The Fast Company Blog by Fast Company staff

01:22 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Sustainability: When It Comes to Going Green, Bigger is Better

When it comes to the environment, we are constantly told that every little bit counts. But it's often hard to see what impact an individual recycling an empty soda can or turning down the thermostat a few degrees in winter really has in the long run. When large corporations set their sights on going green, on the other hand, the difference is a lot more tangible.

If News Corporation succeeds in becoming carbon neutral by 2010, it will be the equivalent of taking 130,000 cars off the road, according to Greenpeace's research director. Who cares if Rupert Murdoch is saving money (or even making money off his new green image) - this is one instance where capitalism and environmentalism can happily coexist. As long as the changes are real and not a massive publicity stunt, I can only applaud News Corp. on this one. Let's hope other media companies are guilted into following Murdoch's lead.

A few months ago, the environmental organization Climate Counts issued a scorecard rating the "greenness" of the nation's largest companies across a variety of industries. Though News Corp. is not even in the top five, it did receive a high score (57 out of 100 - enough to get the Climate Counts green stamp of approval) for initiatives like measuring its environmental impact, outlining a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and making information on its environmental goals available to the publics.

Interestingly, Climate Counts gave the highest score (77 out of 100) to Canon, a company that hasn't been generating much media buzz in the environmental arena. Other top scorers, with rankings of 70 or above, include Nike, Unilever and IBM.

At the other end of the spectrum, several companies earned zero points, mostly due to a lack of available information. These include Jones Apparel Group, Burger King, Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster), Wendy's, CBS, and Amazon.com. Climate Counts urges consumers to take their business elsewhere until these companies clean up their act. (A handy pocket-size version of the scorecard can help environmentally conscious consumers make purchasing decisions on the go.)

Does a company's level of green commitment affect your decisions as a consumer? What more can companies do to convince you their environmental PR isn't just green-wash?

12:08 pm | 0 recommendations | 6 comments

Sports: Goodell Faces Tough Decision On Patriots

In my last post, I praised the NFL for providing fans with the best possible product. One week later, it seems that I may need to revise that statement. If the New England Patriots really cheated, the fallout might be worse than you think.

As ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported yesterday, “NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the New England Patriots violated league rules Sunday when they videotaped defensive signals by the New York Jets’ coaches.”

While league officials deny that a decision has been made, expect Mortensen’s reports to be confirmed, as he is extremely credible. New England head coach Bill Belichick issued a vague apology yesterday, suggesting an admission of guilt. Sports Business Daily is now reporting that the league will announce its ruling by this Sunday.

If that’s the case, then Goodell faces a very tough decision this weekend. It will be interesting to see how the second-year commissioner, already known for taking a hard stance on player misconduct, treats a potentially explosive situation involving one of the most high-profile teams in the league.

New England backers have been quick to defend and deflect. They say that other teams are doing it too, and point to individual players that have been caught breaking the rules. Sorry, Bill Simmons, but Shawne Merriman’s positive test for steroids last year doesn’t give the Pats a free pass. This isn’t just gaining a competitive advantage -- it’s insider trading. It's knowing, through illegal means (not Belichick’s genius), the actions of another party before they take them and using that information to your advantage. Like steroids, it calls into question the legitimacy of what happens on the field. And, while Merriman is only one player, this is tantamount to an entirely juiced team.

Clearly, I believe that Belichick and the Patriots deserve to be punished. However, I also believe that Goodell will be walking a fine line when he makes his decision. Long-term suspensions for individual players including Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and Tank Johnson have generally been viewed as positive steps toward cleaning up the sport. But if Goodell punishes the Patriots severely, the fans will notice. More people will start thinking like me -- whether I’m right or not. It doesn’t seem now like fans will ever leave the NFL, but many will if they start doubting the quality of the product. Just ask the MLB.

On the other hand, Goodell could give the Patriots a slap on the wrist and sweep the scandal under the rug. If that happens, it’s likely the fans will too. As long as it doesn’t happen again, we’ll forget and move on.

The question Goodell faces is: Which one is better for the NFL?

05:00 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Sports: A Season to Sling?

The 2007 NFL season kicks off tonight, as Super Bowl MVP Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts take the field against Reggie Bush and the New Orleans Saints. While fans across the country are rightfully eager for their own teams to begin play this weekend, there is plenty to watch for off the field as well.

There have been reports of an imminent deal between the NFL and Sling Media, makers of the controversial Slingbox (Major League Baseball has publicly challenged the product's legality). The Slingbox allows anyone with an Internet connection to broadcast programming from a "home" TV to a single screen anywhere in the world. Therefore, a businessman from New York can watch a game on his laptop in Omaha. Or, if you've moved from your favorite team's city, you can put a Slingbox in your parents' house.

Under the agreement, the NFL would become the second professional sports league -- the NHL signed on in June -- to team up with Sling on their Clip+Sling sharing service. The service allows Slingbox owners to record short segments of content (read: highlights) and immediately share them with anyone, including people who do not own a Slingbox, over the web.

When the NHL deal was inked in June, it was easy to write off as an act of desperation. After all, it's almost impossible to find hockey games on OLN/Versus/whatever cable network carries them. The NHL, you might have imagined, would do anything to get its product out there. But when the all-powerful National Football League makes a decision like this, it raises some questions.

A partnership between the NFL and Sling would severely weaken any future legal action against the company over copyright issues. Moreover, it would imply the NFL's approval of a product that can compete with other packages, such as Direct TV NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Game Pass, that generate revenue for the league.

But if such an agreement seems strange, it's not -- it's just good business. In the long term, it increases the NFL's bargaining power against TV networks that are desperate to take their content online. The networks currently pay the league over $3 billion per year to broadcast games, but still do not have the right to put highlights on their websites.

In the short term, it's another example of the NFL's ability to adapt to a market that is constantly evolving. Along with a redesigned website, it strengthens the league's digital presence. And while other sports try to deal with steroids, game-fixing, and top-ranked players skipping the playoffs, the NFL continues to give fans exactly what they want.

Football is back, baby. Have a good season.

03:51 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Sustainability: The Little Green Lies We Tell Ourselves

Apparently it has become all the rage in Colorado (and probably other places, too) for individuals to purchase little cards that claim to offset the bearer's monthly power consumption derived from fossil fuels with the good clean energy of wind power. It's just like planting 13 trees, or not driving 1,200 miles in your car! And it only costs $15 a month!

Call me a cynic, but this seems to be yet another example of America thinking we can buy our way out of a problem. I'm sure the intentions of both the energy credit providers and the people who buy the cards are good, but I really don't see how this actually helps the environment. At most, it gives the renewable energy providers a little more cash to continue their operations. It does not really impact an individual's carbon footprint one way or the other.

The same goes for companies that buy carbon credits to boost their green image. Except with major corporations, the number of credits they purchase is negligible compared to the amount of energy they actually use. While a consumer can pretend he or she has completely negated the fossil fuel energy used each month, major companies don't even come close.

A recent editorial in the Boston Globe outlines several of the fictions we convince ourselves will solve global warming, including carbon offsets. As the writer notes, paying someone to plant a tree now doesn't really affect the carbon emissions you cause today. Such well-meaning ideas need to be much more drastic in order to actually bring about change.

If after you've purchased your carbon credits you're still feeling guilty about your environmental transgressions, head to Suffolk, England. A Catholic priest heard confessions of participants' "green sins" at a recent Greenpeace fundraising event there. After admitting to such acts as failing to recycle or purchasing a new gas-guzzling car, penitents were instructed to make up for their sins by donating to green charities.

Are carbon credits worth it or do they just make us feel good? What "green lies" do you tell?

10:00 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Leadership: Have Strong Opinions...But Be Willing to Change Them

"Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said today." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) American author, minister, & activist

Consider this:

Your opinion today is based on what you see today. It's not all the information, but it's all that you've got. Trust your gut and take a strong stand. If you're wrong - so be it - you'll learn along the way. In fact, you'll learn more by taking a strong stand than by taking a weak one. Strong opinions invite opposition. And opposition helps you learn and grow. Tomorrow, if your opinion changes as a result, your old ideas will have served you well. They will have been a necessary stepping stone to new and better ones.

Try this:

1. Think of an issue you're waffling on right now.
2. Consider your options and develop a strong opinion regarding a course of action.
3. Share your opinion with people on both sides of the issue.
4. Get meaningful agreement and pushback.
5. Incorporate the new ideas appropriately.
6. Repeat frequently.

Doug Sundheim • Executive Coach & Consultant • New York, NY • www.dougsundheim.com

02:07 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Tech Monday: Game on, again, for Nokia

This week, Nokia is re-relaunching its mobile gaming service, N-Gage, in a format that it hopes will be more popular to the legions of cell phone users who like to kill time on public transit by playing Tetris.

Four years ago, Nokia entered the mobile games market with a taco-shaped device called the N-Gage that was basically a poorly designed cellphone. It didn't fare so well, so Nokia redesigned it a year later, eventually selling two million units, pretty paltry, considering that Nokia sold 100 million cell phones this past quarter alone.
So Nokia thought better of it, ditched the hardware in 2005, and retooled the N-Gage not as a standalone device, but as an integrated piece of software for its smart phones such as the N95. In the process, it added social-networking features (all the rage today, apparently), such as the ability for players to recommend games to friends, play against each other, and brag about their high scores.
Cell phone gaming is a $4 billion industry, as reported by The New York Times today, so it's no surprise that Nokia wants to get back into this lucrative market. What remains to be seen is if there will be enough interest in such a small niche of phones. Even if every one of the company's 125 million Series 60 smartphones--the only phones capable of running N-Gage--were enabled with the gaming platform (which they won't be, initially), the number of people actually using the service will most likely be quite low. An M:Metrics survey in March 2006 revealed that only 24 percent of U.S. cell phone owners actually played a game on their phone that month, and only 2.7 percent downloaded a game, citing a lack of interest and cost of games as their main reasons.
Take a look at your cell phone. Chances are there's a few, very simple games on there, most likely Tetris or Bejeweled. How often do you play them? Also, what kind of phone do you have? Is it a $500-plus smart phone (of the type required to use N-Gage), or one you got for $50 after indenturing yourself to a carrier for two years? Which kind of phone do you think is more popular?
Unless Nokia goes a good job of convincing consumers that the new games and features of their N-Gage service justify not only the upfront cost of buying a high-end smart phone, but the estimated $10-$15 it plans to charge for games, the third iteration of N-Gage could end up just like the first two.

01:22 pm | 0 recommendations | 3 comments

TechMonday: The Open-Source Consultancy

In the September issue of Fast Company, we look at five consumer electronics products whose design was inspired, or could be modified, by a larger community. Now, a young entrepreneur is hoping to harness that power to go beyond product development and create, in effect, a consultancy for all aspects of business.

Crowdsourcing has been used to try and balance the budget, lend money, even develop a business plan. But Ben Kaufman's idea could help companies reduce their risk in a number of areas by using the open-source model.

Kaufman, an excitable 20-year-old entrepreneur from Burlington, Vermont, was doing a pretty good job as the founder of Mophie, an iPod accessory maker. But a few months ago, he was helping set up his company's booth at MacWorld and got depressed when he saw that his $20,000 set-up looked just like everyone else's. So, with hours to go, he chucked it, bought a bunch of 2x4's, and created a rough-looking booth where he could test his "Illuminator" concept that had been rattling around his brain for a few years.

Considering the bevy of iPod accessories in the marketplace, getting a new and original product on shelves is a tough proposition. He rationalized that if you had a community of people actually designing the product, not only would the market testing be taken care of, but you'd also have a large number of people excited about the product due to their participation in its creation and ownership in its design.

So Kaufman solicited ideas from the MacWorld attendees, and through a voting process, narrowed down the ideas to three. The result was the Bevy, a combination bottle opener and iPod shuffle holder, thought up by a 17-year-old, and on the market now. The next product, still in the production phase, is an iPod dock with a large touch screen that will let users watch movies as well as listen to music on their iPods.

But Kaufman believes that simply coming up with iPod accessories woefully underutilizes the Illuminator concept, so he's spent the past several months expanding the idea to become, in effect, an open-source consultancy.

When a person signs up to join the Illuminator community, he fills out a questionnaire detailing his expertise in certain areas such as design, engineering, or marketing. Members can post their own ideas or browse through the projects created by the community, or ones posted by companies. While a good majority of the projects are going to focus on product design, Kaufman says projects can also include things such as marketing and advertising campaigns, business plans, or anything that can benefit from mass input.

If a member thinks a particular project is a good one, he can vote for it by investing a number of "Watts," the going currency in the electric-themed Illuminator, and suggest changes to the project as well. Using a number of algorithms, a member's vote will be weighted according to his experience, as well as his track record in backing other successful projects on the site. Members will also be able to build their influence and track record on the site by collectively pooling their Watts into investment groups, or by investing in other members with more proven histories on the site.

A project gains momentum depending on the level of support it gets from the community, and moves along the development process until it hopefully gets acquired by a company. In that case, members who participated in its creation will then see some of the revenue from the product, based on when they became involved, and the extent to which they had a hand in its creation.

Already, 25 companies have expressed interest and 50,000 people have already signed up, says Kaufman, who plans to have a full public beta version running by January. Hopefully, it will feature more than just Apple add-ons. "We never really wanted to be an iPod accessory company at all," says Kaufman. "We were just good at it."

12:24 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Sustainability: Next Stop: Tomorrowland

In the quest for more efficient, green energy sources, a group of researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have made a breakthrough: batteries made out of paper.

Ok, so it's a bit more complex than a piece of loose leaf. But 90 percent is comprised of cellulose (plant fibers), the same material used to make paper. Carbon nanotubes and an ionic liquid, a liquid salt that contains no water, make up the other 10 percent. These natural materials and lack of toxins are what make the battery so environmentally friendly.

Since the battery is essentially paper, it can be folded, cut, rolled and molded into whatever shape is necessary. Imagine the possibilities for all the small electronic devices we can't seem to live without these days. Cell phones really could be razor thin. Researchers also envision constructing giant sheets to power cars, planes and boats. The batteries are designed to withstand extreme temperatures, up to 300 degrees Fahrenheit and down to -100, so they won't melt or freeze.

Another remarkable feature of the batteries is their ability to use human sweat and blood as a power source instead of the liquid salt. Imagine working out at the gym and charging your iPod while you sweat. Not quite what the researchers had in mind I don't think, but it's a fun thought. They had the slightly more admirable idea to implant the paper batteries in pacemakers. With the battery's ability to double as a super capacitor, it could also work as a defibrillator.

Obviously, the researchers still have a long way to go before the world is powered by paper. They don't yet have the capability to mass produce the batteries, although they foresee someday being able to manufacture giant sheets like newspapers. There is no mention of how long the batteries last or how much power they possess. (Researchers have powered a small red light with the one-inch samples they've made.) Even so, I'm pretty impressed by the huge potential these batteries represent.

12:05 pm | 0 recommendations | 7 comments

Sustainability: Travelers Care About Being Green. Or Do They?

Environmental concerns are slowly seeping into all aspects of consumers' lives, and travel is no exception. As with most green awareness campaigns, however, just how concerned travelers are is a gray area.

A recent TripAdvisor survey assessing travelers' levels of commitment to the environment claims a sizeable number keep their green mentalities while on the road. A full two thirds believe environmental measures in the travel industry do make a difference. One third would pay more for green hotels (perhaps like the ones featured in this New York Times article), while almost 40 percent would pay more for a flight that was less harmful to the environment. Moreover, TripAdvisor found most travelers (78 percent) are willing to give up the daily change of sheets and towels once so common in the hotel experience.

Funnily enough, this is the exact opposite of the findings of ELEMENT Hotels. According to their survey, 75 percent would not give up their daily fresh linens. On the other hand, 34 percent of those survey respondents claim they change their sheets and towels every day in their own homes, something that is completely incomprehensible to me. Do they really do laundry every day, or have that many spare sets of sheets?

The overall gist of the ELEMENT survey, which actually does make sense, is that people pay less attention to the environment while traveling because they're not paying for cleaning and utilities and they're just lazy. A majority of travelers are likely to leave a light on when they leave a room, leave the bathroom light on all night, or open a new shampoo bottle every time they shower. This fits in with the general indifference most consumers feel towards the environment when it doesn't affect them directly.

ELEMENT outlines a number of steps their hotels will take to cut back on their environmental impact, including reducing the amount of water used in sinks and toilets. They claim this will save about 4,300 gallons of water per room each year. Apparently the average hotel room uses 200 gallons of water every day. I'm not sure if this is really that much though, considering the average American uses over 100 gallons of water a day.

Do you maintain your green practices when you're away from home? What kinds of things can hotels and other travel-related businesses do to reduce their environmental impact?

06:29 pm | 0 recommendations | 3 comments

Tech Monday: The flying car--Give it up already!

Once again, we lurch towards our Jetsons-inspired future, this time, courtesy of NASA. The space agency selected The Cafe Foundation, a group of aircraft engineers, to host its Personal Air Vehicle Challenge, a $250,000 contest to see who can design a flying car for the common man. Their belief is that a nation of flying cars will reduce congestion, air pollution, and the time it takes to get to the in-laws.

In the press release, NASA believes that by 2020, "up to 45 percent of all miles traveled in the future may be in PAVs"--Personal Air Vehicles, i.e. flying cars. Putting aside the fact that $250,000 is a pretty paltry sum for such a contest--considering you can win $10 million creating a car that doesn't have to fly--NASA's statement assumes a whole lot of other things that'll have to happen, chief among them, safety. Considering that that nearly 2.6 million people were injured in traffic accidents last year, imagine what will happen when they start traveling along three axes.

In a CNet News article, the Cafe Foundation asserts that "people would be able to get a license to fly PAVs as easily as a driver's license," which indicates that no one at the Cafe Foundation ever went to the DMV. And is everyone who gets into a PAV going to have to go through a metal detector first, or will we just place TSA agents outside everyone's front door?

An equally specious argument is the one around pollution. Says the director of the Cafe Foundation: "We're burning up into smoke 6.7 billion gallons of gas annually (from being) stuck in traffic jams." True, perhaps, but what about the effect of burning gas at altitude? In 1999, an EPA study estimated that by 2010, aircraft could account for up to 10.4 percent of all emissions in some urban areas. Imagine what will happen when, instead of hundreds of airplanes in the sky everyday, there are thousands? And the pollution won't be concentrated in the cities, either. Because NASA's plan assumes a distributed model of PAV's flying into local airports, pollution, of both the air and noise kind, will be spread over a much larger area. Are your neighbors home? You'll know when their teenage son buzzes your house.

Considering that we need to start cutting pollution immediately, we'd be much better off spending our time and money on ideas and technologies that are more down to earth.