doesn't make much sense financially.
Where I do draw the line is if the enviROI doesn't add up. This is the cost to my kids by a fad actually suckering the totality of the system for a short term marketing gain.
Sadly, it is almost impossible to assess fairly, or in a way consumers will be able to grasp, especially with packaging having to accommodate about a page of A4 with all the pointless, contradictory, a**s-covering, target-meeting, box-ticking guides we already have and are going to find joining them.
And then all we get is those brands we thought we could trust to guide us, like Fairtrade and the Soil Association (plus a few pro-Bono charities), having a spat on which ethical aspect is more important, and it all dissolves into farce.
Still, while there are those who are sincere, some will simply make more quick green-dosh as the planet bleeds.
Yours, with an airflown cherry on top...
I have no problem with folk blowing their hard-earned any way they like, especially saving the planet in the process, even if it doesn't make much sense financially.
Where I do draw the line is if the enviROI doesn't add up. This is the cost to my kids by a fad actually suckering the totality of the system for a short term marketing gain.
Sadly, it is almost impossible to assess fairly, or in a way consumers will be able to grasp, especially with packaging having to accommodate about a page of A4 with all the pointless, contradictory, a**s-covering, target-meeting, box-ticking guides we already have and are going to find joining them.
And then all we get is those brands we thought we could trust to guide us, like Fairtrade and the Soil Association (plus a few pro-Bono charities), having a spat on which ethical aspect is more important, and it all dissolves into farce.
Still, while there are those who are sincere, some will simply make more quick green-dosh as the planet bleeds.
Yours, with an airflown cherry on top...
Many publicities can these days be stirred up with bad publicity.
Nice to drift over to the world of ads once in a while.
Dr Martens sticks boot in
This commentator (never been called that before, so I'm climbing aboard the bandwagon) could care less about the ad (though asking the relatives might have been polite), but is fascinated by the process surrounding the apparent 'furore'. Was that the term in the original release used to kick-start it?
When I first read about this it seemed to be some kind of student competition that got taken too far, and without the knowledge of senior agency or client. So far, so tee-hee...whoopsie: 'They didn't die with our boots on?"
Now it seems it is/was a commissioned piece, using a high-profile photographer, for a one-off 'authorised' insertion in some medium I've never heard of, like that would render it in better taste than being seen anywhere else. As most awards hounds will tell you, it's quite easy to get a dodgy bit of 'edginess' mainstream with a complicit agency/client/minor-medium cabal, a little bit of MySpace or YouTube to 'find' it has been spread around, with a nudge from the PR division to kickstart the Daily Mail, and...ta-daa: a bit more than was 'intended'.
So... what next? It was all actually a big hoot to get a bunch more PR value than the original, rather average concept warranted. Surely not?
Bless.
Crap ads don't hurt people. Being complicit in helping sell them for a few cheap ratings points does.
BRAND REPUBLIC
Dr Martens sticks boot in
This commentator (never been called that before, so I'm climbing aboard the bandwagon) could care less about the ad (though asking the relatives might have been polite), but is fascinated by the process surrounding the apparent 'furore'. Was that the term in the original release used to kick-start it?
When I first read about this it seemed to be some kind of student competition that got taken too far, and without the knowledge of senior agency or client. So far, so tee-hee...whoopsie: 'They didn't die with our boots on?"
Now it seems it is/was a commissioned piece, using a high-profile photographer, for a one-off 'authorised' insertion in some medium I've never heard of, like that would render it in better taste than being seen anywhere else. As most awards hounds will tell you, it's quite easy to get a dodgy bit of 'edginess' mainstream with a complicit agency/client/minor-medium cabal, a little bit of MySpace or YouTube to 'find' it has been spread around, with a nudge from the PR division to kickstart the Daily Mail, and...ta-daa: a bit more than was 'intended'.
So... what next? It was all actually a big hoot to get a bunch more PR value than the original, rather average concept warranted. Surely not?
Bless.
Crap ads don't hurt people. Being complicit in helping sell them for a few cheap ratings points does.
BRAND REPUBLIC
Witches' Knickers
I have pretty much given up on BBC Breakfast News now (and they on me, so not much to lose), as they have pretty much given up on news, or at least reporting, in favour of creating visuals of press releases.
However, around the cornflakes it can still often be lurking on in the corner, and I just caught the tail-end of the latest worthy initiative surrounding plastic bags.
Now as I missed the beginning I am not quite sure what it was all about, but here's a link to today's programme, and as this will soon disappear to the initiative in question: mosbags, guerilla bagging.
Sounds fun. No harm. Good luck to them.
But, now, enviROI.
I learned something. 'We' apparently demand/use/dispose of 290 bags a year, and the reporter was seen under a pile of them. Yuk. Thing is, how much plastic is that? No, really, how much? I don't know, but ignoring litter (which IS an issue) and killing wildlife (ditto, though I wonder how much other rubbish in the sea and fields does more), in terms of plastic weight (not volume), how much are we actually talking here? As the aspiring beneficiary of the RE:tie's contribution (though that is turning something that has no use, save disposal currently, into an actual second useful item) I am the first to wish to say every little bit helps, but context is important. If compressed into a block, how many Albert Halls are we talking here or, more personally, how many bottles of fabric softener for example, with one in our kitchen now destined for the bin because I don't know if I can pop it in with the PEP fizzies in the local plastics skip - which to me is a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE!???!
As it is a critique sometimes levelled at much that Junkk.com and I come up with, I also wonder about consumer uptake.
With a family of four and time pressures, my trips to the supermarket are few, far and frantic. What I have done is kept several cardboard bottle carriers in the boots of both cars, which I take with me and pop in the trolley. These make a big difference to the bagging, and with bottles double bagging, that used to be done. I also have a few score hemp jobbies from council shows and eco-expo giveaways, which it now occurs to throw into the mix, too. So this piece has done its job with a slight awareness boost, and credit to them.
But I have to say I need about 10 to handle it all. I noted that this piece was again a bunch of young, single, urban trendies, on foot picking up a sarny and a bottle of Evian (how many bags' worth?), and again wonder how that equates to a harassed parent trying to get the week's shopping in and done.
Personally, if one were organised, I always thought the crate system was better, though the sheer amount of plastic making them seemed huge and possibly poor enviROI from the get go. But the word there is organised. For spontaneity, we are back to remembering to take these no so little bags with us. For a 5 item dash to the corner shop, why not, but for a bigger effort, by foot or even car, how many are going to go there (though logically why not if you are to struggle back with several laden bags) with all these efforts hanging out of your pockets? There is a supposition one is just carrying out that task, from your home base. Is that practical? Is it going to be done?
But, as noted, other countries seem to do fine, and waste is waste, so it must be addressed. I just wish we could be a bit more joined up, recognise some practical realities, and sell it in ways that might appeal beyond a twenty-something BBC researcher's local street community and PR mates, authority box tickers, real-issue, greenwash-distracting, knee-jerk marketers, etc.
Finally, and on a practical note, I was also a little intrigued by the reporter's choice of recycling bin for his 290 bags at the end of the piece: what looked like a street skip. Now unless there are industrial sized collection facilities in his neck of the woods, I'd hazard that all that ends up in there ends up in a landfill, and so to ensure they stand a better chance of actually being recycled would probably advocate popping them in the bin at the supermarket that says 'plastic bag recycling'.
However, around the cornflakes it can still often be lurking on in the corner, and I just caught the tail-end of the latest worthy initiative surrounding plastic bags.
Now as I missed the beginning I am not quite sure what it was all about, but here's a link to today's programme, and as this will soon disappear to the initiative in question: mosbags, guerilla bagging.
Sounds fun. No harm. Good luck to them.
But, now, enviROI.
I learned something. 'We' apparently demand/use/dispose of 290 bags a year, and the reporter was seen under a pile of them. Yuk. Thing is, how much plastic is that? No, really, how much? I don't know, but ignoring litter (which IS an issue) and killing wildlife (ditto, though I wonder how much other rubbish in the sea and fields does more), in terms of plastic weight (not volume), how much are we actually talking here? As the aspiring beneficiary of the RE:tie's contribution (though that is turning something that has no use, save disposal currently, into an actual second useful item) I am the first to wish to say every little bit helps, but context is important. If compressed into a block, how many Albert Halls are we talking here or, more personally, how many bottles of fabric softener for example, with one in our kitchen now destined for the bin because I don't know if I can pop it in with the PEP fizzies in the local plastics skip - which to me is a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE!???!
As it is a critique sometimes levelled at much that Junkk.com and I come up with, I also wonder about consumer uptake.
With a family of four and time pressures, my trips to the supermarket are few, far and frantic. What I have done is kept several cardboard bottle carriers in the boots of both cars, which I take with me and pop in the trolley. These make a big difference to the bagging, and with bottles double bagging, that used to be done. I also have a few score hemp jobbies from council shows and eco-expo giveaways, which it now occurs to throw into the mix, too. So this piece has done its job with a slight awareness boost, and credit to them.
But I have to say I need about 10 to handle it all. I noted that this piece was again a bunch of young, single, urban trendies, on foot picking up a sarny and a bottle of Evian (how many bags' worth?), and again wonder how that equates to a harassed parent trying to get the week's shopping in and done.
Personally, if one were organised, I always thought the crate system was better, though the sheer amount of plastic making them seemed huge and possibly poor enviROI from the get go. But the word there is organised. For spontaneity, we are back to remembering to take these no so little bags with us. For a 5 item dash to the corner shop, why not, but for a bigger effort, by foot or even car, how many are going to go there (though logically why not if you are to struggle back with several laden bags) with all these efforts hanging out of your pockets? There is a supposition one is just carrying out that task, from your home base. Is that practical? Is it going to be done?
But, as noted, other countries seem to do fine, and waste is waste, so it must be addressed. I just wish we could be a bit more joined up, recognise some practical realities, and sell it in ways that might appeal beyond a twenty-something BBC researcher's local street community and PR mates, authority box tickers, real-issue, greenwash-distracting, knee-jerk marketers, etc.
Finally, and on a practical note, I was also a little intrigued by the reporter's choice of recycling bin for his 290 bags at the end of the piece: what looked like a street skip. Now unless there are industrial sized collection facilities in his neck of the woods, I'd hazard that all that ends up in there ends up in a landfill, and so to ensure they stand a better chance of actually being recycled would probably advocate popping them in the bin at the supermarket that says 'plastic bag recycling'.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
'Ah'll be barck'
It's spooky when a reader reads what you are reading at the same time, so I'll give Dave of Solarventi a credit, and as writer as well (saves me some RSI!):
A claimed method of direct CO2 extraction from the atmosphere using sorbents – don’t know if it could work on a massive scale but it certainly sounds interesting - http://www.gizmag.com/go/7341/
But when I thought about it for a few minutes, I became rather less enamored of the idea – I can’t help thinking that this sort of solution is perhaps akin to curing a consequential symptom rather than the underlying root cause?
I can see the headlines in a few years now – “Every house should have one! Erect your own CO2 absorbing tower in your garden and continue to fly, drive and burn carbon as much as you like!”
Couldn't agree more and, harking back to a blog on this subject many moons ago, I do recall the movie Total, er, Recall, starring one Arnie. S. Though in that flick it was for good, there is a powerful image at the end of solidified blocks of gas being released and changing the atmosphere in a moment. The towers in the pic even remind me of the movie.
Imagine a bunch of freeze-dried climate gunk suddenly deciding to erupt! I'm sure it couldn't happen, but....
A claimed method of direct CO2 extraction from the atmosphere using sorbents – don’t know if it could work on a massive scale but it certainly sounds interesting - http://www.gizmag.com/go/7341/
But when I thought about it for a few minutes, I became rather less enamored of the idea – I can’t help thinking that this sort of solution is perhaps akin to curing a consequential symptom rather than the underlying root cause?
I can see the headlines in a few years now – “Every house should have one! Erect your own CO2 absorbing tower in your garden and continue to fly, drive and burn carbon as much as you like!”
Couldn't agree more and, harking back to a blog on this subject many moons ago, I do recall the movie Total, er, Recall, starring one Arnie. S. Though in that flick it was for good, there is a powerful image at the end of solidified blocks of gas being released and changing the atmosphere in a moment. The towers in the pic even remind me of the movie.
Imagine a bunch of freeze-dried climate gunk suddenly deciding to erupt! I'm sure it couldn't happen, but....
Critical Acclaim
In a few minutes I'm am looking forward to be visited by representatives of Gloucester University, with a view to seeing how they may help me (and, with luck, and in the spirit of barter, me them).
Frankly, the one thing I am desperate for more than anything is manpower, so while it would be silly to divorce this from money, my dream assistance is simply the gift of time.
Lack of it defines our lives, and so much these days that is poor can be firmly laid at its door as a reason, if not excuse.
I know I am in danger of failing what Junkk.com sets out to be, which is in part a positive resource, and in the form of this blog a constructively critical eyebrow check on what's being spewed out in the name of green, much of which actually isn't very, at all.
One thing that keeps the site perky is new information, and a major source of this is from press releases sent. Actually I have not uploaded one in months, simply because 'I haven't had the time' (rubbish... I have, so long as I didn't eat, see my kids or watch a bit of TV at night). Which is a shame, as there is soem great stuff to share.
Another reason is that I am uncomfortable just cutting and pasting a bit of PR simply to bang something out, as often there is the need for a bit of critical analysis as to who or what is being served by failing to do so.
There's just one of me, for now, and so I hope I can be cut a bit of slack in this regard. Others, with more funding, resource and, one would hope, journalistic experience if not integrity, have less excuse.
This, from Dave at Solarventi: Even the big banks...
...are jumping on the bandwagon now! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6703679.stm
Seems to be a BIG announcement but with almost no substance on just how and what they’re going to do.
Quite.
BBC - Banking on green gesture?
Frankly, the one thing I am desperate for more than anything is manpower, so while it would be silly to divorce this from money, my dream assistance is simply the gift of time.
Lack of it defines our lives, and so much these days that is poor can be firmly laid at its door as a reason, if not excuse.
I know I am in danger of failing what Junkk.com sets out to be, which is in part a positive resource, and in the form of this blog a constructively critical eyebrow check on what's being spewed out in the name of green, much of which actually isn't very, at all.
One thing that keeps the site perky is new information, and a major source of this is from press releases sent. Actually I have not uploaded one in months, simply because 'I haven't had the time' (rubbish... I have, so long as I didn't eat, see my kids or watch a bit of TV at night). Which is a shame, as there is soem great stuff to share.
Another reason is that I am uncomfortable just cutting and pasting a bit of PR simply to bang something out, as often there is the need for a bit of critical analysis as to who or what is being served by failing to do so.
There's just one of me, for now, and so I hope I can be cut a bit of slack in this regard. Others, with more funding, resource and, one would hope, journalistic experience if not integrity, have less excuse.
This, from Dave at Solarventi: Even the big banks...
...are jumping on the bandwagon now! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6703679.stm
Seems to be a BIG announcement but with almost no substance on just how and what they’re going to do.
Quite.
BBC - Banking on green gesture?
We open with a helicopter shot of the Maldives...
In the spirit of boundless optimism, all my TV scripts started that way. Sadly, never once did it come to pass. I doubt it was much to do with nascent eco-concern on my clients' parts.
So I was interested in this:
Agencies risk axe from COI roster over eco credentials
What counts as a 'valid environmental policy'?
Is it ticking some boxes to keep yet another overstaffed quango in business, or actually engaging in tangible practices across the board that lead to a genuine enviROI?
So I was interested in this:
Agencies risk axe from COI roster over eco credentials
What counts as a 'valid environmental policy'?
Is it ticking some boxes to keep yet another overstaffed quango in business, or actually engaging in tangible practices across the board that lead to a genuine enviROI?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Nice guys don't get printed
Hey, it has been a long day...
Working from Home May Produce More CO2 than Going to Office
pfft. I like that.
These days there are too many studies that seem intended to achieve little more than stirring the pot and getting the issuer some PR. Job done, I'd say.
It's all been pretty much said already, but as I'm in my home office in the UK let's offer 2 cents. Yes, in winter the heating is still on during the day, but there are these odd little fellas over here we call radiator thermostats, that allow you to tune the room. And, frankly, with a wife and two kids the rooms being heated the rest of the time don't go too low either as they would howl spousal/parental abuse if they are not erring on the toasty on arrival. And there is the notion (upon which I stand ready to be educated), that it may be better to maintain a well-insulated trickle constant rather than allowing to cool and boost heat up too often.
As to a/c... not yet! With global warming... give it a few years. All I know is when I lived in Singapore, with a daily 32 degrees C and 98% humidity, I did just fine with a fan to keep the air moving.
And for the kettle, well, we have a nifty number here called the ecokettle. Does one cup on demand in 30 environmentally-friendly seconds. And I don't have to make one for a bunch of folk that no one quite knows what they produce or even do anyways. Wit titles like 'Director of...' well, you can think of one.
Plus I get to walk with my kids to and from school and work whilst watching the swans on the River Wye.
It's all a tad moot, as I ain't about to budge, and I doubt many others are either.
Interesting headline though. Bet it did wonders for the ratings, despite that 'may' get out clause. Movin' on...
Working from Home May Produce More CO2 than Going to Office
pfft. I like that.
These days there are too many studies that seem intended to achieve little more than stirring the pot and getting the issuer some PR. Job done, I'd say.
It's all been pretty much said already, but as I'm in my home office in the UK let's offer 2 cents. Yes, in winter the heating is still on during the day, but there are these odd little fellas over here we call radiator thermostats, that allow you to tune the room. And, frankly, with a wife and two kids the rooms being heated the rest of the time don't go too low either as they would howl spousal/parental abuse if they are not erring on the toasty on arrival. And there is the notion (upon which I stand ready to be educated), that it may be better to maintain a well-insulated trickle constant rather than allowing to cool and boost heat up too often.
As to a/c... not yet! With global warming... give it a few years. All I know is when I lived in Singapore, with a daily 32 degrees C and 98% humidity, I did just fine with a fan to keep the air moving.
And for the kettle, well, we have a nifty number here called the ecokettle. Does one cup on demand in 30 environmentally-friendly seconds. And I don't have to make one for a bunch of folk that no one quite knows what they produce or even do anyways. Wit titles like 'Director of...' well, you can think of one.
Plus I get to walk with my kids to and from school and work whilst watching the swans on the River Wye.
It's all a tad moot, as I ain't about to budge, and I doubt many others are either.
Interesting headline though. Bet it did wonders for the ratings, despite that 'may' get out clause. Movin' on...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)