posted by Design
We've focused a lot lately on content strategy and the importance of not only developing great content, but applying it over a variety of media in the most efficient and results-driven manner. For example, if you take the time and spend the resources to create great brand messaging (an elevator pitch, brand positioning statement, brand personality attributes), you should utilize that content and voice through all of your marketing materials, including collateral and you're website.
If you develop a new marketing campaign, it should not only be utilized throughout your advertising materials, but also distributed through your social media feeds and internal advertisements on your own website.
This takes a great front-loaded effort in developing those campaigns and strategies, but it also takes great attention to detail throughout all of those phases as well, especially in the initial discovery period. If mistakes are made here, it's easy to loose track and allow them to filter throughout entire campaigns. Nip it in the bud and pay extra-close attention in the beginning and you'll lesson your chances of embarrassing gaffes.
Sometimes, though, you just make minor mistakes that slip through the cracks. And other times, not so minor mistakes that plummet through the canyons.
…And that's when you make them into another installment in the Attention to Detail chatter series:
A popular stock photo site (which will remain nameless) brought us this gem:
They will undoubtedly reconsider whether allowing user-submitted content is the correct
course of action.
Can't be the best at everything, I suppose. Proofreading, we're talking about you.
Next report: 2 Signs You Should Look for Another Proofreader
I'd hate to see the proofreader who wasn't promoted to this position.
And even Apple doesn't escape attention to detail:
Either you made your selection but didn't show us which one you narrowed it down to, or you're in the process of deciding and forgot to double-check your grammar. Or maybe they're asking us a question and left out the punctuation? Proofread before hitting send.
So, until the forth installment of Attention to Detail, let us know if
you've seen any great examples of poor proofreading and/or content
selection. And as usual, did you catch our purposeful proofreading
mistakes in this post?
About the author::
Dave is the Creative department manager at thunder::tech. His brand would best be represented through a stand-up routine by Holden Caulfield as written by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. as visualized collaboratively by Ralph Steadman and Keith Haring and brought to life through the magic of Jim Henson Studios...but unique to Dave.
Enjoyed this? Read our past Attention to Detail posts:
TAGS:
thundertech, design, attention to detail, proofreading, grammar, mistakes, spelling, punctuation, branding, brand, messaging, positioning, personality, marketing
Related Posts
6 Comment(s)
|
Jason said:
|
| I counted 3...
|
| March 23, 2012 aP 6:14 PM
|
|
|
John Ettorre said:
|
| And you should also make sure that you don't have a "you're" in the first graf when it should really be "your." Those are the kinds of silly mistakes that slip through when you worry too much about "content strategy" and not enough about plain old good writing.
|
| March 23, 2012 aP 6:24 PM
|
|
|
Dave said:
|
| Keep counting, Jason...looks like John caught the first one- a few more to go!
|
| March 25, 2012 aP 7:47 PM
|
|
|
Dave said:
|
| correction...John caught the second one
|
| March 25, 2012 aP 7:48 PM
|
|
|
Marissa said:
|
| Great post, Dave! I counted five of your funny intentional mistakes:
1.) "Off" instead of "of" in the title
2.) "You're" instead of "your" at the end of the first paragraph
3.) Should be "lose track" instead of "loose track"
4.) Says "lesson your chances" instead of "lessen your chances"
5.) "Forth" instead of "fourth" in the final paragraph
Did I get them all?
|
| April 05, 2012 aP 4:36 PM
|
|
|
Dave said:
|
| Ha. Almost, Marissa! One more though: not a grammatical or spelling mistake, but a content error – Above one of the photos I say, "A popular stock photo site (which will remain nameless)," but if you look carefully at the photo, it has a watermark in it which unmasks the so-called anonymous guilty party! (I'll still refrain from naming them in writing).
|
| April 05, 2012 aP 9:31 PM
|
|
|