Tomorrow's Business Today
James Corden and terrible PR websites
The other day I bought two tickets to see James Corden in The Constituent at the Old Vic Theatre.
Cost? £300 for two. I shall say that again slowly.
Three-hundred-pounds. For two tickets.
That’s before we’ve got to the place, had a drink and a pack of Monster Munch (£7.50 for the crisps).
This James Corden guy better be good.
Philistine that I am, I don’t know where the Old Vic is. I try the website.
There’s the usual annoying data consent stuff.
There are things about the theatre’s Mission. “We do what we do to enable anyone to experience, make and benefit from theatre. The Old Vic is for anyone, and always will be. For generations to come.”
As long as they have £300 to spare.
There is a statement on values. And other stuff to “Discover” as I “Step into Something Wonderful.”
You know what there isn’t? An address and a phone number. Ok, there is, eventually. But I had to click and click and click.
The thing is, that experience is exactly like dealing with most corporate websites.
They are lost in marketing guff. I just want to check that the company I think makes bricks does indeed do that. It need not persuade me of the social value of bricks.
They are plainly handy.
Websites for PR firms are among the worst. Loads of values stuff, not many contact details.
They tell me they are engaged in “Critical issues, critical stakeholders.”
I don’t know what that means, but maybe you could explain it?
Well no, that’s kind of your lot mate.
If this were intentional, I’d just make fun of it. It isn’t. It is accidentally sending the opposite of the message you preach.
You read it and are none the wiser.
These websites talk of inclusivity and the like but actually don’t invite engagement.
They shout, crossly: This is all we have to say. And we are not taking further questions.It’s not the look you are after.
Unless you are somehow involved in professional obfuscation and that point has sailed over my foolish hack head.
Maybe, if we are going to have a more open, more sensible government, we can have company websites that are the same.
Have a good election.
Press release of the day
Households hit by the two-child limit on social security are also those most affected by cuts to public services since 2010.
So says this analysis from the Women’s Budget Group. The conclusion is not surprising, but they’ve done the maths properly.
Dr Zubaida Haque, Deputy Director and Head of Policy and Research said:
“Children are clearly a contribution to our society and future economy, yet currently we have a social security system where children in households with 3 or more children are being punished twice – firstly by the two-child limit on benefits and secondly by cuts in public services – including cuts to early years services, schools, transport and youth services. It’s unforgivable to penalise children – to attach a sibling tax to them – for decisions entirely outside their control.”
Stories that will keep rolling
We're more than just a database
Sign up now for a free trial, and see how you can distribute winning campaigns every time.
We're more than just a database
Sign up now for a free trial, and see how you can distribute winning campaigns every time.
