You roll into work off the subway or you take a car. If you are in a city like New York, you notice thousands of people swarming along the sidewalks on their way to their jobs, or in this current economy, acting like they are going to jobs that don't exist.
If you are a reader of symbols, you notice what people where, how they carry their coffee or their bags of pastries, or their bags. You might notice the brands they wear, or their sunglasses. Surely you have noticed that as the days are getting colder and shorter, they are wearing bulkier clothing, and things like scarves and hats. Sunglasses are still on. New Yorkers like to wear sunglasses.
I think about this stuff on my way to work. People culturally put effort into communicating with others their internal framework. What I mean is, people have an outside, and they show the inside on the outside. Shouldn't business be like this? Yes, and I think it's called marketing.
To my mind, you are not really running a business if most of what you are doing each day is focused on the internal mechanism of the company. And if so much of the energy and production is focused on the internal mechanisms, you are missing opportunities to interact and engage with your clientele, and your actual real costumers who have used your service before.
Working in Asia, and working mostly on the web, taught me to face outward. Here are the benefits and strategies that enable a company to face outward, by interacting with your customer base on the internet:
1. A greater number of non-company aligned consumers and clients out there are willing to help you.
2. Lower inefficiency and cumbersome explanations about why you do what you do. People already see it because you are doing it everyday.
3. Fewer power points, and fewer meetings internally that explain to employees why you do what you do. Not only will people be on-board, but a dramatic percentage of the discussions internally will be about snap moments, or Eureka moments about other ways that the company will face outward.
I think all of these processes might be key opportunities for more revenue, because customers will gravitate to the people who look outward.
I've always appreciated that Pablo Eisenberg has spoken his mind about philanthropy and the nonprofit sector, a refreshing voice of wisdom and candor in a sector rife with politics and back-scratching. Eisenberg's recent WSJ article, "What's Wrong With Charitable Giving, and How to Fix It" was as thoughtful and provocative as ever, as was Brian Reich's response here on Fast company.
I'm going to jump into the fray with my two cents as well.
My message to funders/investors:
There is a beautiful groundswell of donors of a variety of ages and from diverse backgrounds who are in many cases offering valuable expertise as well. At the same time, foundations are shifting their approaches to being more strategic, purposeful, and innovative.
Your challenge: There is no lack of superb causes, nonprofit enterprises, and social entrepreneurs who are doing important, productive work, as well as newer dreamers who have great ideas.
My strong advice: Ground your giving decisions in expertise and experience. If you want to advance missions that are making a difference in our communities--regional, national, or global--you will need to get your hands dirty, do some work to find the people and organizations that are effective, and figure out together with them how you can be most useful. Invest in people and organizations that are actually out there doing serious, hard work and who have begun to learn what works and doesn't work through trial and error; built relationships with communities they are serving; and having an impact.
My message to corporations:
Bravo to the leaders of companies who are finally integrating service and philanthropy, including nonprofit board service among your executives and professionals; this is a more powerful way to integrate and leverage your business's good will.
And bravo for aligning your corporate engagement with your company's mission; you have to be able to make the case to shareholders that your CSR initiatives are designed strategically to advance your business. Corporate philanthropy and service will only be sustainable and effective if designed to yield a win-win for companies and communities.
My message to nonprofits and their funders/investors:
Invest in strengthening nonprofit boards.
Nonprofits will never maximize their potential without highly effective nonprofit boards of directors. Boards are not only essential for oversight (and we have seen organizations fall because of board failures in oversight), but boards play an even greater role by working with the nonprofit's CEO to envision the organization's greater potential in serving the community, creating the revenue model to achieve success, and then playing their part in ensuring fulfillment.
Furthermore, in order for the board to be fully effective, the board needs to build itself with people with the mix of backgrounds and perspectives, and the skills, experiences, and expertise that is needed for that particular organization to soar.
By the way, when I say that the role of the board is to help a nonprofit to achieve its greater potential, that does not necessarily mean quadrupling in size; for example, it might mean merging with another nonprofit that provides complementary services in order to provide greater value to the community, or for greater efficiencies.
People and institutions who seek to invest in making the world a better place, through social justice, the environment, education, alleviating poverty, or other powerful causes will need to dig in and work with experts on the ground in order to really matter.
I just came back from conducting my program in Panama, and while
I have been through the Panama City airport several times, I had never
stepped outside its walls. This is a fascinating country. We had 150
attend the seminar
including government leaders, CEOs, and entrepreneurs. The conversation
showed me how seriously Panama is taking its opportunity to innovate on
a national scale. I don't mean "spur innovation" as we are framing the
challenge in the United States, but rather, Panama is looking at itself
as an innovation and trying to understand the unique role it can play
in the region and world.
This
fact was reiterated on my flight back home. I found myself sitting next
to the CEO of a specialty chemical company that distributes chemicals
around the world. As we talked about Panama’s evolution over recent
years, he grew animated, explaining why, after looking at several
options in Latin America, his company decided to make Panama the
logistical center of their Latin American operations.
Panama,
he said, has the largest free zone in the region; the country requires
everyone to learn English in school so it is easy to find English
speakers; and it is easy to find well-educated, skilled logistics
experts. He said, “Panama is becoming the Hong Kong of Latin America.”
This view was then
supported that evening by a friend of mine. At a wine shop in
Greenwich, Conn., which had been closed down for a private happy hour,
I talked with a close friend and his wife. He is the head of Latin
American sales for the animal health division of a major pharmaceutical
firm. He said they had recently completed a broad study to analyze
where they should base their logistical hub in Latin America, through
what port should they funnel their distribution train and hold their
inventory. They decided on Panama.
So
how has Panama achieved this respect from and allure to businesses?
Like many of the thriving companies we review here, Panama’s government
and businesses are following at least two time-tested strategies.
Befriend your enemies
One
perspective we’ve seen is that it is easier to grow by helping your
competitors than by fighting them. This cuts against an instinctive
desire to “beat the competition.” As Sun Tzu and Mahatma Gandhi have both suggested in their own way – befriending an enemy is a far better approach.
During my Panamanian presentation, a participant,
who heads a government agency, talked about Panama’s opportunity to be
the “service” for the world’s “products.” Most other Latin American
countries are staking out product positions. For example, Colombia is known for coffee, Peru for gold, etc. All of these goods need a path out of the region and the Panama Canal can provide that.
By
working with neighboring countries and offering the service-side of
business, Panama can be seen as an ally to all South American
governments and corporations.
Coordinate the uncoordinated
Innovation builds on innovation. For example, Disney’s skill at early
animation gave it a unique advantage at designing theme parks. Circuit
City’s experience running retail stores (the company was once the
leading electronics retailer) parlayed well into selling used cars
(CarMax is a spin-off of Circuit City).
Panama is seeking to consolidate the skills it has developed by operating its canal to become the worldwide center of logistics. Its banks, insurance firms, lawyers, and other experts, if coordinated correctly, could form a unique cluster of logistical experts and a strong infrastructure. The plan, as it was briefly described to me, is to cultivate this cluster in a national advantage.
This focus on building innovation was brought up at dinner that night with some close friends of mine. As we sucked on clams sautéed in garlic and picked at spicy ceviche, one of my friends – the former Panamanian Ambassador to Singapore – talked to me a bit about the parallels between Singapore and Panama.
Both Singapore and Panama are small countries on the outskirts of large, diverse, economically robust
regions. They both cluster experts that make them a natural gateway for
the region to reach the world. They are both relatively easy for
foreigners to navigate. And as you drive under the towering, dense
skyscrapers of Panama City you cannot help but think - could Panama engineer in Latin America what Singapore has done in Asia?
Keep a lookout on Panama. Next year – I was told – could be the year when the rest of the world comes to realize its potential. And
ask yourself the questions below to see if you can use some of the
strategies that Panama is employing to grow innovation in your own
business.
1. What is the biggest time-waster of my business or process?
2. What is the number one complaint from my customers and clients?
3. How could I work with another company to streamline inefficient processes?
4. Who can I coordinate to provide a better service or product?
Answer: Bear Witness. Tell the Story. Take Action.
This has been my advice to board members whom I have trained and placed on nonprofit boards for many years, but it takes on greater importance in today's environment for two reasons: first, the tough economy which makes fundraising more challenging for nonprofits, and second, the increasing demand from funders for nonprofits to measure their impact in serving the community.
Most striking was the response from Karthik Krishnan, Vice President, Reed Business Interactive, and Board Member, East River Development Alliance (ERDA). With his business background and MBA, Krishnan certainly had a healthy appreciation of the value of hard numbers. But he also underscored that in fundraising among corporations, foundations, and his friends, his value as an advocate for ERDA is that he has walked through the public housing neighborhoods served by ERDA and met the families and children who have benefited from the ERDA programs. Krishnan has toured the community side by side with Bishop Mitchell Taylor, Founder and CEO, ERDA.
Numbers are metrics in service of a story. They don't replace the eyes, ears, and voices of board members.
Everywhere I travel, I hear the same refrains: "We need more regulation," or on the flip side, "If we hadn't deregulated, we wouldn't be in this financial mess."
It looks like the White House is of this mind-set. Citing Wall Street for helping to create a "culture of irresponsibility," President Obama wants to impose more rules on the financial industry by, among other things, creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
More regulation, and in particular a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, could be a very good thing, but I would suggest we don't rush to regulation without careful consideration of two key questions:
What is the source of the regulation? Is regulation being imposed on people from the outside or is it coming from within?
Is the mechanism another list of "dos and don'ts" or is it something deeper, something that inspires consistent and right behavior?
We all know that Thomas Jefferson once said, "That government is best which governs the least," and this quote is often used to support the argument for less regulation. But what many don't know is that Jefferson went on to say: "... because its people discipline themselves."
In this way, Jefferson isn't making an argument against regulation but rather putting forth an argument for the most effective source of regulation: self-regulation.
Theodore Roosevelt echoed Jefferson's sentiments when he said: "Men can't escape from being governed. They either must govern themselves or they must submit to being governed by others. If from lawlessness or fickleness, from folly or self-indulgence, they refuse to govern themselves, then most assuredly in the end they will have to be governed by the outside."
So as we, in 2009, work to overcome our "culture of irresponsibility," we need to embrace self-regulation and discipline and understand and embrace the most effective mechanism for it, which is values.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for regulation. People need limits and boundaries. Thoughtful regulation can make financial transactions more transparent so consumers better understand the risks they're taking. But the more important questions we need to ask are:
Will regulation fix our culture of irresponsibility?
Can external rules prevent another financial Katrina?
Or does the culture itself — how we behave — need to change?
I would argue that our culture needs to change. And it can change only if it is driven by something more compelling than rules.
While I understand why we need rules, I also know that we need to understand what rules can do and what they can't. For example, I live in Los Angeles, and I am grateful that rules, based on solid science, have been implemented to govern the construction of buildings to make them earthquake-resistant. We need rules that prohibit sales of new drugs before they are approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Regulations can also promote transparency, as do laws that require publicly held companies to disclose their earnings, governance structure and executive pay.
But rules are less successful when they seek to govern human conduct and behavior. Rules ultimately fail because you cannot write a rule to control every possible behavior or cover every possible circumstance. It is very difficult to regulate deception, for instance. A rules-based law will do little to deter someone who wishes to be deceptive in their mortgage application. By setting floors for behavior, rules unintentionally also set ceilings.
This is a problem inside business as well as government. Let's agree that companies want to do the right thing. But they need and want to do more. They want to engage their people. They want to innovate. They want to encourage creativity and prudent risk-taking. To accomplish those goals, employees must be inspired. Rules and regulations do not inspire. To the contrary, too many rules and regulations limit behavior. They diminish autonomy and risk-taking. They suggest that people can't be trusted. Rules can be dangerous because they dictate what you can and cannot do and not what you should or should not do.
Rules are fundamentally coercive. If you misbehave, you'll be in trouble. Traditionally, business leaders have used a mix of motivation and coercion — carrots and sticks, if you will — to induce people to perform and to get them to abide by rules. Today, we are discovering the limits of carrots and sticks. We're learning that we can't write enough rules to get the behaviors we want. Nor can we deliver enough motivation.
All Rules Have Loopholes
If my carrot is a paycheck, I will leave the company for a bigger salary. If I chose to buy from a company based on price, my loyalty ends at the bottom line. Motivation turns out to be an expensive way to compel behavior, particularly in a recession when there are fewer carrots to go around.
Let's take the example of an Alaskan postal clerk who chose to express his individuality by wearing ties to work decorated with The Three Stooges and cartoon characters. His bosses were not amused and told the clerk to follow the rules regarding permissible neckwear. Now he wears suspenders that feature the caricature Taz, the Tasmanian Devil. Is this the outcome the bosses wanted? Of course not. But in focusing on the specific language of the dress code rather than the intent behind it, management has boxed itself into a situation where it really can't complain about the postal clerk's cartoon-character suspenders. Technically, the postal clerk is following the rules.
Or how about the Wisconsin law that uses taxpayer money to support a child-care-assistance program? The program pays for in-home child care, so the parents can work. But four sisters in Racine figured out they could stay home, watch each other's kids and be paid for it. They netted over $500,000 in taxpayer funds in less than three years. Legal? Yes. What the Wisconsin lawmakers had in mind? Of course not.
Rules create loopholes — values do not. If those in leadership roles want to shape behavior, they must pay more attention to instilling values. They are the underpinning of belief, and that's what inspires people and gives them a sense of mission and purpose. Only beliefs and the values that underpin them can be shared. Values perform a kind of double duty by acting as both a source and a mechanism for regulation.
If we go bowling, we can put a guard rail on the lane so that you don't throw gutter balls. But there is no mechanism to help you bowl a strike — either in life or in business. How do you throw strikes? By inviting people to buy into shared beliefs and values so that they are inspired — not coerced or motivated — to act responsibly. That's the way to avoid engendering a culture of irresponsibility.
Regulation can only go so far. Let's not try to regulate our way out of a financial meltdown. We must find the values and behaviors that will sustain innovation and ethical action. How you do things can never be based solely on rules.
Inspiration is the most sustainable and effective method of engendering principled performance. In response to those who say values are too "soft" to be reliable sources of inspiration, we need to make them "hard" by turning values into practices and behaviors.
Let's walk away from the mind-set that dictates "too big to fail" as a reason to act. Let's find a way to demonstrate that size doesn't matter, values do. Let's create a culture of responsibility by inspiring responsible behavior.
If we don't, we may find ourselves in trouble again.
Dov Seidman is the founder, chairman and chief executive officer of LRN, a company that helps businesses develop ethical corporate cultures and inspire principled performance, and the author of "HOW: Why HOW We Do Anything Means Everything...in Business (and in Life)." LRN has announced the acquisition of leading green strategy firm GreenOrder.
*This column appeared in, and was written for, BusinessWeek.com.
Robert Keanehad one year to plot out his business. He went to INSEAD
business school in France with the idea of an opportunity. Over the
course of his one-year MBA program, during a class on new ventures, he
had a chance to lay out how he would seize it.
His business plan grew into Vistaprint,
the world’s leading provider of printing services to small businesses
around the globe. What started a "job” without pay when Robert
graduated from INSEAD in 1994, now, as of 2009, generates over $500
million in revenue, produces 60% gross margins, and is transforming how
small businesses around the world market themselves.
Whether Vistaprint
will continue disrupting its competition and fulfill its
goal of “building one of the truly revolutionary and sustainable
business institutions that emerge each decade, but of which there are
only a handful,” is still uncertain. However, it is trying to be to
printing what Ikea is to furniture or Southwestis to airline travel. But to understand how this company has so
swiftly carved out a space for itself in an old industry dominated by
behemoths gives us valuable insights in how outthinkers disrupt their competition.
I've been working in my current role for about one and a half years,
casting a net into a huge ocean of financial executives and looking for
huge fish to secure, bring home, and enlist as corporate speakers in
the live events that we do.
The basic method is: find the big
fish, get them on the program, and then create marketing literature and
web page content that attracts that big fish's cohorts.
When the economic crisis hit,
it became apparent that while a large percentage of our customer base
would remain the same, there was a huge opportunity to chase after
slightly smaller, but vastly more prevalent fish. Well, when I say
apparent, I think it became apparent to everyone, because we
immediately felt the shift in a declining numbers of delegates who were
signing up to attend our functions, in some conferences, and a rise or
a steady flow of delegates to others.
So, I have started
working on an idea, based strongly in social media and the need for
"collectives".It came out of the large success I experienced with
taking social media and new media to a conference idea we already
worked in the company called Education Industry Investment Forum. You can follow the blog: Eduvest.
My
idea is that there dozens of audiences, hundreds of thousands of
delegates, and many new kinds of speakers out there who we don't even
know we want. How do we bring them into the fold? I want them to be my
business partners, my collaborators and my content providers, and I
want to work them on my team.
I think this idea sells well
within my current company, but I am learning there are several
character traits I possess that I have had to be aware of and shift
away from to make a busines idea work.
I am learning that with
transition comes a very strong need for individual self-awareness and
company awareness. We are part of the same whole.
What I'm
finding is that when you work in a corporation that has its own
successful structure, it is very hard to convince people that you would
like to help the business by adding a completely different and enhanced
business model to the mold. And the reason why is simple: nobody wants
to break the mold. If a mold breaks, you can't use it anymore.
So here are just a couple of things I have learned to do and not to do when you are trying to help:
1.
Never tell people that they are doing the right thing in the wrong way:
This shuts down all communication. In a team, everyone needs to be
right, and this is true because of egos and because, realistically,
being right helps everyone. Which brings me to the second point.
2.
Everyone's point of view is valid: This is not to say that ALL points
of view are on the same plane. But some people in the mix have a vast
bit of experience more than others and everyone should be listened to
as an equal player contributing equally important feedback, no matter
if that feedback goes a foot or a mile.
3. You can't
see the new paradigm through the lenses of the old: It really helps
everyone involved if you can put away the old paradigm for just a
minute and start seeing the new reality for what it really is,
something nascent, something not fully realized, and something that has
imminent possibility.
4. Risk doesn't cut it unless
you can balance that risk with a monetary achievement: In a sense, it's
really not worth the risk unless you can show "X" that by doing this
new thing you are basically linking the product or the service or the
method to a real and tangible monetary gain.
I have my
own questions, but the one that I am puzzling over today is this one:
Does one go purely to the web for answers, infrastructure and start-up
architecture and contacts, or does business never really leave the
ground?
What I mean is, research backs up my claim that
customers of a product or a service are rarely waiting to be pitched
to. They are searching around the web, picking up phones, and flapping
shoe leather in an effort to find what they need. They sometimes know
it when they see it, and they know it before they find it.
Why
do some companies spend so much time pressing marketing and advertising
into a shape that sells to the customer they want rather than the
customer they don't know they have?
"Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you
had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now," the
world-renown psychiatrist and author of the classic bestseller, Man's Search for Meaning, Dr. Viktor Frankl, advises us.
For several months now, I've been in direct communication with a number
of prison inmates in both the USA and Europe who have shared with me
their personal search for meaning during their incarceration.
Minus evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that their intentions
are sincere and that they are demonstrating an authentic commitment to
meaningful values and goals--what I describe in my book, Prisoners of Our Thoughts, as the "will to meaning."
It can be said that these particular individuals, while they may be
actual prisoners in a physical sense (in some cases, they are serving
life sentences), are seeking release from the "inner mental prison"
that has held them captive for many years and which, in most instances,
was an accomplice in landing them behind bars!
With so much of their personal freedom taken away as a consequence
of their actions, these human beings are not only seeking redemption,
but are also trying to discover the deeper meaning behind their
predicament. With obvious time on their hands for self-reflection and
self-discovery, each of these prisoners sought to describe for me their
very personal path to meaning. They wrote about their individualized
approach to what is effectively a form of existential analysis, and
about their prognosis for living and working with meaning in the
future--whether or not they expected to be released from prison itself.
I'm humbled to say that each of these prisoners has read my book, Prisoners of Our Thoughts,
the title of which is an especially apt and meaningful message under
such circumstances. In this regard, one inmate serving a life sentence
who says he wants to use his experience to help others wrote me the
following: "For a long time, I was very bitter and angry about my
situation. Then I read your book and really started to look at life
with a different perspective. I had been misinterpreting life all
along, and am now free of the prison I had created in my own mind."
Another prison inmate also serving a life sentence shared the following
thoughts: "I have spent my time whilst in custody learning to improve
my own life and becoming a better person. I am working hard to address
the deeper meaning behind my offending and change my life, as well as
gain answers to questions I need from my inner self."
What is common and revealing in these quotations is that, even
though they are facing a formidable challenge in life that none of us
would ever like to endure, both inmates are able and willing to explore
the meaning of their respective lives' moments, including those
"moments" that are not so pleasant and may actually be extremely
painful for them. Moreover, the inmates are demonstrating their
willingness to own up to their own lives by discovering the meaning of
any given moment, including those that came during their imprisonment.
They are assuming responsibility for weaving their unique tapestry of
existence, that is, what is their own life.
Now let me ask you: if inmates in a real prison are
able and willing to search for meaning in their lives, as well as
exploring ways to change and grow, are you? Remember, we don't
really create meaning; we find it. And we can't find it unless we look
for it. Although we are not always aware of it, meaning is present in
every moment, even in what may be viewed as the darkest hours of our
lives.
There are as many shades of meaning as there are colors. And nobody
can determine meaning for someone else. Detecting the meaning of life's
moments is a personal responsibility, one that cannot be
simply delegated to another. This is the case no matter how much we
would like to do so. If we open ourselves to being aware of the many
possibilities, like the prison inmates with whom I've been
communicating, we open ourselves to meaning. Indeed, even the most
profound grief and intolerable circumstances can open us to meaning.
And, to be sure, so can even the smallest, seemingly "insignificant" of
moments in our lives.
To get you started on the path to detecting the meaning of life's
moments, I would like to introduce you to a process that I call
"existential digging." I have found this procedure to be especially
helpful as both a catalyst and guide for putting this meaning-centered
principle into everyday practice. Simply put, for every situation or
life experience, especially those that may be important to you and your
life, I would like you to do some "existential digging" by reflecting
and making note of your responses to the following four questions: (1)
How did you respond/react (behaviorally, that is) to the situation? (2) How did/do you feel about the situation? (3) What did you learn from the situation? And, importantly, (4) How did you grow (are you growing) from the situation?
Now listen carefully to the following lyrics by Rodney Crowell in his song, "Time to Go Inward," from his album, Fate's Right Hand:
"It's
time to go inward, take a look at myself. Time to make the most of the
time that I've got left. Prison bars imagined are no less solid steel."
By remaining aware of the need to detect, learn, and grow from the
meaning of life's moments, you ensure that you do not become a
"prisoner of your thoughts" and get locked away in your own inner
mental prison!
Bob Hallam is in hot water, and he likes it that way.Hallam founded Dimension One Spas 32 years ago and has grown it into a $60 million business that designs and produces luxury hot tubs sold throughout the United States and in 35 countries worldwide.Over the years this forward-thinking company has continued to create innovative products that fuse savvy design and technological advancements with energy-efficiency.For D1 Spas and Hallam, having green products and great products increasingly mean the same thing.
While most people are not opposed to buying green products, environmental attributes are not the only thing they consider, and are not usually the first thing on their list.Most consumers are looking for products that are attractive, cool (or hot), fill a need, and make them feel good.In the case of hot tubs, I’m pretty sure people look for tubs that deliver a fun, relaxing experience that fits in their budget.“Hot tubs are a good product, great for relaxation,” says Hallam.“You can’t argue in a hot tub because you’re relaxed, and they’re also good for your health.”If a hot tub is also more eco-friendly than its competitors, all the better as long as it still delivers the tubbing experience they’re after.
Over the years, D1 Spas has worked to deliver not just state-of-the-art hot tubs with patented design and comfort technologies, but also products that are increasingly durable, efficient, and with less impact on the environment.In the 1980s D1 Spas began to enclose their hot tubs in foam to provide insulation and reduce energy losses.They also rethought the mahogany skirts they were using for tubs and realized this wood was expensive, prone to damage, and not generally sustainably grown.To change this they started making the skirts from recycled plastic made from milk bottles, which is cheaper, more durable, and with less of an eco-footprint.Any remaining wood components were mostly switched to FSC-certified wood, and most of the waste produced during manufacturing was recycled.
Sometimes going green is not enough though.Despite the improvements made in their products over the years, sales for D1 Spas plummeted in 2007 and 2008 along with others in the luxury market as the economy sank.Hot tubs are often considered a luxury item, with prices for some models ranging into tens of thousands of dollars.In the Great Recession of 2008-2009 many luxury items have been hard hit.
To get things back on a new and better track, Hallam created the “007” project in 2007, brainstorming with employees to find ways for D1 Spas to weather the storm by using their unique expertise in new ways.The results are taking the business in new directions.
One new initiative they have undertaken is a collaboration with VisionWerx of Canada to produce the SpaBerry, a bright, portable two-seater spa with lower price points than Dimension One’s signature hot tubs with all the bells and whistles.The SpaBerry comes in fun colors like cherry red and bright yellow and its small compact shape facilitates communication, always a good thing.In addition, its lower cost compared to most spas has helped it to do well even as other hot tubs have trouble in the down economy.They call it the “iMac of home spas”, a plug and play product that is powered by any standard 110V outlet and has possible broad consumer appeal.Even some people who might not have considered getting a hot tub may consider buying a product like this.
The brainstorming has also led D1 Spas to leverage their expertise to produce other types of products, expanding into new fields other than spas. “We are looking for things that are a good business to be in, making better products, often green, for a lower cost,” says Hallam.
One of the new fields D1 Spas is exploring is producing components for the wind energy industry.The materials they work with produce parts that are lightweight and yet strong, key attributes for materials like the lightweight, super-strong blades needed for wind turbines.Production of wind energy is expected to grow rapidly for years to come, but the field still faces many challenges and opportunities.Some wind turbine blades are so large that they are difficult to transport.If the blades could be produced in pieces and then assembled on site and bolted together, this would allow much greater flexibility in building wind farms.The processes D1 Spas uses in manufacturing may allow them to do just this.
Although news organizations have recently trumpeted the end of the Great Recession, there are still many businesses challenged by slow consumer spending and looking for strategies to reinvent themselves.Getting lean, innovative, and green like D1 Spas may be the key to surviving and thriving in the new economy, and opening the door to new opportunities in the future.
Glenn Croston is the founder of StartingUpGreen.com and the Green Biz Blast, helping green businesses to get started and grow. He is also the author of "75 Green Businesses You Can Start to Make Money and Make a Difference", and "Starting Green", a nuts and bolts guide to starting and growing a successful green business.
As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began hearings on carbon regulation, debate ran along traditional battle lines, but with a new script. Democrats Barbara Boxer (CA) and John Kerry (MA) moved away from discussing the environmental impacts of climate change - - and the reason, therefore, to take action to reduce carbon emissions - - and focused instead on the economic benefits of a domestic clean energy economy. Meanwhile, Republicans James Inhofe (OK) and Lamar Alexander (TN) complained that energy bills would rise and Americans would lose jobs.
It’s a good thing that Congress is finally looking at the economics of climate change and carbon reductions, because the overwhelming amount of data - - buttressed by common sense - - shows that reducing carbon will be very good for our economy overall. One of the biggest sources of carbon reductions will be in the area of energy efficiency and that doest cost money, it saves money. Walmart, for example, said that if each of their 100 million customers bought just one compact florescent light bulb to replace an incandescent bulb, those consumers would save over $3 billion in electricity costs over the life of the bulbs (after deducting the higher up-front cost of the new bulbs).
Renewable energy, another carbon-reducing technology, creates jobs in the US and saves money too. Alan Horn, President and CEO of Warner Brothers, told me recently that his studio is covering large soundstages with enough solar to provide up to 10% of their massive energy needs. After a 7 to 10 year payback, they will get that amount of their electricity free for decades to come. Moreover, that multi-million dollar project put people to work in Burbank, California, not China or India, and didn’t take away a single job from anyone.
It’s misleading when some Senators focus on trivial or entirely bogus costs, but especially troubling when their carbon smokescreen obscures a bigger truth - - inaction will cost far more than tackling the problem. No better example of the mammoth costs associated with denial can be found along our coastlines.
As discussed at a the recent H209 Water Forum in New York, cities around the world are building barriers to protect against rising sea level and increased storm activity that is related to the impacts of climate change and it costs real money - - Venice: $7 billion; London: $8 billion; New Orleans: $700 million; the California coast: $14 billion, plus $1.4 billion a year for maintenance.
In New York itself, $400 million was just spent to upgrade pumps that remove rising waters out of subways. Experts at the conference predicted billions more will be needed to protect telecommunications, power lines, and other NY infrastructure that sits below sea level. Even at the lowest end of the range of catastrophic climate impacts predicted, NY will suffer massive street flooding and property damage unless more protections are built. Further inaction on reducing carbon will only drive these costs higher.
“I'm sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won't find much consolation in green welfare programs," said Senator Inhofe at the hearing. Ironically, building this entire additional infrastructure to deal with rising waters will use a lot of cement, so Inhofe was aimed in the wrong direction again. In fact, companies like W.L. Gore make devices to scrub carbon and other pollution from cement kiln smokestacks and create lots of American jobs in the process (and valuable exports too!).
Given all of the obvious economic benefit of evolving to energy that is considerably more efficient/clean/domestic, one can only be left to wonder if Inhofe’s positions mean that Oklahoma just doesn’t like New York? Or California? Or Venice? Maybe the Senator is just jealous that his state doesn’t have a coastline, but unless he and his colleagues start making decisions based on real economic data, his state may also be left without a share of the 21st century industries that will power the globe and lead us out of the current recession.
