3 ms·
I doubt that he went through his whole process for this example email but here are my thoughts (at the risk of over-analysing). 1) Para 1 and 2 provide a refer
by amirmc 14y ago
I doubt that he went through his whole process for this example email but here are my thoughts (at the risk of over-analysing).
1) Para 1 and 2 provide a reference frame from which to consider the rest of the email. Yes, length can sound bullshitty but used well it can also provide helpful context. In this specific example I do agree that it could be shorter but not necessarily by much. Para 1 by itself doesn't say enough.
2) This is highly dependent on the type of company. I guess for Moz-ers this is usual (same for the sign-off).
3) Normally I'd agree with you but in this example there's only one and it work in the email's favour (for me at least).
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoPoint 1 is interesting as some people like more bulk and context, others are just yeah, yeah, yeah, get on with it. Broadly I think the mail is too long and this was the paragraph that stood out, but I accept that different people might see it differently. Point 2 I still disagree on. I don't think it depends on the company at all - saying you'll put something in your diary isn't the same as being asked to account for your time. One is voluntary, the other isn't. You know the CEO is only doing it to try and put himself in the same position but you also know he's not the one who isn't trusted. CEOs aren't the same as the rest of us. They're answerable in completely different ways, for different things. Yes they need to limit their "special treatment" but it's a mistake for them to pretend that the same rules apply to them because everyone knows it isn't true (and so long as they're doing their jobs and treating us OK, that's fine).