Search results for the tag, "E-mail"
October 6th, 2011
A version of this blog post appeared on the Bad Pitch Blog on October 5, 2011.
Practice deftness, not deafness
In a recent blog post, Chris Brogan describes a scenario familiar to anyone not living under a rock: “Today, I sheepishly deleted several e-mails … that were waiting for a quick response … Dozens. Maybe 100 overall. So that means almost 100 people got my attention, got me to read something, got me to think that maybe I should do something,” and then never heard back.
Why does this happen so often to so many? Brogan’s diagnosis is convincing: Because “we don’t fully understand the syntax of saying ‘no.’”
He offers a graceful example of how to construct this elusive sentence: “What you’re doing is important, and I’m very supportive of you, but I’m not able to take on what you’d like me to do because of my own full plate of commitments.”
In other words: Thanks, but no thanks.
Amen.
Whether in business or romance or friendship, surely most of us would prefer the certainty of being rejected to the uncertainty—and looming false hope—of being ignored. To be sure, no reply typically is a reply, just as postponing a decision is a decision. But there’s no getting around the fact that silence stings.
Sadly, this sting is all-too-common among those you’d think would know e-etiquette by heart: PR pros. As workday spinners, we’re paid to frame the conversation, to help a particular perspective prevail. So it’s bemusing that when we confront this challenge in our own lives, we shrink from it instead of enlisting the opportunity. After all, what better way to demonstrate our savvy, our tact, our profession?
No likes to deliver bad news. It’s unpleasant and messy. Yet it’s also the hallmark of a professional. And as Brogan demonstrates, you can apologize, explain, and decline all in just 32 words.
That shows the opposite of rudeness. That shows character.
June 14th, 2011
A version of this blog post appeared on Technorati (June 13, 2011), GovLoop (June 14, 2011), and K Street Cafe (June 14, 2011).
One of the most overlooked opportunities for online marketing also happens to be one of the most ubiquitous: the e-mail “signature”
One of the first things new employees do is create a “signature block” for their e-mails. These half a dozen lines or so, consisting of your contact info, plop themselves at the bottom of every e-mail you send. Yet few people put any thought into their e-signature, let alone alter it after it’s typed.
This modus operandi reflects a 1.0 mindset. Let’s upgrade it.
First, think of the e-signature the same way you think of business cards: they reflect upon your organization’s brand. This is why every employee’s card looks the same and contains the same basic information: because each flows from a uniform design template.
Yet most organizations treat the e-signature as an afterthought. They’ll hire someone to design a business card, stationary, and even envelopes and labels, but utterly neglect e-mail—which, of course, reaches far more people than do the aforementioned materials combined.
As a result, each employee fashions his own e-signature. Some people include their job title; others don’t. Some link to the company Web site; others link to the company’s social networks (or their own). Some prefer hyphens or periods to parenthesis in listing a phone number; others want to abbreviate “Parkway” as “Pkwy” or “Pkwy.” Still others include a quotation, while others favor fancy fonts.
Everyone gets the basic info across, but these differences make your organization look sloppy and unprofessional. After all, you wouldn’t allow each employee to design his own business card, would you?
By contrast, let’s say you developed a template that standardized these data, so that everyone’s e-signature was uniform. The template might exhibit your organization’s colors, publicize your tagline, link to your Web site. Your recipients, no doubt, would be impressed that your firm is organized, detail-minded, savvy.
Equally important—yet overlooked even more—are e-mails sent from your smartphone. By default, a mobile signature consists of advertising such as “Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry” or “Sent via iPhone.” But just as you wouldn’t let the vendor that printed your annual reports stamp its imprint on each page, so you shouldn’t give corporate giants free ads in your e-mails. Instead, reserve this precious real estate for yourself (or at least for humor, as in “Sent using my thumbs; please excuse typoss”).
Finally, reconsider the content of your e-signature. Rather than limiting yourself to titles and numbers, why not add a line to promote one of your current projects? As with Twitter, a succinct, catchy sentence that’s hyperlinked is most effective. For example, given a project for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, you might write, “How do you rebrand general aviation’s leading advocate?”
Again, consistency is crucial. To maximize your branding, not only should everyone participate; everyone also should use the same one-liners and change them at agreed-upon intervals.
None of these suggestions is revolutionary. To the contrary, they constitute modest tweaks. Yet it’s through such seeming minutiae that good brands distinguish themselves from great brands.
Which are you?
November 24th, 2010
A version of this blog post appeared on LindsayOlson.com on November 23, 2010.
In the current edition of her e-newsletter, Claire Kittle, who runs the Talent Marketstaffing agency, recounts an anecdote that immediately rang true for me. With Claire’s permission, I’m reprinting the story, which I’ve edited slightly.
I get dozens of applications every day, and you would be amazed to see how many seemingly intelligent candidates do not follow instructions. If I had to put a number on it, I’d estimate that 50% of applicants fail to send me what my clients request.
I used to give all candidates the benefit of the doubt. I would follow-up with them and ask for the information they neglected to send the first time. But I learned that those same candidates often still fail to follow instructions on the second (and third!) attempts, and worse—they frequently get belligerent about being asked for more information!
Here’s a sample scenario:
Me: “Are you free for a phone interview Friday at noon? If so, what’s the best number where I can call you?”
Candidate: “Yes, that will work!”
Sigh. Now I’ll only throw the life preserver to candidates with very strong resumes, but I still file away the fact they didn’t send the right information off the bat.
All this prompts the question: If a candidate can’t follow instructions for a job application, how will that person perform on the job? Will he take direction? Will his work be sloppy? How will he treat your customers? It’s hard to say for sure, but the initial data points don’t bode well for his future as an employee.
Indeed, although I don’t work in HR, I encounter this bugbear routinely. A recent example:
Vendor: “Please provide profile details.”
Me: “Can you let me know if you can’t get this info from the document I sent this morning?”
The vendor’s response? Silence. Apparently, she could; it was just easier to ask someone than to find a previous e-mail herself.
I learned this passive-aggressive technique from an old boss. Rather than explicitly point out a mistake I had made, he would take the mistake to its logical conclusion. For example, if I wrote that a campaign would run from April-March (rather than March-April), he might reply, “When did our month-long budget get extended to a year?” While my first reaction was, Huh?, upon reflection I appreciated the humor—and gentle guidance.
So, what can we do to minimize these miscommunications? While people will always and forever be lazy, the principles of Web writing suggest separating out anything crucial from the body text. To wit: Any questions or requests should be put in (1) list (2) format, or at least be bolded or highlighted. The extra time this takes upfront will save you from wasting time down the road.
May 31st, 2009
One month ago, I posted some thoughts on the pros and cons of communicating via e-mail. As promised, I’d like now to outline some best practices that have served me well (even if I’ve learned them the hard way).
Granted, some of these are idiosyncratic, so if you disagree or have additional insights, definitely please let me know.
1. When responding, reply to the original e-mail rather than starting a new one. This way, you minimize confusion about what the original e-mail said, and the correspondence is contained in a single document, which makes everything easy to reference later.
2. Because we send so many e-mails today, it’s tempting to skip small chat and get right to the point. Yet while concision is commendable, being impersonal can often be perceived as being impolite. For this reason, I always begin e-mails with the recipient’s name, or at least a salutation. Compare receiving the message, “How’s XYZ coming along?” to “Hey Jill: How’s XYZ coming along?” This small courtesy acts as a cushion, buffering the professional with a touch of the personal.
3. When to follow-up with someone is, in my opinion, the thorniest issue. Do you wait one day, one week, one month? There’s no right answer here—as always, context is king, and patience is a virtue—but I’ve found that follow-ups are most effective when they include two things: (1) Recognition that your recipient is busy, and (2) A one-sentence summary of what you need.
4. CCing someone’s boss is a good way to get that person’s attention, but a bad way to establish rapport.
5. Perhaps the biggest gripe against e-mail is that it lacks nuance and emotion; it’s difficult to discern tone and body language on a computer screen. This is true, but these obstacles can be overcome in the fingers of a skilled communicator. Consider the standard reply, “Ok.” Does it mean “Whatever,” or “Good to go”? Without really knowing the sender, it’s a tough call. By contrast, a little chattiness—“Not wild about this, but in the interest of making progress, let’s do,” or “Great idea. Go for it”—goes a long way. Thus, to avoid misunderstanding, err on the side of elaboration.
6. In the interest of receiving a decisive response, try to limit each e-mail to a single issue, rather than using the opportunity to cram several questions into a single message. This is not a rigid rule, but it’s been my experience that even when you present a numbered list, people still overlook things.
7. Has this ever happened to you? You’re talking to someone at a party. Another person approaches you both, listens for a minute, and comments when there’s an opening. What makes this encounter appropriate is that at some point the third party usually introduces himself. By contrast, when we send e-mail, it’s common to CC people whom the recipient has never heard of. Isn’t this a bit rude? Is it so cumbersome to introduce the parties (By the way, I’m CCing Julia and Cal, our VP and SVP of government relations”)?
8. Instead of BCCing, forward the given e-mail after you send it. This way, the BCCed recipient can’t “reply to all,” which sometimes happens, thus nullifying the “blindness” of the carbon copy.
April 26th, 2009
I love e-mail. I think of it as I think of Google: I’d be lost without it. Indeed, with the exception of family and close friends and personal situations, I prefer communicating via my inbox.
I enjoy the challenge of converting my thoughts into words, of committing something to paper. Additionally, this process helps me to stay organized and helps to keep everyone accountable. Finally, e-mail allows me time to think before responding. For example:
1. After a great deal of time had been spent on a project, a contractor and I came to a crossroad. He insisted on something he claimed we had discussed in person, yet was nowhere in our contract, the project management software we used, or any of the e-mails we had exchanged. It was a classic he said-she said. By contrast, had this something been mentioned in writing, a resolution would have been far easier.
2. My bond broker, like most Wall Streeters, prefers the phone to e-mail. Yet after a conversation with him, even if I take notes, I’m usually a little confused. By contrast, when I e-mail him a question and he responds the same way, I have time to contemplate his answer and can reference it when (as often happens) the same question re-arises.
Of course, e-mail has shortcomings. For example:
1. E-mail makes it easy for people to sidestep issues they’d prefer to avoid.
2. Some people can’t write.
3. Even good writers can be lazy, which results in messages that are ambiguous and thus require follow-up.
In my next post, I’ll outline a few tips to remedy these shortcomings.
Posted by Jonathan Rick in 
Before entering the digital space…
I flacked for the American Conservative Union and the Cato Institute, and reported for Time magazine and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.