News Hacked
Written by a former regional journalist at the Grimsby Telegraph, ex pr chap at Spencer... and now an all-round media man. Email conrademmett@googlemail.com or tweet @ConradEmmett if you need to get in touch.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
Bad films - great marketing lessons
Lindsay Lohan's latest film may be the worst thing you have never seen, but that doesn't mean we can learn some excellent marketing lessons from it.
Monday, 14 January 2013
Quentin Tarantino - an important PR lesson
Movie director shows us how NOT to do PR...
INT. HOTEL ROOM - DAY - QUENTIN TARANTINO is cool as a f*ckin cucumber. He has just delivered the best f*cking public relations line about a f*cking movie EVER.
NEWS REPORTER:
F*ck man, that's some cool a** sh*t you just said. Now everyone will want to sit their a** down for three hours and watch Django Unchained...
QUENTIN TARANTINO
Any other questions, mother f*cker?
NEWS REPORTER
(humbled by greatness)
Sh*t yea - what the f*ck is it with the guns, man?
QUENTIN TARANTINO
I have answered that question before, but to respect any newcomers to my art I'll tell you. I use my themes to bring the mother f*cking world together to discuss important topics - in this instance slavery - and at times treat that with a certain dose of realism. But my use of violence which eventually is used to subvert this theme - and remind the audience we are in the realms of fantasy - is uniformly cartoon-like. Any mother f*cker takes my violent sh*t seriously is f*cking f*cked in the mother f*cking head.
Of course that's not how it happened. Quentin Tarantino, interviewed by Krishnan Guru-Murthy on the Channel 4 News, made himself look less like some sort of kitch daddy-cool character from some exploito-movie/airport novel, and more like a complete tool.
KRISHNAN GURU-MURTHY
But why are you so sure that there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence?
QUENTIN TARANTINO
I don't... I'm going to tell you why I'm so sure? Don't ask me a question like that -- I'm not biting. I refuse your question.
KRISHNAN GURU-MURTHY
Why?
QUENTIN TARANTINO
Because I refuse your question. I'm not your slave and you're not my master. You can't make me dance to your tune. I'm not a monkey.
And then, later...
KRISHNAN GURU-MURTHY
It's interesting that you have a different view, and I'm just trying to explore that.
QUENTIN TARANTINO
And I don't want to! 'Cause I'm here to sell my movie. This is a commercial for the movie - make no mistake.
KRISHNAN GURU-MURTHY
So you don't want to talk about anything serious?
It all gets much, much worse, and I've popped the video of Tarantino's PR mishap below.
But what has happened here - I mean other than Tarantino acting like a big mother f*cking baby?
Simple. He has either not been told, or not realised he is on a news programme. Now his little outburst might well have worked if Channel 4 News relied entirely on film stars. I can imagine if he had had a similar outburst at a movie magazine like Total Film or Empire it would have, quite understandably, made them sweat. But this is the news - they are in the business of what is relevant to them and nothing else. What's more, they don't have to care if they offend someone, because they will just do a story about that - and that was precisely what they did. Because his outburst was in the public interest (or at least interesting to the public) - people spend money on him, and idolise him, and this is how he acts on one of the country's main news programmes.
And what's more, all those precious fragile souls they do offend on the news - such as some easily offended politicians - will come back for more. Why? Because at the end of the day news programmes are objective arbiters... or as objective as it gets. Quentin Tarantino was wrong. He was not in a commercial. A commercial is what you buy. Commercials mean less in PR terms precisely because they are controlled, because they do exactly what you tell them to. News is much more valuable than a commercial to politicians, to businesses and, yes, to film makers, than any other way of getting your message out because it is scrutinised first.
The solution in this case would have been for Tarantino to hold his temper To explain that yes, the US premiere for his film was cancelled in light of the recent school shootings in Newtown - and he doesn't believe his films and real violence are linked - but right now he doesn't want to talk about it. He doesn't want to talk about it because he does not want to court publicity on the back of a genuine tragedy. At another time and another place he will be happy to discuss it... just not now.
Maybe that would have been enough, maybe not. He should have remembered, above all else, that you don't control the news. It's what makes it so special. But what it would mean would be that he could have kept his film - and not his craggy moment - in the limelight.
Any last words of PR advice? Maybe one of his own scripts sums it up better than I can. These lines from Pulp Fiction, when Jules tries to stop a heist in a burger bar getting out of control:
JULES
We're gonna be like three little Fonzies here. And what's Fonzie like? Come on Yolanda what's Fonzie like?
YOLANDA
Cool?
JULES
What?
YOLANDA
He's cool.
JULES
Correctamundo. And that's what we're gonna be. We're gonna be cool.
Friday, 21 December 2012
My gift of Christmas fury... internet bile and the folly of social media “promotions”
I like to think of business, a lot of the time, as a Tamagotchi
pet.
For those who don’t know what a Tamagotchi is, it was how my female
friends at college passed time in between lessons. Tamagotchi are kind of a
keyring Pokemon, but without seizure-inducing animation. They start as a sort
of monochrome ink blob in the middle of the screen, but then over time as you
press buttons to feed it, nurture it and clean up after it, a creature
eventually “grows”.
Good metaphor for business, see?
But god help you if it fell into the hands my old college mate
Darren. I call him ‘Darren’ for the purposes of this article, because his name
was Darren.
Darren was asked to mind a Tamagotchi pet for one of our
friends when she went into class. When she came back, had it been a real animal
it probably would have been featured in one of those behind-the-scenes animal
rights circus videos you see on YouTube. You can imagine the voiceover,
whispered nervously as they scan the area with their iPhone:
“Just look at how this animal has been kept, it’s making my
stomach turn. There’s excrement everywhere. It seems to have been fed continuously
until its insides have burst - my god who would do that?”
Companies that put their brand in the full glare of social
media, expecting to be ‘Liked’ without thinking are effectively handing their
Tamagotchi to a 17-year-old Darren.
Let the hate begin...
You see I used to curse my Facebook friends with genuine bile
when they ’Liked’ some corporate page put together by a huge business machine,
making it pop up on your news feed. It’s bizarre, but ‘Likes’ have caught the
imagination of some companies, as if clicking the button on Facebook amounts to
you digging in your wallet. It really doesn’t.
But then I saw the result of their social media tomfoolery.
Take Amazon’s promoted post: “Thumbs up for Christmas gifts
that let you choose what you want the most. You can send Amazon UK Christmas
Gift Cards in greeting cards or gift boxes with FREE One-Day Delivery, or
e-mail or print your own immediately.”
Now I’m not too sure what that really means - presumably if you
“Like” that page you get free delivery. Maybe not, it’s not clear. What was
clear was the hate thrown back at this post in its own comments section. Here
are two of my favourites, unedited:
Neil Sharples hope
amazon board have a rotten crhristmas,piss off and pay the same% in tax the
average person on the street has to pay.
and...
Pete Hodge Don#t use
amazon until thery pay theoir corp[oration tax and stop fiddling the Briths
people. *
I presume the Briths people are some sort of endangered
intergalactic race, like in Avatar.
Anyway, there is lots more where that came from - out of 247
comments 23 were what I could deem as friendly to Amazon.
Then there were the mostly baffled responses to the Sony
Smartwatch advert which shoved its impertinent mush into my timeline. The Sony
Smartwatch is, it would seem, like having all your phone apps squashed into a
small square box on your wrist, which connects to your phone anyway, rendering
it pointless. Swimming amongst the hostile and confused comments - including
one pointing to a poor review from The Gadget Show - the Sony social media
types had clearly not grasped sarcasm. This became painfully apparent when one
person said:
Lewis Phillips Do
they just tell the time too~?
And they replied:
Sony Mobile GB Hey
Lewis, yes! They certainly do!
But the king of the crop is Vodaphone, trying to advertise a
SIM card. They had about two comments which I think were positive, and the rest
- more than 200 - weren’t. Karma has to be paid back in full for making Yoda
sell out with all the grace of a flea-bitten dancing bear. And it is paying,
with Fails like:
Eva Chung HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO????????
Why do I still have no signal. Carry on ignoring my tweets and post on here!!!!
and...
Anthony Ashcroft Get
off my news feed
and
To which the bots at Vodaphone HQ replied, like some bizarre
mannequin voiced using a stuck record:
Vodafone UK Hi guys,
Thanks for your comments. For anyone having network issues please could you
post on the eForum using this template - http://goo.gl/KK4vp ? You can use the
'Got a Question?' app at the top of this page to post your query .
Some of my favourites however are those people who just don’t
get it. They interrupt the timeline, responding like disembodied ghost-voices
on a crackly radio, as if talking to people long dead in another dimension.
They just pop up in the comments, amid all the bile. Imagine all the fury being
thrown at Vodaphone and then, suddenly, messages like this appear from nowhere:
Susan Baldock Merry
Christmas Margaret have a great time x
also...
Norman Brierley hello
stranger xx
and...
Keith Lodwick Hiya
mate, when we having a beer?
None I hasten to add are talking to each other, just rattling
lost voices speaking into the ether - in the middle of a social media campaign
which is out of control, and nose diving straight into the ground.
Next time, perhaps it is best to take your Tamagotchi to class.
Perhaps you could both learn something.
Note
* Lawyers, before you even think about me reproducing "offensive comments" 1) the comments were on your page and in effect, therefore, made by yourselves under publishing law 2) They're virtually indecipherable anyway so grow up
Note
* Lawyers, before you even think about me reproducing "offensive comments" 1) the comments were on your page and in effect, therefore, made by yourselves under publishing law 2) They're virtually indecipherable anyway so grow up
Thursday, 29 November 2012
Leveson? Believe it or not, papers have enough to contend with...
So Leveson has written his report, and as I write controversy
is erupting about whether we should have a state-regulated press - but the
reality is the press was never free.
As much as I love papers - the reason I have gone back into journalism
- the fact remains that the explosive investigations you see in telly like State Of Play hardly happen. At least
not in the way most people in the industry would want.
Why? Because reporters don’t have the legal protection, or the
resources, to expose wrongdoing on a huge scale, or on a regular basis.
There is no enshrined protection for free speech in the UK,
and the newspapers themselves are on many occasions fighting against market and
financial pressures from the outset.
Anyone who thinks there is free speech in the UK is wrong - and
you only have to think about what free speech really is to realise that. We
often imagine free speech is something noble, like being Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington, and every time
you exercise free speech it is some tub-thumping rally-raising speech which
borrows deftly from Henry V. Actually it means we allow racists, homophobes, and
all sorts of unsavoury types to say what they want. This is touted but not
supported. For instance we have no real written constitution, and what we do
have, the European Convention, reads like the morals of Spiderman - as written
by a council employee:
1.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include
freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas
without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This
article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,
television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these
freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security,
territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or
crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the
reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality
of the judiciary. (my use of bold)
With great half-arsed power comes great responsibility
indeed. In fact for free speech to abide, we need to let scummers have their say,
safe in the knowledge we can say something back. But instead we have introduced
a raft of laws against “inciting” hatred. The law seems to decide that people
are not intelligent enough to have their own common sense, and that for some
reason we cannot take whatever a loony says with a pinch of salt – when on the
contrary most of us do.
In America, the freedom of speech is protected by their constitution’s
First Amendment. This specifically includes the press, putting off people who
might want to hammer newspapers in court without a damn good reason. The claimant
has to prove that the newspaper was both malicious and reckless in compiling
its report. This means the doors are opened for stronger investigation by
reporters, and fosters an image of reporting synonymous with prestigious
accolades such as the Pulitzer Prize. And unlike the famed ‘libel tourism’ which
takes place on our shores – because the laws are so stringent, the rewards
largely uncapped and the onus entirely upon the defendant - in America, even if
you win, you have to pay your lawyers.
Now I’m not saying this is some sort of utopia. Court cases
have had to be re-scheduled and lawsuits have raged as a result. Roy Greenslade
put together an attack on the American press in his blog on the Guardian
website to illustrate this very point. He looked at how a paper in South Carolina,
The State, seemed to point the finger of blame at a man before a trail had even
gone ahead. However, a reply from an American reader said the example he used was
a rare exception, rather than a rule for US papers.
Contrast this with the press in the UK. There isn’t the
support in law, and libel lawsuits are rife as I mentioned. In fact, libel
tourism means an American can take out lawsuits because an article, okay in his
own country, has landed on our shores. Now I’m not saying that we should do away
with the Defamation Act and the Contempt of Court Act – I think they have their
merits for obvious reasons - but it means papers have more than enough to
contend with. If the law does its job we shouldn’t have to worry.
This on its own would be fine, but the “chilling effect” of
the law, and the power of the markets, can make things even more difficult for
some of our country’s newsdesks. The centrepiece to Guardian reporter Nick
Davies’ book, Flat Earth News, lays bare the unwritten rules which often constrain
the nationals. Given half a chance, any right minded desk will break those
rules where they can, and every day most of them will try to. It is fair to say
that every day there will be some that succeed, but that doesn’t mean we can
ignore this undue pressure. Why? Because it comes from Joe public – and I count
myself in that number too. People eager to slam the press if they get it wrong,
and happy to buy only what they want to read. I’ve certainly been guilty of
those two things throughout this whole enquiry - jumping on the bandwagon, and
reading the reports I want to believe – but this is the effect it has; the unwritten
rules:
1) Run cheap stories – stories which are quick to churn out
and safe in the sense they won’t cripple the paper with a lawsuit.
2) Select safe facts. Papers are often put off if an “official”
source denies facts, even if it was a report of men, women and children being
herded into a room and being shot by American troops in Iraq.
3) Avoid the electric fence – in other words don’t upset
those with the power to disrupt media.... such as the law.
4) Select safe ideas which don’t offend popular opinion.
5) Always give both sides of the story; even if what the
other side says is nonsense and clearly flies in the face of the facts.
6) Give them what they want – even if it is putting Beckham
higher in the run of news than deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan
7) The bias against truth – there is not the taste for stories
which have a mundane basis, and require sifting various facts. Often pieces are
hooked around big events, and photo-friendly stories, rather than careful nit-picking
through the facts to deliver a strong overview.
8) Give them what they want to believe in – keep up the
revenues. Did your paper come out too strong against the Iraq war? Circulation
suffering? Better reverse that position then, like the Daily Mirror.
9) Go with the moral panic. Enough said.
10) Ninja turtle syndrome. The argument is succinct. Ninja
Turtles are rubbish. But if everyone has one you don’t want to be left out – the same
often applies to news stories.
Now people and papers do
fight their way through the gaps. They expose wrongdoing time and again,
but not on the same regularity as any reporter, editor or proprietor would want
deep down. The relationship can work as it is – the paper watches the parliament
and the law, the law watches the papers and parliament, and parliament is free
to publicly criticise the law and the papers. But, as the inquiry has shown, no
two should be too close to one another.
If the law and Parliament drive the news agenda, next time
your paper is delivered, it might not come in a plastic cover, but a straightjacket.
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
Can Fox News make you thick and thin at the same time?
It seemed
like any other afternoon. But Andrea Tantaros shocked a nation when she became
the week’s second news anchor to be struck down by NAFS.
Tantaros, co-host
of Fox News show The Five made a light comment amid the gentle right-wing
repartee. Amongst the usual casual fare, this time about the poor living off
food stamps, she said: “I should try it
because, do you know how fabulous I'd look? I mean, the camera adds ten pounds.
It really does. I would be looking great.”
But as the
condition known as NAFS set in, it prevents her from justifying her alarming
comment. Instead, it sounds as if she has decided food stamps are a new
slimming plan for masochists. NAFS, or News Anchor Forgetfulness Syndrome
(geddit?) freezes neurons like a snowman’s knackers - right at the moment a
person should explain comments... comments which, on their own, sound like
something uttered by things in your most shiver-soaked nightmares.
The
reaction? What do you expect? Twitter, to begin with, lit up with the ferocity
of a Hammer film lynch mob. Women’s site Jezebel said she deserved the
heartless demon-lady award, saying of Tantaros “she giggled. She fucking
giggled at the thought of slumming it that hard.”
Luckily, this cruel bout of NAFS later released its grip on Tantaros’
mind, and she used Twitter to explain what she was saying: “Food stamps were
sold as a fitness plan to "look great" by our liberal, dense
government - remember?”
She is actually right – bizarrely enough, there is an obscure radio advert
which says someone looks great because they have been on the food stamps plan.
Some might needlessly complicate the matter – saying perhaps she should have
well, you know, made reference to the largely unnoticed advert to explain what
she meant. Or maybe that there is a difference between “looking great” and losing
weight. Thankfully, as the argument raged on, her very adult use of capitals on
Twitter meant everyone could just SHUT UP.
Unfortunately NAFS affected another Foxreporter the same week. In this
case, one brave news anchor forgot to reveal hitherto unknown information –
this time to justify a seemingly sexist comment.
Brian Kilmeade said to a caller, when they asked how Fox assembled its
news team, that they opened a Victoria's Secret catalogue, and then checked if
they could talk and went to college.
NAFS stopped Kilmeade from explaining himself, halting his many
quick-witted neurons from justifying what he said. What people didn’t know was that
a fellow anchor, Kimberly Guilfoyle, actually was a Victoria’s Secret model years ago. Luckily, this small
missing piece of information somehow found its way into the papers in the next
couple of days. Some might say it was coincidence, and that reporters happened
to look into something on the back of Kilmeade’s bonkers comment – that perhaps
he knew nothing about Guilfoyle. Some might say we don’t need to know anything
like this about Guilfoyle herself, and that the past is the past. Even more might
say was that even if Kilmeade was armed with this information, and explained it
on air, what he said was sexist. I would say that these jelly-legged girly-men
don’t appreciate the important house-style of Fox punditry, or appreciate how
NAF is triggered.
NAFS - the
cause
So how does
my not-at-all fictional NAFS come about? I think it is from the ongoing
stresses Fox presenters tirelessly endure, to bring people the best in 24-hour
punditry. Punditry means you have to have some sort of opinion, and at Fox it may well mean you have to run this in line
with a memo sent down by Fox management, who clearly want the best for their
media teams, and to guide them in the kindest way that they can. The writer of
Flat Earth News, Nick Davies, highlights one which said everyone had to refer
to the “political courage and practical cunning” of the Bush administration
throughout one particular day. I’m sure that, caught in amongst all these news stories
you have to report on, this particular insight is easy to forget. But the memo
is a great way of getting people to remember what’s important. And fun too:
like a news version of Balls of Steel.
And an
additional stress will have been caused by the mean and nasty things being said
about everyone at Fox News. All these “studies” by “academics” and their
“facts.” In one of these, the University of Maryland ran a survey on the
channel’s viewers to find out the effects of the channel on its audience back
in 2004. It said that 67 per cent of respondents thought Saddam Hussein had
ties with Al Quaeda – as opposed to 56 per cent at CBS, 49 at NBC, and 16 per
cent who just listened to NPR (formerly National Public Radio). Thirty-three
percent of Fox viewers had thought Iraq had WMD, when just 11 percent of radio
listeners thought this was the case. Meanwhile 35 per cent of Fox fans thought
the world wanted the USA to have its war with Iraq, as opposed to 5 per cent NPR.
Equally,
they need to deal with mixed and totally unfair attacks on their channel which
actually say it makes people thick. These
allegations followed two tests of people’s knowledge conducted by Fairleigh
Dickinson University. Although researcher Prof. Dan Cassino stepped in to
rebuff some interpretations of his findings, many of which had said that Fox
News makes people stupid, his mincing of words, well, make it worse:
“Overall, Fox
viewers were not better or worse than the average respondent at answering the
questions. That said, and all salient
variables being geekily controlled for, there was not merely a zero effect but
a negative effect of Fox News on viewers' ability to answer the questions;
meaning that Fox viewers would have done better had they been using almost any
other news source, or no news source at all. Results for the similarly
partisan MSNBC were... well, similar.”(my italics)
Quickly Fox
responded. “Considering FDU's undergraduate school is ranked as one of the
worst in the country, we suggest the school invest in improving its weak
academic program instead of spending money on frivolous polling – their student
body does not deserve to be so ill-informed.” Yay Fox! You hit that professor –
and about 12,000 students who had nothing to do with the research – where it
hurts. And well done on striking back using a sound, reasoned argument.
But things
have more recently been made worse by a self professed “mole” called Joe Muto,
who had hidden amongst the rank and file at Fox, and stepped forward with his
own shocking “opinion”. I’m sure some might say he was on some sort of
Democratic mission to destroy the channel, drunk on West Wing box sets. “The
people at Fox are not stupid,” he said to the Huffington Post. “They know when
they have Dick Morris or one of these other pundits on predicting a landslide
victory for Romney, the people behind the scenes know that it's all bluster.
They know that this is sort of an entertainment. They know that a lot of these
people are just hucksters ... we producers know that this is all a farce. The
reason we don't step in and give a reality check to our audience is because
that's terrible for ratings.”
Nonsense.
How could I possibly share conclusions with this man? I mean, like I told that
survey, Romney won... didn’t he?
Monday, 8 October 2012
What journalists want! An interview with a regional business editor
Ladies and gentlemen, I am waging a war. A war against bad
PR.
As you read this, at least four journalists in the UK will
have been affected by an episode of bad PR. These episodes can affect the
nervous system, forcing muscles in the arm to contract and slam down a phone in
seconds. Brief moments of depression are often reported afterwards, where
journalists wonder whether it is worth carrying on. Experts often prescribe
caffeine straight afterwards to help persuade journalists not to slip too far
into this state.
But you and I both know that is just a sticking plaster –
one where the sticky stuff is wearing out.
Here are some graphic incidents of bad PR:
Phone call #1
PR person: “Hi I have this story for you, we’re a marketing
agency representing a shoe factory in Midsummer and –“
Journalist: “We’re in Oxdown. That’s 80 miles away.”
PR: “Oh, er, sorry… bye” *click*
Phone call #2
Journalist: “This press release you have sent – says in your
survey that 60 per cent of 30-year-olds have overdosed on Acme profiteroles and
had hot flushes. Were any from our town? The data in it seems a bit general.”
PR person: “Oh, um, er, let me check. Bye” *click* - never rings back
Phone call #3
PR person: “Hi, were you interested in our lifesaving new product?”
Journalist: “Not sure mascara really saves lives. Thank you.
Bye.” *click*
Although made “hilarious” for your reading pleasure, these
are only slightly altered versions of the real thing – calls made daily from
less-good PR folk who have sent out wrong, or frankly meaningless, messages to
journalists.
I know, because I endured it as a reporter. As a PR man, it
drags what I do into disrepute, or at best mediocrity.
One other person who has dealt with the same thing, and I
concede has had much more years in the reporting hotseat, is business editor
for the south Humber Bank, Dave Laister. Dave has a wealth of “unique” reporting experiences. These include everything
from being smuggled into a buy-out meeting, wearing a hi-vis 007 henchman overall
and, 15 years ago, reporting on A-Level results… as he collected his.
But despite a colourful career, he maintains he is not an
expert in business.
“I don’t have a single business qualification to my name –
everything I know I have learned from interviews with business owners and their
staff. Journalism was what I wanted to do. English was my strongest subject,
and reporting was something I was passionate about.”
After five years on newsdesk, Dave felt the draw of the news
patch and couldn’t resist taking up a new reporting role.
He took the helm of the business desk, and covers news as it
happens across North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire – including
industrial towns such as Grimsby and Scunthorpe – and includes Immingham, the
country’s largest commercial port.
So what makes good news for him?
First it’s not any of my side-splitting examples, above. “We
do get PRs acting for companies desperately trying to get free advert in the
paper, for something which does not serve the wellbeing of the area. We get PRs
sending stuff through which isn’t for the patch, having clearly not looked into
the background of where we are,” he said.
“Then there are the odd stories which can get picked up by
the national press; surveys which actually have nothing to do with your paper’s
town or city. However it’s not obvious one way or another if they are anything
to do with your town or city. Not obvious that is, until you ring them. Then
the person on the other end of the phone says they will check their details and
ring you back. Needless to say they don’t.”
So, if you think you can somehow pull wool over the eyes of
someone who checks his emails for breakfast, and has done for 15 years, think
again.
So what does work for him? Here is the good news. As a
business editor he tries to look at every press release and takes every phone
call: “I’d rather get nine pointless phone calls than none at all,” he said.
“I’m always looking for a positive story about the area – we’re not redtop
hacks who are going to go rummaging through your litter bins. I get no
enjoyment in writing a negative piece about the town.”
In fact, it almost makes me wonder what it would be like if
a mediocre PR person did get hacked, Leveson inquiry style, by a red top hack.
I guess that’s what media hell will be like – mediocre PRs
being hacked by disgraced dead journalists, who will then print erroneous
stories about lifesaving Acme profiteroles – before realising they’ve been
scooped by a torch-wielding imp. And this goes on, and on, and on. Forever.
Friday, 14 September 2012
I’ve resorted to a “life rant” – read the shocking reason why
As those who read my old blog will know, I like to write about things
which address the major issues, and all the moral dilemmas and twisty-turny
circumstances which lie behind them. I always see life rants as a bit of a
cheat, really, when it comes to blogs. You know what I mean: “I went out last
night and it really annoyed me how blah, blah-blah blah blah…”. Where’s the
ivory tower narcissism in that?
But, honestly, today my thoughts and language have ended up
being those “of the gutter”. And because of that, I see no reason why my blog
shouldn’t be of a similar snarky nature.
The cause? Car salesmen. And it is not for the reason you
might imagine.
The reason was not because some Del-Boy Arthur Daley 80s
wide boy accosted me, then prised money I didn’t have out of my pockets – and then
left me cluttering down the road in a banger, with a dribble of telltale diesel
coming from the back of it.
The reason is actually the complete opposite. Today I
visited five (count ‘em) – that’s FIVE – dealerships with several grand
budgeted on a used motor. I was not approached on a single forecourt. I was
peered at, smiled at and scowled at, but not once did anybody come up to me and
ask if I would like any help.
Must be that I have one of those faces. Maybe being ginger –
sorry, I mean strawberry blonde – carries
with it an extra ferocity which I take for granted, but which generally makes
people freeze with fear. Or maybe it was cold today, and nobody wants to go out
in the cold. Except me, with short sleeves; which means it wasn’t that bad.
Thing is these guy were missing a trick. They had a duck in
a barrel on a forecourt crying out to spend money on a car (please don’t add all
these images up, it just doesn’t work).
In my time I’ve sold suitcases, for no commission, with more
passion than these guys have. I actually had a hard case roll off a podium,
smack me on the head and I still
carried on trying to sell to my customer… until she quietly pointed out there
was red on my forehead, and that I should go to hospital, really.
Now I’m not proposing some sort of bootcamp for sales people,
where I hurl ignorant abuse at them, chuck large articles at their head and
have them picked off by a sniper if they don’t say hello to a dummy customer in
10 seconds (unless by some chance you are from the telly, then maybe I am –
call me!). What I’m saying is if someone is stood there trying to look at one
of their cars, and the effect of cars is to illicit a look of cluelessness about
their face, any salesperson looking on should saunter over and take me for the
mug I am.
Now I’m not saying that this is all car salespeople – I’m
sure many of them are great – but, and it is a big but, you can have the likes of Mary Portas do intensive work with
the government and individual shops, but it is pointless if the people don’t
walk the walk and sell afterwards.
There’s a reason I’m upset. I came to the area and covered
it as a journalist for years, and watched the recession sink its claws in deep.
And I know there are a lot of people who do
try to sell in the area as part of their day job, and go home feeling like a
failure because they haven’t had a bite. I know that feeling, so it makes it
doubly frustrating if there are people; maybe people they work with; who can’t
be bothered to venture into 16 degrees centigrade to get that sale.
So I’ll be heading out there again tomorrow, with a wad of
virtual cash on my debit card trying to buy a car again. Look out for me if you’re
a car salesperson. It’s hard to miss me. I’m tall, “strawberry blonde”, and
have a look of cluelessness on my face whenever I look at a car. Move in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)