Fedco, a cooperatively owned seed company–founded in Maine back in 1978 and specializing in serving organic growers–found itself facing an ethical dilemma when Monsanto, a company known for its experiments in genetic engineering and aggressive filing of intellectual property claims (criminalizing farmers for saving seed, even) announced it was going to buy its and best largest supplier, Seminis.

Noted for its aggressive advocacy of genetically modified crops and its dominance in biotechnology, Monsanto will now have a major presence in the vegetable seed business for the first time. No one knows if or when they will incorporate transgenes into their vegetable varieties.

The Monsanto buyout presented us with a serious ethical dilemma. In striving to carry the best possible varieties at reasonable prices, we have based our selections largely on the merits of the varieties, rarely on our supplier preferences. Could we be purveyors of Monsanto products and still sleep well at night? Many of our customers have depended upon Seminis’ good genetics. However much we may think we require these varieties in the short run, they come at a devastating social cost, ultimately the complete alienation of sower from seed.

Fedco explained a bit about Monsanto and asked its customers to choose among several options, ranging from coding the Monsanto products in its catalog to eliminating them entirely. The membership overwhelmingly voted for immediate withdrawal. So, before the merger was consummated, Fedco bought a year’s worth of Seminis seeds and announced that there wouldn’t be any more.

Will this cause a hardship? Yes. But the company has taken a principled position that I suspect will ultimately help–and the year of product it bought will buy time to experiment with different suppliers, different seed varieties.

The company’s statement on this is well worth reading. I hope to get permission to post the whole thing, but in the meanwhile, just follow the link.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Doug Schoen writes in the usually sensible Huffington Post that the Democrats should roll over, as usual, and give GWB the blank check he’s looking for in Iraq: no limits on dollars or on deployment.

I think this an extremely wrong-headed and ill-advised idea–some of the worst advice I’ve heard anywhere in quite a while, in fact.

Here’s most of the public comment I made:

The Democrats need to hold fast, and to frame the dialogue thusly:

“We gave GWB a very reasonable bill that funds the war for the time being but begins a phased withdrawal. we are exercising our Constitutional authority as controller of the purse strings and a check on unbridled Presidential power. But Bush wanted a blank check, and that would be negligent–perhaps even criminally irresponsible. We do not want this crime on our hands, and we will not be a party to it. We absolutely refuse to abdicate our responsibilities by bringing forward any kind of blank check bill. Bush is the one who will not negotiate, and who is trying to usurp the power we were granted back in 1787”.

I’m using “framing” here as George Lakoff would use it: to wrap the debate around a construct that brings the public’s reference into focus–just as a black frame on a white wall allows the eye to differentiate elements in the white-background picture hanging within that frame.

The frame I’m proposing above is one that paints the Democrats as patriotic, as responsible–and GWB as overreaching his authority. This frame was not much in evidence in mainstream media during the run-up to the war, and if it had been, perhaps it would have slowed or stopped that unfortunate tide.

For far too long, the Democrats have allowed the right wing to create the frames. We have to take them back, and this is a great place to start.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I kid you not–here’s the NY Times article.

Much as the cat may have been darling, and much as its authors ight do a great job, I find this absurd. And yet another indicator of the dumbing down of the American public via the media that controls what we see and read (except for those adventurous enough to seek their own sources).

Where are the big advances for books that shape how we actually think and act? that give us a lens to understand some of the craziness in the world.

OK, I like sweet stories about cats and might actually read this book (in a library copy) at some point. It’s not a book I expect I’ll need to own. But good heavens, most books that could change the culture receive paltry advances and paltry publicity, if they sell at all.

If this were now instead of then, would books like “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”, “Silent Spring”, or “Unsafe at Any Speed”–three among dozens of books that actually changed the world–have even been published, or found any significant audience if they had?

I hope one day to see my own Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First in someone’s list of books that changed the world. I didn’t even try for a mainstream publisher, figuring I’d go create an audience and then sell rights to a second edition.

But seriously, isn’t a book about how we got into the Iraq mess and are heading for trouble in Iran (not the subject of my book but of several recent ones) worth more attention than a book abut a cat? Or for that matter, the sordid and tawdry life of Anna Nicole Smith?

Priorities! As a society–we need to look at ours..

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Found in email in my spamfilter this morning that said, in part,

You are part of a select group of blog owner/publishers that we are inviting
to take an early “sneak peek” at lyro. We see your blog as a major
delivery vehicle for news and information and hope you’ll have a
willingness to cover our launch (good or bad).

Well…that’s certainly flattering! I think that’s the first time I’ve received a press release because I’m a blogger. I receive plenty as a newsletter publisher, book reviewer, etc. It would be nice to think that people are actually reading what I write here.

Lyro turns out to be a database of business cards. It presents a rather rigid format, but by putting one URL in the company field and another in the URL field, and by using the address2 line to talk about what I do, I made it marginally more useful. Still, there’s a lot more I’d like to say. And I find it absurd that there’s no way yet to upload a photo so everyone will have the same blank silhouette in the photo field.

No line for e-address, but on a searchable Web-based database, that’s a good thing–spambots would otherwise make this site a nightmare instantly. And there *is* a message system (hope it’s better than the awful one at MySpace).

I figure, what the hey–it’s links to two of my sites, it’ll probably get some viral traffic, and it took about three minutes to fill out. As long as they’re not charging, I’ll give it a whirl.

You can see mine at https://shelhorowitz.lyro.com/

Oh, and what else would I have put on the card?

My two or three most recent book titles (Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First, Grassroots Marketing for Authors and Publishersand Grassroots Marketing: Getting Noticed in a Noisy World) as well as more of my nine URLs.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I’m quoting a short bit from Adam Sutton’s article in Mequoda Daily, an often-provocative marketing newsletter emphasizing fairly advanced concepts and products. I have felt this for many years but they articulate it so smoothly and well:

Supporters are law-abiding citizens that pay for products because
they love the company and want it to prosper.
Samplers get free products from Supporters or other Samplers. They
do not immediately buy a product, because they are unsure of the
product’s worth or do not have enough money. Samplers typically get a
free product, and if they like it, pay for others when cash is
available.
Thieves will happily pirate products and break DRM systems forever.
They consciously never pay for products and have no desire to support
artists. This group is best ignored because their will to circumvent
DRM–or any copyright protection–is unbreakable.

If you’re a Sampler who found this worth while, the link above to the full article presents the option to subscribe, no charge.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

You might have missed this story in the mainstream news; on the first two pages of Google results for Wal-Mart spy, AOL, MSN, and CNN were the only U.S. mainstream sources listed; they picked up the story from the Reuters wire, which means it was accessible to every news outlet in the world.

You can read the original WSJ piece, as reproduced on MSN, here.

But most of the returns were from places like Huffington Post, Consumerist.com, and wakeupwalmart.com–the “usual suspects” on the Left.

Nothing wrong with those news sources; after all, I found the story by listening to Democracy Now yesterday. And DN’s interviewee was one of two Wall Street Journal reporters who broke the story, so this one actually started in the mainstream media.

Personally, I think that when the world’s largest retailer, a force considerably larger and more powerful than many national governments, illegally wiretaps phone calls with a New York Times reporter, intercepts employee e-mail sent over networks other than its own corporate system and records their correspondents’ addresses (e.g., Hotmail and Yahoo), infiltrates opposition grassroots groups, digs up a private unlinked archive of an activist’s vacation photos in order to identify him if he tries to go to a shareholder meeting–the list of shockingly inappropriate activities goes on and on–it should be a huge story in every print and electronic medium that calls itself a news organization–and government agencies should be investigating NOW.

I even searched the New York Times site to see if that august paper had deemed that such a story–its own reporter’s telephone was tapped when he called the company–was worth a line or two in print. But a search for wal-mart spy and another for wal-mart spying brought up nothing relevant or recent (this story began to reveal itself within the last few weeks, with the most important revelations coming just this week).

Oh yes, and Wal-Mart’s wimpy statement about future behavior:

This group [the spy unit] is no longer operating in the same manner that it did prior to the discovery of the unauthorized recording of telephone conversations.

Not “we have disbanded this group.” Not “we shouldn’t have spied on people.” Just a statement that the group is reorganized (the whole letter is included in the DN article). For shame!

But don’t you think when a story like this breaks across a major newswire and originates from one of the most respected media in the world, that other media would sit up and take notice? Papers in Taiwan and Belfast thought so, but not most of the US press.

Shame on Wal-Mart, yes–but shame as well on the major media outlets who ignored this story.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

He touches on three of the eight crucial factors in choosing a name for a product or business, and focuses particularly on creating a name that people will remember easily–with lots of examples from the corporate successes, as well as the story of how he transformed his own business identity.

https://www.michelfortin.com/how-to-make-your-name-memorable/

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

In which Shel gets to laugh at himself. I’ve written five books on marketing, and I make my living as a marketing copywriter and consultant. So of course I posted to my blog in advance of my book signing last week for the launch of my just-released Grassroots Marketing for Authors and Publishers.

Except that I never realized I clicked on “save” instead of post. So the event came and went, and there was my nice little announcement still waiting for me to release it to the world. I just noticed it today under saved drafts.

Duh! (Sound of hand slapping forehead).

Oh well–there’s always New York in May. I’m trying to work out an event at Book Expo America, and hopefully I’ll hit the correct button when I have the details.

PS–Am I really a marketing guru? See what other gurus think about my services and about my award-winning sixth book, Principled Profit: Marketing That Puts People First.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I always thought they were using Orwell’s “1984,” since it’s so much easier to read than Machiavelli’s “The Prince” or even Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.” But here’s a disinformation primer so digestible that it wouldn’t tax the brain of His Imperial Delusional Majesty.

It’s on the right hand side of this page.

Here are the first five. In the original page, if you click on the little number at the beginning of each in the list, you get a detailed explanation.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

2. Become incredulous and indignant

3. Create rumor mongers

4. Use a straw man

5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule

Sound familiar?

My thanks to my friend and colleague Mark Joyner, who quoted this list in his remarkable new book, Simpleology.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

In the ‘who would’ve thunk it’ department. George W. Bush’s Crawford ranch turns out to be a model of environmental sustainability. And the surprisingly modest structure was built since he bought the property.

I must say I was pleasantly shocked to read that the Bushes employ such forward-thinking technologies as geothermal heating and cooling, landscaping designed to keep the house cool in summer and warm in winter, even graywater recycling.

Under a gravel border around the house, a concrete gutter channels the water into a 25,000-gallon cistern for irrigation. In hot weather, a terrace directly above the cistern is a little cooler than the surrounding area.

Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into purifying tanks underground — one tank for water from showers and bathroom sinks, which is so-called “gray water,” and one tank for “black water” from the kitchen sink and toilets. The purified water is funneled to the cistern with the rainwater. It is used to irrigate flower gardens, newly planted trees and a larger flower and herb garden behind the two-bedroom guesthouse. Water for the house comes from a well.

.

Oh yes, and the funniest line in the whole article: a quote from the home’s architect, David Heymann:

“We’ve got a lot of economies in the house,” he says, noting the Bushes may be wealthy, but they are “frugal people.”

It takes a lot to get me to say Bravo to George W. Bush–but this house deserves a whole round of Bravos. And it deserves to be a model for the rest of the country; why is he keeping it such a secret?

So…my question for Mr. Bush–if in your own private personal life you make such great choices, if you’re aware that the earth’s own technologies can provide all our energy needs–why is your own energy policy such an unmitigated disaster? You’re pushing disastrous technologies like nuclear, fossil fuels that get us into wars…and meanwhile you’ve quite properly created a private dwelling that uses only a tiny fraction of that used by a conventional house. In other words, you know from your own experience that all the green technologies you’ve been dissing and dismissing actually work.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail