Sunday, 30 January 2011

I don't get it ...


Hand shakes, high fives and a tip of the cap to you all – this is my first piece for the Vicar, so unlike the seasoned pros we have writing here I probably don’t have the same experience, but what I do have is more enthusiasm than an Andrex puppy but probably the same amount of literary craft, so bear with me. Couple this with the fact I am still earning my stripes in the ad world as a humble account exec, I have many questions that puzzle me about why we do what we do. So without further ado, let’s cut to the chase – comments welcome.

My article's title is not meant to sound disrespectful nor is it derogatory about the state of the advertising industry at present - but do we advertising folk actually get advertising? What I mean by this is not the daily argument that suits have with creatives about putting more mandatory copy on posters, which then ‘spoils’ the visual because it no longer looks pretty. More, the way we look at the way messages should be transmitted to our unsuspecting target audience. For example, a straight talking sales poster, though garish, gets the message across quickly – 50% OFF ALL CLOTHES – even the Jeremy Kyle brigade can work out what this statement means if it’s in a shop window, no hidden meanings here. In contrast, some ads are so over the top, so ‘out there’ that unless you stand and analyse the ad like a piece in an art gallery, you won’t fathom the USP before it's too late and the man with the Metro next to you, turns the page.

I guess what I’m asking is: are we over thinking things?  Are we in danger of getting a bit too clever for our own good, with our metaphors, cleverly cropped photography which is supposed to make us feel intrigue and ultimately lead us to read on – we all want to win creative awards, but is this to the detriment of our client’s bottom line? Sure, brilliant work should manage to do both (that’s where the award comes in), but few rarely do in my opinion.

A case in point is the new Volvo ad -  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzMstoVXXxM

We all like to take the rise out of car ads, with their formulaic over exaggerated promises of changing our lives and making our 2.4 family complete; but would you actually make an ad mocking this? Especially since you can bet your bottom dollar, the next Volvo ad will be exactly the same as those they are mocking.   I quite liked it, but that’s because I got it, and I work in advertising and I see what they are poking fun at – but two of my friends who don’t work in advertising, without prompting, quickly commented “well I’m not buying that” and “what a crap ad for a car”.  So it’s an ad for ad people isn’t it?

We want risky creative, we want to keep producing gems like ‘The Meerkat’, but there is a time and a place. Just because you are a cutting edge agency, doesn’t necessarily mean the brands you work on will always lend themselves to your hip way of thinking – but then I guess that’s why they chose you.

Having said all this, if you asked me, 'Is it time to reign in the creativity then?' I’d say no, because that would just make our jobs boring.

Richard Annerson, Januray 2011

Ello, ello, ello - how to write a TV cop show


1. The crime under investigation must be the murder of local prostitutes.

2. The leading male detective must have a troubled past and a broken or rocky marriage.

3. And a drink problem.

4. His boss must have doubts about the male detective's  involvement, but must admit he's the only one who can crack the case.

5. An autopsy scene, quite grisly, is mandatory.

6. Nobody must ever do any paperwork.

7. Arriving at a murder scene, our protagonist must ask a uniform officer 'What have we got?' A white tent will be involved here.

8. Lots of sexual tension between lead male and lead female detective is essential. She must be younger. At some point in the first episode we must see her in her bra for no good reason.

9. Lead male must be seen standing on a bridge staring out across a dark urban setting. He must be pouting. And squinting.

10. Lead female must, at some point, lock herself in the ladies' loo and sob about something.

11. An obvious perpertrator must be dragged into the cop shop early on and aggressively questioned by the troubled male lead. Then released.

12. We must suspect the lead male cop of the crime for a bit.

13. Lone saxophone all over the incidental music please.

14. One scene will involve the use of the internet to advance the case. It won't be like the internet you use.

15. It must rain. A lot.

16. Lead female cop must look achingly at her child playing as plot deepens and more murders occur.

17. When any male returns home, he must pour a scotch and sigh. A lot.

18. Perpertrator (who wears specs) must laugh in a crazy way when cops can't make evidence stick.

19. Lead male cop will then consider 'taking things into his own hands'.

20. Audience must be unable to quite relate to friends and colleagues how the crime was solved. But will happily hum the title music.

Magnus Shaw, 2011

This is London calling


The BBC is an easy target. It’s huge, moves rather slowly, and has a tendency to stare mournfully at its aggressor as the latter reloads; but...
(we both knew there had to be a ‘but’ there, didn’t we?)

This has been a particularly Hebdomas Miserablis for the corporation. At any other time, there would be collective sniggering behind the hands at Isleworth, but Sky has seen better weeks too.

It all began rather badly on Monday when Erik Huggers, the BBC’s Director of Future Media and Technology, released an almost incomprehensible two thousand word blog post, which apart from the obligatory reference to Lord Reith, appeared to suggest that we listeners had little interest in radio through the iPlayer. Whilst there was no shortage of colourful charts to illustrate how more will be done with less, the detail of how we may listen to audio, away from a radio, was muddled and lost in a fog of stuff about ‘Putting Quality First’.
It didn’t take long for commentators, and simpletons like me on Twitter, to unify in seeking clarity where there was only corporate-speak and fudge.

Sensibly, the BBC has developed, in recent years, a kind of unspoken liberalism towards its staff and, rather than shutting up shop and hoping the questions would go away, it allowed its more sensible and articulate people to elucidate.
In my case, the value of Twitter was confirmed yet again, when a BBC friend pointed me to the well constructed explanation by Daniel Danker which not only referred to the previous day’s ‘bit of confusion’ but also shed pulsating beams of light onto the plans for the future.

In the twinkle of a moment there was cause for rejoicing all the way from Langham Place to White City. The BBC wasn’t taking a chainsaw to radio at all – they were making it better. A pity Erik Huggers didn’t restrict himself to fifty words simply telling us that.

It is often said of a big business or corporation, particularly in the public sector, that ‘the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing’. This week, rather in the manner of a Sky Sports presenter on his first date, the BBC didn’t seem to know what either of its hands was up to.

To agree that axing five foreign language services is a necessary solution to the need for substantial savings is a difficult argument to sustain on the day I write this column. With, it would seem, much of North Africa on the brink of social and political revolution, the desperate need for independent, reliable, unbiased news has never been greater. The BBC World Service has a masterful history of informing without inciting; communicating, yet not provoking.
To cut that link on this of all weeks is untimely to say the least, and potentially damaging to the welfare of those who rely on the BBC to bring truth where there is otherwise only propaganda.

There are reasonable ways of handling cuts and job losses and there are unreasonable ways. The BBC headed down the catastrophic latter road. For in addition to the rather terse farewell to the 3.4 million listeners to the African Portuguese, Caribbean English, Macedonian, Serbian and Albanian services, it was announced that the shortwave broadcasts to India, China and Russia (thirty million listeners) were to close.

How would you like to hear that your job was under threat? Well you wouldn’t, of course, but I imagine you would rather hear the news at first hand, perhaps explained to you by a fully briefed manager.
Unfortunately, most BBC World Service staff learned the news that 650 jobs (from 2,400) are going to be lost through leaks and extraordinarily accurate predictions by a host of media organisations, days before the staff received the ‘official’ briefing.

Peter Horrocks, the Director of the World Service, is a thoroughly decent and honest man who has made a significant and positive impact since taking on the role nearly two years ago, and he is something of a specialist at restructuring in broadcasting. So seeking blame is a wasted pursuit. Perhaps a whisper here, and a hint there, is inevitable in such volatile times, and with such an enormous employer.

I suppose it is only fair to note that I wave a flag for the BBC World Service. I had unhappy times in my early/mid teenage years and the World Service was my comfort in the darkness. This was the late sixties and early seventies and there was no commercial radio in the UK. Most of the BBC closed down when it thought you should be asleep, and I would have been alone but for the stentorian tones of the newsreaders, the reassurance of the rumbustious theme tune at the top of the hour, the sound of Big Ben, and the warmth of Alistair Cooke’s Letter From America.

The World Service on 648 mw was my friend after midnight, often through to dawn, and if it could have that effect on a sad boy, we can only imagine the impact it has for people with far greater troubles.

Terence Dackombe, January 2011 

This week I have been:


Listening to Paul Simon songs with a passion bordering on obsession


Reading Cynthia Lennon’s revealing book ‘John’; in the foreword, Julian Lennon writes, "To me he wasn't a musician or peace icon, he was the father I loved and who let me down in so many ways" 


Meandering around inside Wembley Arena as it was being prepared for Strictly Come Dancing. It feels much smaller when empty, I discovered.


Listening to Elton drop the ‘f’ word on the Radio Two Breakfast Show, and wondering why it isn’t normal procedure for all live radio shows to be transmitted with a built in seven second delay. 

Saturday, 15 January 2011

All change

1.  Blitz

Were: Hardcore skinheads
Became: Synth experimentalists
What happened:

A skinhead Oi band from New Mills, Derbyshire - these Bushell blessed rowdies suddenly pitched up with a synth heavy, Sisters sounding LP called Second Empire Justice. Just as quickly they disowned it and went back to noisy chanting.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOagiBRl-ls

Verdict: FAIL

2.  Pat Boone

Was: Bible thumping Republican crooner
Became: S&M metal king, sort of ...
What happened:

One of America's most beloved entertainers. Wholesome and devout, Pat surprised everyone in 1997 by releasing In A Metal Mood - an album of hard rock covers. Sacked by the Gospel America show for his troubles, he never tackled the genre again.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67IqrmygZY

Verdict: FAIL


3.  Depeche Mode

Were: Synth popsters
Became: Dark industrialists
What happened:

Having enjoyed a string of sweet, pop hits with Vince Clarke, the Mode turned to Martin Gore for their songs. Morphing into gloomy, clanging mood merchants, they unexpectedly conquered America's stadia and sold millions.

Listen: http://tinyurl.com/6zbju48

Verdict: SUCCESS


4.  Stiff Little Fingers

Were: Growling Irish punksters
Became: New romantic power poppers
What happened:

After two fine albums of tight, angry punk, Ulster's SLF lost their way releasing instrumental singles (Go For It) and sub-Alarm new wave lite (Listen). That said, they still tour and have a considerable fan base.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTBhcqhy6O0

Verdict: FAIL

5.  Joy Division

Were: Emotional indie northeners
Became: Electronic dance god northerners
What happened:

After the suicide of Ian Curtis, the band regrouped and changed their name to New Order. After one or two transitional albums and visits to New York's Garage club they produced the most remarkable blend of indie and electronic dance music and were untouchable for at least a decade. No longer on speaking terms, however.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og1HAkjOuL0

Verdict: SUCCESS

6.  Garth Brooks

Was: Platinum selling country hat act
Became: Moody rock star called Chris Gaines
What happened:

Who knows? If you produce sales for your record company they will indulge your misguided concepts. From nowhere, Brooks re-invented himself as Chris Gains - a sort of tortured rock star with blue hair. Confused, the world avoided the project like bird flu.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_obtqtdu3w

Verdict: FAIL


7.  Roxy Music

Were: Experimental glam rock from space
Became: Smooth lounge lizards
What happened:

Storming the 70s with debut Virginia Plain, Roxy were exotic, glamorous and most unusual. Then Brian Eno quit and sharp suits and crooning became the order of the day. Fortunately the music was still outstanding and the band's popularity only increased. Best not to mention the whole fox hunting thing though.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOnde5c7OG8

Verdict: SUCCESS


8.  The Beatles

Were: The first boy band
Became: The first conceptual band
What happened:

They stopped playing live and started getting stoned. As a result Revolution 9 sounded a little different from Please Please Me.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oQTU0fFyts

Verdict: JURY OUT


9.  Adam & The Ants

Were: Fetish art punks
Became: Dandy panto cartoons
What happened:

Having had his band stolen by Malcolm Mclaren, Adam went for all out for pop stardom by dressing as a pirate with a poorly nose. For about 12 months it was the most exciting thing in pop music. Rapidly became a bit tired.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvtzHxr-7g8


Verdict: SUCCESS (until Prince Charming)


10.  UB40

Were: Distinctive political UK reggae
Became: Dull covers act
What happened:

After two albums of uniquely British reggae reflecting the turmoil of the times, cash and fame turned their heads and they opted for lame covers which sold in truckloads but were also massively boring.

Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT1Sa91N75E

Verdict: FAIL


Magnus Shaw, January 2011

Reclining seats

I may just have been unlucky. Maybe I was just unlucky last August at the Comedy Theatre when everything went terribly wrong. Possibly it was simply bad luck that I chose to attend a showing of The King’s Speech at a cinema in High Wycombe, last Saturday evening; and that everything went wrong, again.

As with the Comedy Theatre (La BĂȘte), no blame for the disastrous evening can be laid on the broad shoulders of those who produced the King’s Speech.
When asked to name my favourite films, I have given the same three titles for decades; The Godfather, Annie Hall, and Apocalypse Now. The King’s Speech is so very good that it rates up in that company. It is a triumph and a multiple award winner.

Cinema audiences are on the increase. We like the idea of an evening out; perhaps combining dinner and the cinema in the same manner as our parents and their parents did.

So we started the evening at Zizzi in Marlow and left with ample time to reach the movie theatre complex, no more than five miles away along the A404. We arrived with about twenty minutes to spare before the ‘show’ (commercials and trailers) was due to start. Tickets had been pre-booked, so we expected to maybe join a short queue to collect them.

Nope.

To pick up these pre-booked tickets, we attached ourselves to a line of about fifty or sixty people, waiting for tickets to be spilled out of the one automated machine that was working. There was no traditional box office. There were no staff at all in the lobby.

We didn’t have coffee at Zizzi, so while my companion edged slowly towards the lethargic (even dilatory wouldn’t be overstating it) ticket dispenser, I joined the deep crowds trying to reach the refreshments counter, where popcorn was being dispensed by the bucket at a cost that would make a newly bonus-ed banker sweat just a little.
There were about six queues, but it wasn’t clear until one reached the counter (after twenty minutes) that it didn’t matter if you were in the ice cream queue or the popcorn queue, the staff could serve you anything. Unfortunately they had to trek back and forth between each other to do so (it’s a very wide counter, maybe twenty five feet) and this caused collisions a go-go and stress galore.

I mentioned the staff could serve you anything. Unfortunately, in the coffee queue, I discovered that they couldn’t serve coffee as their (Costa Coffee) machine had broken down. I could have hot chocolate or tea. As the latter generally reminds me of dish water, I favoured the hot choc.

Other couples and groups were still meandering around the lobby and popcorn areas as these processes (that one might assume would take a few minutes) were taking half an hour. People were complaining. To each other because there were no staff, and certainly no management, in sight.

We arrived at Screen Five with seconds to spare, and with our pre-booked tickets for seats K14 and K15, climbed up to our allocated seats.
Except there was a middle aged couple sitting in them. The lights were dimmed and The King’s Speech began its surely Oscar winning screening. We whispered the usual sort of thing, “Excuse me but those are our seats.”

“SIT DOWN!” came an entreaty from behind (we had nowhere to go, we were blocking the view). “Sorry...” I stage-whispered.

The middle aged couple ignored us. We sat on the steps of the aisle. This intrusion into the rules of health and safety brought a young girl (possibly seventeen years old, we later found out she was a shift supervisor) haring up the stairs. After explaining our predicament (“SHHHH!” from several fellow customers) she asked the middle aged couple to move. Loudly, the man said, “We’re not moving.”

Understandably, people who had come to see Colin Firth, as opposed to my silhouette blocking the screen, were becoming more vocal.
“SIT DOWNNNN!” “SHHHH!” “Sort it out!” were some of the heckles strewn in our direction.

We sat on the steps again, and instructed the seventeen year old to go and find a manager.

After fifteen minutes, she hadn’t returned, and my companion was becoming weary of sitting on the steps (we were more sprawling than sitting, because if we had sat normally, we would have been obstructing the screen). As our eyes had become accustomed to the dim light, we became aware that there was a row, about five steps down, that housed the only free seats in the whole cinema; two seats next to each other. Hooray! Our troubles were over. We hunched down and inched our way past the lady seated in the seat nearest the aisle.

“Bl**dy Hell!” we involuntarily exclaimed, in unison. No wonder these seats were unoccupied. The seats of the chairs had been broken to the extent that it was like sitting on nails, and the backs had been snapped so that they rested on the seats behind.

To save you from further episodes of our angst, I shall summarise this part by saying the young girl returned after about thirty minutes and explained that the manager “refused” to come. I said what I thought about this, accompanied to an understandable chorus of “Shhhhh!” from several nearby locations. The wonderful nature of the British temperament was then shown. In my now much practised stage whisper, I said, “I’m terribly sorry everyone!”
From all around came the great, very British response of “It’s ok really” “Oh, don’t worry...” “Don’t blame you...” and so on.

The King’s Speech is a triumph of film making. Cast with care and precision and beautifully directed by Tom Hooper, who seems to have the knack of always bringing a sympathetic and light touch to his work, whilst ensuring that the film has character and quality embedded.
It is such an outstanding performance from Colin Firth, and we have probably all read the superlatives, that it is hard to add anything new. He brings Bertie (King George) to life by adding layers of subtlety and vulnerability, without relying on the obvious sympathy vote of hammering the stammer. He underplays it and relies on emotion, eye contact and mannerisms to convey the locked in world in which he exists.

It is rare for me to ever want to see a film a second time, even years later. I’m going to see The King’s Speech again this weekend. But not in High Wycombe.

To watch this movie, my companion jammed her handbag behind her and used it as a cushion to prevent herself falling backwards, due to the missing back of the chair.
It may come as little surprise that I don’t possess any handbags, and thus spent an hour and a half hovering half on a ‘seat’ of broken springs and half kneeling on the floor.

In the lobby afterwards, we joined other couples who had found the manager (aged about twenty one, I guess) and the young shift supervisor. After some interrogation, we established that the middle aged couple had been allocated the broken seats, but had been advised by the manager to take our allocated seats instead. He could give no rational explanation why he had done this, knowing that the screening was a sell out and that as inevitably as the King struggling with a mouthful of marbles, consequences would follow.

Perhaps the most unnerving and telling aspect of this debacle is that this cinema is clearly used to complaints. Quite how many, I cannot say, but two clues point us towards a conclusion that complaints are very much a day to day occurrence.
Firstly, the manager had, in an envelope, ready to hand to us, a cash refund to the value of our tickets (why cash and not a refund back on the card? I don’t know but I’m guessing to save time, and to prevent refunds being audited?), and secondly, he had professionally printed, multi-coloured apology slips at his immediate disposal, offering free admission to the cinema.

Wonderfully, with superb sang froid, they carried, in the terms and conditions, a caveat that the free entry could only be used in a standard 2D film, as our complaint was generated whilst viewing a 2D movie.
No doubt they have another set of apology slips for 3D complainants.

As with my experience at the Comedy Theatre in Panton Street last year, I can’t help but wonder why we put up with this sort of service. The cinema complex was packed. Film goers had to queue for their tickets, queue for their popcorn, and queue for coffee that didn’t exist.

From the number of people seeking the manager afterwards, I can say we weren’t the only people who found the experience a pain in the back.

I believe that in the long run, customers will not accept this lack of care, nonexistent service and management in hiding. Then we will see pained articles written by people like me, wailing about the drop in theatre and cinema audiences, and the subsequent closure of the venues.

The appeal of a night on the sofa watching a DVD or, increasingly, a streamed movie could easily make cinemas obsolete. To keep the customers coming through the doors, they will have to learn the basics of customer service in the twenty first century. Or hand over the keys to Waitrose or Tesco.

Long Live The King!

Terence Dackombe, January 2011

This week I have:


Abandoned Joan Didion to read (through my tears) the biography of Danoli, the fearless hurdler of the 1990s (he was a horse)


Had my haircut at Brooks and Brooks in Sicilian Avenue, Bloomsbury; I now look like a cross between Steve Marriott and Oscar Wilde. 


Not been in residence at the Frontline Club when Nick Griffin was being bashed


Listened extensively to the works of Thomas Tallis, via Spotify


And related an anecdote about meeting the Queen Mother in 1995, and how she told me that she asked her driver to always walk around the rear of her car, “Who would want to see a fellow walk around the front of one’s car?”

Worth the weight?

Kenneth Tong, remember him? Of course you don’t. He was a Big Brother contestant with a trust fund and a haircut, who came not even close to winning and sank into obscurity. Until now.

Kenneth has recently made something of a name for himself thanks to anti-fat comments he has placed on Twitter. By Kenneth’s reckoning, all girls should sign up for ‘managed anorexia’ to keep them skinny. He also proposes women should ‘get thin or die trying’ and claims to have devised a pill which will make all its users size zero.

I have no way of knowing this pill even exists, but assuming it does, it’s quite obvious Kenneth is using shock tactics (and social media) to advertise his unnecessary and unpleasant medication. But this is just an extreme example of advertisers’ tendency to manipulate and worry the populace into buying their stuff, using body weight as the lure.

The Special K brand has always played on its health giving properties, but in recent years has really hammered home a fat loss proposition. It runs something like this: replace two of your daily meals with a bowl of Special K and you’ll see your weight reduce within two weeks. I should say you will. You’ve cut out two meals and replaced them with something that seems to be more air than anything else. It surely has nothing to do with the ingredients of the cereal.

And that’s the catch. The pressure on consumers to conform to some template of perfection is such that we are often quite prepared to accept a particular product has magical slimming properties. We will all lose weight if we eat less and exercise more, but we want the magic bullet and there is no shortage of quasi-medical products claiming to deliver the no-effort fix: Adios, Cyclotrim and Alli are just three.

Whether these treatments work or not doesn’t really concern me. What is depressing is the constant demand for physical conformity. Primarily because it causes so much anxiety and misery in so many people, while creating vast amounts of money for those claiming to provide it.

Hold on, though. Why should the advertising of diet products be so much more dubious than any other strand of marketing? Well, promoting a style or brand of watch may well persuade an audience their social status will be elevated by this particular timepiece. Nevertheless they are unlikely to have been bombarded, from childhood, with images and messages suggesting their worth as a human being is directly linked to their choice of wrist adornment. When advertising flogs expensive watches, people buy them or they don’t. When it critiques their bodies, the impact on lives can be quite profound.

Even advertising which isn’t pushing a means to slenderness
is entwined with the cult of the slim. Holiday commercials
never feature the extra flesh most of us display in a swimming
costume. Nor do beer ads show young folk with distended
bellies brought on by consuming pints of the brew.
The expectation of bodily ‘beauty’ is marbled through
almost all marketing communications and, almost without
realising it, we are engulfed by a fantasy world, populated
with impossibly shaped beings.

Ridiculously, side-by-side with this compulsion to look like an army of mannequins, there are powerful temptations to indulge in the very habits which cause the opposite. Alcohol, burgers, cakes, chocolate and sugar are all heavily advertised (always by underweight models and actors) – so when commentators, moralisers, politicians and celebrities pontificate so righteously about our disgusting bodies, they would do well to consider why we’re all so flipping mixed up.

It is hardly surprising the government funded ‘Change For Life’ campaign was such a dismal failure when it was simply a tiny voice of healthy advice drowned by a deluge of ‘lose weight you freak’ and ‘buy our delicious fatty, creamy, cheesy goodies’ contradictions. The messages are both confused and overwhelming.

I think most of us know in our guts (whatever size they may be), that being very, very skinny is as dangerous as being truly enormous – but to be at some point between the two is really okay. If you wish to be a ripped and muscled fitness icon, you are most welcome. Should you happen to be a regular person with a bit of a tummy, no-one really minds or cares. Knowing and believing this really does begin to negate the unfair body fascism so often seen in advertising. And although I work in that same tainted and rapacious business, I would be delighted to see such a lazy and damaging practice challenged.  

One more thing. Obesity doesn’t discriminate, but the social coercion on which marketing thrives, certainly does. The vast majority of weight-based advertising is pitched at women – and most anorexia sufferers are also female.

In 1978 Susie Orbach wrote a book called ‘Fat Is A Feminist Issue’. Thanks to advertising, the media and Kenneth Tong, it still is.

Magnus Shaw, January 2011

This article originally appeared on creativepool.co.uk

Saturday, 8 January 2011

Stop, look and listen

I once shared an office with someone who paused at the end of every sentence and then said with unvarying regularity, “...type of thing...”
For maybe five minutes this seemed like an endearing quirk; after five hours I thought she might have Tourette's; after five weeks I began to look kindly upon death as an escape route.

Language evolves. A regular revolution ensures that words and phrases come and go; some stay the night, others form long term relationships with us.
William Shakespeare would probably be flattered and somewhat amazed that we could certainly pick out several hundred phrases from his work that are used in everyday situations four hundred years later. As far as I know, Shakespeare didn’t have a Twitter account in the seventeenth century, nor did he have access to any other social media, television, radio, or podcasts.
Despite studying his works in some detail I have been unable to locate characters who regularly exit the stage, closing their speech with a quick “innit...” or even “D’ya know what I’m sayin’?...”

Of course it is wonderful and exciting that in this age an event can take place and within a fraction of a second, anyone in the world with internet access can be part of that event, or at the very least have a clear connection to it, in both a literal and emotional sense.
However (there was always going to be a ‘but’ wasn’t there?) such a state also lends itself to fashionable words or phrases spreading across the globe with the same velocity and reach as a Simon Cowell talent show.
Thus, early 2011 is infected with what we scientists call the ‘Look and Listen Problem’. From nowhere, and now at default setting for all media interviewees is the unquenchable desire, when answering a question, to launch a reply by commencing with either “Listen...” or “Look...”
Listen. Let’s take a closer look at this unwelcome phenomenon.

This week, during the final Test of The Ashes cricket in Australia, Paul Collingwood of England, was asked about his retirement. Each answer was neatly packaged by inserting a “Listen” or “Look” at the start of each reply.
Commentating during the same match, Shane Warne, began each segment of his analysis with a hearty “Look...”
Back home in England, suddenly a politician can no longer answer John Humphreys or Nicky Campbell with a hollow answer unless it is prefaced with a startling “Look..”

Some media people have taken the L ‘n’ L craze so much to their hearts that it has become a recurrent, seemingly involuntary response to any question. Dan Sabbagh, head of media and technology at The Guardian is a regular guest on radio programmes and podcasts. He has become mesmerised by the dazzle of the L ‘n’ L and has reached a tipping point where every single response to a simple question from Steve Hewlett is dragged along reluctantly behind the hanging knuckles of the sharp “Listen...!” prefix.

Look. Why has the L ‘n’ L craze dug in so deeply (mainly across the Commonwealth, strangely)?

I think L ‘n’ L serve two separate but closely linked purposes, each with similar weight.

Interviewees in the searing searchlights of the media don’t like to appear nervous. They fear it transmits easily (though often we can’t tell), so hoiking out a swift and assertive  “Listen...” may give the illusion that the speaker is so on top of his or her game that they can bat away the question with ease. It implies that the question is rather beneath them. It has a hidden appendix which says, “Listen... for God’s sake why are you asking me such an idiotic question? I’m rather cleverer than you and consequently I will teach you (if your tiny snivelling brain can cope with my intellect) a swift lesson so you won’t ask such an imbecilic question next time.”

 “Look...” has a similar but even more forceful hidden codicil to its twin brother.

“Look...” when stated with a weary sigh and married to a stern intonation says, “Look... you’re wasting my time. You should know this already. It is so flamingly obvious and is written in the sky above you in rainbow verdana text. I could drop into any kindergarten in the country and find a two year old who could answer your moronic question, but instead, I’m going to patronise you and tell you the way it is in the manner of Jack Donaghy educating Liz Lemon. Clearly you are a buffoon and unworthy of my time.”

So by hurtling into a response with the L ‘n’ L adjunct, the interviewee not only covers nerves by sounding forceful and patronising, they further win the bonus of achieving an additional second or two of thinking time, which can make all the difference while brains scan for an appropriate response. Intriguingly, I’ve yet to note the L ‘n’ L technique used by youthful responders, leading to the possibility that the thinking time of the younger generation is swifter, and that nerves are less of an issue, or at least less of a social faux pas than they might be to the more mature guest who may wish to be viewed as a worldly wise, slightly weary, commentator on current affairs.

Once we notice the preponderance of L ‘n’ L it becomes a fascination to mentally note the trigger that is set in motion as “Look...” and “Listen...” are snowballed down the mountain by the interviewee, creating an avalanche of woe for the listener.

For lovers of language, we must be grateful that Shakespeare is not amongst us today as he may have seen it as his duty for Mark Antony to stand before his peers bellowing “Listen... Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears!”
Or Macbeth, interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, “Look... Is this a dagger which I see before me?”

Look... Listen... Stop.

Terence Dackombe, January 2011


This week I have:

Been obsessed with Joan Didion, read a splendid compilation of her work, and delivered a speech extolling her magnificent use of language.


Dined at the Frontline Club in London, and jabbered away to such an extent that a man of the cloth missed his last train.


Watched Chelsea F.C. play with the style and panache of an out of date Christmas pudding.


Attended a dinner/theatre performance of ‘A Bedfull Of Foreigners’ in a converted water mill by the Thames in Berkshire

Plucking lovely

So, it’s the new year, and the first thing to get out of the way is that I’ve not made any resolutions whatsoever. As you get older, you’re wise enough to know that:
(a) you never keep them; and (b) in the oft-quoted words of a certain deceased ex-Beatle who recently had A Significant Anniversary, life happens while you’re making other plans.

The one thing which has been on the backburner for more new years than I care to remember, though, is that I must get a new guitar. I’ve been putting up with the same steel-string acoustic for too long and, notwithstanding frequent changes of excellent quality D’Addario strings, it just isn’t right for me, either in sound or build.

Personally, I blame my friend Phil for the whole circus of discontent surrounding the instrument. It all started with a rainy London afternoon many moons ago, jamming in the basement at Macari’s on Charing Cross Road. We picked up some acoustics and were knocking out a few tunes to pass the time when a cockney geezer came over and said to me, ‘Scuse me love, would yer mind tryin’ this aht for me? I’m buyin’ a present for me son and I can’t play. I wanna hear it first though.’ ‘Sure,’ I replied.

He handed over a beautiful custom-build cutaway by Manson Guitars. It fit me like a glove and sounded sweeter than an orchestra of harps. Now, I’m not prone to infatuation, but I fell in love immediately. ‘Cor, that sahnds great,’ chirped the cockney. I handed the guitar to Phil. With a growing smile he looked at me and said, ‘Flippen’ heck, Lisa. This is really nice.’

So I played a little longer and all the other guitars I’d ever tried swiftly paled into insignificance. Finally, said the cockney: ‘Excellent, I fink I’ll take it. Cheers!’ ‘How much is it?’ He scanned the instrument for the price tag. ‘Fifteen hundred quid? Yeah, that’ll do.’

Phil gave up badgering me to buy a new guitar ages ago (that one specifically). The unfortunate thing is that in the cold light of day, other more practical things always seem to get in the way of making a luxury purchase like this. So I’ve put it off and put it off, and the idea of owning a custom build has become a distant rest stop on the financial highway, a creative dream in a long litany of tedious journeyman accountancy. Eventually, Phil went off and spent a similar sum on a stunning Martin guitar for himself – as you do. I’ve played it. And it’s a very fine instrument indeed.

So ends the tale – for now, anyway. Wouldn’t it be lovely this year if I could ring Manson or Lowden up and finally say, ‘Can you make me a guitar?’ For every acoustic aficionado, it’s the ultimate treat. The alternative, of course, is that I snare an investment banker to get the moolar. ’Tis a small price to pay, surely?

Lisa Cordaro, January 2011