Thursday, 6 December 2012

Company Magazine... Yeah you're on your own ladies...

I was innocently shopping in the Co-op on my way to work, looking for some reading material (after I've finished my work, there's not much to do) so I had a browse, picked up Glamour and then spotted Company Magazine, boasting a special #Superbloggers issue. I may not be the world's most prolific blogger, but I enjoy writing for my little corner of the internet, which led me to pick up this magazine and sat down to read it after work.

My big mistake.

Company had several articles related to blogging in this issue, some admittedly good interviews with bloggers Bip Ling, Susie Bubble (to name but a few) asking about how they began blogging, their tips for success and positive outlooks on writing. Where this issue of Company fell flat on its face was with two articles:

1. Do You Speak Blog? - An "A-Z" of blogging. I'll go into how awful that is in a moment.

2. - Yes really. Good god. I can't even bring myself to describe the negativity with which this article was written. It was basically a list of "Don'ts" of blogging, but instead of offering any kind of constructive advice, its message was basically: "If you do these don'ts, you're an idiot and your blog is shit." - Great plan...

Do You Speak Blog

This was an A-Z of blogger's "favourite" things. I have selected some highlights for your consideration here:

"A is for Apple: And that means iPad, iPhone and Macbook Air. All portable, all totes essench for the tri-screen lifestyle of a blogger. No wi-fi, no likey." -Wow. How much did Apple pay you for that delightful piece of product placement?? This happens again with "C is for Canon 5D". Well colour me irrelevant, I use my (Samsung Google Nexus) phone camera and my good ole' HP laptop that likes to die on me every so often. Clearly my blog is 'totes not amazeballs' (I really hate that type of speech. I have two degrees, it makes my brain hurt.)

"B is for Beard - The obligatory component of any credible style blogger's boyfriend. And hey, if he can take your outfit photos for the blog too. #winner!" - Bad grammar aside, this is hilariously misogynistic, assuming that we lady bloggers need a man to help us out. Also, I did not realise the success of my blog directly correlated with my boyfriend's facial hair length. (I am fucked on that front - Kris' attempt at Movember was a 5 O'clock shadow.). We'll skip over the irony of misogyny being present in a WOMEN's magazine...

Now here comes the one which seems to be causing the most ranting:

"D is for Daily. If you're not posting every day, or more, then frankly, you're a part-timer." - Comma splicing aside (seriously, where the hell did they find their writing and editing team??), I'd like to say one thing to Company magazine, whether they're joking about this or not... fuck off! (I should've warned you, I swear. Lots. Sorry!)

What's wrong with posting every other day? What's wrong with your blog being a part-time hobby? Equally, some people have been attacking bloggers who post daily on twitter, saying that these people have no lives. That's a bit unfair too. I read blogs that are updated daily, and those that update every other day. Both are equally fab, and I enjoy reading all blogs.

For me personally, I don't post every day, because more often than not, I'm working, I'm tired and when I get home my brain is roughly the consistency of mushy peas. I like to post when I feel fresh, inspired and in the mood. For some people, they feel like this every day, but I'm just not one of those people. We're all different Company, might want to think about that...

There are many more gripes I have with this piece, but the best one, is R:

"R is for Retouch. Well you didn't think we'd upload photos without a pit-stop via Photoshop did you?" - Well, yeah I did actually. If you use Photoshop, no problem. Congratulations in fact, because it just confuses me! I haven't any issue with people using Photoshop, but I do have an issue with Company assuming that your blog is invalid unless you use certain software.

Overall, my feelings on this article were a mixture of anger, disbelief and amusement. Disbelief because I cannot believe this issue made it past an editor (or a proof-reader too. The irony is, in the, they have a go at people for using poor grammar. My inner English geek giggled at this.). Anger because by making such shallow, half-cocked comments about blogging communities gives someone looking at this from outwith blogging the impression that we are all this consumer-driven and vapid. Amusement because I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous some of the A-Z suggestions are, such a "T is for Tweeting" - i.e. you have to tweet every meal you eat or your life is invalid.  Yup, in summary, according to Company, my blog is shit, I am an invalid human being and I don't speak blog. Off to weep in a corner now...

Dare I ask what everyone else thought of the article? If you read it that is? Or if you didn't, any thoughts on this entire furore?

Christina xo


  1. Wow, I was tempted to pick this magazine up at lunch time. I'm now so glad I didn't!

    1. I couldn't even begin to describe all the horrors hehe. M was for mum and dad (bank of) and apparently our parents should be bank-rolling our shopping addictions. E is for East London, the style mecca. Yeah cause we Scots just wear tartan and tweed...

      It goes on and on lol. Save yourself! X x

  2. Company need to apologise for what they wrote. They've potentially destroyed so much confidence. Love this post though - laughed so much! xxx

    1. They definitely need to apologise for the shitbloggers article at least. That came from such a negative viewpoint it was embarrassing!

      Thank you so much :D so chuffed I could make you laugh! X x

  3. Wonderfully written post!

    I haven't read the articles but from what I gather they come across as completely tongue in cheek. I don't think it was written for people to take seriously if that makes sense? What's bothered me is that they could have used those pages to publish something really inspiring/useful to bloggers instead of something so pointless - especially when they mostly sell to a really young readership. But loved this post, I like your writing! xx

    1. Thanks so much :) really glad you enjoyed reading it, I had fun writing it!

      I know they were trying to be funny, but I think with most folk they completely missed the mark with the A-Z. Like you said, it's worrying that both pieces made it into the magazine, when something more constructive could have been included. Instead of, y'know, calling us "shitbloggers" :P xx

  4. I normally love company and was going to buy it but I definitely wont now! Absolutely ridiculous article. They need to apologise for making bloggers out to be shallow superficial bimbos and for being bloody sexist. They cant stereotype people like that!
    This is a really well written post though. Well done for proving them wrong x

    1. I would definitely avoid buying it, but if you happen to find a copy, do read it because it both hilarious and terrifying!

      I think it was the assumption that to be a blogger you have to fit some kind of mould, when I thought blogs were for people to be themselves. I'm quite happy not eating and tweeting my Nandos or my Wagamama thanks! (Never eaten at either anyway!)

      Thank you so much! Actually so chuffed that people enjoyed this post :) x x x

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This has caused soo much controversy, I jus don't take any notice of things like this! Just blog how you want to :) xx

    1. Too true! That's what makes blogging awesome, when someone has their own style and their own way of doing things :) x x