Author: Shel Horowitz—Green/Ethical Business Expert

A lifelong activist, profitability and marketing specialist Shel Horowitz’s mission is to fix crises like hunger, poverty, racism, war, and catastrophic climate change—by showing the business world how fixing them can make a profit. An author, international speaker, and TEDx Talker, his award-winning 10th book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, lays out a blueprint for creating and MARKETING those profitable change-making products and services. He is happy to help you craft your messaging and develop profit strategies. Learn more (and download excerpts from the book) at http://goingbeyondsustainability.com

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Activism, Energy & Sustainability, Innovation, People Helping People, Technology Tagged with , , , ,

I’m a glass-half-full kind of guy. Especially when I see evidence all around me of brilliant minds hard at work solving “intractable” problems, I freely admit that I’m an optimist. The human capacity to destroy ourselves is eclipsed by the human capacity to creatively collaborate, and to dig ourselves out of the mess.

And since writing is what  do, I’ve wanted to do a big-picture book on this, for many years. Last month, I started writing an essay on this, and I think it will evolve into the proposal for my ninth book.

To give you a bit of inspiration on this snowy afternoon (here in Massachusetts, anyway), I want to share two sentences from a section of the essay entitled “Throw Away Assumptions”:

Assumption, 18th century: humans can travel no faster than the fastest horse. Reality: humans aboard the International Space Station have traveled at 17,247 miles per hour; future technologies such as warp-space drives and tesseracts, imagined by speculative fiction writers, could potentially take us orders of magnitude faster.

Shifting our attitudes from the impossibility of going more than 15 or 20 miles an hour to hurtling through space at more than 17,000 mph took a couple of centuries. With today’s future-think mindset, solving the problems of the world ought to be a whole lot quicker. Especially considering the consequences of failure.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Innovation, privacy, Technology, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

In all the buzz about Google Glass, some people are raising deep concerns about privacy. Mostly about the privacy the wearer of Google Glass will sacrifice.

But the issues go well beyond that. Mark Hurst’s very thoughtful article, “The Google Glass feature no one is talking about,” for instance, brings up the disturbing spectre of Google creating a world where everyone is watching YOU. In other words, non-users could be deeply impacted, and human behavior may actually shift in response to the Big Brother phenomenon of being under constant surveillance, person-to-person as opposed to camera-to-location.

Yet I think privacy concerns may be far less significant than something I don’t hear anyone discussing AT ALL: the question of whether literally seeing the world through Google Glass’s technology is essentially a radical shift in the human experience: an engineered electromechanical “mutation” that could have results as far-reaching and unforeseen as genetic engineering.

Already, we live in a world where centuries-old patterns of communication have been blown apart by computers, mobile phones, and other disruptive technologies. And for the most part, this is positive–despite idiocies like the pedestrian I saw the other day who couldn’t stop texting long enough to see if it was safe before he crossed the street. But when a device becomes an extension of our bodies to such an extent, I have to wonder: What are the consequences of seeing the world through the Internet and Google Glass, rather than through our own eyes, as we walk down the street? What happens when governments or corporations start filtering and controlling our very sensory input, even when we’re in the “natural” world away from our computers?

I’m not a Luddite. But I do believe in the Precautionary Principle, which states that we should not engage in actions that have potentially harmful consequences if we don’t know what those consequences are. Violating the Precautionary Principle has led to many calamities, from catastrophic climate change to ecosystems being thrown out of balance to the 250,000-year threat of global contamination by nuclear waste leaks. In other words, we should keep our assorted genies in the bottle until we know what we’re about to unleash. And I think Google Glass could be one such genie. Particularly if future iterations in totalitarian states make Google Glass or similar technology less optional, and less easy to remove.

Love to get your comments on this.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies Tagged with , , , , ,

It happened again—the first words out of the robocaller’s synthesizer box were “press 1 for your free directory listing.”

Guess what—if that’s the first thing I hear from you, it’s also the last—because my phone will be back in its cradle before your robot even finishes the sentence. CLICK!

It’s like telling me you want to marry me the moment we first meet—before we’re even introduced. And guess what. I’m already happily married and I’m not in the market. Even if I were, that’s not how I’d want to be approached.

Sure, I’m in business, and I love free listings—useful ones, anyway, like Literary Market Place (which typically brings me a very small stream of very large clients). But I’ve also wasted a lot of time over the years filling out free listings that have zero benefit, like the gazillion Who’s Who books I got listed in back in the 1980s and 1990s.

So…when your call ID shows up as something unrecognizable (RL2 Services Co? What the heck is that?), the first thing I want to know is “who are you, really?” The second thing I want to know is “what’s the catch/the actual cost?” Then “how much time is this going to take?” And of course, “who reads your directory, how many readers are there, and how targeted is this to what I sell?”

No robocall is going to answer those questions.

I will listen to the first few seconds of a robocall, because sometimes it’s the bank’s identity theft with a security alert on my credit card, a school district telling me classes are canceled for weather, or something like that. I don’t love them but I have learned that once in a while, they’re real. But try to sell me something, anything, with a robocall and I just think you’re stupid, disrespectful, and annoying.

And some of the live operators are no better. I’m very protective of my cell number and give it out on a need-to-know basis. I got a human being calling me who told me he was calling because of a survey he filled out. I responded, “I don’t give my cell number out on surveys. Who are you really?” His response: CLICK!

Does this company really think it’s going to get on my good side with this?

I’ve had others who can’t deviate from a script. Honey, if I’m going to do business with you, we’re going to have a two-way conversation. If you’re human and you talk at me as if you are a robot, I will treat you like one. My turn to CLICK!

I continue to be amazed at the clueless, deceitful, or just plain disconnected marketing “strategies” I encounter. Presumably, businesses do these things to attract new clients. But it would be more accurate to call them “client repelling strategies,” because they do the opposite of attract.

If you would be pushed away by bad marketing when it’s done to you, why do it to others who will feel the same way?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Green Business, Innovation, People Helping People Tagged with , , , , ,

For more than three decades, I’ve been suggesting that we need to see flat roofs as resources: they can provide space not just for solar energy, but also for gardens.

And growing up in New York City, where far too many people think that food comes out of cans or mysteriously arrives in the supermarket, this is especially true. New York has an enormous supply of flat roofs, many of which have terrific sun exposure.

So it gladdens my heart to see a project like this: utilizing flat roof space for year-round greenhouses in a long-depressed South Bronx neighborhood. On the roof of a public housing project designed to be green, in fact. My Western Massachusetts neighbor Joe Swartz (@SwartzFarm on Twitter), who is involved with this project, shared the first picture on a list we both participate on.

(The first link has an excellent picture. The second link has a crummy picture but a short informative article about the whole project.)

This is by no means the only example. It’s simpler to build without greenhouses, of course, if you don’t mind closing down for the winter. Here’s a 6,000 square-foot no-greenhouse rooftop commercial organic farm in northern Brooklyn, on a warehouse right across the river from Manhattan.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business-general, Corporate Social Responsibility, Energy & Sustainability Tagged with , , ,

Why do businesses (and governments or nonprofits acting like businesses) worldwide continue to squander and pollute natural resources, even when we all know better?

Because it’s in their economic interest.

And why is wrecking the planet in their economic interest?

One simple reason: they’ve externalized the true cost. In plain language, they’ve passed on the true costs of their destructive behavior to us, as taxpayers, consumers, breathers of air, and drinkers of water. Often, they even get tax advantages for doing so (ever hear the phrase “oil depletion allowance”?).

This MUST change.

If every organization had to incorporate true costs over the entire lifecycle, including environmental degradation, resource depletion, and disposal of waste at the end of the cycle, our economy would turn toward deep sustainability in a very short time—maybe even just a year or two.

Green business expert Joel Makower, of GreenBiz.com, is among those calling to change this. He’s quoted in this article about converting the business world to true-cost accounting. It’s not overly technical, and certainly educational.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Web 2.0/Social Media

I posted the following on a LinkedIn discussion list called “Step Into the Spotlight, ” regarding the appropriateness of the new LinkedIn endorsement tool, and whether to endorse back. The consensus, which I agree with, is not to endorse people you don’t know. I thought you’d enjoy the discussion, so I’m sharing my post with you. The above link goes to the entire discussion.

I invite you to comment below about your own policies about whom you choose to connect with on social media.

The whole crazy thing about the new LinkedIn endorsement tool makes no sense to me. I don’t even click on them anymore because I know I’m going to be greeted with a screen asking me to endorse back, for something where I have no clue if they’re qualified. If it’s someone I know well, I will click over, and endorse if I feel I can. And I agree, it completely devalues the endorsement.

I feel badly that the tool does not have an easy way to send a message back (like “thank you”). It is too many steps and I don’t have the time. I’d love to see a button to click that would thank people for their endorsement and let it go at that. But sometimes I have 10 or more coming in, and I have a business to run.

And yes, I have been asked a few times to do a real endorsement and said no because I don’t know their work–and because I have made my reputation on the basis of business ethics and green principles as success principles and won’t violate that. The answer is always greeted with respect, and often with an apology.

However…on whom to connect with…my policy, as a somewhat public figure, is to say yes to all connection requests on both LI and FB unless I have a reason not to. It’s easy enough to sever the connection if the person is inappropriate, but I’ve only had to do that about five times in six years–and I refused one connection request from one person I know personally and who is nothing but trouble.

I find there are a small handful of people who have friended me and then actually built a relationship, and I think that’s great. Actually, Tsufit [the founder of this particular discussion group] is in that category; I didn’t know or even know of her before she invited me here. We had a very nice phone visit last week, in fact.

Now with Twitter, I’m fussier. I do feel guilty that I don’t have time to visit every one of my 6000+ followers’ profiles and decide whether to follow back. I won’t use the automated tools, though; I want to be in control of my Twitter stream. It keeps a lot of spam out and enables Twitter to still be useful. So what I do is once every week or two I look at the new-follower notices and open up anyone I actually know, and anyone whose screen handle catches my attention, and follow back those I like. A lot of them have unfollowed by then but Twitter is not a numbers game for me. The others–if they retweet or engage me, I’ll check them out.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

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

Last night’s State of the Union address laid out a strong progressive agenda, including a green jobs program.

It’s not new for President Obama to say the right things, but he tends to back down when it’s time to follow through. So we, the environmentalists, have to not just “have his back,” but apply some pressure. Obama moved to the right numerous times over the past four years, to mollify Republicans. It’s time for him to return to the left in order to mollify his progressive/environmentalist constituents.

And that will only happen if we create a political climate where he has to listen to us and act for us. So let’s get out there and create that climate.

If you can attend Sunday’s massive climate change rally in Washington, DC, that’s a great first step. If you can’t—thee are several solidarity actions around the country. Check this list to see if there’s a rally about catastrophic climate change near you.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Energy & Sustainability, Greenwashing, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Fascinating profile of Peter Brabeck, Chair of Nestlé, and his crusade for world-wide water conservation and water sustainability. Especially fascinating since Nestlé’s water bottling approach has often gotten the company in trouble with water rights and environmental activists, and has occasionally brought it to court. (In my eighth book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green, I discuss Nestlé being hauled into court in Canada by green activists, on greenwashing/misleading advertising charges.)

These days, Brabeck is saying that 5 liters of water to drink, and 25 for other personal needs, should be the daily right of every human being. But he also says that direct human consumption is the smallest portion of water consumed by humans—just 1.5 percent. The energy and agriculture sectors use far more (and he didn’t even discuss industry in general). He is particularly troubled by “unconventional oil” (such as tar sands), which he says consumes up to 6 liters of water for every liter of fuel, compared with just a tenth of a liter to produce a liter of oil conventionally. Water conservation, he says, is essential—and thus we shouldn’t be using those water-hogging technologies. Of course, there are MANY other environmental arguments against tar-sands oil, in addition to water conservation!

And he notes that when he was born 68 years ago, the world had 2.7 billion people and stayed well within its water budget, using only 40 percent of the renewable water. But now, with 7 billion people on the planet, we’re already exceeding what the planet can renew—and we’re heading to 10 billion.

Note: just because in our daily lives our water consumption far less than what industry and agriculture use, please don’t take that as a license to squander. As individuals, we still have a responsibility to be frugal with the world’s water. Even something as simple as brushing our teeth can be done with about 95 percent less water, just by not letting the water run the whole time—voila, instant water conservation. Wet the brush, turn off the water, repeat as necessary. Use the same principle when washing hands, washing dishes, etc. And when it makes sense (as it does in most of the US, Canada, and Europe), use filtered tap water instead of bottled water. Many people don’t realize how much water consumption is involved in the bottling process—wasting,often, up to three times as much water as actually goes in the bottle.

Go ahead and read the interview. If you’re skeptical about Nestlé, that’s OK. So am I. But I think there’s a lot of wisdom in Brabeck’s thinking, and a wake-up call to the world.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Green Marketing, Innovation, Politics Tagged with , , , ,

In the 1990s, the US had a 40 percent share of the world-wide solar market. According to widely respected sustainability consultant Gil Friend of Natural Logic (@gfriend), the current US share of the global solar market is a pathetic 5 percent, while China now has more than half the global market: 54 percent. And that’s 10 times as much solar as the US is producing.

Friend’s article doesn’t discuss such solar leaders as Germany, Brazil, and Israel, but I’d expect all of those are currently making more solar than the US is.

It’s really hard to take US government claims that they care about creating jobs and greening the economy very seriously when they let a plum like this slip away. Solarizing the US housing and commercial stock would create tens of thousands of jobs, lower carbon footprint immensely, and also reduce dependence on imported oil (while lowering oil bills too, of course) A trifecta win, and we let it get away! Earth to Congress: Get with the program, for goodness sakes! Erth to Obama: Press your agenda on this!

 

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Advertising, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , ,

There was a note on my contact form today that I was 98% sure was junk mail…but it touted a legitimate product (NOT sex, drugs, or casinos), was hand-posted to my contact form, and had a gmail address—so in case it fell into the other two percent, this is what I wrote:

Are you asking for help with marketing this product, or simply spamming my contact form? If the latter, I strongly suggest you NEED help with your marketing, as spam makes enemies, not sales.

Let me know if you want information on my marketing services.
Not that I really expect to hear back from her (or necessarily even want her as a marketing client)—but it was an interesting exercise that took under 1 minute. Of course, now I’m spending ten minutes blogging about it–but I get new content out of the deal.
Yes, spammers are potentially a target audience for legitimate and ethical marketing consultants like me. But in most cases, they would be difficult clients to attract, totally clueless, not likely to pay real money, and not necessarily the best clients to work with. And I’ve got plenty of clients I enjoy working with.
So why did I bother? I don’t know; something about this particular note called out for a response. Maybe this is the one in ten million who is educatable? Anyway, it felt soooo good to write that second sentence.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail