The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

How One Letter Can Ruin Everything …
October 17, 2013, 6:03 am
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

youre talking about standards? is it april 1?

Comment by andy@cynic

Everyday is april 1 on here

Comment by DH

maybe 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


Comment by DH

how 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

it wouldnt be with buzz, hes a bitter, limelight chasing twat.

Comment by andy@cynic

Double gold. You’re back!

Comment by DH

It’s a sad story, but do you know what happened to Prince Jackson after his dinner date in Beverly Hills?

Comment by DH

Now I know who keeps TMZ in business.

Comment by Rob

Reputations 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

So their standards are globally admired regardless of typos. It’s shocking.

Comment by John

Popularity doesn’t always mean admired John. Or I hope it doesn’t.

Comment by Pete

So people choose news sites they don’t admire?

Comment by John

of 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

Yes 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

Well 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

“…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

I 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

I 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

So 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

This 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

Apathy towards the claims of brands and advertising or apathy towards any hope of actually experiencing excellence?

Comment by John

Leave a Reply