A problem waiting to happen
28/02/06 09:50 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
So it's finally hit someone - a 38 year old man has
been asked to prove his age before he was allowed to
buy the
Guardian
in a supermarket. Why, you ask..? Because it had
given away a copy of "Let Him Have It" a few weeks
before and that film had an adult certificate.
Which is reasonable enough, and bad news for those of us who were hoping for "Emanuelle" with the Sun or something. It does raise the issue of where we're going with these free DVDs, though. On Saturday I bought two papers because one of them had a DVD I wanted to see, which will undoubtedly swell the circulation figures for that paper, but is this a sustainable business model?
Personally I think not. And whereas I welcome freebie DVDs, often, the journalist in me is looking forward to a time when it'll stop and publishers will have enough confidence in the content of the paper alone as a selling point.
Which is reasonable enough, and bad news for those of us who were hoping for "Emanuelle" with the Sun or something. It does raise the issue of where we're going with these free DVDs, though. On Saturday I bought two papers because one of them had a DVD I wanted to see, which will undoubtedly swell the circulation figures for that paper, but is this a sustainable business model?
Personally I think not. And whereas I welcome freebie DVDs, often, the journalist in me is looking forward to a time when it'll stop and publishers will have enough confidence in the content of the paper alone as a selling point.
|
iPod musicstore downloads - was that a story?
27/02/06 10:19 Journalism in practice
Permalink
There's a lot happening in the world at the moment
(that statement copyright Trite Openings R Us). There
was a massive robbery last week. Saddam is on trial
and David Irving has been imprisoned. And yet on
Saturday the Independent's front page lead was that
Apple's music store downloads had topped the 1
billion mark.
Well, ten out of ten to Apple for its marketing prowess - but was this really a story? I have a few problems with it. One is that it was a corporate press release-led story hitting the top slot on one of the Nationals. I believe the papers ought to be finding things out for themselves.
My main issue, however, is that the Indie has missed the important point that the 1 billion figure is completely without significance. There are two reasons for this. First, if numbers were growing it's inevitable, not surprising or noteworthy, that the 1 billion 'watermark' would be reached eventually. Second, this isn't about 1 billion downloads, it's about 1 billion downloads for one particular company. As a mark of changing popular culture, the 1 billion figure will have been reached a while back because you'd have to factor in downloads from Wippit, Napster and all the rest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an Apple user and a happy one, and I like my iPod - I'm thinking of getting one for my wife too. If I were an Apple shareholder I'd clearly be over the moon about this figure. But front page lead? I know the Independent likes to stand out from the rest and run something different, but come on you guys, this is PR.
Well, ten out of ten to Apple for its marketing prowess - but was this really a story? I have a few problems with it. One is that it was a corporate press release-led story hitting the top slot on one of the Nationals. I believe the papers ought to be finding things out for themselves.
My main issue, however, is that the Indie has missed the important point that the 1 billion figure is completely without significance. There are two reasons for this. First, if numbers were growing it's inevitable, not surprising or noteworthy, that the 1 billion 'watermark' would be reached eventually. Second, this isn't about 1 billion downloads, it's about 1 billion downloads for one particular company. As a mark of changing popular culture, the 1 billion figure will have been reached a while back because you'd have to factor in downloads from Wippit, Napster and all the rest.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an Apple user and a happy one, and I like my iPod - I'm thinking of getting one for my wife too. If I were an Apple shareholder I'd clearly be over the moon about this figure. But front page lead? I know the Independent likes to stand out from the rest and run something different, but come on you guys, this is PR.
Format changes not enough
24/02/06 09:29 Media
issues Permalink
There's some sobering news for newspaper publishers
on the Guardian's website
here.
It seems that changing format, whether to Berliner
or tabloid, is likely to result in a long-term
increase in sales of only one per cent.
This will be a blow to the Guardian's sister paper, the Observer, which has put on 30 per cent since shrinking in January and if the figure is right it can now watch that gain fade back to almost nothing. What will be most interesting, though, is whether papers that don't adopt a new format will see their circulations falling. The Telegraph and the FT are the only weekday mainstream examples covering the whole of the UK, with the FT being in a bit of a niche anyway.
My guess is that if the Telegraph doesn't do something it will find its market slowly ebbing away. If I'm wrong, of course, then it means the Guardian, Times and Indie have spent a fortune on putting on only one per cent.
This will be a blow to the Guardian's sister paper, the Observer, which has put on 30 per cent since shrinking in January and if the figure is right it can now watch that gain fade back to almost nothing. What will be most interesting, though, is whether papers that don't adopt a new format will see their circulations falling. The Telegraph and the FT are the only weekday mainstream examples covering the whole of the UK, with the FT being in a bit of a niche anyway.
My guess is that if the Telegraph doesn't do something it will find its market slowly ebbing away. If I'm wrong, of course, then it means the Guardian, Times and Indie have spent a fortune on putting on only one per cent.
Video podcasting for papers
23/02/06 10:47 Media
issues Permalink
I see The Scotsman has started video podcasting in a
small way. It's hoping, it tells journalism.co.uk,
that there will be a commercial angle to this pretty
soon - people will realise they can watch videos on
their iPods which tell them about their area and
they'll be motivated. Also, if you have iTunes, you
can subscribe to a thing called Mooky - which is a
sort of comedy montage of video for mobile media.
This is all very interesting but what nobody has been prepared to say is 'THIS is how it's going to make money and here are some figures stacking up'. The technology to watch video on an iPod has only been around since September so maybe that's not a surprise.
On the audio podcasting front, Ricky Gervais continues to dominate with his offering through the Guardian - but he's about to start charging. I wonder how many of his registered listeners are people like me: I've downloaded every episode and honestly plan to listen to them when I get a moment, but the thought of paying for more will turn me off as a listener pretty quickly.
I have a feeling the serious test of the viability of commercial podcasting is about to start. I'll be keeping a close eye on it.
This is all very interesting but what nobody has been prepared to say is 'THIS is how it's going to make money and here are some figures stacking up'. The technology to watch video on an iPod has only been around since September so maybe that's not a surprise.
On the audio podcasting front, Ricky Gervais continues to dominate with his offering through the Guardian - but he's about to start charging. I wonder how many of his registered listeners are people like me: I've downloaded every episode and honestly plan to listen to them when I get a moment, but the thought of paying for more will turn me off as a listener pretty quickly.
I have a feeling the serious test of the viability of commercial podcasting is about to start. I'll be keeping a close eye on it.
Social networking sites
22/02/06 10:04 Media
issues Permalink
So, Yahoo! is going to
launch a social networking
site
in the UK. This is presumably a kneejerk reaction to
Rupert Murdoch's impending launch in the area and the
hope that, like the American Murdoch site, they'll
find an Arctic Monkeys all by themselves.
Well, maybe. On the other hand I can't help wondering why you need a special UK site. It's on the Net, everyone can log on - so what's special about appealing to a single country, as long as there's no language barrier? Also, for every Arctic Monkeys - well all right, there's only been the one - there have been thousands of groups not making it, social network or not.
It could be an age thing but I'm a little suspicious of anyone claiming they can revolutionise a social life through a computer network anyway. We'll see where it goes, but the idea of sitting in front of a computer any longer than is absolutely necessary sounds pretty antisocial to me.
Well, maybe. On the other hand I can't help wondering why you need a special UK site. It's on the Net, everyone can log on - so what's special about appealing to a single country, as long as there's no language barrier? Also, for every Arctic Monkeys - well all right, there's only been the one - there have been thousands of groups not making it, social network or not.
It could be an age thing but I'm a little suspicious of anyone claiming they can revolutionise a social life through a computer network anyway. We'll see where it goes, but the idea of sitting in front of a computer any longer than is absolutely necessary sounds pretty antisocial to me.
David Irving and the right to be wrong
I find myself uncomfortable with the jailing of David
Irving, former holocaust denier.
For anyone who doesn't know, he was imprisoned for three years yesterday in Austria - here's the story from today's Guardian. His crime was to deny that the holocaust happened and to allege that Hitler actually protected jews. He did this in two speeches. 17 years ago. They were widely reported so this becomes a media issue - without the profile I doubt that he would have seen this action taken against him.
Now, let's get something straight first: I do not accept his beliefs, and he has acknowledged that he was factually wrong. My problem is that someone can be jailed for speaking about an historical event, and for having done so 17 years ago. This isn't like members of the BNP being tried and retried for incitement to racial hatred now, it's someone presenting a view - by all means a skewed one - of history. And it's someone being imprisoned even though they've effectively recanted and acknowledged that a lot of what they said was baloney.
I hold no brief for David Irving, I find him repellant. But I'm not at all sure that locking him up is useful. His sympathisers will hold him up as a martyr and his critics will look vindictive. And anyone wanting to say anything contentious or revisionist about history is going to pause before saying it in public in case the media gets hold of it and it becomes a similar cause celebre.
I really can't see anything constructive coming out of this.
For anyone who doesn't know, he was imprisoned for three years yesterday in Austria - here's the story from today's Guardian. His crime was to deny that the holocaust happened and to allege that Hitler actually protected jews. He did this in two speeches. 17 years ago. They were widely reported so this becomes a media issue - without the profile I doubt that he would have seen this action taken against him.
Now, let's get something straight first: I do not accept his beliefs, and he has acknowledged that he was factually wrong. My problem is that someone can be jailed for speaking about an historical event, and for having done so 17 years ago. This isn't like members of the BNP being tried and retried for incitement to racial hatred now, it's someone presenting a view - by all means a skewed one - of history. And it's someone being imprisoned even though they've effectively recanted and acknowledged that a lot of what they said was baloney.
I hold no brief for David Irving, I find him repellant. But I'm not at all sure that locking him up is useful. His sympathisers will hold him up as a martyr and his critics will look vindictive. And anyone wanting to say anything contentious or revisionist about history is going to pause before saying it in public in case the media gets hold of it and it becomes a similar cause celebre.
I really can't see anything constructive coming out of this.
Holidays for the self-employed
20/02/06 10:12 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
Good morning, I'm back at my desk and oh boy does
that not feel like a change after last week. If
you're considering freelancing, here are a few tips
you'll need on going on holiday:
* Do not under any circumstances take on corporate work during the month before you go away. Something urgent will crop up and you'll end up delaying your departure by a day (for some reason, corporate clients are keener on a precisely-worded brief than independent mags and papers).
* This in turn will knacker the article you were supposed to be writing comfortably just before leaving. You will no longer be writing it comfortably but you'll be cramming it in between other stuff - it'll look fine to you on Friday at 5.30 when you file it but when you come back to it in your 'holiday' because the editor is complaining you'll realise he's quite right, it looks rushed and insubstantial. You will then be involved in re-researching and writing the thing again when you were supposed to be chasing your five-year-old around the living room or something.
* Do not arrange to review items that need to be with you, say, the Wednesday before you go away. At least one will turn up late and you'll have to take it, and the laptop, with you and do several hours work on your Sunday 'off'.
* In fact, plan to wind down a few days before you're due to go away. Then you might, just might, get everything done before you leave and actually have a break, which I haven't.
And don't even talk to me about the domestic stuff like leaking ceilings that's cropped up over the last few days. It's almost a relief to be back at the keyboard - at least I'm supposed to be here now!
* Do not under any circumstances take on corporate work during the month before you go away. Something urgent will crop up and you'll end up delaying your departure by a day (for some reason, corporate clients are keener on a precisely-worded brief than independent mags and papers).
* This in turn will knacker the article you were supposed to be writing comfortably just before leaving. You will no longer be writing it comfortably but you'll be cramming it in between other stuff - it'll look fine to you on Friday at 5.30 when you file it but when you come back to it in your 'holiday' because the editor is complaining you'll realise he's quite right, it looks rushed and insubstantial. You will then be involved in re-researching and writing the thing again when you were supposed to be chasing your five-year-old around the living room or something.
* Do not arrange to review items that need to be with you, say, the Wednesday before you go away. At least one will turn up late and you'll have to take it, and the laptop, with you and do several hours work on your Sunday 'off'.
* In fact, plan to wind down a few days before you're due to go away. Then you might, just might, get everything done before you leave and actually have a break, which I haven't.
And don't even talk to me about the domestic stuff like leaking ceilings that's cropped up over the last few days. It's almost a relief to be back at the keyboard - at least I'm supposed to be here now!
New PR site worth looking at
15/02/06 18:23 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
Yes I know, I'm supposed to be on hols. But a couple
of clients needed something urgently and, well, I'm
at my desk - briefly - and had this
website
drawn to my attention. It's essentially veteran PR
Andrew Smith talking about people with PR problems
and it's well worth a read - by turns amusing,
informative and a lot more besides.
Do have a look, comment on his site and tell him who sent you...
Do have a look, comment on his site and tell him who sent you...
Taking a break
10/02/06 07:59 Admin
notes Permalink
It had to happen one day - I've told all my clients
I'm taking a break next week. All this writing about
work/life balance has finally got to me so I'm going
to claim some back.
Not that one or two people aren't determined to get work documents to me next week, they've sworn - which is the thing about being freelance, you've positioned yourself as a 'resource' and that's how they see you, they don't identify with this 'holiday' thing.
But I'll be spending some time chasing my daughter around the house and indulging in insane tickling fights instead, and ignoring e-mail and blogs until 20th Feb. (I suppose I should stop, she's 20 years old, hahahaha, not really).
See you in a week!
Not that one or two people aren't determined to get work documents to me next week, they've sworn - which is the thing about being freelance, you've positioned yourself as a 'resource' and that's how they see you, they don't identify with this 'holiday' thing.
But I'll be spending some time chasing my daughter around the house and indulging in insane tickling fights instead, and ignoring e-mail and blogs until 20th Feb. (I suppose I should stop, she's 20 years old, hahahaha, not really).
See you in a week!
Blogging and podcasting
09/02/06 09:43 While
I was media training... Permalink
I was media training yesterday, a good session with
talented people. So I'm telling them about the
difference between news, features and columns, and I
mention blogs and podcasts in the bit on columns.
Blogs? Says one of them. What are they?
He was even more lost on podcasts. Are they important, he asked.
Well, probably, was the answer. But once tested I realised that I didn't have any proper data to back this up. Nor, given that I write a fair bit about technology in relation to business, should I assume that my knowledge of new media is commonplace or that my assumptions about its importance have any basis other than 'I come across it quite a lot'.
Anyone with any solid research rather than a gut feeling is welcome to get in touch.
Blogs? Says one of them. What are they?
He was even more lost on podcasts. Are they important, he asked.
Well, probably, was the answer. But once tested I realised that I didn't have any proper data to back this up. Nor, given that I write a fair bit about technology in relation to business, should I assume that my knowledge of new media is commonplace or that my assumptions about its importance have any basis other than 'I come across it quite a lot'.
Anyone with any solid research rather than a gut feeling is welcome to get in touch.
Working late
08/02/06 08:03 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
Requests for help
07/02/06 12:48 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
Sorry, me again, I'm not going to start making
entries every five minutes but I just had a great
press release. It's a piece of research, the company
involved is about to do yet more research and the
accompanying note finishes: "If
you have any topical issues that you think would make
for good research please get back to me and let me
know"
I doubt that I'll be doing so, but if anyone else fancies asking complete strangers for free consultancy on what their business should be doing, feel free to drop me a note and I'll reprint them here.
I doubt that I'll be doing so, but if anyone else fancies asking complete strangers for free consultancy on what their business should be doing, feel free to drop me a note and I'll reprint them here.
Professional communicators again
07/02/06 11:00 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
So I get this mail from a PR. We hope our little
present amused you, it said.
What little present?
They toy dustbin of course. Now we're going to tell you what it was about...
Let me be frank. I don't need a toy dustbin. I don't want a toy dustbin. But if one item's not getting to me then there may be others, and that's a concern to me. So I ask them, where did you send it? To the paper, they say.
Now, I work for The Guardian, Times, Observer, Independent and others fairly often. I am freelance, it's what we do. Which paper, I ask. They name one. They thought they could get it to me because - wait for it - the PR didn't have my address.
This would be the same PR who's been sending things for half a decade to an address from which I haven't moved in ten years.
Well can we have your address, they ask. I give it to them but can't help wondering what on earth a professional communication company is doing losing addresses of journalists who write for that many Nationals. I don't think it's egotistical to suggest that maintaining a simple address book is a core competence.
What little present?
They toy dustbin of course. Now we're going to tell you what it was about...
Let me be frank. I don't need a toy dustbin. I don't want a toy dustbin. But if one item's not getting to me then there may be others, and that's a concern to me. So I ask them, where did you send it? To the paper, they say.
Now, I work for The Guardian, Times, Observer, Independent and others fairly often. I am freelance, it's what we do. Which paper, I ask. They name one. They thought they could get it to me because - wait for it - the PR didn't have my address.
This would be the same PR who's been sending things for half a decade to an address from which I haven't moved in ten years.
Well can we have your address, they ask. I give it to them but can't help wondering what on earth a professional communication company is doing losing addresses of journalists who write for that many Nationals. I don't think it's egotistical to suggest that maintaining a simple address book is a core competence.
Guy Kewney's blog demolished
06/02/06 13:10 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
I know you don't need yet another batch of witterings
from me today but I had to draw your attention to the
unfortunate demise of
Guy Kewney's blog
at VNU. It appears, according to fellow
blogger
Kieran McCarthy
(well worth a look if you're into IT journalism in
any way) that VNU didn't consider it worth keeping
once they'd bought The Inquirer.
I've known Mike Magee, who edits and owned The Inquirer, for more years than either of us usually care to remember. He's a damned good journalist and his stuff for VNU will be superb. The thing is, though, dear VNU (if you're reading), Kewney is also one of the best in his field.
Maybe the thought of employing more than one good journalist for online news is beyond them...
I've known Mike Magee, who edits and owned The Inquirer, for more years than either of us usually care to remember. He's a damned good journalist and his stuff for VNU will be superb. The thing is, though, dear VNU (if you're reading), Kewney is also one of the best in his field.
Maybe the thought of employing more than one good journalist for online news is beyond them...
Will newspapers move to the web?
06/02/06 09:54 Media
issues Permalink
There's a truly interesting piece in The
Independent's
media section
on its website today - click to that link and it
should show up. Essentially, as people who read the
Press Gazette will already know, a load of people at
the Guardian have been shifted across to work on
Guardian Unlimited, the website of the same paper.
Editor Alan Rusbridger seems to believe the Web is the way people will want to read papers in the future. So he's throwing resources at it. It must be an odd time to be in PR; do you pitch stories at the website or the paper, and how do you explain your decision to the client?
What's really interesting, though, is Rusbridger's candour about not knowing how this is supposed to end up paying for itself. If I buy a copy of the Guardian I've paid 70p and so do thousands of others. If I don't, I don't and it's really no more complicated than that - except if I don't buy the paper the Guardian doesn't get a penny out of me. So, how do you finance future editions?
The obvious answer is to increase advertising rates, but is that going to work? You need a critical mass of readers in place before you can sensibly opt for that and the Guardian is going through transition rather than reaching millions on the web just yet.
I'm not going to claim I have the answer. If Rusbridger doesn't know, with all his experience, I'm damned certain I don't either. But after all the flannel we had in the nineties about how the Web was going to rescue everything, it's refreshing to see someone honest enough in a senior position to admit they haven't got a clue where this is going.
Editor Alan Rusbridger seems to believe the Web is the way people will want to read papers in the future. So he's throwing resources at it. It must be an odd time to be in PR; do you pitch stories at the website or the paper, and how do you explain your decision to the client?
What's really interesting, though, is Rusbridger's candour about not knowing how this is supposed to end up paying for itself. If I buy a copy of the Guardian I've paid 70p and so do thousands of others. If I don't, I don't and it's really no more complicated than that - except if I don't buy the paper the Guardian doesn't get a penny out of me. So, how do you finance future editions?
The obvious answer is to increase advertising rates, but is that going to work? You need a critical mass of readers in place before you can sensibly opt for that and the Guardian is going through transition rather than reaching millions on the web just yet.
I'm not going to claim I have the answer. If Rusbridger doesn't know, with all his experience, I'm damned certain I don't either. But after all the flannel we had in the nineties about how the Web was going to rescue everything, it's refreshing to see someone honest enough in a senior position to admit they haven't got a clue where this is going.
More on communications
03/02/06 09:27 Media
issues Permalink
Yesterday I had a phone interview set up. The
interviewee was going to talk to me about services
for companies setting up overseas, funding available,
that sort of thing. All good stuff, and it was only
mildly disappointing when he turned out not to have
much to say on that subject but plenty on something
indirectly related. This is an occupational hazard -
an overenthusiastic PR sets up a
not-entirely-appropriate interview; it's their job to
market their clients and my job to sift, that's fine.
I started to make that point.
Hang on, he says. Can we see what you're writing before you publish.
OK, for the uninitiated, there is one absolute no-no to journalists, and that is submitting copy for independent magazines and newspapers to interviewees before it's published. Never ever. There are numerous reasons for this: it inhibits freedom of the press, which is a fundamental right in this country. It damages a story; people almost always try to water down what they actually said, so you end up with a distorted, sanitised picture of what happened. It sort of hints that the interviewee doesn't trust the journalist to do their job. It implies an agreement not to change a word afterwards, which would actually be in the hands of editors, subs and other people beyond the writer's control.
Normally I'd be sympathetic in my explanation of this, but this was a director of a public concern and he had a professional PR to back him up (and we'd already established I wouldn't be using his quotes, so what the hell he thought he was doing asking I don't know). He should have known better. So I basically told him no, in one word. I also told him no professional journalist would or should ever do such a thing. It's at this point he became really unco-operative. He'd 'done me the courtesy of his time' and I was being 'curt'.
Actually he was obviously not going to say anything of value once he'd established he wasn't going to be able to copy-check, so I didn't see the point of wasting his time any further. People who've dealt with me will mostly confirm I'm not habitually unpleasant. I think what really got to me was that he'd been paying PR professionals to brief him, to find out what a journalist would need and how long it would take (I'd never asked for more than a ten minute call) and he was still dropping such naive clangers with the basics. Makes me wonder what some PRs - not many - think their job actually is. Managing client's expectations strikes me as pretty basic.
* I suppose I ought to say something about those cartoons about the prophet Mohammed and whether they should be published in the UK. Moral and religious issues aside, no they shouldn't - I've had a look at the Net and they're sub-standard rubbish. The only possible reason to publish would be to cause offense or stir up controversy, and for that reason alone I'd urge everyone not to give them airtime. As long as the protests stay non-violent and legal they have my support - as above, peaceful protest is a fundamental right in this country.
Hang on, he says. Can we see what you're writing before you publish.
OK, for the uninitiated, there is one absolute no-no to journalists, and that is submitting copy for independent magazines and newspapers to interviewees before it's published. Never ever. There are numerous reasons for this: it inhibits freedom of the press, which is a fundamental right in this country. It damages a story; people almost always try to water down what they actually said, so you end up with a distorted, sanitised picture of what happened. It sort of hints that the interviewee doesn't trust the journalist to do their job. It implies an agreement not to change a word afterwards, which would actually be in the hands of editors, subs and other people beyond the writer's control.
Normally I'd be sympathetic in my explanation of this, but this was a director of a public concern and he had a professional PR to back him up (and we'd already established I wouldn't be using his quotes, so what the hell he thought he was doing asking I don't know). He should have known better. So I basically told him no, in one word. I also told him no professional journalist would or should ever do such a thing. It's at this point he became really unco-operative. He'd 'done me the courtesy of his time' and I was being 'curt'.
Actually he was obviously not going to say anything of value once he'd established he wasn't going to be able to copy-check, so I didn't see the point of wasting his time any further. People who've dealt with me will mostly confirm I'm not habitually unpleasant. I think what really got to me was that he'd been paying PR professionals to brief him, to find out what a journalist would need and how long it would take (I'd never asked for more than a ten minute call) and he was still dropping such naive clangers with the basics. Makes me wonder what some PRs - not many - think their job actually is. Managing client's expectations strikes me as pretty basic.
* I suppose I ought to say something about those cartoons about the prophet Mohammed and whether they should be published in the UK. Moral and religious issues aside, no they shouldn't - I've had a look at the Net and they're sub-standard rubbish. The only possible reason to publish would be to cause offense or stir up controversy, and for that reason alone I'd urge everyone not to give them airtime. As long as the protests stay non-violent and legal they have my support - as above, peaceful protest is a fundamental right in this country.
Best job in the world?
02/02/06 08:38 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
There are times when I think this is the best job in
the world. Yesterday I interviewed some interesting
people at a company called Johnson Matthey. They were
interesting because their company actually makes a
difference - reducing carbon emissions, reducing soot
pollution from cars, they genuinely contribute. It
was a good meeting.
Today I'm doing something entirely different. I'm interviewing - not for the first time - the bloke that makes a lot of the props for Doctor Who. Half of me says it's going to be a good, objective interview with no favours on either side.
The other half says maybe I'll get to push a Dalek along, or even go in one. As long as the readers never know...definitely the best job in the world.
Today I'm doing something entirely different. I'm interviewing - not for the first time - the bloke that makes a lot of the props for Doctor Who. Half of me says it's going to be a good, objective interview with no favours on either side.
The other half says maybe I'll get to push a Dalek along, or even go in one. As long as the readers never know...definitely the best job in the world.
Late payments
01/02/06 08:12 Journalism in practice
Permalink
It's that time of year again. Yesterday was 31
January, the great 'exodus from the bank account to
the tax man's coffers' day. The Federation of Small
Business is calling for more flexibility on how
self-employed people pay tax.
To my mind, the problem for us isn't the inflexibility of the tax regime, that's easy - you know the bill is coming and you have time to save (although why we have to pay in advance when everyone else gets to pay after they've been paid is beyond me). The weakness relates back to the topic of a piece I did for the Guardian last week - late payment, or clients who think an invoice with 30 days written on it - the legal default - may be paid 30 days after their next cheque run, 60 days afterwards because that's what they do, or just when the freelance complains. Or they tell you they pay on publication and never mind the legal niceties.
It happens more than you'd want to admit. Normally it's just about OK but this time of year I can't help but reflect that the coffers are empty but if I had every payment that's more than 30 days old I'd be thinking about changing the car. Anyone with any thoughts on how you enforce this stuff without alienating clients is more than welcome to comment.
To my mind, the problem for us isn't the inflexibility of the tax regime, that's easy - you know the bill is coming and you have time to save (although why we have to pay in advance when everyone else gets to pay after they've been paid is beyond me). The weakness relates back to the topic of a piece I did for the Guardian last week - late payment, or clients who think an invoice with 30 days written on it - the legal default - may be paid 30 days after their next cheque run, 60 days afterwards because that's what they do, or just when the freelance complains. Or they tell you they pay on publication and never mind the legal niceties.
It happens more than you'd want to admit. Normally it's just about OK but this time of year I can't help but reflect that the coffers are empty but if I had every payment that's more than 30 days old I'd be thinking about changing the car. Anyone with any thoughts on how you enforce this stuff without alienating clients is more than welcome to comment.