craiggrannell

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@ellneal I suspect they’d just tell me to sod off, and I don’t really want to ruin my relationship with a key client. But I’ll bear it in mind.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@digitalpardoe Yeah, that’s the thing that’s pissing me off more than anything. I’ve asked for the UETR and MT103 and just been given the payment ID number from the publisher. I have the feeling accounts payable sees “payment sent” on its system, but hasn’t actually contacted the publisher’s bank.

Occam’s Razor suggests there are only two possibilities here:

1. Sent to wrong place
2. Routed incorrectly

Either way, I need the documents to give to my bank to show that.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@digitalpardoe Late payment reminder won’t work. They sent remittance and are heading very close to “We paid so case closed”. Small claims would be a last resort. I don’t want to burn a bridge with this publisher, if that can be avoided.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@pete My editor’s boss has stuck his nose in so far to help. Escalated to someone very senior in ops. But they then just pinged my stuff to accounts payable, which is literally an email address with no sign off. I fear accounts payable is looking on its system and going: PAID! When it needs to be getting a UETR and MT103 and sending them to me.

And, yes, I don’t want to damage the working relationship, if possible.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@rowan_johnson They sent remittance, but that’s just the usual slip that doesn’t actually have any details other than the value and their own reference. Which my bank quite rightly pointed out isn’t any help in tracking a payment. They need routing info. I’m not sure the publisher understands this. I’ve asked again, very clearly, for this information.

But, yes, either they paid the wrong person, or there was a routing fuck-up. Without the data, though, who can say?

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@rowan_johnson 100% certain they have the money. They are… not a small publisher.

I just find this baffling. I’ve had late payments before. I’ve had publishers who just haven’t paid – the longest took over two years to get my money out of. But I’ve never had one send remittance but the money not rock up in my account.

It’s doubly shite because I love writing for this particular publisher and the folks there are great to work with.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@rowan_johnson Yes, it’s writing. The piece was published months and months ago.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@callionica Accounts payable, senior editorial and senior ops so far. But accounts payable is just an email address. No phone number. Although I think if this rattles on much longer, I’ll figure out a way to speak to someone.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@simon I’d like to leave the nuclear option until all others have been exhausted. I don’t really want to destroy a relationship with a publisher I’d very much like to continue working with. But yeah.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@FionaCraig I’ve received previous successful payments, yes. And I’ve asked for more details. The accounts payable team repeated to provide my bank with the “payment ID” that my bank pointed out is totally useless, since it has no routing info. :/

It’s a bit head > bash > brick wall.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@tom_t_21 Well, it can run (some) iPad apps. Although the experience is miserable.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@stroughtonsmith Although the flip side to that is that the Mac runs iPad apps badly, for the most part. There are exceptions but the vast majority to me feel like crap on the Mac. Not sure how things would work in reverse. I also wonder at what point iPadOS just… goes away, if Apple loses even more focus on it.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@patrick_h_lauke I bought NewZealand Story. Good quality prints. Slightly odd size and so mine doesn’t quite fit in the frame I bought for it. Still looks good though.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@patrick_h_lauke Only one left. Etc. :D

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@markv @cdoncarroll @stroughtonsmith I dunno. I get the impression the aim isn’t to have X replace Y. The aim is to get you to buy X and Y. Every time.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@baldur It’s very off-beat. For me, the second ep was saved by Jinkx and was overall fun if you throw logic out the window. The first was… I don’t know. I’m sure it seemed funnier on the page. But the final thing was a weird mix of clunky and uncanny valley with RTD’s standard mix of weird pacing, deus ex machina, whiplash tonal shifts and plot holes. A deeply weird part one to a new series. (I personally think they would also have benefitted from a much harder break from 14.)

craiggrannell, 5 days ago

@danbeeston I mean, I remember his first series having someone get eaten by a terrible CGI wheelie bin. The difference now is RTD has a budget. Which may be quite dangerous.

I wouldn’t be unhappy if the writing gets better, mind.

craiggrannell, 5 days ago

@CommonMugwort Same. Not sure what I was expecting. I was holding and cold on RTD’s first run. This opener was… middling. Some good ideas. Broadly terrible script editing (as ever for this show, because it seemingly never allows a proper script editor to have power and make sense of things). First ep was a lot of “Hi. I’m The Doctor. I do exposition” too. Clunky.

craiggrannell, 5 days ago

@BenCotterill @CommonMugwort Although the reappearance of the harbinger within that number was also a twist.

craiggrannell, 4 days ago

@BenCotterill @CommonMugwort He’s usually very busy making music that drowns out the dialogue. (Although in this run, that seems… improved?)