http://civilbranding.com/2009/05/evening-standard-sorr/ Building a better society through branding Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:56:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://civilbranding.com/2009/05/evening-standard-sorr/comment-page-1/#comment-11226 Civil Branding » Trebor, humility and authenticity Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:55:47 +0000 http://civilbranding.com/?p=592#comment-11226 [...] for past errors in order to wipe the slate clean and begin a more genuine dialogue with the reader (see previous post). Trebor, humility and [...] [...] for past errors in order to wipe the slate clean and begin a more genuine dialogue with the reader (see previous post). Trebor, humility and [...]

]]> http://civilbranding.com/2009/05/evening-standard-sorr/comment-page-1/#comment-10947 Geoff Smith Fri, 15 May 2009 10:37:49 +0000 http://civilbranding.com/?p=592#comment-10947 The upside of running such a bold campaign is that it wipes the slate clean and sparks public interest precisely because it is controversial. Even if former editor Veronica Wadley’s remarks on the campaign sound over-cooked (“London is laughing at this ludicrous campaign” etc.), she has a real point about the bad impact it’s likely to have on staff and contributors. A blanket apology for “being predictable”, “too negative” etc? If the paper was really that lousy it would never have survived and Lebedev would never have bought it. The blanket apology also undermines the humility we’re supposed to buy into. Who wants to see their work binned as trash to promote a new management team? Nor is it massively flattering of the tastes of readers who happened to think the Standard was a decent paper. So yes, it grabs attention and maybe it will provide a platform for the new-look Standard to succeed commercially. But a showcase of civil branding? I think not. The upside of running such a bold campaign is that it wipes the slate clean and sparks public interest precisely because it is controversial. Even if former editor Veronica Wadley’s remarks on the campaign sound over-cooked (“London is laughing at this ludicrous campaign” etc.), she has a real point about the bad impact it’s likely to have on staff and contributors. A blanket apology for “being predictable”, “too negative” etc? If the paper was really that lousy it would never have survived and Lebedev would never have bought it. The blanket apology also undermines the humility we’re supposed to buy into. Who wants to see their work binned as trash to promote a new management team? Nor is it massively flattering of the tastes of readers who happened to think the Standard was a decent paper. So yes, it grabs attention and maybe it will provide a platform for the new-look Standard to succeed commercially. But a showcase of civil branding? I think not.

]]>