Month: February 2012

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , ,

I received this tweet from a stranger today:

@shelhorowitz , please follow me, and check me out. Thank you. [URL]

To which I tweeted back:

Give me a reason

As a marketing consultant and copywriter, that’s one of my mantras. I think “because” is one of the most important words in marketing. I’m always probing the why with my clients, and using that to create compelling marketing strategies and materials.

The days of “oh, look at me, I’m so cool, I have a website” were probably gone by about 1996, if not before.

Your prospects are busy people. They want to know why before they click on your link. They want to know why before they give up even 30 seconds of their time.

Specifically, they want to know the benefit. Will you make them laugh? Give them a tool they need? Solve a problem? Give them celebrity gossip? Help them go green (as I do)? Make a specific offer. They will thank you—and some of them, the right ones, will visit.

This will serve you well in any marketing medium: advertising, freebie information, socialmedia, and lots more, as well as your website.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, propaganda Tagged with , , , , , ,

In my post yesterday on oil-industry and think-tank funding of climate deniers, I deliberately used the term “catastrophic climate change” instead of the more common phrase, “global warming.”

You may be wondering why:

  • “Warming” is a joyous word, with happy connotations. Think about “warm-hearted” friends or a “warm lead” in sales—but climate change is nothing to be joyous about
  • “Warming” implies a gradual shift, nothing to be very concerned about, just a natural evolution—rather than the reality of intense and cataclysmic storms
  • The weather patterns are not all heat-related—right now, for example,  millions of people are freezing in Europe
  • It’s hard for many people to make the connections between rising temperatures and the major weather events they influence—such as the human interventions that turned Katrina from a “normal” hurricane into one of the most destructive storms ever, only to be surpassed by the Indian Ocean tsunami a few months later

As change activists and marketers, we need to own the language we use, to frame today’s realities in messaging that is easy to grasp and hard to distort. (George Lakoff, among others, has written very eloquently on this.)

I heard one speaker several years ago suggest that “global roasting” would be more appropriate—his graphic description of what we can expect is essential reading for climate activists for the wreckage that our planet will become—but even that doesn’t do the problem justice.

Even the phrase, “climate change,” is not enough. “Catastrophic climate change,” with its extra alliterative power and clear focus on potential disaster gives people a frame they can grasp. I suggest we use this term in our messaging.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Energy & Sustainability, language, Marketing Trends/News, Politics, propaganda, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Want to buy a scientist?

When you find a scientist who claims to show that human-caused catastrophic climate change either isn’t real or isn’t a problem or doesn’t really exist, you usually find a money trail leading to one of the worst polluters (usually, oil giant ExxonMobil, sometimes, petrochemical magnates and right-wing darlings Koch brothers).

But ultra-right-wing think-tanks play in this sandbox too. Friday, TriplePundit posted leaked secret anti-climate-change strategy documents from Heartland Institute; they actually have the chutzpah to put $100,000 toward developing a K-12 school curriculum to

…show that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.

Oh yes, and they’ve also set aside $18,000 a monthly to fund pundits who present the climate-change-is-not-a-problem viewpoint.

Hmm, that sounds a lot like the attempts by creationists to throttle the study of evolution and biology. When science can’t back up your position, influence young kids with the Big Lie technique that was so beloved by Nazi propagandists. And the get television news commentators to present a “fair and balanced” approach, pitting your purchased experts against objective scientists as if they were equally credible, and sow doubt in the public mind.

To climate skeptics, I say “look out the window.” In my own area of Western Massachusetts alone, we’ve experienced the following just since June 1:

None of these events are the normal weather pattern around here.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Business Ethics, Business-general, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, People Helping People, poverty Tagged with , , , , ,

“Imagine Walmart doing distribution for food banks…in which The Gap runs thrift shops…in which The Home Depot is involved in rebuilding.”

This challenge comes from Ron Shaich, CEO of Panera, as he closes a wonderful talk at Sustainable Brands about Panera Cares, a series of pay-what-you-want stores aimed at alleviating hunger. So far, his first charity store, in St.Louis, is more than self-supporting, and they’ve opened a second location in Dearborn (metro Detroit)—both in economically diverse neighborhoods. The idea is that some who can afford it will pay more than the suggested amount, subsidizing those who pay less. And so far, it seems to be working.

Great to see this sort of abundance-based thinking from the CEO of a major restaurant chain.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Uncategorized

The US Department of Labor has asked me to put them in touch with people in the US who can help them define the brand new category of green marketers. If you have at least two years green marketing experience and five years in either marketing or sustainability, you can help:
If you’d like to participate, please email or call Traci Davis (tdavis@onet.rti.org or 877-233-7348 ext 109) and provide the following:
Name:
Daytime Phone number:
Mailing Address/State:
Email address:
Total years of experience:
Traci Davis at the O*NET Operations Center at Research Triangle Institute will respond when you volunteer, and will provide further details

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Ethics in Government Tagged with , , , , , ,

Once again the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proves that it places the interests of large utility companies and the nuclear reactor industry ahead of the public it supposedly protects.

With its chairman dissenting, the NRC voted to approve the first license for new reactor construction in more than 30 years: two reactors at the already-nuclearized Plant Vogtle site in Georgia, an alarmingly close 26 miles from Augusta. Several others are already on the docket.

This is a betrayal of the American people, once again.

32 years ago, my first book, on why nuclear power is a terrible idea, was published. Last year, in the wake of Fukushima, I was asked to update it for a new Japanese edition. Doing the research for the update, I saw nothing to make me change my mind, and a lot to reinforce my original conclusion that nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomical, and unnecessary.

Following Fukushjima, both Germany and Italy ended their reliance on nuclear power. But the US renews expired licenses and grants new ones. This is a stupid, short-sighted, and dangerous decision, and I hope it will be greeted by massive citizen action in Georgia in the courts and in the streets to overturn the license.

In the meanwhile, it has approved license renewal after license renewal for brittle, unsafe plants like Vermont Yankee that long ago exceeded their useful life.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability

@MichelleShaeffr sent me a link to a whole bunch of interesting infographcs.

Some worth highlighting:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/3983422906/in/set-72157622404448043: How long before the world’s oil runs out, by country

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4056035804/in/set-72157622404448043: Oil production vs. consumption broken down by US state

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/6099961522/in/photostream: Rise of Asian megacities—and their slums

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/6044866075/in/photostream: How one Danish island achieved full energy self-sufficinency using renewable and mostly nonpolluting energy sources

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Ethics in Government, General Commentary Tagged with , , , ,

One of the charities I support just sent me an email with the subject line, “Shel — Jack Abramoff needs you.”

I opened the e-mail, expecting to a sarcastic, ironic letter about how big money has infiltrated politics and sending money would help keep the likes of Abramoff—the deeply discredited lobbyist friend of GW Bush who served time for some of his activities—out of the political process. (He served less than two years of a four-year sentence.)

 

Silly me! this is what I got instead:

Last week, we launched our brand-new, hard-hitting anti-corruption news site, [name deleted to NOT give them publicity]. Former “superlobbyist” Jack Abramoff is a regular contributor, along with some of the best investigators in the country. Together they’re focused on exposing politicians and lobbyists who are auctioning off our democracy and our future. Just like the CIA hires ex-hackers to protect its mainframe, Jack will be using his insider knowledge to hold the worst offenders to account.

Maybe I’m old-fashioned—but this left a really bad taste in my mouth. I quite frankly don’t trust Abramoff to do a decent job here, and I don’t like the idea of hiring someone for a regular gig who was working steadily to undermine the political process for his own personal benefit, and even pitted some of his clients against each other without their knowledge.

Yes, he’s got “insider”knowledge about corruption. But what assurances do we have that he’s no longer corrupt?

Mind you, I’m willing, even eager, to be proven wrong. I’d love to see a year of Abramoff’s “hard-hitting reporting,” and read up on whether his personal lifestyle shows true reform. Certainly we’ve seen true turnarounds from the likes of John (Confessions of an Economic Hitman) Perkins, Philip (Inside the Company: CIA Diary) and John (In Search of Enemies) Stockwell. Will Abramoff rise to the occasion?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , ,

Here’s a widely reported AP newswire story saying the federal government doesn’t see major lasting effects from large wind farms.

While I recognize that wind is not without some problems (inlcuding bird hazards and sometimes noise), I welcome this development. Wind is far more benign than any fossil or nuclear technology.

And I’ve been close to operating wind farms in Denmark, Spain, and the US (Vermont), and quite frankly, I never heard noise from any of these.

However, to my mind, centralized power of any sort is a bit of a step backward. The more of our energy we can generate at the place where it’s needed, the less is lost by transmission friction, the lower the cost of installation, the less vulnerable the power grid, etc. etc. Rather than huge installations of dozens of turbines, wouldn’t it be great to have one small one ever city block?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail