Saving elephants
By Gus Newsam
The Elephant Parade has arrived in London. In the last few days around 250 decorated statues have appeared in the middle of the city, many around City Hall, close to our offices. It’s not the first outing – in previous years elephants have appeared in Belgium and Holland, next year they’ll go to Copenhagen. The point of this large outburst of entertaining public art is to raise money to try to save the Asian elephant from extinction. Every elephant has on it a plaque which invites people to make a donation by mobile phone – text ‘elephant’ to 83118 if you want to contribute.
Gus Newsam is a designer at The Futures Company. These photographs, cc Gus Newsam, are published here under a Creative Commons licence.
2 comments 14 May 2010
The limits to ethical business
Eloise Keightley writes:
Consumers may claim they want ethical brands – but what do they really mean? American evidence suggests that a desire to be ethical does not necessarily correlate with a propensity to buy ethical: Brandweek has reported a survey that found that even among consumers who called themselves “environmentally conscious”, more than half could not name a single green brand. A study at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management found that while people were likely to buy energy efficient light bulbs from the shops, they tended to opt for less efficient traditional bulbs when shopping online – and this attitude extends to white goods, electronics and domestic cleaning products. There is a classic disconnect here between stated attitudes and actual knowledge or behaviour.
This is partly because of the nebulous way in which “ethicalness” is measured, from the consumer’s point of view. For instance, whilst a vague sense of altruism may drive consumers to make choices they deem ethical, it’s unlikely that the majority fully understand what ethical trademarks denote. There is a recognition that Fair Trade, for example, equates with some sort of ethical standard but consumers often cannot define what that standard is. Consumers also find it hard to distinguish between ethical trademarks and can confuse their policies.
In any case, ethical innovation has historically proven to have a limited shelf life – due as much to legislative progress as shifting consumer values. Only a few years ago, cosmetic brands in particular were falling over themselves to tell consumers that their products were developed without the need for animal testing. These days, few brands bother. Lack of animal testing has become a hygiene factor (mainly due to changes in legislation) and consumers have established new, less standardised and more subjective ethical benchmarks for brands to respond to.
It’s unfortunate that the value of ethical trademarks deflate the more ubiquitous they become. If McDonalds can win awards for its free range eggs, consumers may well wonder about the rigour of free range certification and imagine that ‘free range’ is a tiered or varied notion. Bad press also dilutes the currency of ethical initiatives: the BBC has accused Live Aid of misappropriating the money it raised and there has been a rise in well-publicised literature that calls into question the very nature of humanitarian aid. We have no commonly understood, credible metric for ethics.
Some pioneers of ethical retail have argued that it is not enough to use ethical standards as a USP. American Apparel CEO Dov Charney, whose business is synonymous with the anti-sweatshop movement, has remarked: “If you want to sell something, ethical or otherwise, appeal to people’s self-interest.” In other words, brands need to marry sound ethical values with products that are inherently desirable if they are to last.
The picture at the top of the post is from Green Mountain Coffee, and is used with thanks.
1 comment 12 May 2010
The long drift from the two party system
Andrew Curry writes:
“I can accept chaos”, said the young Bob Dylan, in one of his typically cryptic sleevenotes. “I’m not sure whether it accepts me”. For some reason, the line crept into my head while staying up too late last night to watch the election coverage, as seasoned media professionals struggled to make sense of the results unfolding in front of them.
Some of the unpredictability was down to the number of redrawn seats, perhaps with unreliable estimates of how the 2005 vote might have gone; some was an echo of the expenses scandal, influenced by the high number of incumbents stepping down; some down to tactical voting; some was down to the fact that the ‘swingometer’ – designed for two-party contests – is less useful as a measure of change in three- or four-party contests.
But the strong sense of the map was that the further one went from the south-east, the weaker the Cameron effect was, vanishing almost completely as it crossed the border into Scotland. Indeed, one of the most memorable pieces of pre-election commentary, by Ian Jack, described the Conservatives as the party of the ‘Southern Metaphor’, in which Britain is “romantic, illogical, muddled, divinely lucky, Anglican, aristocratic, traditional, frivolous”. Even in a relatively small and affluent country such as Britain, differences of history and geography make its electoral world bumpy, not flat.
As if to further confuse spectators, voting problems in some constituencies seemed symbolic of an electoral system which is no longer fit for purpose. Before the election, research by nef calculated that voters in the most marginal seats have one hundred times more influence on the outcome than those in the safest seats. Prior to the election, one of the striking features was the number of competing campaigns promoting electoral fairness. Taking a long view, these are each a symptom of the decline of two-party politics since the 1970s. During the campaign, Election 10 published a compelling graph using twenty-five years of Guardian polling data showing the decline in overall support for the two main parties; it fluctuates, certainly, but trends only in one direction.
This in turn reflects a change in the sources of political identity, as Simon Szreter argued in History and Policy:
Whilst a generation ago, individual voters would identify their allegiance with a party’s ideology before enquiring about its policies, this has now been turned on its head. Voters think first about what policies they support and then seek to match this with a political party, often using web-based tools. Yet the electorate is unable to give proper expression to such sophisticated political judgements.
Or, as another historian, Simon Schama, put it on the BBC’s election programme this morning, “the country has not just spoken, it’s holding it’s nose”.
Is this a conservative moment? Judging from some of the models we use in our long-term futures work, looking at 30-year scenarios and beyond, we’d say not. Generational analysis suggests that a ‘crisis’ phase represents a transition from predominantly individualist worldviews to more communitarian ones. Likewise, Carlota Perez’ work on technology change argues that the years after a financial crisis tend to increase the emphasis on social and public wellbeing. In all, this speaks to an underlying political crisis which is unlikely to be resolved quickly.
The photo at the top of this post, of a cake shop window in York, is © Kate Stuart, and is used with thanks. There are more of her pictures on her Flickr photostream.
2 comments 7 May 2010
The other election debate
Emily Pitts writes:
Another Nick captured the imagination this Wednesday of a 16+ audience at Downside Fisher Youth Club in Bermondsey, where I work as a volunteer, as the Lib Dems came out on top in a mock ballot and election debate for young people. The evening event was intended to engage young people in politics. Many feel ignored by politicians and question the point of voting. Parliamentary candidates for Bermondsey and Old Southwark – Val Shawcross (Labour), Loanna Morrison (Conservative) and Nick Stanton (Leader of Southwark Council, standing in for Simon Hughes) spoke to the 50 strong audience, answering the question ‘Why should I vote?’ and taking questions.
The audience enjoyed having the opportunity to meet the candidates and question them on the matters closest to their hearts. Leon Bruff, who’s 21, said “You don’t think you’ll be able to have a proper conversation with people in politics and actually get them to listen, but tonight showed me that’s not true. It was a really great opportunity, something that doesn’t happen every day.”
Questions covered a range of issues, from crime and punishment to housing provision and funding for further education. But the issue that came through most strongly was employment and access to jobs. There were several questions about lack of jobs in the area and some sharp criticism of the lack of opportunities available for young people even after they’ve achieved qualifications and training. There were suggestions of new green technologies creating jobs under the Lib Dems, Crossrail related jobs from Labour, and tax breaks for small businesses from Conservatives. I’m not sure how satisfied the young people felt by these answers – their reality is much more immediate than suggestions of potential future jobs in industries that don’t yet exist. They did, however, feel empowered by getting their point across and ensuring that whoever ends up as the area’s MP is well aware of the priority of their new voting generation.
In a way, this was probably the point that came through most strongly – a strong desire to be heard and taken seriously rather than just lumped into a ‘tough kids on the streets’ stereotype. Nick Stanton talked about lowering the voting age to 16, which went down well, of course. David, who’s 16, said “He [Nick] was talking to us as young people and he listened to us. The voting age should definitely be lowered to 16 – we are the new generation. We should all have the opportunity to be heard.” And judging by the turnout on the night and the energetic questioning, the young people of Bermondsey do want to get involved. The question is whether the political parties will find ways to let them.
1 comment 30 April 2010
Trying it on
Denise Hicks writes:
Next time you’re in a changing room or at home wondering if those shoes really go with that dress, don’t fear. Help is at hand online. Sign up to ‘Go try it on‘, post a pic of your questionable outfit, and receive instant feedback.
It’s an interesting idea in theory, and a great example of how the web is enabling users to solicit instant advice from online networks. However, it seems to fall into a similar trap as most online ‘forums’, which is that you don’t have any idea about the validity of the opinions offered.
Putting aside the fact that most people probably use it to confirm what they’re already thinking (be it positive or negative), why should you listen to what Jennifer C, or Alexa F, or any of the other 200 participants think? If there’s a debate going on, who do you trust? (Especially when there’s a penchant to say ‘change it’ rather than ‘keep it on’, for the sake of it).
There must be a way for these comments (and similar binary opinions on other forums) to be filtered via an attitudinal profile at the outset, so that you can prioritise the feedback of those who share your attitudes.
Certainly retail sites, and some restaurant reviews, are aggregating and cross-referencing previous feedback and purchasing data to help filter and edit your shopping choices. And sure, it may not be relevant for sites like YouTube that are geared towards capturing mass opinion. But still, if my mates aren’t there, or can’t be relied upon to give an honest opinion on my fashion sense, I want to know what ‘people like me’ think. Not the opinions of people who bought similar stuff, or the ones that most people agree with, but the ones who share my outlook on life, fashion and the universe – a group I can consider my ‘advisory panel’.
So when I’m told that ‘the puff sleeve with the high boat neck makes for too much bulk’ around my face, I can think ‘y’know what, Fawn G, you might just be right’.
The picture at the top is from Go Try It On, and is used with thanks. In case you’re wondering: Julia N needs an opinion on a super-casual look at her work.
1 comment 26 April 2010
Barefoot running
Allie Schnidman writes:
The media is buzzing with the “back to basics” theme. While this trend started with food – from the Slow Food Movement to Michael Pollan’s latest book – this “all-natural” trend seems to taking hold in the world of exercise as well.
While it is far from new, barefoot running has recently gained a considerable amount of media attention. Runners are learning more about the advantages of running with minimal foot support and testing it with their bare feet, or for those less confident, with Vibram’s ‘Five Fingers‘ or Nike’s ‘Free’. Runners have joined with scientists and podiatrists to debate the advantages of barefoot running: less impact on the ankles and knees leading to fewer injuries, slower strides with improved running postures and a closer connection to the environment. In fact, one of Vibram’s selling points is “a deepened connection to the earth” with a heightened sense of touch when jumping from one spot to the next.
As can be seen in the food industry, there is an ongoing shift in which the consumer seems, sometimes erratically, to reconnect with the natural environment. The shift in food consumption started with health concerns but now extends to environmentalism: consumers want to eat for their own sustainability, and also for the environment’s sustainability.
The trend of barefoot running could follow the same pattern: we start by kicking off those shoes for health reasons, but continue for the pleasure of a heightened connection with the Earth. But perhaps this is where the comparison stops. For, sooner or later, the barefoot runner comes up hard (literally) against the experience of the paved city roads.
Certainly, as a runner, that’s the reason for my hesitation. I’m interested in testing this out with The Futures Company’s running team, but have concerns about exposing their fine feet to the streets of London. Perhaps it’s just a prejudice, but I wonder if barefoot running is meant for the countryside while pavement running is safer with a cushioned shoe; I find it hard to believe that running without shoes on paved roads is truly a natural experience. But perhaps readers have had a different experience; if so, I’d love to hear your comments.
The photo at the top of this post is from the Fitness Concepts blog, and is used with thanks.
Add comment 20 April 2010
Keeping Track
Eloise Keightley writes:
The industry for personal informatics is certainly one to watch. There’s even been talk of a ‘movement’ and unsurprisingly, the iPhone has spawned a host of personal informatics applications. These applications are tantamount to an omphaloskeptics’s dream: pretty much any variable of life can be tracked to the most granular degree. Users of personal informatics sites can log everything from vegetables consumed and number of migraines suffered to variations in mood and their feelings about particular places.
Perhaps evidence that consumers are seeking certainty in these uncertain times, the sheer number and variety of personal informatics applications suggests not only a rising interest in self-analysis (or an increasingly narcissistic society) but a desire for more control over one’s personal life. For starters, these tools help you to learn from the past and plan for the future – if you ate too many calories this week, you know exactly how many to remove from your diet next week. However, much of the allure of personal informatics lies in the visualisations these sites can produce with the raw data. Sites such as your.flowingdata.com allow users to create custom visualisation pages for what they’re most interested in and encourage you to ‘play’ with the data.
In theory, brands could have an enormous pool of data at their disposal should these tools become mainstream enough to attract sufficient users. While many personal data tracking accounts monitor health and leisure habits, many others track brand usage, product usage and attitudes towards brands. Personal informatics could help brands spot emerging competitors faster and track whims and fads with more agility than conventional methods. However, criticism of social networking sites that have deployed their members’ data for commercial gain mean that brands need to tread carefully: an assumption that you own the data simply because it is publicly available is imprudent.
On the other hand, brands are beginning to wake up to the potential of incorporating personal informatics into their business propositions – most notably Nike, through its joint venture with Apple and a handful of health clubs to produce the Nike + iPod package. It’ll be interesting to see how others follow suit.
The above image comes from Mapmaker, a user of the Mycrocosm personal informatics website, and is reproduced here with thanks.
Add comment 14 April 2010
Advertising evaluation en masse
Denise Hicks writes:
Lobbyists 38 Degrees are one of the many organisations that have become heavily involved in protesting against the BBC cuts. In response to the huge amount of opposition, particularly to the potential closures of 6music and the Asian network, 38 Degrees have managed to raise enough money to launched a billboard campaign in protest.
They have just posted a first concept of the proposed billboards on their site and are asking for public feedback.
Now it’s not a great concept in my opinion and pretty much misses the point. As you can imagine, akin to a YouTube commentary, the feedback is varied and entertaining, with comments such as…
- ‘Poor miserable counterproductive lack of imagination.’
- ‘it’s very white’
- ‘I’d suggest that you start again from scratch.’
- ‘Driving past will cause confusion and accidents ala the wondabra advert’
- ‘I think it’s lovely’
- ‘I would suggest just typography – big letters “NO TO BBC CUTS!” or somesuch’
- ‘does it need to be “clever”?
- ‘The DDM (Detracting Demographic Monkees) are at it again’
- ‘You have paid an ad agency for this? If so, I am very disappointed. May I suggest you talk to some other companies instead? Airside are superb’
See what you think… I’m sure they’d be grateful for any (constructive and informed) thoughts!
Add comment 9 April 2010
The future of payments
Andrew Curry writes:
I was invited earlier this month to speak on the future of payments at the Digital Money Forum in London, now in its thirteenth year and as provocative as ever. Of course, it’s a future that’s increasingly bound up with technology. My version is based on the work that’s been done by the historian of economics and technology, Carlota Perez (which I’ve blogged about elsewhere, at length) on long technology cycles.
We’ve seen five long technology surges, each of around 50-60 years, starting with steam, cotton and canals in 1771. The first half of the cycle, the installation phase, is driven by investment and finance capital. The second half, the deployment phase, is driven by production capital. And in between the two is a financial crash, when investment expectations get ahead of themselves.
In the current information and communications technology surge, we’re a few years into the deployment phase, when people start to do “new things in new ways” with technology. The smart phone and the tablet computer are archetypal deployment products, and digital payments will inevitably get caught up in the rush, as new applications emerge.
One of the likely effects is the fragmentation of devices, rather than convergence (we may use a digitally enabled key to get into our house, or a card or fob s a store of value, but we’re unlikely to leave them lying on a table during a meeting). We should expect fragmentation of currencies as well; local currencies such as the Lewes pound work much better when they don’t have to be printed. There are already viable currencies within every online multi-player game (and one of the things I learnt at the Forum was that Chinese workers employed to dig virtual gold in online games earn more than Chinese gold miners who dig the physical commodity, and in much better conditions). One of the other speakers talked about the emergence of currencies backed by units of energy consumption. This isn’t hypothetical.
This potentially represents that same sort of democratisation of production that we’ve seen in other sectors, ending the monopoly of the banks (mostly the commercial banks) on credit creation. This thought seemed to cause some nervousness in the audience at the Digital Money Forum, and the questions turned quite quickly to fraud and regulation, although potential fraudsters in an energy-backed currency would be doing very well to steal a fraction of the money that Bernie Madoff took from his investors.
What’s standing in the way? The banks, who aren’t trusted, and the mobile operators, who aren’t particularly interested in payments, at least not in the rich world. It seems likely that the market will need its own ‘iTunes’ moment, when an outsider steps in to create a decisive disruptive change.
The image above is courtesy of Flickr user Bohman, and is used under a Creative Commons licence with thanks.
Add comment 24 March 2010
