Media Switchboards Top 10

image source: rosenblumtv.wordpress.com

I've called a few newspaper, radio and TV switchboards over the years, and I thought it was about time I shared my experiences, praised the best and criticized (constructively of course) the worst, by compiling this table.

Plus points warded for: human, friendly, helpful, efficient

Minus points awarded for: human unfriendly, human unhelpful, human smarmy, human bored, automated (push button 1, 2 3 etc), automated stupid, use of paid-for non-geographic numbers (0845, 0870 etc), inefficient, excessive ring or on hold times

• 1. Guardian - score: 20

Human: Friendly, helpful with old-fashioned values, refusing to modernize to the detriment of personal service with, unbelievably, "Thank you for calling The Guardian and Observer" and, when putting you through, "Connecting you now." (Is it 1968?). They also answer immediately, within the first few rings.

• 2. BBC - score: 15
  

Human: Very helpful and not at all snotty, and backed up with their information line (03700 100222) so a double-whammy of helpfulness.

• =3. Financial Times - score: 13
  

Human: Almost as good as The Guardian but without the flourish.

• =3. Independent - score: 13
  

Human: Almost as good as The Guardian but without the flourish.

• 4. Daily Mail - score: 10
  

Human: Bored switchboard operators seem to take great delight in making you feel stupid for not knowing that the number you dialed is also the switchboard for the Mail on Sunday, the London Evening Standard and London Lite, so just they love it when they can look down their nose at you and say, "Which paper?"

• 5. Daily Telegraph - score: 8
  

Human: Bored, "you are stupid" attitude, putting you though before you've finished your sentence so you have to call again. At least they are human.

• =6. New York Times - score: 6
  

Automated: clever automated. If UK newspapers feel compelled to utilize automated switchboards, why don't they use something like this? You can just tell the machine the name of the person you want to speak to and it puts you through without any fuss. However, I'm sure it was the New York Times the other week that was suffering from a hearing problem. Actually it was really quite funny. You said "Kermit Pattison" and it tried to put you through to "Jim Schachter" or similar! It seems to have sorted itself out now.

• =6. Wall Street Journal - score: 6
  

Automated: clever automated. You can just tell the machine the name of the person you want and it puts you straight through without any fuss. Really very clever and painless (but not human).

• =7. The Sun - score: -6
  

Automated: Stupid automated. They have, all of a sudden, got the same condescending woman as The Times who I have wanted to strangle for a long time!

- I AM LISTENING CAREFULLY!
- W h y...do...y o u...s p e a k...s o...s l o w l y,...w i t h...s u c h...b i g...p a u s e s...b e t w e e n...w o r d s?
- I am not a child!

• =7. The Times - score: -6
  

Automated: Stupid automated. I AM LISTENING CAREFULLY! Why do you have to keep telling me that each time? Aarrgghh!