Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. Being aware of how you use your resources is important, not just for saving the earth and resources, but for saving you money.

The good news is that many “green” tips are easy to implement into your daily life. Some of these include energy and money saving tips, the relationship between conservation and frugal living, using a programmable thermostat, and more. Today I want to focus on one more small tip that can help you save money and reduce waste: reusable filters.

Use reusable filters to save money and resources

It sounds like such a small thing, and almost not worth doing, but using reusable filters can actually save you a substantial amount of money and will reduce the amount of waste you produce. The main types of reusable filters I have used are reusable air filters for your car, reusable air filters for your home, and reusable coffee filters.

K&N Air Filters. My favorite car filters are made by K&N. They are reusable and with care will easily last the lifespan of your vehicle – even if you install it right after you roll it off the show room floor. I was skeptical the first time I heard about them and it took me a couple years before I actually bought one. I wasn’t concerned about weather or not it could be reused; I just wasn’t certain I would get my $40 worth out of it, or that it would make a noticeable performance difference (some air filters claim to boost horsepower by 5-15HP).

I drove beaters for a long time and finally purchased a K&N air filter when I bought my first relatively new car (a Toyota Tacoma). The air filter needed changed, so I figured “what the heck, I’ll have this car a few years.” So I bought the K&N air filter and noticed a big difference when I started the car. Part of that was from removing the old air filter, but the performance did seem more improved than I anticipated. I drove that car for another couple years and removed, cleaned, and oiled the K&N air filter several times before I traded in the vehicle for a new car. I will probably use K&N filters in my car from now on. There is a larger up front cost, but the long term benefits are well worth it. You can find them at most auto parts stores, including Advance Auto Parts, Auto Parts Warehouse, and more.

Reusable home air filters. K&N doesn’t make air filters for home use, but maybe they should – I would love to add a little horsepower to my AC unit in the summertime! Reusable home air filters can be found in just about any home improvement store, Wal-Mart, etc. They won’t quite last you the life of your house, but they do have a longer life span than traditional air filters, and the added cost is minimal.

Reusable coffee filters. I am a coffee drinker – I drink it black and strong (strangely enough, I didn’t drink coffee until I started blogging…). I recently bought a new coffee maker and I purchased a reusable filter with it. There are a few benefits to reusable coffee filters – the first is the convenience of never running out of those little paper coffee filters. The second, is the cost. A reusable coffee filter costs about 1.5 – 2 times as much as a pack of paper filters. If you frequently drink coffee then a reusable filter will pay for itself in less than a year. Most importantly, the taste is better. paper coffee filters retain some of the oils in coffee, which are essential to the coffee’s flavor. There is one downside, however. Reusable coffee filters do require cleaning, whereas you can simply remove a paper filter and toss it in the trash. But this is far outweighed by the benefits of reusable coffee filters – improved flavor, convenience, and cost savings.

Save money, save the earth. Winning combination.

Earth Day comes around once a year, but these little tips can save you money year round without making a huge impact in your daily routine – other than saving you time and money. And that is a winning combination in my book!

photo credit: barunpatro.

~$~

This article written by Ryan Guina. Ryan is the founder and editor of this site. He is a writer, small business owner, entrepreneur, and professional in the corporate world. He served over 6 years in the USAF and also writes about military money topics at Military Finance Network.

All content copyright Cash Money Life.

No related posts.

GOOGLE INC. (NASDAQ:GOOG) will begin making announcements about its financial performance solely through its investor relations website, making it the most prominent company to take advantage of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissions (SECs) guidance on using company websites for disclosure under Regulation FD.

Almost all North American public companies currently distribute their earnings announcements and other investor disclosures through paid PR wire services that syndicate full-text releases to hundreds of media and Internet outlets. They do so even though the SEC ruled in August 2008 that postings on company websites alone can meet its fair disclosure requirements if they abide by certain standards.

Google broke with the PR wire service distribution tradition for its April 15 earnings release when it issued a short advisory via a paid PR wire service informing investors to visit the companys investor relations website to obtain the full earnings announcement. The advisory release approach, which we first recommended in 2007, has been adopted by at least two three other U.S. companies, BGC Partners (NASDAQ:BGCP), Reis, Inc. (Nasdaq:REIS), and Expedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:EXPE), which plans to use the process again April 29.

Googles IR website has long been recognized channel

However, Google also announced in its advisory release that it intends to make future announcements regarding its financial performance exclusively through its investor relations website. This suggests the company will no longer issue advisory releases and instead rely solely on its recently revamped investor relations website as a disclosure channel.

Google issued this advisory release informing investors to visit its IR website for the full earnings announcement

In its 2008 guidance on the use of corporate websites for disclosure, the SEC made it clear that companies could only use their websites for disclosure if their websites were a recognized channel for investors. It also provided a list of non-exclusive factors for companies to consider when evaluating whether their websites and their investors were ready for web-based disclosure.

I have long believed that Googles investor relations website is the recognized channel for its investors. This is because for the past several quarters online commentary about the companys results on news websites and blogs has almost always included links to the earnings information on Googles investor relations website rather than to news releases posted on wire service partner websites.

Links to a page are the primary measure of authority on the Internet. In fact, Google uses links to a web page in its search algorithm to determine which pages should be most prominent in its search results.

Companies that continue to use full-text PR wire releases for their investor announcements are in effect hampering their ability to claim recognized channel status for their own websites.

Real-time news distribution now free and open source

It is also relevant that Google enables investors to receive information direct from the company via email alerts and several RSS feeds. Importantly, one of the web feeds pushes out real-time updates to subscribers who use feed readers that support the open source Pubsubhubbub protocol developed by two Google engineers.

Unlike normal web feeds, which require subscribers to check the feed for updates at regular intervals typically hourly Pubsubhubbub-enabled feeds tell subscribers when new information is available and information can be distributed within seconds of it becoming available.

This typically results in information being distributed faster and more evenly than via paid PR wire services, which typically have delays of 1 to 7 minutes depending on how investors access the wire service.

Any web feed publisher can use Pubsubhubbub at no cost. IR Web Report has been using the protocol for several months and support for the protocol continues to grow across major web publishing companies and services.

Media and blogs shrug off the move

After Google issued its advisory release and made its announcement about using its website exclusively for future disclosures, I made a special effort to find any negative commentary about the move in news media and blog coverage of the results. No one commented on the change, but several did remark on the fact that Googles CEO Eric Schmidt was no longer attending the earnings calls.

This tells me that the move to website-only disclosure is a non-issue for the media, analysts and the investing public. However, that does not mean there will not be criticism of Google from some quarters.

Reuters journalists have in the past been critics of web-based disclosure. Parent Thomson Reuters owns the Hugin PR wire service in Europe and plans to bring the service to North America this year.

Meanwhile, Berkshire Hathaway-owned Business Wire has told companies that it will not distribute their advisory releases. Google was a Business Wire client, but switched to Market Wire immediately prior to issuing its April 15 advisory release.

Update April 16: As I predicted, Reuters again chimed in with an article headlined “Google’s unorthodox press release raises questions.” The article is poorly researched and contains errors such as saying that the SEC requires “notice-and-access” releases, which it does not. The article also failed to mention that Thomson Reuters owns Hugin and therefore is conflicted in its views on companies using their websites rather than paid PR wires.

The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing announced this week they will be updating the $100 bill, which is the most frequently used and circulated form of US currency outside of the US. This is the first update to the $100 bill since 1996 and the latest in a series of updates to other US notes, including the new $5 bill, $10 bill, $20, and $50. The new $100 bill is not expected to go into circulation until February 2011.

Fun fact: an estimated 2/3 of all $100 bills in circulation are used outside the United States. It is also the most frequently counterfeited US bill outside the US (the $20 bill is the most frequently counterfeited bill within the US).

New $100 Bill Security Features

The new $100 bills are the most advanced bills the US has produced to date. Visit the interactive notes page at NewMoney.gov for a hands on view of the new $100 bill. Or check out the new features here:

3-D Security Ribbon. There is a blue security ribbon that runs vertically through the new $100 bill. When the bill is tilted, the ribbon alternates between showing 100s and the Liberty Bell. When the bill is tilted from side to side they move up and down and when the bill is tilted back and forth they move side to side.

Bell in the inkwell. The new $100 bill features color shifting ink. The inkwell in the bottom right of the bill has a Liberty Bell embedded in it and both appear to be copper color from the front. As you shift the bill, the Liberty Bell appears to change to a green color and the inkwell remains a copper color, making it seem as though the bell is disappearing.

Additional security features on new $100 bill

• Portrait watermark. There is currently a watermark on the $100 bill. This can be seen on both sides of the bill.
• Embedded security thread. This is different from the new 3-D security thread which is located to the right of the portrait. This security thread is located left of the portrait and is similar to the current security thread. It glows pink under UV light.
• Color shifting 100. Located in the bottom right corner, the color shifting ink changes from copper to green in color, similar to the bell in the inkwell.
• Large 100 on reverse side. The large 100 on the reverse side of the bill will help those with some visual impairments. I didn’t see it mentioned anywhere, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the 100 features microprinting.
• Microprinting. There are multiple placements of microprinting on the new bill; these are difficult to forge.
• Raised printing. The new $100 bills feature an enhanced intaglio printing technique that results in raised printing, giving the bill a unique texture.

Here is a video from the U.S. Currency channel on YouTube:

What do you think about the new $100 bill?

images courtesy of NewMoney.gov.

~$~

This article written by Ryan Guina. Ryan is the founder and editor of this site. He is a writer, small business owner, entrepreneur, and professional in the corporate world. He served over 6 years in the USAF and also writes about military money topics at Military Finance Network.

All content copyright Cash Money Life.

No related posts.

Facebook Page or Facebook Group? Which way to go and which way not to go? As a part of advertising strategy, Facebook has launched its pages, and this has remarkably confused the people all across the globe. There has been confusion on the very essence of the use of Facebook Page and Facebook Group, especially, if one looks into the overlapping feature sets contained in both of them. Further, Facebook is recurrently changing the Page Functions, making the things even worse for the users. Whats more, even many of the senior social media marketing consultants are in the state of complete perplex on telling the clients whether Facebook Page or Facebook Group is better for their business activity.

How a Facebook Page Looks and how it is BetterOr is it Really Better?

A Facebook Page is ideally created for the audience who want to associate with the brands and the artists. In addition, you can also recommend the brands or the famous artists in your Facebook Page to you acquaintances or other people and friends. This helps in not only popularizing the brands and artists, but also you in person. When you personally associate with the brand and become its fan, the information is posted on the wall. By viewing Info Tab of Personal profile of the respective fans, you can easily check out, the Facebook pages that your friends are fan of. It is easy to create a Facebook Fan Page, by simply connecting to facebook.com/pages/create.php and then creating a new page. A Facebook Fan Page has two walls, one on which the Page owner writes, and the other wall is dedicated to Fans to pen down their messages.

Keep in mind that one or two fans connected to your fan page will not create any value for your Facebook Fan Page. More the quality of fans more would be the popularity. Similar to the Facebook Profile Page, a Facebook Fan Page has the tabs to hide or unhide information. In generic sense, one can see Facebook pages as the customized and interactive way to communicate.

Now, how a Facebook Group Functions? Is It Effective than Facebook Page?

Groups are different from Facebook Fan Page. A group is created by following the link at facebook.com/groups/create.php. You can set the permission to the groups so that the group is Free Open for discussion to anyone, or closed (prior administrator approval is necessary), or secret (where you send the invite.). A Facebook Group has the administrators who approve the applicants and send invitations to others to join. In addition, administrators appoint the officers. Administrators have an important role to play as they invite the members to connect through the Facebook mail and email, besides; public groups can be connected through Facebook search.

There are many factors that are responsible which make Facebook Groups and Facebook Page better and efficient. Some of these factors include Emails, Updates, User Control, Applications and many more. In general sense, Facebook Groups are good for creating small level online interactions for or against the cause, and Facebook Pages on the other hand are good options for brands, businesses, bands, movies, or celebrities for interacting with their fans or customers.

Therefore, both, Facebook Groups and Facebook Pages are better in their very own professional sense and the scope of usability.

Related posts:

1. Like replaces Become a Fan button on Facebook Fan Page
2. Tips for promoting newly created Facebook Fan Page
3. 10 Tips to Create a Killer Facebook Fan Page

REUTERS, the news division of information services giant Thomson Reuters, has published an ill-informed, inaccurate and one-sided article about Google Inc.s (NASDAQ: GOOG) announcement that it will use its website rather than paid PR wires to distribute its financial results.

I predicted this would happen in the post I wrote immediately after Google made its Q1 2010 earnings announcement on April 15. I made that prediction based on past experience with Reuters coverage of other companies that have made similar moves before Google, such as here and here.

In the most recent article, Reuters does what in my past life as a journalist wouldnt pass muster for quality journalism. The article is poorly researched and, most importantly, an obvious conflict between Reuters parent Thomson Reuters and the subject matter is not disclosed.

Here is a rundown of the problems with the article:

Failure to disclose that Thomson Reuters owns a PR wire service and stands to lose money if more companies follow Googles lead

Just seven months ago, Thomson Reuters bought European PR wire service Hugin Group BV from NYSE Euronext for an undisclosed sum. In December, Thomson Reuters announced that it plans to expand Hugins operations internationally, including to the U.S. in 2010.

But if more companies start using their websites instead of third-party PR wire services, there wont be much business for Hugin in the already crowded disclosure wire market. Hugin must contend with four U.S. competitors including PR Newswire, Business Wire, Market Wire and Globe Newswire, owned by NASDAQ OMX.

The Hugin acquisition being so recent, youd think that this would be a relevant fact for Reuters to include in its article, which is mostly about PR wire services being hurt if more companies follow Googles lead.

But it is not mentioned at all. I can only speculate as to why. Its either shoddy reporting and editing, or the article is not unbiased, or both.

The article is inaccurate and full of ridiculous contentions

The Reuters piece states that when Google issued an advisory release via Market Wire on April 15 urging investors to visit its investor relations website for the full earnings announcement, the company was delivering something called notice and access to investors. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires this, having ruled in 2008 that U.S. companies may use their websites to distribute market-sensitive information.

First, notice-and-access is a process for delivering annual meeting materials and has never been used by the SEC in connection with news releases. And second, the SEC does not require companies to issue any news releases via a paid PR wire service, much less advisory releases. They are one of several options, but not a requirement. Companies can file 8-K reports with the SEC or they can use their websites if that is their established channel for company disclosures.

There are also these two ridiculous statements in the Reuters piece. These arent attributed to anyone so I guess they are either the reporters opinions or the views of Reuters and its parent.

The first one:

The [advisory release] statement posed a brief obstacle for the media, analysts and others hungry for Google’s numbers. It may also suggest the company is headed down a road that could hurt companies that distribute press releases, and that some worry could disadvantage some investors.

That brief obstacle Reuters refers to is that people had to click on a link. Hundreds of millions of people click on dozens of links on the web every day and we never think of them as obstacles. Its ridiculous. Whats more, the statement isnt attributed to anyone. Its Reuters comment. They see links as obstacles.

The second ridiculous statement:

However, some worry that this trend may harm individual and less-sophisticated investors who cannot access the blogs and websites as quickly as professionals. Others worry that not everyone will get the information.

These unattributed statements — who exactly is the “some” who worry? — make absolutely no sense. Since when do Wall Street analysts have an advantage over average Internet users in accessing blogs and websites? Do they have special types of browsers or something that no one knows about?

The fact is, PR wires are unfair. Big Wall Street firms and hedge funds that pay for direct access to a PR wire services feed can get breaking news 1 to 7 minutes before the rest of the market. That enables them to trade on the information before the rest of us. And dont forget, Thomson Reuters makes a lot of money distributing news to the financial services industry.

But as I wrote in my April 15 post, Google offers email alerts to investors and has a real-time pubsubhubbub-enabled feed that is a fairer way to distribute its information to everyone at the same time.

Its one-sided

Only one source is quoted in the article, Scott Mozarsky, PRNewswire’s executive vice president of commercial operations. The article says that representatives from Google, Business Wire, and Market Wire did not immediately comment.

But what Reuters does not say is that Google, Business Wire and Market Wire were contacted very late on the night of April 15. The article itself first ran at 1:00am on April 16. However, in the time that has been available to Reuters to get additional comment and update its article, no update has been forthcoming.

Lastly, I will point out that I was available on the night of April 15 but no one from Reuters tried to contact me. My article was easy to find if Reuters bothered to look.

No one else cares

In the hours after Google reported its results, I went through every article about the results that was highlighted on Techmeme. Not one of the publications even mentioned Google was changing to web-based disclosure, and no one said anything about the obstacle that Reuters highlights.

Investors, the public, the media and the bloggers who follow Google dont have a problem with Google using its IR website to report its results. The only outlet that has a problem is Reuters.

And they have a vested interest in making sure theres a problem.