Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
• University expert helps clothes designer measure and tackle their carbon emissions • Upcycler, ‘Missfit Creations’, has saved CO2 equivalent of three tonnes • Call to COP27 to issue a protocol to measure all garments’ environmental impact. 8 November 2022 | Birmingham UK As policymakers at COP27 are to discuss the effects of the fashion industry on the environment, an Aston University scientist has been helping a clothes designer measure and tackle their carbon emissions. Debbie Murphy runs Missfit Creations which provides an alternative to fast fashion. She saves clothes from clogging up landfill by restoring and reworking second-hand and vintage clothing, from de-mob suits and 1970s psychedelia, to the present day. Dr Maria Pimenta da Costa Ocampo, a researcher from the Energy & Bioproducts Research Institute (EBRI) at Aston University, has been identifying the impact the business is having on reducing carbon emissions. By analysing the recirculation of second-hand clothes alone, she found Debbie’s current fashion collection has the potential to save the CO2 equivalent of three tonnes – equal in size to at least three semi-detached houses. The support provided to Tamworth-based Missfit Creations was through EBRI's European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) programme that helps West Midlands companies develop low carbon goods and services. Debbie said: “It was eye-opening to work with Aston University. “I collect and restore a huge amount of old, unwanted clothes that would otherwise have ended up in landfill, so I decided to find out what impact my business has on the environment. “I knew my business would help tackle the effects of fast fashion, but I didn’t realise I’ve been able to prevent the production of so much CO2. “Raising awareness of second-hand clothes over fast fashion, and the increased awareness of clothing care efficiency will help reduce the carbon footprint of the textile industry.” The Aston University report also suggests ways the business can further decrease emissions. As a result, it will be introducing a ‘take-back’ scheme, offering vouchers or exchanges in return for previous purchases. Debbie will also be changing production methods by ensuring all packaging is biodegradable, ironing fabrics less and switching to a more sustainable energy provider. The COP27 fashion charter event (11 November 2022) will explore whether the sector’s planned transformation to net zero is underway, practical solutions that are being applied and what is needed to achieve the goal. However, Dr Pimenta-Ocampo said: “Every single action taken towards the production and recirculation of clothing has an environmental impact. “For example, we calculated that by recirculating vintage clothing, Missfit Creations was reducing CO2 equivalent by almost two tonnes just by diverting clothes from landfill. “And by outsourcing their vintage clothes for cleaning services that don’t use tumble driers, not taking into account transport emissions, Missfit Creations is reducing CO2 equivalent by another one tonne. “There is a great need for the textile industry to monitor and provide accurate data and to become more transparent, specially when global supply chains are involved. “However, the creation of a protocol and standardisation of the Life Cycle Assessment, which measures a product’s environmental impact from raw material to final disposal, is also required. Without it, it will be impossible to produce results that can be representative.”
MEDIA RELEASE: Manitobans can vote on Worst Roads in province
WINNIPEG, March 20, 2019 – Manitobans from across the Province rely on the existing road network to travel each and every day. Whether you are driving, cycling, walking or taking public transit, many of these roads are in a state of disrepair. Today, representatives from Bike Winnipeg join CAA Manitoba in encouraging all road users to focus on safety and infrastructure challenges when they vote on their Worst Roads for 2019. “Everyone has a role to play in making our roads safer, and that’s why we want to hear from all Manitobans about their concerns,” says CAA Manitoba president Tim Scott. “Our annual CAA Worst Roads campaign has influenced change for over seven years by taking input and bridging the public’s interest in the state of good repair of our roads and bridges. In fact, a recent survey of CAA Manitoba members showed that 90 per cent of respondents were concerned about the state of Manitoba’s roads. Moreover, nearly 75 per cent of CAA Members believe that not enough is being done to maintain roads, and that repairs are not occurring in a timely fashion.” Best in class asset management includes prioritizing connectivity for commuters, fixing infrastructure, focusing on safer roads, and includes cycling lanes and increasing transit options. A well-balanced road user program will reduce the wear and tear on Manitoba’s infrastructure and taxpayers’ pocketbooks. “Properly maintained roads and a healthy transportation system translates into safer travels, a healthier economy, and efficient delivery of goods and services,” says Raymond Chan, Government Relations, CCG Club Group. “From our analysis, further delay in road repairs leads to greater costs for governments and has a direct financial impact to the public.” Worst Roads are classified as having potholes, crumbling pavement, poor road signage, limited or nonexistent cycling or walking infrastructure, traffic congestion, or limited crossing opportunities. Mark Cohoe, Executive Director of Bike Winnipeg, sees a variety of issues that need attention. “When people vote in the CAA Worst Roads campaign, they should think of how the roads affect people walking and cycling along our streets as well as those driving along them. Potholes are very dangerous for someone on a bike, and new bike facilities provide a tremendous improvement in safety, comfort, and connectivity. That’s where CAA’s Worst Roads campaign comes in – people on bikes can have their voice heard on infrastructure safety by nominating roads,” says Cohoe. Voting runs until midnight on April 16, 2019. Manitobans can nominate their Worst Road online at caaworstroads.com or through the CAA app. Voters can identify themselves as motorists, cyclists, pedestrians or transit riders and pinpoint a particular stretch of the road for crumbling infrastructure, safety and congestion.
The shocking assassination of Shinzo Abe, the former Prime Minister of Japan, has been met with disbelief and condolences from within his country and around the globe. Alexis Dudden, a professor of history at the University of Connecticut who specializes in modern Japan and Korea, spoke with NEWS AKMI in the wake of Abe's death about his legacy, his Second World War revisionism, his complicated feelings about America, and why his push to reform the Japanese constitution ultimately failed: How do you see Abe’s legacy? He was a Prime Minister who reconfigured Japan’s place in East Asia, or at least tried to. He tried to create a more assertive Japan through a very proactive—as he liked to describe it—attempt at diplomacy. And he travelled widely. He met with Vladimir Putin more than with any other world leader: more than twenty times. He did meet Xi Jinping, and he was the first foreign leader to meet Donald Trump after [Trump] became President. Abe, however, created a deep rift between Japan and its Asian neighbors over his extremely hawkish outlook, his extremist positions on the legacy of the Japanese empire, and its responsibilities for atrocities committed throughout Asia and the Pacific. While many are extolling him as a great leader, his personal vision for rewriting Japanese history, of a glorious past, created a real problem in East Asia which will linger, because it divided not just the different countries’ approach to diplomacy with Japan; it also divided Japanese society even further over how to approach its own responsibility for wartime actions carried out in the name of the emperor. You used the phrase “rewriting history.” Do you mean rewriting the truth, or do you mean rewriting the way people in Japan understood their history? To what degree was Abe, when he came into office for the first time, in 2006, a departure from the way that Japan understood its own history? And to what degree was this more of the status quo, but just in a more aggressive fashion? The helpful thing about studying Abe is that he himself published several articles and books, and he gave numerous speeches about history and about his vision of Japan’s history, in particular. When he first became a parliamentarian, in the early nineteen-nineties, inheriting his father’s seat, he was part of a study group inside Parliament that is believed to have written a document denying the Nanjing Massacre. This article used to be available in Japan’s Diet archives. It is no longer traceable, but it was there. Abe began in the mid-nineties, when there was an effort to really socially readdress Japan’s wartime role in Asia, after the death of Emperor Hirohito, in the wake of the first “comfort women” coming forward. That’s when Japanese political leaders really became more public about the positioning of their own parties’ views of Japan’s role in Asia, in a new, more strident way that sought to rewrite how Japan and the Japanese should see it. Fast forward to his first term as Prime Minister, in 2006. By that time, these issues had been much better studied academically and socially within Japan and throughout the world. Abe made a big effort, in 2006 and 2007, to deny that Japan bore any state responsibility for the comfort women, in particular. And he failed at that attempt. This is when he and his supporters took out a full-page ad in the Washington Post. And it was a real moment of shock for him when the U.S. Congress passed a nonbinding House resolution asking Japan to atone for its role in creating the comfort-women system. That was also when he resigned for the first time because of his ulcerative colitis. But, between 1994 and 2006, his chief lobbying group, called the Nippon Kaigi, was created—this political-lobbying group didn’t have much of a public face, but it emerged as an extremely powerful ideologically based group. And this is why comparing him to Trump and [India’s Prime Minister Narendra] Modi and other extremists—or people with extreme views or people who give voice to extreme views—is apt, because these groups seem to come out of nowhere for a lot of us. Like, who was Steve Bannon until there was Steve Bannon? Abe, in that interim between being a junior parliamentarian and becoming Prime Minister, had become this group’s head of history and territory. And, in that moment, he also published a work about making Japan great again, which he called “Towards a Beautiful Country.” Dr. Dudden offers expert insight into Abe's historical perspective on his country, and if you're a reporter looking to cover this trending topic, let us help with your coverage. Click on her icon to arrange an interview today.
Covering the music beat? Then tune in and get in touch with our resident hip-hop expert
Augusta University Professor Adam Diehl is an expert in hip-hop culture, lyrical analysis, rap as a form of literature and specifically, the works of Kendrick Lamar. Diehl gives an update on what's new in hip-hop and of course, answers questions about Lamar and his highly anticipated new album. How has the hip-hop music scene changed over the last 5 years? The hip-hop music scene has changed faster than any other genre the last five years. Whereas country still uses radio play and music videos to gauge success (along with album sales and streaming numbers) and rock uses touring to supplement and offset recording costs, pop and hip-hop have a great advantage in that they can raise people to stardom almost overnight. In fact, several of the biggest pop stars like Billie Eilish and Post Malone made their rapid ascents through the same channel many of the top hip-hop stars did: Soundcloud. Because this platform allowed new artists the chance to put their music alongside heavyweights, it democratized the listening process. What sent Soundcloud soaring? To put it succinctly, Soundcloud was the great reset of the hip-hop world. But when COVID hit and musicians couldn't tour for upwards of two years, the hip-hop community soared past country and rock (which they were already outselling pre-pandemic) because they didn't base their profit model on touring. Even pop stars were at a disadvantage, because the TV appearances and interviews they used to promote their new releases were few and far between for at least a year, and virtual events just couldn't replicate award show appearances and performances. Hip-hop, meanwhile, continued to be "Black America's CNN" and reported on the protests and outrage following the high-profile deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. The resurgence of Black Lives Matter brought mainstream media and cultural attention to the Black community, and as such the importance of hip-hop grew, just as it did in the wake of the Rodney King verdict and the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Eric Garner. How has the economy of music changed? Most people under 20 don't own any CDs. What money these kids don't spend on music can now go to a modern cultural institution: the music festival. Increasingly, cities are hosting these previously camping-required concerts, which has been a particular advantage for hip-hop artists, who don't need roadies or sometimes even other people on stage. All they need is a setlist with six to 10 catchy songs, an entrancing light show, a DJ/engineer and a strong stage presence, and they can captivate the audience as easily as some of the all-time greats of any genre. Going forward, the music industry is going to be about return on investment. Instead of developing artists over a five-year period and then letting them blossom for two to three decades, they are looking for someone to explode in popularity instantly, stay in the spotlight and public consciousness consistently for three to five years, and then maybe stick around. TikTok is, in many ways, analogous to this career arc: the videos are short, the makers are -- to some extent -- largely forgettable, and the popularity relies heavily on a "hook." It's no surprise that hip-hop has been the most adopted genre by TikTokers: the genre has been more effective than any other in terms of codifying "catch phrases." And that's what TikTok is going for: something to hook viewers into watching more. Did the Super Bowl appearance by hip-hop artists take the genre to a whole new level as far as mainstream music? If the Super Bowl halftime show in 2022 did anything, it showed that rap and hip-hop are now as household friendly as rock, country and pop. Perhaps because so many best-selling rock acts had already played the halftime show, and perhaps because the pop acts of recent years had failed to maintain the public's attention, the 2022 halftime show featured one of hip-hop's founding fathers: Dr. Dre. His menagerie of artists' careers stretched over 30 years, and the time constraints of the show made hip-hop the ideal soundtrack. In a 13-minute set, six performers all got their moment in the California sun, and the mega-mix model so often used in clubs was perfect to segue from artist to artist. What 30 to 35 years ago was "Parental Advisory" is now the music that parents listen to. The target demo of the Super Bowl would've thought someone like Simon & Garfunkel or The Eagles much more risky picks than Dr. Dre & Co., even if their music was more family-friendly. Many casual music fans thought Kendrick Lamar was the head-scratcher because of his shorter tenure in the spotlight, but the younger generations watching were much more interested in what Kendrick did than "old heads" like Snoop Dogg and Mary J. Blige. Was this new album by Kendrick Lamar overdue? The new Kendrick Lamar album comes right on time: it is the definitive COVID album. If he had released in spring/summer 2020 when he originally intended (i.e. if the early March 2020 pgLang rollout was foreshadowing his record release), this would be a substantially different work of art. Instead, the project voices what so many people have endured in the pandemic: domestic turmoil. The tracks cover a vast array of topics -- from vaccinations to transgenderism to cancel culture -- but the unifying theme is therapy. As much emphasis as physical health got over the past two years, the pandemic was arguably just as bad if not worse for people's mental health. Accordingly, this album goes into dark valleys in Kendrick's and his family's trials and traumas: child abuse, sex addiction, separation/divorce, deaths, etc. In the two years that society has been persevering through the pandemic, countless marriages and millions of lives have been shaken to their cores. Listening to this double-album adds another tremor to our already-jostled souls. Tracks like "We Cry Together" capture the rapid-fire romantic arguments that can quickly escalate from disappointment to suicidal ideation, and "United in Grief" recreates the sense of a panic attack with its intensifying lyric delivery and drumbeats. Anxiety and depression are the recurring moods of this album, and the track list ranges in sonic textures -- from Lamar's tried-and-true vintage gangsta rap beats to the utterly unpredictable piano flourishes that come straight from a spoken word poetry reading -- to reflect the all-too-familiar combination of monotony and chaos that the world has undergone for the last two years. It is unforgettable -- just like COVID-19 -- but also, perhaps, something we'd rather not relive. Why do some consider Lamar the most influential rapper of our generation? Kendrick Lamar only has two real rivals for most influential rapper of the generation: Kanye West and Drake. Although Kanye is 10 years older, his career overlaps to a large degree with Kendrick's. Kanye's influence certainly comes more in the production of songs than in lyrical delivery, but his subject matter has been very contagious. Kendrick's mentioning of a Birkin bag in "N95" would never have happened if not for Kanye's lyrical (and career) forays into high fashion. Drake, on the other hand, is probably the rapper most influenced by Kanye...who went on to influence the most artists. Without Drake, many rappers wouldn't have had the blueprint for being singers as well as MCs. What Kendrick brings to the conversation is, in a way, more elusive; however, he without a doubt has raised the bar for lyrical delivery and flow, such that rappers have a better chance at success if they are comically basic than if they are merely competent. It's as if Kendrick took Eminem's velocity and used it to speak on bigger picture issues. Kendrick has also proven to be a fashion-forward rapper, collaborating with Reebok, Nike and Converse over the last few years. His influence might be most prominent in the "realness" of his lyrics: without Kendrick's "everyday life music," the emergence and popularization of "Soundcloud rap" might have been significantly limited. Instead, he uses Kodak Black -- one of the most successful of all Soundcloud-era rappers -- on Mr. Morale & the Big Steppers. If Kendrick isn't the most influential rapper of his generation, it's because his ambition and execution have placed him with the all-time greats, and oftentimes that puts artists at odds with their contemporaries. In 100 years, people won't remember some big acts because popularity wears off, but they will still celebrate Kendrick because his work is excellent. Looking to know more? Hit up Adam Diehl today -- simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview.
In new study in journal Gene Therapy, researchers at ChristianaCare’s Gene Editing Institute describe how the advance is validating the safety and efficacy of their novel approach for using CRISPR to improve lung cancer treatments A new study from scientists at ChristianaCare’s Gene Editing Institute is advancing the safety and efficacy of using CRISPR gene editing in patient treatments by demonstrating how to identify and evaluate the broad-based biological impact of gene editing on targeted tissues, where the edits are designed to fully disable or “knock out” a specific sequence of genetic code. The work, published today in the Nature journal Gene Therapy, supports the Institute’s efforts to improve lung cancer treatments by using CRISPR to disable or alter a master regulator gene to prevent it from producing a protein that blunts the impact of chemotherapy. “We found that when you use CRISPR, the edits sometimes end up altering rather than completely disabling the target gene, so we developed a process to gain a more complete understanding of what that means for patients,” said Eric Kmiec, Ph.D., executive director and chief scientific officer of ChristianaCare’s Gene Editing Institute and the principal author of the study. Dr. Kmiec said that for his team’s lung cancer work, “We discovered that even when our CRISPR-based genetic manipulation did not completely disable the targeted gene, it altered it in ways that appear to make lung cancer tumors more sensitive to chemotherapy. Validating lung cancer research using CRISPR “We were fortunate that our strategy for using CRISPR to improve lung cancer treatments has been validated once again,” he added. “But our commitment to conducting an unbiased assessment of our approach highlights the importance of examining all potential outcomes of an attempt to use CRISPR to knock out a specific gene. Specifically, anyone developing CRISPR therapies needs to be on the lookout for edits that don’t fully knock out a section of DNA code—and evaluate the potential impacts for patients. They could be positive, as they were in our case, negative or neutral, but they need to be known.” Much of the excitement around medical applications of CRISPR involves using the tool to disable harmful genes by editing or “knocking out” a specific sequence of DNA code. But there is increasing evidence that in the wake of a CRISPR edit, cells may remain that contain merely an altered form of the targeted code that allows the gene to continue to produce biologically active proteins. Scientists at the Gene Editing Institute are investigating the potential of using CRISPR to disable a gene called NRF2 to alter production of the protein that protects squamous cell carcinoma lung cancer tumors from the effects of chemotherapy or radiation. They already have shown, in studies with tumor cells and in animals, that they can selectively target the NRF2 gene without affecting normal cells, where the gene confers health benefits. In the present study they wanted to go further. They wanted to fully understand the implications of a CRISPR gene edit that allowed the NRF2 gene to retain enough DNA code to continue making a version of the protein, albeit in an altered or truncated form. The team is laying the groundwork for a clinical trial that would use CRISPR to improve the efficacy of conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatments. Dr. Kmiec said that before proceeding, he wanted his team to develop a clear process for identifying and evaluating all outcomes of CRISPR edits. Identifying and understanding the diversity of genetic outcomes produced by CRISPR-directed gene editing has been a centerpiece of the foundational research programs established by the Gene Editing Institute. Using CRISPR in a safe way “We carry out experiments in an unbiased fashion, not hoping for a particular outcome, but with patient safety and efficacy serving as the true north for our scientific endeavors,” Dr. Kmiec said. “No matter what we uncover or elucidate, the insights will help both ChristianaCare and the entire field use CRISPR in a safer and more efficacious manner.” The researchers found multiple cells where the targeted strand of DNA code in the NRF2 gene was not completely knocked out. Rather, following the CRISPR edit, cells emerged that had retained enough of the original code to continue producing a different form of the protein. Tests revealed that cancer tumor cells generating these altered proteins may be more vulnerable to chemotherapy drugs. "For the work we are doing with NRF2, the truncated proteins generated by the CRISPR edit appear to be beneficial for making tumors more sensitive to treatment,” said lead author Kelly Banas, Ph.D. “But the key point is these proteins were clearly biologically active. And that means we needed to determine their potential impact on the safety and efficacy of using CRISPR to treat lung cancer patients.” Dr. Banas noted that the study points to the limits of considering a CRISPR edit to be successful simply by testing for the absence of a targeted protein in its original form. She said by that standard, their edit was successful. The edited NRF2 genes were no longer producing the same protein. But she said if that’s all the ChristianaCare team had looked for, they would have missed the altered proteins coming from the NRF2 gene—and overlooked an important outcome that, in this case, strengthens the original hypothesis and experimental approach: that using CRISPR to target the NRF2 gene holds promise for improving outcomes for lung cancer patients. Importance of due diligence “The process we describe in this study is a template that should be followed in any effort to develop CRISPR as a medical treatment,” Dr. Kmiec said. “We’re part of a health care organization where patient safety is the top priority. We also are working at the vanguard of an exciting area of cutting-edge medicine, where a failure to conduct due diligence could cause tragic outcomes that would set back this field for decades. With this study, we have validated a process that can help this field move forward rapidly but safely.” CRISPR stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.” It is a defense mechanism found in bacteria that can recognize and slice up the DNA of invading viruses. Scientists have learned how to modify this mechanism so it can be directed to “edit” specific sequences of DNA code. About ChristianaCare’s Gene Editing Institute The Gene Editing Institute, a worldwide leader in CRISPR gene editing technology and the only institute of its kind based within a community health care system, takes a patient-first approach in all its research to improve the lives of people with life-threatening disease. Since 2015, researchers at the Gene Editing Institute have been involved in several ground-breaking firsts in the field, including the development of the first CRISPR gene editing tool to allow DNA repairs outside the human cell which will rapidly speed therapies to patients and the ExACT ™pathway of single-stranded DNA repair, which increased the on-target efficacy of CRISPR and paved the way for new CRISPR breakthroughs in precise DNA edits. Its researchers created CRISPR in a Box™, the leading educational toolkit to teach gene editing, DECODR™, recognized as the most user-friendly and precise analytical tool to understand the diversity of genetic outcomes of gene editing and are currently developing a patient trial for lung cancer using CRISPR.
Ask an Expert - Are American Fan-Based Businesses at Risk for Decreased Revenue?
Modern fandom, according to Mike Lewis, is about having a passion for something—a sports team, entertainer, politician, fashion brand, a university—something. Lewis, professor of marketing and faculty director, Emory Marketing and Analytics Center (EmoryMAC) and host of the podcast, Fanalytics, considers fandom important because what people are fans of defines a modern culture. We can laugh at the sports fan with the painted face and the open shirt and the spikes on the sleeves, but the reality is, the traits that drive that level of enthusiasm and commitment are the traits that change the world outside of the arena. Mike Lewis, professor of marketing and director of EmoryMAC To better understand modern fandom and its effect on culture, Lewis, along with Yanwen Wang, Associate Professor of Marketing and Behavioral Science, and Canada Research Chair in Marketing Analytics, University of British Columbia, created EmoryMAC’s “Fandom Analytics Initiative.” The Fandom Analytics Initiative’s first report, Next Generation Fandom Survey, Generation Z: The Lost Generation of Male Sports Fans, published in September 2021, examines the results of a national survey the initiative commissioned. Nearly 1,400 people across four demographic groups—Generation Z, Millennials, Generation X and Baby Boomers—participated in the survey. Is Gen Z the Lost Generation of Male Sports Fans? The results reveal a somewhat troubling trend: Generation Z males (those born between 1990 and 2010) “seem to be increasingly indifferent and negative to traditional sports,” Lewis and Wang write in their report. “Generation Z’s relative lack of passion for sports and other categories is troubling for fandom-based businesses and a curiosity for those interested in the state of American society.” While only 23 percent of Generation Z defined themselves as “avid sports fans,” 42 percent of Millennials did, along with 33 percent of Gen Xers and 31 percent of Baby Boomers. Perhaps even more revealing is the percentage of respondents who considered themselves “anti-sports fans”—a startling 27 percent of Generation Z tagged themselves as “anti-sports” compared to 7 percent of Millennials, 5 percent of Gen X, and 6 percent of Baby Boomers. “That was unexpected,” says Lewis, who thought Generation Z would line up similar to Millennials, given that both groups are digital natives. “I’m still more and more surprised at how different Generation Z is than Millennials and, frankly, everyone else.” When Lewis and Wang took a look at the differences between male and female Generation Zers, things got even more interesting. In traditional sports categories (football, basketball, hockey, baseball, soccer), more Generation Z females defined themselves as “avid sports fans” than did their male counterparts. When it came to football, 20 percent of both Generation Z males and females described themselves as avid fans (the lowest percentage of all the demographic groups). But in every other traditional sport, Generation Z “avid sports fan” females outnumbered males by a discernable margin. Only when it came to eSports did Generation Z males outnumber Generation Z females. “I think there’s a very deep issue going on,” says Lewis. “Something fundamental has shifted.” The survey included questions about fandom-related psychological traits, specifically, community belonging and self-identity. On both, Generation Z males scored lower than Millennials. “The findings related to sports are particularly germane from a cultural perspective,” states the report. “Part of the lack of Generation Z fandom is due to younger individuals having less intense feelings of group belonging in general.” Beyond the Playing Field, How Does Loyalty Shine? While the report doesn’t take a deep dive into the psychology behind Generation Z’s fandom differences, it does note that Generation Z came of age during a time of “ubiquitous social media, dramatic demographic changes, and a hyper-partisan political environment,” they write. “These dramatic changes may fundamentally alter how members of Generation Z engage with cultural industries.” Overall, Millennials were shown to have the “highest preference across all sports,” according to the report. Millennials are not only willing to watch games, but they also enthusiastically wear team gear. Baby Boomers are up for watching games but are less interested in following teams on social media. As it turns out, note the authors, Generation Z isn’t totally disconnected. Across the entertainment categories, Generation Z is similar to other generations. “Sports fandom is the outlier,” they state. In addition to sports, Lewis and Wang looked at six other fandom segments: new and now celebrities, social justice culture, athletic excellence, old school personalities, brand fanatics, and Trump Fans. Lewis points to the fact that whatever one thinks of Donald Trump, he does generate fandom. “That passion for whatever it is—sports, politics, movies, music—that’s really what drives the world,” says Lewis. Because of its importance, fandom is, notes the study, “increasingly actively managed,” whether to garner viewers, money, or votes. Recent trends such as streaming across devices, the ubiquity of social media, an increase in demographic diversity (not to mention a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic), have affected mainstream sports and entertainment. As a result, Lewis believes it’s important to study how fans are changing across generations. Leagues, teams, networks, studios, celebrities, and others need to understand why there is less engagement to formulate strategies for acquiring the next generation of fans. Authors Mike Lewis and Yanwen Wang As sports leagues and teams see more growth opportunities with women and increasingly diverse fan bases, Lewis wonders if some sports teams may alienate their current fan bases by marketing to non-traditional groups. “If you’re a league or a team, you’ve got a real dilemma at this point,” he explains. “If the NFL wants positive press, it has to market to the non-traditional fan segments. If they do that, are the traditional fan segments going to be less interested? Perhaps.” EmoryMAC’s research on fandom in the modern age is ongoing. A study into how eSports’ fandom differs from traditional sports fandom is also in process—as is research on how younger demographic groups see colleges and universities as institutions worthy of fandom. EmoryMAC will continue to make data and insights available on its fandom analytics website. “Looking at the fandom and passion of young groups now will tell you a lot about what the world will look like in 20 years,” says Lewis. I suspect that the era of sports being a mass marketing product and also a cultural unifier is probably going to end. Mike Lewis While that strikes Lewis as sad, he and EmoryMAC are merely following the data. “It may be the reality of where this is going,” he adds. If you're a reporter looking to know more - then let us help. Professor Michael Lewis is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. In addition to exploring trends in the overall marketing landscape, Lewis is an expert in sports analytics and marketing. He is available for interview - simply click on his icon to arrange a discussion today.
Function – not fashion. What masks are the best to get behind when facing the risk of Omicron?
Omicron is here and it is spreading like wildfire across America and most of the globe. It’s highly transmissible and easily caught. For more than a year, most Americans have been taking on the simple approach of ‘masking up’ to contain any possible spread. People were using anything from surgical masks, N95s, cloth masks and even gators. Whatever could be used to provide a barrier around one’s nose and mouth. Cloth masks caught on, some even became fashion pieces – but as this most recent wave of COVID has shown, the type of mask is now just as important as the idea of simply covering up and looking good. “Cloth masks and things like that are very comfortable and they have good coverage on the face,” says Rodger D. MacArthur from the Medical College of Georgia. “But they don’t fit so tight and so air and any virus that’s in the air and come through the sides.” MacArthur who brings 20 years experience in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Augusta University says medical surgical masks are best for getting the most protection. "It’s not simply being so close to somebody that you sneeze on them, you splatter them with droplets. It’s in the air we’re breathing.” He just keeps a disposable one folded up in his pocket, but encourages the highest forms of protection you can find. Masks have been a popular and contentious topic during this pandemic and there’s a lot to know about this important topic – and if you are a reporter looking to cover this story – then let our experts help. Dr. Rodger MacArthur is a widely recognized expert in COVID-19, HIV antiretroviral therapy, resistance to antiretroviral drugs, and sepsis. He is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Social class has a significant role to play in career success in the United States. A growing body of research is shedding disquieting light on the extent to which working class Americans face discrimination in recruitment, pay and promotion – despite having a college degree. This demographic is up to four times less likely to get hired, 34% less likely to accede to leadership roles, and earns around 17% less on average than counterparts from middle or upper-class backgrounds. But while research is starting to document how class can impede or accelerate professional success, it remains unclear why these discrepancies exist. What are the mechanisms or dynamics at play that make it so much tougher for working class people to succeed than others? Goizueta Business School Assistant Professor of Organization & Management Andrea Dittmann has an interesting hypothesis. She believes that employees from different backgrounds can bring inherently different strengths and weaknesses to the workplace; advantages and disadvantages that speak to certain norms governing how we think about work and leadership. And it boils down, she says, to the way we work with others. “People from working-class backgrounds—those with blue-collar parents, who might be the first in their family to get a college degree—typically relate a certain way to other people. They are better connected to others, more team-like in their approach, than their middle-class counterparts who see themselves as more independent or unique,” says Dittmann. This team spirit could be working against lower-class employees, she says, in the sense that they see themselves or are perceived by bosses as being less adept at working autonomously or as individuals within organizations; and are therefore viewed by others as less poised to advance into roles of greater responsibility. On the flip side, this very capacity to work well with other people could actually give working class employees an advantage in team-based activities or cultures; an advantage that might translate into concrete benefits for organizations. To put this to the test, Dittmann conducted a series of studies aimed at unpacking how individuals perceive themselves within the context of work, and at the interactions that occur between employees and the workplace. Among these studies were qualitative interviews with MBA students from different social class backgrounds about their experiences navigating white-collar workplaces after graduating from college. She also ran a number of experiments to assess how well working-class people performed in teams and individually, and how environments that prioritize collaborative dynamics or interdependence might produce better experiences and outcomes for employees than environments geared to working individually or independently. A full article detailing Dittmann’s work is attached here and offers very compelling research showing how social class plays out in the workplace. It covers important aspects such as: The Catch-22 of Working Well with Others “It’s a kind of catch-22. Working class kids don’t make it into the gateway settings of school or college as much as middle-class kids in the U.S. They are significantly underrepresented in leading business schools like Goizueta, at roughly 15% of the student population,” she notes. “So, the higher-educational context—the talent pool for corporate America—is very much geared to a different social demographic and dynamic; one that inherently favors independent work ethics and approaches and sees them as the norm. Other ways of working, collaborating, and contributing risk are being undervalued as much as they are underrepresented.” When Considering Diversity, Companies Stand to Benefit “We know that companies that are more diverse perform better than others, and diversity needs to extend to social class. What my research and others are showing is that people from a working-class background tend towards behaviors that are more relational, that they are better at working together. If they fail to make it into the workforce in a more representative fashion, companies are basically missing out on opportunities to form better teams.” Faculty research like Dittmann’s is a critical element in Goizueta Business School’s drive to develop principled leaders who are better prepared to engage in the business of tomorrow. If you are interested in learning more, then let us help. Andrea G. Dittmann is an Assistant Professor of Organization & Management at the Goizueta Business School. She is an expert in the areas of diversity and inequality, particularly employees' social class backgrounds, aiming to promote equity and inclusion at work. Dr. Dittmann is available to speak with media about this research – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Gas boiler ban: how to make sure everyone can afford low-carbon heating
Most of us only think about central heating when it stops working or when the fuel bills arrive. So reports of an impending ban on gas boilers in the UK – and news that green alternatives such as heat pumps can cost over £10,000 – might have been a nasty shock for many. Most UK households rely on gas boilers, which are more efficient than ever, but still burn fossil fuels. As a result, domestic heating accounts for over a third of greenhouse gas emissions and almost half of energy consumption nationwide. Tackling climate change means changing how we heat our homes. But this is possible without turning warmth and comfort into unaffordable luxuries. Our research has looked at how business models can break this trade-off between people and the planet. One involves reimagining heating as a service. When buying a boiler, a customer typically pays someone to buy and install it. They then sign a contract with an energy company to provide the fuel and find another service provider to fix the boiler when it breaks down. Wouldn’t it be simpler to sign one contract with one company that could guarantee a steady supply of heat? A manufacturer would be responsible for installing the heating system and for ensuring it works. Since the manufacturer would be paid for delivering heat, you wouldn’t be billed for repairs or have to pay steep upfront installation costs – you’d simply have to keep up with flat monthly payments. By aligning the objectives of all parties, “heat as a service” allows the risks and rewards of investing in new technologies like heat pumps to be shared. Fuelling poverty Low-carbon technologies such as heat pumps can go a long way to achieving net zero targets. Unlike a boiler, heat pumps move heat from warm to cold spaces rather than generate it, operating in a similar way to air conditioning. Heat pumps run on electricity and can reduce greenhouse gas emissions if their power comes from low-carbon sources. Waste heat from sewage plants and other facilities can even be redirected to supply home central heating systems with the right infrastructure, such as district heat networks. But most UK homes have gas on tap, and new heating technologies are expensive to install and manage. Much of the required infrastructure needs to be funded. Heat pumps decarbonise home heating by replacing fossil fuel burning boilers. I AM NIKOM/Shutterstock Over two million households in England suffer from fuel poverty. This means that paying fuel bills would leave them with nothing left over for food and other necessities. More efficient, low-carbon heating can bring those bills down, but when faced with the decision to heat or eat, is it fair to expect people to invest in expensive technology? If these technologies are unaffordable, can we hope for the needed revolution in domestic heating? The slow adoption of rooftop solar panels and electric cars demonstrates what a hard sell these technologies can be for cash-strapped consumers. Technology is not enough. Instead, we need to change the business logic for bringing technology into our homes. Heat as a service Digital technology has made it easier for almost everything we use, from music to cars and clothing, to be delivered as a service. Record stores selling albums now compete with online streaming services which offer a vast library of music ready to be played with a monthly subscription. Taxi drivers and car dealers have had to adjust to ride-sharing services and even fast-fashion companies are now threatened by online rental services, which help old clothes find new purpose. Businesses offer software as a service and even manufacturing as a service, which take away the need for upfront investment and unexpected bills and allow customers to access and pay for what they need with a single fee or subscription. Heat as a service does something similar by cutting out the complexity of installing, maintaining and fuelling a boiler or heat pump. In the winter of 2017, over 100 UK homes were offered a heat plan, which guaranteed an indoor temperature for an arranged monthly fee. Customers often struggle to keep track of how much they spend on heating, so the plan offered some peace of mind. The trial involved collaboration between local authorities, an energy company and a boiler manufacturer, plus digital tool providers that helped monitor and control the temperature. Most participants found they were more comfortable and were more likely to consider low-carbon heating on its own, and particularly as part of an arrangement like heat as a service. Paying for heating technologies that are kinder to the planet is likely to be too expensive for lots of people. Relying on households to make these preparations on their own would also be disastrous for decarbonisation. A recent report by the International Energy Agency forecasted that less than 5% of the total emissions reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050 can be expected to come from such behaviour changes among the general public. Rather than expecting households to buy heat pumps, states and energy utilities should offer them low-carbon heating as a service. This article was co-written by Ahmad Beltagui, Andreas Schroeder, and Omid Omidvar, of Aston University
Find out how GSU is fighting fast fashion and promoting sustainability with students on campus
Sustainability Programs at Georgia Southern University recently teamed up with student organization Fashion Menagerie, a group of fashion merchandising and apparel design students, to fight fast fashion by hosting the first campus thrift store on the Statesboro Campus. Fast fashion is a textile trend where clothes are mass-produced to be quickly sold and thrown away. “Tons of textile waste gets dumped from people throwing away their clothes, even the ones that are lightly used, but more clothing is constantly being produced,” said Geneisa Ragin, president of Fashion Menagerie. “This thrift store can help our campus prevent that increase of waste and give students a sustainable way to donate and shop that can discourage fast fashion production.” Cami Sockow, Sustainability Programs coordinator, said in addition to being wasteful, fast fashion is often characterized by poor work conditions, such as underpayment, child labor, physical and verbal abuse, and working long hours. “The social costs of fast fashion are immensely under discussed,” Sockow said. “We largely leave out the social conversation when we discuss sustainability, but this is a great example of how many social costs ensue with our addiction to consumption. So while we pay a low economic cost, we need to start asking ourselves if it is worth the social and environmental ones.” Clothing donors received shopping credits at the thrift store for each item they donate. The thrift store also gave shopping credits for donations of nonperishable food items, hygiene products and cleaning supplies to the Eagle Essentials Food Pantry. On campus programs like this provide perspective and lived experiences from students and faculty – and if you are a journalist looking to know more about Georgia Southern’s Sustainability Programs – then let us help. Cami Sockow and Geneisa Ragin are available for interviews — simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to set and time and date.
