Skip to main content

Shwop? Nope.

I am usually very positive about Marks and Spencers' green credentials. They really make something of it with their 'Plan A' materials plastered all over the stores. They were one of the stars of my Sustainable Business book. Many people think of M&S as the doyen of green businesses. But I think they have got it horribly wrong with their latest 'shwopping' campaign.



Firstly it's fronted by Joanna Lumley, who really gets on my nerves. (Partly because of all those injury lawyer adverts she does for the radio, but also because her voice is so irritating, and she comes across as totally false, hardly ideal for this kind of campaign.) Someone must love her, she's on the TV so much, but I really don't understand why.

But mostly I'm against it because the idea is awful. The concept is that if you buy a piece of clothing you can bring in an old piece of clothing to be recycled. You don't get any benefit from this - M&S just kindly recycles it on your behalf. But frankly it is so much more effort per item than simply flinging a pile of stuff in a bag and either leaving it out for a collector or popping it into a clothes recycling bank. You have to consciously be going to M&S to buy a piece of clothing and think to take one (and only one) item along with you. It's a nightmare.

If they gave some incentive, like 5% off if you 'shwop' something, fine. (Please, that word is awful!) But as it stands it neither makes good financial sense nor good recycling sense. One to avoid.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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