Roughstock Studios | Blog!

Happy Fourth! Ink Initiative Poster Sale for A Great Cause

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

The Ink Initiative produces high-end illustrated posters that are screen printed by hand, and donates all profits to charity (this year's nonprofit organization is Philabundance). Talk about a worthy business model. Anyway, they're having a 2-for-1 sale while supplies last.

In the meantime, drive safe, enjoy your BBQ, and don't lose any fingers!

Four Quick Email Marketing Tips

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

I don't usually do the standard top five tip list rigmarole, but I get a lot of email newsletters, and I'm noticing a few not-so-positive trends lately. So in the interest of easing the in-box crunch, you might want to think about the following issues before sending out that next email blast.

1. Don't send your email newsletter on Tuesday

There's always a lot of talk about the best day to send your e-newsletter, and apparently every single email marketer recommends Tuesday. I get maybe two dozen e-newsletters on Tuesday, and I can't handle it anymore. I know why this is, though: everyone's cranky on Monday because it's Monday, on Wednesday everyone's in a bad mood because it's hump day, on Thursday everyone's scrambling to get work done before the week ends, and on Friday everyone's checked out (either mentally or physically). So, Tuesday it is.

But maybe, just maybe, you should consider the possibility that picking a less-than-ideal day of the week is still better than getting lost among two dozen other e-newsletters.

2. Don't subscribe me without explicit permission. Ever.

I don't care if you think I'd be interested in your products. I don't care if we hang out on the same forum. I don't care if you paid good money for my name on a list. Subscribe me to your email newsletter without asking first, and you're getting instantly marked as junk.

I play by the three strikes rule (and I consider that generous): the first newsletter I simply unsubscribe from, then send to my junk mail folder. The second time, I reply directly with a complaint, and go through the whole thing again. If I get a third e-newsletter with no acknowledgment of my complaint, the sender gets reported to SpamCop. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing this.

3. Make sure I can unsubscribe easily

I know, I know. This tip ends up on every "Top 5 Ways to Improve Your Email Marketing" list on the internet, but hear me out. Probably 5% of the e-newsletters I get either have no unsubscribe link at all, another 5% have an unsubscribe link that doesn't work, and maybe 20% require a whole song and dance to get off the damn list. Keep it simple: put the link at the top and bottom of your email (text smaller than 8 points is unacceptable), make sure it works (you know, actually test it), and don't require the recipient to enter their name, address, password, and favorite breakfast cereal to unsubscribe. I promise you, the animosity you save will far outweigh the number of actual unsubscribes you get.

4. Double-check your subject line

In the last two weeks, I've had three separate email newsletters or announcements land in my in-box with either "DRAFT - please review: [subject here]," or "TEST." Accidents happen, sure, but this kind of accident seems to be happening more and more. I'm really not finicky, but it just looks lazy when an oversight like this happens. The subject line is a crucial component of your newsletter, and if you're not looking at it, you're making a big mistake. Not only is your e-newsletter more likely to end up in the spam folder, you end up looking, well, less than attentive.

Now, these tips aren't going to change your life, double your click-through rate, or land you a date to the prom. But they will help keep from mildly annoying your recipients. And in the world of marketing, that's really half the battle.

Keeping It Real Green: How to Market Your Efforts In an Age of Greenwashing

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Now that green has become a marketable attribute for better or worse, everybody and their brother is pushing how green they are. And, given the general standards of our fine American culture, that means greenwashing is now just as ubiquitous. I've been watching a rather sad back-and-forth, in which more and more businesses claim they or their products are "green" and consumers roll their eyes and wag their fingers, for a while now. So when I was asked to speak on a panel about greening your business for San Francisco's Small Business Week, I figured it might be helpful to provide some guidance for attendees.

The result is "Keeping It Real Green: How to Market Your Efforts In an Age of Greenwashing," a short little piece of work written to help organizations connect with their customers without lying, misleading, or otherwise confusing the hell out of people. This is a pretty big kettle of fish to fry, of course, and it was difficult to get everything into such a compact format. But believe me, I tried! There's not a lot of fluff in here; this sucker is a legitimately informative resource for any business, however deeply involved in environmental issues it may be.

If you'd like a free copy of the pamphlet, you can request one using the contact page, or give me a call at (415) 643-0121.

I will be expanding this into a PDF, but it may take some time as I'm up to my eyeballs in content for the upcoming relaunch of re-nourish.com (another exciting project I'll talk about soon). The nice thing about the hardcopy version, though, is that you can keep it in your desk drawer for reference. Let me know what you think!

The Concept: Advice to Be Taken As Directed

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:18:00 +0000

A concept is generally considered to be the most important element of any commercial design project; designers love to throw the word around, but many are hard-pressed to actually define it. Copywriters rely on concepts as much as designers (and are often the ones responsible for developing them at the outset of a project), but are often just as much at a loss for words when asked for a definition (sad state of affairs, no?). And clients generally just look at us all blankly when we bring it up. With all this vaguery and confusion it's no wonder that solid concepts are about as rare as an honest politician these days.

A definition that actually means something

Essentially, a concept is the intellectual construct that binds the visual and verbal elements within any given design piece. Another attempt at definition, no less esoteric: a concept is the organized structuring of relevant themes that guides the visual and verbal components in a physical piece. Does that help?

If the intellectual construct is shaky - that is, if the pieces of the puzzle don't fit logically together in some way, the concept is weak and the viewer is left either confused, or simply uninterested. It's easy to create those kinds of concepts, and writers and designers churn them out every day (often encouraged by marketers, receptionists, and the boss' spouse).

But when a concept logically links the various intellectual and physical components of a design together, and manages to add a cognitive twist that stimulates the brain in some way (forcing the old a-ha, or double-take), we can reach conceptual nirvana. Or at least, we're likely to give the design more of our attention.

An example, please

Of course, this is all a lot of theoretical hooey, and like a lot of other theoretical intangibles, concepts are often subject to the "I'll know it when I see it" rule of understanding. So let's try it: I stumbled across a brilliantly concise design concept while perusing the AIGA Design Archives this weekend. This is a promotional mailer (a postcard, ostensibly, or brochure), designed in 1962, for a photography company. Ready? It's really quite subtle (or, as I like to call it, elegant):

The concept: the photography company as remedy for what ails you. This is largely a copy concept, in that the kicker - the element that provides the a-ha moment - is the tagline "To be taken as directed." The visual cues - the medicine bottle and prescription label - support this copy, but it's the copy that tells us everything we need to know about the company via the metaphor of prescriptive medicine.

This particular concept relies on a double meaning: the tagline uses a familiar phrase in medicine, to be taken as directed, and places it within a photography context, thereby adding another layer of meaning: the company's work is custom-made to order, giving the client exactly what it wants. If you've ever tried to purchase custom photography, the ability to handle art direction is fundamental; this ad speaks perfectly to its audience, using a concept that delivers the point clearly, and amusingly.

How clients can help feed concepts

Designers and copywriters don't just magically pull a solid concept out of thin air (well, the good ones can in a real pinch and for a grossly inflated sum of money). In order to produce solid concepts, creatives need information on which to build their conceptual sandcastles. This means spending time with clients before any creative work actually starts. Any number of things can trigger a good concept:

Client personality or brand persona
Client goals, vision, and values
Audience demographics, needs, aspirations, or values
The nature, production, and delivery of product or service offerings
Cultural contexts and current events
~~Psychedelic drugs~~ (okay, probably not)

Designers and writers new to the trade often make the mistake of accepting what the client tells them in the first conversation, and then hitting the sketchbook. But a good creative has to ask a lot of questions first - they need to populate their mental page with lots of dots. Only when they have enough information can they create a conceptual form that makes sense; connecting the dots, as it were.

So, if you're a designer or writer: don't be afraid to ask questions. Ask strange questions. Take a ton of notes. If you're a client, of course, be willing to answer questions. Be willing to share details, tell stories, and generally spew as much information into your creative's lap as you can muster. In the end, clients and creatives share the same goal: to produce stronger work. And without a good concept, the work just won't work as hard.

Visualizing the Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:37:00 +0000

Not a new project, but a great way to kill your Friday morning:

[visit Indexed]

Earthquake Preparedness Has Never Looked So Good

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

...Or been so easy to understand. The San Francisco Department of Emergency Management has done an incredible job with this infographic-based website explaining how to handle yourself in the (fairly likely) event of an earthquake. [Edited to add the real credit: I shot him because I loved him, damn him! in collaboration with asketicsf.]

The site is ultra simple, focusing on the six most common places you'll be when the Big One hits. The hilarious graphics (check out the mid-quake hair) immediately get the point across. And the copy follows suit, providing only the pertinent details, making it easier to remember, while throwing in a good dose of San Francisco attitude (when experiencing an earthquake at your local taqueria—how very relevant—you're given the choice between duck-and-cover and "grab your drink—it wasn't cheap"):

After watching the History's Channel's over-the-top-yet-nightmare-inducing look at San Francisco's earthquake history the other night, it was abundantly clear that although San Francisco's government actually has a really good earthquake preparedness plan in place, the city's residents are typically apathetic. The site does a nice job of combining design and copywriting into a short-and-sweet educational piece to break through that apathy.

(And yes, we have a run bag to keep us alive should we need it.)

[via Quipsologies]

Short-Sighted Thinking Continues at Home Depot

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Blind energy consumption has long been the norm among national corporate behemoths, which may be why it was such a stunner when Wal-Mart started tackling sustainability issues so dramatically almost five years ago. But after a prolonged oil-fed war in Iraq, a continued dependence on foreign oil, and a massive consumer awakening, some companies still just don't get it when it comes to the role of energy in company operations.

Home Depot investors recently voted down a request to track, reduce, and report company-wide energy usage at its May 28th shareholder meeting:

"The resolution...was brought before investors at the company's annual general meeting on Thursday amid the proponents' mounting concerns that competitors such as Lowe's and Wal-Mart have trumped Home Depot by pursing aggressive energy efficiency initiatives -- efforts that are saving facilities and fuel costs as well as driving up perceived value by consumers." [full article]

Although Home Depot recently updated some of its HVAC systems (across 200 stores), and lighting systems (across 700 stores), resulting in a savings of $28 million since 2006, according to the company's 2008 annual report, they still don't think it's necessary to initiate a transparent and publicly accessible audit and reduction program.

Energy use, of course, goes far beyond light bulbs and air conditioners, and businesses that address the full energy network find themselves better off financially and competitively. This means looking at seemingly unrelated areas like construction methods and materials, fleet strategy and maintenance, supply chain issues, and even employee training. When an organization takes a whole-systems approach like this, it finds itself able to effect greater impact and efficiency across the board. It's just smart business.

It's unfornunate that Home Depot investors haven't realized this. It also may be indicative of a slow-to-die approach to business operations.

Nonsense Infographics by Chad Hagen

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:50:00 +0000

There are some of us who get pins and needles from good-looking infographics. These nonsense infographics from Minneapolis-based designer Chad Hagen might make my head explode. Meaningless, yet awfully nice to look at:

Check out the whole set on Flickr - it's worth it.

Rethinking Paper and Ink

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

A great new project from Portland State University's Ooligan Press brings us Rethinking Paper and Ink, a free e-book exploring sustainable publishing. Ooligan is the university's teaching press, and as such it's using book publishing as a hands-on method for teaching students about sustainability issues, too.

The book is an enlightening read for anyone interested in the industry as a whole and/or sustainability. By taking both a broad view of sustainable book publishing (including the life cycle of a book and the various environmental impacts along the way), and more detailed look at potential best practices (including case studies), Rethinking Paper and Ink provides a thoroughly accessible framework for approaching the issues.

Given the massive impact the book publishing industry has on water and air pollution, deforestation and resource depletion, and waste processing, it's great to see students are being asked to address this stuff. It's also a really good example of how doing is often a fundamentally important part of learning (a lesson my father just recently reminded me of).

The Implications of Creative Frameworks

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:04:00 +0000

"For an artist, rhythm arises from the tension between regularity and irregularity, monotony and variety. Just as the predictable recurrence in pattern is a pleasure, departures from it also give pleasure, particularly when the departure has an aesthetic motive, when it adds to the 'information' we are receiving."

—Alfred Corn, The Poem's Heartbeat

It's not just pleasure we get from well-constructed rhythms (whether verbal or visual); we get meaning, too.

Come See Me Talk About Greening Your Organization 5/19

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:43:00 +0000

I'll be joining a free panel discussion this coming Tuesday about greening your organization for San Francisco's Small Business Week, and we'll be focusing on local resources like the San Francisco Green Business Program. While this is geared toward the practicalities of small businesses, the panel (and accompanying day-long workshop, should you choose to stay) will be seriously helpful to any organization, commercial or nonprofit, looking for practical resources for reducing its environmental impact.

Date: Tuesday, May 19
Time: 11:00 am (full day runs 8:45-2:30)
Location: SBA Entrepreneur Center, 455 Market St. 6th Fl., SF
Cost: Free
Register: http://leanandgreen.eventbrite.com/
8:45: How I Greened My Business
10:00: What's In It For My Business
11:00: Local Government Support and the SF Green Business Program
11:45: State Support
12:30: Networking lunch

So if you've been curious about the SF Green Business Program, and you'd like to hear about how it works, how it helps, and how to make the most of it to build your business, please swing by and say hello.

Note: Although registration is recommended, I'm pretty sure you can just show up without registering.

Sustainable Design Town Hall: Sustainable Cotton Project

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

As mentioned in a previous post, a group of about 20 or so designers and educators recently met at a Designers Accord town hall meeting in San Francisco to explore the subject of sustainable design and exchange ideas. This is the first in a short series of posts in which I'll continue the conversation with the other presenters there about how people can design messaging that drives measurable, ground-level change.

Lynda Grose and the Sustainable Cotton Project

California cotton used 5,849,172 pounds of chemicals in 2005, many of which are known to be significantly toxic to air, water, soil and people. Lynda Grose, fashion designer and associate professor at CCA, is working with the Sustainable Cotton Project to reduce the amount of chemicals used on California cotton crops. Her presentation offered an overview of the subject, but also explored some of the inherent challenges in communicating complex or unintuitive sustainability initiatives.

What exactly is cleaner cotton?

Cleaner cotton is the term used for the crop produced by farmers enrolled in SCP's BASIC program. BASIC (Biological Agricultural Systems in Cotton) is a farmer-to-farmer information-sharing program throughout California's Central Valley that "enables conventional farmers to adopt organic and other environmentally preferable (biologically-based Integrated Pest Management) farming techniques." It's been remarkably successful in its eight years of existence: according to an independent analysis, BASIC growers "spray up to 73% less of the most toxic insecticides and miticides used in cotton" compared to conventional growers in their area.

Grose points out, however, that cleaner cotton is not the same as organic cotton, which uses no synthetic pesticides. So it must not be as good, right? Wrong - and this is a perfect example of how many sustainability initiatives seem counterintuitive at first glance. There are a few reasons why Cleaner Cotton is such an important piece of the sustainable agricultural puzzle:

Organic cotton requires a great deal of hand labor. With California's higher minimum wage, this means that converting to an organic system can be cost prohibitive for conventional farmers. In fact, much of the organic cotton used in U.S. clothing, for example, is shipped from overseas, where the cost of labor is dramatically lower (resulting in more competitive pricing). So while overseas organic cotton may reduce pesticide and GMO use, it does nothing to support local (and badly needed) American farming economies.
The problem of toxic pesticides:
To get about 3 bales of cotton per acre in California, conventional growers use an average of 2.1 pounds of chemicals.
Cleaner cotton offers better yields than organic. "This is one of the significant factors in bringing growers into the 'cleaner cotton' program," Grose explains. While conventional California growers yield about 3 bales of cotton per acre, "organic cotton so far yields 50% of that. Since growers are paid per pound for their fiber, this represents significant economic risk...especially without a committed market." And how does cleaner cotton compare to conventional? "The yields are the same."
Proportionally, cleaner cotton cuts chemical use more than organic. In 2007, there were 240 acres of organic cotton grown in the state, reducing chemical use by about 500 pounds, according to the SCP. Compare that to the 2,000 acres of cleaner cotton that resulted in a reduction of about 2,000 pounds of chemicals, and you start to see why cleaner cotton makes so much sense.

Given the clear advantages of cleaner cotton, then, it should be a simple matter of switching growers from their conventional systems, right? Well, not exactly.

A system greater than the sum of its parts

We all know that changing just one component in a system is unlikely to change that system in the long term. We might see a temporary shift or hiccup, but eventually that system will self-correct and return to the status quo. So, to effect long-term sustainable change, each piece of the system needs to change together. As Grose mentioned, without a market of fiber manufacturers committed to purchasing cleaner cotton, there's no guarantee growers will be able to sell their cleaner yield. So the SCP is taking a three-pronged approach:

It helps conventional farmers convert their acreage to cleaner cotton crops (creating a supply).
It encourages businesses to purchase California-grown cleaner cotton in addition to overseas-grown organic cotton and instead of conventional cotton (building a distribution system).
It educates consumers about the advantages of cleaner cotton (creating a market demand).

Of course, changing the attitudes and behaviors of three different constituent groups is much harder than changing just one.

Reaching one goal through multiple stakeholders

If the Sustainable Cotton Project approached their campaign using a blanket message for all three groups, they might find themselves facing serious resistance. Each of these groups has a different set of obstacles to changing already comfortable (and often, profitable) behaviors. Looking at our farmers, for example, the challenges in getting them to switch from a conventional farming system are clear. Grose puts it in context:

"Cotton is grown in different regions. each with their different ecological stresses. Organic is a good tool in developing nations, where labor costs are cheaper. It's not an effective tool in developed nations where labor costs are high.

Asking a farmer to transition to organic cotton is like asking a western medicine doctor to transition to Chinese medicine and acupuncture: it's a fundamentally different system.

Cleaner cotton brings conventional farmers into biological systems, and over time they begin to trust them and apply them to other crops. Because it is scalable, it converts more farmers and more acres to biological systems than organic does. Cleaner cotton doesn't negate organic; each has their relevance in a given region."

But manufacturers and consumers are driven by different obstacles (often price, perceptions of quality, and others). So, the SCP communicates its umbrella message—"cleaner cotton is better than conventional"—to each group using different subtexts and communication channels:

Growers
"Farmers listen to farmers," says Grose. Farmer-to-farmer information sharing programs appeal to the close-knit community and trust issues found among growers, and on-site farm tours allow growers to see cleaner cotton in action.
Manufacturers
Farm tours also engage manufacturers, switching the mindset from numbers on paper to real-world results. SCP also reaches out to companies at trade shows and company headquarters, providing "very visual presentations" in language that appeals to their particular motivations.
Consumers
Finally, SCP has created an online presence to educate the general public about the advantages of purchasing items made with cleaner cotton. The group also uses traditional publicity campaigns to drive awareness.

By respecting the concerns of each of their target groups and selecting appropriate communications channels, the Sustainable Cotton Project reaches more people, and has a greater lasting impact than if they either used a single communications campaign, only reached out to one group at a time, or positioned cleaner cotton to compete with other accepted farming systems. In fact, Grose is quick to point out that cooperation has been key to the group's success: "we position cleaner cotton to complement, not compete, with organic cotton, since the goals are the same: non-GM (genetic modification), family farmers, reduction in chemicals, etc." Treating each group as a valuable component in the whole system has resulted in a highly effective campaign.

Simplifying otherwise complex messages has its pitfalls

It's not all fluffy sweaters and fuzzy mittens, of course. The SCP still faces some challenges given the complexities of the industry. During her town hall presentation, Grose described one of the fallouts of such an effective communications campaign: simple messages are easier for people to grasp, but then you risk oversimplifying the issues to the detriment of your ultimate goal. In the mid-late '90s, for example, the group ran a campaign using the all-American t-shirt as its symbol:

"We took data on chemicals sprayed from all cotton states at that time, and the average yield of fiber per acre, and average amount of cotton in a typical t-shirt, then we did the math...and 1/3 pound [of argicultural chemicals] used for every t-shirt is what it came to at that time in the U.S. It was so effective a message that a host of companies picked it up without doing the math on the cotton they were using...so the data is no longer accurate, yet it is still used by some because it is a simple message."

Unfortunately, there may not be an easy solution to this problem of complex messaging. "Brands love to communicate in sound bites," reminds Grose, which means it's up to those crafting the sound bites to think harder about where they might end up, and how they might be used. Which leads us, often, to looking at the issue from different angles - both from the points of view of each stakeholder group, and from those we haven't traditionally considered.

When asked about the challenges and opportunities involved in reaching different groups with seemingly different interests, Grose responded: "They see cleaner cotton as part of an overall cotton strategy which includes organic and cleaner cotton. It's a significant shift from thinking about the product, to thinking about the cotton business." And that shift in our overall perception of any given "problem" is what will ultimately lead to better, more sustainable solutions in every sector.

Related Posts:
Sustainable Design Town Hall: Sharing Good Ideas

Guest List at Blogs.com

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Tue, 12 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

I was recently asked to provide a guest "Top 10" list for Blogs.com. I went ahead and provided a somewhat theoretical list of "Ten Blogs That Explore the Reality of Your Surroundings."

Rather than focus on strictly design or business blogs, I wanted to highlight some of the blogs I read that regularly make me do a double-take. Hopefully, this list will give you some good ideas, make you question some stuff you thought you had figured out, and generally provide a second look at the mundane world we walk through every day.

Sustainable Design Town Hall: Sharing Good Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Mon, 11 May 2009 17:49:00 +0000

Collaboration is one of the fundamental pieces of a functional design industry. It also happens to be one of the fundamental pieces of sustainable progress. In order to take positive, measurable steps forward, designers need to come together to identify relevant problems, brainstorm new ideas, and troubleshoot potential solutions. And that's what some of us did last week at Lunar, the hosts of a Designers Accord town hall meeting here in San Francisco.

A huge nod goes to Vanessa and the Lunar crew for creating a really successful, open atmosphere for idea sharing. Five of us spent 5-10 minutes each presenting a different idea to the group of about 20 fellow designers and educators. No specific theme, just idea sharing.

I spent my time mostly asking questions, of course. As I told the group, I'm currently helping a couple of different groups develop certification standards for graphic designers and their projects. I've been tapped by Eric Benson of re-nourish and Yvette Perullo of Rethink Design to provide input on a responsible design protocol. The protocol is a three-tiered certification system (partially modeled on the LEED system), intended to provide designers and clients with a rigorous framework for evaluating print design projects. We're also working on a studio-level version, which is where most of my work is being done. Simultaneously, I'm providing similar recommendations to the San Francisco Green Business Program for their design studio guidelines.

Developing these guidelines poses a significant challenge on many levels, and I'll be discussing those in another post soon enough. But last week's presentation, and the ensuing discussion, allowed me to get valuable input from other working designers, which will only strengthen the final recommendations. Folks raised questions, challenged my assumptions, and provided great ideas for improvement. Most of all, I was surprised by how generally open to certification they were. Perhaps it was the knowledge that such a program was being developed with genuine consideration for the limitations and challenges it will face.

There were some really cool ideas passed around by the other four presenters, too. Throughout this week, I'm going to post about each of them, so be sure to tune in (or subscribe to the email feed).

Food Carts: Two Approaches

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

In one sweep of my rss feed reader last week, I came across an interesting contradiction. Mission Local recently posted an article on the rising trend of food carts infiltrating the city:

"A declining economy has helped bring about a sudden proliferation of cart-carried delicacies that has elevated street food beyond the bacon-wrapped hot dog. In recent weeks, the Misson's food carteros—generally considered outside the high-tech realm—have been Twittering all the way to the bank, or at least to a following...

Low on cost and high on quality, in just a few short weeks the carteros have created a new Thursday-night dining venue as the carts are joined by other vendors and a rapidly expanding network of customers."

Selling everything from an "amuse bouche" of bite-sized strawberry tarts for $1, to a $5 curry plate, to spring rolls and créme brulees, these unlicensed vendors are creeping up all over the Mission. Interesting that they're relegated to this most hipster of neighborhoods; I wonder how this fare would fare in, say, tony Cow Hollow (not enough foot traffic?) or Pacific Heights. I suspect that the SF police would be far quicker to respond to the lack of proper licensing.

In the very next breath, John Emerson from Social Design Notes points us to what looks like a very cool advocacy project in NYC. The Street Vendor Project supports New York street vendors, providing education, political action, and a general community (there's strength in numbers).

The organization just released Vendor Power! (pictured above), a publication aimed at educating vendors about the city's vending laws, with the intention of preventing infractions and thereby reducing the number of tickets vendors are likely to incur for otherwise overly complex or arcane laws.

In other words, NYC cops are citing street vendors up and down, while SF cops haven't much noticed the growing number of non-Latino vendors. Familiarity breeds contempt, of course, so perhaps an SF crackdown is imminent (it sure will be as soon as SFPD discovers it can milk these vendors for a few extra dollars for the city coffers).

More Adventures in Direct Mail: SF Bike Coalition

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Fri, 08 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Earlier in the week, I dissected the failings of a snail mail campaign that was sent to me by a local arts nonprofit. On that same day, I received another mailing, this time from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, who couldn't have taken a more different approach. There was nothing particularly fancy about the envelope's presentation or contents, but it was clear that the group had invested a good deal of energy making this single mailing as effective as possible. Here's how I knew that:

Bigger envelope means more bang for the buck.
Although it was a standard 9" x 12" manila envelope, I knew there had to be something juicy inside to warrant such a large mailer. That thing was getting opened out of pure curiosity.
One message, many materials.
Turns out the mailing was intended to get my business on board with San Francisco's "Bike to Work Day." Small plugs for the SF Bike Coalition were cleverly scattered throughout the materials (including a copy of the group's newsletter), but they were all directly tied to the issue at hand: Bike to Work Day (the newsletter, for example, contained a Q&A about the event, among other BTWD features). Picking one message and reinforcing it throughout the mailing kept me from getting distracted, detached or confused.
Appealing to your audience:
"It is a known fact that employees who arrive at their workplace by bike are alert and productive and are generally healthier employees. Their employers reduce health insurance premiums and avoid costly employee benefit expenses like parking..."
Overcome objections in advance.
One of the best aspects of this mailing was the use of social marketing techniques (more on that later). From the opening of the introductory letter to the content of the newsletter, it was clear the Coalition had thought long and hard about what might prevent recipients from acting on their call for participation, and heading these objections off at the pass. The messaging was framed to address common employer concerns, including costs and employee productivity, which made it really easy to be won over.
Provide the right incentives.
Finally, the Coalition included a ton of materials to help its audience act on its request for participation in BTWD. Don't know the best way to implement the program among your employees? Follow the enclosed checklist. Unsure of which routes to take, or how hilly the streets are? Check out the enclosed San Francisco Bike Map. Need a way to get the word out to your employees? Post the enclosed BTWD poster. Looking for a fun team project? Take the enclosed Team Bike Challenge. Concerned about safety or getting stranded without a car? No worries, just check out the enclosed pamphlet explaining the San Francisco Emergency Ride Home program. And of course, if you want more info about the event or the Coalition itself, read the enclosed newsletter. Thinking ahead has allowed the Coalition to provide the answer to every potential question in advance, making it incredibly easy to participate.

These last two techniques are, as I mentioned, a significant component of social marketing (not to be confused with social media marketing, which relies on web 2.0 tools like Twitter or YouTube to spread a message). Social marketing is an incredibly effective way to encourage positive behavior change in individuals within a group context. It's a little broad to get too detailed here but the SF Bike Coalition, knowingly or not, has adopted several of its most successful principles:

They knew their behavior goal (employer participation in Bike to Work Day).
They knew their audience (employers with specific concerns about how BTWD would effect their employees health and productivity).
They addressed potential barriers for action (not enough information, too dangerous, too costly).
They included incentives to reinforce the behavior they were looking for (maps, team challenges, emergency rides home, posters).

Now, if they follow up with a phone call asking me if I participated, then they'll really be on point (after all, you need to measure if your campaign worked to know whether it's worth the investment). I only had two real issues with this mailing, and I have to admit they're not minor:

They failed to vet their mailing list (although I'm a San Francisco business, I'm not an employer), leading to a lot of wasted paper.
They included a lot of paperwork, much of which may get tossed.

That said, it's a relief to get a direct mail piece so thoughtfully directed to its audience. By taking all of the above into account during the design and writing stages, the group has vastly increased the likelihood of a positive response rate. The next time you send something to your constituents, I hope you'll consider these points, too.

Playing for Change

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

This is one of the coolest projects I've seen so far.

"Four years ago while walking down the street in Santa Monica, CA the voice of Roger Ridley singing "Stand By me" was heard from a block away. His voice, soul and passion set us on a course around the world to add other musicians to his performance. This song transformed Playing For Change from a small group of individuals to a global movement for peace and understanding. This track features over 35 musicians collaborating from all over the world. They may have never met in person, but in this case, the music does the talking."

Sounds great, and the music they produced was pretty great, too. Too bad they're more concerned with selling stuff than providing useful information about the project. Not sure why this is rubbing me the wrong way - oh yeah, because they had a great site going, with a clear message that explained themselves, their project, and those involved. Now the original site is a friggin' t-shirt store, and if you want any details at all you have to dig. This isn't rocket science, folks: give the people what they want. All seems well again; perhaps a site redesign snafu of some sort?

Visit Playing for Change. Or, if that link gets wonky again, the videos are also available on YouTube.

How Not to Do Direct Mail

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:10:00 +0000

I just received a direct mail solicitation from a wonderful nonprofit that supports local photographers through exhibitions, education and youth mentoring. I wish so much they had taken a different approach with this mailing, because I can't imagine this one will yield the kind of response they're hoping for.

The package arrived in a standard white no. 10 business envelope. It contained a one-page letter, a semi-gloss, full-color, tri-fold brochure that unfolds into a 12" x 18" poster, and a self-addressed, unstamped reply envelope. What's so wrong with this?

Concealing the goods.
Why drop coin on a beautifully printed poster-sized piece, and then hide it in a nondescript envelope that makes it look like junk mail? Either gussy up the mailing container, or make the poster a self-mailer that begs to be unfolded immediately.
Address anonymous.
"Dear Friend" is no way to address someone when you're asking for their money. In this day and age of variable printing, there's simply no excuse. And if your marketing director doesn't know what variable printing is, you've got an even bigger problem.
Not quite compelling:
"Your membership is your ticket to a remarkable range of programs and benefits."
So much copy, so little targeting.
The front of this single 8.5" x 11" letter included a litany of member "benefits" directed at all kinds of different people—including artists, art lovers, collectors, and who knows who else. Simply laundry listing your organization's features and hoping readers are willing to pick and choose what matters to them is a great way to make sure nobody pays attention to anything. Pick an audience, and write exclusively to them.
Features do not equal benefits.
And here's another thing: listing what you offer doesn't explain how your audience will benefit. Don't tell me about your exclusive, members-only parties, tell me how I'll make important career connections and discover new trends before they hit the mainstream.
Letterhead overload.
I understand the desire to acknowledge a nonprofit's staff, board of directors, advisory committee, and curatorial council members, really I do. But if you're printing this on your letterhead, it means you're repeating this information with every single communication you send out. Why? It might hurt to hear, but you need to ask yourself if the reason has more to do with the staff's needs than your audience's.

But all this wasn't enough to turn me off and convince me not to give. No, the straw that broke the camel's back was the flip side of the letter. An entire page dedicated to a collaborative art project that I (little old me) was invited to participate in! How exciting, I thought. And all I have to do to be eligible is purchase a membership and send in my own mail art submission? I looked for the cost of membership on the accompanying brochure/poster. $50 ain't bad, considering I'd also get access to the rest of those features listed so exhaustively on the front. And that's when I noticed the deadline for submissions: May 1, 2009. Receipt date of this package? May 1, 2009.

That's right, folks. I was invited to participate in a project—a project that was supposed to sell me on donating to this organization—on the day of the submission deadline, effectively making me ineligible. That's not an oversight. It's not a mistake. It's a slap in the face to your audience.

This is not a time for this kind of ineptitude, folks. Tighten up! Don't waste your marketing dollars on what has the potential to be a highly effective campaign by not thinking it through. If you need expertise, then ask. But nonprofits can't afford to be making these kinds of mistakes right now.

Small Updates to the Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:29:00 +0000

I've finally had the chance to start making small tweaks to the new site design. As you can see (and if you're reading this from a feed reader, get thee to the blog for a moment), I've played with the post layout slightly to give it a little breathing room and generally make it easier to read. I've also added better labels to the sidebar (it's time we got a little personality into this sucker, ain't it?).

I've got a few more changes I'd like to make, but the limitations of Blogger are really starting to try my patience. Eventually I'll migrate to WordPress, but that's a ways off. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the new changes.

How are Corporations Going Green?

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Thank you, Onion:

(Hat tip to Triple Pundit for seeing it first.)

Graphic Design USA Gives the Nod to SFM Book Design

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Roughstock got a nice little mention in Graphic Design USA's latest green e-newsletter. The magazine featured our Supermarket Facilities Management book design for A. Cook Associates in their "Thinking Green" section, noting many of the design decisions we made to reduce the book's environmental footprint.

You can read more about the design process for SFM, and view additional images, in the Work section.

Finding the Right Green Certification Program

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:07:00 +0000

There are over 300 environmental certification programs available to organizations who, for whatever reason, feel the need to get certified. These programs vary wildly: some are nonprofit, some demand high fees, some have extremely high barriers of entry, and almost all of them have different requirements and certification processes. Finding a credible, appropriate, attainable third-party certification system can feel seriously overwhelming. But if you answer a few initial questions before looking for a particular program, the process becomes much less daunting.

What kind of organization are you?

Before you start looking for certification, it helps to do some self-reflection. On one of my email lists recently, someone asked if there were any certification programs specifically geared towards nonprofits. My response (on which this post is largely based) was that many of the actual steps you can take to green your organization are applicable to any sector, so a certification that doesn't specifically target nonprofits might still be appropriate.

Here are a few questions to consider when looking at your own organization:

Why do you want to get your organization certified?

When it comes to environmental certification, there tend to be two camps of certification seekers: those who want a formal, guided system for judging their practices, and those who feel it will help their business model in some way. Both are completely legitimate reasons.

Beyond that, though, there are additional things you should consider. Are you looking to increase credibility among your various constituents? Are you looking to save money over the long term? Does it reinforce your mission (unlike many pursuits, I believe one of this nature doesn't require absolute mission alignment)?

Answering this question will help give your search more focus (e.g. if your goal is to increase credibility, you need to look for a rigorous, respected certification body). And remember: if your main goal is to reduce your organization's environmental impact, you don't actually need a third-party certification to do so.

Do you have specialized certification needs?

Whether you're a nonprofit or for-profit organization, there may well be environmental or sustainability issues that are specific to your industry. Product manufacturers and retailers may have different considerations than service-based organizations, for example, and it may make sense for you to look for a program that addresses these issues. That said, if you can't find a niche certification, there are likely plenty of other options that are just as well-suited to your organization.

What kind of resources do you have to devote to this endeavor?

Many nonprofits (and smaller businesses) are either on a shoestring budget, or are assigning the process to an already overworked staffer. If this is the case, you'll need to find a program that won't require large financial outlays, or that will provide hands-on support. Being realistic about what your organization can and can't commit to—or, what you're willing to commit to—will help narrow your options.

Where should you look for a green certification program?

Once you've identified your own goals and limitations, it's time to start searching for an appropriate third-party program. There are two primary types:

Government-run certification programs

When it comes to government-sponsored environmental programs, most of the certification action tends to be at the local level. Many city and county governments, and sometimes state governments, are developing programs to encourage area businesses to improve their environmental practices. Be aware that these programs vary dramatically in their standards and participation requirements—you'll need to do your due diligence. Also consider whether or not a local certification will help you reach your previously identified goals. If you're looking to build credibility among your customer base, for example, they need to have heard of the program enough to value it.

Sadly, many municipalities don't offer government-run programs at all. If this is the case where you live and work, I highly recommend petitioning your local government to implement one. They need to know that business owners and nonprofit directors alike want such programs.

Finding a program: Check with your local business development agency, environmental department, or chamber of commerce. Don't forget to check at the state level, too.

Nonprofit (and for-profit) certification programs

Almost every non-governmental, third-party certification program nowadays tends to be nonprofit, as the 501(c)3 designation seems to lend an air of credibility to the certifying body. But in reality, it's the stringency of the program's requirements, and their working processes, that you should pay attention to.

And it certainly wouldn't hurt to check out who's on their board of directors, if they have any "partner" businesses/sponsors, and so forth. One particular certifying organization that was pointed out to me recently is set up as a nonprofit, and looks perfectly legitimate on first blush—yet they are affiliated with a for-profit consulting firm. This kind of affiliation isn't necessarily problematic in and of itself, but it can certainly impact the certification's credibility if:

The for-profit affiliation isn't an entity you'd feel comfortable doing business with under ordinary circumstances;
The for-profit affiliation exerts any influence on the certification process;
The for-profit affiliation directly benefits from the certification process.

What criteria should you use to judge an environmental certification program?

You don't have to be a sustainability expert who knows how many microns of CO2 your pencil sharpener puts out, but there are some essential standards you should look for in your certification system:

1. No, or minimal, pay-to-play: Keep an eye out for costly "membership requirements" and other fees. While minor administrative costs aren't unreasonable, huge fees definitely eat into a program's credibility.
2. Full transparency and disclosure: Program processes, certification guidelines, contacts, member lists, etc. should be made available on request (good), and/or clearly posted online (better). A credible program will tell the public exactly what it asks of its member businesses.

Also, keep an eye out for programs that allow you to be a member without certification, as non-certified members often dilute the credibility of certified members thanks to public confusion/conflation.
3. Rigor: This, in my own opinion, should be the most important piece of the puzzle. First, what is their certification process? Programs that require some proof of compliance, whether on-site inspection or some kind of documentation, are far more credible than those that rely on the honor system.

Next, how expansive is their requirements list? Look for programs that address the triple bottom line (people - planet - profit). This should include at least issues like employee benefit programs and community enrichment (people) to environmental conservation and improvement (planet).

How does the program measure impact? Do they ask for hard numbers (and proof of them)? Are they asking about low-hanging fruit like day-to-day operational tasks as well as larger decision-making (like equipment, appliances, construction, business models, etc)?

How often do they require re-certification, and how do they manage that process? If you can't easily uncover any of this information, think twice about participating.
4. Support and guidance: Finally, does the program provide suggestions, help and resources or tools during the certification process? A really good program will help walk your organization through the certification process, pointing you to legitimate resources to help you implement whatever changes need to be made. This is especially important for nonprofits and other organizations who might not have huge resources to commit to the process.

Does the certification system have brand recognition within your organization's circles of influence? If you expect your customers to care about the certification, it helps if they already know what it means.

Finally, what kind of marketing support will they provide—a simple listing in their online directory usually isn't enough (since it relies entirely on search engine ranking). Do they place media ads or do PR campaigns within your circles of influence or mainstream circles? Will being a member bring your organization much cachet?

Making your decision

I've watched as the market for third-party certification has exploded, and it's amazing how many of these organizations treat it as more of a marketing tactic than a bottom-line environmental decision. It's far too easy to shell out a few bucks, and get a pretty green stamp of approval. The trouble is, if that stamp doesn't communicate anything of real value (to your business and to your customers), you've wasted both money and time. Worse still, you risk undermining the whole point of environmental certification: to provide a legitimate and rigorous public review of your organization's environmental efforts. And that's the very definition of greenwashing.

But getting certified doesn't have to be a traumatic, costly, or otherwise difficult experience. As with most business decisions, it simply requires a little due diligence before you jump into the process. Following the above recommendations will help you narrow your choices and select the most appropriate program for your organization's specific needs.

Have you gone through the certification process yourself? Have you found it useful in reaching out to your customers? I'd love to hear your thoughts and questions—please leave your comments below.

Related Posts:
The Case-by-Case for Sustainability

Write with Intent: Written Messaging in a "Design with Intent" Framework

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:00:00 +0000

First, have a look at Dan Lockton's 10-minute slide show on persuasive technology and design with intent, in which he describes various methodologies used to influence user behavior:

As I continue to explore the world of social marketing et al., I've been wondering about the specific role of language in these issues. Designers focus on visual and spacial cues, obviously, and with good reason. There's a strong argument to be made for the idea that modern human language is quickly moving from a verbal core to a visual one. That's a huge debate in and of itself, best left to another post. But there can be no argument that people are becoming increasingly sophisticated information processors when it comes to visual frameworks (that is, we're getting better at deriving meaning from visual cues).

So, where does that leave verbal language? And more specifically, where does that leave the role of persuasive verbal communication? To make this more concrete: copywriters have long insisted that web copy is best served by bullet points, subheads, and other visual means of breaking up text. Shorter sentences and fewer syllables are another way we're encouraged to accommodate this shift in human information processing (since readers are now more used to simply glancing at a screen and immediately deriving meaning from what they see). But is altering the visual appearance of the words the most effective use of verbal language to communicate and persuade (and, ultimately, effect behavior change)?

Using content in addition to form

Often lost in all of this is the actual content. In the case of commercial and social marketing, content is as important an influence as form on a reader's behavior. So if we worry only about the visual appearance of text, we risk failing to provide the meaning it's intended to communicate. It's the effective communication of that meaning that causes a reader to change their attitude or, better still, their behavior. There are several ways writers can increase meaning, and therefore persuasiveness, in their messaging:

Avoid passive language, unnecessary modifying clauses, and jargon that may dilute the meaning of your text.
Acknowledge perceived barriers to behavior change, but emphasize the benefits.
Use personalized examples that reinforce the sought-after behavior change (personalized to your reader, not the writer).
Integrate a narrative structure that leaves the reader visualizing the process of behavior change.

This isn't an exhaustive list. But many of these examples find counterparts in Lockton's presentation above. Number 1, for example, could be compared to the use of unadorned, light-up reminder icons on a car dashboard (a visually active and engaging cue).

Commercial marketers have long understood this, of course (the good ones, anyway). Good social marketers understand it, too (hence the focus on addressing perceived barriers to action). But I'd love to see more academic/theoretical discussion of this within the field. Or maybe it's there and I just haven't found it yet (please point me to it, if you know that's the case). In the meantime, it would serve us marketers well to remember that form and content must work in tandem to effect real behavior change.

The Tools of Self-Government

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:00:00 +0000

This looks fascinating:

Us Now is a documentary film exploring how social media tools are changing the way we handle information, and how that might impact how we govern ourselves. The concept is both timely, and a necessary one to explore given the current state of global affairs. I love exploratory stuff like this.

Social Media Innovator or Same Old Corporate Snake Oil?

noreply@blogger.com (Jessie Jane) — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:55:00 +0000

There's an interesting conversation going on at the Ethicurian, who posted about Monsanto's latest foray into public coercion, a.k.a. blogging. The Ethicurian's initial post was nothing more than a short blurb noting that "the biotech giant has not only launched an ad campaign aimed at food's 'thought leaders,' it's digging into its deep pockets to fund a new Facebook presence, Twitter stream, and a blog." The interesting part? Monsanto's Social Media Director chimed in in the comments. To wit:

"The reality of it is that a small group of employees, (Yes, PR people, imagine that, communications people communicating!), who thought we should be part of the online dialog. The anti-Monsanto crowd seems to feel threatened by this. We felt it was important to start offering counterpoints to some of the more factually challenged assertions about us being spread online." (full comment)

Needless to say, the Ethicurian's readers had plenty to say back. What's so intriguing to me about this exchange is not that Monsanto is using social media in their public relations efforts (every smart corporation is these days). And it's not the content of the dialogue (are we surprised that ethical eaters hate Monsanto and Monsanto is indignant that they're hated?). No, what I find so interesting about all this is that Monsanto's PR department figures it can reframe the company by appearing human.

Chris Paton, Social Media Director for the company, is careful to dissociate himself from his company, which is odd given the purpose of his role. He frames himself as an earnest, can't-be-bought free-thinker:

"Myself and the other team members in my area who are starting to participate in the blogosphere, twitter, facebook, etc.. are doing so in addition to their regular workload. It does indeed take some man(and woman) hours to do so. Even more as we're starting to attract attention for even showing up to the discussion and the cyber-pile-on starts up. I don't dispute that Monsanto has spent a good chunk of change on the ad campaign, but I'm not responsible for that, not involved with that, and wish I had a fraction of a fraction of that budget for what I personally think is a more useful effort, engaging our critics in a dialog to see if we can't make some progress...

...I'm not an expert on every thing Monsanto may or may not have done. If I make a comment one way or another about lobbyists, funding, cow health issues, etc.. it can be torn apart by people...

...I commend you for being committed to speaking out for what you belive. I'm just disappointed that people cant belive that i'm saying what i actually believe. My paycheck doesnt buy my beliefs or my soul. If i belived that Monsanto was guilty of the things i read online on a daily basis, you couldnt pay me enough to be a part of it..."

Monsanto has been struggling with their image of a monolithic, international, bully of a corporate conglomerate for years, and their reputation among so-called ethical eaters is only getting worse as our country's food issues gain coverage in the mainstream. So it's interesting to see their public relations department using social media ("a level playing field," Chris calls it) to reframe the company's brand image. Hell, maybe they are just another group of concerned individuals working for what they believe in.

It's what they believe in that scares me so much.

(As an aside, is it too much to ask of corporate America to at least attempt a little literacy when it comes to posting online?)