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 Democracy, Politics, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

MarketWatch is not normally known as a hotbed of progressive thought. Yet that’s where this scathing critique of Obama from his left side appeared, under the title, “How Obama is Failing Investors” by Paul B. Farrell. It was published on the one-year anniversary of Obama’s inauguration, and still very much worth reading.

Here’s a little taste:

You are failing us. Many people now question voting for you, and your ‘fat-cat bankers’ are destroying capitalism and democracy.

A year ago, millions of Americans — investors, taxpayers, consumers, voters — came together, uplifted by the “audacity of hope,” inspired by a vision of “change we can believe in,” heartened by “bold and specific ideas about how to fix our ailing economy and strengthen the middle class, make health care affordable for all, achieve energy independence and keep America safe in a dangerous world.”

“Yes, we can” was the rallying cheer. You were the game-changer after the Bush-Cheney fiasco. What happened?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Marketing Trends/News, privacy, Transparency vs. Secrecy, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Computer guru Tim O’Reilly makes a half-hearted attempt to justify (or at least explain) Facebook’s latest privacy grab. But I find the San Francisco Chronicle’s Bill of Rights for social media users (which O’Reilly quotes at length) much more compelling:

Users have the right to:

1. Honesty: Tell the truth. Don’t make our information public against our will and call it “giving users more control.” Call things what they are.

2. Accountability: Keep your word. Honor the deals you make and the expectations they create. If a network asks users to log in, users expect that it’s private. Don’t get us to populate your network based on one expectation of privacy, and then change the rules once we’ve connected with 600 friends.

3. Control: Let us decide what to do with our data. Get our permission before you make any changes that make our information less private. We should not have data cross-transmitted to other services without our knowledge. We should always be asked to opt in before a change, rather than being told we have the right to opt out after a change is unilaterally imposed.

4. Transparency: We deserve to know what information is being disclosed and to whom. When there has been a glitch or a leak that involves our information, make sure we know about it.

5. Freedom of movement: If we want to leave your network, let us. If we want to take our data with us, let us do that, too. This will encourage competition through innovation and service, instead of hostage-taking. If we want to delete our data, let us. It’s our data.

6. Simple settings: If we want to change something, let us. Use intuitive, standard language. Put settings in logical places. Give us a “maximize privacy settings” button, a and a “delete my account” button.

7. Be treated as a community, not a data set: We join communities because we like them, not “like” them. Advertise to your community if you want. But don’t sell our data out from under us.

[This last sentence is O’Reilly’s and not the Chronicle’s] Everyone is right to hold Facebook’s feet to the fire as long as they fail to meet those guidelines.

Yes, the Chronicle Bill of Rights seems like common sense ethics to me. The problem is that I am not convinced Facebook’s latest privacy grab is even close to meeting these guidelines. Zuckerberg and others can continue to push the frontiers, but they should do it in ways that respect their members.

Personally, I go into the online world with the expectation that there is no privacy. And therefore the specific changes don’t bother me over-much. But as someone who writes about ethics, I have a problem with obtaining consent for one restricted set of behaviors and then wildly expanding it while requiring opt-out (and difficult opt-out at that) rather than opt-in. It’s nothing more than an electronic form of bait-and-switch–something I find unethical and in fact argue against in my latest book on business ethics, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet (co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson).

Yet in the video included in the blog, O’Reilly makes a compelling case that Facebook’s privacy failures and the resultant pushback are essential to pushing the frontier, and that a lot of the innovations that seemed to threaten privacy were actually welcomed once people got used to them. O’Reilly says he’s more worried about Apple than Facebook. I, however, worry more about Google (which he also mentions in the video), which owns an extreme amount of personal data and has a very cavalier attitude toward copyrighted material

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in General Commentary, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , , ,

An article on one of Newsweek’s blogs speculates that a movie scheduled for next October release will deeply hurt Facebook, and particularly the reputation of founder Mark Zuckerberg. the article also mentions Facebook’s much more immediate problems with various privacy and technical issues.

The movie, says the article’s writer, Nick Summers,

…portrays Zuckerberg as a borderline autistic, entirely ruthless conniver. Nothing sways public opinion like a movie—and this scorcher could counteract the entire body of good press Facebook has received till now.

But as a marketer, I’m fascinated that this writer sees the coming movie as having such a huge negative impact, months before it’s even released. Certainly the script does not appear very complementary toward Zuckerberg. But let’s face it: Bill Gates, Jr. was intensely disliked in his decades as Microsoft CEO. He was frequently described in similar terms.

Facebook, like Microsoft, has become far bigger and more important than the emotional health of its founder. And especially since users don’t pay to enjoy Facebook, I don’t see that kind of backlash coming. I believe the enormous utility of Facebook will easily survive blasts on Zuckerberg’s character, just as it has survived the many very valid privacy concerns. There is no such thing as privacy online. Anything you don’t want the world to know should not be posted–on Facebook, your own website, or anywhere else. You’ve been warned.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Media Ethics, propaganda, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

It’s really hard to imagine that anyone could take seriously the nonsense—make that the total falsehoods—spewed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. It would make for good humor, except that people believe these shameless harlots who have dedicated their lives to the service of corporate greed and gratuitous attacks on progressives (or even liberals).

Limbaugh has crammed his foot even farther down his mouth than usual a few times lately. Two examples: He blamed environmentalists for the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and he blamed the United Mine Workers of America for failing to head off the 29-fatality disaster at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia.

Let’s look at the Massey case. Talk about blaming the victim: Early in his career as CEO of Massey, Don Blankenship broke the back of the UMWA by refusing to honor the industry agreement and demanding that the union bargain individually with Massey’s 14 subsidiaries. This was 1984, during the notoriously anti-union presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Thus, Upper Big Branch, like many Massey mines, is non-union. The union has tried to organize there repeatedly. And the government has repeatedly cited the mine for safety violations, closing it 61 times in the 15 months preceding the explosion.

Now, the really interesting part: According to “How King Coal Killed the Union Man,” by Lauri Lebo, published in the May 15 issue of the Washington Spectator union mines are far, far safer than nonunion You need to be a subscriber to read the article, so let me summarize some of the findings:

  • 254 of the 284 miners killed in the US since 2002 were in non-union mines
  • 25 percent of American miners belong to the UMWA, but union members accounted for only 11 percent of fatalities
  • Safety inspectors at union mines have the power to shut down mines operating unsafely; in non-union mines, the inspectors are absent, and workers can be fired for calling for inspection
  • Even without an on-site inspector, Upper Big Branch was cited by the Mine safety and Health Administration for safety violations 639 times from january1 2009 to April1 2010, but Massey uses a funky procedural maneuver to block meaningful sanctions

    How does Limbaugh sleep at night? He is a propagandist, not a journalist

    • Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in censorship, Diversity, Ethics: General, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

    I am Jewish, and I can say this. Nazi-like behavior is unacceptable no matter who does it. Jews have no more right to be disgusting and criminal than anyone else.

    There’s a certain ultra-rightist segment of the American Jewish population that is completely intolerant of any criticism of Israel–just as there are certain ultra-rightist Americans that don’t accept legitimate criticism of the United States government (or at least they didn’t while Bush was in charge).

    Rabbi Michael Lerner is the founder of Tikkun magazine and a prominent Jewish progressive (and yes, a supporter of Israel, though not always of Israel’s policies). Apparently, these fascists thought it wasn’t Kosher that he extended an invitation to South Africa’s Judge Richard Goldstone to host his grandson’s Bar Mitzvah (and gave the judge an award), because the judge was persuaded by similar thugs not to attend the event in its original location. Click here to read Tikkun’s press release.

    Goldstone, you’ll remember, is the well-respected jurist and ardent Zionist who conducted an independent report on the Gaza invasion, and found that Israel’s conduct was deplorable.

    Both the US and Israel were founded on the premise of democracy. In a democracy, dissent is acceptable. Criticism of the government is acceptable, and in fact is necessary to keep the government honest. The terrorist thugs who attacked Rabbi Lerner’s house must be held accountable.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business-general, General Commentary, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , ,

    Ever hear of the first-mover advantage? That’s a concept that Gravity Switch, a local web services firm here in Western Massachusetts, clearly understands. In three weeks, these guys came up with an idea (for a kiosk to frame an iPad, for touchscreen applications like museum displays), got the thing—called “iBracket”—prototyped and built, and started selling it.

    In a situation where speed to market is critical, they were right there. Not surprisingly, they started coming up #1 on Google for “iPad mounting bracket”—21 days after coming up with the idea, seven days after finishing the prototype, and three days after taking the first order (which happened one hour after it was first mentioned on a blog).

    By comparison, I have a publishing client who should have had his book out a year ago. This client is a walking testimonial to the need to understand that perfection is the enemy of good, and that good is good enough to move forward. The latest delay: I have been waiting for approval on a cover design since February. It would take ten minutes or less to look at the cover and tell us (me and the designer) if it’s good, or what changes need to be made. But no amount of prodding seems to get this person unstuck. Meanwhile, it’s already too late to have books ready for Book Expo America at the end of the month. Total missed opportunity because a false quest for perfection and lack of communication got in the way of good and moving forward and seizing the moment.

    I think Gravity Switch’s approach makes a whole lot more sense.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Diversity, General Commentary, language, Shel's Personal Life, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , ,

    Copywriter Ryan Healy had an interesting post today discussing the reasons why people unsubscribe from his blog. Not surprisingly, many had to do with e-mail overload. But quite a few had to do with Ryan’s openly conservative Christian mindset.

    I’ve been reading Ryan’s stuff for a couple of years now, and I’m very far from either conservatism or Christianity. But I still read him. Here’s the comment I posted on his blog that explains why:

    I get some posts like those as well. And Ryan, while you and I are poles apart politically (I think Obama has sold out to the conservatives), and while I do consider myself a person of faith, I don’t happen to be a Christian, or particularly religious. But for me, those are not reasons to unsub. You always keep a civil tone, and I think core disagreements force me to rethink my positions, justify them to myself, and sometimes find them wanting and shift. If you were nasty about it, that’d be different. (I don’t read much of Dan Kennedy anymore because he’s way too shrill in his conservatism. I do read Clayton Makepeace, and have even contributed a few articles to his conservative news site as “The Unabashed Progressive”–but I tend to turn off when he goes political).

    Anyway, in spite of my ultra-crowded in-box, I’m continuing to read your stuff even as I’ve cut back on a lot of others 🙂

    And I love both your commitment to ethics (which I share) and your copywriting/marketing smarts.

    I trust also that if you read my blog, you wouldn’t be turned off by the unabashedly progressive positions I often take.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Business Ethics, Politics Tagged with , , ,

    It’s rare to have Democrats and Republicans in Congress agreeing on much of anything these days—but both parties were strong in their condemnation of Goldman Sachs and its apparent willingness to give advice to its investors that directly contradicted its own predictions, to bet on those predictions, and perhaps cause the economic collapse of 2008. From McCaskill (D-MO) to Ensign (R-NV), Senators called Goldman Sachs some pretty nasty names.

    And the casino analogies are appropriate, except that in a casino, as Senator Ensign pointed out, the rules don’t change during the round of play. Goldman kept changing the rules. It was very profitable for them, but a disaster for the economy.

    And yet, this whole coterie of Goldman Sachs executives went on and on about their lack of regret (never mind remorse). It’ll be a long time before I trust them to give ME any investment advice!

    One thing I don’t see anyone else picking up on is the possible implication of Former Goldman CEO/former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. Here’s an excerpt from the link above (it goes backward, from bottom to top):

    12:56: McCaskill: Tourre, do you typically let people like Paulson pick the assets that go into a security they’re betting against?

    Tourre: In every synthetic buyer situation, the buyer has to be involved. There are always suggestions from the interested party.

    12:53: McCaskill: What’s clear here (from all these emails) is that there wasn’t a great deal of confidence in this “Timberwolf” but the sales people were being pushed to move it.

    12:51: McCaskill is reading from emails…

    12:42: What’s Paulson doing in the room with the guy picking the assets? Was IKB there? Weren’t they going to be a better to?

    Tourre: At what time?

    McCaskill: At the time Paulson and ACA met.

    Tourre: No, we didn’t know they would be a part of the deal then.

    McCaskill: Well, why wouldn’t you tell IKB that Paulson, who they were betting against, was in the room when the deal was being created? That just seems weird to me.

    12:42: What about ABACUS?

    Tourre: Goldman and Paulson selected ACA.

    I don’t think we’ve heard the whole story yet. It promised to be verrrrry interesting.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in People Helping People, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , ,

    My I-friend Kevin Lovelady is going after a market that few would dare to pursue: people who’ve failed in business.

    Kevin, who has been a strong and consistent supporter of my Business Ethics Pledge campaign, feels that people who experience business failure feel “abandoned” and need resources. So he’s set up a blog, a Facebook page, and various other channels to offer free support to those in this situation. It’s certainly a growing market, and I’m sure he has plans to monetize it down the road. Though, from personal experience in the frugality market, I’m not sure if he realizes what a challenge that might turn out to be. I could, however, easily see it turning into a Web 2.0 or Web 3.0 community for mutual support, and THAT could open up many channels to success if it gains traction.

    Anyhow, if you or someone you know had the legs knocked out from underneath your company, you might have a look. And Kevin best of luck!

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

    By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Networking, Politics, Web 2.0/Social Media Tagged with , , , ,

    The convergence of social media and progressive causes is very exciting to me; I see enormous potential to leverage social media for social change. Even as far back as 2000, I used social media as an essential building block of a successful local activist campaign (in fact, I discuss this in my latest book, Guerrilla Marketing Goes Green: Winning Strategies to Improve Your Profits and Your Planet,co-authored with Jay Conrad Levinson).

    I think one of the huge mistakes Obama made was to let go of the massive organizing via social media during the campaign—a piece of the campaign that may well have given him the edge both in the primaries and in the general election, and certainly a big part of mobilizing the youth vote. Actively using those tools in two-way communication would have helped energize his base, counterweighted the Tea Baggers, and provided momentum to implement the deep change he was elected to provide. In the months between the election and inauguration, Obama put out a groundbreaking initiative to get input from us. But that fizzled quickly, and I for one never got a sense that anyone was actually reading the feedback.

    Yet it’s so clear that social media can be a force for social change! We’ve seen it in so many parts of the public discourse!

  • The metamorphosis of MoveOn from a narrow group created out of President Clinton’s impeachment to a major organization channeling progressive votes and dollars
  • Howard Dean’s early power in the 2004 primaries
  • wide condemnation of Iran’s repression last summer
  • Creating sustainability for economic change agents such as Kiva.org

    • Although they are brilliant organizers, Obama, Axelrod, and the rest of his team missed this opportunity. They saw social media as a very effective way to reach new audiences, but not a way to build organizations focused on real change…and not as a method of communication from the people to the honchos.

    Not too late to change this! If they build out their own networks, really listen to feedback, and piggyback on people with large viral followings (such as Rachel Maddow), this could still be a major influencing factor in maintaining Democratic control in the 2010 elections.

    Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail