partially processed quality signage product

Submitted by domesticat on 11 November 2002 - 4:44pm

See this sign [popup window], currently located eastbound on Madison Blvd. Read the sign carefully, then return to this post.

A transcript of a phone call I placed to STG Outdoor (256-536-1568) just now:

me:	"Hello. I have questions about your billboard on Madison Blvd… In addition to production work, do you offer any kind of proofreading service?"
Ms. Salesdroid:	"I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What do you mean?"
me:	"I'm wondering if you offer any kind of error-checking for your clients' billboards. Spelling, grammar, etc."
Ms. Salesdroid:	"Well, we usually look over the design with the client, but no, no error-checking like that."
me:	"Is there a separate charge for this look-over?"
Ms. Salesdroid:	"No."
me:	"All right. That's what I needed to know. Thank you very much."

Wow. I feel so much better now—here I thought businesses were actually being charged for that kind of highly specialized editing. It's good to know that outdoor sign companies aren't overcharging folk here in northwest Alabama for their quality signage product.

It's also good to know that our billboard creators are doing their best to prevent our innocent children from being exposed to bad grammar and spelling. Think of the horror of low SAT scores that would result if they didn't!

(I wonder if this company does copywriting—and, if so, how much they charge?)

domesticat's blog

Comments

Submitted by canspice on 11 November 2002 - 4:47pm.

Here's what I would've said had I felt like wasting money on them; "Hi, I'm calling from the Department of Education. We'd like to put up a billboard of what people who don't have any schooling write like. Can we have your advertising people come up with something for us? They seem to be experts in illiteracy. Thanks."

Submitted by tychoish on 11 November 2002 - 4:54pm.

That is quite wonderful!

n/a

Submitted by gfmorris on 11 November 2002 - 5:36pm.

That's one of the most common mistakes, and it irks me every time I see it. :) But I know the folks at STG ... they're generally cluefucked. :)

Submitted by Sean (not verified) on 12 November 2002 - 8:25am.

Did we just find a new job for you Aims?

Submitted by Tialessa on 12 November 2002 - 10:08am.

LOL! That does seem to be one of the most common mistakes, but it's also one that makes me batty. The only thing that makes me more batty is trying to read netspeak - the version where folks use "u" instead of "you" and "2" interchangeably for "to", "too" or "two". Thanks for the laugh, Amy!

Submitted by mmarlay on 12 November 2002 - 12:56pm.

To say nothing of the irritating people who insist on using "it's" as a possessive.

Submitted by Debi (not verified) on 12 November 2002 - 1:09pm.

How funny! I got a kick out of that, as did the rest of my group at work. We are technical writers and we edit everything we read too! :-D