electric! Sept 2011

KenK · 02-09-2011, 22:59

I got an email titled "Your September issue of electric! is online now!" It includes a promotion for "Spitfire Day" at http://electric.virginmedia.com/issue36.html?page=7.

Sadly, that page uses a picture of a Hurricane, not a Spitfire. Both were notable aircraft of their time, but they were not interchangeable.

The producers of electric! have an entire month between "issues" to get the details right - pity they failed on such a basic point.

(PS no, I don't know if this counts as VM News; but there are no better sections on CF in which to post it.)

**Chris** · 02-09-2011, 23:16

The full picture has a Spitfire and a Hurricane in it, but the Hurricane is in the foreground. Looks like the graphic designer went for the larger of the two and therefore cut out the wrong plane. Probably didn't even realise the two were different ... they're similar enough on first glance that you might not realise.

Digital Fanatic · 02-09-2011, 23:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenK

I got an email titled "Your September issue of electric! is online now!" It includes a promotion for "Spitfire Day" at http://electric.virginmedia.com/issue36.html?page=7.

Sadly, that page uses a picture of a Hurricane, not a Spitfire. Both were notable aircraft of their time, but they were not interchangeable.

The producers of electric! have an entire month between "issues" to get the details right - pity they failed on such a basic point.

(PS no, I don't know if this counts as VM News; but there are no better sections on CF in which to post it.)

You can send a complaint to:

Quote:

Complaints,
Virgin Media,
PO Box 333,
Matrix Court,
Swansea.
SA7 9ZJ

KenK · 02-09-2011, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

The full picture has a Spitfire and a Hurricane in it, but the Hurricane is in the foreground. Looks like the graphic designer went for the larger of the two and therefore cut out the wrong plane. Probably didn't even realise the two were different ... they're similar enough on first glance that you might not realise.

Agreed. But when they have a month to produce an issue, and it's their job to get things right, surely they can give it more than 'a first glance'!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital Fanatic

You can send a complaint to:

It had an 'email us' link, I used that. I just hope not too many of "The Few" who are still with us, saw it.

amgard · 03-09-2011, 18:50

How come you got yours yesterday

Musta been the later improved hurricane

Peter_ · 03-09-2011, 19:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Probably didn't even realise the two were different ... they're similar enough on first glance that you might not realise.

Douglas Bader will be spinning in his grave at that comment.

KenK · 07-09-2011, 22:51

I received a reply email, apologising for the error (addressed to 'Dear reader'

). They're blaming their 'channel partner', who supplied the image. I don't know if that's good or bad - did DB's rpm go down or up - but if all they're doing is recycling whatever the channels' marketing depts. are churning out, why are VM paying them?

**Chris** · 08-09-2011, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenK

I received a reply email, apologising for the error (addressed to 'Dear reader'

). They're blaming their 'channel partner', who supplied the image. I don't know if that's good or bad - did DB's rpm go down or up - but if all they're doing is recycling whatever the channels' marketing depts. are churning out, why are VM paying them?

'dear reader' smacks of a mass mailing ... You probably weren't the only one to mention it to them.

'channel partner' means they used an external company to produce the magazine for them. If so, then it most certainly is that external company's error; they are paid to get these things right. Having said that, it's severely bad form for VM to publicly pass the buck like that. The customer doesn't need to know what the marketing department's agency roster looks like. The VM brand visibly got it wrong and the VM brand should simply apologise, promise not to do it again, and then issue the communications agency responsible for the gaffe with a severe kicking at the next supplier meeting.