The Death of Marketing (Capital letters appropriate)

I've just been to a workshop where the lecturer told us marketing as we know it will soon cease to exist! Yippee! That's me looking for another job, then. Well, not quite. I'm in PR, an industry which is in its own crisis (Thank you, Alistair Campbell and friends). But marketing and PR is mixed up in the same conspiracy: Big Business Wants Your Money.
Still, unlike a lot of these marketing events, this one was very interesting. In the US there are now websites where kids join up and compare their sneakers (trainers to us). That might immediately prompt a lot of head-scratching, but think about it. When I was a kid I remember being very conscious of how "good" my trainers were. They had to be a certain level, a certain brand. This meant buying them first and comparing them on the playing fields. God help if I got it wrong. Now the little darlings are discussing them on a website first, before they pester mum and dad to go buy.
Where does marketing fit into that?
The best use of social sites is coming out of Thailand. Let's say a new, top-of-the-range camera is coming out. A bunch of camera geeks "meet" on a social site and organise to go to a shop on a certain day at a certain time. They can turn up in their 100s. They say to the store owner: "We will all buy this camera, now, if you give us a discount." Of course, the store owner's about to sell 100s of cameras in one day. He'll give a discount.
Brilliant. Wholesale for the consumer.
But where does marketing fit into that?

Random rant 1: The phrase "up in arms" appears in every edition of every local newspaper throughout the UK. Stop it! It's archaic. No one uses the phrase any more, except you.

The Death of Marketing is actually good news for PR, in my view. Here's the distinction between the two: Marketing works for profit, PR works for reputation (but when mixed with politics it becomes spin). If we're saying more and more people are going to buy, or use services, based on the experiences and feedback of others who have bought that product, or used that service, then reputation will count for much more than advertising. The marketing guru at the workshop said "value" would be the key - what value, benefit, feeling, kudos - does buying that product or service give to a consumer. I would argue that a company with a good, ethical reputation is central to that value.

Random rant 2: The changing definition of the word "workshop." From: A place where traditional crafstmen and women created their wares. To: A venue where a learned person gets his or her audience to do their job for them.
Stop it! That's not a workshop! It's a lesson. It's a classroom. It's learning.

Random rants 3 and 4 (shared with Keith Waterhouse, admittedly): "Meteoric rise." Because that's what meteors do, right? "Scooped a prize." What sort of prize would you scoop, exactly?
STOP IT!

I've lost the plot now.

Capital Punishment

AGHHHHHHH!!!
Why is it when People are Describing Their Role At Work they have to Explain it as though it is a Proper Noun?
Example: "I work in HR and my Role is to Report on Complaints as well as Manage Sickness Absence."
Well, goody. You can start by Managing this Complaint and my Sickness of Capital Letters.

I'm attending the Newborough Forest Liaison Partnership this evening. That's a proper noun for a proper title, by the way. Even so, I will be forced to read reports more slowly than usual, thanks to the abundance of capital letters.

i might start a campaign for the abolition of capital letters, on the following grounds:
people don't know how to use them anyway
we don't have them in email addresses
if there is a full stop, or the sentence starts on a new line, do we really need a capital letter?
"prime minister gordon brown" somehow looks more appropriate

now look what these damn capital letters have done. they've got me started on politics.

Pea pull who rely on word processor spell cheques

Have ewe noticed sum times when ewe reed sum thing that the spelling is awl over the plaice but the words are reel enough? Well come to the lazy pea pull who rely on spell cheques.

This phone omen on is very a parent inn the BBC mess age boards, wear ewe all ready no eye spend rather two much of my thyme. Simple frays is like "counsel tacks" and "my grey shun polo sees" cause awl kinds of difficult tees for folk who clear lea cannot spell fore toff fee, butt are guy did buy there spell cheques. It beg errs be leaf.

The pea pull who inn vented spell cheque soft where shudder known it wood lead too this Malays and create a pop ewe lay shun ignore rant inn the core wrecked ewes of lang wage.

Dam! My spell cheque says "lang" is knot a word.

And the point of Facebook is?

OK, I'll hold my hands up. I have an "account" with Facebook. For this I get a page with details about me that I can share (favourite movies, favourite music and so on) with, er, others. I can have friends. I can send people a beer, and have an animated fish tank on my page, and take part in ditzy word games in something loosely referred to as a "network."

I won't be the first to point this out, and nor will I be the last, but Facebook is just the latest website demonstrating how the internet is still desperately trying to bring us all together. And failing. Web 2, they call it. Web 1 was all about having advertising space on a computer. Web 2 is about people talking to each other. The distinction is rapidly vanishing, as I work in the marketing industry and I know the people who did Web 1 advertising are working out how to sell their wares via Facebook, MySpace and all the other Web 2 fads currently doing the rounds. You're being sold to every second that you're online.

And what are people talking about? Facebook will either delight you or frustrate you. Take a quick look and you'll soon see a bunch of people typing things to kill time. It's literally as random as that. There may be people using it for business, or arranging meetings, or dating even, but i'll be damned if I can see it. It's just a glorified chat room. And just like it's predecessor, which has got a bad press thanks to paedophiles, it will become a cyber-dinosaur once the next Web 2 (or Web 3?) application finds its way from some computer nerd's bedroom to www-dom.

Does Facebook bring us together? No. It simply serves to remind us that once upon a time we used to meet up and play word games face-to-face, using little plastic tiles with letters on them and foldaway scoreboards, rather than sitting on our own bashing on a keyboard. Does it make our lives better? No. It's no more than a diversion, and don't we have enough of those already? Is it interesting? No. The novelty of seeing ourselves on the internet has already worn off.

Long before Facebook sells-out for commercial gain, we'll have moved on to something just as useless.

The Rising Tide of Media Mayhem

I had 20 minutes until deadline and the news editor told me that my story was going to be the front page splash.

This induced a horror in me like I'd never felt before. Previously I'd chatted to the mother and father of a 12-year-old who, a day earlier, had melted his brain with a heavy session of glue sniffing. I'd listened to a single mum whose only child, a victim of some obscure disease, lay in a coffin in the centre of the living room where we sat with a cup of tea. No horror here. Just my best attempt at dignity, and 100-words-a-minute shorthand.

I filed this front page splash, knowing full well it wasn't front page material but too terrified to say so (since we had nothing else), and I duly got the news editor on the line seconds later. He said: "Can you put some top-spin on it?"

I saw the recent BBC TV coverage of the tidal surge and predictions of flooding that was set to wipe out vast swathes of East Anglia, and this phrase, "Can you put some top-spin on it?" came back to haunt me.

I put "top-spin" on my story and, through the pressure of having to make something up to make a small story a big story, misquoted someone. We had to print an apology to avoid getting sued and I nearly lost my job. I never told anyone that I'd been asked to put "top-spin" on it. I reckon someone owes me one.

Anyway, it occurs to me that journalists have a new rule. This rule is very similar to the "top-spin" argument. It is no longer enough to tell the news as it happens. Now they have to tell the news before it happens. It involves guesswork, and adds more weight to the phrase, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

News has evolved in three stages. First we had news after the event had occurred. Then we had news as it was happening. Now, heralded spectacularly by the BBC's coverage of the catastrophic flood that wasn't, we have news that's going to happen shortly. And there's going to be more of it. Why? Well, anyone charged with the task of raising the alarm to protect the public is going to do so more frequently and more openly, for fear of being criticised for not doing enough. So journalists will get plenty of warnings of impending disaster. The words "precaution" and "vigilance" might define the 21st century.

Journalists are a dwindling breed. The bloggers, the PRs, the man in the street with the video camera on his mobile phone are the new generation of reporters. So it's not enough for journalists to report on something as it's happening. We're already there. They have to beat us to it. Be better informed. Be the first one to say it.

Journalism has always been this way, of course. But reporting on news before it happens will only lead to gross exaggeration, "sexing-up", adding "top-spin" - whatever you want to call it. The only question is, how many East-Anglia-flooding-catastrophies-that-never-were will it take before the six o'clock news turns into an interactive "push the red button to choose the manner of your death" with some macabre Mystic Meg?

Kill Ed!

Don't you just hate that?

You're in the middle of a perfectly decent, interesting, well-written article (not at all like this one! - Ed) when some interfering old git called Ed (watch who you call Ed! - Ed) keeps interrupting with unfunny comments that break the flow of the piece (ok, I'll stop interrupting now - Ed).

In keeping with this blog's balanced view of the world, there's only one thing for it.

KILL ED!

"In a world where there are no scriptwriters..."

I received feedback from a business proposal the other day. Usually we get comments like, "Why have you included this?" and "Why haven't you said that?"

This particular feedback contained advice on grammar and use of English.

I was appalled, as you can imagine. One piece of advice was, "There's no such word as 'won't'."

Sadly, I'm one of those people who, as soon as someone says, "Did you close the front door when you left?" has to check that I did. So now, faced with troubling doubt over the validity of my self-proclaimed linguistic prowess, I was really wondering if there was no such word as "won't."

It brought back memories of sullen Sunday afternoons, rolling sprouts around a gravy-soaked plate, hiding them under the stripped bones of pork chops, face pulled, and my mother barking, "There's no such word as 'can't'!"

Both "can't" and "won't" are there in the dictionary, of course. But then so is "godammit", and that's never been a word in my book (what book?).

Even so, it was right and proper that following this mighty victory I had a rant in the office, finishing with a polite email in reply, along the lines of, "I won't be drawn into a lecture on English" and "Come back to me, won't you?" though resisting the temptation of using bold type.

Speaking of bold, it's good to hear that the people who the make the Hollywood stars - scriptwriters - are striking. They want a bigger slice of the pie from DVD sales. Is this an opportunity for scribes on this side of the pond to get their work in front of studio execs?

I'd love to write film trailers. I want to hear my words spoken by that guy who's got rocks in his throat. "In a worrrrrld where there are no ruuuuules...one maaaan...against all the ohhhdds..." See? It's just so easy. I'd get Voiceover Man to give us his growling treatment to something twee: "Once upon a time, in a worrrrld with talking rabbits, Flopsy, Mopsy, Coddon-tail and Pederrrr..." Then you have to add in: "It's the motion picture event of the yeeeaarrr..." And then throw in some credentials: "Academy Award Winner Flopsy, Golden Globe Award Winner Mopsy..." (with capital letter captions, naturally) and so on. I suppose with animation we'd have the voice cast: "Desperately in need of work Demi Moooore, far funnier when you can't see him Eddie Murpheee, and token cockney Brit Bob Hoskins...in the comedy motion picture event of the yeeeaaarr..." (See what I did there? Clever, eh?)

All we need now is an Andrew Davies script treatment of the Tale of Peter Rabbit, ("Dahhling, delectable Flopsy, my lips yearn for the tickle of your damp whiskers! I long to caress the furry contours of your paws! Let me put you in a pie and gobble you up!" "Ooh, Mr McGregor, you do tease so!") and we'll be on our way to movie fame!

Or maybe I won't be.

I'm aware now that a fellow writing student will be asked to critically review my blog. That's ok. I'm an amenable guy. I have a great sense of humour and can laugh at myself as easily as I would laugh at anything else.

BUT SLAG THIS BLOG OFF AND I'LL KILL YOU!

Only kidding. In fact, I'd like to help you in your critical analysis. Feel free to disagree with any of my findings:

Intended audience: You

Power relationship: Married for 10 years, and yes, She rules.

Phonology, technique, lexis etc: I'm really not that clever. Sorry. You can question my sanity if you like, though.

Who needs words anyway?

Woke up this morning to this...

Altogether, now: "That's...amazing!"


Another over-used word to chew on is "absolutely." Want to hear my theory about this one? What do you mean, "no"? Did you mean to say "yes"? Or did you really mean to say "absolutely"?

"Absolutely" takes longer to say than "yes", which is why it's used more as a substitute for "yes" in spoken English than written. It buys people time to think what they're going to say next. Maybe it means they secretly think "no" and so need more time to find reasons for their false agreement. "Yes" doesn't have the same, multi-plosive appeal that "absolutely" does. And I challenge you to find the phrase "multi-plosive appeal" in any other Dictionary Corner.

I've heard a new variation on the "absolutely-yes" phenomenon (if I may be so bold to call it that, and I may, because it's my blog, and chances are no one will ever read it anyway). We'll call this the "drop-intro absolutely". Why? Because the speaker doesn't say "absolutely", they say "ahhhbsolutely", as if the word gets stuck in their throat. This new variant of the "absolutely-yes" phenomenon is more disturbing, because now the speaker wants to use a word even longer than "absolutely".

So I'm starting a campaign to replace the drop-intro word "ahhhbsolutely" with a similar-meaning word that gives you that extra syllable you're so desperately craving. It's "indubitably". Try saying it now. It has massive multi-plosive appeal and the "ably" ending gives it a lovely wobbly flourish. Tell it to your friends and colleagues. Get your children to repeat it. Train the family pet. The great thing about "indubitably" is that, once it ceases to be long enough, you can replace with "innnnnndubitably".

We are delighted!

I've witnessed three occasions today when the word "obligated" was used. You may have an obligation. I may be obliged. But when are we obligated?

Being a writer puts pressure on oneself to spout prose so clean you could lick your dinner off it (which, incidentally, is all it's usually good for). Studying a Postgraduate Certificate in Writing - the capital letters denoting the importance of it (forget the proper noun rule) - adds to that pressure. It's almost too much to bear.

What is too much to bear is lazy PR. What is lazy PR? It's lazy journalism, but better paid. Lazy PR is when someone writes a story about a client, often a business interest, and persuades a journalist to print it in a newspaper or magazine and pass it off as a news story.

In a part of the world (North West Wales, capital letters not denoting any importance whatsoever) where the Rotary club's annual general meeting is hot news, finding something newsworthy is not difficult. So maybe in this relaxed regime of newstelling we could make more effort with our words.

How many times do you see, hear or read a direct quote from someone, which starts along the lines of "We are delighted..." or "I am delighted..."? I am delighted to report that anyone who's printed as saying "We are delighted" never said it. It's the biggest giveaway of a made-up quote you'll see.

Come on, PR people, let's be more creative! What's wrong with, "It's Thursday and I wish it was Friday"or "Did you see Corrie last night?" Forget getting the sales message across. Say it like it is.

This is where I reckon blogs come in. It's a place where people can rage against their PR-managed public persona and say what they really think. Imagine that? Richard Branson saying "God, I hate my beard and this damn sweater. Let me shave and wear a suit!" or Gordon Ramsay claiming "It troubles me that I come across as awfully rude, and all this shouting and frightful swearing is so ghastly. I only ever wanted to be a fashion designer."

Now that would be news.