A recent Blog article called my attention to some advice given by Talley Sue Hohlfeld, Etiquette Expert for Martha Stewart, on whether bridal couples should send E-Vites for a Wedding. Ms. Hohlfeld, blindly jumping on the “save-a-tree” bandwagon, acknowledged that she was “firmly against using e-mail for something as momentous as a wedding invitation.” Nevertheless, she added that “putting a website URL on the lower left corner of your invitation would . . . save paper on your end.” As an etiquette adviser to Martha Stewart, Ms. Hohlfeld should know that putting a website URL on an invitation is not only improper etiquette but is also quite TACKY.
Look, I have no issue with people sending out email invitations to save money. Nevertheless, to justify sending an e-Vite on ecological grounds is either stupid, deceptive or simply dishonest. First and foremost, many quality wedding invitations are printed on paper made from cotton and not wood fiber. In fact, Crane & Co. has been printing paper from cotton (a renewable crop) and cotton rag from textile mills (recycled cotton) for over 200 years. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons why Ms. Stewart decided to partner with Crane & Co. to launch her new line of Martha Stewart wedding invitations. Perhaps, Ms. Hohlfeld should consult Ms. Stewart and ask her whether she would like to see a URL at the bottom of her invitation.
Secondly, the “save-the-tree” war cry of environmental righteousness is simply a banal sound-bite probably concocted by online email advocates like AOL and eVite to justify their services as “green.” I think we all know the expression that if you repeat the same sales pitch or lie and nobody questions it, overtime people will believe it to be true. Wake up wantabe environmentalists, it’s a hoax! Most serious paper companies like William Arthur and many others source and produce papers made from wood fibers using the highest “green” standards. In fact, harvesting wood may be beneficial rather than detrimental to the environment, according to David Foster director of the Harvard Forest Project.
Martha Stewart Weddings
Thirdly, if Ms. Hohlfeld honesty believed what she was saying, she would most certainly recommend to Ms. Stewart that she immediately cease the publication of Martha Stewart Weddings in the interests of saving a forest, not simply a tree. Or how about the fact that the average PC user consumes 28 pieces of paper a day. Should we simply abolish PCs to save a tree? Ms. Hohlfeld and others who promote themselves as experts should take the time to seriously research issues before simply repeating self-serving slogans that have little basis in fact. Civility and good taste would be far better served by “Etiquette Editors” who understood the difference between etiquette and a sales pitch.
Last Christmas one of my daughters gave me Mark Bittman’s book, Food Matters: A Guide to Conscious Eating. Clearly more concerned about my growing waistline than my malnourished intellect, my daughter’s inspired gift got me to thinking about calories and food production from an entirely different perspective: the environment. In Mr. Bittman’s eye-opening introduction he asserts that, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultual Organization (FAO), “global livestock production is responsible for one-fifth of all greenhouse gases – more than transportation.”
Mark Bittman, the noted food critic for the New York Times, and straight-man to hilarious chef Mario Batali in Spain… On The Road Again, makes an utterly convincing case for reducing our meat consumption and ”save ourselves and our planet (and some money) by doing so.” While I have not yet swapped cow for tofu, my daughters will be delighted that I have decided to moderate my diet and eat more responsibly. In addition to practical reasons for modifying our eating habits, Food Matters has 75 great recipes to help facilitate that change.
You may be asking, what does stationery have to do with global livestock production? A cynical answer might be that if everyone were to skip the double cheeseburger and instead send out a hand-written note the world be a better place. Surely, a nice piece of social correspondence doesn’t use any more paper than the wrapping paper and bag that accompanies your 700 calorie burger.
While it is fashionable to be “green” I am always a bit skeptical of “green” claims when it comes to paper. Scot Case of TerraChoice discusses the seven sins of greenwash which are routinely violated in most ”green” stationery promotions. I am not sure if these questionable claims are deliberate, but stretching the truth seems to be a common and growing trend within the stationery industry. It is indeed unfortunate as there are so many passionate and talented designers and craftspeople like Julie Holcomb, Oblation Papers and Elum Designs where “green” is a way of life rather than misleading promotional hype.
Mr. Bittman’s book on eating habits and global livestock production brings home a sad truth: We seem to spend far too much time focusing micro-issues while the “big green picture” gradually slips out of control. Certainly, global livestock production and packaging, which represents more than 40% of all paper production, are far more serious environmental concerns than the simple yet elegant act of sending a personal note.
Today we celebrate Earth Day. While cutting down a tree to celebrate Earth Day may seem like a crazy idea, David Foster, an ecologist and the director of the Harvard Forest, seems to think it might actually be helpful. In a fascinating article by Robert Sullivan in the April 19th New York Times Magazine, Mr. Foster argues that “land stewardship” and managing forest public properties in an “ecologically sustainable manner,” may actually increase the intake of carbon and contribute to a healthier climate.
While Mr. Foster’s ideas may seem like heresy to the Green movement (he is called “Dr. Death” in some circles), his 24 page phamplet called Wildlands and Woodlandsproposes “leaving areas designated as wildlands untouched” and connect state and federal forests and wilderness areas through “aggregated chunks of private land.” Trees would be harvested from these private properties under sustainable farming programs.
I have no way knowing whether Mr. Foster’s proposal is a ”good” environmental program, but he is a scientist and experiments in the 3,500 acre Harvard Forest certainly add credibility to his arguments. I was flabbergasted to learn that the peak de-forestation of Massachusetts occured around the time of Henry David Thoreau and that this third most densely populated state is now on the top 10 list of most forested states in the United States.
“Going green” has hit the stationery industry in a big way. Unfortunately, most of the “eco-chic” claims are misleading or simply irrelevant in the greater scheme of the environmental movement. Programs and experiments developed by Mr. Foster and others suggest that man and nature can live in harmony. On Earth Day let’s toast an environmental movement based on substance, experimentation and facts rather than the “feel-good” marketing hype which dominates much of today’s media.
In a recent article that was picked up by Planet Green, Cara Smusiak cites the advantages of setting up an online RSVP for your wedding invitations. With little real evidence to support her claim, Ms. Smusiak argues that “Wedding invitations add up to a giant carbon footprint. Between invitation delivery and RSVP responses, there’s a lot of transportation and mechanical sorting involved—all of which requires energy, which is probably supplied by an unclean energy source.”
At the risk of being ostracized by the green community, I do think Ms. Smusiak’s claim is exaggerated and her advice may, in fact, cause more harm to the environment than sending out wedding invitations. For instance, the Gartner Group and HP report that the average web user uses 28 pages of paper daily. In fact, 115 billion sheets of paper are used annually for personal computers: more than 3 times the volume of first class letters (non-sorted) in the United States. I guess the question is: Are we really any better off collectively if the emailed recipient is simply printing the invitation and direction card at his or her work station? I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that it is probably a wash.
While I am all for helping the environment, I would like to do so responsibly. There are many talented invitation designers such as Oblation and Julie Holcomb who have been promoting green papers and eco-friendly printing solutions long before “eco-chic” and green weddings became fashionable. While we may feel better touting questionable green claims, the movement would be far better served by addressing more serious problems than pretending that wedding invitations are destroying the environment. ”Green wedding invitations“ sounds cool, but I suspect that it is just simply an ill-considered urban legend that continues to gather momentum without the benefit of much thought, let alone serious debate.
Environmentalists like Scot Case of Terrachoice, regularly point out the sins of “greenwash” and how exaggerated and deceptive claims undermine the environmental cause. Beating the drum for this particular “cause” is guilty of the sins of irrelevance and lack of proof.
In a surprise development that has taken the stationery industry by storm, National Stationery Show spokesperson, Shirley Greenhouse, announced that the National Stationery Show would be “entirely digital” by 2012. Ms. Greenhouse stated that “today’s consumer is embracing a new medium to express themselves and, quite frankly, paper is no longer considered Eco-chic, timely or relevant.”
While this will come as a shock to traditionalists and the many artisans who produce fine paper, it is a huge cost-saving boon to online resellers and printers who can now substitute paper invitations and stationery with online images. Said one delighted CEO, who preferred to remain anonymous, “we can finally compete with the Chinese now that we don’t have to deliver the goods.” For another anonymous executive, it is a dream come true: “Brides can now have digital stationery and invitations to match their wedding website. To be quite honest, producing ‘real paper’ was just a distraction and got in the way of cross-selling other products and services to bridal couples.”
While Ms. Greenhouse, dismissed accusations that the NSS digital plan was a sell-out to online resellers who produce little of tangible value other than advertising revenue, many brick-and-mortar retailers were disappointed with the announcement. Store-owner Elizabeth Long from Stillwater, OK remarked that she looked forward to visiting NY and catching up with the latest industry trends. Says Elizabeth, “despite the over-priced food and beverages at the Jacob K. Javits Center, I will really miss rubbing elbows with talented designers and the beautiful papers they produce. Quite frankly, I’ve never understood the ’save a tree’ mantra of online marketers since we only sell stationery made from cotton rag. I guess it’s a generational thing. If the new generation can’t spell stationary correctly, I suppose there is no reason for them to buy it.”
Charles Avery, a long-time distributor for many fine paper lines watched a lifetime of ”pushing paper” disappear in a cloud of low-resolution pixels. While obviously distraught, Mr. Avery summed up the situation quite philosophically, “this adds new meaning to the expression that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words.’” Even the “Twits” on Twitter were taken aback by this stunning announcement and were furiously text messaging the organizers for further clarification. Fortunately for Ms. Greenhouse, the NSS email Server was down again, a regular occurrence that the GLM management company laughingly refers to as “turning a deaf ear to the situation.”
It is hard to believe that the National Stationery Show organizers would take such a radical step and turn the lights off on a 500 year-old industry spawned by the Johannes Gutenberg. “Certainly, it is better than moving the Stationery Show to Las Vegas, but this is still rather extreme,” summed up one grizzled paper veteran. Ms. Greenhouse offered no apologies for the decision, and deftly fielded many cynical questions with the curious sound bite “if we can rebuild Detroit without gas-guzzling cars, we can certainly build a better world without paper. Long live the Spotted Owl!” We are hopeful that the organizers will certainly reconsider their pronouncement on April Fools Day.
Smock Paper is offering free letterpress invitation envelope printing through December 31, 2009. In a recent email message to their dealers, Smock felt that this would be a great opportunity for dealers to connect with their clients in today’s challenging economy.
Smock’s generous offer could save a customer up to $240 dollars for 100 invitation envelopes. If you are looking for wedding invitations, Bar or Bat Mitzvah invitations or a baby announcement, we strongly suggest that you contact a Guild member store in your neighborhood to view Smock’s exceptional line of letterpress invitations printed on bamboo paper.
First seen at the National Stationery Show last May, Smock Paper is rapidly carving out a reputation for superior letterpress design on arguably one of the most interesting sustainable products for paper: bamboo. With this generous offer, Smock Paper may be impossible to resist.
I must admit that I am not familiar with Get Married’s pedigree, but a cursory review of their website suggests that it offers little more than the myriad of online wedding sites that populate cyberspace. What does Get Married have to offer that The Knot or the Wedding Channel or indeed a boatload of other wedding portals don’t have? These hyped-up wedding portals are designed to sell, not inform. Their value is largely determined by the all-powerful advertising dollar, not relevance to the consumer or the craftspeople and designers who make fine stationery products.
While I applaud The National Stationery Show planners for enlisting the help of a “wedding planner” to help showcase bridal theme displays, why did they select an online wedding website? I view this as a sell-out to online resellers and online printers who are rapidly undermining the craftsmanship of fine stationery and custom invitations. The National Stationery Show organizers should be chastised for promoting distribution channels rather than the artisans who make fine stationery and invitations and the experienced stationers who sell them.
Online wedding websites should be judged by their advertising sponsors, the products they promote and the distribution channels found on their website. Specifically, I judge the integrity of wedding portals by the number of “true” local businesses that are listed under local resources. For instance, Get Married, today listed six sources for local invitations and calligraphy in Connecticut on their website. Four and probably five of these “stationers” are national resellers or printers. Get Married is no different than The Knot or Martha Stewart Weddings who promote national resellers and printers as local resources. How sad it is that these website owners have so little regard for the online buyer who may be looking for an experienced stationer in their neighborhood and invitation designers and fine paper lines who would never consider selling invitations online.
In an era when our public leaders quibble over the definition of “is”, how can we expect website owners and search engines to agree that “local” refers to a business at a fixed location. An 800 or 888 prefix is not a local business. It is most unfortunate that online buyers searching for genuine local resources now have to sort through irrelevant, yes dishonest, search results that have been compromised by advertising fees paid to these wedding portals.
As a long-time visitor the National Stationery Show, I can’t wait to see the Eco-Chic wedding theme table promised by the organizers. I suspect that the “Eco-chic wedding” is just another questionable marketing ploy by the organizers to make us feel good about buying invitations that are produced from recycled paper and post-consumer waste. Like the marketing spin on local resources, I suspect that this is simply Greenwash spin that only serves to discourage leading craftspeople where concern for the environment is simply an integral part of their everyday life.
I spent this weekend with dear friends in Princeton, New Jersey. They had recently returned from a wedding in India and were anxious to share their impressions of the celebration. The wedding ceremony lasted more than 5 days and involved hundreds of people. While the rich colors of the saris and the hilly terrain of Jaipur provided a stunning stage set for the wedding, I was struck by the elaborate rituals and how joyfully the families and guests embraced this sacred Hindu ceremony. It served as a stark contrast to something that I find is often missing in our country: honoring traditions.
Two or three times a week, I come across a news release (often online) of a wedding couple that “wants to make a statement” about something that it is totally unrelated to the wedding ceremony itself. While these well-meaning “statements” are often cast as a couple showing their “commitment to the environment” or some other worthwhile cause, I can’t help but wonder if the wedding ceremony is the appropriate place to lobby your cause. Do your guests really care? Personally, I would be offended if the wedding ceremony is used as a soap box for the current cause célèbre rather than the joyful union of two individuals.
Is it wrong to feel this way? Perhaps so, but I contrast today’s modern weddings where couples seem to spend more time pressing their agenda rather than professing their love. Have we lost interest in those traditions that are deeply rooted in religious ceremony and the no less sacred importance of honoring our families and community? Call me a traditionalist, but I watched in awe at the beauty and pagentry of an Indian wedding which continues to joyfully honor those traditions.
This is the second installment of an article summarizing a conference at January’s National Gift Show at the Javits Center entitled “Get Real . . . Green Verification and Certification” that I attended this week. The conference demonstrated how difficult it is to verify “green” claims some of the pitfalls in the verification process. If you wish to read the first installment, please visit “Green Verification & Certification – Part 1“.
The second speaker was Mac McCoy, the Founder and CEO of the Tibet Collection. While equally committed to the environment, Mr. McCoy approaches the issue from a somewhat different perspective: How to you assure yourself that goods sourced from abroad meet fair trade standards? While respect for the environment is clearly an important consideration, the Fair Trade Federation also examines labor practices and the creation sustainable businesses that adopt fair and sound business practices.
Mr. McCoy believes that “Fair Trade” is built on three principles: Dialogue, Transparency and Respect. The Fair Trade Federation is supported by members who commit to use sound business practices and to voluntarily work with other like-minded organizations throughout the world. Companies who source from abroad and the United States can used the Fair Trade Federation to determine if their suppliers are members of the Federation.
Mr. McCoy believes that organizations like the Fair Trade Federation are raising awareness within the business community to support businesses that act responsibly. Nevertheless, it is an “evolving” process that is gathering momentum and certainly helpful in building sustainable business in the emerging markets.
This week I attended a conference at the Javits Center National Gift Show entitled “Get Real . . . Green Verification and Certification.” Like most responsible people (although my wife might disagree), I wish to use our planet’s resources wisely. I had hoped that behaving “green” was as simple as plugging in a purchasing decision or behavior pattern into a carbon footprint calculator and voila: pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing! Little did I know how mistaken I was.
The Javits Center conference showed how difficult it is to verify “green” claims. Three speakers from quite different backgrounds, but equally committed to the environment, shared their insights on how one might go about green verification and some of the pitfalls in this process. I have broken down the Blog into three parts to summarize each speaker’s presentation and keep the article to manageable proportions.
Alan Honick, a documentary filmaker most of his life, traced the complexities of environmental sustainability by discussing his research on the controversy over the Northern Spotted Owl and logging in the northwest. Clearly, there is far more to the subject than simply an endangered species. He argues that all factors – including human – need to be taken into consideration when looking at environmental issues. I had a chance to talk to Alan after the conference and he pointed me to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) for more information on this important subject. He believes that the FSC does an excellent job in keeping the “human economy” in sync with natural ecology. See Mr. Horick’s fascinating 10-part video in 9 minute segments entitled “Critical Habitat”:
Despite the somber tone of this excellent video, it captures the complexities of tinkering with mother nature and the difficulties in developing sustainability models that balance environmental, economic and social needs. Out of countless interviews with advocacy groups and scientists, Mr. Honick featured 18 special-interest advocates and 15 scientists in the video to provide a balanced presentation of the issues involved. I was most fascinated with the role of millipede which is responsible for processing 95% of the organic matter in the forest. As Mr. Honick correctly points out, the Northern Spotted Owl was just a side-show for a very complex problem.
