In the journal of the marketing industry, Marketing (see what they did there) the usual way to refer to someone in the trade is as a "marketer". So why, in publishing, are they (and indeed we) generally called "marketeers", to rhyme with "musketeers", for god's sake?
Since this convention is followed as much by editors, publicists etc as the people themselves, you have to assume it's how the industry wants to style them.
But what does that say about the industry? "We'd prefer it if your specialism sounded more glamorous and dynamic, in a fun, historical way, you know, musketeers, privateers ... marketeers!"
Well I think it's silly.
And while I'm on the subject of job titles etc, what do you call the work experience people? Obviously by their name if you're addressing them directly and you've taken the trouble to write it down, to compensate for your unforgivable crapness with names. But in the abstract, or collectively?
1) "Workie" - all wrong. Temptingly quick, but just far too disrespectful. Like squaddie, but without the connotations of hardness.
2) "The Work Experience" - also wrong. Like "The YTS" it's impersonal and dismissive.
3) "The Workexperiencista" - alright it's silly, but I've used it a few times in emails. Perhaps I'm trying to add glamour (see above) for comedy purposes, but it also reveals a revolutionary mindset they're probably all prone to as they staple the thousandth document, but rarely express.
4) "Intern" - don't really know what the difference is, so perhaps that's the way to go now we're over our Lewinski sniggering (we are, aren't we? nearly?)
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
... saw a tiny toddler straying towards the road, only to be restrained by his mum. Then his sister, a year older or so, busied up round the side to clasp her arms around him, solemnly protecting him from danger. It was her job. Love that.
Posted by James Spackman at 14:39