Office Productivity Tip

Its ages since I have written about anything office related.

I don't know about you but my email box is very busy and can get full very quickly. One of the great things I have found to stop emails disturbing my work is to turn off the automatic notification features. After all does any email really need to be looked at instantly, if it does then the sender is communicating badly as they should pick up the phone. Email may be a convenient way of communicating but it isn't an urgent method, if someone needs to contact me urgently they should pick up the phone, but be warned I screen my calls. I certainly don't feel the need to pick up a ringing phone.

Anyway by turning off the automatic notification I only look at my emails a couple of times an hour rather than the up to 14 times an hour I get an email, result better focus and concentration on other stuff I am actually doing and productivity increases.

Trust me, give it a go and see if it works for you.

Creative boost - revitalise the creative thought process

Announcing the launch of my latest web project.

This is a quirky little site based around random images designed to boost the brain, by making you think or perhaps look at things from a different perspective.

At the moment there are 40 random images but I am expanding them as I go and have invited other people to submit their own.

The best thing to do is go and have a look and see what you think.

Dear Google,

This is an open letter, mainly because I couldn't easily find out how to contact them.

I have several google things running and it would be really nice to switch between products via the my account link or even better some kind of drop down menu.

However the menu they do have which works very nicely isn't consistent across the product range. In some it is there in others it is the proverbial vanishing lady.

This is very un-google like behaviour, a simple solution that isn't properly integrated across the product range.

Anyway just to keep it simple, this small menu should always be in the top right hand corner of the screen no matter what part of google you are in so you can always get back to your 'my account' screen.


p.s. its not click able, its an image.

p.p.s. google should read this post within a day or so via the googlebot, but will anyone from google ever read the page and do something about it. Secondly, how long will it take them?

Review of Cloverfield

I saw Cloverfield last night on DVD and although normally monster flicks are not normally my thing just because they turn out to be cheesy. This one was quite good, it was fast paced and not overly gory.

The idea is that it is all shot from a personal video camera which helps add to the atmosphere.

For a monster movie where you never really find out much about what the monster is, it has an excellent plot. There are one or two bits which are hide behind the sofa cushion time but if you are looking for a good monster movie then this may be right up your street.

I particularly like the sequences down the subway tunnels, being underground, in the dark hearing noises always adds to the tension.

Camping for yummy mummies (The Guardian)

Don't let the title of the article put you off. This is the halfway house between a tent and a cottage, a rather posh tent with wooden floors and wood burning stove.

It looks very luxuriousness and has a bit of the Arabian nights about it. My only criticism is that it is aimed at families, hence the yummy mummy connection. Personally I think it would make a very reasonably priced romantic get away for a young professional couple.

The other good thing about this is that it is a good diversification project for farmers, if you look on the website you will find that the whole concept can be franchised out to a farmer. There are the usual key concepts to each site but from a farmers point of view well organised and a strong well behaved target market.

Quite an interesting concept and quite an interesting holiday.

Can anyone hear that picture (BBC)

This BBC article is about hos some people can hear what they see after a student reporting sounds from a screensaver.

There is even a test to try to see if you can hear pictures. I don't think I could hear anything but I could imagine the sounds of rushing a bit like a wave coming in and out.

Anyway her is my DIY test? Can you hear the dots?

Britain tries to block green energy laws (The Guardian)

The article is about Britain trying to water down language in new EU legislation. Basically the EU wants to give renewable energy projects priority access to the transmission grid where as the UK government isn't so keen.

Some interesting facts come out of the article though. According to a recent report 9.3 GW of wind power is waiting to be connected to the grid. This seems to be me to be a bit of a crime, get the turbines connected, according to the guardian that is the equivalent of a new generation of nuclear power stations. I know which ones I would rather have.

There is hints in the article that certain industrial lobby groups have put pressure on the government to water down the legislation. The suggestion is that the nuclear power lobby are pushing hard for these new reactors and want to make sure the economic and political justification is not water down.

I wrote previously in 2007 about generating capacity caught up in the planning system for wind power. It would seem that the renewables sector is hobbled continuously by bureacuracy. The government should do the responsible thing and sort things out. If we got everything on the drawing board cleared, built and connected to the grid we could forget about nuclear power and even start looking towards closing some of the dirty coal stations. No need to worry about renewables target by 2020 either as it would be happily smashed.

"I have never ended on an unstressed syllable!" (The Guardian)

Everyone likes a good rant against the system at some point. There are always useless jobsworths who deserve to be put in their place. I often feel like writing snotty emails to people but it really only gets you into trouble. The best thing to do is phone them up, then there is no hard record of the conversation and you can always claim you were misinterpreted.

Or my other little petty thing is to use the phrase , "If you do have any further queries do hesitate to contact me in the future."

Should they spot the missing not you can simply claim it was a typing error. OK so a small rebellion in the great battle against the dumb and unhelpful.

Anyway Giles Coren, restaurant critic for the times is plagued by sub editors who mess around with his submissions changing the context and destroying his perfectly formed prose. On occasion he writes a snotty note to the sub-editors. Some of them are so good that they hvae escaped onto the internet. They are so good you should go read the article but to give you a teaser here are some of the best lines.

"It's not ******* rocket science. It's ******* pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and I have never ended on an unstressed syllable. ....."

He signs the email "All the best" which is a nice touch.

"...what do you think you can achieve with that kind of dumb-wittted smart-arsery?"

"never ask me to write something for you. and don't pay me. i'd rather take £400 quid for assassinating a crack whore's only child in a revenge killing for a busted drug deal - my integrity would be less compromised."

The guardian article does note sadly that these are abridged but not subedited - versions of the emails.

In part you can have the same rant about the Grammer-nazi's on the internet, who insist on correct spelling and grammer even though they are no experts. I have posted on them before and still insist that content is far more important than grammer.

Giles Coren, a glass with you my friend.

Channel 4 - A crusade against science (the guardian)

This is an interesting article from the Guardian with three interesting points. Firstly, that a major TV channel can appear biased in its documentary output towards global warming. Secondly, that there is a fine line between a documentary considering all arguments and a rant pursuing only one version as fact. Thirdly, that there is almost no regulation or punishment for a media outlet misleading the public or misrepresenting the facts.

The background of all this is that Ofcom has ruled following complaints on a programme broadcast last year called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Ofcom found that the programme treated two scientists and the IPCC unfairly. Channel 4 have had to give a prime-time apology for the content of the programme. This is the second time Channel 4 have had to apologise for an environmental programme against global warning.

Channel 4 bias on the environment

George Monbiot (Another environmental documentary maker who has worked with Channel 4 in the past) who writes the article identifies a history of bias going back to at least 1990. George identifies a previous documentary called "The Greenhouse Conspiracy" ,which was similar to the global warming swindle programme, as a turning point in the channels output. From then on the output of environmental programmes decreased until 2006. Channel 4 themselves state that since 1990 there have been 5 and a half hours of output supporting the view that global warming is not man made. This says George should be considered against the IPCC stating that there is now a 90% certainty that global warming is caused by man and only 10% uncertainty that it might not be. George states that there is no percentage certainty that it is not caused by man, in fact that there is no reliable evidence showing that man made global warming is not taking place.

I would note that this confidence in the science was not so complete in 1990 but was in 2007. So you may consider that channel 4 may have been justified with the documentary in 1990 provided certain safeguards were in place to suggest that it was not fact and that it was questioning the established view as devils advocate. However in 2007 I would suggest they were seriously misleading the public in their programming. Compare with the change in status of smoking between the middle of last century and now.

Most telling is some of the anecdotes or quotes provided by George Monbiot on the Channel 4 response to such accusations.

"I don't know what's important any more."

- Tim Garden, Director of programmes Channel 4, when asked
why the channel seemed so hostile to the environment.

If the quote is accurate it suggests that Channel 4 has no clear understanding of the issues and what they are broadcasting. Channel 4 has no coherent policy on standards or a peer reviewed authority process to determine the accuracy and reliability of the evidence presented.

The differences between a documentary or rant

There are certain conventions for a documentary and a personal opinion show. A documentary generally has a voice over presenting the facts with views from experts and other clips of supporting evidence. A programme representing a personal opinion generally has the person presenting usually interviewing relevant people again with other relevant clips. A documentary is supposed to present both views before reaching a conclusion, a personal opinion programme would push one view and support that with evidence, it would generally not consider alternative views unless they can be disproved.

This is not a written rule but could be said to be a commonly accepted convention. Therefore creating a personal opinion programme in the style of a documentary could be misleading. This is what Channel 4 allowed from the programme makers for "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

In several programmes over the last 17 years George Monbiot suggests that Channel 4 have made the same mistakes in misrepresenting facts in a claimed environmental documentary.

1. Use of a anonymous and authoritative voice over in the documentary style.
2. Contributors commercial interests not disclosed.
3. Opposing view rarely represented to balance view in areas of uncertain science.
4. Authoritative scientists were edited to appear like cranks where as maverick scientists were edited to strengthen their views and opinion (George states that some authoritative scientists were not even told about the overall tone or stance of the programme).

The examples behind this list are in the article and are well worth reading. The usual suspects are there such as the environmental campaigners funded by oil companies or researchers with inflated positions and qualifications. There are also some unusual claims as well such as the definition of current dates on graphs, in one programme the current date varied from 1970 to 2007.

One of the interesting facts in this case is that the judgment was not based on one page opinion complaints on content. Scientists submitted the first 176 page, peer reviewed submission to Ofcom outlining the main errors and faults of the programme which bear in mind was for a 90 minute programme with adverts. This is a huge 2 pages of report per minute broadcast.

It is clear that Channel 4 have allowed a programme to be broadcast with serious flaws which originate in part from the presentation style.

Ofcom regulation

Ofcom comes across as being almost impotent in forcing broadcasters to give a balanced view. Although they are allowed to regulate news programmes which must be accurate, they are unable to regulate other factual programmes.

In Ofcom's report they stated that they were only able to rule on whether the programme mislead the audience so as to cause harm or offence. In a way it is difficult to imagine how any programme on the environment could cause harm or offence. Certainly with 276 complaints such a view would unlikely to be taken.

Indeed this was the opinion of Ofcom, they did have reservations about the way certain facts were represented but there had been no material breach of the regulation code.

Ofcom did find against Channel 4 on grounds of impartiality but interestingly it could only rule on the 20% of the programme that would influence public policy. The 80% of the show questioning global warming could not be judged as it would not change the government stance on the environment.

In other words provided the government has a clear stance on an issue the documentary can be as biased as it likes.

For the two individual scientists and the IPCC, Ofcom found against Channel 4 on the grounds of fairness, stating that these three and their views had been misrepresented.

The penalty of course was an apology in prime time. Sadly the damage had already been done, according to George Monbiot several recent polls have shown that there has been a decline in the number of people that believe global warming is a real phenomenon as a direct response to this programme.

Conclusions

Currently there is little obligation on a broadcaster to check a documentary for bias and accuracy. Basically a dishonest programme maker can represent his or any organisations view as fact. The only boundaries to that is misrepresenting individual / organisations or broadcasting anything that may cause harm or offence.

This has highlighted a greater need for self regulation for media organisations and stronger regulation and punishment when self regulation fails. Ofcom should be able to pass judgment on factually inaccurate and misleading programmes.

The problem remains that Channel 4 have taken a cavalier approach to programme commissioning and the programme makers themselves have questionable journalistic integrity.

Channel 4 is in a position of trust and has a responsibility to check the accuracy and bias of programmes before broadcasting.

The rise of the urban shepherd (The Guardian)

Strangely enough this is not a story about the shepherds having been forced out of the countryside by poverty / global warming, like the foxes becoming urbanised, and herding cats with their shepherds crook and sheep dogs.

Sorry I digressed into a somewhat surrealist landscape there.

Anyway if you cant sleep or just like to tend a flock but never wanted to become a vicar you can now become an urban shepherd.

Brighton having successfully deployed sheep (not in the Worms computer game method) in outlying areas are now bring them into the centre of Brighton. Yes, coming to a park near you is a flock of sheep. Obviously put a hoody on a sheep or a sheepskin coat on a member of the 'youth of today' and it might be difficult to tell them apart. Some but not all would have the same vacant look. They may also be able to converse with each other too.

Apparently this is environmentally friendly as well, sheep are not fuelled by petrol and so will not be affected by the meteoric rise in the oil price.

So if you want to be a shepherd and I certainly would like to be one, you can sign up for a one day introductory course on sheep welfare and then start keeping an eye on your local flock.

There is probably a zen holiday like experience to be had here too. Picture this, a lonely hillside with a shepherds hut, watching and tending the sheep.You could get a lot of thinking done on a hillside with a lot of health benefits.

Tidal power with a twist ( New Scientist)

New Scientist, 5 July 2008 p 40-43

Another week, another New Scientist article about a new renewable technology to generate electricity and maybe contribute to saving the world.

That may sound slightly sarcastic and to some extent it is. Every week I read about a really great technology that I can feel really positive about which could really save the planet. Then the pragmatist in me kicks in and asks if it is really a viable technology and when will it change the world.

This week it is about electromagnetic pumps which is basically the caterpillar drive in reverse as seen in the very great film and book "The Hunt for Red October" by Tom Clancy.

In the caterpillar drive electricity was pumped into the drive which had superconducting magnets and it is then propelled through the water.

With this technology a clever Japanese physicist called Takeda reversed the engine and using tidal power pushed water through to generate electricity. The technology has great potential as a underwater turbine. No moving parts, so little servicing required and can be sited out the way on the sea bed.

Although very positive the technology has a long way to go, the lab prototype has so far only generated a fraction of a watt. So not even enough to light up a very low wattage bulb.

The other interesting part of this article was about the funding for projects such as this one with interesting but unproven potential, potential lets face it to save the world.

Takeda has two assistants and only limited funding from a state ministry, luckily he has been successful in being awarded more funding but it is very much still small scale. As he puts it he can only look at the next small development step.

So funding wise why isn't there the "International Fund for Saving the Planet Through Technology" (IFSPTT - you have to have an acronym). I would support that, it might even be something where I would give £5 a month to.

A charity which gave funding to develop renewable technologies and bring them to market. That would be a worthwhile cause, maybe I should set it up. Of course it wouldn't have to be for new technologies, it could be for revitalising old ones or bring a technology from the design phase through to production. I remember reading years ago about a company that was working on using blimps as slow but cost efficient cargo lifters.

Why should science funding be left to entrepreneurs, academic institutions or government. Why not fund them for the greater good by donations from the public. By the people, for the people, for the planet.

Of course there might already be such a charitable fund, I just haven't heard about it yet. In which case why don't they market themselves more.

Weston Otmoor eco-town

There has been so much about government eco-towns lately and one is unfortunately quite near me.

The whole concept is a bit misleading, the cynical part of me things that the government identified new towns as a possible solution to the housing shortage but realised that a simple 'new town' concept would never be accepted by the general public. That kind of idea is just so 1960's. So anyway bring in the bright spark consultant being paid far too much money who says I know lets make it green, some kind of energy efficient, public transport utopia. If you objected to that kind of thing you must be mad.

Hence just as labour became new labour so new town became eco-town.

Anyway the developer who is really only in it to make money has started off the public relations war. The consultants who drew up the websites and the initial consultation paperwork have so much spin they should work for a washing machine company.

Before we continue I would like to first outline my position on eco-towns. I think the concept of a new town is wrong, we don't need new towns we need to expand and revitalise old towns and villages. If I had to call my concept a reality it would be eco-estates or eco-villages. There are lots of existing towns and villages in prime locations which could be expanded sensitively to improve the local area without overwhelming it.

I agree wholeheartedly with the "eco" concept but I think these develops underestimate the lure of the car. However good the public transport network is people will always use the car, especially in places like Oxfordshire.

Now to deal with the Weston Otmoor design and feasibility.

1. Location

An eco town placed at a major motorway junction. If it really is supposed to encourage you not to drive how is that going to work. You would be 2 minutes drive from the motorway / A34 which would give you the best road connections in the entire of Oxfordshire (even if it would be a slow moving car park). How does this encourage people to use public transport?

The access toll road to the town may encourage people to leave the car at home but it does depend on how high the toll is and whether it outweighs the benefits of taking the car. This will not affect people who commute to London.

On their website the developer happily say that only 6.5% of the land is on green belt which allegedly busts a myth that green fields will be carpeted with concrete. Hmmm, that may be strictly true because over half of the development would be on an airfield which is probably class as industrial land. However the airfield is a grass airfield used for parachute drops, it is not a major international hub and it is a very green field.

The design allows for a nice High street just off the A34. Nice, I think I will be getting into my car and driving to Oxford or Milton Keynes.

2. Transport

One of the big things they are pushing is the tram network with a stop only 300m from your door, although your car will only be 10m from your door and ready to go when you are.

The East West rail link will be rebuilt allowing high speed train access to London, Oxford and Milton Keynes. Again with high speed access you could live their and work in London.

3. Industry

They will be able to attract some industry to the eco town. Probably either office or commercial space or research industries who like the proximity to the university and other research sites in Oxford.

However there is no need for these to be sited here, you could equally and more sustainably build these in several locations around Oxfordshire. There are already new plans to build a business park in Bicester.

4. The Consultation questionnaire.

I think this questionnaire might have loaded questions, even though you can tell I strongly disagree with most details of the eco-town idea it turns out that out of 12 questions I strongly agree with 9 of them. Funny that.

Alternatives:

My concept would be the eco estates or the eco extensions. In terms of location the 15000 houses would be spread round the county. There possibly is scope for a smaller development around Weston-on-the-green. Other developments could be centred around existing small towns and villages. West Oxfordshire is prime for developing especially around the Oxford to Worcester railway line. Other locations could include Bicester, Banbury and Didcot. There would also be scope for major extensions along the east west rail route particularly in the Bicester, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes triangle.

Conclusion

The concept is fairly flawed but not completely without merit in some better locations it may even work.

However to suggest that 35,000 people can be put right next to the best connected road junction in Oxfordshire with access to the capital by rail will turn into a flourishing non car using town is naive. Weston Otmoor will turn into a dormitory town with just as much car use as everywhere else.

How to kick start an economy - the American way.

The US government have decided that the best way to boost the economy is to get the American public to spend more money. The Government has given each household a tax rebate, in many cases worth hundreds of dollars.

The new scientist* reports the findings of two scientists who suggest the plan is unlikely to have much impact. They took 140 students and asked them how they would spend various amounts of money. Students offered a $600 payment said that on average they would spend just $113, however if they received the payment in 12 monthly payments they would spend $420.

Other criticisms can include that the majority of recipients will either save the money or use it to pay off existing debts. Neither actions pumping the money into the economy. The final criticism is of course that it will hurt the government increasing national debt and lowering spending reserves.

All in all probably an inefficient way of spending tax dollars and breathing new life into the economy.

On a personal note I would agree with the findings of the study. If you gave me a lump sum I might pay off some debts or spend half of it on something nice and use the other to pay off debts or save it. If you gave me 12 payments I would not really notice it and just use it to up my general standard of living.

*This has been well publicised in the general media, but I don't have a link at the moment. However as a reference I can give you the New Scientist article which covers the story and Research. The Article "People of America: spend more of your money!" can be found in the 7 June 200 issue on page 15.

Salary converter - convert annual to hourly, weekly, daily or anything

My new site is all done. The salary converter I made ages ago now has its very own home on the internet. SalaryConverter.co.uk

You can convert salary between any of the following annual, monthly, four weekly, daily and hourly.

Very useful for job hunting especially as a temp where everyone quotes different rates.

Prince Caspian - 'The Call' - Regina Spektor

I happened to catch the second Narnia film, Prince Caspian. It was good, some great dialogue, good music and some lovely set piece battles. You can tell it is done by the same team as Lord of the rings. It has very good cinematography, some lovely scenes.

I guess the people who are going to see this are the people that grew up with the books or remembers the tv adaptions etc. Well worth going to see if you liked the first one. I am even looking forward to the next one.

Without ruining any of the plot the end sequence is just perfect. The video below has some well chosen stills but I don't think it gives a great deal away but if you want to watch the film first please do so and feel free to come back.

This song is the final end sequence and titles song, a very haunting melody.

"And then that word grew louder and louder
'Til it was a battle cry"

"No need to say goodbye, you will come back when its over..."

10 things the labour party could do for the UK

Running on from the last post about the labour party not having any decent ideas for ages here are 10 things they could do to really shake things up.

1. Reinstate the 10% starting rate in tax and lower the upper tax rate to compensate

2. Increase tax duty on homes over £500,000

3. Lower Fuel duty and tie it to oil price. When and if the fuel price drops the tax goes back on.

4. Have a sensible binge drinking policy. Don't charge me more just because other people are irresponsible.

5. Integrate public transport, introduce a national 'oyster' smart card and forces all public transport companies to sign up as part of their public licence to operate.

6. Deal with railways, allow greater open access and competition across routes. invest in new rolling stock and infrastructure. Commit to building at least one high speed line.

7. Open up major funding and subsidy schemes for proven renewable technologies. Put a solar panel on every roof in the UK. Encourage community energy projects in water mills, solar power, wind power, biomass generation and implement a national grid strategy to develop a distributed energy generation grid.

8. Create a centre of excellence for renewable energies. Make a UK renewable research centre and commit to bringing new technologies to market.

9. Find a way to deal with crime effectively, bring it a 3 strike rule. Lock people up in more prisons but fight better ways to fight social integration and offender rehabilitation.

10. Make it easy for first time buyers and penalise second home owners.

Feel free to turn any of these ideas into policies.

New Labour = Are they thick or what?

Excuse my language but really I am beginning to think that Labour are trying to get kicked out of office.

There all useless, I thought I would never say it but since Tony Blair left office I don't think they have had one good idea between them. The Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee, they could start burning books and they would still get elected at the next election just because the entire electorate is now completely bored.

Labour has gone past incompetent into territory where no government has been before.

Harriet Harman is the latest new labour muppet to trot out a 'new terrible, potentially frightening missing the entire point' law.

The new equalities act which among other things will allow employers to positively discriminate and with two equally qualified candidates choose the ethnic minority candidate or female candidate over the white male.

Luckily it can work both ways, if white men are under-represented then they can be selected in preference. However in all practicality who would do that?

It is usually at this point in the article that I point out the over reaction of the media or that the legislation actually does a whole load of other things but I feel very strongly about positive discrimination.

I feel the only way to combat discrimination is not only to outlaw negative discrimination but also positive discrimination. Allowing positive discrimination will convince some organisations that negative discrimination can somehow be justified, after all they are just making up for the other organisations that positively discriminate, redressing the balance as it were.

The biggest problem I have with positive discrimination is that it does nothing to address the underlying issues of society and why in some organisations ethnic minorities and women are under represented. Positive discrimination may get them into the organisation but if the culture isn't changed then they will soon be leaving again. Meanwhile you have alienated all sorts of people for not having a level playing field.

What about sectors which are already female dominated. HR is getting to the levels where the women are in the clear majority. There is still a legacy of very senior male HR managers but most of the middle rank is predominantly female. At the lower scale there are some male administrators but again predominantly female. As each year goes by the sector becomes more female dominated. In fact the profession does not even recognise that it has got a diversity issue among the very people who set policy for everyone else.

Will we see positive action recruitment and programmes for men in HR? I doubt it.

Harriet Harman uses the police as an example of why positive discrimination would be a good idea. The Metropolitan police have had targets for years and consistently failed to recruit the number required to meet the targets. They have openly campaigned to be able to positively discriminate in recruitment. There have been equal accusations of both positive and negative discrimination in their recruitment policies from recruits.

This is a very organisational solution to a problem, ignore the root causes and go for the simple solution. Positive discrimination is the equivalent of saying leaves keep getting into the building so lets cut down all the trees in a five mile radius where actually all you need to do is keep the door shut and get someone to sweep the leaves out once a day.

Just because it is hard to establish the reasons for discrimination and a gender pay gap doesn't mean we should not try.

I think a lot of problems stem from the secrecy around salaries, using an economic concept in a market where everyone had complete knowledge of the system then if a company did discriminate and did not pay market rates then its employees would just leave.

Having moaned for half an hour one good thing about the legislation is that it does merge all the previous equality legislation into one new bill.

Mark Easton's BBC Blog raises some more interesting points about equality and particularly about the poor prospects for the white male and some more evidence on why positive discrimination doesn't address the actual causes of the gender pay gap.

I hate to do it but I will give the last word on the legislation to the Tory party,

"This bill should seek to unite not divide. It has good intentions but its lack of detail and clarity is disappointing..."

-Theresa May MP

Beaver 1 Devon Stream 0

One of the cuter stories in the paper today is the first beaver dam in 800 years. Of course tomorrow the beaver will be installing the first beaver hydro-electric power station.

Of course with a beaver story / picture you can spend hours making up captions or "Sun" headlines.

So good work that beaver, keep up the hard work, today a stream in Devon, tomorrow the English channel.

Hard to reach customer groups

I was in an interesting meeting the other day with our new advertising agency. I wasn't supposed to be attending as I wasn't supposed to be at head office and the meeting was only vaguely connected to my work. It was about recruitment but a different project.

As I was at a loose end I popped along, it was a good opportunity to size up the agency contacts on something I didn't necessarily care about.

The interesting thing was that the whole meeting was about how to reach a customer group we don't normally reach. We as an organisation recognised this groups impact on our business and recognised that the way we normally advertise i.e in local media, didn't reach them.

Another good point was that the project team had determined that the best way to determine the key messages for this group was to talk to a focus group of these customers.

After that it went down hill, the group decided that they didn't have the contacts and couldn't afford either the time or money to make the contacts.

The project team then set about assuming what the key messages were and that print media still worked as it did last year with a different customer group.

At this point another colleague pointed out that we had already decided this approach hadn't worked, so why were we resurrecting it, they pretty much got blank looks.

So I weighed in, pointed out it was a different customer group and there was no reason to suggest that approach would work, so why would we waste money.

There was a good ten seconds of blank looks including a staring contest with a senior manager.

You cant win them all ... I am looking forward to the traditional print campaign which achieves nothing not because it was the wrong approach just because the customer group is hard to reach. The really annoying thing is by that time nobody will remember the conversation that the key thing was to talk to the customer group before deciding on the message. My mate Sir Alan would have sacked several of the muppets present in the room.

Is it me or is the first step to talking to your customers actually finding a customer and talking to them.

Seriously, how hard is it?

Dear Steven Spielberg

***Spoiler alert for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) ***

Dear Steven Spielberg,

Overall I think you did a good job on the new Indiana Jones film if you accept that it is a sentimental nod towards an 80's childhood when the first three films came out.

However, I can't help thinking that the film could be improved upon, it has the potential to be the blockbuster it should have been but there were some key aspects that could be brushed up.

Firstly, it was very nice to see that Harrison Ford still has it, I was getting worried in the first half hour as he looked more like he needed a walking stick than a whip but once the bullets started flying he was off like a whippet. What was nice was that he had matured gracefully since the original films, his humour had got a bit sharper and he had grown softer with age.

If I am honest after watching the whole film I found the first 20-30 minutes of the film pointless. It was too slow, a bit unrealistic and was just a mediocre start to the film. If you go for a directors cut my advice would be to start the film where Dean Charles Stanforth has to resign because of the communist witch hunt. Perhaps a two minute intro of news headlines and video footage for the era could set the scene for Indiana being suspected of being communist.

That way you also get straight into the action, the car and motorbike chases were pure Indy territory. Although it was a bit odd that they needed a big chopping machine to get through the jungle, yet when that was destroyed there was basically a three lane jungle motorway to drive along and the road surface was so good that the characters could have a stand up sword fight between vehicles where they were busy worrying about their stance. However, Indiana Jones movies are about suspending disbelief up to a point so I was prepared to let that slip.

What was also odd was that Indy's whip was not ever present. Stuck in a sand pit sinking down with over hanging trees what should the hatted adventurer reach for. His whip clearly, but no he has to wait for his son to throw him an obviously rubber snake. Steven are you really saying that was the only way you could get a snake into the film.

Finally I should move onto the plot. An Indiana Jones film doesn't have a complicated plot, you need good guys, bad guys, an object which everyone is after, a love interest and then some natives.

You went for a poor plot involving aliens. I cant help thinking you were confusing mysticism and legend with science fiction. Indy does mysticism and legend but not science fiction. The alien plot was just pointless and lead to a slightly unbelievable ending.

The love interest was definitely missing, ok so having indy's old flame was good but you could have given the son a love interest.

The natives did not really have any plot connections, they just seemed to be there as an extra obstacle for the adventurers. Where was the human interest aspect of the plot, another part sadly missing.

Other lame aspects of the plot included the Russian villian wanting to know everything, the double / triple agent rubbish, the valley within waterfalls, the surviving the nuclear explosion in a fridge and the swinging through the forest.

The basic concept of the plot is where you have a formulaic plot, in the new film you need to follow the formula.

I could go on but think I will leave it there. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has the makings of a good film but it could have been so much more.

Yours Sincerely,

Zephyrist.

PS If you need an executive director for the next new Indy Trilogy please do not hesitate to drop me a line.