R and I have just spent the Easter weekend in York to attend a wedding that featured great speeches and a genuine invitation for me to 'smell the glove' (thank you Nigel Tufnel) from a most surprising source.
Whilst in town we took in two local attractions that play the nostalgia card to the full. Betty's Cafe Tea Room came first, where we had a wonderfully traditional array of tea and cakes - and spent an hour over it. And that's the difference between Betty's and Starbucks, or Cafe Nero, or Costa. None of them are really selling you food and drinks. They're selling time, experiences, memories, feelings. At Betty's the experience is taking you back in time, and to a slower time at that.
Starbucks wants to be that place halfway between your home and your office, where you can either have a meeting or curl up in a corner with your laptop. (Cafe Nero is trying to sell you Italy, but whether it does or not is another matter, and Costa is trying to sell you money for old rope, as my maths teacher used to say - don't get me started on Flat Whites!)
Betty's is selling nostalgia. History. Aspiration. Look at their 'story': 1919... elegant... traditional... fresh and dainty... skills handed down through the generations. And they say that they've 'firmly refused to open branches outside Yorkshire'. Of course they have - quality control is one thing, but they have no history or pedigree outside of Yorkshire. Their credibility is entirely local. We had a great time there, but it was very interesting to think about just how well managed and marketed that brand is.
The second attraction we took in was the National Railway Museum, which is quite naturally trading on memories of a more romantic era and the network that built the country. This is a museum that's really got its marketing sorted out, with brilliant outdoor and online communications. They also had half price posters and a merry-go-round (for R, not me, of course...), so the whole package is very well done.
Now, where's my Spinal Tap DVD?
PS - got back to London tonight, turned on the IPL and saw something else with quite a lot of history: Shane Warne (40 and counting) taking 4-21 in the most exciting match of the competition I've seen!
5 April 2010
28 February 2010
Henry Blofeld's long lost Bangladeshi cousin
Isn't it a great feeling when you find that someone else has had exactly the same thought as you?
England are playing Bangladesh at cricket today. We're (England) making a pig's ear of it. The Test Match Special commentator sounded a bit familiar, yet not quite right. Then the following note appeared on the BBC site:
"Are we by any chance listening to Henry Blofeld's long lost Bangladeshi cousin in the TMS box?"
Were we the only two listeners who thought that Bangladeshi broadcaster Shamim Chowdhury was in fact Blowers trying a less-than-subtle/tasteful accent?
England are playing Bangladesh at cricket today. We're (England) making a pig's ear of it. The Test Match Special commentator sounded a bit familiar, yet not quite right. Then the following note appeared on the BBC site:
"Are we by any chance listening to Henry Blofeld's long lost Bangladeshi cousin in the TMS box?"
Were we the only two listeners who thought that Bangladeshi broadcaster Shamim Chowdhury was in fact Blowers trying a less-than-subtle/tasteful accent?
Moving the goal posts
There's a story in today's Times that Ofqual's Chief Exec ordered independent GCSE exam boards to cut the number of pupils who would achieve top grades to avoid another round of press stories about the dumbing down of exams.
Yes, the devaluation of grades is a problem but the answer isn't to penalise the students who have worked for their exam results. How is it fair to change the criteria once the exam is complete? The problem must surely be addressed at a curriculum level - by increasing what is required of students there will be a natural correction, with the added bonus of a better-educated population.
From a public relations point of view, this does Ofqual and the government no good at all. Instead of being able to celebrate increased achievement they now have to answer questions about how they've deprived students of the results they deserve. Which of those sounds better to you?
Yes, the devaluation of grades is a problem but the answer isn't to penalise the students who have worked for their exam results. How is it fair to change the criteria once the exam is complete? The problem must surely be addressed at a curriculum level - by increasing what is required of students there will be a natural correction, with the added bonus of a better-educated population.
From a public relations point of view, this does Ofqual and the government no good at all. Instead of being able to celebrate increased achievement they now have to answer questions about how they've deprived students of the results they deserve. Which of those sounds better to you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)