Businesses “Going Green” is so commonplace now it’s more than just an encouraging a trend; it’s become expected of companies big and small. In fact, consumers frequently place more of an obligation on companies to go green than they do themselves. The last few years—the infancy of what may turn out to be a green revolution—have really proven that there are many ways to go green, and that some of these ways are much more financially sound than others. But rather than providing a cut and dry list of green options and their pros and cons, I’d like to take a look at the bigger picture incentives for businesses going green and how consumers are responding.

What does it mean to be green?

As someone who works in many facets of the music industry, I used to seethe with a mixture of anger and jealousy when I would hear people in more “traditional” goods-based industries argue in favor of music content-based piracy. They made all the classic talking points, like “I wouldn’t spend money on this artist normally, and maybe if I like it I’ll spend money on them when they come to town” (which never happened), or “artists are rich and I’m poor, they don’t need my money” (rarely the case), or the worst, “if it were fairly priced and worth paying for, I’d buy it” (not true).  I always wondered if they’d have the same attitude if 63% of the things acquired by customers in their industries weren’t actually paid for, as was conservatively estimated as the case for the music industry in 2009 (other estimations put the figure of pirated music at 95%). Well, we may soon see the answer to curiosities like that. Though one can say with tentative confidence that music piracy is on the decline thanks to services like Spotify and Rdio, it could be looming on the horizon for the entire global, physical supply chain. Yes, I’m talking about 3d printers.

Before I get into the heart of this article, let me take a moment to make one thing clear: I think these machines are incredible. It’s damn near inspiring to think of even a few of their potentially world-changing applications: affordable, perfectly fit prosthetic limbs for wounded servicemen and women; the ability to create a piece of machinery on the spot instead of having to wait for a spare to arrive in the mail, or en route if your car or ship breaks down in a far away place; a company based out of Austin, TX even made a fully functioning firearm from a 3d printer a few months ago.

If these machines become as consumer-friendly and idiot-proof as possible (like computers), it’s possible that in a matter of decades (maybe less), a majority of U.S. households will have their own 3d printer. There’s also the possibility they could take the tech-hobbyist path, one that is much less appealing to the masses. Dale Dougherty of Makezine.com estimates there are currently around 100,000 “personal” 3d printers, or those not owned for business or educational purposes. I don’t think they’ll ever be as ubiquitous as computers, but there are plenty of mechanically inclined, crafty hobbyists out there who would love to play around with a 3d printer if it was affordable enough.

That being said, is there reason to worry about the economic implications of consumers making what they want, essentially for free, instead of paying someone else to produce it? Or will the printers instead be used for unique items more so than replicating and ripping off other companies’ merchandise in mass amounts? The number of people working in industries that would be affected by a development like this is far greater than the number of people who work in content-based industries, so any downturn would probably have a much larger economic implications. Certainly, those times are a ways off, but a little foresightedness never hurt anyone!

I remember the day like it was yesterday. Pac Man had finally arrived on the Atari 2600.  It was a clear and sunny day, but it was slightly brisk. My dad drove us down to the video store about three miles from our Michigan house. If I remember correctly, the price for the game was $24.99.  It was quite expensive for the day, probably equaling a $70 game in today’s market, but it was mine. There *was* no question about it. If you purchase a game, it’s your game… right?

You couldn’t be more wrong.  With all the licensing agreements in games today, you only purchase the right to play it. You don’t actually “own” the game. 

Today, game designers want total control over the money that comes in for a game. They add in clauses that keep the game from being resold, rented, borrowed, copied, etc. All of the content in the game, including the items you find that are specifically for you, are owned by the software developer. Why, you ask, do they do this? It’s all about the money.

This need for greed started years ago, when people started modifying current games on the market. One of the first games like this was Doom. There were so many third part mods made, but because of licensing agreement, none of these versions were available for resale. The end user, or you, had to purchase Doom before they could even install the mod.  None of these “modders” were allowed to make any money off their creation.

The world of technology moves faster than the speed of light it seems. Devices are updated and software upgraded annually and sometimes more frequent than that.  Society wants to be able to function and be as productive as they can be as well as be entertained “now”.

Software companies must be ready to meet the demands of their loyal customers while increasing their market share among new customers. These companies are always looking to the ingenuity and creativity of their colleagues to keep them in the consumer’s focus. But, who are these “colleagues”? Are they required to be young, twenty-somethings that are fresh out of college with a host of ideas and energy about software and hardware that the consumer may enjoy? Or can they be more mature with a little more experience in the working world and may know a bit more about the consumer’s needs and some knowledge of today’s devices?

Older candidates for IT positions face many challenges when competing with their younger counterparts. The primary challenge that most will face is the ability to prove their knowledge of current hardware and the development and application of software used by consumers. Candidates will have to prove that although they may be older, their knowledge and experience is very current. They will have to make more of an effort to show that they are on pace with the younger candidates.

Another challenge will be marketing what should be considered prized assets; maturity and work experience. More mature candidates bring along a history of work experience and a level of maturity that can be utilized as a resource for most companies. They are more experienced with time management, organization and communication skills as well as balancing home and work. They can quickly become role models for younger colleagues within the company.

Unfortunately, some mature candidates can be seen as a threat to existing leadership, especially if that leadership is younger. Younger members of a leadership team may be concerned that the older candidate may be able to move them out of their position. If the candidate has a considerably robust technological background this will be a special concern and could cause the candidate to lose the opportunity.

Demonstrating that their knowledge or training is current, marketing their experience and maturity, and not being seen as a threat to existing leadership make job hunting an even more daunting task for the mature candidate. There are often times that they are overlooked for positions for these very reasons. But, software companies who know what they need and how to utilize talent will not pass up the opportunity to hire these jewels.

 Related:

H-1B Visas, the Dance Between Large Corporations and the Local IT Professional

Is a period of free consulting an effective way to acquire new business with a potential client?