Filed under: Comment
Attention to detail.
We all say it, but so few do it.
And yet it is so important … not just because it’s basic manners, but it’s because it shows you care.
I used to go mental if I saw a blown lightbulb in the agency because to me, it conveyed to clients that we were slack … and if we couldn’t sort out our office lighting, then why should they trust to us to make sure we’re on top of every single detail of their business.
I know that might sound like a massive leap and I know shit happens … but quite frankly, I do not believe basic mistakes should ever occur.
Anyway, the reason I say this is because I recently saw a headline in the Daily Mail.
A headline about an utterly tragic story.
A headline about an utterly tragic story where one letter – ONE LETTER – was incorrect and undermined everything.
OK, so it’s the Daily Mail – also known as the Daily Fail – but seriously, how the hell does that happen.
I’ll tell you. Slackness.
If I was the editor, I would call in the team and tear strips off them.
Not just because it’s a ridiculously stupid mistake, but because the parents – who have to come to terms with the fact their 2 children are dead – would be utterly devastated.
Sure, they may never see it. But that’s not the point.
For me, standards are what you keep regardless of the consequences – it’s not something that you change in relation to what you think you can get away with.
Unless you work in finance.
Daily Mail, you’ve reached new depths. And that’s saying something.
22 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
youre talking about standards? is it april 1?
Comment by andy@cynic October 17, 2013 @ 6:22 amEveryday is april 1 on here
Comment by DH October 17, 2013 @ 6:36 ammaybe its not a spelling mistake campbell. maybe the subeditor was a kiwi and youre being fucking racist. or prejudice. or whatever the fuck it is.
Comment by andy@cynic October 17, 2013 @ 6:23 amGold.
Comment by DH October 17, 2013 @ 6:37 amhow fucking old is that story? whats tomorrows post, weve landed on the fucking moon and theres a spelling mistake in neil armstrongs interview?
Comment by andy@cynic October 17, 2013 @ 6:26 amit wouldnt be with buzz, hes a bitter, limelight chasing twat.
Comment by andy@cynic October 17, 2013 @ 6:27 amDouble gold. You’re back!
Comment by DH October 17, 2013 @ 6:37 amIt’s a sad story, but do you know what happened to Prince Jackson after his dinner date in Beverly Hills?
Comment by DH October 17, 2013 @ 6:39 amNow I know who keeps TMZ in business.
Comment by Rob October 17, 2013 @ 8:23 amReputations are built on the standards you maintain. Which is why the daily mail have the reputation they currently enjoy. Unfortunately they don’t mind being a laughing stock because they are one of the most popular daily news sites globally.
Yes, you read that correctly Rob. Globally.
I think I can hear you smacking your head against a wall from here.
Comment by Pete October 17, 2013 @ 6:55 amSo their standards are globally admired regardless of typos. It’s shocking.
Comment by John October 17, 2013 @ 7:08 amPopularity doesn’t always mean admired John. Or I hope it doesn’t.
Comment by Pete October 17, 2013 @ 7:13 amSo people choose news sites they don’t admire?
Comment by John October 17, 2013 @ 7:21 amof course they fucking do doddsy, you dont go there for fucking journalistic integrity but fucking entertainment. stop being a closed minded planning twat.
Comment by andy@cynic October 17, 2013 @ 7:37 amYes John. Not everyone, but people do.
Are you saying you only interact with the brands that you judge to have the highest reputation?
Comment by Pete October 17, 2013 @ 7:44 amWell I can answer your question John because I read the Daily Mail and I don’t respect them or admire them one inch.
Maybe [god forbid] Andy’s right and I look at it for ‘entertainment reasons’, but I think the real reason is because I’m interested in seeing what’s going to be put in societies heads that day – even though it upsets me and angers me literally every, single day.
But I’m a masochist, after all, I support Forest.
Comment by Rob October 17, 2013 @ 8:26 am“…because I’m interested in seeing what’s going to be put in societies heads that day – even though it upsets me and angers me literally every, single day.”
You have possibly found the only valid excuse for reading The Daily Mail I have ever heard.
Personally, I have set a local hosts file entry to make sure I can never accidentally click through to their website, as every single ad impression makes them money…
Comment by Shackleford Hurtmore October 17, 2013 @ 12:01 pmI think those are dodgy arguments.
People could find entertainment form innumerable outlets, but they make active choices in what they choose and what they refuse to patronise. And the proportion of people reading the Mail for a sense of perspective is tiny.
We may not like it, but huge numbers of people do admire (as opposed to venerate) things we loathe. By choosing them they’re signalling that even if they wouldn’t voice it as such if you asked them.
And Pete, I said nothing about highest reputation. But I ask myself, how do people react to stuff they actively dislike? Simple, they don’t patronise it. By implication, what they (and you and I) choose to patronise is stuff for which they have some type of “admiration”.
It’s not a nice thought, but I think it has validity.
Comment by John October 17, 2013 @ 6:48 pmI don’t agree John.
I know it sounds counterintuitive, but I think many people actively expose themselves to things they don’t like because they get some sort of perverse pleasure out of observing the experience so they can judge it and feel superior because of it.
I do. I visit the Daily Mail website every day [amongst others] because on one side I want to see what they’re putting in to people’s heads and on the other, I want to get angry at their myopic, uncaring, racist views.
All you have to do is read some of the comments people make to see I am far from being alone in that.
Comment by Rob October 17, 2013 @ 7:40 pmSo now you’re suggesting you behave like the regular man in the street? That’s not going to fly. But maybe you’re right about a perverse populace – I’m not convinced yet. Wouldn’t there be research showing this brand loathing?
Comment by John October 17, 2013 @ 11:53 pmThis could be the sister post to the one you wrote about Claridges. Where you explain how their stubbornness was a key characteristic to them achieving excellence. True excellence, not the diluted version that marketing departments try to brainwash us with. The fact so many get away with it says more about societies apathy towards brands and advertising than it does to their cleverness.
Comment by George October 17, 2013 @ 10:27 pmApathy towards the claims of brands and advertising or apathy towards any hope of actually experiencing excellence?
Comment by John October 17, 2013 @ 11:55 pm