E-books: The key to a sustainable literature future?

With devices like the reading-specific Amazon Kindle and multi-purpose Apple iPad – both with e-book reading capabilities – growing in popularity, there has been a significant shift away from the purchase of physical books.

I love books in their physical form. As a child, I loved visiting the library, religiously borrowing, reading, and returning books on a weekly basis. As an adult, I’m more likely to frequent bookstores than libraries simply due to the convenience and carefree nature afforded by purchasing a book from any bookstore without an obligation to read and return it by a pre-determined date. Enter the e-book, the ultimate in convenience and instant gratification, lower prices and weightless transport. Some things I dislike about e-books: you can’t share them, they’re only marginally less expensive, and they keep you stuck to a screen.

Nonetheless, with respect to environmental sustainability, e-books seem better for the environment. They don’t use any physical resources, such as paper, processing chemicals, and so on. However, we need to look at the fact that the e-book readers, whether it’s a Kindle, an iPad, an iPhone or other device have largely unsustainable components. In fact, the batteries in devices such as these are some of the worst environmental perpetrators around. Nonetheless, it needs to be acknowledged that not all of these negative environmental effects can be attributed solely to the reading of books for multi-purpose devices, such as the iPhone or the iPad. Additionally, applications for computers, both PC and Mac, are being developed. This will further demonstrate the benefit of e-books. For example, I would own my iPhone and MacBook whether or not I had the Kindle e-book reader application; consequently, I wouldn’t attribute any of the negative environmental impact of the battery to books.

As an e-book reader, I am thrilled to see new services being introduced that will further reduce the costs of purchasing e-books. Rather than buying every e-book, companies such as Amazon are introducing e-book rental systems. There is a lot of controversy currently facing this concept, particularly centered on the legality and fairness of such rental systems. Nonetheless, I believe it is a step in the right direction that effectively targets one of the biggest flaws of e-books: a lack of share-ability. I think this could be an especially large market for textbooks, as students are increasingly reluctant to purchase the expensive materials. Similarly, this will ultimately have increased positive implications on the environment, as fewer print books are produced.

There is something innately soothing in figuratively disappearing into the pages of a book. The weight of the book. The feel of the pages. The distinct smell of books. This can’t ever be replicated by an e-book. But there is something equally gratifying about the one-touch access to literature afforded by an e-book. The convenience of on-the-go reading. The lower price. Personally, e-books don’t deliver the same magic, but they still offer an escape. I’m interested to see what the future holds!

Advertisements

Guerilla Marketing: Is it effective?

Guerilla Marketing: (noun) Highly aggressive marketing that uses unconventional, attention-getting techniques to get maximum results from a minimal effort.

Guerilla marketing is a growing phenomenon, and consumers seem to love it. Who am I kidding … I love it! It’s fun. It’s fresh. It’s engaging. It’s impactful. I nearly always find the concepts bloody brilliant! What I find interesting is that due to the implicit non-traditional nature of guerilla marketing, it is a great opporunity for companies to consider sustainability in not just what they market, but also how they market. But is it effective?

Thefuntheory.com, a Volkswagen initiative, demonstrates that human nature leads people to be more involved in things they find fun. One of my favourite examples was shown in a marketing class, focused on trying to get more people to take the stairs rather than an escalator or elevator. Volkswagen made the stairs “singing stairs” and decorated them as piano keys, proving through video footage that people wanted to take the stairs to see what happened. Techniques like this demonstrate the value of fun and unique approaches to gaining consumer attention. Simple. To-the-point. Achieves sustainability from a social health perspective.

More recently, Reebok and CrossFit teamed up to create the largest 3D painting in the world in London’s Canary Wharf area, breaking the Guiness World Record! Generating consumer engagement, Reebok and CrossFit encouraged consumers to complete their workout on a snowy ledge over the extreme canyon depicted below, sharing their images through social media. I was beyond impressed by the 1,160.4 square meters by 106.5 square meters picture showcasing a stunning waterfall and deep canyon. The concept is brilliant!

Reebok & CrossFit 3D Guerilla Marketing

Based on these two examples, it is clear that in order to guerilla marketing to be successful, it must be eye-catching, engaging, and fun. Like traditional marketing, I believe that guerrilla marketing still needs a call to action to be effective, whether it’s a call for purchase or engagement. However, guerilla marketing intended solely as presence marketing would obviously not require the same call to action. Considering the overall positive consumer response to guerilla marketing, I would argue that yes – it is effective. Some other guerrilla marketing campaigns that I think deserve notable mention are:

7-Eleven converted some of their stores to look like Kwik E Marts leading up to the release of the Simpsons movie.

Havaianas used flowerbeds in the shape of their sandals.

The City of Denver cleverly removed a large portion of a bench in an effort to encourage responsible water use. As a sustainability nerd, their use of guerilla marketing to encourage sustainable behaviour is one of my favourites!

Ikea decorated a bus stop using Ikea furniture. This effectively illustrates the multi-purpose nature, small size, and durability of Ikea products.

What are your favourite guerrilla marketing campaigns?

Proactivity: The Key to Responsible Leadership

Corporate Social Responsibility. We hear about it every day, whether in school, in the media, in life, or some other outlet. I believe CSR is relevant to discuss in the context of sustainability because it guides a corporations entire approach to the triple bottom line: the society, the economy, and the environment. It is intended that a corporations actions are in-line with the CSR strategy. There is considerable debate regarding the motivations for different CSR strategies, arguing about whether they’re done as spinning, green harvesting, or green washing or something else altogether. And there is yet another argument surrounding whether or not the reason even matters so long as the actions are being taken. However, I would personally argue that regardless of the motivations, true CSR that demonstrates leadership and responsibility must be proactive.

The case of the BP oil spill presents an ideal platform upon which to build my argument that proactivity is fundamental to true responsible leadership.

In 2010, BP was responsible for one of the worst man-made environmental disasters of the century: an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. After the incident, internal documents revealed that BP was aware of serious safety issues on the Deepwater Horizon rig earlier in the year. Evidently, BP chose not to heed the warnings of their engineers and specialists, instead proceeding with operations. We are all aware of the severe resulting negative impacts on the environment, the economy, and the society.

BP’s crisis management of the event was undeniably problematic. Among these issues, BP’s CEO Tony Howard complained publicly that he “wanted his life back.” This was understandably poorly received by society, who was now dealing a negative externality that was arguably the result of negligence and greed.

If we instead compare this to Tylenol’s 1982 cyanide poisoning crisis, I am better able to illustrate the comparative value of proactivity. While many predicted Tylenol would never regain market share; through a crisis management approach involving proactivity, transparency, and communication – all things we learned in the simulation to be highly relevant in CSR – the brand did indeed regain market share. Tylenol immediately removed their product from shelves, accepting public responsibility for the tampering, and communicating with the public and press proactively.

Conversely, in the case of BP not only did they fail to truly accept responsibility – attempting to blame the workers, the engineers, and the equipment manufacturers – but they also neglected to proactively prevent the crisis in the first place. I would argue that even if BP had leveraged a similarly strong crisis management strategy, they still could not be classified as responsible leaders.

A true demonstration of BP as responsible leaders would have involved proactively halting function of the Deepwater Horizon rig until safety had been improved. What are you opinions of proactive responsible leadership? Is it enough to proactively respond to a crisis to be considered responsible leaders?