The initial reaction to the pies was mixed: this was the first pie we had tasted with a lattice top, which some judges considered an interesting, non-traditional twist. However, this meant that the fluting started to look more like cog-spokes and often pastry had snapped in transit – not a problem experienced with any previous pie. We also felt that their baking methods lacked consistency, given the wide variations in only 12 mince pies – a decidedly uneven bake!

The packaging design was even more unimaginative than that of Mr Kipling, being a plain red background, a deeper tone than Santa-red, with a close up on the pies. The shine on the mincemeat in the photo suggests oiliness, which was matched by the pies themselves. This was our first experience of pies with “soggy bottoms” (Ralph) and not one that we enjoyed: the whole pie was greasy. However, appearance was the one area in which Morrisons scored more highly than Mr Kipling (4.9/5 vs. 4.5/5): apparently we were more impressed by the lattice effect than ill-formed Christmas trees.

The taste of the pastry was, without doubt, our biggest disappointment to date, scoring a pathetic 1.4/5. This was because the pastry was entirely lacking in flavour, with a lardy texture, more akin to suet pudding than short crust pastry. Similarly, the pastry combined sickly-sweet flavour with an oily texture and a sharp, fake-alcohol flavour that obliterated everything but the sugar. The grease-laden texture led us to score 4.1/10, significantly lower than every other pie.

Although our Pie Sponsor, James, insists that these weren’t as bad as Mr Kipling, Morrisons slides straight into last place with a pathetic 194/440.

Finally, the words of today’s Pie Sponsor, James:

“I couldn’t disagree more (in certain areas). This was the fullest pie, the most affordable pie and personally I felt the filling was really quite good. Moist, textured and quite tasty. The pastry was without a doubt a big letdown and it was a shame that the whole lattice-work selling point literally fell apart. If you buy them you should expect to be disappointed when you open the box but the eating part is a reasonably satisfying experience.

Clearly this one divided people with half the group giving better than average scores which were then massively offset by others who felt they were truly awful. I found myself wondering how the challenge would pan out if all pies were tasted on the same day or if the running order was reversed as maybe we were too lenient on earlier pie travesties. And yes, I’m talking to you Mr Kipling!

In closing, would I recommend them? No.”

. . . . . . . . . .

AND THE JUDGES’ RESULTS ARE:

THE PIES Morrison’s Lattice Mince Pies £1.29		RICHARD Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3.5/5 Taste (pastry): 2.5/5 Value for money: 8/10		SAM Appearance: 5/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 4/10		SARAH Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 1/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 0/5 Value for money: 1/10
ROB Appearance: 4/10 Texture: 0/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 0/5 Value for money: 4/10		RALPH Appearance: 3/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 6/10		GAVIN Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 4/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 5/10		JAMES Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 6/10
MANDY Appearance: 3/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 4/5 Taste (pastry): 2/5 Value for money: 7/10		JON Appearance: 9/10 Texture: 5/10 Taste (mincemeat): 2/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 5/10		KAREN Appearance: 7/10 Texture: 6/10 Taste (mincemeat): 3/5 Taste (pastry): 3/5 Value for money: 5/10		TINA Appearance: 3/10 Texture: 2/10 Taste (mincemeat): 1/5 Taste (pastry): 1/5 Value for money: 2/10

. . . . . . . . . .

CASUAL PIE-STANDER COMMENTS:

Ralph says: “I’ve got a soggy bottom”

. . . . . . . . . .

A lot has changed in that time with my work evolving from 3 page static sites to 500 page content-managed multi-sites with cross-linked social networking. Throw in animation, interactive projects, search engine optimisation, email marketing, viral campaigns, video editing and social media innovation and you have a fair indicator of my weekly challenges.

Over the last dozen or so years I have hand-crafted (programmed doesn’t sound as sexy) over 300 websites and been instrumental in maybe 100 more. The scale of the projects have changed but the end goal is still the same – delivering excellence.

I pride myself on my work and will always go that extra mile to ensure my clients are happy and properly involved in every project but am not afraid to rein projects back in if their focus tends to drift. Often its the client’s clients that we are trying to reach and  retaining objectivity is crucial.

Whilst more and more projects are becoming multi-discipline and multi-team I like nothing better than getting my hands dirty with a content management system. The more complex the brief and the more demanding the requirements the better as I deem my greatest asset to be problem solving.

Since joining Purple Frog, the company has evolved and the digital team has grown and I am proud to be part of every cutting-edge project we undertake.

View all articles written by James

View James’ personal blog

Google rolled out its latest experiment in user interface improvement yesterday and within minutes outrage was spreading like wildfire across the net.

For “one day only” Google changed their minimalist/functional search page to show a full screen image. A nasty image from a selection of nasty images that you couldn’t easily remove.

In what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to Bing’s ever-growing profile (and I will discuss their appalling TV spots in a separate article), Google decided to emulate their onscreen real estate with disastrous results. Although some have suggested Google deliberately did this to show people how unpleasant Bing is – not too sure how driving users away will stop them from using the competition.

In the process Google overlooked several seemingly important concepts:

1 – make sure the imagery used actually works with the design and functionality of the existing system.

2 – entice people to use it and make it an opt-in decision on their part.

3 – provide clear instructions on how to use the new feature.

Sadly Google made this a compulsory feature for everyone billing it as a 24hour experiment (although many got it for a day in the previous week and some have reported having to put up with it for four days). Unlike other tests and betas there was no great explanation as to why it was implemented or how to control the experience.

As it turns out you had to have a Google account in order to modify the system. Except they didn’t explain this too well and many missed the instructions entirely. Anyway as I have a Google account I logged in and discovered that sadly most of the images were highly distracting. That most made text impossible to read. And that worst of all you couldn’t turn it off by choosing the default theme. Even changing the background to white didn’t help as you still had white text and a white Google logo floating around (not a big fan of white on white personally). To add insult to injury as soon as you logged out it deactivated your chosen settings.

There have been many changes recently that would have passed many people by such as fading text and other sundry html4 features and innovations that have actually done nothing to improve user experience and in some cases have worsened the situation. It is odd that a company so large, that has prided itself on its easy to use, uncluttered interface makes changes in such a disorganised and poorly planned way.

Within minutes of the project going live thousands of people were venting their anger across the web, including on Google’s forums. Amusingly Google chose to respond by talking about the great new features instead of actually responding to what the angry mob were saying.

In under 2 hours it had become one of the highest trended topics on the net.

14 hours into the experiment Google turned the system off citing a technical bug as being the reason. It is a shame they couldn’t have been open and transparent throughout the process as it may have gone some way to appease the bad taste that yesterday left in the mouth of many people.

I am not a fan of Bing in any way but at least their layout has been designed with the use of large background images in mind. They considered the design from the ground up rather than trying to re-wallpaper a decade old monolith. Inexplicably many angry commentators said they were going to use Bing to show their unhappiness – I assume they were unaware Bing uses large format images!

As per usual most of the web chatter can be ignored. Trolls live to complain and if it hadn’t been over this they would have found something else to fill their Wednesday with. However what was surprising was the scale of the resent and the subsequent egg it left on Google’s face. Also, slightly worryingly, help articles appeared in no time telling people how to permanently block Google background images. If they do ever re-instate the concept they will be facing a number of permanently locked doors around the globe.

The idea itself isn’t terrible. Many like to customise their online experiences (often the younger demographic). What is terrible is their method of implementation and their lack of quality control.

Will it put Google out of business? Of course not – it has 84% market share (Bing is around 3%). Will it tarnish their big brother reputation even further? Almost certainly.

Google can legitimately say it provides a free service and as such can do what it likes. However it does have to answer to its shareholders who will no doubt now be concerned about a high profile mess that will have lost them a lot of goodwill and regular users.

Google may be one of (if not) the largest companies on the net and at times has shown disregard to its users but when enough of them band together empires can be toppled. Bill Gates must still be chuckling, tucked up safely within Bing Towers. After all when you are at the top there is only one place you can go…

Microsoft, MSN and Bing have since made several sarcastic (and occasionally humourous) comments very publicly. Not a single article criticising Google’s decisions has not made reference to its emulation of Bing, and of all those articles I didn’t see a single comment criticising Bing’s design. You can be sure Microsoft will be sending their thanks to Google at the earliest opportunity. At the very least it will help dry their tears after discovering that Apple have now eclipsed their earnings.

No one rules the internet for very long because ultimately it belongs to the people and always will.

History in the making occurred today when David and Nick built their new cabinet. They were able to set their differences aside and both agreed that the larger drawer should go at the bottom.

Following on from the success of their new partnership they plan to build a new boardroom table. Although some have expressed doubts over how well they will cope with this much larger piece of furniture.

Do agencies go to pieces when Account Directors go on a business trip?

I guess so!

We believe in the fine balance between serious thinking about business and brands and having some fun. Here is a taster of playtime. Have a wander around the micro universe created by two of our stranger team members and, if you look carefully, you might pick up the odd word of wisdom. Or a mermaid. Or some eggs…

Oh and turn your volume up!

Today I downloaded the latest version of Firefox on my Mac, spurred on by some security concerns. Everything installed nicely and at the end of the process I was taken to Firefox’s home page where I was instantly dazzled by a new feature – personas.

Personas are an expansion on the existing themes facility. Themes are fiddly as they involve complex sets of graphics, have far too many variables and the effort required to create one simply doesn’t justify the end result. Perhaps Mozilla realised this. So they have released the latest version complete with a new pointless-but-fun freebie that allows you to put a background image behind all the buttons and bars at the top and bottom of your browser.

So I tried a few. And got really frustrated. Very quickly.

Some were incredibly beautiful and were visually well designed but not enough thought had gone into them and all too often you couldn’t read your links or even see what the imagery was due to poor placement. But I noticed I could design my own – should be simple enough I thought. After all it’s what I’m paid to do every day of the week.

While pirouette-ing my way through Photoshop it occurred to me that there was greater potential here. Already the most popular personas had been downloaded hundreds of thousands of times so maybe I could add a few designs to the pot and enjoy the double-whammy of personal satisfaction and spreading the name Purple Frog around the web a little further. Then maybe if it worked for us we could use it as another way to get our clients noticed too.

And then I hit a wall. My design looked nice enough in my browser (although the one size fits all approach was a pain as people have varying numbers of toolbars open (thus changing the height) and frankly there is very little screen estate to play with) so I then checked it in Windows XP and Windows Vista. Normally using either of those systems leaves me feeling morose but at least this time it wasn’t a Microsoft product I had to worry about (or swear at).

Except that in this case form is following function but such a long way that it’s practically a speck in the distance. Mozilla’s programming team in their infinite wisdom managed to develop all three versions with the loosest consistency possible. So on each version the search field is in a slightly different place. As are the buttons and bars. Meaning you effectively have no consistent “safe areas” anywhere on Firefox’s header. And as you can’t set the system to offer the correct version for that person’s operating system of choice you end up with either something bland that hedges its bets or more likely a complete mess.

It won’t be long until I remove my custom persona sadly. But it makes me even sadder that someone came up with a fun idea but no-one thought to make sure it actually worked for all the assorted versions of the software. Hopefully with the next major release they will tackle this but until then I suspect the only users will be kids with Pokemon or Twilight obsessions (amusingly in the T&Cs you are expressly forbidden to use property that isn’t your own – and yet that is what most of the most popular personas consist of. Clearly Mozilla aren’t even vetting content that is being uploaded to their website. Worrying.)

This seems to be part of a larger pattern with internet based businesses. Back in the days of print you knew that if you sent artwork to the printers with errors you ended up with very expensive egg on your face. So to counter this you checked your work, checked it again, got someone else to check it and maybe then sent it to print.

But online projects can be corrected on the fly and can be deployed so quickly that there appears to be a real decline in standards, and quality control procedures seem to be non-existent. I imagine that the pervading attitude is “never mind, let’s correct the issues after launch”. The problem with this is it embarrasses your client, it embarrasses yourself and undermines confidence in your target market.

At least if errors were made in a printed piece the chance was you would see it before it was distributed or even sent to the client and so you were able to get cracking with damage control. Nowadays errors and gaffs can end up online within an hour of being conceived.

Clients often view online projects as being a quick means of deploying information. They are. But that doesn’t mean the actual development and testing should be rushed. Purple Frog are very good at meeting deadlines but on the few occasions we don’t it is quite simply because we don’t like to release work that is anything less than perfect.

It’s a shame that the teams behind Firefox don’t have the same exacting standards. Admittedly I can live without my personal customised persona but to add insult to injury various features now no longer work. Form Follows Function but it seems the Function part doesn’t work either, so what does that leave us with? Thanks Mozilla. You built up my dreams and while I had my head in the clouds you pulled the rug out from under me.

Nowadays its common for retailers and manufacturers to offer internet exclusives. As I discovered to my frustration (and extra expense) at Christmas. My other half wanted a digital camera. Her only criteria was that it should be pink.

So I compared all the cameras on the market in my price range and put together a short list that would meet my exacting standards (pink is low down my list of must-have features). Happily all models were available in pink so I began shopping around for the best deal. It was at this point that I discovered that the pink versions were all (without exception) exclusives to individual retailers (although some were also available at Amazon) and were all more expensive.

I spoke to a chap in Jessop’s about this (before buying it on Amazon) and was surprised how many camera’s they sell purely based on colour – and no surprise here, they were all bought by women and for women. Ok, so this is nothing new but today I was staggered to find that Fiat had got in on the act.

You can now buy their snazzy new Fiat 500 in pink.
But here is the interesting part. It’s an online exclusive. You can’t see it in any showroom and can only buy it online. But it is pink and even I have to admit it looks pretty striking.

For Fiat to make this move suggests they have complete confidence in the buying habits and motivations of a sizeable chunk of the population. This practically redefines the term “pink pound” (which historically has meant something entirely different).

And its all win/win for Fiat. They are selling it for £2000 more than the standard model. Don’t have to run the risk of dead stock. And aren’t having to give trade discounts to dealers. Sadly owners are still subject to the outrageous showroom tax recently introduced that penalises anyone buying a car with high emissions (the Fiat 500 isn’t affected by this though).

So the discerning buyer can now have their car match their camera, phone, laptop and their pet Chihuahua’s doggy coat. I suspect buying a car unseen is probably the limit of colour-driven buying patterns so don’t expect Wimpy to start selling online exclusive pink houses anytime soon.

If this proves successful for Fiat its safe to say the other manufacturers will run similar trials and may well hit the forecourts even harder. But regardless of the nature of your industry, directly targeting specific groups of buyers does reap rewards (providing your campaign has been properly implemented) – if you would like to learn more about how we can help your business deliver a tightly focussed marketing strategy then give us a call on 01844 295170.

Flock is a new web browser based on Mozilla (the same as Firefox) that allows you to keep track of all your social networking from one location. It’s an interesting solution but is it one that people are actually asking for?

How well does this really work? Let’s find out… (this post was written from within Flock)