A freelance credit card
28/06/06 11:57 Journalism in practice
Permalink
Here's something you
don't see every day - an offer of a
credit card. I'm being ironic of course,
but this one, from Tesco, appears to have
something to recommend it in that it's aimed at
sole trader/freelances who want to keep their
business and personal spending apart.
Well, yes, good idea, and as a freelance of 13 years' standing I'd certainly recommend that as good practice. The thing is that's all I'd say about it - indulge in good practice and you'll save some money, most likely. Is it then necessary to go and get a special credit card for which you need to be VAT registered? I'd suggest not. In fact if anyone is starting up as a sole trader I'd advise against getting an extra credit card, cash flow can be unreliable (says the man sitting on people owing him tens of thousands) and borrowing at high interest is probably the most expensive way of sorting it out.
There's a lot in what the Tesco man says in the attached piece. Take Tesco and the new card out of the equation and I'd really recommend following his advice.
Well, yes, good idea, and as a freelance of 13 years' standing I'd certainly recommend that as good practice. The thing is that's all I'd say about it - indulge in good practice and you'll save some money, most likely. Is it then necessary to go and get a special credit card for which you need to be VAT registered? I'd suggest not. In fact if anyone is starting up as a sole trader I'd advise against getting an extra credit card, cash flow can be unreliable (says the man sitting on people owing him tens of thousands) and borrowing at high interest is probably the most expensive way of sorting it out.
There's a lot in what the Tesco man says in the attached piece. Take Tesco and the new card out of the equation and I'd really recommend following his advice.
|
Text for a DVD
27/06/06 13:30 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
The Times says it has
been enormously successful in a recent promotion in
which people sent texts for a free DVD. The story
is here.
I've no doubt it's true, and indeed we received our Railway Children DVD as a result of the promotion last week. What they don't tell you, though, is that we were sent two copies in error. OK, 'Guy gets extra DVD' isn't much of a story - but if multiple mailouts skew the figures at all then the claims of success could be a little exaggerated. And even if they don't, since the cost of the text was simply to pay for the postage then any accidental send-outs of extra copies must by definition push the whole project into the red.
Hopefully we were an isolated case. Otherwise they stand to spend an awful lot before they realise where their money's disappearing to.
I've no doubt it's true, and indeed we received our Railway Children DVD as a result of the promotion last week. What they don't tell you, though, is that we were sent two copies in error. OK, 'Guy gets extra DVD' isn't much of a story - but if multiple mailouts skew the figures at all then the claims of success could be a little exaggerated. And even if they don't, since the cost of the text was simply to pay for the postage then any accidental send-outs of extra copies must by definition push the whole project into the red.
Hopefully we were an isolated case. Otherwise they stand to spend an awful lot before they realise where their money's disappearing to.
Jonathan Ross and Cameron's rank
26/06/06 12:56 Media
issues Permalink
OK, it's all over the
papers (fnar fnar), radio and TV - Jonathan Ross made
a lewd comment to David Cameron about whether he
fantasised about Margaret Thatcher on ye olden days
when she was PM. The Independent's
coverage is accurate and brief.
Personally I don't give a stuff whether Ross has made inappropriate comments - on balance he delivers the viewers which is what he's paid for, and if everyone's really offended they can soon find the 'off' switch on their telly (deprive him of viewers and listeners and watch that lucrative contract get rewritten). Three things, though, stand out for me about the whole affair.
First is the predictable and regrettable number of people chipping in on radio programmes and elsewhere with 'I didn't see it but my opinion is...' Look, if you didn't see it, shut up about it. It's that blunt.
Second is that it makes a good cover for the pretty unremarkable job Ross was doing of asking serious questions of the would-be Prime Minister. This leads me to the third point, which is that I don't actually understand the objectives of anyone taking part. Did Ross and his team think laugh-a-minute Dave would fall in with the ribaldry and make an all-singing and dancing smut-fest? Or did Cameron and his advisors think Ross would tone down what you might call the 'Ross quotient' and do a reasonably straight interview?
My best guess - and I stress 'guess' - is that actually, the outcome was precisely as predicted for both parties. Ross got a potential PM on the show, which was a coup. He's also in all the papers for a question which was broadcast in what was apparently a ten-minute extract from a longer, 40-minute, interview. Cameron, meanwhile, looks a bit fearless to the new Tories and has dealt a further one in the eye to the older factions who've been losing the party successive elections, and of whom he clearly can't wait to be rid so he can complete his new Conservative project just as Tony Blair could only complete New Labour once a load of the old left had walked.
Cynical? Me? OK, why else would he have agreed to go on a show so renowned for its laddish innuendo?
Personally I don't give a stuff whether Ross has made inappropriate comments - on balance he delivers the viewers which is what he's paid for, and if everyone's really offended they can soon find the 'off' switch on their telly (deprive him of viewers and listeners and watch that lucrative contract get rewritten). Three things, though, stand out for me about the whole affair.
First is the predictable and regrettable number of people chipping in on radio programmes and elsewhere with 'I didn't see it but my opinion is...' Look, if you didn't see it, shut up about it. It's that blunt.
Second is that it makes a good cover for the pretty unremarkable job Ross was doing of asking serious questions of the would-be Prime Minister. This leads me to the third point, which is that I don't actually understand the objectives of anyone taking part. Did Ross and his team think laugh-a-minute Dave would fall in with the ribaldry and make an all-singing and dancing smut-fest? Or did Cameron and his advisors think Ross would tone down what you might call the 'Ross quotient' and do a reasonably straight interview?
My best guess - and I stress 'guess' - is that actually, the outcome was precisely as predicted for both parties. Ross got a potential PM on the show, which was a coup. He's also in all the papers for a question which was broadcast in what was apparently a ten-minute extract from a longer, 40-minute, interview. Cameron, meanwhile, looks a bit fearless to the new Tories and has dealt a further one in the eye to the older factions who've been losing the party successive elections, and of whom he clearly can't wait to be rid so he can complete his new Conservative project just as Tony Blair could only complete New Labour once a load of the old left had walked.
Cynical? Me? OK, why else would he have agreed to go on a show so renowned for its laddish innuendo?
Podcasting for the Guardian
22/06/06 09:59 Journalism in practice
Permalink
OK, I'm excited about
this one. It's been that frantically busy
'not-many-blog-entries-here' time of the month in
which I've hardly touched this site, but one of the
reasons has been that I've become a podcaster for the
Guardian. You can listen to the two shows
here.
Where this leads, if anywhere, I don't know. But I thoroughly enjoyed doing the programmes, and am really grateful to the people who helped put the contacts together - and of course the producer, Laurence Leonard, who makes me sound a hell of a lot more confident than I felt during my first stab at presenting.
Where this leads, if anywhere, I don't know. But I thoroughly enjoyed doing the programmes, and am really grateful to the people who helped put the contacts together - and of course the producer, Laurence Leonard, who makes me sound a hell of a lot more confident than I felt during my first stab at presenting.
Why does one bother...
14/06/06 12:46 Journalism in practice
Permalink
So I did a piece in the
Observer on Sunday, about going green and saving
money. Not a bad little piece, hardly front-page
stuff but useful enough. It made the point, among
other things, that there isn't much point in using
energy-efficient lightbulbs, you're better off using
ordinary ones and switching them off when they're not
in use.
And on Monday I get the weekly e-mail from the financial writers' group rounding up what's been in the weekend papers. "Guy Clapperton on going green," it said. "Telling us to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs and the like." Or words to that effect.
I mean, come on, guys. You could at least read the thing before summarising.
And on Monday I get the weekly e-mail from the financial writers' group rounding up what's been in the weekend papers. "Guy Clapperton on going green," it said. "Telling us to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs and the like." Or words to that effect.
I mean, come on, guys. You could at least read the thing before summarising.
Spooky or what?
07/06/06 16:12 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
My phone has broken. It
picked up calls before I answered and crackled at
them horribly, then it stopped ringing, just
crackled.
Yes it could have been the line. But I thought, better check the handset first before getting BT onto it, particularly as the Internet was working so the line must be doing something right.
And then this delivery bloke turns up. With a new phone from Philips, with a press release attached. And it works perfectly.
I'd write and thank them, but the contact on the release is someone called 'insert local contact here'. So it looks as though they won't get much publicity out of that one...
Yes it could have been the line. But I thought, better check the handset first before getting BT onto it, particularly as the Internet was working so the line must be doing something right.
And then this delivery bloke turns up. With a new phone from Philips, with a press release attached. And it works perfectly.
I'd write and thank them, but the contact on the release is someone called 'insert local contact here'. So it looks as though they won't get much publicity out of that one...
Critics and their subjects
There's an interesting
post from BBC London radio presenter
Jo Good on her blog in which she talks about
critics. Critics, she believes, can be incredibly
rude about people.
Well, I've been on both sides of that particular fence. About ten years ago I had a short story published in a BBC Doctor Who book and it was deemed good enough for actor Colin Baker to read it as an audiobook. "I would rather do anything than listen to this again," said the regular chappie in Doctor Who Magazine. And of course as a journalist I've said when I think a book or a performance is poor.
The thing is, the subjects of these criticisms - whether it's me as a writer or Jo Good as an actress - present ourselves as natural targets. We've put our heads over the parapets, nobody forced us, and if someone wants to take potshots that sort of goes with the territory and there's no use complaining. Of course the best critics go for the work rather than for the person - if someone says 'The Chuckle Brothers gave a below-par performance in East Grinstead last night' that might not be pleasant for them but it's more reasonable than 'The Chuckle Brothers are creeps', which may or may not be true but which is neither constructive nor useful for the reader.
Even so, moaning about critics is starting to become legitimate, and this is partly because of the spread of blogs. It's one thing if I write an article about someone which criticises their work; this will have been through a commissioning editor, a sub, a magazine or newspaper editor and will be deemed to stand up and be acceptable somehow to a number of people. And there will be a letters page or some way in which the subject can address the points raised if they want to.
Blogs are different. People can remove comments or just not allow them. Or people can get personal in the comments they add - Jo Good's own blog has a comments section in which people are quite unpleasant about her style on radio (which I rather enjoy but that's by the by). The're moderated but they definitely veer towards personal comments rather than objective criticism of what she does in public.
And that remains the central weakness of the blogging model for the moment. Professional writers can bleat all we want about quality of online writing but bad writing tends simply to go away; the lack of redress is likely to end up as the most lasting issue.
Well, I've been on both sides of that particular fence. About ten years ago I had a short story published in a BBC Doctor Who book and it was deemed good enough for actor Colin Baker to read it as an audiobook. "I would rather do anything than listen to this again," said the regular chappie in Doctor Who Magazine. And of course as a journalist I've said when I think a book or a performance is poor.
The thing is, the subjects of these criticisms - whether it's me as a writer or Jo Good as an actress - present ourselves as natural targets. We've put our heads over the parapets, nobody forced us, and if someone wants to take potshots that sort of goes with the territory and there's no use complaining. Of course the best critics go for the work rather than for the person - if someone says 'The Chuckle Brothers gave a below-par performance in East Grinstead last night' that might not be pleasant for them but it's more reasonable than 'The Chuckle Brothers are creeps', which may or may not be true but which is neither constructive nor useful for the reader.
Even so, moaning about critics is starting to become legitimate, and this is partly because of the spread of blogs. It's one thing if I write an article about someone which criticises their work; this will have been through a commissioning editor, a sub, a magazine or newspaper editor and will be deemed to stand up and be acceptable somehow to a number of people. And there will be a letters page or some way in which the subject can address the points raised if they want to.
Blogs are different. People can remove comments or just not allow them. Or people can get personal in the comments they add - Jo Good's own blog has a comments section in which people are quite unpleasant about her style on radio (which I rather enjoy but that's by the by). The're moderated but they definitely veer towards personal comments rather than objective criticism of what she does in public.
And that remains the central weakness of the blogging model for the moment. Professional writers can bleat all we want about quality of online writing but bad writing tends simply to go away; the lack of redress is likely to end up as the most lasting issue.