Category: Demographics/Psychographics

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People, poverty, privacy, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

As a professional marketer and speaker, I look at speeches differently from a lot of other people. I look not only at what the speaker says, but at how effectively the ideas and emotions are communicated: how it impacts the listener. Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention [link to a transcript] gets an almost perfect 9.9 from me. I think when people remember the great speeches of the 21st century, this one has a good chance of making the list. Just as we remember 20th-century orators like Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, and Maya Angelou, we will remember Michelle as an orator alongside Barack. People are still talking about Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 National Convention, and about his speech in Cairo early in his presidency. I predict that people will be remembering Michelle Obama’s speech [link to the video] years from now. Why?

  • Without ever calling the Republicans out, she made a clear distinction not only in the candidates’ values, but also in their origins; Mitt Romney constantly struggles to connect with people less fortunate than he, while Michelle Obama gripped the audience with the unforgettable images of Barack picking her up in a car so old and rusty she could see through the floor to the pavement…of his proudest possession back then, a table he fished out of a dumpster.
  • She reminded us over and over again of the hope and promise of the 2008 campaign, and connected this year’s campaign to that same hope, even while the youth who were so inspired four years ago are disappointed in what Barack Obama has accomplished. Her message to youth was clear: we are not done yet, and we are still here for you—but you need to get out there and vote (italics are taken directly from Michelle Obama’s speech):

And if so many brave men and women could wear our country’s uniform and sacrifice their lives for our most fundamental rights—then surely we can do our part as citizens of this great democracy to exercise those rights. Surely, we can get to the polls and make our voices heard on Election Day. If farmers and blacksmiths could win independence from an empire. If immigrants could leave behind everything they knew for a better life on our shores. If women could be dragged to jail for seeking the vote. If a generation could defeat a depression, and define greatness for all time. If a young preacher could lift us to the mountaintop with his righteous dream. And if proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love—then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American Dream.Because in the end, more than anything else, that is the story of this country — the story of unwavering hope grounded in unyielding struggle.

  • As my wife, D. Dina Friedman, pointed out immediately afterward, she positioned some of Barack’s liabilities, such as his insistence on building consensus with Republicans who not only won’t reach consensus but who are actively sabotaging his efforts, as strengths:

I love that for Barack, there is no such thing as “us” and “them” — he doesn’t care whether you’re a Democrat, a Republican, or none of the above. He knows that we all love our country. And he’s always ready to listen to good ideas. He’s always looking for the very best in everyone he meets.

  • She reached out to many constituencies: veterans, teachers, firefighters, poor people working class people, those with disabilities, single moms, grandparents, dads, people facing serious illness, those in the struggle for women’s reproductive rights, recent grads under pressure of student loans or other crippling debt, those who remember the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, gays and lesbians and those who stand with them in the struggle for marriage equality. And time after time, she reached out to moms and identified as a mom.
  • Above all, her delivery was from the heart. She connected to her audience as a person, a mom, and as an advocate for the best of American values. She was both sincere and enormously likable. Even her little hint of a stammer came across as endearing. She didn’t need props or PowerPoint. My guess is she didn’t even need the teleprompter that no doubt was in her view.

So why do I give a 9.9 and not a 10? I deduct one tenth for staying behind the lectern. That is much more distancing; when I speak, I stand to the side of the lectern, so there’s no barrier between me and my audience, yet I can still see my notes. However, she was able to overcome that distance and connect personally and viscerally with the live audience and those watching from afar. If Barack Obama does win a second term, I think Michelle Obama will deserve some of the credit.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Green Business, Green Marketing, People Helping People, Politics, propaganda, Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

I’m a long-time fan of Van Jones, and one of the things I love is that he can frame things in ways that those on the other side of the political continuum can relate to.

Too often, the left frames things in its own language (often couched in liberal guilt)—and the right dismisses us as silly and naive. Listen to minutes 30 to 35 of this speech to see how Van Jones puts the argument for going green into an issue of individual economic liberty, and turns the don’t-subsidize-solar argument into a compelling Tea-Party-friendly argument for ending oil subsidies (why doesn’t he talk aobut nuclear, which would not exist as an industry without subsidies?)

Later in the talk, he discusses solar and wind as farmer power, cowboy power, etc. And demonstrates that organic farming is traditional, and that we should return to our roots after a century of “poison-based agriculture.” And calls not for subsidy for green initiatives, but for green as entrepreneurship, enterprise, and job creation—arguments that both liberals and conservatives should relate to.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Shel's Personal Life

Thought you’d like a follow-up to my last post, about the impending driving trip to a French-speaking world in Quebec Province. Here’s how the trip went.

My last post was about how lucky we are to be able to drive to another country and another culture–and then I left for five days in French-speaking Quebec Province.

In Drummondville, where we spent most of the trip, hardly anyone spoke more than minimal English, and even though we were attending a major music and dance festival an hour and a half from the US border–we did not encounter anyone else from the US.

I don’t speak French but can get little pieces, especially when there are cognates with English or Spanish. My wife can speak a bit but often doesn’t understand the responses. We found ourselves using a weird combination of Spanish, French, and English. It worked reasonably well in one-to-one conversation. We were completely lost when, for instance, the various festival MCs did their 10-minute introductions of each performer.

I actually think this is a very healthy thing: to be reminded that the US is not the only culture, and English not the only language. When we visit foreign countries, we shouldn’t expect others to understand English on our behalf. If I’m going to one country for a period of time, I’ll try to listen to an introductory language CD or tape set (libraries often have these). So for instance, when we went to the rural Czech republic several years ago, we were armed with two cassettes’ worth of phrases. And even with our very rudimentary knowledge, we were translating for many of the other people in the music camp we attended.

We’ve been around a lot of other places in Quebec where French was the dominant language, but plenty of people spoke English: Montreal, Quebec City, and our second destination on this trip–the lovely city of Sherbrooke and the charming nearby village of North Hatley.

Canada is theoretically bilingual. However, just as in many parts of English-speaking Canada, people have little or no French–here, many people in the smaller cities had little or no English, even though they’d supposedly studied it in school. Signage was pretty much entirely in French, though we did find one bilingual exhibit at a cheese factory.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, General Commentary, language, Shel's Personal Life

I’ve always loved new places. Tomorrow, I’m going to a place where the dominant language and culture are French, a place I’ve never been before—though close to two places I’ve been several times.

And I’m going by car.

Even though on the surface, English-speaking Canada seems like the United States, they’re actually very different. And Francophone Quebec Province, where we’re headed, is much more different. Past visits have felt more like visiting France than the U.S.

Europeans have very close borders, and I would consider that a blessing. Drive 200 miles or so and you’re in another land—different language, until recently and still in many cases different money, different customs, different food. It’s amazing how different, for instance, it was in Glucholatzi, Poland, compared to Zlate Hore, Czech Republic, just three miles away. The architecture, language, and food were all different (we ate better in Poland.)

Despite the clear demarcations, Europeans have a sense of world citizenship that many Americans lack. It’s rare to find a European under age 40 who only speaks one language, and common to find people who speak four or five. They understand that events a few hundred miles away in another country affect them, while US media provides an appallingly US-centric perspective that in my opinion is seriously flawed, and creates a skewed worldview.

For those of us who live in the northern or southwestern United States, another country is close enough to drive to. I’ve made at least 12 trips to Canada, And in our trips to Arizona, California, and Texas, we’ve crossed into Mexico several times.

Tomorrow, our destination is a small town east of Montreal and west of Quebec City. I expect it might be a good deal more French than its larger neighbors. I will have to rely on Spanish cognates—I can have a conversation in Spanish, as long as the other person isn’t too fussy about grammar—and my wife’s high school French. It’s good once in a while to have the experience of being the minority in a different culture, and it’s amazing how much communication can happen with sign language, drawing pictures, and a few phrases.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Politics, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , ,

I haven’t had as many chances as I’d hoped to be proud of President Barack Obama in his 3+ years in office. But yesterday was a day I could be very proud of him; as you certainly know by now, he is the first US president to acknowledge that same-sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to marry. Obama has been ambivalent on the issue (and quite a few others) for many years, so a clear, unequivocal, uncompromising position is rare. Perhaps is voice is stronger because of his own history; the union of his parents would have been illegal in many parts of the country for years after his birth.

This should not be rocket science. Same-sex marriage has been legal in several other parts of the world (and even a few US states, including my own home of Massachusetts) for several years, and the sky has not fallen.

Still, when I attended my first few same-sex weddings back in the late 1970s, I didn’t think I’d live to see such unions acknowledged by any government. In less than 30 years, it’s become an inevitability. I remember President Bush reluctantly endorsing civil unions, even as he condemned gay marriage, and thinking that this was enormous progress. But a full endorsement is much better. And while it still seems odd to read or hear phrases like “her wife” or “his husband,” it’s a good kind of strange.

And yet, just a day earlier, the Neanderthals soundly thrashed same-sex marriage in North Carolina.

Here’s the bit I don’t understand from the so-called “family values” crowd: how is the ability of two people to marry—and with it, to visit each other in the hospital, to file a joint tax return, to attend parent-teacher conferences—in any way an attack on the institutions of marriage and family? As far as I can determine, these rights make the idea of marriage and family stronger. Marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should be a partnership of equals that strengthens the family unit and builds family values. Living just outside the town that the National Enquirer dubbed “Lesbianville, USA,” I’ve seen this strength in the many same-sex couples I know with children, who were parents alongside my wife and me as our kids went through day care and then school. I can’t wrap myself around the argument that it destroys families.

I’ve tried to understand the position, but I just can’t grasp it. When two people of the same sex declare their love and commitment, they build a family just as real as any straight couple. And when a heterosexual or same-sex marriage falls apart, it’s tough on both partners as well as on children and friends. I just can’t grasp how allowing two men or two women to mary has any impact on relationships between a man and a woman.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Arts & Entertainment, Demographics/Psychographics, Shel's Personal Life Tagged with , , , ,

At 72, Lily Tomlin is biologically old enough to be my mother.

I had the good luck to see Tomlin perform Friday night at the Calvin Theater in Northampton, MA (a venue where I’ve seen many great shows). She is not slowing down. She’s still hugely funny, passionate about her work and her beliefs, and very athletic on stage. She’s able to create fleshed-out characters just by changing her body posture, voice/accent, and stage lighting—needing neither costumes nor props to “channel” acerbic Ernestine, the schizophrenic savant bag lady Trudy, a Texas-accented suburban housewife doing vibrator infomercials, or a mother calling her son to put down those assault weapons and landmines and go wash up for supper. And she had obviously spent some time researching the town where she would perform one night and be gone; she incorporated a surprising number of on-point local references that went beyond the obvious.

It was one of the best comedy shows I’ve ever seen. 36 hours later, I’m still rolling some of her routines through my head and laughing.

Pete Seeger, who turned 93 last week, is old enough to be Lily’s dad. His voice doesn’t have the power it had when he was Tomlin’s age, and he’s backed off from the multi-octave, almost operatic singing of his peak years (go listen to his soaring “Wimoweh” from his 1963 Carnegie Hall concert). These days, he doesn’t perform as often, and when he does, he spends a lot of time teaching songs, talking/chanting them, and letting the audience do much of the actual singing.

But at 93, he’s still living at home in his little cabin in Beacon, New York with his wife Toshi. Last I heard, he’s still chopping firewood for his woodstove. Certainly he still devotes prodigious energies to his many environmental and social justice campaigns. In fact, he performed at an Occupy rally in New York just this fall. There’s even a grassroots movement to nominate Seeger for the Nobel Peace Prize (note: as of this writing, the site is experiencing technical problems but claims more than 32,000 signatures).

I’ve been lucky to have great models for growing older all the way back to my childhood. I even worked as a paid organizer for the Gray Panthers for a year and a half in my 20s. And these two are only two of hundreds of people about whom I could say, “I want to be like that when I’m old.” But they’re both very public, and I happen to be thinking about them today. Here are a few lessons I take from Tomlin and Seeger:

  1. Doing what you love and are good at keeps you young
  2. Staying true to your values keeps you young
  3. Being appreciated by others  keeps you young (but note that Seeger was blacklisted and obscure for more than a decade during the McCarthy era)
  4. Finding the fun in life and enjoying the ride keeps you young
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Democracy, Demographics/Psychographics, Ethics in Government, Politics, poverty, Social and Economic Justice

I’m pleased to bring you this guest post by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, chaired by Reps. Raul M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D- Minn.)—who, along with  Rep. Michael Honda, prepared this alternative budget. If the slash-and-burn mentality of Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum makes you want to vomit, share this with your friends, colleagues, and progressive allies. The original appeared at  https://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=81&sectiontree=5,81, where you can also watch a video.

—Shel Horowitz, GreenAndProfitable.com

The Budget for All makes the American Dream a reality again. By putting Americans back to work, the Budget for All enhances our economic competitiveness by rebuilding the middle class and investing in innovation and education.  Our budget protects Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, invests in America’s future, and asks those who have benefited most from our economy to pay their fair share.

Our Budget Puts Americans Back to Work
Our budget attacks America’s persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.4 trillion in job-creating investments.  This plan utilizes every tool at the government’s disposal to get our economy moving again, including:
• Direct hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps, a Park Improvement Corps, and a Student Jobs Corps, among others.
• Targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological investments in the private sector.
• Widespread domestic investments including an infrastructure bank, a $556 billion surface transportation bill, and approximately $1.7 trillion in widespread domestic investment.

Our Budget Exhibits Fiscal Discipline
• Unlike the Republican budget, the Budget for All substantially reduces the deficit, and does so in a way that does not devastate what Americans want preserved.
• We achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit – unsustainable tax policies, the wars overseas, and policies that helped cause the recent recession – rather than putting the middle class’s  social safety net on the chopping block.

Our Budget Creates a Fairer America
• Ends tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans on schedule at year’s end
• Extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast  majority of Americans
• Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, in line with the Buffett Rule principle
• Eliminates the tax code’s preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends
• Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies
• Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability
• Creates a publicly funded federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good

Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
• Responsibly and expeditiously ends our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad
• Adapts our military to address 21st century threats; through modernization, the Department of Defense will spend less and stop contributing to our deficit problems

Protects American Families
• Provides a Making Work Pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food cost 2013-2015
• Extends Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child and Dependent Care Credit
• Invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep families in their homes
• Invests in our children’s education by increasing Education, Training, and Social Services

 

 

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 Abundance and Prosperity, Demographics/Psychographics, Energy & Sustainability, Technology Tagged with , , , , ,

The new planned city of Masdar, just outside Abu Dhabi, only welcomed its first residents in 2009. Designed from the get-go to minimize the effect of desert heat, and keep motor vehicle traffic out of the city center (replacing them with a system of underground minicars), this green city is very much an experiment in progress, according to this article on Triple Pundit. Considering how many cities in the United Arab Emirates are showplaces of out-of-control energy consumption, Masdar is pretty exciting.

Already this experiment is bearing fruit. Hot desert cities have a lot to learn from this model—and so do the rest of us. Read the article.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Green Business, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, poverty, Social and Economic Justice Tagged with , , , ,

This is quite exciting: solar systems for remote, off-grid areas in developing countries, set up with near-zero upfront investment and a pay-as-you-go model, converting to full ownership when the system is paid for.

If you’ve read The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, this will make sense right away. If you haven’t read it, you might want to grab a copy. This is the future: bringing technology to the poorest of the poor, not as charity but as a profitable business model that maintains affordability even among customers who have almost nothing.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail