That Gormandizer Man

Advertising is War

Recently I re-watched the excellent documentary “The Fog of War” in which Robert McNamara lays out his 11 lessons of war. His lessons are based on his experiences in various conflicts: as a soldier in World War 2 and as the Secretary of Defence for the USA during both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War.

His lessons are explained and contextualised expertly and insightfully. So erudite is he that I set myself the challenge of explaining them in a language we’d understand…

1. Empathize with your enemy

Clients: know your competition. Understand what they’re trying to achieve and they’ll help you understand what you’re trying to achieve. Make them feel comfortable and learn about them however you can. Keep them close. Keep them very close.

2. Rationality will not save us

Planners: Understand people are not rational beings. Advertising is not a science. We’re emotional beings, so be emotional and have an opinion. Trust your hunch. Learn from rational facts but rely on your emotions. Computers rely on rational facts and when they get it wrong you need a good survival strategy…

3. There's something beyond one's self

Account Teams: As well as wanting an agency to over-deliver on their professional requirements, clients want an agency to push them beyond their personal boundaries too. They want to learn, to be a bit uncomfortable and to push their brand further than before. When you get the butterflies in the stomach, when you have to make sacrifices – that’s when you’re pushing yourself. Push the limits of yourself and of the brand and don’t dishonour yourself or your colleagues in the process...

4. Maximize efficiency

Agencies: Make sure the ROI is the best it can possibly be. Work on things in the right way, with the right principles and with agreed objectives. For us here, it’s about seamless integration: Together is Better. We do everything under one roof and this helps us achieve the targets that can otherwise seem insurmountable. From one building we can fight our battles together, as a team, inch by inch...

5. Proportionality should be a guideline in war

Clients: Understand the balance of what goes in and be realistic with what you expect out. Diverting the budget to a less costly channel may not give you the results you want. Moreover, think beyond the channel and think about whether that small battle is the right battle. Just because other brands are diverting some of their spend to Social Media doesn’t mean you should. Choose your battles carefully as there are some you just can’t win...

6. Get the data

Planners: Read that again. It says ‘Get the data’ – it doesn’t say ‘Rely on the data.’ Data is only as good as the people interrogating it. It plays a vital part in effective communications and is a great tool to validate thinking. But remember people are emotional beings and numbers aren’t emotional. If the numbers aren’t going your way, emotion can play a big part…

7. Belief and seeing are often both wrong

Planners: There is a balance between trusting your Account Teams and your Creatives, but you’re the impartial person in the equation. Question the belief the Account Team has with the client and their brief and question how the Creatives see the answer in their head. You’re in between two warring factions a lot of the time, and it’s your job to prevent meltdown...

8. Be prepared to re-examine your reasoning

Planners: Question everything, all the time. When you’re happy with the reasons you’ve arrived at, go for a cup of tea and question them again. Only by thorough interrogation can a solution be truly robust. Above all, believe in what you’re proposing. If the numbers support your solution but your instinct doesn’t then think of another solution. Never go over the top without knowing it’s the right thing to do… it may be the last thing you do…

9. In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil

Everyone: It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there. On both sides of the equation there are a lot of careers being traveled and a lot of egos being serviced. At some point you’re going to have to do stuff with people you don’t like. It’s a part of life. If you’re both agreed on the end goal a bit of evil is worth the hassle. However, share your views without considering the consequences and you run the risk of upsetting people…

10. Never say never

Pitch Teams: Don’t rule anything out. No matter how well you’ve prepared, how deep you’ve researched, how well you know the sector, you simply don’t know the full picture. Always be wary of the question you don’t think they’ll ask. Always look at it from the angle you don’t think makes sense. There are unknowns in everything when it comes to war…

11. You can't change human nature

Planners: Don’t try and be like other Planners. Be your own Planner and be happy knowing you can’t win them all. Some you’re destined to win regardless of the strategy and some you’re destined to lose regardless of the strategy. Make sure you’re happy with the strategy and don’t change it at the last minute. Last minute plans rarely have time to work...

A confusing conversation

So I've booked some flights on British Airways over the Christmas period. I'm excited to be honest.

I booked with BA instead of the alternatives because of their customer care and because I'm a member of their Executive Club which means I can get some reciprocal benefits the more I fly. It means it's worth spending a little extra to fly with them sometimes.

Since then I've been getting a little worried about the press coverage saying that BA staff may strike over the Christmas period. It's all up in the air at the moment - pardon the pun.

As you'd expect I'm a bit edgy. I've paid a lot of money for these flights and I don't want to book accommodation until it's sorted. It's times like these you want clear communication with the brand to try and figure out what the state of play is.

 

That didn't work. No reply. So I tried again a day later:

 

... and again:

 

(Although I do admit they may not have picked that one up due to the typo.) After that, I started getting little annoyed.

They were still pumping out their sales tweets but not listening to someone who had just paid them hundreds of pounds up front for a service that may not happen.

 

I got a bit annoyed by this tweet so unfortunately my otherwise utterly professional manner slipped somewhat...

 

All I was trying to do was to speak to the brand that had entered into a contract with me. I had paid a lot of money up front for a service that was now being threatened.

After that tweet I was finally contacted via DM and within a couple of hours I had an email waiting for me.

 
(I particularly love the "Get the best from British Airways..." at the bottom. All I want to know is if I'm getting what I've already paid for.)

There are many lessons here. Firstly, I do not understand a word of that email. Do you? Is that last line of the paragraph a nice way of saying "If the flight is canceled you're buggered, but if you look in the small print of your ticket it says that right there."

What is most annoying is that since all of this started, I have had numerous 3rd party emails via British Airways and other associated sales emails from them. A search for British Airways brings up:

So, BA, I have one very simple question for you: What makes you think I would invest any time or money into your brand when you can't even tell me if the time and money I've already invested will amount to anything?

Beyond another post commenting on how to use Twitter, I think the learning from this is simple.

If you lose your core offering you have no right trying to sell some of your associated products. The reason you could sell those associated products was because of the trust you'd built up because of your core offering. When that core offering ceases, you can't trade on that equity any more.

Branding landmarks

Usually, being a fan of Newcastle United doesn't cross over into my profession of working in Advertising. Sure I'll have opinions on how badly the club handle the press and how they have no concept of how to generate positive PR, but on a day to day professional basis there's no overlap.

That was until I read the news that Mike Ashley is listening to offers from brands to rename the stadium. From a personal perspective it appals me. From a brand point of view I also think it's potentially a really bad move. Let me explain...

St James' Park is the oldest football stadium in the North East. It's one of the few stadiums left in the country that has a city centre location. When you travel into Newcastle from the South (as the majority of our opponents do) you get the amazing sight of the stadium looking down over the city. It's a beautiful sight and one I still look forward to even after seeing it hundreds of times. Within the city it's a key focal point. On match day it's the centre of the universe. When you're not in the ground and Newcastle score you can here it in the city centre. It's a true multi-sensory experience that goes beyond its boundaries.

When I've spoken to opposition fans they've been unequivocal about their love of the ground. They can get off the train, walk through the city, and get up to the ground via several drinking holes. It's not located in a trading estate situated out of town like other stadia. (Of course it's not all romantic - some fans clash and some pubs are better than others.)

So with that in mind. With all of those positives I've listed above in mind, which brand do I think should name the ground?

Well, I think who it is is much less important than how they do it.

You see, St James' Park is old. It has heritage. People know it as St James' Park. It's not like other grounds that are known as a few different names (West Ham for example is known by some as Upton Park, and some as the Boleyn Ground) and it's never had a different name in the 117 years since Newcastle United was formed.

(Some other grounds have branded names but by and large these names were given when a new stadium was built.)

The simple fact is, St James' Park is a name that people have heard, talked about, trusted (despite ownership) and had deep emotional connections to for the whole of their lives. A brand is going to have to do something very special indeed to make sure they build on this and at the same time not destroy any positive consumer feelings toward their brand.

So what would I say if I were advising a brand on this issue?

Two very simple things:

Firstly, I wouldn't change the name. It's as simple as that. Do not call it 'The [Brand] Stadium.' It'll do you more harm than good. Newcastle United fans (many of whom are global by the way) will simply resent your brand. They'll still call it St James' Park and they'll resent your brand. Opposition fans have also always called it St James' Park so the chances of them calling it anything different is slim. They've had a constant message of "St James' Park" all of their lives, so how long will you have to buy the sponsorship to change even a small percentage? A long, long time. Not a good ROI.

Secondly, I'd communicate with the fans and ask them what they want out of it. It may be a privately owned business, but it'd disappear tomorrow if the fans stopped watching. This is a key learning the brand can take from the people they'll buy the rights from: the Ashley regime. If you study how they have conducted themselves since buying the club, simply do the opposite. They are shockingly bad at communicating with the fans. You need to be much, much better. Ask them what they would be comfortable with. Test ideas with them. Speak to them as people, not as nameless animals. If you do this they'll respect your business as a brand, but they'll also build up a trust with the people behind the brand.

Own the rights to name it, let everyone know you own those rights (subtly in some cases) but respect the name and don't change it.

It will be a brave brand that does the above, but it'll be a respected brand. It'll be a brand that will be supported by the fans instead of being disowned by them. It'll be a brand that goes up in my estimations, my friends estimations and my family's estimations. I'd guess that other fans may feel the same as me too. It'll be a positive action. Not a negative action.

So, pass this on to the brands thinking about it, and comment below. Let's help them do it the right way, and let's get chatting to them.

Mark
madesignstudies@gmail.com

My take on the Product Placement issue

I've just drafted a very brief response to Haymarket about the Product Placement issue that's kicking around at the moment. It's intentionally short, but I wanted to save my initial thoughts for posterity. It's going to be interesting to see how things pan out.

Will brands pay for products in Corrie rather than a TV ad spot? No.
Will some pay for products in Corrie as well as their usual TV ad spot? Yes.

Product placement is a channel like any other, and like any other the key to successfully marketing a product using that channel is relevancy. If it is relevant for a brand to be placed in a suitable TV programme, then a good agency will do that. If it’s not relevant, then they shouldn’t.

As with the recent glut of brands wanting “a social media campaign” we can be sure that some brands will now approach their agencies and want their products placed in TV programmes. This is the point that will sort the wheat from the chaff.

If it’s relevant, a good agency will do it. Less good agencies will place their clients brands without strategic thinking and we’ll end up in a similar situation to the social media world: irrelevant, ill-conceived campaigns that make it difficult to see the strategically relevant campaigns that truly add value to a brand.

The intricacies of this channel will play a vital part of the success of campaigns. Will brands have control over how the placement works? What about how overt the placement is? Will there be a number of agency representatives when Corrie is filmed and will they have a say in how a specific scene is shot? And what of the psychological and moral implications of promoting a brand in this way? Will it only be Corrie, or will factual programmes be used too?

These issues will be ironed out as the channel matures, but they’ll be ironed out in public, with an expectant audience.

When Twitter can be better than advertising

I've just had one of those things happen to me that put a smile on my face. One of those things that puts you in a slightly better mood. One of those things that not only gives you the satisfaction of money well spent, but makes a bit of a personal difference to you.

Money Supermarket were, up until a few hours ago, just another financial comparison site for me.

Realising I needed to change an address on a policy, I tried to call them on Monday. An answering machine said that I can't do stuff like that over the phone. Putting the phone down frustrated, I tweeted this message and thought nothing of it.

Then, out of the blue, I received these two messages earlier today.

I emailed Ian, got a reply within 90 seconds and when I was replying to his email I had a phone call from Money Supermarket. Within a few minutes my issues had been resolved completely. (Why they could deal with the issue over the phone after I had tweeted about it, when they couldn't prior to the tweet, is a moot point...)

What's important to me in this instance is something I often say to colleagues and clients: Every experience with a brand is its advertising.

In this instance, it literally is. 

I cannot remember a single piece of advertising for Money Supermarket. I have no idea what their strapline is, no idea of their colourways or even their logo. I have no idea of their tone of voice, what their latest deal is and to be honest I don't even know their URL - I would just google 'travel insurance.'

But, what I do know about Money Supermarket is that they have been proactive in looking after one of their (very minor) customers. They responded very quickly and efficiently to my query. More importantly for me is that I can now put a name to them. They're not a brand. A person there spoke to me as a person. They care about my custom.

I've not taken any of that from their current advertising. For the link to their site in the paragraph up there I've just looked at their homepage. They're saying stuff that isn't as important to me as the things I've just learned about them. The experience I've just had is better than their advertising.

All of this for a £26 Annual Travel Insurance premium. I've not needed to use it yet and hopefully won't need to use it at all until it expires, but so far it's worth every single penny, and it will be next year when I renew with them.

Usually, people will stop using a brand if that brand doesn't live up to its side of the bargain. In a recession though, people will stop using a brand without any negative reason if there is an alternative elsewhere. It's this reason that brands need to constantly add value for their customers. Even if there's nothing 'wrong' in the relationship.

Optimising work time

I've been thinking about how to get the most out of my work time lately.

Things are so busy here at the moment that the only time I really get to think about this is when I'm running. (Being busy is great - we're working on some really good work for our clients and also lots of lovely new business things are around so it's lovely to have lots of things to test me and to learn from.)

(Also, I still haven't figured out the best way to track my thoughts when running - I can't carry a Moleskine and a dictaphone just ends up with lots of wheezing on it. I think of so many things when I'm running, by the time I get back I've forgotten them all...)

Anyway - I hastily sketched this out when thinking about getting the most from my work time:

It's meant to show the 'Workflow/ Pontification Balance' for me. Or for how I think it should happen for Planners, if I were to stick my neck out.

You see, in a sentence, I think Planners should be thought of more as a Creative Team, and less so an Account Team.

In order to spit good things out, you need to soak good things up. And lots of soaking up is needed to spit out a small amount of relevant stuff. (The key word there for me is 'relevant' - spitting out lots of stuff is kinda easy, but spitting out the right stuff is what sorts the wheat from the chaff in my mind.)

Of course during a recession, timescales change, plans change, and watching YouTube for inspiration doesn't really go down too well with the people at the top of the tree unless it's chargeable time. But for me, we need to remember the longer term plan when we look at things like this. It's easy to chain people to the desk and whip them 9 hours a day, but I reckon the output would suffer.

It's second nature for me to be interested in everything. When I'm not sat at the desk I'm thinking about the same stuff anyway. I could be running, in the boozer with a friend or at a talk and ideas can pop into my head. Whether I'm sat at my desk or in these other places, the natural reaction is always "I wonder if that's useful to the stuff I'm working on?"

The trick in trying to sell the above model into the people that matter, though, is to try and make them understand that the 'soaking up' part of the model is just as important as the 'spitting out' part of the model. They're integral to each other:

• Expect me to spit stuff out all the time without soaking stuff up, and I'll get predictable;
• Allow me to soak stuff up for too long without a good opportunity to spit it out and I'll burst.

I'm happy that I'm very motivated and very much a self-starter. I'm pro-active and don't wait around for people to instruct me so I'm pretty good at finding the balance. What also helps me is that if I'm spitting stuff out a bit too much at work, then I soak stuff up in my free time. If I get the chance to soak stuff up when I'm at work, then it's good to spit it out in other ways at home - that's when this blog or other side interests come in handy.

Having this time outside of work is integral to me, and if I didn't live and breathe advertising it wouldn't be possible to do this. I guess it's another part of the Planning mix: living it, breathing it.

Are VW a friend or a brand?

So what follows is a blog post about Twitter. Not sure if anyone has written a blog post about Twitter before, so obviously everything you're going to read is going to be literally ground-breaking.

I use Twitter. I use it for a number of reasons: To listen to lots of friends at once (and offer my input), to share links, to randomly stumble across interesting people and for other reasons that I can't remember now. I find it a useful tool that can be used in many ways.

I always liken Twitter to a pub when describing it to people who don't know much about it. If you walk into a pub and there are lots of people chatting about stuff, you'll be drawn to the people that are saying something interesting to you and you'll walk up to them, ask them if it's alright if you listen in and then you'll probably add your comments at the right time. If there is someone there saying stuff that isn't interesting, you'll probably ignore them. If there is someone there only listening to others talking and not adding anything into the relationship, you'll kinda turn your back on them after a while. Especially if they're there wearing a branded uniform...

I get a few brands following me. The way it typically works is: I tweet something; they pick up a keyword and autofollow me; I look at their page and decide whether to follow them too; a sporadic exchange of a few tweets follows; the brand campaign ends; I never hear from them again.

The most recent of these is the VW Escape campaign. (I'm not sure but I think it's Iris?) They started following me about six weeks ago. After an initial few messages, they've been kinda quiet. On their twitter page they say they will help "find out how VW will help you escape this summer, with great competitions, events and more." That's why I followed them. I don't own any VW products, have no intention of buying any VW products but would gladly relish the opportunity of some help on how to get away - hopefully having won a competition through their Twitter account. They're around the 350 mark for followers and who they're following so surely I'd have a decent chance, right?

But after six weeks I'm wondering why I'm stood next to them in the pub. They only seem to be talking about things that interest them (they have no input into anything I say unless it's directed at them), and I'm yet to see any of their help about how I can get away. Plus, I even asked them why I should still be talking to them but they haven't replied.

I'm confused as to whether they want to be my friend, or whether they want to be a brand that talks at me.

If they're a friend:

• Well, friends chat about lots of different stuff. Don't just talk about stuff that you're bothered about. Talk to me about things I'm bothered about. Only talking about things that suit you is kinda selfish and humans don't like selfish people.
• Do what friends do. Interact with me about lots of stuff. Don't just listen to me when I talk to you, overhear me talking to others about stuff that isn't to do with your interests.
• Don't disappear when you've exhausted your current hobby. In other words, I know you're going to do a runner when the campaign ends. What's the point of building up a friendship anyway, if you're going to bugger off when the budget runs out?

If they're a brand:

• Well. I know you're only here for your benefit. You think that in the short term I'll interact with you so that in the longer term I'll remember you and purchase VW. If that's the case, engage with me in a way that adds value to me - not you.
• Also, if I know you're stood in the pub wearing a VW branded uniform, I know you're good for a few freebies. If you're going to stand in the pub on behalf of VW and only talk to me about things that interest VW, then I'm going to expect something in return. And as you're a massively successful international brand, that usually means some kind of freebie. Put your money where your mouth is.

And if you're neither of these, then what's the point in me talking to you? It's an interesting test, that one... sit down and think "if this Twitter account wasn't here tomorrow, who would really miss me?" because at the moment I certainly wouldn't. Surely that's something you want to change?

Being better than acceptable

I visited The Diner the other day for a spot of breakfast. You know the one(s) - fake American eatery that serves a half-decent burger, in fake American surroundings with twee 80s music on?

When I was in there, something rather mundane happened that got me thinking.

I'm sat there eating my poached eggs and I can hear the waitress behind me talking to the customers in the booth behind me:

Waitress: "I'm sorry, but we can't give you the freshly squeezed orange juice you ordered. We've ran out of oranges because of the bank holiday weekend. We do have concentrated juice we can give you."

On one level this is understandable and we've all heard something similar before. Most people would accept this and order a replacement drink. Not a biggie huh?

However, whilst munching on my £8 breakfast of pancakes, eggs and streaky bacon, it occurred to me what had in fact just happened. It's quite simple when you look at it in cold rational terms:

• We were in Central London.
• Oranges exist.
• There is a greengrocers opposite.
• There are 2 Tesco stores within 5 minutes walk.
• There is a Sainsbury's 7 minutes walk away.

You see, what the waitress in The Diner was actually saying was: "Our preferred supplier of oranges cannot deliver any new oranges until tomorrow. We do not want to go and buy oranges for you. It may eat into our profit margin, and the product may be slightly different because the oranges may be different. In this case, we'd rather let you down than change our business practices."

 

Some of you may be sitting there may be thinking I'm taking this a little too far. Well, I don't think I am. Within a 10 minute walk, I could have walked to a dozen other places for breakfast and had freshly squeezed orange juice. That's what the customer asked for but was let down by The Diner.

The message is quite simple really: If you're a brand, over-deliver on your promises.

• If you do not deliver on your promises, then you're letting the customer down. That's bad. They'll tell people they know about their bad experience. People love a good moan and they'll let a load of people know why they don't like you.
• If you deliver what you say you're going to deliver you're merely fulfilling your contract with a customer. It's a business transaction. Unemotional. Efficient. Profitable. People will buy the product(s) but will they engage with the brand? Who wants to engage with something cold, calculated and unemotional? Will they even remember doing it?
• If you over-deliver on your promises then you're truly adding value to a relationship. Let me know you value my input, whether it's money, time or effort (or all three). If I feel welcome somewhere I'll go back. I'll continue to spend money and I'll tell other people why I go there. You're making my time on this planet that little bit better. Of course you're only a brand and you should know the limits, but thanks for making me a little bit happier in these hectic times.

In this case, the brand of 'The Diner' is more concerned with itself as a business rather than a place that treats paying customers as the most important factor. It was looking at cold, rational numbers and not emotional beings. In the end, the customer that didn't get his orange juice will remember his experience negatively from a product point of view. If they'd over-delivered he'd have remembered the experience from a brand point of view in a positive light.

Are your clients over-delivering on their promises, or are they merely fulfilling their side of the contract?

How London buses are numbered - TfL come up trumps!

I tweeted yesterday that I'd received the most interesting email I'd ever been sent. I think that's still true.

As a Planner, I'm supposed to be interested in everything. Well, regardless of whether I should or shouldn't be interested in everything, I am. It's just the person I am. When I don't fully understand something, I try and find the answer or some context to the subject.

Last week I was waiting for the bus and wondered why they are numbered as they are, and why some have letters in front of a number.

I emailed the following note to TfL:

I just have a simple question that I'm hoping you can explain to me. Most buses are a number, but some are letters and numbers. So I catch the number 55 to work. But I also see the C2 when I'm around Old Street.

I'm just wondering can you explain the number system to me please? And also, who decides which number goes on which route?

Thanks

Well, yesterday I received this response. I'm pasting it verbatim (but anonymising the member of staff as he may not want his name made public):

We appreciate the importance of route numbers to London's bus passengers. They might be described as the shop window by which passengers recognise a route. In some cases - particularly with regard the long-established routes - a particular number may even evoke affection.

The numbering of London's bus routes has evolved slowly since the earliest days of regular bus operation in the capital. In a few instances, it is possible to trace the lineage of sections of existing routes back to their identically numbered predecessors from horse-drawn days. You may be interested to know that in 2 years time one London bus route will incontrovertibly reach its centenary. Route 24 first started operating between Pimlico and Hampstead Heath
under The General Omnibus Company in 1911, and since then the route has been subject only to minor changes to accommodate one-way systems.

There is a tradition for route planners within Transport for London and its forerunner organisations deliberately to respect the past by re-using numbers that have local historic associations. That is the case with route 55 that you mention. It was first introduced between Central London and Leyton during a major service re-organisation around forty years ago. Its number was a deliberate echo of a trolleybus route 555 that had run along Old Street to Hackney and beyond some years previously, and also of the tram route 55 that the trolleybus had replaced.

London Transport operated the capital's buses in various guises between 1933 and 1984. Until 1970 the organisation also had responsibility for routes in a doughnut-like ring of the outer surrounding countryside. The routes that served this area utilised numbers between 300 and 499, and 800 between and 899, with the 700 series set aside for Green Line coaches. With the resulting pressure on available numbers for new routes in the Central area (operated by red buses), in 1968 London Transport first started using the system of prefix numbers that continues to this day. The idea is that the prefix letter should designate the place around which the routes cluster - P for Peckham in the case of routes P4, P5, and P13; E  for Ealing in the case of series E1 to E11, for instance. The C in C2 stands for Central. The prefix 'N', however, denotes a night bus.

Now, with over 700 routes within Greater London alone, it is necessary for us to maintain this system. When we introduce a new route - or make alterations to an existing route by splitting it - the last digit or digits of the historic 'parent' route are used wherever possible, so that passengers might associate the incoming route with its predecessor. This was the case in 2003, for instance, when route 414 was chosen as the number for the new route between Maida Hill and Putney Bridge, which was intended to augment route historic route 14 south of Hyde Park Corner. 

How interesting is that!? What I love about it most is the passion which the person obviously has about the subject. He has managed to turn something that could be quite mundane into something that is compelling because of his passion for the subject. Brilliant.

My first thought on receiving this was "why can't all encounters with TfL be as this rewarding"... but that's a post for a different time.

What it also reminded me of is how much we take the web for granted. I didn't want to scour google for the answer, I wanted it from the horses mouth. I fired off an email and received a superb reply quickly. We shouldn't forget how easy it is to find answers to things. They may just be an email away.

I'd like to publicly thank the chap for making me enjoy something that could easily have turned into another bad experience with a brand.

thetrainline.com - FAIL part two

So after writing about thetrainline.com over here, I received a comment on the post telling me they were looking into it and would respond 'in the next 24-48 hours.' I've just got their email, some 167 hours after the comment was posted. The delay was due to 'intermittent email issues.'

I'll precis what was in the email:

1) The problems with the system offering me trains that were fully booked is because they feed off the National Reservation System, and it can be three hours old. All other booking sites feed off this too.
2) The helpful error notice (Error E00328) is for their benefit, so they can figure out what my problem is quickly.

That's kind of it. They neglected to mention this other stuff that I also talked about: Why am I paying a booking fee? Why did they neglect to mention the £2.50 credit card fee? Why can't I add in the promotional code on the payment page to save me re-entering the same info again?

This bit confused me: "The telephone number (0870 010 1296) displayed with the error message and on our contact page is correct, however on Friday we had a problem with our telephony system for 40minutes, therefore callers to this number during this period would have been directed to another number, so we’re sorry this happened."

For starters, I called them on a Monday, not a Friday. How is this pertinent to me? Secondly, it does nothing to address the issue that I'm still paying for the call every time I call them to give them money for a ticket. Money from me for my ticket, money from me for the booking fee, money from me for the credit card fee, and money from me when I call to pay for the above.

Now that I've addressed my personal issues we should crack on with the marketing stuff... oh come on, you know that's why you like coming here!

All the trainline.com have succeeded in doing is making a statement of what their stance is and what went wrong with my visit to them. Granted they said sorry, but that's not enough most of the time and it's definitely not enough when there's a recession on and you're a middle-man with nothing extra to offer than going direct to the product.

They told me why some things don't work as seamlesssly as we'd like, but they've made no mention about how they're going to improve the system. So we can assume that the problems I had could happen next time. If that's the case, why would I go back if I felt compelled to write a negative blog post after my last experience?

There was not a single question mark in the email. A simple thing really, but a question mark means they want my reply. My reply to their email means a conversation. Their email with no question marks means a statement and they're not inviting my input. So why we were all having a conversation about it, they're not bothered about joining in. They've said their bit, and that's the end of it. Not a sensible move, thetrainline.com. You know when you're telling a child something they don't want to hear and they put their fingers in their ears and shout "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"...

When will brands realise that people offering views and experiences in public is a great opportunity to learn something about your brand and to turn a negative experience into a positive one? Talk to me, not at me.

So there we go. I'm a Northerner living down south. I have family in the North East, I have a season ticket to Newcastle United and you know what? I don't have a car. That means I use trains a lot. Solely for that reason I feel compelled to write: thetrainline.com as a website - FAIL. Feeling like a valued friend of thetrainline.com - FAIL