Copyrights and Wrongs Part 2: Starting the Copyright Conversation

This is part two of an ongoing series on copyright issues for creatives and their clients. For part one, see Copyrights and Wrongs: Getting Clients and Creatives on the Same Page.

For any communications project to get off the ground, there needs to be a contract spelling out the terms of the arrangement. Simple enough, right? But whichever side of the hiring process you’re on, you’re probably familiar with the various issues that can come up when that first draft gets passed around. This installment of Copyrights and Wrongs will focus on the early stages of this process, and how both creatives and clients can get the most out of it without feeling they have to give anything up.

In the first installment of this series, I mentioned the three underlying factors that need to be present for the process to really work:

• Both parties need to commit to keeping the process reasonable, level-headed and fair.
• Both parties need to understand the legal issues involved.
• Both parties need to retain the specific rights that will enable the success of the project itself.

Creatives who just work for a paycheck, and clients who hire based on price alone, are unlikely to fully commit to the above attitudes. But those who value creative communications for the purposes they serve and the impact they can have will quickly recognize that a mutually beneficial arrangement will elevate the quality of the work and, therefore, the power that work has in the real world. While copyright may be just one piece of the contractual puzzle, it is a fundamentally important one (as spelled out in Part One), and deserves your full attention.

Don’t Make Negotiation a Dirty Word

While you can certainly frame the copyright conversation as a contest or power trip, I've found that copyright negotiations go down much easier if you approach the whole subject as a matter of fact. Water tends to rise to its own level; a nonchalant attitude tends to keep emotions at bay, which inevitably brings objectivity to the process.

Nonchalance, however, is not the same as evasiveness; creatives should be clear about the copyright arrangement they recommend, and make sure their client understands exactly what that arrangement means. It's entirely appropriate for clients to ask plenty of clarifying questions at this stage, such as:

• Am I limited in my use of the design across other platforms (transferring a brochure onto the web, for example)?
  
• What happens if I need to reprint/reproduce the project down the road?
• What kind of files will I own (rare is the designer who includes the layered computer files, and the client needs to know this)?

Of course, creatives who have proposed a fair copyright arrangement and explained it clearly will have fewer questions to answer.

What’s Fair is Fair, For Everyone

Given the state of business today, in which there inevitably seems to be a winner and a loser in every exchange, negotiating parties almost always enter the process desperate to avoid being pushed onto that losing side. But it doesn't have to be this way; if both the creative and the client enter the process with the understanding that the relationship, to be successful, must allow for both parties to succeed in the long term, the most appropriate copyright arrangement becomes the one in which the client may use the material in the specific ways they need to, and the creative is compensated enough to remain profitable.

Both aspects of this type of arrangement may at first appear to be entirely subjective. The client may feel they should be entitled to use the work in perpetuity (forever), in whatever format they like. While this may very well be an appropriate arrangement for projects like logos, in which the purpose of the creative work is to represent the client across multiple platforms over a long time, there are several reasons why all rights language is almost always not in the best interest of either party:

1. First, the more a client uses a work—via reprints, or across multiple platforms—the greater impact the work has and, therefore, the more valuable it becomes. The designer, then, should be fairly compensated for this added value. For many projects, though, it just doesn't make sense for a client to purchase these blanket usage rights up front if there is no foreseeable need for them. Limiting the initial usage rights, then, provides the opportunity for the client to pay for additional rights when they're good and ready to (or, more importantly, when they can afford to), while the creative is paid for the fair value of the work.
   
   
2. Second, agreeing on only the usage rights the client will need in the foreseeable future gives the client a way to ensure the work will be successful for them on a limited basis, rather than investing in full rights before the work has been given a chance to...work. The creative, then, has greater incentive to produce effective work, since measurable impact is more likely to result in future work.
   
   
3. Finally, holding off on all rights language reduces the likelihood that the project—which is customized for the specific needs of the client at the time of creation—will get stale. A brochure created for a sustainability consultant, for example, will likely be ineffective and inappropriate a couple of years down the road, when the consultant’s business has grown, their services have changed, and their messaging has evolved. Why should a client pay long-range fees for a piece with a limited shelf life?

There are, of course, some situations in which all rights language is appropriate; logos, for example, require indefinite use by a business across multiple platforms. In these cases, a good client will recognize that this flexibility is worth more.

Whichever rights are ultimately agreed to, both parties should feel they have gotten what they need for their business’ long-term success. Honest and open conversation about the advantages and disadvantages to both parties is, therefore, essential.

Copyrights and Wrongs Series
Part 1: Getting Clients and Creatives on the Same Page

Copyrights and Wrongs Part 1: Getting Clients and Creatives on the Same Page

Copyright law might be one of the most misunderstood areas of creative services, representing a giant hole of knowledge for both the creative and the client. Yet it's a fundamentally important element of the hiring process and as such, needs to be addressed. When it's not, both parties are far more likely to make assumptions that may come back to haunt them legally (and financially). If you're going to hire a creative studio (or if you work for, or run, one), you need to know how copyright works.

Please note that I am not a lawyer. If you are a lawyer, please feel free to add clarifications in the comments. There are also additional references at the end of this post for further reading.

What is copyright?

Copyright, at its simplest, is just a form of legal protection for a person's intellectual property. The definition of intellectual property, of course, can get very broad and fuzzy—how, for example, can black-and-white laws be applied to intangible concepts and ideas? Copyright attempts to address this dilemma by covering only "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression." In plain English: copyright law covers an idea in its tangible form.

Copyright is a set of laws, and the set consists of two primary elements:

• Ownership Rights
  Ownership automatically belongs to the author of the work as soon as the work is produced. The copyright owner is the only party who can claim authorship of the work, and is the only party who can dictate usage rights.
  
  
• Usage Rights
  Usage rights encompass a whole set of individual rights dictating how the work may be used: the right to reproduce the work, the right to display the work, the right to modify the work or make derivative versions, and several others.
  

So what, exactly, is being copyrighted?

I've heard countless complaints from designers who discover that the brochure they created for their client has been appropriated for use on the client's website—without permission. And from writers who find the article they wrote for a print magazine has been posted online—without additional pay. These issues often stem from a client who doesn't understand the difference between the file they're receiving and the work contained in that file.

When a client pays for a creative work, they often assume that they're purchasing the whole creative work, and not the individual licensing of it. So they get the file, and figure they can use it whenever and however they want. They can cut and paste, rearrange it, use pieces of it elsewhere. But unless there's a signed contract explicitly granting the client either ownership rights, unlimited usage rights, or rights to modify the work, the client may not do these things.

Remember: unless the contract explicitly states otherwise, the creative work is not being sold in the transaction—the rights to use it are. So, when you get a file, you can use that file exactly how the contract stipulates and no more.

Addressing copyright in the contract

When an original work is created, the entire copyright (including both ownership and all forms of usage rights) automatically belongs to the creator of the work, whether or not the creator actually registers the work with the U.S. Copyright Office. The creator can only lose these rights if s/he signs them away to another party. This is typically done by written contract, and it's the only way to ensure both parties are protected.

Signing away ownership rights to a work is a controversial decision among creatives, since this means the author no longer has any legal right to claim authorship ("I made that"), or to display the work at all, including to promote oneself. This is a significant enough issue that I'll be addressing it in more detail in an upcoming post about work for hire agreements. Suffice it to say, it is in the creative's best interest to hang onto copyright ownership of any work created. That it's in the creative's best interest, however, does not mean that the client gets slighted in this situation. Clients commonly misunderstand copyright law, assuming that they must have ownership rights in order to successfully use the work they've commissioned. But this isn't necessarily the case.

Because usage rights can be bundled in any number of ways, and can be as limited or broad in scope as the parties agree to, they are extremely flexible—which is why clients and creatives should focus the bulk of their negotiations here. Usage rights can limit reproduction to a geographical area, for example, or can allow for the display of the work both online and in print. This flexibility is extremely favorable to both client and creative—reaching a mutually beneficial arrangement becomes a matter of both parties being willing to recognize the needs of the other, and expand or limit the bundle of usage rights accordingly.

Reaching a mutually beneficial arrangement

I use this phrase—mutually beneficial arrangement—a lot. It's the cornerstone of what I do and what I believe. My business operates under the assumption that all parties involved (that's me, my client, and everyone else impacted directly or indirectly by the work we produce together) need not get the short end of the stick when it comes to fair treatment. Many businesses operate using a very different principle; I've turned away several potentially profitable clients who believe that for one party to succeed, the other has to sacrifice.

To ensure successful copyright negotiations, several things need to happen in the following order:

1. Both parties need to commit to keeping the process reasonable, level-headed and fair.
2. Both parties need to understand the legal issues involved.
3. Both parties need to retain the specific rights that will enable the success of the project itself.
   

Each of these steps brings with it its own hurdles, of course. But by committing to them, creatives and their clients will together get through what can otherwise be a cantankerous, tedious, or simply ignored process. It also happens to lay an important foundation for the success of any creative project.



Further Reading:
US Copyright Office
AIGA's Guide to Copyright (PDF download)
AIGA's Standard Form of Agreement for Design Services (PDF download)
Poynter Online's massive list of copyright resources

Copyrights and Wrongs Series
Part 2: Starting the Copyright Conversation

Copyrights and Wrongs Part 2: Starting the Copyright Conversation

This is part two of an ongoing series on copyright issues for creatives and their clients. For part one, see Copyrights and Wrongs: Getting Clients and Creatives on the Same Page.


For any communications project to get off the ground, there needs to be a contract spelling out the terms of the arrangement. Simple enough, right? But whichever side of the hiring process you're on, you're probably familiar with the various issues that can come up when that first draft gets passed around. This installment of Copyrights and Wrongs will focus on the early stages of this process, and how both creatives and clients can get the most out of it without feeling they have to give anything up.

In the first installment of this series, I mentioned the three underlying factors that need to be present for the process to really work:

• Both parties need to commit to keeping the process reasonable, level-headed and fair.
• Both parties need to understand the legal issues involved.
• Both parties need to retain the specific rights that will enable the success of the project itself.

Creatives who just work for a paycheck, and clients who hire based on price alone, are unlikely to fully commit to the above attitudes. But those who value creative communications for the purposes they serve and the impact they can have will quickly recognize that a mutually beneficial arrangement will elevate the quality of the work and, therefore, the power that work has in the real world. While copyright may be just one piece of the contractual puzzle, it is a fundamentally important one (as spelled out in Part One), and deserves your full attention.

Don't Make Negotiation a Dirty Word

While you can certainly frame the copyright conversation as a contest or power trip, I've found that copyright negotiations go down much easier if you approach the whole subject as a matter of fact. Water tends to rise to its own level; a nonchalant attitude tends to keep emotions at bay, which inevitably brings objectivity to the process.

Nonchalance, however, is not the same as evasiveness; creatives should be clear about the copyright arrangement they recommend, and make sure their client understands exactly what that arrangement means. It's entirely appropriate for clients to ask plenty of clarifying questions at this stage, such as:

• Am I limited in my use of the design across other platforms (transferring a brochure onto the web, for example)?
  
• What happens if I need to reprint/reproduce the project down the road?
• What kind of files will I own? (Rare is the designer who includes the layered computer files, and the client needs to know this.)

If, as a creative, you're not hearing these questions, it might be wise to address them anyway. Because creatives who propose a fair copyright arrangement and explain it clearly from the get-go are likely to run into fewer problems later.

What's Fair is Fair, For Everyone

Given the state of business today, in which there inevitably seems to be a winner and a loser in every exchange, negotiating parties almost always enter the process desperate to avoid being pushed onto that losing side. But it doesn't have to be this way; if both the creative and the client enter the process with the understanding that the relationship, to be successful, must allow for both parties to succeed in the long term, the most appropriate copyright arrangement becomes the one in which the client may use the material in the specific ways they need to, and the creative is compensated enough to remain profitable.

Both aspects of this type of arrangement may at first appear to be entirely subjective. The client may feel they should be entitled to use the work in perpetuity (forever), in whatever format they like. While this may very well be an appropriate arrangement for projects like logos, in which the purpose of the creative work is to represent the client across multiple platforms over a long time, there are several reasons why all rights language is almost always not in the best interest of either party:

1. First, the more a client uses a work—via reprints, or across multiple platforms—the greater impact the work has and, therefore, the more valuable it becomes. The designer, then, should be fairly compensated for this added value. For many projects, though, it just doesn't make sense for a client to purchase these blanket usage rights up front if there is no foreseeable need for them. Limiting the initial usage rights, then, provides the opportunity for the client to pay for additional rights when they're good and ready to (or, more importantly, when they can afford to), while the creative is paid for the fair value of the work.
   
   
2. Second, agreeing on only the usage rights the client will need in the foreseeable future gives the client a way to ensure the work will be successful for them on a limited basis, rather than investing in full rights before the work has been given a chance to...work. The creative, then, has greater incentive to produce effective work, since measurable impact is more likely to result in future work.
   
   
3. Finally, holding off on all rights language reduces the likelihood that the project—which is customized for the specific needs of the client at the time of creation—will outlive its efficacy. A brochure created for a sustainability consultant, for example, will likely be ineffective and inappropriate a couple of years down the road, when the consultant's business has grown, their services have changed, and their messaging has evolved. Why should a client pay long-range fees for a piece with a limited shelf life?

There are, of course, some situations in which all rights language is appropriate; logos, for example, require indefinite use by a business across multiple platforms. In these cases, a good client will recognize that this flexibility is worth more.

Whichever rights are ultimately agreed to, both parties should feel they have gotten what they need for their business' long-term success. Honest and open conversation about the advantages and disadvantages to both parties is, therefore, essential.

Copyrights and Wrongs Series

Part 1: Getting Clients and Creatives on the Same Page

Please Stop Resizing My Browser

Just a quick note in case you're involved in any way, shape or form with website design (yours or anyone else's):

When you code a website to automatically resize my web browser window to accommodate your site, it sends the message that your site is far more important than my own personal preferences.

And are you really, absolutely sure that this is a message you want to send to your site users? If you're an ultra luxury goods brand, of course, then perhaps that message isn't so far-fetched. But if you're trying to establish a little rapport with your visitor, trying to strengthen a relationship and build loyalty, taking control of my computer just to showcase your site isn't the best way to do it.

Marketing Resolutions for the New Year

Trying to find the perfect marketing resolution for 2008? Try any of the ideas below to strengthen and grow your business through the coming year. Some of these ideas are simple to implement, while others may require investing a bit of effort and even money. But investment is all about ROI; everything on this list offers at least one significant benefit for organizations of any size.

Words of warning! Not all of these techniques may be right for your business, and almost all of them will be far more effective if you hire the right professional to help. And while that may sound like just a little bit of a pitch, it's also very true.


Brand Builders:

1. Create or update your logo
   Benefit: Creates an immediate visual connection with prospects and customers. Sums you up at a glance.
   
2. Create or update your identity collateral
   Benefit: Sends the message that you're a legitimate, professional business. Unifies your brand image.
3. Define your core values
   Benefit: Focuses your business, aids in decision making and strategic planning, and provides customers a point of connection.
4. Write a blog
   Benefit: Develops a consistent voice for your company.
5. Issue a press release
   Benefit: Enhances reputation, increases company exposure to the public.
6. Update your packaging
   Benefit: Creates a cohesive look and association with your company. Can also increase sales.
7. Create a marketing budget and feed that kitty
   Benefit: Enables you to actually afford to market your business, saves headaches when it comes time to implement your marketing plans.
   

Relationship Builders

8. Start an email newsletter
   Benefit: Keeps your business front-of-mind, educates prospects and customers about your company and offerings, opens the lines of communication between your business and your audience.
   
9. Network off-line
   Benefit: Creates real-world connections with prospects.
10. Network online (in forums, user groups, and on blogs)
    Benefit: Increases public awareness. Builds online connections and resources.
    
11. Conduct a survey with a prize drawing
    Benefit: Opens the lines of communication with your audience, solicits useful information for strategic planning, builds goodwill.
12. Offer something useful (product sample, e-book, white paper, etc.) for free
    Benefit: Builds goodwill, creates demand, engages prospects.
13. Write your policies down—all of them (if you don't have specific policies, create them)
    Benefit: Minimizes mistakes, creates a clear framework for customers to work within.
    

Sales Builders

14. Build/update your website
    Benefit: Too many to list! Strengthens reputation, builds legitimacy, informs prospects, offers customer support, increases sales (particularly with shopping cart functionality).
15. Conduct a highly targeted direct mail campaign
    Benefit: Reaches only those who are prequalified to buy from you.
16. Exhibit at a trade show
    Benefit: Puts you in direct contact with those who want your product or service; personalizes the business.
    
17. Solicit referrals from current customers
    Benefit: Leverages your current customers, automatically establishes trust with prospects.
18. Explore a new demographic
    Benefit: Expands your market reach.
19. Run a print ad in a consumer or trade publication
    Benefit: Reach a large audience in one shot.
20. Design an easy-to-use product catalog or service brochure
    Benefit: Informs prospects and encourages direct sales.

Do you have ideas of your own that can be added to this list? Post them in the comments below and I'll add them as they come.

Lessons from Ike Turner: The negative outweighs the positive

Ike Turner died a couple of days ago. When you think of Ike, I bet you think immediately of Tina. And how he hit her. And all that cocaine he did. But Ike Turner also played an integral role in the history of rock 'n' roll, funk,
r 'n' b, soul and blues. His guitar, his ear, and his writing all shaped American music. "Rocket 88" came from him and his band.

Despite his musical contributions—well recognized by any professional musician around—Ike's reputation hangs static thanks to his abusive behavior. They made a movie about it, and his ex-wife wrote about it. No matter how much he tried to dismiss it or overwrite it, it's the image the general public keeps coming back to. It's just too heavy to forget, and he was so cavalier about it we don't have any inclination to.



Doing drugs and smacking people around aren't the only ways to destroy the positive work we do, though. A rude comment, or a refusal to cooperate, or a simple mistake gone unnoticed are all it might take. People are quicker to judge than to forgive these days and with the immediacy of our current market, it's unlikely that they'll give us a chance to fix things if they feel we've screwed them over. That is, if they even let us know how they feel (most customers don't bother complaining, they just go elsewhere).

I love Ike Turner's music. It was a backbone. Ike and Tina together were a force (of course, she'd be a forced even if backed by Lawrence Welk). I remember my dad playing "Nutbush City Limits" from a cassette I still have that hisses from being played too much, with that guitar stomping out of the speakers. It was unreal. But Ike screwed up bad, and he was so unapologetic about it that, as Rob Walker laments, his screw-up may forever overshadow his pioneering work.

No matter the talent, no one is perfect—in their personal life or in business—but I'd like to think that how we face our imperfections can be almost as powerful as what we do in the first place.

The power of the personal.

Ever heard of Seth Godin? He's a prolific blogger, author and all-around marketing guru. He also probably gets hundreds of emails a day from folks commenting on his blog, asking him questions, seeking advice, and generally vying for his attention. At a time when influential personalities take public offense to publicity efforts, how do you get through to someone like that?

I'll tell you how I did it: I emailed him.

While reading his blog post encouraging marketers to reveal truths rather than hide them, I immediately thought of my own reaction to Pennsylvania's recent ban of "growth hormone-free" labels on dairy products. What a perfect illustration of what he's talking about, I thought. I also thought that if he were to mention the ban on his blog, it would get a lot more attention than my little diatribe ever could.

So I sent him an email about my post, and he promptly linked to it from his own. The result was a spike in visitors to Blog! numbering in the thousands (they're still flowing in), as well as rss subscriptions. Given what I assume to be a huge volume of email coming into Seth's inbox from everyone and their brother, I certainly didn't expect a linkback; at best, I hoped he would be as interested in the story as I was and mention it on his blog.

The key to success? I kept my email simple, honest, and relevant.

Simple.
My email was short and sweet: I briefly introduced myself and explained my reason for writing. I didn't reference my own blog post until the end of the email, and then I signed off. The entire email was less than 200 words.

Honest.
My intention was never to get Seth to link to me. My intention was to get eyeballs on the issue of the Pennsylvania ban on "rBST-free" labeling, and I told him as much. I included a link to my post so he could read my own take if he so chose. Happily for me, he did.

Relevant.
My email to Seth was right after he posted his "Conceal vs. Reveal" entry, and it referenced a story that was a direct illustration of his point. More importantly, because I'm a regular reader of his blog, I know that he values fairness and consumer respect—values that played a big part in this particular story. I come across things every day that would probably interest this guy, but I knew that this one in particular was exactly suited to what was just on his mind.

By sending a personal note rather than a generic "you might like this blog entry I wrote," I got what I wanted: Seth Godin made a whole lot of people aware of a dangerous legal precedent. The link to my own site was simply icing on the cake.

Thanks, Seth!

Solving the Non-Problem

Last night The Captain and I thought we'd watch a Netflix movie, but as soon as we slid American Hardcore out of its envelope, we knew it wasn't going to happen. The movie was so scratched and worn there was no way our DVD player would even recognize it. Luckily for us, we had other options; we ended up watching the very weird but strangely captivating Thumbsucker instead. But what of our first choice, which we'd been dying to see since it was released?

Rather than go through an arduous process of filling out a return form, getting authorization, and waiting on a replacement which may or may not suffer the same fate of the first, Netflix has a system that removes all possibility of further disappointment. It's brilliant in its simplicity.

All we did was hop online and indicate the disc was damaged. Today, a replacement is being mailed to us; Netflix doesn't even wait for the damaged disc to be returned. But the crowning glory of their solution to what has to be a common problem is this: the disc they are sending out is brand-spanking new. This means that there is zero chance we'll have the same problem happen twice, a calamity that may not destroy our relationship with the company but would certainly annoy the hell out of us.

Of course, it would be wonderful if quality control at the warehouses were such that they could catch every scratched disc before it ever went out in the first place. But I suspect that checking the playability of each of hundreds of thousands of DVDs before mailing would undermine one of the main draws of Netflix: quick turnaround. Instead, they make damn sure that a minor, once-in-a-while inconvenience never has a chance to blow up into an all-out pain in the butt. They solve the big problem before it ever happens. Smart move.

What can you do to think ahead and make sure the inevitable mistakes that happen to all of us now and then don't come back to haunt you forever?

What Sells Drinks?

What influences a drinker more than any advertising or promotion when it comes to buying drinks in bars? Their bartender, of course! This earth-shattering revelation comes from a recent survey by the Adult Beverage Insights Group. And although it may seem screamingly obvious to many of us, the fact is that too many bar owners overlook the selling power of their own human capital.

So how can an owner help his or her bartender sell more? Stop stocking crap, for one thing. Quality tools allow the bartender to do a quality job; and when a bartender is proud of the drinks s/he's mixing, s/he'll be more likely to get the customer excited about it, too.

The other—and most important—way to help your bartender sell more and up is to give them the information they need to sell product. The survey's respondents support this idea that "familiarity and product knowledge are key influencers in what they sell at the bar." That means training them on proper mixing techniques, setting up regular tastings, and getting them involved in menu creation.

Sadly, there was one thing this study revealed that sent a chill down my spine: it turns out that a lot of bartenders actually prefer working with "fewer ingredients and convenient mixers." But perhaps this is less of an indication of laziness, and more of a cry for help. Maybe with a little extra training and exposure to higher standards, these bartenders will learn to appreciate the joy of freshly squeezed juices and carefully prepped garnishes.

[Cross-posted to Bar Stories.]

Service Matters

A recent study shows that rude waiters are the number one cause of customer dissatisfaction among guests when dining out. And as I wrote in the Restaurant Report's recent email newsletter, the number one way to improve service at your establishment is to empower your staff and encourage them to share a stake in the success of your restaurant. Doing so takes time, effort and a lot of training, but the results are happy customers who return again and again.

Public Relations 101: How to Screw It Up

Yesterday I was pointed to a press release issued by Catalyst Papers, a Canadian paper company who seems to be taking their environmental impact quite seriously. Since the paper and pulp industry is the 3rd largest industrial polluter in North America (or is it the U.S., will have to check on that), it's fantastic to see larger companies commit to reducing their impact and offsetting the difference. Catalyst's news release was about Rolling Stone magazine's use of one of their papers. The release, however, featured a very misleading statement:

"Catalyst Cooled paper is manufactured carbon-neutral, which means during its production it adds no carbon dioxide to the environment... Catalyst was able to support the Rolling Stone initiative by...offsetting the few remaining direct emissions through a carefully chosen ecosystem restoration project."

I sent an email to Catalyst's press contact published with the release. In it, I explained that the definition of carbon neutral does not mean that no CO2 is added to the environment, but that any CO2 emitted is offset in some way. This is a significant difference, as the press release makes it sound like Catalyst's paper production is totally clean. It's not—and they reveal this contradiction by admitting that they do, in fact emit CO2 that they then offset.

The response I got (from someone else entirely) reveals a lot about how the company handles their green marketing. The email I got back was certainly prompt, but this was what it said:

Thank you for your interest in our company, and for your comments on the Catalyst Cooled paper news release. I have attached a fact sheet that may help clarify our approach to carbon neutrality.

Thanks,

That's it, in it's entirety. And the "fact" sheet? It describes how Catalyst defines carbon neutrality, which is a definition much different from what most would consider accurate. Catalyst spends untold amounts of money reducing emissions and offsetting those they do produce, but they completely undermine their efforts by greenwashing their marketing. This is not a small thing; they are positioning themselves to appeal to the very market who would be offended by such actions. If they're not honest with me in their marketing materials, how can I trust that they'll be honest with me in our business dealings?

There is another problem with Catalyst's response beyond redefining terms to suit their needs. My original email was six paragraphs long, and I took great care to provide a detailed and researched explanation of my dissatisfaction. I also closed with a direct question: "Can you please explain how a company that has claimed as much of a commitment to environmental stewardship as Catalyst has, can then disseminate such false information to the public?"

Their response not only ignored my question outright, but the company threw a "fact sheet" at me that also ignored my question, expecting me to do even more work to change my own mind. Now that's the perfect example of a company that doesn't care what its customers think. If a customer complains to you, or asks for an explanation of a policy they take issue with, you need to address it directly and honestly. A "Thanks for writing" just doesn't cut it and, in fact, makes the situation much worse. Consumers expect more from businesses these days, and the ones that recognize this are the ones who will succeed.