Scare Factor 100

Crisp, sparkling, bottled air. Scare you much? have a look here, I think its going to far, like even further than dead polar bears too far...

Send That Origami

Here is original new packaging for the brand and cost UPS. A package in the form of an origami, which eliminates all the wasted space in a cardboard box. A concept of pre-folded sheets, by designer Patrick Sung. Clever and creates an interesting visual. Could the actual interaction by the user promote a good feeling within themselves, changing the negative vibe that is held toward living sustainably? Read more here

Rebuttal

Or joke, but gets you thinking for the options. Link for image one here. Link for image two here

Fantastic article site

Predictably Irrational (the blog) has been a great resource for me... Dan is the man. View it here

If Coke can do it...

Coke's new 'eco' bottle design is...well...a bit ugly....but do they have the right morels in mind? They are a multi million dollar corporation, but are they reducing their footprint for the right reasons? You decide, read more here

NOTE: On closer research I have discovered that this is actually student work by Andrew Kim

Jack's Event

The event kicked off great! Majority of photos by me, although they made the resolution a bit small and therefor they look a bit grainy and low quality, but I am happy, as they are semi-published! have a looksee here

Published!

Photos by ME, I don't believe it! And Im credited with Lucire too....YAY! Look here

Yum Yum Brands taste good

Defining ourselves through brand, and what we consume. Without product, how are we special? Have a look at this creation "apple pie", here

Thoughts, which I posted to the forum, but will reflect on here toooo!

Okay, so, Ive been doing research and posts to this site ---> http://brigitteunger.blogspot.com/ I've taken a direction into packaging design, and looking at companies who are thinking outside the box when it comes to boxes. I figure we're always going to consume, but if it can be smarter and in reach of every one, well then we might have a ticket.

I cam across this idea from a discussion I had with a peer. She said she COULDNT live sustainably, because it was too expensive. This got me thinking, Is sustainability only in reach for the wealthy? Why to people flock to stores to buy products they know are bad for the environment, but are good for them and CHEAP? Stores like Farmers NZ must have such a huge footprint, but they are accessable to the masses, which makes them turn a profit ( and a good profit at that!), So how can I work this in? Making everyday products maybe at the super/or fashion and retail counters) Change their packaging ways. Just a thought any way, will research into this and post it here ---> http://brigitteunger.blogspot.com/

Relativity and Immediate Gratification

This idea of an immediate reward has been a large focus of my research, and this wee clip describes it perfectly, and visually! Watch it here

Water Squared

Part art project part environmental push, water designed to get you thinking, and ultimately acting! With proceeds go to reforestation and solutions to global warming. Find their site here

Basics = better

Look and marvel here

I think in essence, its taking what we have, and making it amazing

Talk to the designer

In regards to the Puma + Sustainable design here

A clever packaging alternative

This is what I am talking about!!!! Puma + innovation = environmental! Watch here

And for those that want the facts, (and for my personal reference), read on:

After more than ten years of successful implementation of its social and environmental standards (puma.safe), PUMA launched the next pivotal phase of its ambitious long-term sustainability program on April 13th at the Design Museum in London. By introducing its cutting-edge sustainable packaging and distribution system by renowned industrial designer Yves Béhar, PUMA set new standards within the retail industry. The new innovative solution will significantly reduce the amount of waste and CO2 emissions that traditional product packaging such as shoe-boxes and apparel polyethylene bags generate and underpins PUMA’s target of reducing carbon, energy, water, and waste by 25%, and developing 50% of its international product collections in footwear, apparel and accessories according to best practice sustainability standards by 2015.

PUMA has been collecting E-KPIs (Environmental Key Performance Indicators) from all its offices and stores worldwide for the last five years and identified several key areas that need to be dealt with in order to further reduce PUMA’s “paw print”. To address these issues, at the press conference, PUMA launched the next phase of puma.safe initiatives and long-term sustainability program laying out ambitious targets to be achieved by 2015. The major objectives PUMA has set out to achieve in this period include:

• 25% reduction of CO2, energy, water and waste in PUMA offices, stores, warehouses and direct supplier factories.
• Paperless office policy through a 75% reduction and offsetting initiatives for the remaining paper usage such as tree planting initiatives.
• 25% CO2 reduction through more efficient product transport solutions by our logistic partners.
• Begin collaborating with our strategic suppliers and logistic service providers to offset their own footprints in the long-term.
• Introduction of the PUMA Sustainability-Index (S-Index) standard that serves as a benchmark for sustainable products and communicates the products’ sustainable features to consumers.
• 50% of PUMA’s international collections will be manufactured according to the PUMA S-Index standard by 2015, using sustainable materials such as organic cotton, Cotton Made in Africa or recycled polyester as well as applying best practice production processes.

To monitor these objectives PUMA is also establishing an external Advisory Board of experts in sustainability to consult on PUMA’s mission and audit PUMA’s sustainability program.

“For a long time our mission has been to become the most desirable Sportlifestyle company. With this next phase of our sustainability program we have evolved our mission to be the most desirable and sustainable Sportlifestyle company in the world,” said Jochen Zeitz, Chairman and CEO of PUMA. “Through PUMAVision and our puma.safe program we have already started to reduce our carbon emissions, curtail wasteful transportation, recycle and reuse available materials, use water sparingly and become paperless.”

PUMA’s ultimate objective is to give back to the environment what it has taken. PUMA’s longstanding work and efforts to improve social, labour and environmental standards throughout its operations date back to 1999. From that time, PUMA has continuously incorporated environmentally-friendly practices to reduce its impact on the planet and realized several successful large-scale initiatives such as sourcing of raw materials through the Cotton made in Africa campaign to building the capacity of its suppliers as well as the opening of the industry’s first carbon neutral head office — the PUMAVision Headquarters in Herzogenaurach, Germany — last year after joining the UN Climate Neutral Network

The introduction of PUMA’s innovative packaging and distribution system will reduce the paper used for shoeboxes by 65% and carbon emissions by 10,000 tons per year — the remaining packaging materials used will be fully sustainable by 2015. PUMA partnered with designer Yves Béhar, of San Francisco based fuseproject, to rethink the way the millions of pairs of shoes that it sells each year are packaged — less packaging means fewer raw materials, less use of water and energy to produce, and less weight to ship and to be disposed of. Béhar designed a “Clever Little Bag” to replace the cardboard shoebox with a re-usable shoe bag, that protects each pair of shoes from damage from the point it leaves the factory until the consumer takes it home — thus generating savings on the production side due to less material used, reducing weight during transport and eliminating the need for extra plastic carrier bags. As a result of the 65% paper reduction through the “Clever Little Bag” concept PUMA will reduce water, energy and diesel consumption on the manufacturing level by more than 60% per year. In other words: approximately 8,500 tons less paper will be consumed, 20 million Megajoules of electricity saved, 1 million litres less of fuel oil used and 1 million litres of water saved. During transport 500,000 litres of diesel is saved and lastly, due to the replacement of traditional shopping bags with the lighter built-in bag the difference in weight can save up to 275 tons of plastic.

“I was excited to partner with PUMA and contribute to such a game changing project,” said Yves Béhar. “PUMA’s initiative to look closely at one of the most challenging issues facing the retail industry in regards to sustainability and environmental harm was inspirational. In changing the packaging and distribution life cycle from the ground up, we hope our new design and comprehensive solution encourages other retail companies to follow suit.”

PUMA’s apparel collections will be bagged using sustainable material, replacing traditional polyethylene bags. This means that 720 tons of polyethylene bags can be avoided per year, which equals a saving of 29 million plastic bags — enough to cover an area the size of 1000 football pitches. Furthermore, PUMA T-shirts will be folded one more time to reduce the packaging size and thus saving CO2 emissions and costs during transport.

By switching out current plastic and paper shopping bags in PUMA stores and replacing them with sustainable biodegradable bags the sportlifestyle company is looking to save another 192 tons of plastic and 293 tons of paper annually.

The retail launch of the new packaging and distribution system is planned as of the second half of 2011.

The leaf car

http://www.chinacartimes.com/2010/04/12/saics-leaf-concept-car-to-debut-at-beijing-auto-show/

A BIT OF A SYNOPSIS on what I am thinking at the moment

So, where I'm at with my project... I've been looking a lot into patterns of consumption, driven by motivators such as rewards or loyalty programmes. It seems that we ( as the consuming public) are more likely to be "loyal" to a retail outlet that offers us discount, cheap goods, or vouchers by using a loyalty card. It also seems that we are easily swayed, if somewhere has a greater discount, we will discard our "loyal" card swiping behaviour and head to the cheapest option.

With this behaviour swirling on my head, I got to thinking. The general population is loyal to their wallets. >> This is where part of the problem lies....

Most sustainable activities are substantially more expensive than the everyday, non sustainable, alternative. Organic costs more, energy efficient lightbulbs (the bulbs themselves) cost more, less packaging costs more, EVEN NZ MADE COSTS MORE.

This leaves me with a looming question.....

Is sustainable practice and living only within reach for the wealthy? And if so, how could this perception be changed, and how could it be achievable for everyone?

Back to consumerism, why is it this is getting stuck in my head!!

Cross-national comparison of consumer attitudes toward consumerism in four developing countries.

Find the website here

by William K. Darley , Denise M. Johnson

In the last three decades, consumerism has received much attention in business and academic literature. Articles have commented on consumerism's importance, underlying consequences, implications, and future (e.g., Bloom and Greyser 1981; Buskirk and Rothe 1970; Evers 1983; Johnston 1985; Maynes 1990; McIlhenny 1990). However, consumerism has been primarily a concern of more developed countries (MDCs) where consumer protection is quite advanced (Kaynak 1986; Thorelli 1990; Thorelli and Sentell 1982). In less developed countries (LDCs), the situation differs greatly (for consumer and marketplace differences between MDCs and LDCs, see Thorelli 1988, 531). In these countries, the marketplace has been a seller's haven where consumers have little or no protection, education, or information about the market (Kerton 1980; Thorelli 1990). Thus, Thorelli (1988) has suggested that priorities for consumer policy for LDCs, i.e., consumer protection, education, and information, should be exactly the reverse of those in MDCs, i.e., consumer information, education, and protection.

It is important to examine the extent of consumerism and to determine the degree to which consumer protection, education, and information (i.e., consumer emancipation) are available to various consumer groups. Only by assessing current state of development of these consumer issues and desires of consumers with regard to consumerism can these countries begin emancipating their citizens (Thorelli 1990).

The study's purpose is to report on attitudes toward consumerism in four developing countries--Singapore, India, Nigeria, and Kenya. This study also examines and compares underlying dimensionality of consumerism responses in these four countries. These four countries represent two distinct areas (Africa and Asia) adding an interesting dimension to the comparison. Finally, the paper discusses directions for research.

BACKGROUND

Consumerism has been defined as "a social movement seeking to augment the rights and powers of buyers in relation to sellers" (Kotler 1972, 49). McIlhenny saw it as "a citizens' movement which will make broad-reaching social, ecological and political demands on suppliers of goods and services" (1990, 5). Maynes defined it as "the voicing of consumer discontent and the furtherance of corrective actions" (1990, 6). In a third-world perspective, it has been defined as "the efforts made either by the consumer himself, the government, and/or independent organizations to protect the consumer from the unscrupulous practices of businesses in their quest for profit" (Onah 1979, 126).

A distinction worth noting is, while consumer interest in the LDCs is homogeneous but unarticulated, it is fragmented but well-articulated in MDCs. In addition, the consumer movement in the MDCs includes a diverse set of organizations with diverse concerns (Herrmann 1970, 1980; Herrmann, Walsh, and Warland 1988; Herrmann and Warland 1976; Thorelli 1988).

With few exceptions (e.g., Arndt, Barksdale, and Perreault 1980; Kim 1985; Onah 1979; Perreault, Barksdale, and Rodner 1979; Stanton, Chandran, and Lowenhar 1981; Thorelli and Sentell 1982), consumerism literature has focused on the advanced, free market economies (United States, Germany, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Canada) as well as a few other selected developed countries (Barker 1987; Straver 1977). As a result, most studies have focused on developed rather than less developed countries.

Note that, according to Mayer (1989), consumerism in developing countries differs from that of developed countries in that two broad factors shape the LDC's consumers. The first factor is the indigenous characteristics of markets and consumers. This is reflected by (a) lack of adequate levels of quality control of locally manufactured products, (b) inadequate transportation and storage facilities, and (c) low importance placed on consumer satisfaction by sellers who willingly sell adulterated goods. The second factor is external influences resulting from developed nations exporting goods, consumption standards, and aspirations, as well as conceptions of consumer policy to developing countries (Mayer 1989). As a result, consumerism in most LDCs is more a matter of government policy via legislation and efficient enforcement than a matter of engaged public support (Kaynak 1982).

Consumerism Life Cycle Pattern

Consumerism, like other movements and innovations, follows a life cycle pattern of development (Kaynak 1985; Straver 1977). The consumerism life cycle stages are generally described as the crusading (Phase I), population movement (Phase II), organizational/managerial (Phase III), and bureaucratic (Phase IV) stages (Barker 1987; Straver 1977).

Some suggest that countries can be located on a consumerism life cycle continuum based on the extent of their consumer information and protection legislation, government consumer agencies, and public funding of consumer education programs (Kaynak 1985; Straver 1977). Additionally, consumer attitudes toward consumerism should reflect the role of the consumerism movement in ...

Future Flower by Tonkin Liu

Initially, I thought this was incredibly out of place visually, but now understand more what is stands for. Environmental structures need not reflect their surroundings... or should they, check it out here yourself.

Delicious

I think I might want to be sort of blonde. And tasty. But then I might stay Chocolate, and watch movies about beautiful blondes instead. Oh Sundays. Bliss.

Fruit travel harms the environment

http://www.adforum.com/affiliates/creative_archive/2007/ACT/simglist.asp?ca_id=6630107&cd_id=&ok=70

I rather enjoy this campaign as an idea, but the actualisation of the image is very straight forward, and looks quite fun.

Cheeky Monkey, I mean Kea

I love these birds, they are just brilliant, watch an example of what Im talking about here

What makes Nike's that much better

This was the best April fools joke Ive ever seen in my 22 (Shit, almost 23) years on this planet. Watch the clip on you tube, and enjoy here

Kiwis curbing credit card use

A great article by stuff.co.nz regarding how kiwis spend their money, the debit card, and kiwi household dept - read it here

The promotion style of this campaign is attitude changing, and in a good way. You feel more positive towards gay and different couples. Can promotion of sustainable practices take this same stance? How would I go about this? This is a fantastic campaign, as I look into it, there are so many more parts than just the poster. Big Tick, view it here

"Open your eyes"

Fil Dunsky's take on a brief by Qatar Consumers Protection Bureau. The Task was to tell: Be more conscious when you buy something, don't take everything you see, read the labels. The outcome: a beautifully curious illustrated campaign. More here