Thanks, please come again soon ;-) (27-Oct-04)
Have a nice day", "Please come again", "See you again soon", "Thanks", "Thanx", Tx" are just some of the facile words scribbled by warm-hearted and probably well-meaning restaurant staffers onto bills. Who reads them anyway? Why bother? Frankly, I'd prefer my restaurant slip unadulterated, the offense of pervasive high prices is sufficiently horrid without illiterate mush to match.
Let's unpack this for a moment: if, as I imagine, their intention is benign wouldn't it be more an indication of their pleasure or gratitude to leave us a tip; but if, as I project, their intention is to secure an increased gratuity, wouldn't their phone number be more effective? The real issue in this conundrum, is that the gesture is so lacking in style, totally without intensity, flagrantly without real emotion that we shouldn't tip them at all.
I've received restaurant bills with little sketches similar to Liberace's excessive autograph that featured a grand piano with burning candles, Smileys are commonplace nowadays while full-palate drawings are only a step away.
Am I being unnecessarily grumpy or has my tolerance for claptrap worn thin? Either way, I'm probably eating out too much. • Permalink • Comments [0]
Bathroom thrills leave cheeks on fire (19-Oct-04)
Sometimes, to escape the boredom of a routine-bound life, I vary the order in which I perform morning ablutions - teeth first, then face or, perhaps, hair first and shave second.
This morning, my need for unexpected bathroom thrills lead me into trouble. I thought, in the interests of efficiency, that I would concertina what is usually two activities. Today, in place of grooming while standing in front of the mirror, I would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak, and do, what I usually do standing, while sitting on the loo.
Brilliant, I thought, what a great way to save time. So, with the newspaper propped up on the stool, I began: Reading Ben Trovato's column in the Cape Times always helps me in the loo, so that was where I began today. However, as is usual for me, I didn't think this idea through carefully enough. I'm a big-picture kind of guy, and this big picture looked peachy. Applying underarm deo was a cinch, and brushing my hair into its usual handsome coif a piece of pie. The real problem occurred, while simultaneously laughing at Trovato's lame-brained attempts to renegotiate his rent, experiencing relief and squeezing out a pea-sized amount of moisturiser. I won't be surprised if I break into spots by the end of the day after applying a week's supply in error. Never mind.
• More • Permalink • Comments [0]
We know AA comes before BB, but why are his four worth more than my 600? (12-Oct-04)
There is something in the power debate around the message, the medium and the voice that came to my mind when I read a four-word entry by AA Gill (one of my favourite writers) on the www.TravelIntelligence.com site. The review, of Jaipur India's marvelous Rajvilas Hotel, reads: "Phenomenal place, very luxurious", which, having been there myself, is all one really needs to say. The question, of course, is - is it enough to say only four words? It seems to be if you're AA Gill. I have bashed out over 600 words on the Rajvilas and published them in The Cape Times newspaper, but have no illusion that my 600 come anywhere close in weightiness to his four.
Do we (wearing my publicist's hat now) bestow this kind of power on journalists by the way we treat them in general and some key ones in particular or, as I suspect, is there unspoken agreement, some secret cabal amongst journalists themselves that determines the pecking order?
What is the elixir that magically gives one journo more power than the medium he represents? What is it about say, Barry Ronge, that makes him so powerful? At first glance the fact that he is visible across three media types around the same topic seems to be the answer - his expert status is created by being seen (in many media) to be expert. Does the same apply to AA Gill. I know he writes for The Sunday Times and GQ magazine as well as Vanity Fair so, is it the notion of celebrity, that gives him the power to write four words on a topic or, as I suspect, was his stay at Rajvilas at the behest of another medium where he wrote more extensively about the experience whilst his epithet on Travel Intelligence is merely an exercise in making himself grand by saying a big thing in the smallest way? • Permalink • Comments [0]
The editor and not the publisher must be the editorial arbiter. (03-Oct-04)
Although I don't know the reasons why Glenda Nevill has vacated her position as editor of The Property Magazine in favour of a position in PR, I can guess editorial control had something to do with it. Every time I pitched an editorial idea she would defer to her publisher before responding.
Naomi Larkin, Style's new editor addressed PR-Net in Gauteng last week. I had a strong sense from her that the magazine would finally be on an upward trend because of what I imagine is an iron-fisted approach to editorial content. I project that Caxton hired Naomi to get the job done and I have no doubts she will show her publisher the door before placing something contrary to her vision in the magazine.
As much as it is essential for an editor to understand the financial demands of publishing, I believe that a publisher that seems themselves and not the editor as the kingpin is misguided. While a sympathetic arrangement between the Money and the Creatives is ideal, I think that in all editorial matters the editor should be the only arbiter.
As she was to The Property Magazine, Glenda will be a real asset to HWB Communications. Of course it remains to be seen if the reality of having zero editorial control on the publicist's side of the fence will hinder her from making the contribution to our industry that those who know her have come to expect. • Permalink • Comments [0]
|
|