|
|
|
|
|
|
The Words Are What’s Important, Not the Delivery Mechanism
– August 24, 2010 It’s also not news that the traditional publishing model of which he speaks is, after all, pretty much on life support. Publishers – traditional and indie alike – as well as storefront booksellers and lots of magazines are having financial difficulties and even, in some cases, closing because they can’t adapt to the dual realities of economics and electronics. And then there’s the other “e” reality – ecological. I’ve been researching the environmental impact of paper books and magazines versus e-readers for a future “Ask Natural Life” column in Natural Life Magazine, and for my own business purposes. And it appears that the e-readers come out ahead, especially in terms of water usage and toxic chemicals, and if you read a lot of books. As one pundit recently put it, “Think of an e-reader as the cloth diaper of books.” As an author, I’ve considered doing the same thing as Godin. In fact, my next two books are on hold. The writing isn’t on hold, just the print publishing. I am, like Godin, convinced that I can create change faster and more economically by writing on my blogs and in our magazines – two of which are totally digital and one that is moving in that direction – and with e-books. It took me awhile to come to that conclusion. I thought I would have trouble forsaking my beloved print and paper, not to mention re-inventing the business model I have been familiar with for over thirty years. I thought I was a paper book and magazine junkie. After all, my living room, dining room, kitchen, and office are ringed with bookshelves; there are boxes of books and magazines in the basement; I’m never without a notebook and pen wherever I go, although I often leave the electronics at home. Whenever we move to a new home, I purge the paper, only to find a new collection sprouting within a few months. But then I realized that what really gives me the jolt is
the power of words, not the bound pieces of paper that have been the delivery
vehicle for them. I am (and always have been) in love with the effect words can
have on readers, and on how they can create change – no matter where or how you
read them. Marshall McLuhan was right back in 1964 when he
wrote about how the nature of a specific medium has powerful effects on society.
But his notion that the form of a medium
embeds itself in the message, influencing
how the message is perceived, is fast growing stale. Some people still think that a
book isn’t “real”
unless it is printed on paper, published by a big city corporation, and sold in
a store on Main Street...or that the definition of
“magazine” is a pile of glossy paper stapled together and sent through the mail. But we
are moving quickly beyond those narrow interpretations
and I think the importance of the words
is beginning to surpass the importance of the medium.
And that pleases this word junkie. Who
Cares If Schools Make Kids Sick? – August 16, 2010 Today, I see that the school board is refusing that course of action because there is no “scientific or medical evidence” of harm, and they haven’t received one doctors’ note about the children’s ailments. Words cannot express how angry this makes me because there is a rather rapidly growing body of research on the subject (see my 2008 article in Natural Life on this topic, which I recently updated), and lots of evidence that kids are more vulnerable than adults. France, Germany, and England have dismantled wireless networks in schools and public libraries, and other countries are considering the same. They have acted on the Precautionary Principle, as should this school board. Fortunately, at least some of these parents understand that they are not compelled to send their children to these schools. But that is beside the point. Children have the right to a healthy environment – at school and elsewhere. And every precaution should be taken by school board officials to make that so, in spite of people’s ignorance of or uninformed disagreement with the research that is available. As I wrote in the Natural Life article, the electronics industry (which funds most of the research) is in the same situation as the tobacco industry was a few years ago: Agreeing to research findings that indicate harm from their products will reduce profits. When school boards collaborate with the industry by waiting for “something definitive” instead of mitigating the potential danger, it becomes clear that these people who call themselves educators are lacking in responsibility, imagination, basic research skills, and a sense of duty to the children in their care. f the rhetoric on the feedback forums relating to this story – and some of the commentary in the mainstream media – and are any indication, many people unfortunately share those traits. They are probably also fearful of the fact that they might need to change their own lifestyle if there was, indeed, harm proven. P.S. Mr. Superintendent: If it’s not the Wi-Fi
that’s causing these headaches and other problems, then what is it in your
schools that’s making kids sick? Do you care? And what
are you doing about it? Consumption, Boycotts, and the Ethics of Business – August
16, 2010 We’ve just been reviewing Life Media’s ethics policy and our sustainability policy. And that has made me pay more attention than I might ordinarily have to some controversy in the blogosphere (at least in its progressive environs) about the recent BlogHer conference. BlogHer is a relatively large social media company that cultivates a community of women bloggers, aggregates a selection of blogs, maintains an advertising network for members’ blogs, and organizes an annual conference that seeks both to network bloggers and help them learn about the business of blogging, (ie. to increase their marketability). It has offices in New York and Silicon Valley, and has attracted some high-end venture capital funding. The company clearly knows marketing and provides a useful platform for its sponsors and advertisers to access a certain type of woman consumer. One company eager to jump on its sponsorship bandwagon at this year’s conference was the Nestlé brand Stouffers. And, hence the controversy: Some bloggers and potential conference attendees have a problem with Nestlė’s business practices. One of the most prominent controversies involving Nestlé relates to its promotion of infant formula. If you’re not familiar with the issue – and the boycott of Nestlé that has been in place since 1977 – here is more information. But the company has been attacked for numerous other ethical missteps over the years, ranging from accusations of melamine in milk powder produced in China to use of child slaves to pick cocoa beans. As a result, a few bloggers decided to boycott the BlogHer conference as part of boycotting Nestlé. On the other hand, some bloggers justified their attendance in the hope that they could educate others about the problem with Nestlé. I disagree with Nestlé’s tactics and my company Life Media supports the World Health Organization’s International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. In fact, I’ve felt an affinity with the Nestle boycott since it began back in 1977 when my daughters (born in 1972 and 73) had already weaned themselves. But I can’t say I’ve taken part in it to any major degree because we seldom buy the sort of products the company and its subsidiaries sell. Nor have our magazines ever had any advertising interest from them. (Among its 6,000 brands are Poland Spring, L’Orėal, Arrowhead, Jenny Craig, Novartis, Haagen-Dazs, Lancome, Gerber, Ovaltine, Carnation, Rowntree, Crosse & Blackwell, Libby’s, San Pellegrino, Nescafė, and Ralston Purina.) At any rate, I’m not sure boycotts work all that well – after all, Nestle hasn’t cleaned up its act in the past 30 years! So my instincts lead me to put my money where my values are, rather than where they aren’t. I wrote about this in the March/April issue of Natural Life Magazine. Buycotting, as it’s often called, means taking positive responsibility for our consumer choices based upon ethical, environmental, social, and political criteria. Like boycotting, boycotting does require one to pay attention. And, although I’m far from pure in terms of these economic decisions, I do realize that sometimes I have to give up something important because it conflicts with my ideals. This is a stand Rolf and I have taken with our business since 1976 and have given up quite a lot of revenue in return. Our aforementioned ethics statement turns off many potential advertisers who will only advertise in media that agrees to say nice things about them editorially. And we sell fewer books than we might because we choose to support independent booksellers and refuse to deal with Amazon and their ilk whose race-to-the-pricing-bottom and monopoly arrogance is putting both small, local booksellers and independent publishers out of business. But we sleep well because of these policies, in spite of
the sacrifices. Rolf and I believe that the long-term value of our company’s
(and our) integrity outweighs any short-term gain from compromising that
integrity. We believe in doing business like Thomas Jefferson suggested:
“Whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching.”
And I know that many of our customers are watching and
appreciate our policies. We also believe that the only way to change the
way the world works is to begin with ourselves and then to proceed one person at
a time. Nestlė and its massive corporate colleagues will continue on in spite of
anything I don’t buy from them. But I can help undermine their success by
maintaining my own ethics and by supporting companies who operate in a similar
manner. If you need to buy the sort of products sold by the corporate demons,
please try to avoid those produced by Nestlė and its ilk. At the same time, be aware that there are
alternatives that you can support – including buying nothing at all. Making Some Changes – August 8, 2010 The covers above this writing space
are just a few of the books and magazines I have written or edited over the
years. Many of them are live links that will take you to pages with more
information about them (and where you can purchase them if you are so moved!).
My company Life Media purposely does not sell directly to Amazon or the other
big box retailers; that is a story I will be telling here in the weeks to come.
For now, suffice to say that I encourage you to buy directly from us or special
order from your favorite neighborhood bookseller (if there are any left). Through the Green
Living Looking Glass – July 18, 2010 With my normal cynicism about press releases and with all due respect to GreenSaver and Air Miles (full disclosure: my company collects Air Miles on some purchases), I’m trying to wrap my head around how any of this encourages energy efficiency. Air Miles are designed to encourage consumption and are earned on a wide variety of purchases, with a lot of travel, airline, and car-related companies involved, including Shell. And most of the My Planet participants aren’t much better in terms of encouraging energy efficiency; aside from GreenSaver and a green energy provider (and a non-Ontario public transit authority), they are bottled water home delivery companies, a bunch of drug stores and liquor stores, a couple of car repair companies, and the like. Not much there to encourage green lifestyle changes! In Ontario, home energy audits
may become mandatory when the house is sold, creating a lot of business for
organizations like GreenSaver and potentially adding to the cost of buying a
home. But there are tax incentives to offset the cost and to help pay for
energy-efficiency improvements. Aside from saving money, I would hope that
people would be motivated by doing the right thing. Encouraging people to buy
more stuff – then giving them reward points that they can for a flight to
Disneyland, an SUV rental, or to have bottled water trucked to their home – is
not my idea of reducing one’s carbon footprint, no matter how many times it’s
written in a press release. |