A Brucie Bonus

Well, that last post turned into a blog all on its own exclusively about Brian Clough. And as much as I'm sure the great man would be honoured to have my entire week's blog output being all about him, like Chris Tarrant, I don't want to give you that. So here is the blogging equivalent of a Brucie Bonus, although it comes with the caveat that there won't be a cuddly toy or a glamorous assistant in sight. Budget cuts I'm afraid.

2. Watch out for the jargon police
So tell me, how's your blue sky thinking? What's your reaction when the boss asks if he can "touch base" with you "before the close of play". And what is your understanding of the value base of the organisation you work at? If like me you squirm when you hear this kind of management jargon uttered by managers barely out of kindergarten and often found wearing bluetooth headsets strapped to their left ear with what looks like a sticking plaster, you will probably be pleased to hear that the jargon police are wanting to discourage the use of many offending words and phrases in favour of more "plain English" alternatives.

When I initially heard this news, I thought it would be fair enough if it meant the end to such to banal, empty phrases as the ones I mentioned above. But then, a moment of fear struck me. People that work with me or who have worked with me in the past will know that I have a good line in patter when I deal with agencies on the telephone in a professional capacity. Having studied Business Studies to degree level, there are certain words and phrases I learnt which I occasionally like to slip into conversation whenever I'm dealing with an agency trying to offer some kind of good or service to me that I have no real intention of taking them up on. What were the odds, therefore, that some of these words and phrases I use would be on the banned list?

I had an e-mail forwarded to me during the week that contained the words and phrases that supposedly had been drawn up for the cull. There in all their horror were some phrases I had never heard of, some other words and phrases I had which made cringe. What is the point of the word "holistic" for example? But then staring me in the face were some words and phrases that I do use. "The big picture" had to go. But I use that saying all the time! Procurement was a big no-no. Again, this is a word I sometimes use. Worse still, synergy was no longer to be used. I've definitely used that word in my time dealing with telephone vultures. And then the cherry on top of the cake, facilitate was in the cull. This is a word I frequently use, albeit sometimes I use it at the wrong time. It is fine to use it when you are networking with some business exec by the water cooler at a seminar, but not as appropriate when your girlfriend tells you off for using it in an everyday informal conversation, which I have done at least once.

The concept of Plain English on one level is a noble one. I think we all know the English language is there to be manipulated. Just as banks and insurance companies tend to put the catches in their "amazing deals" in the small print, so small that even someone with 20:20 vision would need a magnifying glass to read the clauses, so a similar tactic is used in verbal and written communications from big business. Wherever there are any bones of contention or any disputes, you can bet that the company will respond using technical language quite deliberately so that the consumer does not understand what they are saying and consequently will be less likely to challenge their stance. It does not always work, but I think most of us will have had an experience of a business we have dealt with who have tried to fob us off in this way.

There also has to be some acceptance that some people's command of the English language is better than others, just as some people are better able to read documents than others. Therefore, Plain English has to be given complete consideration wherever the intended audience consists of people that have a learning difficulty or where the audience has not swallowed Roget's Thesaurus. By the way, did you hear about the man who ate a whole thesaurus for dinner? He was full, parched, stuffed, bloated, satiated, replete...

But the key point is that the language you use should be tailored to the audience you are dealing with. If you are in a business networking situation, using business terminology that is relevant to the products or markets you are dealing in should be commonplace. Talk of establishing a relationship that brings about mutual synergies is just a more eloquent way of saying "there's something in it for both us". Talk of "pooling our resources" is just a smarter way of saying "let's both dip our hands in our pockets". Or saying "I need to refer you to our procurement department" just means "my boss or my boss's boss makes the decisions on what we buy". These are all phrases that are perfectly acceptable when entering business-to-business negotiations, but are less appropriate when dealing with an individual consumer, or worse still when you are discussing the day's events with your loved one or your friends down the pub.

In a way, I am glad that this list has come to my attention because what it will do is make me more aware of knowing when to use certain stock phrases in my work and when I need to tone them down. A lot of business jargon, particularly phrases, are just euphemisms for other words which may have harsher sounding connotations, for example restructuring instead of redundancies. These words may have been introduced with the best of intentions, so to try to alleviate staff fears wherever a potential problem affecting everyone exists. But we should be selective in our choice of business vocabulary, remembering who we are talking to, what their needs and expectations are and also what we are trying to tell them in the course of the conversation we are having. Clarity is the most important aspect of communication and so if the words we are using are sacrificing that in order to show off, we should refrain from using them. But I tend to stick to the principle that if a word is in the dictionary, it is legitimate provided it is used in the right context, so I only hope that the jargon police's clampdown is not a complete success otherwise wordsmiths like me will be redundant, sorry, restructured.

3. The Internet is there to be manipulated
The subject of audiences is quite relevant in considering another hot topic that has emerged during the past week. I am referring to the controversy surrounding Google's Street View service that shows panoramic shots of people's streets throughout the world, but now including the United Kingdom. There are some people who have more cause than others to be unhappy about Google's latest innovations for the voyeurs amongst us. Spare a thought for an American man for example who chose the most inopportune moment to spend a penny on the side of a road that so happened to be photographed in that moment.

Personally, I would say that this is a potentially excellent innovation which unfortunately the minority of abusers could spoil for the majority, hence the outcry from your average misinformed radio phone-in caller. There have been different issues that have cropped up, such as parents who feel uncomfortable about schools being photographed that may have their children running around in the playground at the key moment. Clearly this is a sensitive issue and the media in this country only inflames hysteria so far as paedophilia is concerned to the point where people understandably become very protective.

That's a whole separate subject, but the fact of the matter is that there is as much chance of some random passer-by taking these kinds of photos undetected on their mobile phone as there is of them showing up on Google Street View. In the media, wherever a child or a vulnerable adult is photographed or features in an article in a publication there should normally be some kind of consent provided by the appropriate guardian, but I suppose this might have been more difficult for Google to accomplish, short of tracking down the parents of any children who appear in their photos and asking their permission.

Nonetheless, Google should have acted more responsibly in some respects. The problem that has occurred in some situations, as I understand it, is that people's identities can be easily determined despite Google have given assurances that it would go to maximum lengths to ensure that it would blur the faces of people that so happened to walk into shot when Googlecam captured its stills. In some situations I am sure this has led to one or two embarrassments and possibly people caught in compromising moments, left with some explaining to do. How long until the first lawsuit gets filed against Google? Or how soon will Google Street View feature in someone's divorce proceedings? I am sure it already has in the United States.

The other problem I suppose that Google Street View could bring about is that it gives the more studious wannabe burglar the opportunity to plot their escape route. In some shots, Google Street View not only photographs streets but also close-ups of people's homes, sometimes giving people shots of the insides of people's homes. A little bit of advice here would be to invest in some net curtains, that way if you do have anything valuable indoors it is not really likely to show up on the Internet. I await a future edition of Beat The Burglar with Dominic Littlewood that is completely devoted to facing up to the challenges posed by Google Street View. That's if Dom doesn't have his laptop half-inched in the meantime by some opportunist who noticed a downstairs window ajar when he logged in.

Google Street View is not all bad and I would think that the raison d'etre for the service when it was dreamt up was that photographs are there for people to recall moments and also to be informative. There must be plenty of families that have members living in a foreign country and in some cases, some members of that family have probably never met each other or seen their houses. OK, so I suppose with technology as it is now, these photos can be passed on via the media of e-mail, Facebook or mobile phone as well as the more traditional card and letter at Christmas. But Street View provides another alternative and if it is used properly, it encourages people, especially children to take advantage of the opportunity to explore the world they live in without having to leave their bedroom. I suppose the possibility of children getting to see adults carrying out compulsory bodily functions while online may put some parents off from allowing their kids to access the site, but nonetheless the potential of Google Street View as a tool is there to be tapped into.

As ever, it boils down to that age old problem of the minority of people seeing the possibility of manipulation and overstepping the mark which spoils things for the majority. The World Wide Web has been established for nearly two decades now and the legislation associated with it is still very much in its infancy. All the while the law is lax wherever the Internet is concerned, this means that potential sources of manipulation and/or computer crime are able to take advantage and the rest of the public that use the Internet for good reason are exposed to their less than honourable intentions. Google's latest innovation is potentially a great resource but it does present some challenges as well. So long as people stick to the principles of common sense, it is to be hoped the good will outweigh the bad.

4. Nothing sells like nostalgia
Wherever you look at the moment, the music news has been dominated by comeback tours and sell out concerts from artists and bands whose heyday occurred a long time ago. Just a fortnight ago, Michael Jackson announced plans for his "farewell tour" in the United Kingdom and this resulted in his shows selling out within hours, as loyal fans camped outside the O2 Arena overnight in the manner of die hard tennis fans trying to capture Centre Court tickets for the next day's play at Wimbledon. All this despite Jackson having not released any material in eight years and much of the intervening period since having been taken up by press coverage of less savoury aspects of his character and personal life.

Last week, Spandau Ballet became the latest band to reform, with talk of not just a UK tour but the possibility of releasing new material if the tour goes well. Their comeback is astonishing considering the massive falling out between the Kemp Brothers and the rest of the band a decade ago over unpaid royalties which ended up with a messy dispute in the High Court. Call me a cynic but I don't see this being a long lasting reconciliation. I am sure that in the short term, the significant amount of money a lucrative comeback tour offers was enough motivation for the band to set aside their differences, but once they are back touring together it surely will only be a matter of time before the old animosities resurface.

We thought we had seen it all until just a few days ago, it was reported that Robbie Williams could be rejoining Take That for a forthcoming tour after Williams had previously rejected his former band-mates' advances. From what I can see, this would be a marriage of convenience for Williams. Take That have enjoyed a remarkable renaissance since they reformed a couple of years ago. They have kept hold of the audience of swooning teenage girls of the mid-1990s that put them on the map in the first place and who now, like the band they idolise, have grown up, got married, got children, a mortgage and all the other trappings. But on top of that, Take That seem to have found other niche audiences. Today's teenagers like them as well, as do some grannies.

Previously there would have been no real incentive for Williams to get back with them as he has achieved plenty as his own entity. However, his last album did not sell particularly well, not helped by him having moved to the States and so in the large part he has been out of people's consciousness. Williams is back in the UK now and keen to resurrect his career, but he might find that his popularity as a solo artist will never quite be as high as it was. Even so, if Williams were to announce a UK tour next week I would still expect tickets to sell pretty rapidly. But if ever Williams was to re-unite with Take That, it would be now when he is trying to re-establish himself in the UK. His other bandmates I doubt will entertain the idea though because they know Williams would only be putting himself forward as a stepping stone.

The only comeback that could surely trump the return of Spandau Ballet, given that they have not recorded together since 1989, before the Berlin Wall came down, would be if the Stone Roses reformed. And yet even this suddenly appeared to be a reality when it was announced a couple of weeks ago that the band would reform for the summer festivals. I was never convinced by this statement because neither Ian Brown nor John Squire were quoted in the statement and both men have been vehemently against a reunion previously due to the tensions there are between the two men. Brown has a relatively successful solo career in any event, while Squire has much of his time taken up by his painting. So unfortunately us fans of the Roses will have to make do with their Greatest Hits.

Take That aside, I cannot think of many examples of reunions that have been successful or which have lasted a long time. Look at The Verve for example. Their return last year after ten years away was eagerly anticipated by many, but I was never convinced, simply because there were too many tensions between band members which forced them to split up in the first place. From what I have read, it would seem that these tensions very quickly resurfaced when the band went back on the road and the chances of the band recording any further music together looks slim. Having heard some of the songs they recorded on their comeback, they should have been a band that stayed in the 1990s and allowed their fans to remember the good times rather than their half-hearted return.

Music is always intrinsically linked to nostalgia. The songs we hear on the radio or which we play at home are the soundtracks to our lives. There are songs we associate with certain periods of life and I suppose for people of a certain age, Take That and Spandau Ballet getting back on the road reminds them of their misspent youth. And the sight of Tony Hadley showing up for the press call with a waistline that suggested the size zero diet hadn't been for him was probably the sight that the teenagers of 1983 wanted to see now they are in their 40s and have paid for life's excesses too. Hadley, like them, is human after all. I guess the upcoming tour will also show whether he can confound his critics and The Killers by being dancer too.

As always, nostalgia is what prints the tickets and fills the seats. While those that are detached from the situation just hear Back For Good, To Cut A Long Story Short or Billie Jean, the fans of those respective artists not only hear the songs but they recall the memories of what went on behind bike sheds, of the days when they took their first driving lessons or the day they left school. In short, the music makes them feel young again. It won't be until they see their former heroes close up in the flesh that the reality of the ageing process hits home on them.

5. Mock shock is getting out of hand
I have devoted some not inconsiderable blog space previously to the subject of the press finding mountains where only mole hills exist, particularly within the entertainment sector. But this cliched mock shock that our friends from the scandal sheets such as the Daily Mail, The Sun and Daily Express shows no sign of abating if the headlines of the past few days are anything to go by.

Yet again, Jonathan Ross appears to have upset the Middle England do-gooders by having the audacity to be nominated for a BAFTA television award. The outraged are apparently disgusted that Ross could possibly be recognised for doing his job well in a year when he got caught up in the Andrew Sachs-gate incident which people really should be getting over by now.

What people appear to be failing to see is that Ross has been nominated for the performance on his own chat show, not for the work he has done on other people's radio programmes, so there is no reason whatsoever why he should not be nominated. His Friday night show has regularly pulled in audiences of over 4 million since he came back from his impromptu suspension in January and while Ross has watered down some of his antics, his show remains for many the perfect way of chilling out at the start of the weekend. It is for that reason why it is right that he was nominated, although the good news for his detractors is that I doubt he will win the award.

That is because in the same category of "Best Light Entertainment Programme" is Harry Hill's TV Burp and in a time where ITV's programmes have been taking a hammering amid ITV's budgetary problems, the follicly challenged, bespectacled comedian with the big collars has been proving a ratings winner with his madcap humour and wacky observations. Although I am not a fan of Hill as a rule, he seems suited to this format and his show has attracted a cult following and so his legions of fans will be pleased that I expect him to collect the gong at Ross's expense. The real question mark is how Ant and Dec's performance on I'm A Celebrity could be considered worthy as the best comedy performance in a light entertainment show. Let's hope one day someone leaves this pair of chancers in the jungle at the end of their series.

Elsewhere in the kneejerk reaction stakes this week, Sir David Jason managed to cause a stir by having a joke he made on a live radio programme censored and removed from a podcast of the show on the grounds that it could be construed as racist. The joke, which was about a Pakistani cloakroom attendant being called Mahatma Coat is pretty tame in terms of being racially offensive. OK, Sir David's geography seems to be a bit awry as I usually associate the title Mahatma with India, but I can't see how anyone would have been upset by his attempt at a joke. Frankly the problem with his gag was not that it was offensive, it was just that it was plain unfunny. Even a Christmas cracker company or the producers of My Family would have left that one on the cutting room floor. So perhaps Absolute Radio did Sir David a favour in editing out his moment of embarrassment.

It seems that the culture of pulling people up and scrutinising any comment or behaviour, however irrelevant or irreverent it is shows no sign of abating. But then I guess it serves up an alternative to the current "self-pity Britain" headlines that are served up on a daily basis in the papers, so maybe we should be thankful for that.