Posted: 06 November 2018 at 3:20pm | IP Logged | 3
|
post reply
|
|
It's a mess, James.
And a bit ludicrous, too. Wouldn't two separate entities WANT to be distinct?
Like I said, it's no hardship, but it could cause problems akin to the one mentioned in my initial post. When my friend said there were no Forbidden Planet branches in Scotland, I said something like, "There are. I've been to them." And he said something like, "A Forbidden Planet employee in Birmingham told me there aren't any." (My friend was working in Scotland for a while, hence his question).
It was only after that, that I researched it.
But, again, it's ludicrous. Imagine the issues it could cause. Scenario: person is treated badly by employee in Forbidden Planet (Birmingham). So he goes on the website to complain via a contact form. He waits weeks, hoping for his complaint to be resolved, only to receive the following reply: "Sorry, this is Forbidden Planet International, we cannot assist you..."
A similar thing in the UK concerns Virgin Trains East Coast and Virgin Trains. Okay, "East Coast" would make it stand out - or not. I saw a Twitter conversation once where someone had complained to Virgin Trains East Coast - or so they thought. They'd actually been communicating with Virgin Trains, which handles the west coast services. It doesn't help that both use "Virgin Trains" as shorthand - and have similar, if not identical, livery. And weren't they both combined at one point?
There should be a law against such confusion. And there was me thinking companies would want a distinct brand...
Edited by Robbie Parry on 06 November 2018 at 3:22pm
|