08 March 2014

 

I hesitate to say this is entirely wrong, it just doesn't seem right.  It sounds disjointed.

They could have left the tagline as "The best place for nails" even though it would be a duplicate of their business name.

Using "The best place in town" would still convey the right message and tie the exotic idea in with being local.  It would also add a second message of it being the ultimate business in the locality - perhaps not something they can prove on a supreme level but possibly on some level.

However the way that it currently is, breaks up "The best place in town" which we are used to hearing - it disturbs the 'rhythm' of the phrase. 

If they really wanted to keep all the words in the second line then how about "The best place in town for nails".

 

Instead as they have a strong business name that describes exactly what they do, two signage areas, and don't really need a tagline, they could use the sign real estate for something entirely different.

What about opening hours?  Contact details?  Something that further defines 'exotic'?  A website or Facebook page url, where they had examples of their handiwork?  An incredibly witty statement that makes you smile?

 

Syntax Schmintax is an attempt to document, and make myself more aware of, the grammatical errors being made in advertising and marketing by organisations who in the main employ professional sign-writers and printers.  It is by no means an authoritative reference, and is only my personal opinion.  Feel free to chime in and comment, especially if you are one who has an English honours degree (which I don't)!

 

Hawke's Bay
01 March 2014

 

This may be a little contentious as it is a matter of formal vs informal usage of the word 'through'.

I believe that the proper spelling for the expression on these signs is 'Drive-through'.  Hyphenated and formal.

McDonald's can't even seem to agree which way they want to use the informal - with or without a hyphen.

Others may argue that both these examples are for family fast food joints and by their very nature they are not formal establishments.  I get that.

The flip side though is that these are serious businesses, and unless their usage of the informal 'thru' is a specific marketing angle, then it would be better for the English language to use the formal.

After all McDonalds goes as far as putting the acute accent on the 'e' in café, don't they‽

 

Syntax Schmintax is an attempt to document, and make myself more aware of, the grammatical errors being made in advertising and marketing by organisations who in the main employ professional sign-writers and printers.  It is by no means an authoritative reference, and is only my personal opinion.  Feel free to chime in and comment, especially if you are one who has an English honours degree (which I don't)!

 

Hawke's Bay
22 February 2014

 

Over the last two weeks I have brought you part one and part two on proper nouns.  This is the third and last in the series.  [Yay, something a bit different next Saturday!]

 If nothing else I am sure it has opened your eyes to capitalisation errors being everywhere.  How many have you noticed as you're out and about?

 

Super Liquor give us two further examples of the 'trend' (it hurts to call it that) of randomly using capital letters on signs.

'To' in the first sign should have a lower case 't'.  

The second sign is curious in that it looks like a cookie cutter sign that has the business name stencilled in before sale, as it is not on the same line as the words 'car park'.  I still advocate that 'car park' requires lower case beginning letters, and the last phrase should read "Vehicles will be towed at owner's expense".  Not only using the lower case form for all but the first word, but the apostrophe instead of the plural for owner's.  Now it is totally possible that a vehicle will have more than one owner and the plural, in a minority number of cases, will apply but then that would be 'owners' ' as the expense would be on all the people who owned the vehicle.  It could also imply that as their are multiple vehicles that could be towed away that the vehicles would have a group of individual owners, but again it would be 'owners' '.  So I can't see how 'owners' is correct.   Can you explain it?

 

 

Ekkk!  Bayleys, I know you are not the only real estate company to do this, but it is "For lease".  Harcourts: "Talk to Harcourts now".  

Hopefully the osteopath won't get all bent out of joint if I suggest that his tagline should be "Professional treatment for muscle & joint pain".  He did get the small print right under his name though.  Well done!

 

 

The last in this tyrad upon the gratuitous use of capitals you could probably see in your sleep.

"The world's no. 1 selling bed" on the left and "We've moved" on the right.

 

Phew, made it!    Next week, we have McDonald's and KFC on our menu.

 

Syntax Schmintax is an attempt to document, and make myself more aware of, the grammatical errors being made in advertising and marketing by organisations who in the main employ professional sign-writers and printers.  It is by no means an authoritative reference, and is only my personal opinion.  Feel free to chime in and comment, especially if you are one who has an English honours degree (which I don't)!

 

Hawke's Bay

Pages