While we're on the subject of desperate, lamentable mediocrity, may the Intellectual Hooligan direct your attention toward further cause for grief?
Here it comes:
Remember how I accepted that – for a brief period back in the early 90s – the panini might have been mildly sophisticated?
Well, at about the same time, I'm prepared to consider the possibility that it may've seemed even slightly zany, original or outside-the-box to incorporate the @ sign into trading names or brands.
That time is now well over.
I'm talking about creations such as
If you use the @ sign in your brand/event name in 2009, allow the Intellectual Hooligan to assure you that you look about as outside-the-box as the preserved remains of Vladimir friggin' Lenin.
Not convinced? Allow me to illustrate my argument with the following table:
Even if you do stubbornly maintain that your use of @ makes you look 'down with the kidz' and au fait with the lingo of the txt msg generation (a perspective I suggest you test by actually asking a few 'kidz' exactly how cool it makes you look) – even then, how about we consider the standpoint of a potential investor in your company.
'What? I'd invest in the stock of friggin Royal Bank of Scotland faster than I'd sink my hard-earned moolah into an organisation that considered the use of the @ sign in any way trendy. Yes indeed! Come to think of it, I'd be more likely to put my money on a leper in an extreme wrestling match.(COME ON, LEPER! GIVE HIM HELL! ATTABOY!)'
(Such were the words of a potential investor in your company, whom we tracked down and interviewed, earlier today.)
Of course, the Intellectual Hooligan's ubernightmare is – you've guessed it – a Panini emporium called Paninis@The Park! or something equally cack-brained.
For such a hypothetical emporium – with apologies for the U turn – I can only say: bring on the friggin credit crunch.