When you write a blogpost it has to be for something; this is not my personal diary, after all. My worst posts are when I write: 'I went there, I did this, and I ate that.' Usually it involves me name-checking something, like when I dined in a certain restaurant in Whetstone on my birthday. That was fair enough, I think, but one has to be careful.
Yesterday I was going to write 'I went to Fenwick's today and bought some fantastic tea towels. You can find almost anything you want there!' All this is true, but as a blogpost it sucks:
1. It's boring!
2. This is not a showcase to advertise products/shops/brands, etc.
With blog hosts such as Blogger one has the option of allowing advertising - it brings in a bit of money, and probably does no harm. I'm not going down this route, however, because this blog looks cluttered already, because I don't want to think that I can't control what random message might pop up, and because I don't want people wondering what's me and what's advertising.
This laboriously brings me onto the subject of product placement on television. There was a small furore in January at the news that the government was consulting on whether to overturn the existing ban on product placement. In fact the consultation had been going on since November: the wider public found out about it as the consultation period closed. You can see details on the website of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
I detest advertising, but commercial television runs on it. So let's keep it the way it is now, wedged between chunks of programme, so we can switch the sound off or turn over when it comes on.
If product placement is allowed in television programmes they will end up being as dull as that blogpost I nearly inflicted on you yesterday, spending far too many lingering moments showing us completely mundane and pointless details such as where Peggy Mitchell gets her suits dry-cleaned. Of course, it's too late to tell the government what you think.