From the category archives:

Communicating

Image of a fire alarmOn Monday, I announced my new email policy of checking email once a day.

The first protest that policy is likely to garner is the panic-response: “But what if there’s an emergency?!”

I’m not worried about that. (And you shouldn’t be either.) Here’s why.

“Emergencies” are rare. Very rare.

People label as an emergency anything from not wanting to wait more than 5 minutes for an autoresponder to arrive* to forgetting their password to access a forum** to wanting me to tell them what phone number they should use to call a teleseminar when that number was actually in the email to which they were responding***.

* I once received an email whose subject was “URGENT EMERGENCY NEED RESPONSE” and it turned out that all the sender wanted was to download a freebie .pdf without waiting for the automatically-generated email to arrive. And no, that pdf did not contain life-saving techniques. And yes, they autoresponder was sent… about 2 minutes later.

** Inconvenience is not the same thing as an emergency. I promise. It really isn’t.

*** Email is too reflexive.

Genuine emergencies come about extremely infrequently. And for those, I am available via Twitter or (as a last resort) by phone.

Emergencies require few words.

If there’s an emergency, a Twitter DM will be ample. You can say, “Site down! Call me at 555-xxx-xxxx!” or “Credit card charge system going haywire & charging people 10x normal rates! Help!” and have plenty of characters to spare.

If you have to get wordy with your explanation or request, odds are it’s not an actual emergency.

Think about it: how many true emergency situations really require more than 140 characters? Fire! Fallen and I can’t get up! Pinned by circus elephant! Out of coffee! All real emergencies, all very brief.

It’s probably not an emergency.

99% of all “But what about…?” questions can be answered with this. Impatience, inconvenience, and preference are all distinct from urgent. If neither your health nor your livelihood are in jeopardy, it’s probably not an emergency.

And if it’s not an emergency, it can probably very safely wait until I check email tomorrow!

{ 7 comments }

image of the burden of emailEmail, for many of us, has reached a point where it feels burdensome and out of control on more days than not. Some folks are ditching email entirely–an impulse I can’t claim is unfamiliar, though I’m not prepared to go to that extreme for business reasons.

I’m not alone. Leo declared independence from email. Gwen is digitally downsizing and has previously mentioned migrating off of email. Havi says her biggest regret about going on email sabbatical was not doing it sooner.

Reaching the “breaking point” in your relationship with your email inbox is, for a growing number of digital denziens, a rite of passage. Some, like Leo, leave email behind. Others, like Havi, outsource the email handling. And others, like Gwen, are redefining and restructuring their use of and dependence on email.

I fall into that last category. I’ve set up a new contact page as part of my own process of restructuring and redefining. On that page, I describe my new email policy: I’ll be checking email (officially) once a day, at noon Eastern, and responding to emails within 1-3 days of receiving them.

The two reasons email has become ineffective (and how checking it once a day addresses them)

1. Email is too reflexive.

It has become, unfortunately, way too easy to hit “compose” or “reply.”

The very instant a query comes to mind, some folks fire off an email, rather than pausing to consider where else they might find the information they’re seeking

The “Compose/Reply” buttons have superseded our own impetus to pay attention, and at a certain point, it becomes disrespectful to the person you’re emailing. It says, “My time is too important to be bothered reading/checking my info/etc., but your time is far less valuable, so you do it instead.”

I once received an email from someone asking me to provide them with the phone number for a teleseminar. The number was contained in the email to which they were responding. But they explained, and I quote: “I’m sure the info is here, but it’s easier to email you and have you tell me than to read the email! lol”

That is just not okay.

Checking email once a day addresses this because…

…it builds in a time-delay between the email and the response that helps eliminate the perception that it’s faster or easier for the recipient to read/look at/process something than it is for the sender to do so.

If you know that your email won’t be received and processed for 12+ hours, it forces you to stop and think, “Do I want to figure this out myself and have the information sooner, or do I want to send the email and wait for the reply?” It’s no longer always easier to hit compose than it is to read your own email or make use of your own resources. That time delay also helps me seem a bit less like a perpetually available information desk–an image I’m happy to shed.

2. Email is too stressful & panic-ridden.

For better or worse, email (and voice mail, to some degree) bring out the Big Red Panic Button Pusher in many of us. Because the technology is so instantaneous, we want the response to be just as immediate. And somewhere along the line, we forgot that wanting immediate responses isn’t the same thing as needing them.

So when a sender sends an email, and in under 24 hours starts sending follow-up emails asking if the prior emails were received (and if they’ve been received, when were they received? and where are they in my queue? and how long ’til I do what’s asked in the email? and… etc. etc. etc.) it becomes a recipe I like to call, “Marissa goes insane with a twist of agonized screaming.”

That which can be responded to immediately does not equate to that which should be or needs to be responded to immediately. In our logic brains, most of us know that. In the part of our brains that controls email usage, all we see is the Bright Red Panic Button that starts flashing as soon as we hit “send” and doesn’t quiet down until we get a response… at which point we hit “Reply” and then start the whole panic sequence all over again.

Checking email once a day addresses this because…

…it sets the proper expectations. And expectations matter.

Just as someone wouldn’t start panicking a few hours after mailing a letter because they know that the mail doesn’t arrive in that span of time, hopefully the tendency to panic about email will be quelled because the sender will know that I don’t respond to email in that span of time.

Being “on call” via email every day, all the time, is neither sustainable nor desirable–and the truth is, no matter how available I make myself or how fast my average response time is, there will be a pressure to be more available and to respond even faster. At some point, it becomes necessary to take control of the expectations and set them yourself, rather than continually trying to meet the expectations others are setting for you.

There will be an adjustment period as people get used to the idea that I’m no longer perpetually on-call via email, but the only way to begin that adjustment is to set the new boundaries and expectations, and begin acting accordingly.

Your turn!

Do you find yourself dealing with overly reflexive emails or panicky senders? Do you find yourself sending overly reflexive emails or being the panicky sender? What are your strategies for coping with these two problems (whether as the sender or recipient)?

{ 15 comments }

DaveFleet.com offers a great blog post called Don’t “Message” Me.

The main idea of the post ties into the increasing push for corporate transparency; people are no longer sated by a soundbite, or a tagline.

Consumers no longer want to be told, “Just do it.” We want to be shown why we should “just do it,” and what the benefit will be–to us, to our communities, to our businesses, to our way of life.

The taglines work best when there’s substance to support them.  You can’t just “message” the consumer. You have to give them a whole website in which to explore your brand.

Talk to your audience; don’t market to them.

People (especially in the Gen-X & Gen-Y demographics–and almost universally among the Millenials) demand companies not only set up a corporate website or blog, but scrutinize those sites and blogs for personal connections rather than additional marketing speak.

As blogger Lance Winslow put it, “[L]oyal brand consumers do appreciate the blogs, as they talk to them and not market at them.” (from Automotive Digital Marketing, Dec. 2008)

An article entitled “Advertising in the Age of Distrust” notes that the plethora of media sources offer a multitude of opportunities for communication, but that those opportunities must be used selectively.

Emphasizing the “Don’t Message Me” consumer demand, the Age of Distrust article offers four pointers to companies wanting to communicate effectively:

  1. Consistently communicate. People do business with companies and people they trust. Start-and-stop communication efforts undermine that trust.
  2. Choose a credible medium. The article correctly points out that teens view text messaging as a viable and credible form of communication; more mature consumers do not. Similarly, a corporate Myspace page is likely to receive ridicule unless your audience is musicians or teens; but a corporate Twitter account can be a powerful way to connect with the audience in a very personal way (unless you spam the hell out of them, in which case, you’ll get thrown back to the ridicule pool). See Zappos, Comcast, and Starbucks for examples of good corporate online interaction… I refuse to link to the spam-a-licious bad examples.
  3. Now is the time to do something new. Lots of folks pointed to the Obama campaign as working this angle with aplomb. I agree. The idea of an “online campaign” was new. The notion of a grass roots effort receiving its supporting base from microchips and TXTs sounded improbable. But there was a crowd out there, hungry for that kind of interaction. Hungry for someone to acknowledge them as a viable resource and an audience deserving of attention. Obama’s campaign jumped right in–and received tremendous support from a key demographic as a result.
  4. Watch the tone. This tip most closely echoes the “don’t message me” line. You can’t just bellar at your consumer and trust that they will obey (unless the consumer is whatever target market that keeps Billy Mays on TV, and I don’t even pretend to understand their demographic). And if you are going to strong-arm the consumer, you better have the cajones to cop to it. (ShamWow and their “I know I’m a sleaze and it’s okay because the product is just that good” spokesman Vince nailed this.)

I watch the evolution of corporate communication with fascination. And, despite my rampant cynicism, with hope that consumers will continue demanding transparency and real communication, rather than taglines and marketing slogans… and that the Corporateers will have no choice but to comply.

A girl can dream.

Apropos of absolutely nothing in this post, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MUMS!!!

{ 0 comments }