After my last slightly-abortive attempt at mobile blogging (I blame Vodafone’s data charges), I’m going to try uploading photos to my Flickr account straight from the Reading Festival.
It probably won’t work (there’ll be no coverage or I’ll lose my phone in a moshpit), but if it does, check out all the photos in my Reading Festival set on Flickr. I was planning to pull them straight into this blog, but I’m a bit rusty on the technical side and can’t work out how. Anyone have any tips?
Update: I’m having trouble getting photos to go into a specific set in Flickr, and it’s a pain getting them uploaded anyway, so please check out my mobile blog instead for the latest pics from Reading. Like I said, I haven’t worked out the technical side yet…
Hot on the heels of yesterday’s excellent piece of product naming, I have some advice for Woolworths. If you’re reducing the price of something, make sure it’s actually a reduction. “Was £1.25, now £1.99″ didn’t strike me as an unmissable deal.
Sarah Jessica Parker doesn’t seem to have done much since Sex and the City (this isn’t a typical start to a blog posting, I know, but bear with me for a minute).
However, she has launched a couple of perfumes. The first was called ‘Lovely‘. As product names go, this is like launching a car called the Toyota Fast, or flogging bottled water called Damp. I think there’s a slight possibility it’s some sort of parody, but even if it is, that’s just the sort of contrived nonsense only a perfume manufacturer could come up with.
It doesn’t get any better. The second fragrance is called ‘Covet‘. Covet? You’d never buy a mobile phone called the Nokia You Really Want This. And neither should you buy this perfume. If they can’t be bothered thinking up a good name, do you think they took much time worrying about the smell?
If I’m honest, I’m not sure what conclusions to draw from this. I really just wanted to point out a truly dire piece of naming. Lovely? It isn’t. Covet? I don’t. Sarah Jessica Parker should probably stick to acting.