topic: sustainability

2 Nov 09
in

Chatting with a friend about throwing plastic bottles out the window into her recycling bin (and missing). And a friend of hers who has a house on a hill: so their recycling bins are directly beneath the deck and they can drop bottles down a chute into the bins. Brainstorming ways to rig a carriage & basket down from a kitchen to the bins across the yard to be able to roll your recycling down a chute/rail and have it tip over into the bin automatically. And realising that this would be a major patchwork & hack job.

the architecture of homes influences recycling practices. are there common pathways we can optimize? can we build fun recycling experiences into the home? what about dumbwaiters for your glass bottles? what architectural principles would make a home conducive to recycling?

Link

the ugly, polluting side of cause marketing

14 Oct 09
in

Today I came home and noticed this package lying on the porch (I vaguely remembered having seen it for a few days now). Turned out it was a promotional campaign for Dunkin' Donuts, in aid of cancer research. And, oh, we'll sell you a free bagel.

And a free drink if you come in. In this nice sturdy plastic cup.

Only problem is, I didn't ask for a coffee cup!

So, in order for the Stefanie Spielman Cancer Research Fund to get $1, I have to buy 13 bagels from Dunkin' Donuts. No wait, it gets worse.

In order for me to buy 13 bagels so that the Stefanie Spielman Cancer Research Fund gets $1, Dunkin' Donut:
# pays for 1 coffee
# pays for the production of one coffee cup (for which there is no market demand)
# pays for the design & printing of a magazine-quality information sheet
# pays for the (non-reusable) plastic bag it all came in
# pays for people to bring this to my doorstep

In addition, I am forced to deal with junk I didn't ask for, and the planet is awarded one ugly and unwanted coffee cup that is too hard to destroy. Now I hate waste, so I'll try to recycle it. Which means that Dunkin' Donuts is forcing me to pay some of the costs of their marketing campaign. (And you, and your children, too - plastic takes forever to degrade).

By now I'm finding it hard to believe that the true unit cost of all this is less than a dollar, in which case more - probably much more - than a dollar was spent to increase the coffers of the cancer research fund by $1, and the coffers of Dunkin' Donuts by the profit from the sale of 13 bagels.

Outrageous. Things that Dunkin' Donuts could have done instead of this horror:
1. Advertised the promotion in-store
2. Offered a free coffee if you brought your own cup
3. Just given the Cancer Research Fund $1 multiplied by the campaign's estimated rate of conversion. And then have advertised the good deed.
4. Advertised it online (update: they did)

Instead, this comes off as a desperate attempt to get me to give my money to Dunkin' Donuts instead of a kind, charitable gesture. And one that does more harm to everyone than good.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to put dollar-values to each of the above costs. If you know how to investigate this further, please drop me a line. Also, there must have been some set of conditions under which this sounds like a good idea: if anyone can throw some light, I'd be much obliged.

Link /

coupling product & service

31 Dec 08
in

This is a coffee maker - the kind where you slot in a container of coffee and push a button and coffee is produced. Both the coffee-maker and the coffee ground 'pods' are made by the same company, Gevalia.

This is an instance of coupling product (coffee-maker) with service (coffee). Presumably, this could be because:

1. It's an instance of the Gillette razor strategy (make money on the consumables) or,
2. The design of the coffee-maker necessitates the use of their own coffee pods

The consequence of this coupling is that the fate of the product depends on the fate of the company: if it goes out of business, the coffeemaker becomes worthless instantly. It also means that the quality of the coffee experience is entirely dictated by the ability of the manufacturer to procure good coffee and package it well. That is, assuming there are no 3rd party coffeepod manufacturers. Even if there were, they would have to support different manufacturer's coffeemakers to avoid being too tightly coupled to the success of any single one of them.

What these guys need is good standards, same as the web. While tightly coupled systems work in certain cases, loosely coupled systems with standards are more robust when openness of experience is important. In this case, while the institution probably wanted to relieve themselves of the burden of always having fresh coffee ready for it's customers, they did so at the cost of not having any fresh milk (there was creamer) and limiting themselves to the coffee Gevalia decided to provide.

Oh, and the coffee was lousy, needless to say.










Link /
Syndicate content