The furore with packaging rumbles on, and this snippet from Marketing Week to me throws up a few issues: Green & Black's defends packaging
In the green corner, if you are selling yourself in part on being 'green' literally as well as in name, I'd guess you may end up a tad defensive following 'consumer complaints about wasteful packaging.'
But then we go into Marketing Operational Reasons Obfuscation Nonsense (yeay.. a new acronym!) MORON-speak: it does use excessive packaging for its ice cream sticks because "it adds to the Green & Black's experience".
Closely followed by Simply Own-up? Why? Have A Timewaster (another one: SO WHAT?): it says that it has always tried to source packaging that will "protect the product, reflect the premium and luxury status of the brand, but at the same time take into account the environment."
And I love this one, which is now a staple: it is "currently conducting an audit of all packaging". It says that its packaging has to "strike a balance between protecting the product, and maintaining our ethical credentials." (Read: Bluster Unmercifully - Generally Goes Away: BUGGA)
Thing is, in light of my previous blog (following Norman Baker's 'raid' on Ferrero Rocher with the Indy) that food packaging is a minute aspect of a much bigger problem and, let's face it, you are no more likely to want a premium brand of chocolate on a paper bag than a Ferrari in a Reliant Robin shell, I can't help but feel a little bit of grownup commercial reality needs to pervade around here, or there will soon be no advertising, design, marketing and we'll all be living in a monochrome box eating gruel.
Meantime the climate will change as we get distracted from big issues by those with agendas getting a bunch of folk who should know better to sweat the small stuff.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Carbcon trading?
On Friday, an email from the BBC Politics Show offered this: Trading in question
If only carbon trading was as easy as apples...
On the international scene, there is really only one game in town for tackling climate change - and that's something called emissions trading.
Put very simply, the idea is that countries get an allowance of carbon, which they can then sell if they don't use all the carbon to which they're entitled.
The theory is that by putting a price on carbon, the market will make it cost effective to reduce pollution.
But is this big idea the best idea?
Paola Buonadonna will be asking if it's the only option, or simply a load of hot air.
I'd suggest they take a gander at this, that I noted that same day: Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved
Sorry kids, it 's going to take a wee bit more than I'd hoped.
If only carbon trading was as easy as apples...
On the international scene, there is really only one game in town for tackling climate change - and that's something called emissions trading.
Put very simply, the idea is that countries get an allowance of carbon, which they can then sell if they don't use all the carbon to which they're entitled.
The theory is that by putting a price on carbon, the market will make it cost effective to reduce pollution.
But is this big idea the best idea?
Paola Buonadonna will be asking if it's the only option, or simply a load of hot air.
I'd suggest they take a gander at this, that I noted that same day: Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved
Sorry kids, it 's going to take a wee bit more than I'd hoped.
If it's worth saying, say it again
Green is certainly the next big thing... for now, in the world of marketing.
The greening of CSR
I have on occasion tried to reply to the comment section online, but either it doesn't like my Mac/Safari set-up, or my over-40ness has rendered the technology beyond me.
It seems that green is no longer just good, but big. And what you have written here is encouraging and all makes very good sense, though I'd like to offer a few extra thoughts on the environmental side of CSR from a position of some experience as a consumer.
The issue of greenwashing remains significant, and it is, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, 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) face 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. The latest proposals for food miles labelling being the latest example.
Because I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
I note Andy Bond of ASDA is soon 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.
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.
The greening of CSR
I have on occasion tried to reply to the comment section online, but either it doesn't like my Mac/Safari set-up, or my over-40ness has rendered the technology beyond me.
It seems that green is no longer just good, but big. And what you have written here is encouraging and all makes very good sense, though I'd like to offer a few extra thoughts on the environmental side of CSR from a position of some experience as a consumer.
The issue of greenwashing remains significant, and it is, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, 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) face 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. The latest proposals for food miles labelling being the latest example.
Because I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
I note Andy Bond of ASDA is soon 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.
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.
Lunch. Working?
A while ago my frustrations with BBC's Working Lunch bubbled up and I fired off an overly aggressive, cause-affecting complaint, to which they fired back a very defensive licence-fee-negotiation-damaging reply. Neither side came out of this well.
Sadly, I still need media. And they, in theory, seem to be soliciting stories. Look what was in my in-box today:
Over the coming week on Working Lunch you will see me sitting on two hundred thousand bushels of corn, sheltering under a solar powered tent and revving up an aircraft engine powered by a fuel cell. We've been on the hunt for renewable technologies again, but this time in the USA. All the companies have a special feature: they prefer to list their shares and raise money on London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM).
The quest took us up the Oregon Trail to Wyoming, down through the cornbelt to Iowa and back to Massachusetts and its quaint woods and villages. It's a fascinating story. On the one hand you'll see the world's technological powerhouse feeling its way towards a low carbon future. On the other, you'll hear the pioneers of these frontier technologies saying that they need our help to realise their dreams.
On Monday I'll be looking at ethanol as a replacement for petrol and, later in the week, at flexible solar panels and those fuel cells. There will also be a feature on electric vehicles being made in the UK. Please send in your questions on the technologies we show and on AIM - we plan to answer as many as we can on Friday.
But why, oh why, do they keep posting this, when I and many others have responded to not even get the courtesy of a reply?:
WORKING LUNCH NEEDS YOU!
To get in touch on any of the following subjects, please click here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/6034907.stm
Sadly, I still need media. And they, in theory, seem to be soliciting stories. Look what was in my in-box today:
Over the coming week on Working Lunch you will see me sitting on two hundred thousand bushels of corn, sheltering under a solar powered tent and revving up an aircraft engine powered by a fuel cell. We've been on the hunt for renewable technologies again, but this time in the USA. All the companies have a special feature: they prefer to list their shares and raise money on London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM).
The quest took us up the Oregon Trail to Wyoming, down through the cornbelt to Iowa and back to Massachusetts and its quaint woods and villages. It's a fascinating story. On the one hand you'll see the world's technological powerhouse feeling its way towards a low carbon future. On the other, you'll hear the pioneers of these frontier technologies saying that they need our help to realise their dreams.
On Monday I'll be looking at ethanol as a replacement for petrol and, later in the week, at flexible solar panels and those fuel cells. There will also be a feature on electric vehicles being made in the UK. Please send in your questions on the technologies we show and on AIM - we plan to answer as many as we can on Friday.
But why, oh why, do they keep posting this, when I and many others have responded to not even get the courtesy of a reply?:
WORKING LUNCH NEEDS YOU!
To get in touch on any of the following subjects, please click here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/6034907.stm
The... seemingly invisible... Elephant in the room.
With all the various initiatives to solve our energy, waste, etc problems, and the less than measured way most media have reported it all, I found this form last week's Sunday Times most interesting: Making a pile out of rubbish
Significantly, it was in the Business section.
There was also a small panel that is worth repeating here in the spirit of enviROI:
DOMESTIC WASTE IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL
The materials that have been the historical favourites for recyclers make up a surprisingly small proportion – glass accounts for 7% and tin cans only 3%.
Last week’s government paper focused on household waste. But in terms of the total waste generated by the UK as a whole, domestic rubbish accounts for less than 10%. Commerce produces slightly more (11%) and industry produces 14% of the national total.
By sheer weight, more than 60% of waste comes from mining, quarrying, demolition and construction. So why not worry about these really big waste producers?
Quite, though a new strategy to tackle this will apparently be outlined later this year.
However, I remain concerned where the priorities lie here.
Significantly, it was in the Business section.
There was also a small panel that is worth repeating here in the spirit of enviROI:
DOMESTIC WASTE IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL
The materials that have been the historical favourites for recyclers make up a surprisingly small proportion – glass accounts for 7% and tin cans only 3%.
Last week’s government paper focused on household waste. But in terms of the total waste generated by the UK as a whole, domestic rubbish accounts for less than 10%. Commerce produces slightly more (11%) and industry produces 14% of the national total.
By sheer weight, more than 60% of waste comes from mining, quarrying, demolition and construction. So why not worry about these really big waste producers?
Quite, though a new strategy to tackle this will apparently be outlined later this year.
However, I remain concerned where the priorities lie here.
Round peg. Square hole.
With our efforts to sell RE:tie grinding on, I found this piece on selling invention in BusinessWeek to be interesting, and was moved to comment: Think Like an Inventor
Appreciating the second subhead says 'The Essential Ingredients for Technological Innovation', I am also looking at the one preceding it: 'Making innovation happen'.
Having just won a gold medal for an invention - most definitely bringing two diverse products together - at a international competition, in this regard I'd have to suggest the first needs to be split, and '..aided by collaboration' placed at the top.
With few exceptions, having a great idea is the easy part; selling it into 'the system' is the tricky bit. And, I would venture, few innovators have the skill sets or personalities to both come up with the idea and then negotiate the suit mentality-driven waters to bring it to market.
Yet, oddly, almost every aspect subsequently seems to expect round pegs to become square in pushing things through.
Of course one has to work harder to get luckier and meet half way, but I believe there is huge opportunity, especially at public-funding level, in looking to bridge the skill sets between the creators and those who can market them to create effective sales complements.
Appreciating the second subhead says 'The Essential Ingredients for Technological Innovation', I am also looking at the one preceding it: 'Making innovation happen'.
Having just won a gold medal for an invention - most definitely bringing two diverse products together - at a international competition, in this regard I'd have to suggest the first needs to be split, and '..aided by collaboration' placed at the top.
With few exceptions, having a great idea is the easy part; selling it into 'the system' is the tricky bit. And, I would venture, few innovators have the skill sets or personalities to both come up with the idea and then negotiate the suit mentality-driven waters to bring it to market.
Yet, oddly, almost every aspect subsequently seems to expect round pegs to become square in pushing things through.
Of course one has to work harder to get luckier and meet half way, but I believe there is huge opportunity, especially at public-funding level, in looking to bridge the skill sets between the creators and those who can market them to create effective sales complements.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Space. At a mall near you.
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
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
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)