Corporate Email Announcements
May 10, 2019 4:42 PM Subscribe
My boss and I (amicably) disagree about the best structure of internal announcement emails.
Can you either tell me why I'm wrong, or help me justify my position to him?
If emails are broken down in parts, they might be:
Main Point/Ask
Justification
Other Context/Info
My boss believes you should always begin with the justification. These are usually a paragraph, such as "In efforts to increase the effectiveness of our brand, the internal marketing committee has have developed a plan to start..." la la la, which--he believes--gives people context before you ask something from them. I think that approach works well for in-person communications but that the reverse is true for email: tell people up front the most critical info and let them read on if they need context or justification...even if--at first-- it makes they go "hey! why are we doing that?!" they at least care enough to read the justification...I don't know that the reverse is true.
Plenty of people in my company don't pay attention to internal announcement emails, I'm hoping people would pay more attention if our emails were much to-the-point at the outset.
I'd love to hear justification for certain points-of-view ESPECIALLY sources of authority (communications books? business studies?) for such a thing.
Thank you!
If emails are broken down in parts, they might be:
Main Point/Ask
Justification
Other Context/Info
My boss believes you should always begin with the justification. These are usually a paragraph, such as "In efforts to increase the effectiveness of our brand, the internal marketing committee has have developed a plan to start..." la la la, which--he believes--gives people context before you ask something from them. I think that approach works well for in-person communications but that the reverse is true for email: tell people up front the most critical info and let them read on if they need context or justification...even if--at first-- it makes they go "hey! why are we doing that?!" they at least care enough to read the justification...I don't know that the reverse is true.
Plenty of people in my company don't pay attention to internal announcement emails, I'm hoping people would pay more attention if our emails were much to-the-point at the outset.
I'd love to hear justification for certain points-of-view ESPECIALLY sources of authority (communications books? business studies?) for such a thing.
Thank you!
I agree with you. Here's one (randomly googled) source that sums it up well:
"...the first sentence should state the whole message of the memo in one sentence. This sentence is like an abstract to a report. One should not begin a memo with background information and work gradually to the main point. Instead the main point should come first and then the background and explanation of the message in fuller detail should follow."
posted by beyond_pink at 5:15 PM on May 10, 2019 [9 favorites]
"...the first sentence should state the whole message of the memo in one sentence. This sentence is like an abstract to a report. One should not begin a memo with background information and work gradually to the main point. Instead the main point should come first and then the background and explanation of the message in fuller detail should follow."
posted by beyond_pink at 5:15 PM on May 10, 2019 [9 favorites]
I think when you are talking about drastic/negative changes, your approach can feel very abrupt. "As of June 15, there will be no more overtime. Because..."
posted by praemunire at 5:19 PM on May 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by praemunire at 5:19 PM on May 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
I posit a third way.
When you are emailing a large group of people, who all need to heed the information in the email, but are busy people who either are bad at email whatever, it's important to put any 'must-dos' near the top, and if I'm sending a wordy email, I put a bullet point list near the top.
To use the example:
Overtime rules are changing. In this email:
- Why we are changing
- What you need to know.
Then proceed.
posted by freethefeet at 5:36 PM on May 10, 2019 [31 favorites]
When you are emailing a large group of people, who all need to heed the information in the email, but are busy people who either are bad at email whatever, it's important to put any 'must-dos' near the top, and if I'm sending a wordy email, I put a bullet point list near the top.
To use the example:
Overtime rules are changing. In this email:
- Why we are changing
- What you need to know.
Then proceed.
posted by freethefeet at 5:36 PM on May 10, 2019 [31 favorites]
In cases where I disagree with my boss I do what they say anyway. It's just a job. Your actual output effectiveness is arguable.
This sounds like one of those cases. If he lined it up for you as clearly as he did, you better believe I'd do it exactly that way. I'd take a note of my preference if I ever was micromanaged less.
posted by bbqturtle at 5:56 PM on May 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
This sounds like one of those cases. If he lined it up for you as clearly as he did, you better believe I'd do it exactly that way. I'd take a note of my preference if I ever was micromanaged less.
posted by bbqturtle at 5:56 PM on May 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
As someone who's worked extensively in internal communications, I generally agree with you.
Plenty of people in my company don't pay attention to internal announcement emails, I'm hoping people would pay more attention if our emails were much to-the-point at the outset.
Apologies if this is orthogonal to your question, or if you've already thought of or already do any of this stuff, but in my experience there is a tendency in some management circles to consider a message "communicated and done" with an email. The thing is, it's not the only channel you've got, and it's not the best one for certain things.
Having managers first communicate more sensitive messages (e.g., drastic/negative/super-important changes) via team meetings (whether regular ones or ones that have been called for this specific purpose) is a way better approach, followed up with the official announcement email afterwards. This assumes that all of the managers tasked with telling their teams will be fully briefed on what's happening first. It's the classic "communications cascade."
Leaning too heavily on emails as the go-to (or only) channel for highly important messages is - generally speaking - not a best practice. If the message is really important, it should be communicated through a few different channels, with the email being the "message of record," so to speak.
And speaking as an employee, I can say that hearing it from the person I directly report into first vs. a company-wide email from someone who might be many levels removed from me is generally preferable.
However, since not all messages are going to rise to the level of importance requiring this more hands-on/resource-intensive communications approach (but still require attention from people) and since you say this is a source of amicable disagreement, are you able to do something as rudimentary as measure read receipts for certain messages (Outlook, if in use in your organization, can do this), or use a purpose-built tool like Mailchimp to measure engagement with emails (the latter can be tricky to implement for internal communications in some organizations owing to information security/privacy protocols)?
I ask because you might want to challenge your boss to compare and contrast the effectiveness of your different email content approaches using something that's as close to "hard" data as you're going to be able to get. But you'd want to avoid using wildly different types of messages as a basis for comparison (e.g., "Lunch Room Fridge Cleanout" vs. "Annual Bonus Update" wouldn't be a fair A/B test). Do this more than once (perhaps over the course of a quarter or something like that).
This would provide justification for one or the other of your divergent points of view on the matter.
And if nothing else, this at least gives you a baseline for measurement of whether or not people are even opening the bloody things, and might help make the case for taking a modified (and more effective) approach to communicating important messages.
As for authoritative resources, I'd suggest signing up for the Gatehouse "State of the Sector" report. It's free (I've never had an issue with them getting spammy with me) and highlights certain trends and best practices in internal communications gleaned from surveys across a bunch of industries. Chances are you'll find some useful tidbits in there that you can use, and you can also opt into their thrice-a-year Journal of Internal Communication, which contains case studies that might be helpful to you.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:23 PM on May 10, 2019 [10 favorites]
Plenty of people in my company don't pay attention to internal announcement emails, I'm hoping people would pay more attention if our emails were much to-the-point at the outset.
Apologies if this is orthogonal to your question, or if you've already thought of or already do any of this stuff, but in my experience there is a tendency in some management circles to consider a message "communicated and done" with an email. The thing is, it's not the only channel you've got, and it's not the best one for certain things.
Having managers first communicate more sensitive messages (e.g., drastic/negative/super-important changes) via team meetings (whether regular ones or ones that have been called for this specific purpose) is a way better approach, followed up with the official announcement email afterwards. This assumes that all of the managers tasked with telling their teams will be fully briefed on what's happening first. It's the classic "communications cascade."
Leaning too heavily on emails as the go-to (or only) channel for highly important messages is - generally speaking - not a best practice. If the message is really important, it should be communicated through a few different channels, with the email being the "message of record," so to speak.
And speaking as an employee, I can say that hearing it from the person I directly report into first vs. a company-wide email from someone who might be many levels removed from me is generally preferable.
However, since not all messages are going to rise to the level of importance requiring this more hands-on/resource-intensive communications approach (but still require attention from people) and since you say this is a source of amicable disagreement, are you able to do something as rudimentary as measure read receipts for certain messages (Outlook, if in use in your organization, can do this), or use a purpose-built tool like Mailchimp to measure engagement with emails (the latter can be tricky to implement for internal communications in some organizations owing to information security/privacy protocols)?
I ask because you might want to challenge your boss to compare and contrast the effectiveness of your different email content approaches using something that's as close to "hard" data as you're going to be able to get. But you'd want to avoid using wildly different types of messages as a basis for comparison (e.g., "Lunch Room Fridge Cleanout" vs. "Annual Bonus Update" wouldn't be a fair A/B test). Do this more than once (perhaps over the course of a quarter or something like that).
This would provide justification for one or the other of your divergent points of view on the matter.
And if nothing else, this at least gives you a baseline for measurement of whether or not people are even opening the bloody things, and might help make the case for taking a modified (and more effective) approach to communicating important messages.
As for authoritative resources, I'd suggest signing up for the Gatehouse "State of the Sector" report. It's free (I've never had an issue with them getting spammy with me) and highlights certain trends and best practices in internal communications gleaned from surveys across a bunch of industries. Chances are you'll find some useful tidbits in there that you can use, and you can also opt into their thrice-a-year Journal of Internal Communication, which contains case studies that might be helpful to you.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 6:23 PM on May 10, 2019 [10 favorites]
If you take a look at magazine and newspaper advertisements from a century ago and more, they're kind of like the format your boss is proposing: a wall of text beginning with a justification or rationale why the reader should buy the company's product or service.
Ads like that worked like crap, hence modern advertising. Starting with
So I think you're right about getting to the point immediately, with the caveats mandolin conspiracy makes about how heavily you want to lean on email as a communication channel in the first place. And with bbqturtle's caveat that it might not serve any practical purpose for you to push the point even though you're right.
posted by XMLicious at 7:20 PM on May 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
Ads like that worked like crap, hence modern advertising. Starting with
When in the Course of human events...has its place but not in everyday messaging.
So I think you're right about getting to the point immediately, with the caveats mandolin conspiracy makes about how heavily you want to lean on email as a communication channel in the first place. And with bbqturtle's caveat that it might not serve any practical purpose for you to push the point even though you're right.
posted by XMLicious at 7:20 PM on May 10, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think you do need to be extremely direct about what you are requesting because people have a tendency to skim email. It's basically the same principal behind news article: most important info at the top. But if you want to switch the order up, I would still highlight the info people *need* to read. You might even benefit from giving some subheads:
What we're changing: Blah blah blah
Why this is important: Blah blah blah
How this affects you: Blah blah blah
posted by AppleTurnover at 9:31 PM on May 10, 2019 [3 favorites]
What we're changing: Blah blah blah
Why this is important: Blah blah blah
How this affects you: Blah blah blah
posted by AppleTurnover at 9:31 PM on May 10, 2019 [3 favorites]
I strongly agree with you. I write work emails trying to get the maximum amount of important content into the Outlook and Google preview sentences. Wasn't there a productivity trend in like 2009 that no email should be longer than 4-5 sentences?
posted by slidell at 10:04 PM on May 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by slidell at 10:04 PM on May 10, 2019 [1 favorite]
I think a softened "bottom line first" approach is best - certainly less irritating to read. I think it's ok to not be as abrupt as the first sentence having to be "There is no more overtime authorized until further notice." Like writing a college English Comp 101 persuasive essay though, the first paragraph should summarize what you're going to say, and also conclude with the thesis statement. The rest can develop the details as promised in the introduction.
posted by ctmf at 11:44 AM on May 11, 2019
posted by ctmf at 11:44 AM on May 11, 2019
(Then you read it again and consider cutting out everything after the first paragraph unless someone asks for more info. Sometimes you will, sometimes you won't. Even if you do cut it, it's a good exercise to have written the complete explanation, because it helps you organize your thoughts and give a consistent story to everyone when they ask.)
posted by ctmf at 11:49 AM on May 11, 2019
posted by ctmf at 11:49 AM on May 11, 2019
If you cut the details, it ends up being a "bottom line last" style, but it's still short and easy. Long mystery stories make me feel like you're over-rationalizing or trying to snake-oil-salesman me. Also, the more I have to hunt for the "what do you even WANT from me", the more likely I am to read incorrect implications into a lot of things first trying to guess ahead, and some of those incorrect things stick subconsciously.
posted by ctmf at 11:55 AM on May 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by ctmf at 11:55 AM on May 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
Wasn't there a productivity trend in like 2009 that no email should be longer than 4-5 sentences?
That's a bit limited, but I tend to think that the core important must-read part of an email should be that short. It can be followed by supporting details and background context.
"Property #7 is being removed from purchase considerations. Our financial team has decided that the cost is too high to make it profitable for us, and our negotiations team believes the owner will not reduce the price. People on the Property 7 purchasing committee will be shifted to assist with properties 5, 6, and 8."
Followed by: here's a list of names and which departments they're moving to; here's a link to the financial committee's report; here's a recap of why we're buying properties at all and how many we need to buy. Maybe even, here's why we thought #7 was useful and how we're going to manage our needs without it. But most people are going to skim past those points; they're included you don't have to create four different emails with different levels of info.
For more sensitive information, like the aforementioned "no more overtime," it's better to soften it a bit with a lead-in like "X topic is changing as of [date]." And while that might be followed by, "due to budget constraints" or "the new financial guidelines require," the key information should still be direct and near the beginning of the email. Nobody wants to wade through four paragraphs of corporate boilerplate to find out their take-home pay is being reduced.
Bosses who think "put the explanation up front" are often bosses who don't actually read their emails - they have someone else who does that for them.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:28 PM on May 11, 2019
That's a bit limited, but I tend to think that the core important must-read part of an email should be that short. It can be followed by supporting details and background context.
"Property #7 is being removed from purchase considerations. Our financial team has decided that the cost is too high to make it profitable for us, and our negotiations team believes the owner will not reduce the price. People on the Property 7 purchasing committee will be shifted to assist with properties 5, 6, and 8."
Followed by: here's a list of names and which departments they're moving to; here's a link to the financial committee's report; here's a recap of why we're buying properties at all and how many we need to buy. Maybe even, here's why we thought #7 was useful and how we're going to manage our needs without it. But most people are going to skim past those points; they're included you don't have to create four different emails with different levels of info.
For more sensitive information, like the aforementioned "no more overtime," it's better to soften it a bit with a lead-in like "X topic is changing as of [date]." And while that might be followed by, "due to budget constraints" or "the new financial guidelines require," the key information should still be direct and near the beginning of the email. Nobody wants to wade through four paragraphs of corporate boilerplate to find out their take-home pay is being reduced.
Bosses who think "put the explanation up front" are often bosses who don't actually read their emails - they have someone else who does that for them.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 4:28 PM on May 11, 2019
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:04 PM on May 10, 2019 [13 favorites]