Bouquets & Brickbats

The other day our laser printer started making a noise like a dying buffalo. After 3 turbulent years I thought it had given up the ghost. With a purchase price just shy of £200 almost all its residual value is in the consumables, and with it gone they are useless, so I was keen on fixing it.

Initial signs were not good. Well out of warranty, I was looking at call-out fees alone approaching £100. Even lugging it in for an assessment was in the £50 mark.

So I managed to locate the initial sales folk and they said it was worth trying the manufacturer (Epson) help line (0870 44 3 77 66 - select 'sales' and then go with the flow). And I must say it worked out very well. I eventually reached a human after the longest voice menu drill down in history. And, with luck, tproblemelm has been resolved. A free repair advice that saved all round.

That's the bouquet. The brickbat is the status print.

Why on earth is it necessary to such so much ink out on that bar on the left? Surely if it's a roller test one can have a narrow lengthwise and vertical bar to test coverage?

Conspiration Constipation

'They' must be out to get me.

First up, no sooner do I start weaning myself off the vast amount of time searching, reading and too often fruitlessly responding to the flood of online blog static out there, I somehow now find myself seduced by a plethora of manhour-sucking awards and competitions.

Some involve money; some involve potential PR. And some the nirvana of hooking up with complementary talents to move things along. A few offer all of these. And so are too good to ignore.

I have just completed my application to Sky's The Big Idea. Literally a few days' worth of drafting, crafting and rushing around shooting a video pitch. But with £100k at the end, perhaps worth it. I just hope they buy my notion of Junkk.com as an 'invention' that has been created to help create an infinite number of other inventions.

But no sooner do I leave this one in the lap of the Gods of Ratings, than I come across a design competition for canny designs! Only due Friday, so I have, er, one day to not do what I was and devote to the slim chance of a shot at this. Oh, phew, it's 'members only'. And when once this would have me signing up I'm afrid that budget boat has sialed... and sunk.

And then there is this: profit@50. Not a great deal of dosh, but it scores big on the profile meter.

Just one problem. I am not... quite... yet... 50! I'm still embroiled in the thinking behind 'Must be under 30' Guardian cartoon competition (a few posts back), which I miss out on by being too old, and now this looks out of reach becausee I'm too young!!!!

Ever felt you were a square peg in a sea of round holes?

Still looking, but not finding

Another I couldn't resist pitching into, if only in the hope the mainstream journalist may read and wonder about my email address (I now see little other value in these things) and find out what a 'Junkk.com' is:

Wanted: a practical guide to saving the warming planet

"Debate on global warming, be it man-made or naturally-occuring, is really moot. So I agree the key things we must focus on are reducing consumption wherever possible (economical, political and a whole raft of other 'als' permitting), and certainly reducing waste. It is simply a matter of efficiency. Which surely must appeal to any 'conservative'.

Sadly, it's tricky whilst also worrying about natural conservation which, in any form, is going to be hard to achieve with an expanding global population. Most, myself included, shy away from going much further 'there'.

But I'm afraid a polar bear's few thousand acres will come second to a few thousand more voters' homes getting profitably bullt on an ironically water-starved South Eastern flood plain."

I'd read this with a hope that there may be an indication of what form this guide may take. Sadly it was again more debate on whether it was required or not, which I guess I added to.

But at least when it comes to guides on doing stuff that can help, there is at least Junkk.com to point to in mitigation.

Unfortunate Illustrations

Not really anything to do with matters 're' or even Junkk.com's adventures, but I have to post this from today's Guardian - Cartoon competition.

As a not bad cartoonist, I was already sharpening my HB pencil when I noticed: 'entrants must be under 30 on January 1 2007'.

Ooooo, so close. But then I noticed a significant percentage of the posters below had asked 'why 30?', to which I can only add my voice. It's not like it's a kids' competition. I'm even pretty sure it is ageist and as such possibly now (or at least soon) illegal.

No excuses. This may prove interesting to monitor.

ADDENDUM: Paranoia is knowing they are out to ignore you


I decided to pop back to see what's what a few days later, and as there was no reply or, oddly, further posts (read on) decided to have another go. As this letter to the original poster (and attached screenshot) shows, there seems to have been a glitch preventing futher discussion. I wonder why?

Dear Mr. King

As I have an interest in this issue, I returned to the site today to still find no answer to the postings regarding the age limit, and hence composed the following. Sadly it was not possible to upload (see attached). I'm sure there is a perfectly good reason for this, though the phrase 'Comments not allowed on this entry' is less than enlightening, and does in itself raise a few additional questions. So I remain interested. Maybe I'll have more luck sending this to you directly:

"A few days have passed, yet I still see no answer to the majority of posters' legitimate questions regarding the age limit. It may be ageist. It may be legal. It may be demographics. It may be marketing. It may be ethi... well, maybe not. But having asked politely, I'd just like to know the reasoning behind one not being able to enter a non-gender specific creative competition for post-student, working-age UK adults (I can understand the need for kids' versions to have an upper limit) by virtue of being over 30. Is it hoped by staying mute long enough we can all be relied upon to have Alzheimers? Or maybe you too have simply forgotten... to reply? You could of course let such senior citizens enter, and then make sure they don't win if they don't suit the profile. Like every other media competition."

The Plot thickens... well, a reply:

On 9 Aug 2006, at 09:17, Oliver.King@guardian.co.uk wrote:

Peter
I dont have any email in my inbox from your email address so I couldnt have
responded. I am forwarding your query and complaint to Ian Mayes the
Guardian reader's editor. I work for Guardian Unlimited - the website and
not the newspaper. I was asked to publicise the competition by colleagues
on the paper which I did. I didnt draw up the rules to the competition and
do not even know who did so Ian is the best person to contact neither drew
up the rules Please contact Ian Mayes the readers editor with your
complaint.
Oliver King.

And so I stay hopeful, though with eyebrow twitching...

Dear Oliver,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I do appreciate and sympathise with your position, and apologise if my wording made my comments seem personally directed at 'you'. This was not my intention as I fully appreciated the fact that you were just the guy writing the post to advertise the competition.

I was simply interested in answers. And the blog seemed the best place for these to be forthcoming from those who initiated it (I was not aware of the level of distinction between the paper and website); not necessarily to me personally but to address all with similar questions on the blog.

Hence it was frustrating to find that further comment had seemingly been stopped and there remained no organiser's reply after two days. It is surely only to be expected that following such postings there is monitoring of responses?

Still, we are getting places. I will await feedback from Mr. Mayes.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Martin

You can be too mature, apparently

A follow up and, I guess, an answer at last:

"Ian Katz who drew up the competition said he was looking for undiscovered
cartoonists the paper didn't know about. He also said the age limit is
similar to the student journalism competitions the Guardian regularly runs
which offer short-term work as a prize. It was determined to follow similar
rules in this case."

Whether it is a satisfactory one is another matter, along with my having the righteous energy to pursue further. I could still wonder why undiscovered cartoonists the paper didn't know about 'must' be under 30. Do you become known, especially to them, when you're over that age? And 29 year-old students are a new one to me, too.

Funny how 'ist' the supposed organs of liberty and equality can be when it suits.

Meanwhile, at a supermarket near you...

Just read an interesting story about Wal-Mart (which may translate into ASDA here?) 'going green' in Fortune.

Overall it's encouraging, but again, contradictions abound. I just loved the bit about conservationists pitching to the bosses whilst scuba diving here and hiking there around the world. Nice work if you can get it, but I guess a small price to pay to swing the monolith in tangible green ways. And the CEO has traded his Beetle (!) in for a hybrid... er... SUV. Not sure if that was a step in the right direction or not.

But I think I am most focused on this claim: '[The] argument was simple: Wal-Mart could improve its image, motivate employees, and save money by going green.' Reads like our pitch to ASDA about 3 years ago. This has translated into tangibles: 'On Kid Connection, its private-label line of toys, for instance, Wal-Mart found that by eliminating excessive packaging, it could save $2.4 million a year in shipping costs, 3,800 trees, and one million barrels of oil.'

A lot of the inspirations to have hit these multi-million salaried execs seem a bit 'Well, D'uh', when they are reported as so excitedly coming up with initiatives, but at least they are not (always - there is that bottom line) saying no.

And maybe I have some guys to write to about Junkk.com. Can't hurt.

If you have something worth saying, say it!

As I start to look towards ad-land again as a way of keeping the family alive while the Junkk.com machine secures its foothold, I find my Creative Director juices flow when I see certain ads, and view them critically for strategy and message.

And I am starting to feel that the conveying of anything 'green', despite moves in the right direction, is still tending to draw the short straw when it comes to communicating in the same way and to the same effect as other brands.

Take this Lexus execution. It's a 4x4. But it's a hybrid. So it's evil (official). But also gets off the congestion charge (have to check - maybe not, as I'd have to presume they'd mention that for the Chelsea Tractor brigade's benefit). In fact it is a series of contradictions. But at the end of the day it's a dirty great big greenish SUV for those who still want to be up in the sky, lug half a dozen kids, look spiffy and deflect Greenpeace stickers

I'm not sure I get that from the headline. The subhead tells me it's a hybrid. The first line of copy waffles and then goes off into some very vague areas of fact.

As I dust off the porty, I am encouraged. However, much as I'd like to get such guys' ads on Junkk.com, helping shape them still rather requires me to reach them. And that is still proving... tricky.

If you have nothing worth saying...

... issue a leaflet and/or press release anyway (it may be so bad it gets coverage)!

An interesting snippet from the 'Prufrock' business gossip section of the Sunday Times, which is usually more concerned with which 'richer than god' mandarin is outsquandering another, and hence needs to invite the reporter along on their private plane/yacht/country estate to ensure it hits the presses. This one was more modest:

Eco rules for the jet set

I'm presuming that opting not to travel at all is another option they advocated (but I guess if your business is travel, then you may decide that is a step too far. At least sustainable is better than nothing).

But I have to say it does highlight how a lot of organisations are struggling to make the whole eco-thing interesting. While an undoubted good thing, switching the lights off in your resort room is, as pointed out, not exactly cutting edge. Some newsletters we're getting are looking decidedly tired. The non-commercial re-brigade are really scraping the barrel. There really is only so much you can re-hash. Guys like Grist still seem to be keeping things fresh, but the global warming debate is tending to circle now, too. What more can you do? I do still revel in Treehugger's news of innovations, but again there is now a plethora of folk selling eco-stuff.

As we try and get towards our next, second (ouch!) and hopefully vanguard of more regular newsletters, we really must weigh the best regularity (I'm thinking monthly to start, down to a maximum of weekly, perhaps with options of full text or summaries) and content balance. I'm hoping that between ideas, features and of course the odd blog I've penned, we will have enough to stay fresh maintain the interest of our audience.

Coke adds... data

Actually they haven't.. yet. But on a more positive note I'm hoping this ad, which pretty much shows what we're up to (if for a very different reason) is karmically encouraging. At least we know they have a caliper in the office!

What's odd about this picture?

All very noble 'n all, and yes it did get noticed, but as it isn't mentioned anywhere I have to wonder how they got there. And, indeed, how the shots (there are many - we are talking an international artist here - I guess he cycles around) get taken.

There may be hints in the words 'seen from the air', 'pay a flying visit' and 'aerial artist'.

Mixed message? Me, I waited 'til they stuck up a crane and then asked the operator to take some shots of our town ;)

Agenda Benders

Another lost archive, this time from when I was contributing to the BBC about blogs, and not a little miffed about editorial, if not censorship. Still worth sharing:

There is no doubt that power can turn the head of those who wield it. And there is equally no doubt that those who occupy any position of public profile in or for a major media organisation will inevitably find such a gift, and curse, bestowed upon them, willingly or merely as a consequence. And as will always be the way, such power can come in many forms, stemming equally from the way it has been wielded, from respect to to fear. With, in the case of media, perhaps one extra aspect, the desire to be heard. You may agree or disagree with someone who can lay claim to column inches or minutes of airtime. You may like or dislike them. But if you think there's the faintest chance that you may get to their audience by engaging with them in any way, it's worth the punt.

Until recently, access to the major media was quite simple. You were either part of the story-telling system, or part of the story. Now, with the advent of the forums and blogs sprouting everywhere, there is a chance at finding oneself as a potential profiled player in either, but most significantly the former, at least by temporary association. This can be heady stuff. And has been hailed as a new era in citizen journalism bringing a new dimension to the media fare we are served and/or can opt for.

But is it? With recent personal experience I can testify that what seemed to be a brave new world of equal access and freedom of speech can easily be manipulated by whomsoever controls the medium to meet their requirements, benign or otherwise.

For this reason I have now decided to try to avoid reading much less contributing to any other blogs, and concentrate solely on my own, using and quoting such information resources with whose provenance I have more confidence, at least historically. I will always have my own of course, and what I have written, and hence think, is there for all to read and judge accordingly, warts and all. And I think I will continue to avoid allowing replies, at least directly (I always welcome contact for personal discussion), to avoid any chance that what is on view (ie: from others) artificially adds weight to my own, inevitably subjective, viewpoints.

In short there will always be an agenda. It's silly to pretend, or believe, otherwise.

Me, myself... not

I have, it seems, a common name. First and last. Those Hugenots got about a bit. Hence I share it with quite a few folk. Some of note.

Usually this is quite fun. But then a Sunday Times journalist with my moniker wrote an expose of the Russian Mafia, so I was a bit concerned when any black cars with smoked windows drove past the house a bit too slowly.

And now this morning I was in front of the TV when Newswatch came on, pretty much starring in commentary and print... me! Only it wasn't. And this person's views were not mine at all. Now I have chosen to contribute to this programme before, and at the very least readers of this blog know it. So do most of my chums. Fortunately none of you are up at this time so it is not an issue.

But it did make me think. What was the point of the name? It could have been anyone. Even adding the town can still lead to a mis-identification of there are more than one of you.

I think it's mainly to ensure those that write in check to see if they have been mentioned, which at least means some sort of audience.

I certainly think that's true of the Telegraph system I have given up on since having a post edited (see recent previous blog). When I read the initiating article first thing there are no posts as the moderating (and editing) is taking place. But unless I have contributed I can't really be bothered to check subsequently.

Vanity, vanity, thy name is 'Cross of Ross'.

Asking for thirds

Just stumbled across some notes I took for my recent jaunt to London. Hate to waste, so here they are:

Did you know there a Third Sector? Until recently, I didn't. So it came as a bit of surprise to find we (Junkk.com) fall within it. It has an office. And a Minister.

And so it was that I was up at crack of dawn (and back in the wee small hours:( to attend an event snappily entitled 'Joint HM Treasury & Cabinet Office Review On The Future Role Of The Third Sector In Social & Economic Regeneration' in London, drearily.

Basically it's an outreach, recognising that there a bunch of folk 'out there' doing stuff that is quiet helpful to the social fabric, and that it wouldn't hurt to complement. I'd even go so far as to say 'they' had understood a bit of help, or at the very least reduction of hindrance, would go a long way to making things happy and happening.

It all kicked off with the inevitable speeches from the inevitable bevvy of pols, with the inevitable excuses for not hanging around beyond wishing us the best, Young Mr. Grace-style... 'you're all doing very well'. Ah well, busy folk, I guess, but it does strike one that for all the stories they tell of 'meeting real folk' you need to wonder when it is they actually do it. Actually a fairly sharp bunch, with a few young... so young. There was a nice balance of fresh enthusiasm, though already jading with trappings of power.

At least they are trying, which is why I committed to attend.

Was it worth it? Well, it was 15 unpaid/compensated hours of my life, plus car, return train and tube.

Basically it was two sets of workshops, where 'we' (social enterprisers) sat in groups and came up with answers to structured questions around themes such as:

* Promoting Innovation and Enterprise

* Future role of the sector in shaping and delivering public services

* Cohesive communities and building a voice for citizens

* Creating a sustainable resource base

It was all structured, which is necessary, but to me no so happily. Thanks to the schedules overrunning it was more important to do what we were meant to in the allocated space, rather than consider coming up with anything sensible. More process over product. I almost expected them to ask us to make sure we ticked the box and signed in.

But by some miracle a few useful discussions were had.

Plus a few 'debates'. I think I was a very lone 'commercial' social enterprise in a sea of NGOs, charities, etc, and all of whom knew this turf backwards.

I don't like being patronised by some smart-alek in a suit whose job and salary depends on dealing in process, when I have committed my whole being to product.

At least there was a nice buffet.

I have posted the thoughts I had on the site.

ps: On a small, but not unconnected note, for visual accompaniment I attach just some of the paperwork associated with it all. Note the natty folder. Now how much better had it been not immediately disposable, but rather had a second use? Just asking.

Data Overload. Answers underwhelming?

A while ago I had a request from some media initiative I'd signed up for, to help with some research.

Keen to help, I clicked the link and even got cracking, but when I saw the thing was scores of pages long I paused, and then when it transpired they were asking pretty deep rooted financial stuff about our business I stopped dead, not even midway through.

At least this thing allowed one to have a mooch forward to see what you were letting yourself in for, and even store entries 'to date' (which strikes a chord having just lost a mulit-page online application that did neither when my browser hung - the secret is just to whack in x's and nonsense numbers until the end (don't hit submit!) and capture the headings on a Word .doc to craft at leisure, and then cut and paste when you're ready). But it was still just too much, and I dropped it.

But it seems they knew where I lived, and did not want take 'waaaay too hard' as an answer, because I have just been reminded:

"We are now heading towards the end of our annual collection of data. Your input would be greatly appreciated to help provide an overview of the whole sector, and provide results that are useful to [the commissioners]."

As it seemed only polite, I was moved to write to explain why we are not participating further in this survey rather than just not responding:

"We are and have been keen to help and indeed support any initiative(s) of this nature, as they can be more than beneficial to our area and possibly our own interests. We in fact have benefited from support in the past.

However, we are finding ourselves bombarded with such requests, and frankly many are too extensive, intrusive or indeed too regular to cope with unless they are a requirement of a grant process (and even then I have had cause to request a qualitative person-based interview rather than a form-based one). I also have a real problem with such structured questionnaires as they often do not allow for context.

This one fell under the first two as far as we are concerned. I did try, but gave up when I saw where it was going (which at least it did. Some refuse to allow you to proceed unless you fill things fully and in a way designed to suit the acquisition system)."

No kidding. I get these requests all the time. And some on a very regular basis. Plus reminders. They can get very hurt that you don't feel like filling in their form, their way.

What really gets me is that few, if any of these forms have been structured in a way that I felt I was contributing meaningfully, or were trying to help me help them. So much needs context or an explanation. And too often saying 'don't know', or 'none of the above' or 'more than one' is rarely an option. Nothing gets me offside more than a form telling me I have not filled it in correctly before allowing me to move on, especially when it doesn't allow me to answer correctly (it is way worse when it is something serious, or involving money, when you have to put your name to it at the end). There is seldom a 'gave up becuase this is a stupid form' option.

So I have to question this research technique, how much it all costs and how meaningful the results ever can be. But I'm sure it all makes for lovely reports that no one will read.

Ok, so I'm a hypocrite. Now what?

Here's an interesting piece - Welcoming Homer the tree-hugger - sent to the BBC Green Room by an American writer.

Considering the provenance it is unsurprisingly funny, intelligent and irreverent.

But...

Despite enjoying every word, and agreeing with it all, by the end I was not terribly sure what more I could do.

Yes, 'we' need to cooperate. And certainly those on his list need to be brought on board. But join what?

How I wish I had the cachet of writing something like the Simpsons behind me to get published in such a major medium and simply say 'please join Junkk.com and use it. It's free, it's fun and may make a small difference'.

I guess I'll try. But will it get read in some niche area by anyone other than a bunch of hypocrites like me who will immediately discuss and criticise without even giving it a go?

We have had welcome support for Junkk.com form many areas. But what has amazed me is how few we can trace who have actually signed up and used it. Our best hope are those who just like the idea and want to play.

Back to the shed.

The Shirty Dozen

BBC's Panorama is one of the few true, old school investigative news programmes around these days, so when I came across an invitation to submit my blog (well, it was to anyone, so I hope they have a lot of staff) I thought 'Why not?'

So I composed the following, and it can't hurt to have it logged here:

The environment is BIG these days. There are lives at stake: a current and future planetful, by some accounts. There is also good, and bad, money to be made taking advantage of its problems. I have a few profound views that shape my blog’s content... My ‘Shirty’ Dozen:

1) The facts and/or causes of climate change/global warming are too often distracting, or used as such. What really matters is that there is no sense in wasting anything unnecessarily.

2) People are inevitably polluters. With a growing global population, all we’re really doing is buying time... and still not very well. But it’s still worth trying!

3) Hence any well considered, positive/proactive initiative is better than nothing, well worth supporting and applauding. But there always need to be SWOT analyses and ROI assessments built-in... with consequential contingencies.

4) Little that is green can be viewed productively only in black and white.

5) There is still waaay too much remote, high-level talk, and not enough individual action.

6) Where there is action, the demands of PROCESS too often hijack the aims behind the RESULT, making change much more difficult to apply.

7) Most everyday folk would like to do something, but few have the time or resources to find out or sift through everything out there (and often contradictory), much less engage. They must be reached on terms they can cope with, and in ways they can respond to.

8) The public are often poorly served by those - authority, activist and even the media - with what can look like pretty short-sighted, selfish or self-promoting agendas. Inefficiencies and hypocrisies need to be exposed and called into account

9) The ‘Green Elite’ can too often contribute to the problem rather than helping with the solution.

10) Green need not always be good, or be above question. If it doesn't make sense to me, it may not to others. So it's always worth asking why.

11) Positive results need to be promoted, and rewards and incentives favoured over nagging, scare tactics or threats.

12) It is possible to be an idealist. The tricky part is keeping pragmatic and practical along with it.

Enough Talk

It's a painful process, weaning myself of all this. I enjoy it. But it is an addiction, and like all such, can prove a negative infleunce on one's day.

But I was helped by yet another consumption of time and energy, again courtesy of the excellent Grist.

They had inspired a debate that was essentially about how best to deal with communications - Self-interest is the answer - and when words like 'cool' and 'brand are bandied about, it gets my attention. Having read all the comments I was ready to pitch in. But then... how much would I consume today on trying to write a well argued piece? And what, really, would it acheive?

Nah. Better to stay with trying to do something.

Not that it stopped my having a small input on someone else advocating doing something, this time by tapping into Geothermal.

I guess I just feel more comfortable with the notion of reducing waste rather than finding new ways of making and expending energy to make more.

The consequences seem less fraught with contradictions.

Too much. Too Often. Too late?

As I have mentioned, for the sake of all sorts of things that really need preserving, I am cutting down on the whole surfing thing, and even, to an extent, the commentating.

It really has been a case of 'too much, too often'.

And having read this - Media attacked for 'climate porn' - in one of the few daily 'must reads', the BBC, I can see I am not alone. The irony of this being more, if not the same, at least simply 'more' to digest, is not lost on me.

Or the fact that the most likely result of not a bad analysis is a lot more 'is!/isn't' exchanges as Rome burns (or will soon as the planet heats).

The piece also introduced me to a series of pretty neat articles i was not aware of until now, labelled 'The Green Room".

Maybe I'll contribute, but I have to say I think that in many ways it's simply too late, so there is little point.

Chilling

The information overload reduction process continues apace, as I divert more and more daily 'e-wsletters' to the Trash. Note that I can't quite bring myself to unsubscribe, which means they are still to be read and/or simply serve to clutter up my hard drive until one of my infrequent purges.

I'm having more trouble weaning myself off commenting.

Yesterday there was a piece on BBC Breakfast TV's business section, with the Jerry of Ben & Jerry's. I actually thought he was quite an engaging soul.

What surprised me was that there was the opportunity for an online chat via the blog of Declan, the host. More so that it wasn't 'under' the BBC but actually Blogger (like this) and had been going since April.

Anyways, I thought it a good opportunity to pitch in and maybe get some profile.

Boy, did I get thwarted. Despite being registered and all with Blogger, I was not with 'the Group', and it was all over before I could figure out how to join, which I still can't.

Maybe someone, somewhere, is trying to tell me something.

Baby Steps

Some more positive news to share.

A wee while time ago I applied us for the Guardian Social Entrepreneur Awards. Fair amount of dosh, a whiz under noses of some useful judgepersons and... major media coverage!

Well, we're through to the next stage. How's about that? OK, so probably a lot of other fine folk are too, but it's better than a 'Sorry, but..' letter.

Wish us luck in September when we (taking First Lady PJ who has a bit more chance of keeping us suit-friendly with the forms than yours truly) go to make the next level pitch.

Two cultures separated by... common courtesy

Just before the weekend, I wrote to two of my favourite e-media blogs/newsletters, Grist and Treehugger (about whom, and others, I plan to write an article, er... soon). And just before the weekend I got replies. Short, polite, helpful (as far as they could be) and... as you will gather... prompt.

They both hail from the USA. I pose a question whose answer I think we all know... would I have heard back in this way, or even at all, if it had been addressed to media of any form closer to home?

Spend, spend, spend

And another from the archive, still 'Lost in Space' :

The other day I was in London, haunting the corridors of power, mixing with the governing class... getting nowhere fast. Of this, more later.

It does coincide with this little piece, about amounts of money blown, poorly, on 'communications', a subject dear (in every sense of the word) to my heart: There are far easier ways to excite teenagers

Of course, I could not resist a thought of my own.:

"There's nothing difficult in spending oodles of taxpayers' money, especially when it is on 'communication'. What IS easy is avoiding being pinned down to a defined ROI for such an exercise, yet if challenged conjure up a result that 'meets target' by producing an increase in 'awareness'. Effecting the tangible result of real change is a tad more tricky. After years in the ad game, I would wish all clients were so generous with their money and oversight. But then, they usually have products designed to be actually bought."

What was good about yesterday was the seeming commitment to helping business help the community. It remains to be seen if the juicy plums of ad budgets as part of that process stay with an elite, and seemingly unaccountable, few.

Teacher's Pet Gift Ideas

Well, that's it, I'm going to have to stop going e-postal. Just found another blog I emailed last week that is now in the Bermuda hyperspace (at least the spelling should get better):

I am shamed. But my eyebrow also twitches. And it's all because of this: Teachers 'prefer ethical gifts'

Last Friday saw my kids break up for summer. The morning saw a mad dash to get a card drawn up and a quick rummage in the kitchen cupboard managed to locate, with relief, a box of (non-Fairtrade?) Maltesers left over from last month's birthday party. With many assurances that this would be replaced, it was duly donated.

Our one small tilt to enviro-considerations was wrapping it in newspaper. Mrs. Jones does run the eco-club as well, after all.

But I have to say that I did not for one second ponder going the full monty ethically, as suggested here. Mainly because it did not occur to me... and certainly not in time.

And while it all seems a plan, I just wonder what the basis of this research was. Guy from the educational media standing there saying 'Do you, a guardian of our nation's youth and future, think it better to get a nice box of All Gold or bottle of Merlot, or do you think it's your job to point the little angels even further on the path of righteousness?'.

Just asking.

A while ago I stopped to help one of my sons' mate's mums change a tyre. She dropped off a nice red subsequently. I'm not sure a goat would have been quite the same.

Confused? You will be!

It's not easy being green. Especially a lite one. You want to do what's best, but just when you think you're doing the right thing by doing what you're told, along comes advice that can often be completely at odds.

Hence, while not strictly green, I look at this from today's Mail, which is about energy, so it is pertinent:

The Government has urged energy customers to switch suppliers after British Gas announced further price hikes. It is the fourth price rise in less than two years and follows a 22 per cent increase in March.

Woo. The Government. And in the Daily Mail what's more. So it must be a good idea, right? On balance it seems to make sense.

But then.... you find something like this trots along from another direction, this time Martin Lewis' Money-Saving Expert (go to his site to get the full skinny):

British Gas Major Price Rise Don't listen to anyone saying 'switch supplier now!' - British Gas has just announced a 12.4% gas price rise and 9.4% electricity price rise effective 4 September. You'll read comments telling you 'switch, switch, switch', yet that message is pumped by companies with a vested interest in churning the market. Actually the sensible thing to do is sit tight!

I respect this guy, his sources and his advice a lot. So I think I'll stick with this.

But what about all the other 'official' 'You shoulds...' we get, especially in the e-area?

I don't want to be a Groucho, but...

... to quote Mr. Marx the eldest, I often feel 'I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member'.

I have been meaning to write about the whole 'free eBay'/swap arena for a while, and may soon do a formal review, but this - freecycle: TM, and R.I.P. - in today's Grist (an e-letter well worthy of subscribing to... for free) has moved me to put digit to keyboard now.

It’s always sad when something so fundamentally ‘good’, such as anything that’s not just talking about trying to save the planet but actually doing something (I’m big on tangibles) gets compromised – to any degree – by... talking. But I guess we all can't resist having opinions. So I simply advocate the notion of ‘whatever works!’, which does not exclude constructive criticism.

Freecycle is a true phenomenon, and certainly already has a firm foothold here in the UK. It is also about the only serious such initiative around that I'm aware of - not counting our little JunkkYard.

I'm pretty sure all the corporate, legalistic shenanigans would and possibly could not occur here, but we'll see. Academic anyway, as it hardly affects anything.

The issue seems to be cultural. Personally I had trouble (hey, ours is not perfect and we're always working on it... funds permitting) coping with the system Freecycle used/s and have given up with it. But a lot do. So if asked we will happily advocate trying JunkkYard AND Freecycle (and now a few others this post has made me aware of, if they are over here). Why not? They're both free, not exclusive and achieve the same result. And we gain from being helpful all round, so with luck will get revisited. So what is being defended here?

As a consumer you go where you feel comfortable. In the UK I sensed the same 'clique' tensions creeping in. When I could be bothered to read the vast numbers of daily emails, there'd often be sniping going on. Why so heavy? Who needs it?

For sure we're keen to create a community, and there is a Forum for people to engage, but mostly it's just a tool. Like some others mentioned, our model is much more Google or eBay. Donor/Beneficiary. Post/Surf. Offer/Collect. Beyond providing the matchmaking mechanism (and enjoying passive exposure to the traffic created) what other involvement is required?

We opened from day one with our hearts on our sleeves... well, our business model up there on our banners.

Much like Anita Roddick's sale of Body Shop, if you start as one thing, you can probably expect to cop some flak when you try and change the fundamentals. Especially having established with a super-ethical ‘no money involved’ stance, to trying to turn a buck, even if it’s just to keep funding the whole shebang. And moving from voluntary to sponsored will put a few supporters' noses out. Sadly the whole e-movement can be quite ‘purist’ in approach when it comes to making green, and beyond grubby money, standards of hotly advocated 'best practice' (who decides?) can also often alienate those who are a lighter shade and lives to get on with.

Frankly I can't quite see what’s the problem (being commercial that is). However, being uber-precious and especially getting the shark suits involved does not seem productive. I wonder who funds this aspect? And why? Does this suggest a another, possibly more financially-aspirational agenda?

If it is, consumer preferences and market forces will decide. Welcome to the club.

What you say may not be what you've done (or said)

Having posted on a forum/blog (see last post) this morning, I have come back to find a very active series of exchanges (mine's in there somewhere). It was interesting to note (and worthy of separate comment), that when I posted the board was still a blank canvas, though obviously many had been posting well before me, which can lead to unfortunate disconnects, especially if referring to another post.

I have tended to prefer such the Telegraph version to some other major media, because there is point in contributing beyond venting, as you do have the chance of a credit, and this can be of value. We have had sign-ups to the site as a consequence of my posting to these things in the past.

Now I am thinking of pulling back from these arenas, as explained by this subsequent post I have been moved to add (and may or may not get 'approved' at all, much less 'as is', despite the following: 'telegraph.co.uk does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over information posted by users'. Which I had taken to mean what one wrote, so long as it followed guidelines, was what went up. But apparently not):

"It hadn't occurred to me until now that, despite having a few issues to cover and working within a stated limit, what one has contributed even to a Blog/Forum can be edited before sharing. And this of course can seriously affect context. Not to mention shape the direction of the piece in the direction of the media controller's agenda. It can enhance the pros or cons of an issue, or simply keep things bubbling ratings-wise by emphasising the best 'bites'.

This has added to my doubts about the value of such things, but in mitigation here at least I offer a 'big up' (or maybe it should be 'God bless') to the power of the blogging system and its participants. Thanks to some today, I realise I should have been much more concerned with discovering further substance on what the good Bishop may or may not have said, and done or not have done, before so enthusiastically endorsing a piece that was quite harsh on his words and deeds, at least as reported. As we're on a theological roll, to paraphrase Pastor Niemoller , 'First they selectively quoted the Bishops, and I did not speak, yadayada... and now they have selectively quoted me and no one had the time (or inclination) to delve any deeper to find out what I'd really said'.

Otherwise I think most of what I anticipated earlier has been almost all been illustrated in many posts."

Maybe what ended up on board was pithier, and hence my effort benefitedtted from the editorial input, but it was not what I had written. And I think it omitted some key aspects I thought important.

For that, at least I still have my own blog.

A point well made is a point well taken

A good blog in today's Telegraph - Ignore the bishop: enjoy your holiday - on a subject (actually a couple) about which I have commented before, have here (below) and doubtless will again. It will be interesting to see what replies she gets. Here's mine ( a bit fuller than online, as they 'only' allow 4000 characters, which to a windbag like me is a cruel constraint:

"Very good. Ignore the bishop. Enjoy the holiday. But please don't dismiss the message.

This is an excellent post, so long as one reads all of it.

I agree totally that one of the greatest impediments to promoting the benefits of responsible (the definition and scope of which is obviously still wide open) environmental practices by the individual, is the notion that everything green must be black and white. Nuances abound, and too often those that seek to effect positive (in a global warming sense) changes, for whatever reason (career to enhance, book to sell, viral to promote, consultancy to secure, pension fund to stock up... or possibly even genuine concern), have to think very carefully before taking a moral high ground and aggressively tackling a narrow topic, especially one that may be dear to their hearts. Especially from a position of relative privilege. And more so by the excessive use of comparative negativity. Because it can all too easily backfire, and while debate is great, I fear for effecting change when everyone is too busy pointing fingers at each other when they should be encouraged to just get on and do what they can. How much of the introduction to this post was strenuous rebuttal before the positive suggestions kicked in?

Things have to be debated, and I use the blog on my site (which tries to offer solutions, ideas and things to do to hopefully improve matters 'enviro') to do this a lot, and sometimes end up in some 'healthy discussions', which unlike here I prefer to conduct one-to-one offline, as things can get a bit flaming daft as the entrenched camps weigh in. Not long ago I tried to convince a respected media commentator that calling fellow petrolhead scribes 'selfish' (that word again) for their obsession with high speed exotica could have set in motion a confrontational situation that did not serve his point as well as adopting a less personal and reasoned approach might have, especially as he introduced his article as written on a plane to Australia.

My other concern was that he seemed to also be tipping the wink to groups who were engaging in 'more robust' commentary on the rights or wrongs of others to buy and use a legally and freely available consumer good. This cannot be a productive route, no matter what the frustrations. Now it seems it's a plan to spit in my farmer (they do wear suits and often visit the big city) neighbour's coffee, if a new anti 4x4 viral ad is to be emulated. I'm sure the making of this latter was carbon offset to the nth degree, but having been on a few shoots I very much doubt every aspect was totally 'environmentally sound' with no compromises to getting the job done on time and within budget. Cast and crew drinking water from a tap and not an spring water bottle in sight?

We have to accept the compromises of living in an overpopulated (and 'ing') world, with an infinite desire and ability to make new things and (at least in affluent countries) the means and desire to embrace them. People no longer stay in their village their whole lives, and the desire to travel is almost ingrained.

Hence better ways must be found to change behaviours, some of which look like being painful. And must be massive in scale. I only have to glance up at the contrails in the sky each day (or revisit BBC Horizon's Global Dimming documentary) to feel that air travel has to be to be a hefty influence in unnatural weather patterns. But reversing a global industry that employs millions, provides pleasure (accepting this is one instance when the journey is not part of the holiday) to hundreds of millions and brings in revenue to billions more is not going to happen easily. Especially when one looks at the rate of new airport construction in developing countries.

A start has to be made, somewhere, and as we cannot be unaware any more it may as well be at home. One can't really ask a neighbour to put their house in order when you have historically been trashing yours and enjoying the party up until now (and still want to). Examples must be set. Alternatives sought and offered. As suggested, subsidies to pollute need to be restricted, but incentives with rewards introduced wherever possible (the points on fuel tax and rail costs are well made). And such notions need to be (excuse the pun) aired. But by whom?

Hence pedestals should be mounted very circumspectly. And those who take it upon themselves - priest, politician, celeb, commentators... blog participants - to pronounce from them to others on what not to do should think very carefully on what qualifies them to do so. And before being too smug, ponder also what circumstances have allowed them to pontificate. I have read a lot lately on the 'Green Elite', and it is not a club, like many, I could easily afford - in money, time or opportunity - to join. So practice what you preach, and if you do preach what you practice please make it inspirational rather than critical. Nothing can compromise a message more than being accused of hypocrisy, which usually ends up distracting away from simply getting on and doing.

Say what?

A quick test of the blogging system to see if the emails are working again. The BBC has asked: Has the internet changed your life?

And I have replied:

"Email is invaluable. The net has given me affordable two-way access to the world, via my web-business/blog. And, via such as this Forum, an opportunity to voice an opinion in public elsewhere.

But...

...it's all now so vast it's but a babel of opinion, hard to substantiate (hence believe) fact, subjectivity and 'noise' - to which I have just contributed - that's almost impossible to absorb, much less cut through meaningfully to make any real positive impact.

Between just getting the invitation and writing my post, the entry pages jumped from 8 to 10. I don't have the time or inclination to read it all ( I will sneak a peak to see if I'm there) to assess context. What value is that?"

I must say I do wonder what the purpose of it all was to them. Will they have names they can use? Will it be for research? Will they glean some comments of use to further their knowledge base?

Or is it juts a major waste of time all round?

Well, they asked

There's a rather nice little website called Planet Science, targetted a younger audience, but does cover a fair mix of subjects in a user-friendly way.

Reminding me slightly of when my Civil Engineering degree progress hit my doing a Maths A level in 3 months (I once drew a cartoon of a climber hanging onto a cliff edge, entitled 'Another Failed Attempt At Scaling The Eigen Values' instead of answering a question about something I had no clue about), I would like to share their share by way of a a lighter break.

Not sure what the marking system at bottom right is, but surely the respondent did answer the question?

The wrongs of doing right

One night not so long ago there was a power cut, and I was deafened by the silence as hard drives and fans spun down around me. And plunged into the near pitch black as scores or red, green a blue lights faded along with monitor screen.

So it was I blogged a short while ago with approval on the proposal to 'ban' standbys. But I may have been hasty, at least in such total endorsement of it in the form proposed: Recipe for sofa rage if standby gets the heave-ho

As  measure to force couch potatoes to move from sofa to set at night's end it is a no-brainer, but there are obviously some pretty massive technological issues at stake here. Many, to be sure, stem from our addiction to technology, but that boat has long since sailed. You don't read this without both having a PC and doubtless a 24/7 router in the loft.

There is some room for optimism. From the absolutes  that are at the start of the piece, I started to read between the lines and sense that there were avenues that could be explored... if there was consumer will. If a set top box does not have an off switch then it surely could acquire one, surely. And if people don't like 'inconvenience', then tough. 

And the article helpfully ends with a helpful link that I in turn pass on to make the best of things for now:

PC Pro magazine offers realistic estimates of cost savings and more techniques you can apply today — without the need for government tinkering. Visit tinyurl.com/o4glo.

Help Wanted!

This is the fourth (of 4, at least recently) missing posts.
Apologies for any subsequent duplications.

Every morning, I awake with the larks and spend a fair few hours sifting through the overnight email collection of newsletters from near and far, and often get sucked off on some tangent that can deliver the sweet fruit of more knowledge.

I also derive a pretty hefty collection of folk I'd like to get in touch with, and hope to get on board with Junkk.com (and us with them) in the cause of synergy and mutual benefit.

And more often than not I'll stumble across an award, competition, grant or somesuch that needs investigating and, possibly, applying for.

This is all good stuff, but really makes only a small difference to helping Junkk.com be the entity it was intended to be.

Especially because little, if any of this info is currently making it to our pages.

I'm just so busy accumulating, I simply do not have the time to turn this into something that can be of interest and use on the site. Which is plainly ridiculous.

Plus there are now countless very fine online publications, blogs & Forums producing excellent news and views, with healthy and growing readerships... with enviably tasty ad support to match. And it's frustrating, because I can honestly say that I have read few that have anything I have not already come across already and, if such things really mattered, noted a lot earlier as relevant. And while a small minority do make an analysis or pass comment (almost all US-based), most are simply reprints of PR releases. We are guilty of this too, but mainly with 'info' stuff that can just be passed on. In mitigation there is this blog and such as our new PPProR section.

But Junkk.com is mostly about 'doing', and though all is in place to freely allow that to happen by any who choose to do so (person or company), the process requires constant nudging along. Specifications, ideas... and then sharing this near and far to inspire and encourage and attract more.

And that crucial aspect is falling behind.

So we need help. Bodies on the ground. Money to pay for them. We are applying for support from NGOs, government, initiatives, etc, but they are seldom keen on funding people's time. They like widgets. And targets.

There is promise in certain awards we've submitted to, and our premise is the establishment of Junkk.com 'representation' around the country. Perhaps ten 'regions' to start with. A bit like the Freecycle coordinators, only perhaps a little less rigid, clubby and cliquey, a little lighter green... and a bit more commercial, which means we aim to reward efforts and time.

When, as we hope, the money comes in, would you like to be part of this? It will inevitably be a slow start as we're on a learning curve, and I can't guarantee big bucks, and maybe not much at all initially. We'd certainly not expect you to be out of pocket, even from the outset! The kind of thing we envisage is as follows for 'Local Heroes', as we've named this project :

* Liaison with recycling/reuse organizations and media.

* Attending local events/fetes.

* Highlighting local re-problems and success stories.

* Initiating and moderating Forums/FAQ's on local e-topics.


Carried out by:

* Talking to local people/word of mouth.

* Surfing & contributing to local media sites and Forums.

* Contacting local organizations/councils/shops via the Internet, telephone/meetings etc.

* Show/Exhibition presence (we're planning roadtrip exhibition support)


If you think you like the sound of that, get in touch: info@junkk.com

I think I've caught a viral...

This is 3 of 4 of recent missing posts. If the duplicate turns up, apologies.

...Or, at the very least, I'm on a list. No sooner does the Greenpeace 'viral' get sent to me, but now I have been sent another. At least the former was well targeted by the PR agency, but I'm damned if I know what some credit card has to do with my day.

I like(d) the idea of virals, at least as I understood them. But maybe I have missed the point. I thought it just like discovering new and edgy music used to be. An often vicarious pleasure, or through tuning into pirate stations, following anarchic DJs and haunting dodgy pubs, you stayed at the cutting edge. Now what's 'out here' is manufactured very much 'in here', and then served up under the guise of being raw. There are now archives, lists and awards. 'In people', who make sure we see what we're meant to, and nothing outside their control or ability to make some money from. There are probably already viral agencies (which I guess are like ad agencies only without the need to submit scripts or partner up with media buyers, though I guess they do now need PR agencies as a substitute).

When I was an aspiring creative, you begged, stole or borrowed to get a bit of time in an edit suite to cut a few frames together you'd knocked out on the HandyCam for the porty. Now it's full blown productions purporting to be without any corporate sanction or funding, when the dead hand of a trendy exec's brief is clear to all: 'use bad language, sex or violence (or all three) in some way that creates a hoo haa, and we'll get media coverage for free from the media gatekeepers who will be happy for the column inches/footage, and probably to lead to exposure more than the value of paid ads. Message is secondary. Action on the part of the consumer a surprise bonus.'

Meanwhile, I'm dusting off my HandyCam.... watch this space. No, really, watch this space...

What does your marketing say about you?

This is 2 of 4 of recent missing posts. If it turns up, apologies for the duplication.

My views on the whole 4x4 thing are well known (and if you don't know them, then there are around 400-odd posts to work back through to see that I don't own one, don't see the need for most to have one, but feel there are much bigger fish to fry, less divisively, than the current obsession some activists have with the stupid things. Any road up (geddit?), I was sent the latest Greenpeace 'viral' (not, as I thought was meant to be the way, by a chum, but rather the PR guys) and presume I am meant to pass it on. So here you are.

www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.mov Quicktime
http://www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.wmv Windows media
http://www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.swf Flash

As an ad person, I have seldom seen such an overlong, indulgent bit of tosh in my life, delivered with so little wit. You can affect change with satire and lampooning (I have some footage in mind that could be cut to mock Chelsea Tractor drivers with their own words), but not like this. I almost felt like buying one if only to stick it to the whole backstabbing, besuited, Specsaver-wearing, sneering bunch of them. While I didn't quite agree with the message, I was impressed with the anti-nuke version not so long ago, at least as an execution.

I presume that it was all shot to the highest ethical standards and carbon whatsits, and no member of the production team, cast or crew arrived on anything but a bike and drank only from taps.

But I just live for the moment that anyone involved who thinks its hip or smart to gob in someone's cup for making a currently free consumer choice gets hoist with their own petard. For instance when my mate the farmer's daughter gets out of Uni, and when she's asked for a decaf decides to get her own back for missing the train scraping Greenpeace posters (more concerned with advertising their sponsor's energy tariff) off her Dad's Land Rover.

This was a lot of money, too (unless it was all a porty job by some daft agency with more hype than sense in its sights). So I hope the extra subs they may get pay of the office, director's bonuses and pensions, with enough left over for the awards ceremony dash to Cannes and, oh, maybe some decent planet saving as well.

Because I very much doubt this will stop any potential purchaser (should they ever see it, which I doubt, unless Jeremy Clarkson has a go at it, which he might - see conspiracy theory in earlier posts), and simply set those with a grudge on a path from which no one will benefit.

Nil points.

Winding up inventors

This is 1 of 4 of some recent missing posts (if it turns up, sorry for the duplication)

I actually can't better this title, at least in the context of this blog topic, so I'll simply nick it - Winding up inventors. That's a blog in the Observer today, and their own link (lovingly cut & pasted, so it isn't me... honest) doesn't work, so I'll include a wee bitty of what it was all about here:

"Trevor Baylis is enthused. He's been asked to judge a competition to find an energy-saving invention and he's looking forward to seeing what people come up with."

I am of course grateful at yet another such an opportunity to stay indoors slaving over another application (hence my sticking with that title), but of course had my own thoughts (which you will not see as the blog link seems to be dead):

"Great initiative. I shall certainly be applying. Why not? It's free!

But such efforts do take time to enter. And having quickly scanned the competition site I just hope that it won't restrict itself (or at least favour) only to 'things', which is where the second page of the entry form seemed to be heading.

I once coined the phrase 'Widgets from Wigan Syndrome' (not in a happy way) after a UKTI (an NGO-type entity mightily staffed, and funded, to encourage export of the British 'wares') event. It became rather apparent that there is a lot more understanding of, and hence sympathy and support for designing a thing/widget.

Service or internet-based (ironically the section of the site about 'great energy ideas' is currently offline due to a fatal script error) ideas seem less easy to get folks' heads around. Something you can touch is often sexier and easier to 'get'.

However, while I truly believe and accept that 'inventions' need to be sustainable and substantial, there are so many things in the world of saving the world that can be more complex and subtle, and need not necessarily be a 'thing' whose value can be weighed between the cost to make and market vs. projected unit sales.

As a veteran of many an oil-company (eg: Shell), consumer good (eg: Rolex) and media (Guardian!) initiated and/or sponsored event of this nature, I'm crossing fingers that to stand a chance I don't necessarily need to break out the lathe.

And while the money is significant, and most certainly can go a long way to 'making something', it's worth noting that it will pale into insignificance with the true costs of bringing anything to market, especially the promotion side.

At least with media support this has a built-in 'step up' already, and hence has to be worth a go."

The define miss blog

I just have to share this. Now I'm blogging on the blogger site, there's a lot more functionality to play with, such as a Spellchecker, which I just used on the last piece. The words it didn't recognise were 'blog' and 'blogging'.

So in future, I guess I'm writing a bloc.

I blog, therefore I am...

... a [fill space to taste].

There's a lot of blogging about blogging these days, and in writing this I feel a bit like one of those illusions using a mirror to reflect its own image in a mirror.... endless.

I think it best to draw a line, at least by the end of this.

I like blogging. Even if it's just for me, I can get stuff off my chest, leave a record (a chap on the BBC Newsnight blog I mentioned a few posts ago made a point - not necessarily the right way - about how those that ask our opinions very often don't print them (why should they?) but also often don't acknowledge them (which is plain rude. BBC's Working Lunch is a prime example mentioned, and it is not unique. Hence copying one's hard-crafted efforts onto one's own blog at least means they are published... somewhere) ) and remind myself of stuff. I also like to think they may have a broader appeal with value as entertainment, thought-provocation and plain information. I

If it gets a few folk back to my site, why not?

This is how I like my eco-activism: subtle

I'm surprised not to have come across this before, or more often Rare herb sighting plants suspicions

It's sneaky, but you have to admire the playing of the system.

Now if I can just get this darned Dodo egg to hatch, I think I can do something about that pesky outfit next door.

Where on ether do posts go?

I just noticed one my Bermuda Trianagle posts from the other day just turned up.

Where the heck was it between sending and it being registered eventually?

I think I'd best consider not emailing them remotely in future.

Wrongs of reply

I quite like Newsnight, at least some bits, especially those when some pedestal dweller who needs a hole tearing... gets it. And of course there is their Ethical Man series, which we have followed with interest.

So it was, with interest, to note that they apparently check out all those who write about them.

Maybe it is because we have also tried writing to them on a few occasions that we have been ignored so far, but as the point to this post (and my inevitable reply - below) is rights of reply, we are in fairly meandering territory.

I guess the most important thing is to remember is that he or she who controls the medium controls what is said, or seen to be said. What you choose to include can still shape things to your purpose. Even in blogs.

My reply:

"I have a blog, and it used to have the facility for responses. But while it was often good and valuable to engage in debate with respondents, I just didn't have enough hours in the day to deal with some issues going on and on, and it seemed rude to just leave things hanging. Plus the minute you get into controversial territory (and dealing as I do with environmental issues there are many... I can only wonder what Newsnight gets itself into, and not just with Ethical Man, which has been mentioned a few times here!) it can all too often get a bit flaming silly, even when you as the initiator stay hands off from the get-go!

So I don't quite agree that you should have to accept comments, unless you want to. It's a personal web log. Obviously by making it freely available you need to accept that it will get read (why else do it?), and those who objected as stated in the post are plain daft. I treat my blog as an opportunity to publish things as would any writer/journalist (am or pro), but perhaps a bit more 'raw' and less constrained to provide an alternative to the corporate view.

My site has a Forum for those who wish to engage (though we are tough moderators on those who try to dominate agendas with aggressive tactics, as we prefer to encourage those who just wish to ask questions and seek helpful answers), and there are plenty of ways to reach me to take matters further. I'd like to think that if there were worthy points to be made to something I have posted, I'd be big enough to reprint them... along with my answer!

But as with any media, I guess I feel certain editorial control is not unfair for the reasons stated above (mine and this blog's rules).

The laws of libel still surely still apply if one is seriously agitated, and in most other cases it is perhaps best just to ignore anyone trivial just being silly, unfair, etc. If it's on your blog then you have your audience to consider. If it's on their blog, well, it's a free(ish) world.

And if you decide not to include this, fine. But it will of course be on mine!"

Energy from corn

There's nothing quite like an American heart-tugger execution to have you reaching for the barf-bag, but this is worth sharing for its positive way of getting the message across (not to mention the company in question!).

Junkk.com needs to do something similar, but perhaps a tad more... us as opposed to US.

One of our blogs is missing

Actually, more than one.

This has happened before, and doubtless will again.

I tend to write my blogs as emails and then send them in. It is just quicker and easier.

But every so often, they 'vanish' in transit. So the last few are in the ether. They may pop up; they may not. If the don't I'll have to 'go manual' and repost, so apologies for any out of sequence or duplicates.

I of course tried the help, FAQs and Forum, but nothing there (at least in the first hundred posts) , and have an auto-reply from the support team but expect little.

We'll see.

Talk is cheap. Doing costs.

Not a bad little article blog I stumbled across in the Times today, which actually had some suggestions. And, so far, some rather interesting responses:

As the planet heats up, we sit around talking and doing nothing. Explain

And as it asked for an explanation, I offered mine (sods have a character limit, so I had to actually think about what I was saying rather than letting fly a stream, which makes for a shorter than usual blog):

"Why? Talk is cheap. Doing costs... especially money. Not attractive to those more keen on making gold before green (I advocate they need not be mutually exclusive). Short-termism is rife these days, especially in boardrooms and cabinets. CEOs and ministers will be long in their gold-plate-pension-funded mausoleums before the consequences of their actions kick in. It's hard, not very fashionable, and probable career suicide, to think a few generations hence.

There are those who care, and seek to act. So as someone who has invested a lot personally in a small effort to redress the situation, please be careful with that rather broad, negative 'we'.

Controlling, restricting, scaring, banning, fining, etc may all serve certain roles. But these and even 'informing', using millions of taxpayers' money, are not really delivering a great ROI so far, planet-saving wise. So I applaud your incentive-driven advocacy.

A rallying cry of ‘Re:wards 4 Anything 'Re:'!'

Might even catch on."

Addendum:

"Whilst waiting to see if my previous post on this has been accepted, I now see a fair few have appeared. So I hope I may add another comment.

It is interesting, inevitable, ironic but a little sad that such a piece seems to have generated so much more talk surrounding the 'factual' causes of global warming and/or man's contribution. Or not. With a 2-wrongs dose or two of 'But they're doing it'.

I do care, but in the context of the piece do such issues matter?

Surely it is simply efficient in this ever more populating world to engage with every and any cost-effective reduction in waste - and maximisation of efficiency - that we can?

Or we can just keep on talking, and squandering the one resource that Status Quo fans would deny us: time."

Whichever way, the wind blows?

More double entendres in that title than an entire season of Up Pompeii!

And it is inspired by this Cameron's home improvements may be green, but he’ll end up in the red

For now I'll spare commentary on the Honourable Leader of Her Maj's Opposition being a bit of a bandwagon chaser, and restrict myself to the turbine issue, which he in part is responsible for me getting all excited about, and shows that some caution is needed before rushing to be green.

Because to this point, I was pretty convinced these things were not a bad plan, though I had been, and still am, concerned on the ability of a domestic chimney handling the load. This, however, adds another dimension: "Trevor Butler, director of sustainability at the Building Design Partnership, says the kit amounts to little more than expensive gadgetry. “I would estimate the daily output of the turbine at roughly 1 kilowatt-hour per day,” he said. “The average price of electricity in London at the moment is 10p per kilowatt-hour. As the cost of the turbine is £2,600, the payback would be 71 years. The renewables can be seen as expensive gadgets — but they do raise awareness.”

Certainly something to bear in mind.
And just to add a bit more 'to the mix', here's a littel snippet on how your average media news person has fared so far, from Newsnight's 'Ethical Man' series.

Laugh? I could have died. We still can.

I try to keep things in a lighter vein wherever possible, and certainly prefer to avoid gazing at my navel, but something happened the other night that had a profound, and disturbing, effect on me.

I was watching, of all ridiculous things, a comedy quiz show called '8 Out Of 10 Cats'. This is just one of several such shows where it is the taking part, rather than the winning, which is important. Hosted by a witty comedian, Jimmy Carr, it had two teams composed mainly of equally witty folk, most of whom will invite him to be a panelist on their show. So far, so entertaining.

But I guess what struck home was a comment at the end which the host made, and maybe more affecting was everyone's reaction to it. Mr. Carr doesn't tell jokes as such, so it was more observational humor. It was do do with 'environmental types', I guess like me. And while the specifics have dimmed, it was something like 'All these eco-warriors say it's about saving the planet for future generations. Well , I say **** 'em' (I think he meant the future generations - an audience it's hard to offend, yet, by dint of not being around as yet), for which he got a roar of approving laughter from all involved.

And he's not alone. I'm hearing and reading about this view a lot:

New Spin Tactic? Forget scientists... let's use comedians! Christian Science Monitor today employs a comedian to battle global warming science, with such insight as: "...we shouldn't worry about the distant future." I guess they figure the PR stall tactics aren't working anymore so they're going to humour us into inaction.

I have taken my family to brink of serious financial compromise by trying to be part (a small one) of a movement that is trying to secure the future by acting today. Neither I nor, I suspect my kids, are going to see any benefit for these actions (or real consequences for failing to act), and in fact are possibly going to suffer a fair bit because of them.

What do I do? I can either go down fighting the good fight, or give up and try and rejoin the very system I abandoned a fair while ago. Right now I don't see I have a choice to ensure the survival of my immediate family, immediately. 

At least Junkk.com will still exist and can go on to do some good (my own personal carbon offset). With luck it will grow and offer some form of return on the investment made to provide for my wife and my futures. 

But having been confronted by attitudes such as those listed above, and simply had enough wasting my time staying on top of hot-air generating, deck-chair-rearranging, well-meaning but ultimately fruitless talkfests such as this - Our wasteful ways will finish us off   - I really think I better re-assign my time a bit better to attending to those closer to home.

I cannot be accused like some of saying '**** you' to my great, great grandkids, but do feel the need to say sorry here and now (my wife and own kids I'll address in person when and if the need arises) for as yet not acheiving for your sake all that I'd hoped. 

At least I tried to do something, and it may yet pan out. 

And we'll have the last laugh.

Bag to the drawing board?

One of the biggest hurdles 'we' (I'm lumping us in with the whole e-advocacy movement here) face is persuading everday folk to change their ways in the cause of environmental good practice. So, while perhaps no great surprise, this was a disappointment: Bag re-use campaign fails to win over shoppers 

But to achieve this less than spectacular result, I am now more than a little interested in the cost of "A range of public relations and marketing tactics were tried during the campaign, including local media coverage, road shows, leafleting, in-store promotions, competitions and work with local schools."

And I frankly plain don't understand these two statements: "WRAP's report revealed that it had proved difficult in a pressured retail environment, to sustain all of the activities throughout the trial period of 10 weeks. At the time, WRAP said the campaign was going so well, it was extended by a few weeks."

While I made a nice little living in my career designing the things, another thing I am also not convinced about is that a logo is going to make much difference on the back of this. 

Time for a rethink?

Support your local supporter

This one is interesting. There I was in my local community centre, and what catches my eye but a leaflet advertising Freecycle. 'Ello, ello,' I says, 'where did they get the promo budget for all this, and how?'

Well, on closer inspection the answer to where is in the logos at the bottom. A few nice councils and some NGOs with tasty budgets.

How, of course, is another matter. And especially as I see merit in seeing how we can get them to engage with Junkk.com in the same way.

This, of course, will be an adventure.

The key hurdle is contained within that phrase 'voluntary
international organisation'. Which is up there in largesse attraction from funders with 'not for profit' and 'charity'. Those on nice index-
linked salaries and gold-plated pensions prefer you to either not be
making any money, or better yet a living either.

Now Freecycle is dead spiffy. It's free and serves a great re-
function. Just like our very own JunkkYard, and of course all the
other additional re-features Junkk.com brings that can prevent waste.
But sadly, even though we don't charge anyone for anything, we are
'commercial' so I see certain obstacles already, even though we by
any measure are doing a lot of good and deserve equal support.

Worth a try though. Watch this space.

Well, we knew they were trying...

Couldn't resist. An interesting approach to the whole food miles issue. It may also be worth wondering what they are not trying so hard with elsewhere...shire.

Nice work if you can get it

Sometimes, the numbers involved can be mind boggling. I remember 'when I were a lad' the biggest account move in UK ad history was the £10 million Austin Rover business. Now we have Review for £50m Carbon Trust business begins.

Now I would be the first to defend, and even advocate the value of investing in public and business awareness, and the encouragement of good e-practices. Frankly I look forward the Junkk.com being the beneficiary of some of this marketing budget largesse... sooner, hopefully, than later.

However, being in a slightly better than most position to be exposed to announcements of this nature, I am still getting to grips with the sheer number of different organisations who are out there dispensing public funds... whopping great amounts of them.

And, as I have pondered before, I do wonder about the way that this money gets doled out to be in turn doled out. Who decides? Who briefs? Who assesses the results and measures the ROI? If it were a commercial brand and I was their agency I know what would be entailed with a budget of £50 million. Are the same standards applied? It's all well and good hitting a target or moving perception some points, but at such an amount I'd blooming well hope so. What are 'we' getting for 'our' money?

I just have to hope that this is being well managed to achieve the best result(s). All I know is that, as an individual and a business, I have tripped over CT banner ads almost everywhere (good targetting or just mass targetting?) and most did not get me to go much further into the message. Likewise I have had a lot of nifty packs, brochures and flyers which have still not really pushed my buttons. And of course that (in)famous DM piece 'fan' which suggested that if I didn't like it I could mail it back 'to save the environment'.

Hmnn.

Works for me! Well, make that 'Doesn't work'.

This from today's Times: TV standby buttons will be outlawed

I'm just glad they didn't decide to tax them or fine them. And perhaps not a good precedent for all those free-marketeers driving their 4x4s, flying on holiday, heating their patios or drinking bottled water.

It all makes a kind of sense, but why am I a tad uneasy about who is in charge?

A copy of a parody of a blue pencil, er, red paperclip

This is already complicated, but stick with me.

For a start, if you're here via the Guardian, Welcome! You are one smart cookie.

If not, this is a bit of a musing on blogs, hype and stuff in general.

I'm a bit of a blog junkie I guess, fairly obviously. I write one regularly and often at length. I also read a lot. And then pitch in. But I think for my health, sanity, wealth and a lot of other important reasons I should cut back. The question is... how?

Analysing why I do it, the reasons are three, two major and one minor. Reading is simple. I find stuff out. However the benefit to effort ratio is not great. This is not a bad description of what one goes through to understand why: Mugged by the blogosphere - or how to find nuggets in a cyberswamp 

Contributing is another matter. I prefer only to do so when there is potential benefit. Maybe some of my bon mots may strike a chord and result in a positive result for me and/or my business. This really is only likely if those reading the blog post know who I am and where to link to to find out more. The Telegraph allows this. The Guardian does not. Though I am trying a small experiment, hence the comment at the top. See here:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/07/12/one_blue_pencil.html 

(In case my comment doesn't make it, it's in response to a blog about the consequences of the chap who traded his red paperclip up to a house: 

"I'd like to jump on the inevitable PR/hype bandwagon too late (darn, that's been done), by offering in exchange to mention your blog on my blog (double darn it, now that's been done too) in the hope that I can piggy back on a major medium's coverage of 'something' to get a few folk in the direction of my minor, and completely unconnected, business (shoot, that's been done, too. What are the odds?). 

But boy, is it worth the 30 seconds' effort I just expended just in case there are a few out there on a slow news day with some time to kill (try Google. Hint: I work for a company and I'm male).

Anyway, at least today's blog on my site just wrote itself."

The third reason is just to vent, and there's nothing wrong with that. Unless it affects the day job, which it's starting to do.