Today was my first day at my new job! It was good! One of the 'creatives'* looks like Jared Leto.
Anyway that's not what you wanted to hear about, is it. It was really good - I think I'm going to like it there. It's pretty full-on, though, tons to learn at once and MAN there are a lot of smart people in that building. (But also some reassuringly dumb people.) I feel some faux-intellectualism coming on.
We spent the morning wandering around the newspaper offices (this is the head of department and I) and meeting everyone and his uncle, all people who may be instrumental to my career, and almost all of whom I instantly forgot.
Then I went to HR and promised not to look at porn on the work computers - the HR woman was really nice, and also quite new. I asked, "What exactly is the dress code? It seems to, um, vary a bit from person to person." "Yes," she said meaningfully, "I'm working on that." The dress code is meant to range from the top end of 'smart casual' through to 'whee I'm in a suit,' but at the moment it appears to have slipped a little. I, of course, was pure professionalism.
Then I sat with one of my colleagues (new colleagues!) and listened in to her calls for a bit. She was nice, but patronising, i.e. I ask a question about how something works or whether or not we do A or B or which demographic the community papers are targeted towards or whatever, and she refuses to tell me on the grounds that I've already had so much to take in today and I'll only get confused, or forget. Suspect she did not know the answers to any of my questions.
In the afternoon I tagged along with the boss to a meeting with the exec of the Advertising Standards Authority - this was super-fascinating. (No, actually.) She mentioned a lot of ads which had had weird complaints received about them. One of these was the rather charming Pink Batts ad, which received two complaints from viewers. The first one was lodged by someone who was not impressed by the two-men-hugging aspect of the ad. The second was made on the grounds of Safety because it is inadvisable - in fact highly unsafe - to wrap yourself in Pink Batts, and obviously someone (possibly a relation of the complainant) would see the ad, become inspired, and suffer a heinous insulation-related injury. The complaint was not upheld.
(Also not upheld: a complaint someone made about a Subway ad. They argued that the ad was misleading because in the picture the meat was at the top of the sandwich, and yet when they received their sandwich the meat was put in first and ended up at the bottom, where they had not expected it to be. I believe it was respectfully suggested that the complainant consider turning their sandwich upside down.)
I also found out that there are some words the paper will not allow its advertisers to print - at the moment there appears to be some sort of back-and-forth about a lady of the night who wishes to advise potential clients that she is happy to indulge in 'watersports'. Some people think that 'watersports' is an objectionable word - presumably 'todger' is also right out, although apparently some erectile dysfunction ads do try. But now that I think about it, you don't ever see ads suggesting you "Get an Enormous Todger!!" or "Extend Your Throbbing Cock!!" except on the internet, which is maybe why I think working in print media is a good choice, although sometimes I think my considerable poetic talents are wasted.**
Anyway, I have a pub quiz to go to. Tomorrow I will tell you all about my day again, but if you are lucky it will be more interesting.
*all day, every time someone referred to 'the creatives' I got all sniffy and wanted to say "I'm creative! I could creative their asses off!" but I guess I'll get over that in time.
**"Sick of guys with nice wheels copping all of the feels? Who cares if you're carless when you've got Cialis?"
"Get her wet as Niagara - invest in Viagra!"
"You'll never feel silly if you've a big willy!"
"If you're tired of spending your nights home alone, stock up on our product and get a huge bone!"