Skip to main content

Getting down to business

If you look really closely you can
see my name...
Before I became a popular science author I spent a few years writing business books. Never one to miss up an opportunity, I wondered whether there was a chance to do a business equivalent of Ecologic - after all, businesses have plenty to win and lose when it comes to getting it right with the environment.

I contacted one of my old publishers and the answer (as usual with a publisher) was no. And yes. While they didn't really want what I was offering, how about writing something on sustainable business (close enough to the Ecologic theme) for their new series, Financial Times Briefings? The idea of the series is an interesting one that I've pondered in the past. If you address a book to a particular niche - senior executives and CEOs - what you need is not a fat doorstop, but rather a slim summary of the essentials. And even more interesting is the pricing model.

Typically, slim summaries sell for less than an ordinary chunky business book - yet this particular market is not price sensitive. If you are a top person in an organization you are used to paying quite a lot up front for consultancy. So what I've ended up with is the most expensive book I've ever written, retailing at £49.99 (though Amazon does have it half price if you are intending to rush out and buy a copy).

Edward de Bono once tried this pricing strategy but took it to extreme. He charged over £200 per book. His argument was that many people were prepared to spend more than this to spend a day being trained by him, so why not pay it for a book that contained at least as much good stuff as his lectures? That does not seem to have been a success. But I can see the price point on the FT book could be about right for this market.

One thing that has been fascinating, coming back to business books after all this time, is how bad so many of them are. A lot of the books I looked at in preparation for writing this title were 5% content and 95% woffle. They would make a handful of useful points, but drown them in continuous repetition, pointless diagrams and meaningless jargon. You just couldn't get away with this kind of thing in popular science. I like to think that Sustainable Business is different, not only because it is relatively compact, but also because it's more about practice than theory.

So there you have it. The most expensive book I've ever written. I'll understand if you don't rush out and buy a copy, even at Amazon's bargain rate. But just in case, here it is at and here at


  1. I'm thrilled that you're a popular science author. I, on the other hand, am an unpopular science author.

  2. What can I say, Henry? It must be the aftershave.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope