When it comes to staying organized, I have two big problems. Well, I used to — LinkedIn just solved one of them.

I’ve been using LinkedIn as an address book for a long time. After all, why bother loading someone’s information into Google contacts, when we can just connect on LinkedIn? But there was one issue: LinkedIn didn’t contain a history of my relationships. With many contacts, I had to dig through old emails to figure out when we last talked or whether we’ve even met in person at all.

LinkedIn just solved that with its new contacts tool, which can integrate with Google, Yahoo, Outlook, Evernote, and my phone. Now, LinkedIn knows who I’ve spoken to and even when we’ve met in person. The Contacts tab includes my daily agenda and provides suggestions of people to whom I should reach out. I already visit LinkedIn frequently, but now I have a reason to make it a daily destination.

Now, if only someone would fulfill my other major need … but I’ll write about that in a future post.

Social media and traditional media don’t always get along, and this week was no exception. The LA Times claimed that social media had “spiraled out of control,” while people who used Twitter or Facebook as their primary source of information claimed that social is the only media worth consuming.

It’s a shame, because I think the the tragic events that took place in Boston this week demonstrated how traditional media and social media can work together beautifully.

When I wanted up-to-the-second updates, I turned to the Facebook page for the MIT Sloan class of 2013. Several of my classmates liveblogged updates from the police scanner, staying up all night to keep us all informed. One person wrote, “Turning off the news. By the time the news starts saying there’s no movement, they’re saying there’s movement on the scanner.” Updates were still being added yesterday; there are nearly 1,400 in total.

But when I wanted to know what had been officially confirmed or reported by journalists on the ground, I turned to traditional news outlets. Boston.com, the free website of the Boston Globe, was the best source. It had the best of both worlds: reported pieces and a liveblog that included selected tweets. I also turned to print media on Saturday morning, when I wanted to read a narrative that was written with the benefit of hindsight.

Overall, the experienced reinforced the importance of institutionalized media in our society. Most days, we aren’t on lockdown. Most days, none of my classmates will be glued to Twitter or a police scanner, dedicated to sending me the latest updates. Even if they did, I wouldn’t have time to follow the constant stream of information. We need to maintain strong local media not only for crises like this, but for the news that affects our lives every minute of every day.

As a staple crop in the developing world, cassava makes a lot of sense: it produces a lot of calories from a relatively small amount of land, is highly drought-resistant, and can be grown in marginal soil. But there’s a big problem: cassava starts to degrade as soon as it’s pulled out of the ground. It’s also 75% water, which makes it costly to transport, so it doesn’t work well as a cash crop.

I interviewed Andy Wales, head of sustainability at SABMiller, for MIT Sloan Management Review, and he told me how the giant beer company is using cassava’s weakness as an opportunity to create a more sustainable line of beers in African countries.

SABMiller worked with a company that developed mobile processing units, which farmers use to process the cassava on-site. SABMiller than uses the processed cassava to make a local beer which competes with illicit homebrews.

SABMiller's first cassava beer, Impala, launched in Mozambique. It has since followed up with Eagle brand cassava beer in Ghana.

SABMiller’s first cassava beer, Impala, launched in Mozambique. It has since followed up with Eagle brand cassava beer in Ghana.

It’s better for the environment, because the beer doesn’t have to travel as far to get to consumers. It’s better for farmers, who have a new way to profit from their crop. And it’s better for the government, because it’s taxed. ”It’s a triple win,” says Wales: “growth for the agricultural sector, growth for our business, and it’s better regulated from a health and quality perspective.”

Sustainability experts are constantly touting the fact that “going green is good business.” But what do you do when it’s not?

Kathrin Winker, who leads the sustainability team at EMC (and has a great blog) recently visited MIT Sloan, and told a story about how a bad business case actually fostered innovation.

EMC’s largest product is called a frame, and it can weigh up to 3,000 pounds. It’s shipped to customers in a cardboard, steel and plywood box that can itself weigh 200 pounds. A team at EMC thought it could potentially save money and reduce carbon emissions by using the boxes more than once. But there was a big problem. Recycling the boxes was far from cost effective. The team calculated that it cost $800 to ship an empty box back to the plant, compared with $300 to make a new box. This points to an uncomfortable fact: all too often, there is NOT a good business case for going green.

The video below chronicles the story, and the key moment comes when associate product manager Matt Popieniuck says: “At this point, it becomes evident that we have to make the empty box smaller so it becomes cost-effective to ship it back to the plant.”

Of course, at many companies such a conclusion would not be evident at all. It’s easy to simply drop a project that has a bad business case.

Instead, EMC staffers collaborated with their freight company and worked extra hours to redesign the box. The new box is strong enough to ship a frame, but can be collapsed to 1/4 its size. It can be reused 7 times, saves the company more than $1M a year, and keeps 1.2M pounds of carbon out of the atmosphere each year — the equivalent of taking 121 cars off the road.

Every once in a while, we get a nice reminder that Cambridge is essentially a small town. Last summer, a package with the following address label was actually delivered to my house.

Address label

We got another reminder last weekend, when we were walking around the neighborhood and met Josh Dawson, who is running to represent our district in the MA state legislature. I never met any elected officials when my zip code was 10003.

One of Josh’s priorities is supporting the innovation economy in Boston and Cambridge. We asked for more details, and he shared an interesting idea. Real estate developers are required to set aside a portion of their properties for low- or moderate-income housing. What if companies that receive tax breaks and subsidies from the state were required to set aside desk space for startups?

Many of our friends are entrepreneurs, and we know how prohibitively expensive it can be to find office space in the city. It’s all well and good to start a company out of your garage, but at a certain point companies need office space to attract employees and meet with clients.

Of course, there would be complications: who would decide which startups were worthy of the space? But programs like Mass Challenge have effectively identified some of Boston’s hottest startups (see: Ministry of Supply). Corporations providing the desk space could even choose the beneficiaries themselves. Social enterprises should be given a shot at the space as well.

What do you think? What else could the government do (or not do) to foster Boston’s innovation economy?

Let’s face it: fashion is bad for the environment. I’m not just talking about clothing – I’m talking about our general desire to obtain new things as trends change. How many perfectly good couches like this have been discarded, replaced with new ones that required significant amounts of energy and raw materials to produce?

ugly 70s couch

Of course, that’s true any time you buy a new product, whether it’s for style reasons or not.

Many environmentalists see leasing and rental models as part of the solution. What if, instead of buying new flooring, you leased it? The flooring company could then reclaim it when you want a new floor, reusing it or recycling it depending on its state.

A Dutch company called Mud Jeans is attempting to use the same model for denim. The company is letting customers rent jeans for 20 euros up front plus 5 euros a month (a total of $107 to own a pair of jeans for a year). After a year, customers can send the jeans back or keep them (for an additional 20 euros). Mud will then either recycle the jeans or lease them to another customer.

Mud Jeans

There’s one problem, from an environmental standpoint. Levi’s conducted extensive research and found that a pair of jeans is most damaging to the environment not when it’s made but when it’s used, because of all the energy and resources required to wash and dry clothes. Cotton production accounted for only 5% of the climate-change impact of a pair of jeans and 4% of its energy use.

Water use was a different story. Cotton production accounted for 49% of the water use associated with a pair of Levi’s. But washing nearly matched it, at 46%.

Overall, I like Mud’s idea, mainly because it will get consumers thinking about the potential embedded in a leasing economy. Ultimately, however, it would probably be better for the environment to take my father’s approach: buy a pair of pants at LL Bean, and wear it for the next 20 years. I wonder if that will ever be in style.

I was a journalist for seven years and I’m married to an entrepreneur, but I never saw the connection between the two professions until today, when I read Hugo Lindgren’s great essay in today’s New York Times.

Based on the title, “Be Wrong As Fast As You Can,” I thought it would be an essay about business, but it’s essentially about how Lindgren has never followed through on his big dreams of writing screenplays. His comments about writing precisely mirror comments Jon (and others) have made about starting a business: fail early, fail often.

Ideas, in a sense, are overrated. Of course, you need good ones, but at this point in our supersaturated culture, precious few are so novel that nobody else has ever thought of them before. It’s really about where you take the idea, and how committed you are to solving the endless problems that come up in the execution.

Will e-books completely replace printed books? In the Wall Street Journal this morning, Nicholas Carr argues that they won’t. He notes that the growth of e-books slowed to 34% in 2012. Granted, some CEOs would sell their souls for a 34% growth rate. Sales of e-books, furthermore, have surpassed sales of hardcover books and are treading on the toes of paperbacks. But Carr also cites a survey that found that 59% of adults have “no interest” in buying an e-reader. His explanation:

Readers of weightier fare, including literary fiction and narrative nonfiction, have been less inclined to go digital. They seem to prefer the heft and durability, the tactile pleasures, of what we still call ‘real books’ — the kind you can set on a shelf.

There are two reasons I believe he’s wrong.

First, it is entirely common for an old industry to last for years — sometimes decades — after the invention of a new technology that will ultimately displace it. James Utterback cites numerous examples in his classic book, Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. The gas lighting industry hung on and even reached new peaks of innovation in the years after Edison commercialized his electric lighting system. Similarly, the original ice companies, which harvested their product from New England lakes and ponds, actually reached sales peaks after mechanical ice-makers began their ascent. In both cases, fans of the old technology likely wrote whimsical editorials about the tactile pleasures of old-fashioned methods.

Second, young people simply don’t have the same attachment to printed books. People who grew up reading printed books will naturally be reluctant to switch to e-books, particularly for serious reading. In college, I engaged with non-fiction books by writing in margins. When I wanted to refer back to an earlier page, I found it by flipping through the book, looking for a note I knew I had made in a certain corner of a certain page. As a result of this training, I learn best from printed books. But students today are learning to learn in entirely different ways. They take electronic notes, make electronic highlights, and are perfectly comfortable searching for a page instead of flipping to find it.

To be sure, there are functional benefits to traditional books, in addition to the ability to take margin notes. When a book sits on a shelf, I remember that it’s there, and I may pull it out for reference (say, once every five years). Other people will see the book, and perhaps be impressed. Furthermore, if there is a map or a cast of characters laid out in the beginning, and I need to flip back frequently (as with the great novel Wolf Hall), a printed book is superior to an e-book. These functional benefits will keep printed books in existence for a few extra years, even after superficial tactile pleasures have become passe.

Printed books may be here to stay as a collector’s item, much like records today. Ultimately, however, the benefits of e-books far outweigh those of traditional books. E-books are less expensive to publish, less expensive to buy, and easy to obtain in minutes from almost any location. An entire library can painlessly fit in your pocket or purse. And I love the sample function. Reading a sample gives me a much better sense of a book than I could get by flipping through pages at my local bookstore. If I’m not compelled to keep reading by the end of the sample, I’ve learned to abandon the book.

This presents a major societal challenge: right now, anyone can check out a book at the local library for free, and used books can be bought for a few dollars or even a quarter. A transition to e-books will make it harder for low-income people to find books to read. We will need to manage this problem, perhaps by creating inexpensive e-readers that libraries can rent out to patrons instead of physical books.

These days, I buy so many products online that I’ve actually memorized my credit card number — something that hasn’t happened since I was planning my wedding. But there is one market that online retailers have yet to penetrate: the market for emergency purchases. If I run out of toothpaste, I’m still going to walk around the corner to Rite Aid.

That’s starting to change. Amazon is offering same-day delivery in 10 cities. Currently, prices are steep, and you have to order early in the day, but the service will likely get cheaper and better over time. Wal-Mart is testing the service as well. So is Google, which could leverage its network of Google Street View drivers to deliver products. eBay Now, which launched last year in NYC and San Francisco, uses couriers to deliver thousands of products to your door in less than an hour, for $5 per delivery. Startups like Shutl and Postmates are using similar courier-based models, while Uber might leverage its network of drivers to deliver packages as well as people.

For now, most consumers will use these services only for bigger-ticket items, when it’s worth paying an extra $5 or even $15 for same-day delivery. I’ll probably still rely on Rite Aid for my toothpaste. But that may not last. Brick-and-mortar retailers need to consider how to react, and they should be particularly worried about Amazon. Shutl and eBay deliver products from traditional stores — as of now, they’re potential partners for retailers, not competitors. Amazon, however, bypasses retailers altogether.

So how can retailers compete? They need to consider what “jobs” they can do better than online retail, as Clayton Christensen and Max Wessel outline in their recent HBR cover story, “Surviving Disruption.” Here are a few ideas:

  • Entertainment. Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and even Costco have created an entirely new reason to go grocery shopping: because it’s fun. I get the same pleasure from going to Whole Foods as I do from going clothes shopping. I get to browse and discover new things in a warm and inviting environment. New and interesting products stimulate my creativity, as I think about how I could use them. I also get to spend quality time with my husband. Amazon offers incredible convenience, but it doesn’t offer fun — at least, not yet.
  • Destination products. One secret of the success of Trader Joe’s is its focus on products that you can’t get anywhere else. The only way to get same-day delivery of TJ’s amazing Vegetable Panang Curry is to get it from Trader Joe’s.
  • Community connection. A recent article by UPS suggested that small businesses can compete by offering consumers a feeling of “real.” The article suggested “re-conceptualizing limited selection as personal curation of products … or even taking customers on ‘consumer safaris’ to see where products are made.” I would also suggest using check-in services like Foursquare to get to know  customers, reach out to them, and build relationships. This is, of course, more relevant for small businesses than large retailers like Best Buy.

And if you can’t beat them, join them. One same-day delivery service is trying to capitalize on the consumer desire for “real.” In the UK, Hubbub offers same day delivery of goods from local, independent stores.

From an interview in FastCompany:

Stone: The way Ev and I work together is, I may come up with something that’s just ridiculous. But Ev is willing to listen for a certain amount of time. Like–this is a bad example–I might say, assume there’s no gravity, okay? We could do this. And, you know, the conversation might get to a good idea that actually would work with gravity.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.