xkcd - Hand Sanitiser

20,000 for those who can't be bothered working it out.

How do you sleep at night?

The eminent Robert Phipps, a body language 'expert' has been commissioned to produce some research on peoples' sleeping positions.

Really!

Lets hear what Robert has to say for himself first:

Robert's services have been called upon by some of the world's largest corporations, his media appearances number well over 100 TV shows and hundreds if not thousands of comments for newspapers, magazines and radio stations.
Due to popularity most of these courses get booked quite early, especially as they are often restricted to just 25 delegates per course.

Golly!

Back to the research... From The Telegraph:

The results, he claims, can identify how stressful your day was, how much you worry and how much control you have over your life.

It is said to reveal traits such as stubbornness, bossiness and fanciful dreaming, as well as how self-critical a person is or whether they feel in control of life.  

Of course. Naturally. How could it not?

According to his research, more than half of British adults sleep in the “foetal” position, curled up on their side with knees tucked in. This stance, favoured by worriers, is said to show the sleeper is seeking to return to their comfort zone after a stressful day. 

Utter bollocks.

The log position, with a straight body and limbs at the sides, shows a person is inflexible and rigid in thinking, set in their ways and stubborn.  

More bollocks

A quarter of people taking part in the study classed themselves as “yearners”, sleeping with their arms stretched out in front as though they are chasing their dreams or being chased. 

He got paid to produce this?

A further 17 per cent of respondents classed themselves as “freefallers”, sleeping face down with their arms outstretched.
Often clutching their pillow, they can appearing to be “holding on for dear life” in what is thought to be the most uncomfortable sleeping position for adults. 

Enough! Who commissioned this piece of self-promoting bollocks?

The research, for budget hotel chain Premier Inn, revealed the “log” as the second most popular position, adopted by nearly three in every ten people.  

Ah - thought so - an advert.

CALM - suicidal young men

As reported by the PA, and other media:

A quarter of adults in England and Wales have considered suicide, research suggests.
Suicidal thoughts are most common in those aged 45 to 54, with just over a third (31%) saying they had contemplated taking their own life, according to the research [...]

While men and women are both likely to feel suicidal, more men actually commit suicide, the campaign group said.
Calm chief executive Jane Powell said that 75.5% of the 4,517 people who committed suicide in 2010 were men.
She said that gender should be at the heart of Government's suicide-prevention policy.

Ah, so more taxpayers' money to be spent on... suicides. For men. (Or rather to reduce them.) Wonder where this money should be being spent?

And who conducted this research? From the PA article:

[...]according to the research conducted by the Campaign Against Living Miserably (Calm).

Calm is a fake-charity in the UK, who out of their  £153k income for 2011, £152k (of which £98k was deferred to 2012) came from Primary Care Trusts. Which is the NHS. Which is taxpayers' money.

They describe themselves as:

The campaign against living miserably (CALM) was set up to reduce the high suicide rate amongst men under 35, currently the single biggest killer of young men in the UK

In other words: Charity that depends on taxpayers' money demands that more taxpayers' money be spent on primary reason for said charity to exist.

Sun Life - funerals

From The Telegraph, carehome.co.uk, marketwatch, and other media outlets, we have some 'research' into funeral costs in the UK co-conducted by the University of Bath and another partner:

• Almost half of 69,000 applications for a Funeral Payment (FP) rejected(2) 
• So-called "pauper's funerals" (Public Health Funerals) expected to rise as it becomes "too expensive for poor people to die" 
• Funeral Payment applicants forced into debt by committing to funeral cost of GBP 1,000s prior to finding out if they will receive state support

Gosh. What a sorry state of affairs. Who helped the University of Bath conduct their research? Another impartial group of people?

From MarketWatch:

A new Cost of Dying Special Report into Social Fund Funeral Payments from Sun Life Direct and the University of Bath reveals that the Funeral Payment scheme, intended to contribute to the cost of funerals for the most vulnerable in society, is failing to meet mounting demand.

[...]

Simon Cox, head of life planning at Sun Life Direct, says: "We have to ask ourselves whether the current infrastructure for end of life support is fit for purpose. Something must be done, and quickly.

Ah. Company that sells funeral plans seemingly encourages public, through scare tactics, to buy funeral plans. Or this is possibly a run-up to suggesting that the government use a private company (can you think of one?) to take over the Funeral Payments system in order to get their hands on tax-payers' money.

In no way is this an advertisement. Not at all.

ASA going after the wrong people?

Seems a few people are in a tizzy over the above advert and have complained to the ASA about it being posted to Bishop Cranmer's blog (linked.)

Quite why this is seen as homophobic, and not persecution towards a blogger, is beyond a few people.

Dry ice and CGI smoke are dangerous!!!!one

The latest in the UK Government's nanny-statism, this time pushing the myth of damaging non-first-hand smoke.

[Dry ice flowing over a sofa]

[Dry ice flowing over net curtains]

[Dry ice flowing over some child's bricks on the floor]

[CGI smoke wafting all over the room with a sleeping child in a baby seat]

[Closeup of child's feet, then hands, then feet.]

[Mum smoking by window while stood in the room]

Over 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible,[1]

[Mum now outside smoking][2]

so no matter how

[Mum back inside the room][2]

careful you are, they still breathe in the harmful poisons.

[Room without dry ice and CGI smoke showing the child again.]

If you could see what's really there, you wouldn't smoke.

Text invisible to 63818 for a Smokefree Kit.

[1] 80% of *smoke* is invisible? I'm sure it isn't.

[2] And I thought the continuity editors had it hard during films lasting 120 minutes or more - I can only imagine how hard it must be when you're doing a 30 second advert.

Quite why the government is persisting in stating that second-hand smoke is apparently, given the rhetoric, even more damaging to others than the first-hand smoke is to the smoker, despite there being little to no scientific evidence of said harm, isn't really a mystery.

We even have the Chief Medical Officer attributing middle ear infections (wot?), lung infections, asthma and 40 cot deaths per year to passive smoking and pushing for a ban on smoking in cars.

While smoke (or any other particulate matter in the air) may start an asthmatic off, I seriously doubt (nor can find any evidence of) passive smoking caused the asthma to start with.

Cot deaths, aka Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, is the name attributed to the death of a baby where the reasons are unknown. If 40 cot deaths were actually caused by passive smoking then they wouldn't be called 'cot deaths.'

And the money spent on this advert is on top of the ~£.5 million pounds of tax-payers money currently being spent by an off-shoot of the UK government in the South West of England to lobby other parts of the government for plain packaging while the government is in the middle of a 'consultation' over said packaging.

Predictor: Pregnancy tests

[Couple with the 'father' standing behind an obviously pregnant 'mother' both looking happily surprsied at a pregnancy test]

[Box of 'Predictor']

When you want to be sure.

A must-have item to see if you're pregnant, even when if it's painfully obvious that you are - indeed - pregnant.

Some people are Sofa King Stupid.

Sofa King have used the strapline "Our Prices are Sofa King Low" for over nine years:

Now it seems we have a new generation of stupid people. 3 people complained to the ASA saying the phrase was

... offensive and unsuitable for general display.

As Sofa King pointed out in their defence:

... they had used the slogan "Where the Prices are Sofa King Low!" as their company strap line since they began trading nine years previously and that it was used on their premises and on their vehicles as well as in their advertising. ...complaints made to Northamptonshire Police in 2004 were not taken further by the Crown Prosecution Service and that no complaints had been made direct to them.

Sadly common sense has failed to prevail at the ASA. In their upheld  judgement:

but considered that [the phrase Sofa King Low] could be interpreted as a derivative of the swear word "fuck", which consumer research had found to be a word so likely to offend that it should not be used in ads at all, even when it was relevant to the name of a product.

Not sure who are the worse idiots - the three who complained, or the ASA for upholding the complaint.

---

Update: BitterWallet suggest that -

Rumours abound that Sofa King will now relocate to Norwich and now use the strapline of ‘Norfolk ‘n’ good’.

NHS - Bowel Cancer

[Visit4ads]

White man 1: I don't really know how to put this..
White woman: I'm a bit worried...
Black woman: Something has not been right for weeks...
White man 2: There's always a ... bit of blood...
White man 3: Well it's loose .. really loose...

Voiceover: Blood in your poo, or going more often with looser poo[1], are possible signs of bowel cancer. If you've had either of these symptoms for three weeks or more, tell your doctor.

Dr Terry Bowley: It doesn't matter how you tell me, just tell me.

Voiceover: Finding it early makes it more treatable. Be clear on Cancer.

More money wasting by the NHS[archive], and they're talking down to you this time. 

Are there really adults that use the infantile word 'poo,' when talking with other adults, when there are a wealth of words that could be otherwise used, e.g. fæces, stools, shit, crap?

The last two of which could probably be used as adjectives for this advert.

More seriously, who really needs an advert to tell them to go to the doctor if they've been shitting blood or have had diarrhea for three weeks? 

Most who would go anyway, would go long before the three weeks (with or without this advert,) those not so inclined to bother their doctor with something so minor as blood pouring out their anus is hardly likely to change their mind by watching an advert that patronises them by calling the stuff that comes out of their rectum 'poo.'

[1] Is this the P.C. phrase for 'the shits' or diarrhea these days?

Acupuncture Awareness Week

Update March 1: The poll's back up, but with the numbers fiddled - at the time of writing: 32% no, 68% yes, on a total vote count of.... 338. And you have to register to vote.

---

Update 16:16 GMT: Well that poll didn't last long, did it? At my last count there was 1864(82.9%) No, 348(17.1%) Yes before it 'disappeared.' (Even though the poll is still on their front page.) Strange that.

---

It appears that the British Acupuncture Council have decided that 27th February – 4th March 2012 should be Acupuncture Awareness Week.

As most people should be 'aware,' Acupuncture is complete and utter bollocks, so it the campaign seems a little pointless.

Nevertheless, they're still trying[archive]:

The first ever Acupuncture Awareness Week in the UK, supported by the British Acupuncture Council, aims to dispel the myths surrounding acupuncture[1], what conditions it can help[2] and give members of the public/you all the information you need about treatment.[3]

[1] No doubt they won't be pointing out the myths they promulgate such as it works, it cures cancer, etc.
[2] None, perhaps?
[3] "It doesn't work"?

Thought not.

They even have a poll on whether the tax payer should give more funding to this woo via the NHS [no archive since it won't].

At the time of posting (since it was pointed out by Pharyngula) it seems to be going well:

Do you think acupuncture should be made more widely available on the NHS?
No: 61.6%
Yes:38.4%
Total votes: 787

Virgin Money diddling savers

From here [current], Virgin Money are attempting to get those who have money they want to put into an ISA next tax year (April 6th 2012) to save with them now:

Virgin Money encourages the Early Birds

Virgin Money have continued their mission to make banking better[1], with details of a new ‘Early Bird ISA’[2] being released.

Those of you who currently have an ISA will be familiar with the limitations of only being able to put a certain amount in the account each year, making planning ahead that little bit more difficult.[3]

As a keen innovator[4] Virgin Money has sought to bypass this problem by allowing customers to open a savings account now and load next year’s ISA limit into it, with the bank paying the same interest that you’d get in a tax free ISA.[5]

Once the new tax year begins on April 6th Virgin Money simply drop your savings (and any interest accrued) into your ISA, the Early Bird ISA pays an equivalent rate of the Virgin Money ISA[6] – both of which are tax free.[7]

For those not au-fait with what cash ISA's are, and can't be bothered clicking the wiki link above, all interest on 'normal' cash savings in the UK is taxed at the marginal income tax rate of the person earning that interest. Typically this is 20%[8]. So, if you earn £100 interest on your savings, £20 will be deducted at source.

ISA's pay their interest gross, i.e. the interest isn't taxed at source, and it doesn't need to be declared to HMRC. The amount you can save per year is limited (£5,340 for 2011/2012) on a 'use it or lose it' basis.


[1] Well they can't do much worse than Natwest's 'helpful banking' I suppose...

[2] I think the ASA might have something to say about the naming of this - it's patently not an ISA.

[3] Seriously guys, it's a bit patronising to accuse your (potential) customers of being thick/unable to plan if they're actually able to accumulate savings (i.e. plan ahead) to put into the next year's ISA before they 'open.'

[4] A previous innovation was to offer only current accounts that charge £60/yr. The next innovation was to offer fee-free accounts after they were criticised for their last innovation.

Another innovation is their rather expensive tracker fund [current] that costs 1% per year. Three to four times as much as cheaper funds that do exactly the same thing.

[5] This is where the bollocks comes in. The whole point of ISAs is to get interest tax free. So in theory, banks should provide savings accounts with the same rate across the board. For example, if BarcWest Bank decides to offer savings accounts at 4%, they'd offer a regular savings account where tax is deducted at source (net of 3.2%), and an ISA savings account where tax isn't deducted ('net' 4%.)

What Virgin are doing is offering, is the equivalent of a regular savings account at 4%, and ISA savings accounts at 3.2%.

[6] Despite my illustrative examples above, Virgin are only offering 2.85%[current]. Inflation is currently running at 4.8%. Best instant access ISA I could find at the time of writing elsewhere is 3.10%[current]. Virgin being innovative again it seems, by having a crap rate.

[7] No, no, no! They are not both tax free. The 'Early Bird ISA' is not tax free - I'm assuming they've simply upped the taxed account's rate such that the net it pays is the same as it would be if it was in an ISA.

Presumably this is just for 20%er's - they don't go into detail about the 40/50%er's who have to fill out self-assessments and fork out the other 20% at tax-year-end.

This is akin to the "we'll pay your VAT" adverts that are seen - VAT is still payable on the (new) sale price - it's simply that the sale price has been reduced to the pre-VAT value on the original price.

[8] Higher rate tax payers pay 40% or 50% depending on their income, and a small proportion of people only pay 10% if savings interest is their only income up to a certain amount.

Happy new year.

I'd like to wish my reader a Happy New Year, and to let them know that I've not abandoned this blog - merely been too busy else-web (and life) to do detailed posts on here since June (that, and most of the tripe I've seen on TV that, in quieter times, I would have posted about, has been merely repetitions of stuff I've already posted about - usually the 99.9% of germs bollocks.)

If my reader would like to make suggestions on further posts I could make, they would be gratefully accepted.

Smoking is no longer a health condition...

Via everyone's favourite toothless advertising regulator:

They added that as smoking was not a health condition, being asked if you were a smoker was, therefore, not a health question.
[...]
The ASA noted that Asda had followed the BMA and ABI guidelines in considering smoking to be a lifestyle choice

The ASA case in question revolves around whether Asda, in advertising life insurance with "no health questions asked" can get away with asking potential clients if they smoke or not.

Here in the real world, where smokers are regularly discriminated against on the basis of not only their own health (NHS costs,) but others (second hand and the fabled third hand smoke) it's hard to see how "do you smoke" cannot be construed as a health question.

One does, however, wonder what other "lifestyle choice" questions the nice people at Asda also ask, since the adjudication is strangely quiet.

• Have you had sex with a man, or anyone who's had sex with a man, in the past 60 years?
• Have you ever consumed excess ethanol?
• Do you religiously eat your five-a-day?
• Do you regularly use sun factor 5,000 when going outdoors in daylight?
• Do you own, or have you ever owned, a mobile phone?

I'm sure the list is, if not endless, quite large.

Well at least we now know you can tell your doctor to mind his own business when he asks how many you smoke, since it has no bearing on your health whatsoever; it's simply a lifestyle choice.

(g^2)^7 - how not to be a maths teacher on camera.

"Turn Your Talent to Teaching"- but make sure they bloody camera-man doesn't catch you writing the wrong answers on the board.

The UK Government, once again wasting our money, is advertising for teachers. Maths teachers. Just a shame the editors included this bit in the still above.[1] Perhaps those useless maths classes at school weren't so useless. At least if you're in media/advertising.

The video, while it's still around (the `still' is from around 19s):

Teacher: What I want you do now is we're[2] going to look at how we're going to solve this equation here.[(g²)⁷=g^? appears on the board as a problem]

Teacher's voiceover: If it's an early lesson and I need to get them started, [we see the kids playing bingo] I try different ways to clear the cobwebs out. [teacher writes g²×g⁷ on the board]

Teacher: This one, is just do[2] the highest common factor, so what's the highest common factor of 80 and 60.

Kids: <mumbles of 'twenty'>

Teacher: Do'ya[2] think it's twenty? Twenty, yeah?

One Kid: Bingo!

Other kids: <cheers>

Voiceover: Turn your talent to teaching. Visit teach.gov.uk

The Daily Mail appears to have been the first paper out with this 'mistake' being spotted by some 15yr old spotty oik[3] claiming they're showing the wrong answer.

Of course, that segment could quite probably have lasted a couple of minutes in the classroom there, with the teacher pointing out why it's not the right solution, but to include it in the final advert where it could be misinterpreted? Laziness on the behalf of the advertisers.

Of course, the DM's on a rant about how this 'wrong' answer shows declining standards in our schools. I'm more put out by the standard of spoken English by the teacher[2].


Mr. Coombs is praised highly for his observation of course. From the DM article:

Adam Williams, principal of John Cabot Academy which Chris attends, praised the schoolboy's attention to detail.

Aren't you simply looking forward him being one of your colleagues a few years hence? No big-headedness of course, just a mention in a newspaper article.

He said: 'It is great to think that Chris showed that degree of observation and understanding of maths to spot the apparent error in the advert.'

I learnt about indices in the first year of secondary school (12 yrs old) - just when are they teaching them these days? A-levels?

---

[1] For those who can't spot it, (g²)⁷, is g²×g²×g²×g²×g²×g²×g² which is g¹⁴. Not g²×g⁷ which is g⁹. And Wrong™

[2] Probably just as well she's not teaching English.

[3] Well - Chris Coombs doesn't look too spotty from the DM photo.

Powerade ION4 - making you wetter than a wet thing in lots of wet stuff.

Prompted by STONESTREEKER:

---

Update: Jan 2014, ASA found against GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd when they made a similar claim of "hydrates and fuels you better than water" finding that it "did not appear on the list of authorised health claims in respect of carbohydrate-electrolyte drinks"

---

Update: Jan 2012, ASA found in favour of Coca-Cola when two people make complaints about this advertising campain.

---

New, improved[1], Powerade ION4 [Subs: Na, Ca, Mg, K] [Sub: Contains carbohydrates] replenishes fuel and 4 of the minerals lost in sweat.

[Sub: Preparation]

[Sub: Determination]

[Sub: Perspiration]

[Sub: Hydration]

Powerade ION4, hydrates better than water.

Keep sweating.

Presenting Coca-Cola's new and improved[1] sports drink. They'll be sponsoring the Olympics (2012) dontcha know.

However it's not exactly new[1]. From the US website[current - there's a video there that didn't make it to the archive]:

In 2009, POWERADE^® sports scientists created ION4^®, which revolutionized the sports drink. ION4^® is an advanced electrolyte system that is in POWERADE^® to help replenish four electrolytes lost in sweat.

I wouldn't call a 2 year old product "new." Certainly not in the context of advertising. So that's a load of bollocks right from the start.



Back to the UK advert, they claim to "hydrate better than water." Sounds a tad spurious. Lets look at what it's supposed to 'help' with, or mitigate - dehydration.

The medical definition of dehydration (or hypohydration) is:

[...] the loss of water and salts essential for normal body function.

There are various stages/severity of dehydration:

Mild dehydration is the loss of no more than 5% of the body's fluid. Loss of 5-10% is considered moderate dehydration. Severe dehydration (loss of 10-15% of body fluids) is a life-threatening condition that requires immediate medical care.

Causes of dehydration?

Strenuous activity, excessive sweating, high fever, and prolonged vomiting or diarrhea

Symptoms?

Symptoms of dehydration at any age include cracked lips, dry or sticky mouth, lethargy, and sunken eyes. A person who is dehydrated cries without shedding tears and does not urinate very often. The skin is less elastic than it should be and is slow to return to its normal position after being pinched.

Treatment?

Increased fluid intake and replacement of lost electrolytes are usually sufficient to restore fluid balances in patients who are mildly or moderately dehydrated. For individuals who are mildly dehydrated, just drinking plain water may be all the treatment that is needed. Adults who need to replace lost electrolytes may drink sports beverages or consume a little additional salt.

So. Yes. If you're MILDLY dehydrated, Powerade, MAY be used to replace some salts lost during heavy sweating during exercise. (If you've lost quite a bit of fluid/your electrolyte balance is way off however I'd suggest you visit a doctor/hospital rather than drink this as a treatement.)

Or you could just drink water and, possibly, eat a packet of salt and vinegar crisps. Doing both, of course will also "hydrate you better than water (alone.)"

I think I know which will probably be cheaper. (I can't find any ION4 online at the moment, but from Ocado, 4x500ml bottles Powerade Cherry: £3.49. 12x25g Walker's Ready Salted: £2.65)

So while their claim to "hydrate better than water" isn't entirely bollocks, the way they present it - as something wonderful that cannot be achieved by anything else - is.

On the specific salts/minerals they mention - your body is adaptable. It can get temporarily lower on them without danger and can obtain all sorts of vitamins and minerals and salts from your (hopefully varied) diet. If you get a little low on some of them, your body will catch up. If you're getting dangerously low on some of them then Powerade isn't going to help you.

I'll probably do a post on the snake-oil that are OTC, self medicated, mineral supplements in general (or some specific ones) sometime.

---

[1] Come now. It can't be both. If it's new, then there isn't an old thing to improve upon. If it's improved then there must have been an older thing. Or as one Yahoo Answerer succinctly put it:

It's improving on the perfectly good thing that you own that the ad agency wants you to now think of as junk, so you'll buy the product they are pitching.

"For God's sake" is not offensive.

In the ongoing campaign by various groups about the invasive nature of, and pointlessness that is the UK Census being held this year, one group - the British Humanist Association[1] came up with three posters addressing what is the only voluntary question on the whole census - the religion question. One is shown below; all three can be seen here.

Not Religious?

In the 2011 Census Tick "No Religion"

"I put 'Jedi' in the last census. But I'll tick 'No religion this time.

I'm not religious and I don't want Bishops and the government saying this is a religious country.

That's just an excuse to keep religion in politics."

If you're not religious for God's sake say so.

cencus-campaign.org.uk

The intention was to buy advertising space at railway stations to display the posters

CBS Outdoor, the advertisers that own the space, had other ideas.

Two reasons were given by owners of the space: they were concerned that the use of the phrase ‘for God’s sake’ would cause widespread and serious offence and they also did not wish to take adverts relating to religion.

As the BHA allude to, only the professionally offended could take "widespread and serious offence,"

But what the BHA didn't point out (at least in their PR) is that the second reason is also spurious. Lots of religious groups are quite capable, and able, to advertise on the self-same spots. Those listed (though probably not exhaustive) include the Alpha course, the Christian Party[1] and the Trinitarian Bible Society.

It's not as if there isn't a history of religious advertising on public transport.

Vaguely related, I was somewhat amused by His Grace's "Mind your own *%$#@!! business" campaign but I think I'll be ticking the No Religion box.




[1] The BHA were responsible for the "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" bus adverts that generated ASA complaints. In reply the Christian Party came up with "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life" which became the most complained-about non-broadcast ad ever.

Update (2): Natwest - (not so) helpful banking

Back in August '10 I brought up Natwest's "Helpful Banking." advert.
In December '10, they got slapped down by the ASA for not opening as many branches on Saturdays as they appeared to imply in that advert.


Now it appears that they aren't really living up to the rest of that advert.

Deloitte (an auditor) was hired by Natwest to monitor them for how well they were living up to their 'promises.'

A sample[current] of what they promised to do:

3. We will provide you with friendly, helpful service whenever you deal with us
We're aiming to get 9 out of 10 customers to rate our service as helpful.

90% satisfaction? Wonder how they're going to select the people they're going to question.

Either that or the fact that the other 10% of their customers are costing RBS/Natwest £2.8m due to mishandling of complaints in the space of 6 months[1] suggests that when things go wrong, customers would be better off at Santander.

9. We pledge to stay open for business if we are the last bank in town and will consider a range of options to ensure a local banking service is available
We’ve already identified over 100 ‘Last in Town’ locations where we’ll continue to provide a local banking service.

Woolly description of what "last in town" means, especially when by the industry definition, Natwest is already the "last bank in town" in 217 locations. I somehow thing it's stretching the weasle phrase "over 100" to cover 217, so that means they're quite able to shut "up to" 116 branches and still keep this 'promise.'

"Local banking service" is also similarly woolly. It's not a hard and fast commitment to actually operate a brick-and-mortar branch (Saturdays or not.) Perhaps they're going to buy some more white vans.

13. Twice a year we will publish the most common of complaints
And we’ll strive to address the causes

It's been 7 months since the adverts. I could be wrong, but if you're going to do something twice a year, it's generally accepted that they should be 6 months apart, so that mean they should have published at least one list.

Strangely I've not seen it, and it's certainly not linked on that page.


Anyway. How did they do?
(I couldn't find the report/PR, so this is based on the sparse news reports currently out there.)

Out of their 25 goals, they passed 20, and failed 5. That's 20% failure.  (Or a "80% success rate" as Brian Hartzer, head of Retail Banking, would have you think of it.)

Possibly an acceptable result had the goals been externally imposed, but these were self-imposed.

2. We will aim to serve the majority of customers within 5 minutes in our branches
This year we’ll introduce a new queue busting programme in our busiest branches to ensure every available member of staff is out serving customers during busy periods.

75% of customers were served in under 5 minutes. Presumably leaving the other 25% waiting half and hour. Or more.

3. We will provide you with friendly, helpful service whenever you deal with us
We're aiming to get 9 out of 10 customers to rate our service as helpful.

Only 80% of customers believed the hype. The still suspiciously high number is probably down to either judicious selection of the people questioned, or biased questioning. Again - few details available.

4. We will help you to make the right choices for you and your money, providing a clear product range with simply explained features and charges
All of our branch literature will be simplified and rewritten in line with customer feedback. We’re also introducing a new Customer Service Review programme to make it easier for our customers to choose the right product for them.

This appears to be another one. Bugger all detail apart from they've reduced the number of products from 600 before the banking crisis to 200 now.

12. We will resolve customer complaints fairly, consistently, and promptly
We are aiming for 75% of customers to be satisfied with the way their complaint has been handled.

Way short. 57%. And that includes a 41% increase in complaints about the group in the 2nd half of 2010. Perhaps RBS/Natwest were encouraging more people to complain so they could (attempt to) satisfactorily solve them to push the %age up?


Sadly none of the news reports coming up on Google News at the moment have the 5th missed target. Indeed, none of them list the four I list above in much detail.



[1] Ok, it was the first half of 2009, but the timing of the fine coinciding with this report from Deloitte is rather embarrassing.

3-in-1 - if you actually take three in one that is

Nescafe's "latest" wheeze for the UK[1]:

3-in-1 coffee

With NESCAFÉ ORIGINAL 3-in-1 it’s now amazingly easy to make the perfect white coffee with sugar.
All you have to do is add hot water so you get a creamy and sweet tasting coffee every time.

The premise being that the vast majority of the population all

• use the same sized cup
• use the same size level-teaspoon of coffee
• take the same amount of sugar
• would use the same amount of whitener if they normally use skimmed/semi-skimmed/full-fat milk, but didn't have any milk

Sod all those who

• use pint mugs
• use heaped teaspoons of coffee regardless of the size of their cup
• don't take sugar
• prefer their coffee slightly cooler due to the milk they normally add

Anyway... brief costings from a quick google search:

---

Asda £1.00 for "10" servings of 3-in-1: 10p per cup.

---

Asda £6.38 for 300g jar Nescafe Original (@1.7g per serving => 176 servings) - 3.625p per cup
Asda £1.34 for 2kg of sugar (lets say 2 tsp = 8.4g => 238 servings) - 0.536p per cup
Asda £0.86 for 2 pints semi-skim milk (lets call it 20 servings) - 4.3p per cup.

---

So, on the face of it, at those prices (and, of course, assumptions) you're looking at about 1.5p more expensive per cup for the, more convenient, creamy and sweet stuff (the latter comes to 8.5p rounded up.)

But:

• You're not getting any choice in the serving size with the former
• It assumes you actually want all three
• You prefer whitener to milk.
• This will, of course, be an introductory price, and it will, in no way, stay this low if they continue to sell it.

Scaryduck has his own take on this of course...

However, I can't help thinking that this new innovation might be missing a trick.

[...]

If only you made such a product which provided the coffee lover with just coffee, leaving them with the option of adding sugar and milk to taste?

[1] They've been trying this all over the place. They tried in Africa in 2008.

Polls within posts

Test post to attempt to answer the question posed over at The Moose.

Used http://dadsbattleground.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-add-poll-inside-of-post-on.html as a starting point.

How easy is it to create polls actually in blog posts?

Via BitterWallet - a new mildly amusing blog: Things Real People Don't Say About Advertising: