Angle adjustments: $7. Scintillating prose is extra.

I was feeling a little blue the other day. So I looked online for something to amuse me. A news release with poor prose usually brings a smile to my face.

I didn't need to look far. At MyPRGenie.com, I found sentences like these:
  • "The advancement in science and technology has escalated the living standard of the people to far greater heights." 
  • "Thousands of customers have already made it the integral part of their life and many more are on the verge of getting it soon."
  • "Why is the reason that this USB Adjust Angle has received such a substantial response within a short period of time? Well, many people still wonder; however, the users have already got the answers."
These aren't the observations of a drunken platinum futures salesperson in Des Moines. They are all direct excerpts from a news release for a "Conveniently Adjustable Mini USB Adjust Angle for Night Book Reading."
The product is a run-of-the-mill USB-powered lamp that a user can plug into a port on a laptop. This enables you to view the keyboard in the dark. It costs $7.

About as much as the company spent on writing its news release.

I'm not certain how an 8.5-inch bending lamp can illuminate a book for nighttime reading. The news release isn't crystal clear on this. The headline itself never uses the words "lamp" or "light."

When you find the lamp online, you'll notice that the "substantial response" consists of eight five-star ratings on Amazon.com. Some of which may not be from actual purchasers of this LED wonder.

Be warned: MyPRGenie is in the business of taking customers' money and allowing them to publish their own badly written news releases. I have yet to meet the news editor who can attest to using a news release generated by MyPRGenie -- a company that might be taken more seriously if it edited its clients' news releases.

Or told them to hire a real writer.


Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the New York (Times) Athletic Club

Image
The New York Times dropped the axe on its legendary sports department in early July. Sports reporting we read in the Times henceforth will originate with The Athletic, a younger (and perhaps more agile) sportswriting website purchased by the NYT Corp.  You'll find a good assessment of the move here .  As a Times subscriber, I have automatic access to any sports reporting it produces. I won't call it "free access," however, because my ever-increasing monthly rate for a three-day Times subscription surely will include a tithe to cover the Athletic.  But ditching the Times ' sports desk and dispersing its fine sports journalists and photographers to other NYT jobs? That's a loss. Here's why: Conflict of interest: The Athletic allows its staff to report on sports gambling, while some are paid contractors of the sportsbook companies. Is there a Pete Rose-style conflict here? I'd expect so. The Times allowed no double-dipping within its sports staff. The s
Read more

Readers get the (drive) shaft in motorsports coverage

Image
In mid-August, the U.S.'s premier auto racing sport will compete at a road racing course in Watkins Glen, NY. NASCAR's brutish Cup series cars will race in this rural community Aug. 20.  May 2023, Charlotte Motor Speedway. (c) DKassnoff, 2023. But, don't expect  The New York Times  to cover NASCAR before then. The newspaper's sports section -- now outsourced to The Athletic, its sportsbook subsidiary -- hasn't covered NASCAR since July 2. That's when NASCAR's drivers competed on the rain-soaked streets of Chicago. The Times provided no coverage of their July 30 race in Richmond, VA, or any NASCAR race since early July. The Times  has focused its motorsports coverage on Formula 1 racing. These are the expensive, open-wheeled, high performance racing teams once called Grand Prix. This class of racing is controlled by another media company: John Malone's Liberty Media, which purchased Formula 1 in 2017 and returned it to profitability. Visit the Times '
Read more

Your hand's already in my pocket

Image
I use an ad blocker, and probably you do, too. Every day, even on websites where I pay a monthly subscription fee, I see a pop-up that say: "We Notice You Are Using an Ad Blocker." And they ask me to turn it off. I don't. I'm already paying for that news website's reporting. Their hands are already in my pocket. And, truth is, I don't mind digital ads that are somewhat relevant to my tastes. Show me an ad for a guitar deal or Ford car parts, and I'll probably read it. Screen shot, unnamed Gannett publication, Sept. 2018 But I don't care about Patrick Swayze's secret son. Or what forgotten 1970s actress Loni Anderson looks like today. (I was more of a Howard Hesseman /Dr. Johnny Fever fan, anyway.) When newspapers relied on print ad revenue, I'd glance at those ads -- and sometimes, I'd bite -- because those ads were for local or regional merchants. They wanted to build a relationship with me.  They didn't try
Read more