Hey there ... I'm gonna be out-of-pocket for the next two weeks. In my absence the Brand Autopsy blog will not go blank. A guest blogger is gonna take the reins for a series of provocative posts. This guest blogger is a friend who doesn't blog but he has a very unique perspective on the marketing game. Be nice to this chap. Thanks y'all.
October 13, 2007
johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy)
As a marketingologist with the Brand Autopsy Marketing Practice, I give companies “Second Opinions” about the business and marketing activities they are currently doing or considering doing.
Sounds good but are you sure "out-of-pocket" mean what you think it means? It means to have no money, usually when a client etc hasn't paid you at an appropriate time and you've laid out money on them.
Posted by: Mary-Ann Horley | October 14, 2007 at 05:18 AM
Mary-Ann ... I take language liberties. Sometimes too much.
In this case, my usage of in-the-pocket is influenced by James Brown and George Clinton. To them, keeping it "in-the-pocket" is about keeping the groove going, preferably "on-the-one."
To me, being "in-the-pocket" is being in-the-zone of daily work. Since I'm not going to be in the pocket of daily work, I refer to it as being out-of-pocket. And once I am back in-the-pocket, I will be, by your definition, out-of-pocket. Dig?
Posted by: johnmoore (from Brand Autopsy) | October 14, 2007 at 09:34 AM
SUBSTITUTE!!! Enjoy your time off johnmoore
Posted by: Pat Nerr | October 14, 2007 at 10:14 AM
You know you've found a funky blog when the author is influenced by George Clinton.
Posted by: Jay Ehret | October 15, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Seems like he used the phrase correctly... see link... http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=out%2Dof%2Dpocket
Posted by: DWill | October 25, 2007 at 10:53 PM
To follow on to that last link here is another comment:
(3) Unavailable: I first came across this meaning in the early 1980s when I was a staff editor at the New York Times. Reporters who had filed stories were supposed to supply phone numbers where they could be reached in case questions arose. If a reporter was unreachable (say, on a plane to Tibet), he or she was said to be "out of pocket." The OED cites published references for this meaning dating back to 1946, though it didn't become common until the 1970s.
I haven’t found an answer to your question about why the third meaning evolved. I also haven’t seen an explanation of why we say out of “pocket” rather than out of “hat” or “glove” or whatever when we’re unavailable, but here’s a possibility.
There's an expression "to have someone in your pocket," which means to have him under your control. Perhaps by extension, if he's "out of pocket" he's no longer under your control or scrutiny. Again, this is just speculation on my part.
at: http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/05/out-of-pocket.html
Posted by: DWill | October 25, 2007 at 11:03 PM