Dear Client: Difference between revisions

2,004 bytes added ,  6 April 2022
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(12 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Still struggling to understand the pathology of someone who addresses an [[out of office]] auto-reply to Dear Sender, but suspect it is along the same lines as the commuter who cheerily says “Thanks Driver!” as he alights, thereby showing unusual courtesy and then trampling all over it in the space of two words.
{{a|email|}}At the [[JC]] we struggle to understand the pathology of someone who addresses an [[out of office]] auto-reply to “[[Dear Sender]]”, but we suspect it is along the same lines as the commuter who cheerily says “Thanks, Driver!” as he alights, thereby showing unusual courtesy and then trampling all over it in the space of two words.


{{seealso}}
“[[Dear Client]]” is much the same. It is bad business: “dear” conveys a degree of (professionally appropriate) intimacy with your correspondent. Nothing untoward about that, of course, but it does imply you care enough to keep a proper record of their main contact details so that you can, with confidence, ''know their names''.
 
“[[Client]]” implies quite the opposite: either that you ''don’t'' know or that you don’t ''care'': it conjures a faceless bovine — usually a herd of them — tethered to a stall in the milking shed. Now, if someone is sufficiently dear to you no need a warning about the possible consequences of Korea’s new short-selling regulations, ask yourself whether a mass mailout to them, and five hundred other customer, is really the right way to go. Mass, one-way, [[sent-from-an-unmonitored-account]] communications tend, by their existence, so say “you are ''not'' dear enough to justify me writing to you in person, much less calling you up.”
 
“Dear Client” is to say, “you ''are'' special to me and, I suppose, I ''could'' go to the effort of setting up a mail-merge and injecting your actual name from my ''immaculate'' [[client static data]] repository but, actually, hang it, life’s too ''short''.”
 
This is no [[paradox]], folks. There’s a simple solution if you find yourself sliding onto the floor between these particular stools: don’t use ''either'' “dear” ''or'' “client” when addressing your communication.
 
There is nothing wrong with ''not'' including a client’s name in the right circumstances: it might be a to-all communication going to 5,000 people updating them about MiFID 2 roll out, and the simple logistics of setting up a mail-merge  might just not be worth the bother. Fair enough, if so, ''but then don’t call them “dear”''. You’re running an ad in the paper for crying out loud, not inviting them to your son’s bar mitzvah.
 
{{sa}}
*[[Client communications]]
*[[Out of office]] replies
*[[Out of office]] replies
*[[Farewell]] email
*[[Farewell]] email
{{egg}}
{{egg}}
{{ref}}