Personally, I'm against big things. I think the world is going to be saved by millions of small things. Too many things can go wrong when they get big

Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! devoted her hour long show yesterday to Pete Seeger’s 90th birthday, which was celebrated in grand style in Madison Square Garden on Sunday. Seeger whose life has been dedicated to social activism through music is an unusual celebrity. He purposefully avoided the limelight, but it consistently found him.

As she and guests chronicled Seeger’s many achievements—his pivotal, though often understated roles in the labor movement, civil rights, the environment—what struck me was how he slowly and with great determination tackled big issues in very small ways. A case in point: His singing of “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy” on the Smothers Brothers show in January 1968.

Controversial at the time, this unassuming appearance now seems to have accelerated the changing mood in the country. In March, Lyndon B. Johnson announced that he would not seek another term as president, and, on October 31, he announced that the US would cease “all air, naval and artillery bombardment of North Vietnam.” Such a view substantially rewrites history—Seeger’s act was just another drop in the bucket that, when filled to the brim, eventually changed US policy.

“Too many things can go wrong when they get big,” as Pete Seeger stated. Like banks and other institutions that are “too big to fail?” while smaller banks are allowed to go under. By concentrating on institutions that have acquired disproportionate influence over the country, we have allowed smaller organizations—banks, businesses, entrepreneurial start-ups—to fail. This policy is not only unwise; it also counterproductive in that it strains against the counter-intuitive cultural Zeitgeist of early 21st century America.

This Zeitgeist is counter-intuitive only because most of the ways we have conducted business since the ‘50’s at least are being inverted, subverted, or changed in radically new ways. A few examples: Google and its wiki adherents that offer core products for free and make money through the back or side door. A global economy where local and regional products have found greater favor. Millions of online writers, journalists or hacks with their own blogs, videologs, or websites supplanting large daily newspapers, magazines, and television. More later.

Change is afoot in every aspect of our lives, and it will arrive in the aggregate actions of individuals and small organizations that can now wield enormous power helped in part by new technologies. Small is the new big.

To quote Frances Moore Lappe, who wrote Diet for a Small Planet (cited earlier) and her daughter Anna Lappe’s definition of their Small Planet Institute:

We believe that ideas have enormous power and that humans are capable of changing failing ideas in order to turn our planet toward life. At the Small Planet Institute, we seek to identify the core, often unspoken, assumptions and forces — economic, political, and psychological — now taking our planet in a direction that as individuals none of us would choose. We disseminate this deeper understanding of root causes. With a grasp of root causes, citizens no longer disparage their actions as “mere drops in the bucket.” Once we’re able to see the “bucket,” we realize our drops are quite spectacular; the bucket is actually filling up.

Brand Fervor: Applying the Language of Religion to Consumerism

Over the past few years, it has become commonplace to refer to customers whose zeal for a company seems unbounded as evangelists. These customers may or may not necessarily be your best customers, but they can be counted on to act as influencers. They spread the word via word of mouth, on blogs, or in customer review sections of your websites about your products. When enthusiastically happy about your company, their opinions can help skyrocket sales. When unhappy, watch out. You might end up in Dell Hell.

Martin Lindstrom in his ground-breaking work Buyology used fMRI and SST technology to analyze the brain activity of 2081 volunteers over a four year period from 2004-2008. In one of his studies, he examined the correlation between electric brain activity stimulated by religious imagery and commercial brands. Summarizing the work really does it an injustice. The book is a very good read. The point here is that “smashable brands”—those brands that retain their identity, especially among brand zealots, even if you smash them apart (Apple, Coke, Harley Davidson, etc.)—elicit a similar response in brand-loyal folks as religious iconography does when viewed by people of faith.

After extensive interviews with religious and spiritual leaders to determine the 10 pillars of all religions, he concludes that iconographic brands share the same characteristics as the great religions, namely: a sense of belonging, a clear vision, power over enemies, sensory appeal, storytelling, grandeur, evangelism, symbols, mystery, and rituals. I should add that he makes this association not to denigrate religion, but simply to point out that a similar kind of fervor develops among brand-loyalists.

In a similar vein, Stanley Fish, noted author and educator, wrote an editorial in the New York Times today entitled “God Talk.” The editorial is actually a review of British critic Terry Eagleton’s newest book Reason, Faith and Revolution. Again risking oversimplification, Eagleton thinks that we have begun to exact from science what we previously thought to derive from religion. He believes that “faith and knowledge are not antithetical but “interwoven.” If we demand from science answers to the eternal questions of life, we will come up empty. And if we try to seek an understanding of the material world from a religious point of view, we will similarly be at a loss.

Pointing out that those who adhere to “Progress” as an article of faith might be accused of believing in “superstition” to the same degree religious adherents have been, Fish quotes and summarizes Eagleton as follows: “’The language of enlightenment has been hijacked in the name of corporate greed, the police state, a politically compromised science, and a permanent war economy,’ all in the service, Eagleton contends, of an empty suburbanism that produces ever more things without any care as to whether or not the things produced have true value.”

The application of the language of religion to consumerism points out, I believe, an underlying social need: A search for Value—material and spiritual—in an otherwise compromised world.

The So-called Benefits of the Great Recession

Maybe it was the simple fact that my parents were, on average, a good ten years older than most of my peers' parents and I was born when my mother was nearly 40. But, for me, The Great Depression informed nearly every minute of my childhood and teenage years—from the “turn off that light. What do you thing we are? Made of money?” to the constant depression-glass lens through which every experience was viewed.

Growing up, I often felt that my parents had more in common with my friends’ grandparents than their parents. They were, after all, in their early 20’s during the Thirties. My father had ridden the rails, working at jobs anywhere he could find them from construction work in San Francisco to building carnival rides and barnstorming with the Eyerly Brothers in his home town of Salem, Oregon. My mother had travelled to the alluring West from the northern, frozen North Dakota plains in search of love and work in that order. At home, we canned, baked bread, sewed our own clothes, and repaired everything. But, then, we were “lower middle or working class,” a term that seems to have disappeared in the economic halcyon days that followed.

Laying my rather peculiar past aside, most of us boomers did have parents who grew up and survived the depression, remembering the scarcity and the deprivation, which was then followed by the war years. But what lessons did we take away—from them, then and now? Very few. It might even be said that we tried very hard to avoid those lessons. Although the Green Movement may have grown out of the social activism of the ‘60’s, most boomers were not socially committed at the time and very few continued along the social activism pathway, except perhaps where it involved social, sexual and personal freedom. Lots to be argued with here.

Mostly, we boomers and our children have experienced over-abundance and have relished in it. I cannot count the number of times people have said to me lately that they could never have conceived the economy turning downward the way it has. Having to cope with less for many of us has seemed like an early death sentence. I am supposed to be enjoying these years. Isn’t that the American Dream?

Now, so many commentators have pointed out that we as a Nation may finally be learning our lessons—about having enough, about frugality, about sustainability, about valuing experiences and people over labels and stuff—that I have lost track. I actually believe, on the other hand, that the current Great Recession is actually only building up pent-up demand among many people. The minute conditions ease, we will probably see ourselves returning to our old ways.

Only this time, we can’t afford such self-indulgence, if we ever could. The abundance we thought we enjoyed was actually a delusion. Remember those books we all bought in the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s—Frances Moore Lappe’s Diet for a Small Planet and Steward Brand’s The Whole Earth Catalog. Their messages have even greater relevance, urgency, and poignancy today. Ignoring them now is not auguring a symbolic early death sentence, but tolling a death knell for the planet.

Slow Fashion in Celebration of Earth Day

The “slow fashion” concept traces its roots back to the slow food movement, which began in Italy in the ‘80’s as a reaction to fast-food retailers, like McDonald’s. Since then, the movement has spread to architecture and now to clothing design, manufacturing, and consumption.

The characteristics all three share are sustainability, transparency, fair trade/living wages, and localization. That means for sustainability: the development of more sustainable products through recycling or re-purposing existing products, using organic or natural materials whenever possible, and developing lasting products that may be reused or recycled after their use.

Transparency, here, usually refers to a manufacturer being open about and communicating complete information about products—for example, how a product was made, where it was made, what materials the product is made of, who made the product and whether or not those workers were paid a living wage. Localization places value on local or regional production and the use of local products.

Nearly everyone associated the “slow” movement recognizes that no one retailer or manufacturer will successfully realize a business that is completely sustainable, transparent, or local. All efforts will involve some kind of compromise. But openness and encouraging consumers to reevaluate their attitudes toward fashion and clothing will, they believe, contribute toward greater sustainability in the fashion industry.

Although “slow fashion” might at first appear contradictory, it is possible to honor fashion while producing and consuming purposefully. In the words of Dr. Hazel Clark from the Parsons New School of Design at a conference held late last year: “Change [toward adopting slow fashion] requires more thoughtful and flexible design, which can retain the cultural significance and magic of fashion while producing clothes that are conscientious, sustainable, and attractive.”

Perhaps the best known company that embraces “slow fashion” is the British “eco-chic” department store Adili. According to CEO Adam Smith, “Slow fashion is not just about responding to trends. It is a mentality that involves thinking about provenance and buying something that won’t look unfashionable after one season.”

As an increasing number of consumers are drawn to the values-led retailers who support slow fashion, the more it would appear that the slow movement will now be on the fast track.

Act Vertical or Be Vertical: Gaining the Competitive Edge in Retailing

According to a recent study by Kurt Salmon Associates, those retailers who “act vertical” are in a greater position to weather the recession because of their ability to offer unique product, demand higher prices, react more quickly to consumer trends, and replenish hot sellers more quickly.

"The recession is forcing retailers to radically rethink their businesses, and many are in survival mode," said Cari Bunch, a retail strategist at Kurt Salmon Associates. "However, in our view, the economic downturn has created much greater clarity about what retailers must do to be successful over the next decade."

“Act Vertical retailers have learned to collaborate internally (by breaking down the barriers between functions), externally with manufacturers and suppliers (without owning production) and externally with consumers by redefining customer research as a continuous conversation rather than a one-off event.”

Although this study recommends that retailers act vertically not actually become vertically integrated, the success of American Apparel, which boasts that its products are “Made in Downtown LA,” has used vertical integration not just for competitive advantage but also as a basis for cause marketing, mostly by calling for immigration reform among several other causes it supports.

As the above quote shows, as well as comments on the American Apparel website indicate, collaboration with manufacturers and customers is central to catching the curl on the new wave of retailing. SA VA, a semi-vertical women’s apparel company that will launch in Philadelphia and online in September, has recognized that true collaboration with customer necessitates her involvement with design as well as the company’s ability to react quickly her needs. To do that, SA VA will develop regional, domestic Garment Centers that will localize production and, in the process, work toward reducing the large carbon footprint affixed to most clothes, most especially the least expensive, as well as creating local jobs.

Okay, Kutcher had help

Lamar Advertising decided to help Ashton Kutcher along in his bid to become Twitter's first "millionaire" and aired a message to follow him on the 1,133 digital billboards it operates nationwide, according to Media Week. That turns out to be 34 million impressions in all when when the campaign ends this week.

Still the point made yesterday holds. Kutcher did not pay for this campaign. It was taken up in the spirit of "let's beat the big guy," not just by the individual, but also by small business. Isn't there a message here? Smaller. Slower. Better. Enough. All words that appear frequently in the subtext of the New Economy, hence the New Wave of Retailing.

The Power of One: One to Many, Many to One

If there were any doubts left about the power of the individual via the internet to make a greater impact on the world than larger media organizations, the last week should have removed them. Ashton Kutcher beating out CNN as the first to reach 1MM followers on Twitter and Susan Boyle becoming an instant international success through YouTube are two stunning examples of how an individual can achieve far-reaching impact now through technology. True, Mr. Kutcher is a celebrity with a flair for geekiness, but it is conceivable that any savvy internet user with determination could have accomplished the same feat.

Power now resides in companies that are developing open platforms that allow individuals to build on, find fame, create new products, connect with friends, and reach new contacts and ideas. But this power is open, not controlling (See Jeff Jarvis, What would Google Do?). It finds value by holding people with a velvet glove. It embraces them and sends them on. It appears suddenly as a nudge, not necessarily as a banner hammer. Google, in fact, does no advertising, but controls most of it on the internet. Your success is their success. It’s shared. As is, Twitter’s, and Flickr’s, and Glam’s.

Sharing and openness are not ideas that we normally associate with capitalism, but the new economy and the new wave of retailing will utilize sharing and openness as cornerstones of business. The sooner retailers understand that the blueprint for building successful retail organizations has fundamentally altered, the sooner we will see all retail outlets—bricks and mortar, catalogs, and ecommerce—accommodating the individual rather than winning them over for a one-time purchase often at a discounted price or with free shipping.