Sending physical letters or “snail mail” in the age of email is still necessary sometimes. Whether it’s banks who refuse to accept PDF statements via email or magazines who won’t let you unsubscribe unless you physically write to them (GAH!), you might still have to go through the rigamarole of typing something up, printing it, finding an envelope and stamps and heading down to a post office to send a letter. Fortunately, there’s a solution. Virtual post service UK Post Box lets you do all this from a web browser.
UK Post Box review
Using UK Post Box is simply a case of uploading a PDF and pressing a few buttons, and the company will print out your message, put it in an envelope and send it off for you, first class. The price is a little higher than it would cost for you to do it yourself, but it more than makes up for itself in time saved.
UK Post Box is mostly designed for individuals who want a post forwarding service, or a fixed post box address in the UK which can receive letters and parcels (the company will even scan in your post and send it you as a PDF) but personally I find the snail mail element the most useful. I haven’t tried any of the other services, but I can imagine any UK expats, frequent travellers or people looking for a private address would find the other bits of UK Post Box useful.
How does UK Post Box work?
The company has a sorting facility which is based in Poole which is the base for their post boxes and their sending and receiving service. You use a web interface similar to an email inbox to upload documents and input addresses.
How much does UKPostBox cost?
It cost me £2.35 to send a three page letter to my bank. You do have to load up your account with credit (I added £25 at the start of the year), and this eventually expires after a year. As I said, this is a luxury service. It will always be cheaper to do the posting yourself.
Gordon Gecko. The Wolf of Wall Street. Christian Bale’s portrayal of Michael Burry in the Big Short. These characters embody the public idea of ruthless finance types who will use every trick in the book – including cheating pensioners out of their money – to make their own millions.
To that roster of characters I’d like to add me, Conrad Quilty-Harper, blogger, digital editor and the proud owner of £199.28 worth of stocks and shares. I’m not going to make millions with my tiny pot of money, but to own those shares at least I didn’t have to move to Wall Street, don a double-breasted suit or set up an ISDA Master Agreement*: I simply downloaded an app on my phone.
This is a review of Freetrade.io, a new app, based in London, which allows its users to access a selection of shares available to buy in the UK. With a few touches and a thumb press, you can buy and sell shares and have a very good reason to reinstall the iOS Stocks app.
Of course it’s always been relatively easy to buy shares if you really wanted to. MoneySavingExpert has a brilliant list of some affordable options. The difference with Freetrade is that, as the name suggests, it’s free to trade.
There is a caveat: free trades happen in bulk at 4PM every day and you have to pay £1 per trade if you want to do it “instantly.” But that compares remarkably favourably with existing competitors like AJ Bell (£9.95 a trade), Interactive Investor (£10), X-O (£5.95) and Hargreaves Lansdown (£11.95, which drops if you make more trades).
What none of those more expensive options offer is a process as seamless as Freetrade. If you have online banking already, to gain access it’s only slightly more complicated than signing up for Netflix. Put in your details, your National Insurance number, transfer some money to a bank account, and within a few days you’re able to buy shares.
I’ll use this animated gif to show you how many touches it takes to sell my £13 worth of Vodafone shares.
The app isn’t perfect. In fact it’s not even available to the general public at the moment (you have to sign up and join a queue, very British). And it does a lot of those annoying fintech things like not put axis on charts (WHY?!) and uses language that developers think are cute but actually make you question whether you should give them your money at all (e.g. BT’s listing in the app is described as “slow internet”). On the other hand, when I encountered a bug they fixed it within a day and sent me a chat message within the app.
I signed up to Freetrade simply to play around with the app. I’m not planning to invest a huge amount of money there, nor would I really recommend that to anyone else, for now. But I would recommend getting in the queue and having a play around. It makes buying shares remarkably easy.
It also made me realise how poor most of the information is there about the stock market. The iOS Stocks app, for instance, often has no news about half of my portfolio. Surely there’s an opportunity there…
More information about Freetrade and investing apps in the UK
Can I use Robinhood in the UK?
Not yet. Robinhood is a similar app which launched in the US in 2013, and also offers “commission-free” trading. TechCrunch reported last year that they are recruiting staff in the UK ahead of a planned launch in the country.
What is Freetrade app?
Freetrade is a stock and shares investment smartphone app which allows you to trade for free, as long as you don’t mind waiting until 4PM every day. The company is still an early stage start-up, and has raised money several times using crowdfunding platform CrowdCube. As of mid-April, it has about 25,000 user accounts who have invested over £12 million.
How can I trade for free?
It’s possible to trade “for free” using Freetrade, a mobile app which lets you invest in a limited selection of stocks, shares and exchange traded funds (ETFs), as long as you limit yourself to a normal investment account and only buy and sell shares once a day at 4PM. Freetrade charges £1 for an “instant” trade when the markets are open, and there is a charge for an ISA account or a premium account which is in the works.
TikTok isn’t just lip dubs, pranks and pouting teenagers. It can also be clever interpretations of Latin songs, political messages about inequality and Communism and chemical formulas for exothermic reactions.
This “bug” was allowing people to use Google’s advertising network to set up sites that charged to file visa waivers. Instead of going directly to the US Government’s website – which still costs about $14 – they would charge users up to $99 for “checking” their application.
The problem was first identified in 2009. It wasn’t “fixed” until 2018, eight years later.
I even fell for it in August 2009:
Why did it take so long?
Google’s solution to this problem – like a hammer which only sees nail – was to “develop a machine learning process to wipe out unofficial Esta ads.”
That process took eight years.
In the meantime, countless numbers of people were paying over and above what they should have for entering their details into a very simple online form.
Of course, Google met its minimum standard obligation of investigating and taking down any links that users reported were incorrect, but the companies taking advantage of Google’s incompetence could very simply edit the domain name and resubmit, a relatively trivial operation.
The BBC even sent some unofficial ads to Google, which its algorithms dutifully allowed to be displayed.
Now apply this problem to media savvy terrorist attacks
A Google mindset of do it first, collect data, and improve it over time (or Facebook’s “move fast and break things”) has dramatic consequences when more malicious operators take advantage of their weaknesses.
Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have all been far too slow in taking down videos of the New Zealand terrorist attack. Even though they all have large, dedicated and sophisticated moderation teams seeking to remove this information, they are unable to stop people re-uploading videos.
The obvious question is, why don’t technology companies do it manually? I agree with Alex Hern who says, they could have, “one person – just one – to sit there searching for ‘New Zealand terror attack’ and just delete the obvious reposts that keep popping up on that search term.”
So why don’t they do it? I also agree with Alex’s reason, that they have, “a desire to build scalable systems rather than one-off applications of human labour.”
Technology solutions: -Create a new algorithm to identify suspect terrorist uploads -Use content ID matching algorithms -Use AI-enhanced moderation
Human solutions: -Disable video uploads temporarily -Manually delete videos -Employ editors to approve questionable content first
Technology companies can’t fix every problem with an algorithm
Just as big tech doesn’t invest in ideas that don’t “scale”, they won’t invest in solving problems unless there’s a scalable solution. Technology companies think they can “fix” unsolvable problems with maths. They think they can “fix” the problem of terrorists sharing their content with an algorithm, just like they can “fix” the problem of people being scammed for ESTA forms.
As the ESTA example show, they can’t.
Humans might not be as fast than algorithms, but they’re cleverer, and technology companies need to wise up too.
“…all your songs have to be under three minutes and 15 seconds because if people don’t listen to them all the way to the end they go into this ratio of ‘non-complete heard’, which sends your Spotify rating down”
(The “non-complete heard” is presumably a percentage of how much people actually listen to your song.)
Some artists have cottoned on and changed their style of music to accommodate accordingly.
“…you have to make sure the kick drum and the guitar have the same loudness and presence all the way through the whole fucking song or you don’t stand a chance.”
The problems of “the algorithm” in music have been written about before but it’s telling that it’s bothering one of the world’s most influential and successful music producers. What’s true for Mark Ronson is also true for film directors, authors, journalists, politicians, etc etc.
When you’re trying to say anything creative today, you have to talk to the algorithm too. Whether you like it or not.
Print magazine covers are having a bit of a renaissance. Perhaps it’s the fact that the Instagram-loving public cares and understands more than ever what goes into a good image, or that global political turmoil has given editors and designers more material, but it definitely feels like there’s growing emphasis on striking and adventurous imagery on magazine covers.
AdWeek recently, and rather cynically, suggested that in the US, a decline in magazine newsstand sales has led to a corresponding emphasis on more exciting and adventurous covers aimed at subscribers. Whatever the reason, there’s been copious discussion lately about magazines on social media. It’s also been the subject of two events that I’ve been lucky enough to attend.
The other week I went to a very interesting talk on the topic of great magazine covers, chaired by Ian Birch, the former editorial director of Hearst who has recently released a book about this subject, Uncovered – Revolutionary Magazine Covers. It also included Penny Martin, the editor of the Gentlewoman, Paul McNamee, editor of The Big Issue, and Robin Derrick, former creative director of British Vogue who is now pursuing a beauty project.
The talk comes a few weeks after a brilliant Somerset House exhibition on British independent magazines, “Print! Tearing It Up”, where I picked up a small poster of Paul Gorman’s “mindmap” of British magazines, which connected It to Suck, Blast to Crash!, The Face to New Musical Express and Private Eye to Passing Wind. (It reminded me a bit of Jeremy Deller’s “History of the World / Acid Brass 1997“.)
That excellent exhibition, which mostly focused on how independent magazines influenced mainstream publishers, introduced itself by saying that reading a magazine, smelling the ink and flicking through its glossy pages is “one of the great pleasures in life.” What Ian Birch’s discussion at the British Library argued is that without a good cover for that magazine you would never have picked it up in the first place. Here are some selected thoughts and notes from that talk, which I hope you might find useful.
Magazines aren’t magic
As Robin Derrick said in the discussion at the end, “It was Nick [Coleridge, chairman of Condé Nast Britain] who said [magazines] are bought on station forecourts with a sandwich and a packet of crisps.” They need to grab the reader’s attention and satisfy a need, in this case a need for a bit of entertainment for a train journey. When I have the time to buy and read a magazine, it’s often when I’m travelling. If I have an international flight I love to pick up a New Yorker or another glossy, and often it’s the cover or cover lines that will make me decide whether to pick up a copy. Robin later hammered this home by saying, “People at Vogue think they work in fashion. They don’t, they work in publishing.” Hmm.
I also liked Paul McNamee’s practical thoughts about covers. When he found himself deciding to put Bob the Big Issue cat in a Santa hat on the cover of the magazine for the Christmas issue, he said, “I’m a commercial editor. When we put that cat on the cover, it goes like crazy. There are no rules. If the cat works for you, put it on the cover. Not every week though. That might get a little tired.” He did admit, though, that he had another cat cover in his bag, planned for publishing within a few weeks.
Magazine covers can be markers for political progress
Ian Birch dwelled for a minute on International Times (It), “the newspaper of resistance” and Britain’s first underground paper. Talking about his March 1969 cover featuring an interracial couple kissing — which was still a taboo at the time — then-editor Peter Stansill said, “This might have been a provocative cover, but not to us. I never asked anybody outside of our readership what they thought about it. It was of no interest to me whether it would be accepted or not in the wider world. There were no cover lines, no accompanying story, it was just let’s send a visual message.” That’s certainly a common theme in what makes a great cover: an absence of cover lines, and letting a strong image do the talking. Also, read this excellent story by the photographer Horace Ové, who was the first black director to make a full length feature film in Britain, Pressure, in 1975.
Great magazine covers echo a feeling
Robin Derrick’s favourite cover of all time is also one of the most simple. British Vogue’s October 1945 cover was no more than a painting of a blue sky with a few clouds and haze, signifying the end of the second world war. After half a decade of twisting contrails left behind by bombers and fighters striking through the sky, the sky evokes a feeling of freedom which must have felt completely correct to people at the time. Derrick said it’s one of the few magazine covers he can think of that is of a blue sky. I can only think of one other, which happens to cover the same event: Time magazine’s July 1985 cover showing the cloud after the Trinity test, marking the 40th anniversary of Hiroshima and the birth of the Atomic age.
Are commercial ideas killing great magazine coverlines?
Gentlewoman editor Penny Martin made a point about the influence of digital formats on magazines, particularly in the women’s market. Despite being the former digital editor for Nick Knight’s SHOWStudio, she said, “I think there’s been a misunderstanding where magazines are chasing the digital form and they’re trying to replicate the tone and the content of what’s online. I think they should draw back from that and [do] the opposite. Because you know what you want when you’re doing that [mimes using a smartphone], don’t you?”
She also decried the tendency of copy in the fashion industry to mimic e-commerce styles. She said, “People are speaking to readers as if they are consumers. It’s to do with the dominance of e-commerce. Especially in my sector, where there this whole shoppable content thing, this nonsense that kind of hijacked the argument meant that now people are writing copy as if you’re talking to a shopper. It’s just so patronising. People underestimate how sophisticated the audience is.”
Great magazine covers are collaborative
Finally, some thoughts from me about how I’ve seen the process of magazine covers change. Today, it’s quite common to see editors and art directors taking a collaborative approach to selecting a cover, or at least being a bit more open about the process.
Two stories in the Sunday Times today offer two conflicting perspectives about pensions, which I think is as good a topic as any to restart my blog.
In Ian Cowie’s latest column about his retirement fund he says he’s recently liquidated a fairly big chunk of his shares so he can buy a seaside cottage. Good for him.
“…so many editorial colleagues over the years seemed to think they were being terribly witty telling me, “Pensions are boring. Sometimes I would say: ‘Not really, I enjoy sailing around in part of my pension.’ Soon, with luck, Sue and I will also have a Victorian cottage with a splendid sea view, all thanks to saving and investing effectively. How boring is that?”
Josh Glancy is less impressed with his pension savings which, at the moment, would probably only cover a few dozen Brooklyn brunches. Not so good for him.
“My retirement plan is more like Water: won’t aim to ever retire. This realisation was a shock at first, but I’m coming round to the idea. I’ve chosen to prioritise satisfaction over security, thrills today over funds tomorrow.”
I wonder what the two would say about each other’s columns…