It seems so according to Google Maps.
If you do a search, the sidebar address is indeed, correct - however, the marker on the website is not lurking over Grosvenor Square, but planted firmly on top of the Royal Mail sorting office.
So, today I went to apply for a Visa to visit the USA. Despite holding a full UK passport, I am deemed SO dangerous that I have to make a special application for a full Visa.
It’s quite amazing to wander from 2006 back in time to the 1970’s as far as daft ways of working and red tape are concerned.
While they warn you that the application process in the building can take a few hours, they neglect to tell you that you will spend an hour outside the building in the rain just queueing up to be allowed in!
Not a nice welcome to the Embassy.
After getting through security, where for the first time I was mandated to remove my belt - even though that has never ever triggered a metal detector - even when going into nuclear facilities, where understandably, the security is a tad tighter.
…anyhow, a woman checked my paperwork then asked if I had filled in a form, not knowing what a V01 (or whatever it was she called it) form was I was rummaging though all the paperwork I had filled in only to find that I had filled it in.
Why do bureaucrats never ever refer to forms by plain language rather than referring to obscure codes?
A first interview - I think that is mainly to check if my paperwork is in order.
Then waiting, and waiting - other people behind me in the queue got seen first, but eventually I was seen.
Go along to the second interview room, and mine is in a private area with a screen. Yikes!
The chap checks a few details - and I now have to wait weeks for a secondary approval.
It seems (I think) that the consulate has approved my waver - but now the Department of Homeland Security has to study my application, and then I might get the Visa.
All this, just to make a flying trip in and out of the country!
*sighs*
I read quite often in the many marketing industry emails I get each day that the modern person generally multi-tasks in the evenings, tending to have the TV on in the corner, while browsing the web, chatting on IM - and for teens - busily using SMS.
While I happily accept this situation, I am a tad concerned about how the media pundits tend to lump web browsing as a single activity.
I typically will have 6-10 browser windows open at any one time, flitting between them as work or interest demands - as well as having the telle on in the corner.
Now, that is a very different use from the television, which will be tuned to just one channel at a time.
While I may channel hop a little, my TV viewing tends to be very static once I find a program I can leave on as background noise.
My websurfing habit is very different and I am simultaneously tuned into multiple websites. It would be the equivalent to having a dozen TV’s in the corner, each showing a different TV channel. Some TV’s would show a whole 60 minute show, while others are bouncing between channels every 30 seconds.
So why is web browsing classed as a single task by the pundits, when it is fairly evidently - a collection of multiple tasks undertaken at the same time in different ways?
I think this needs a bit more thought as it seems obvious to me that “web surfing” is not a single activity, but a whole spectrum of different activities which are misleadingly labeled as a single product.
If you approve - sign this petiton
Everywhere I look, I am reading about how advertising is going to save the world.
In the past week, Google talked about how adverts can fund mobile phone charges, Vodafone announed an advertising subsidised service and a virtual network operator announed plans to launch a completly free mobile phone that is funded by advertising.
There are reports after reports flowing around the internet about how we are just scratching the surface of advertising and how it will continue to grow and subsidise paid-for services.
The problem is - I see an advertising bubble forming - not dissimilar to the one which formed in the late 1980’s.
At the time, advertising was SO big that a company actually offered to sell you a car for £100 if you drive a minimum number of miles per year and they covered the outside in adverts.
When crazy ideas like that crop up - you know you are in a bubble.
I walk around and am now surrounded by brands everywhere.
The problem is - what is the economic model for this. Advertising is supposed to promote a product or service, not be an end in itself. Too many businesses seem to think that the advertising revenues are a bottomless pit which has no end and anything can tap into the media dollars without any regard to the “why” of the adverts.
Throw adverts at teenagers and give them free phones etc.
With the huge surge in advertising that will arrive in peoples enviroment with all these “service subsidies” - we face a situation where people will get annoyed and tired of the marketing messages and switch off.
A piece of chocolate is nice - a tonne of it is going to make you sick.
When I run adverts on my commercial websites, if I don’t have a decent paying advert - I show a blank space. This makes the adverts stand out a bit more when they do appear and so the interest level is higher.
Yes, I could fill every spot with cheapo adverts - but that then means less white space, and more clutter. It’s messy and lowers the return rate for my premium advertisers, lowers my overall income - and lowers the user experience for my readers.
The same applies to the advertisers as well though. As they see more and more adverts appearing everywhere - their return is going to fall as well.
Then they will pull back, making their adverts a bit more scarce and hence standing out more.
What will happen to the “subsidised by adverts” business model then?
Companies will fold - potentially spectacuarly - leading to more column inches about the death of advertising and the bursting of the bubble.
Let us look at an example.
Sky TV (UK broadcaster) has a subscription service and also shows adverts. If you watch a program on their main TV channel, Sky 1 - there are loads of adverts popping up during the program. OK, I gather it is not as bad as in the USA - but it is still annoying.
Let’s look at Sky’s financials though.
Over the three months to October, Sky pulled in £78 million from advertising - and a staggering £792 from their subscription income.
They have the opportunity to take all the adverts out of their programming completly - by upping the monthly subscription fee by a mere 10%.
In other words - pay an extra £3 a month (average subscription is £32.08 per month) and get all your TV channels without adverts.
No more interuptions while watching your favourite shows!
How many customers would decline such a wonderful offer?
There is a real opportunity for Sky to differentiate itself from the other TV broadcasters - while also doing the advertising industry a favour by calming things down a bit.
In our hectic modern lives, who wouldn’t pay £3 a month for a bit of peace from the insessant pressure of the commerical world?
Especially as we approach Xmas.
