Translation please of this Modelez (Craft Foods) PR speak sent to me today.
" Many of you have shown your support with donations through
the rewards club, inspiring us to get behind the project
even more. That’s why we’ve taken the difficult decision to
close the Kenco Rewards Club at midday on 1st June."
|
Translation.
Some smart ass PR prick (now a job seeker) thought up this crap and its costing us a fortune, so we are stopping it and you can go get stuffed.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 8 Feb 16 at 21:32
|
I have no time for PR and HR as disciplines (with apologies to a select few of my acquaintance who are honourable exceptions, probably a career-limiting strategy for them).
Both seem to be about lying and insulting the intelligence of as many people as possible, as often as possible.
Often the withdrawal of a bus service, closure of a hospital, or introduction of a new charge, is "part of our continuing campaign to improve our customer focus".
That one from Kenco is a corker though, best I've seen for a while.
|
|
Where do they learn this type of language is it to do with Mystic Meg? You don't have to be intelligent to see through this c r a p .
|
Whoever thought this up?...
...is probably the same idiot graduate who created the NHS automated phone survey I got the other day having recently attended an A & E department.
"On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the least likely and 5 being the most likely, would you recommend XXX Hospital's Accident and Emergency service to friends or family?"
WTF?
Its a hospital for chrissake, not a package holiday destination!
|
Point is they can track it, it provides a datum that's all. Rather oddly worded though. Hardly worth breaking a leg for even if it got a 5.
In 2011, after my wife had been to A&E at the local hospital on orders from her doctor, I would have given them 1, with reasons.
|
|
Really? So if you found a friend or relative in a bad way, you'd say, "Oh no, whatever you do, don't take that to NHS A&E," would you?
|
|
Seems an odd interpretation. Surely you can be very unhappy with the service provided at an A & E unit without saying that you would never use them again especially if there was no viable alternative.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 9 Feb 16 at 14:58
|
|
On 1 to 5 scale, how likely are you to use XXX Hospital's A&E service again?
|
>> On 1 to 5 scale, how likely are you to use XXX Hospital's A&E service
>> again?
Presumably you are intending to demonstrate that the form of words above doesn't work, which might explain how they ended up with the rather odd wording they did.
It might have made more sense simply to ask "how satisfied were you?". But even that isn't very good. I am very satisfied that they didn't actually kill my wife but not at all happy that they might well have, had we declined to be sent home. Twice. Following which an MRI confirmed a deep seated infection for which she had to be operated on (and which her GP had diagnosed before sending her there in the first place).
|
>>Presumably you are intending to demonstrate that the form of words above doesn't work,
>>which might explain how they ended up with the rather odd wording they did.
TBH I viewed it more as a supplementary question. I thought the question you had was sailing pretty close to this line!
|
>> On 1 to 5 scale, how likely are you to use XXX Hospital's A&E service
>> again?
>>
"How accident-prone are you?"
|
It's all to do with the way a number of themes in modern society have developed - consumerism/materialism, advertising, spin etc. It's the dark art of subtly (ideally) altering the perception of your target audience in favour (or against) the product, service or topic in question, by manipulating language, where words that have emotional connotations are hijacked to serve a hidden purpose.
One of my favourites: Marghanita Laski* once made up a highly unlikely advertising slogan - "Cheap Clothes for Fat Old Women". That is unlikely precisely because it states the blunt truth about the product.
Much more likely would be "Budget Fashion for the Mature Figure".
*1915 – 1988, English journalist, radio panellist and novelist
|
|
Mrs FP works for a department of a local authority, supporting young people and helping them to get into apprenticeships or further education. Staffing is continually cut. In management-speak these cuts are presented as an improvement and referred to to as "targeting resources". It's supposed to sound like a bit of good management, whereby cases are prioritised. What it means in practice is that a lot of kids just get left out.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Tue 9 Feb 16 at 15:08
|
>> Mrs FP
>>
Pendant Corner.
That should be Mrs P, not Mrs FP, Shirley?
Unless your name is hypenated?
|
On a not unrelated note, here's another generational thing. My old mum still, when she sends my wife a card or letter, addresses it to Mrs X Crankcase, which is my initial, not Mrs Y Crankcase, which is my wife's. And ma gets not exactly grumpy but comments sometimes when her own post is addressed with her own initial, not that of my dad's, even though he's been gorn since 1973.
I think she said once you continue to use the husband's initial for the wife's name even after his death. You only change it after divorce, which for her is and was pretty shockingly unthinkable.
Can't say I do this. I use the woman's own initial on birthday cards or whatever, ill mannered old me no doubt.
Another thing younger folk will go "you what?" over no doubt.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Wed 10 Feb 16 at 06:21
|
>> On a not unrelated note, here's another generational thing. My old mum still, when she
>> sends my wife a card or letter, addresses it to Mrs X Crankcase, which is
>> my initial, not Mrs Y Crankcase, which is my wife's.
One of my sisters in law used to do this. I suppose the thinking was that the woman, upon marriage, took the mans name - all of it - including the Christian name.
That goes a little way to explaining why the fragrant Princess Michael of Kent is so called. No?
|
That kind of subsuming into the man's dominance is obviously not what happens today, for better or worse, as it were.
Actually, I'm struggling to remember if in our own wedding ceremony in the early 1980s we had the "love honour and obey" discussion, and if we did, what the outcome was. I seem to recall there was a choice.
I'd bet it's not even in the current service. I don't know, I don't do weddings.
|
>>
>> That goes a little way to explaining why the fragrant Princess Michael of Kent is
>> so called. No?
>>
Yes. There are more subtle rules for widows and divorcees. I think a long-widowed woman may revert to her own name, as "Mrs Mabel Bloggs" rather than "Mrs Frederick Bloggs".
On divorce she would instantly have reverted to Mabel, if indeed she kept her married surname at all.
But it is very insulting and distressing to address a recent widow as "Mrs Mabel Bloggs" because that implies that she is well rid of her husband and now has all the freedoms of a divorcee.
There's an awkward period in between when one is not sure whether she wants to be reminded of her sad bereavement, or not.
|
>> But it is very insulting and distressing to address a recent widow as "Mrs Mabel
>> Bloggs" because that implies that she is well rid of her husband and now has
>> all the freedoms of a divorcee.
I don't think so.
It may well have been etiquette in the past, but that's a long, long time ago.
My sister is a widow and has been for 5 years, she's fast approaching 51. She has always been Mrs Mabel Bloggs and would think it distinctly odd if anyone addressed her as Mrs Fred Bloggs.
Times change.
|
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> It may well have been etiquette in the past, but that's a long, long time
>> ago.
I'd thought that too. My paternal grandmother EB (nee EH), widowed c1952, insisted on being Mrs W B right up until she lost her faculties in eighties. She was regarded as a bit of an old fashioned outlier even then.
Amazed the idea still has traction in some quarters today.
|
"That should be Mrs P, not Mrs FP, Shirley?"
As Duncan says, traditionally, and in a formal context, the wife took not only her husband's surname, but his first name too.
Which is rather ironic, because my wife continues to use her maiden name in real life.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 10 Feb 16 at 09:00
|
|
Folks of all genders and none should be entitled to be addressed however they see fit, but should not take offence if someone gets it wrong, seeing as there is much scope for error these days.
|
My father was inclined to *write cheques to my mother using his initials.
_______________________________________
* What an old fashioned concept.
|
Courtesy is changing, a lot of what we (older folk) call "courtesy" stems from the days when a Gentleman was seen as the ultimate head of the home, and men (as now,) held the most important jobs in society. The "Woman" was lower rank and as a rule often deferred to her husbands ways.
Todays "courtesys" are different (with women now being seen more or less as equals), many women now see traditional Courtesy as demeaning (opening doors for people, giving up your seat on public transport. etc). Modern youth don't know the "ways" we were brought up, they only know the "ways" that todays intolerant society have shown them.
|
Is that the intolerant society which tolerates women in positions of authority and importance now?
I are confuse.
|
|
No, thats part of the changing thats going on in the Womens (more equal) role in society.
|
Which couldn't happen in an intolerant society.
Sometimes I wonder if people on here are actually on the same island as me.
|
>Which couldn't happen in an intolerant society.
It Can, it does and it has!
>
Sometimes I wonder if people on here are actually on the same island as me.
Perfect example, this is you being intolerent of my views, insinuating that your intelligence is greater than mine! (it probably is, but that is irrelevant! ;-) )
|
>> >Which couldn't happen in an intolerant society.
>>
>> It Can, it does and it has!
>>
>> >
>> Sometimes I wonder if people on here are actually on the same island as me.
>>
>> Perfect example, this is you being intolerent of my views, insinuating that your intelligence is
>> greater than mine! (it probably is, but that is irrelevant! ;-) )
>>
I don't think I'm being intolerant of your views, I just don't agree and am trying to discuss them. I suppose I'm just being a bit abrupt as usual, can't help it, maybe I'm a little autistic or something, or in a rush to post as usual so come across as intolerant. Anyway, I claim no towering intelligence, devonite. But I just can't see today's society as intolerant. I know I wasn't around in the 1960s and you were, but tolerance levels these days are off the chart compared to the days of "No Dogs, No Irish, No Blacks".
I'm intrigued why you think that today's society is intolerant. In my experience of the modern world the statement bears no scrutiny. Evidently you think differently and I'd be interested to hear what you think is intolerant about modern society. I just don't get where you're coming from. Maybe I could see things differently if you could illustrate your position.
Perhaps it's a difference in the definition of 'tolerance'. I am happy to tolerate people's religious beliefs for example, without going round bombing dissenters to my view. But I still think it's OK to question and even mock, without that being intolerant. Maybe I'm wrong. *shrug*
|
Sometimes I wonder if people on here are actually on the same island as me.......
Lonely?
8o)
Last edited by: neiltoo on Wed 10 Feb 16 at 17:07
|
>> women now see traditional Courtesy as demeaning (opening doors for people, giving up your seat
>> on public transport. etc).
Does any woman really object, in principle, to doors being held open?
Suspect that in vast majority of cases the objection is to accompanying words. ''Ladies First" is, in its way, a reflection of the older thinking devonite refers to.
|
>> Does any woman really object, in principle, to doors being held open?
>>
No, of course not. We appreciate it.
>> Suspect that in vast majority of cases the objection is to accompanying words. ''Ladies First"
>> is, in its way, a reflection of the older thinking devonite refers to.
Not at all Bormpt, that's trying to make something out of nothing!
It happens so rarely these days, mainly because us women fail to say thank you, that any accompanying words are welcome.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 11 Feb 16 at 04:21
|
Does anybody mind having a door opened or a coat helped on? I do this for anyone who might benefit from it, and others do it for me. No problem.
But Bromp has a point: 'Ladies first - so long as it's not into the golf club' is an attitude that's - thankfully - fading away.
|
>> Not at all Bormpt, that's trying to make something out of nothing!
I too will open or hold a door for anyone of any sex/gender! Nobody has ever objected.
As in many of these things I'm interested in (a) facts and (b) rationale. So (a) does the woman who objects to doors being held exist and (b) why does she react so?
As to (b) there are a number of possibilities ranging from a founded objection through the feminist equivalent of the 'headcam warrior' to real or perceived offence at words, looks or gestures that accompanied the act of the door being held.
I was considering the last of those.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 11 Feb 16 at 08:18
|
PR speak, Translation ? - Zero
