Anonymous e-mailers
My friend Melanie Sill, editor and vp at the N&O, explains why she doesn't answer most anonymous e-mail. I figure it's like an old-fashioned letter without a return address or signature. No reply needed.
Not me. I try to answer all e-mail*, including some that's not even sent to me or expecting a reply (letters for publication as "letters to the editor"). I get a load of correspondence, but I figure if someone sits down to write down their thoughts, they deserve a reply. Even if the anonymous e-mails are personal attacks, I'll answer. Just because someone is showing me their lack of upbringing doesn't mean I forget mine.
To tell the truth, it's not infrequent that, within their attacks, the e-mailers have a good point that should be acknowledged. (Although, I quibble with the guy who wrote that my stewardship of the paper rivals Saddam's reign over Iraq.)
It would be nice if the writers had the courage to sign their e-mails. You all know what I think of anonymous commenters. Still, I think they deserve a reply.
* Some of my regular correspondents don't get immediate replies to every e-mails. I'm thinking we have the sort of relationship that allows that.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
(Although, I quibble with the guy who wrote that my stewardship of the paper rivals Saddam's reign over Iraq.)* JR
No doubt a believer that Saddam had those WMD missing e-mails after all in the delete file and voted for Bush.
Posted on June 26, 2007 10:58 PM
Some of us are known by many...but not by all.
Many authors choose a fictious name.
Sometimes the choice has nothing to do with courage.
Unrelated to this post....How do you grow your business by contracting? Is the complete NR available online? What cost? If not...why?
thanks,
me
Posted on June 26, 2007 10:59 PM
Me, I can't think of a reason other than fear of something that in a private one-to-one communication an e-mailer would choose to anonymous. (I also am dubious about bloggers' reasons for anonymity, too, particularly when they comment on public affairs or criticize others.)
The complete newspaper is not online. There are a variety of reasons, some philosophical, some technical. As everything online isn't in the paper, everything in the paper isn't online.
Not sure what you're fishing for with the growing business question. Elaborate.
Posted on June 27, 2007 5:59 AM
Why do you not have an online subscription (for money) that I can purchase?
Posted on July 5, 2007 8:22 PM
It's just not the way we have decided to go philosophically, me. We don't see a lot of money or customers there.
Posted on July 6, 2007 8:49 AM
We travel a fair amount and find stopping and starting the paper a nuisance. Sometimes we would return to find several papers in our driveway even though we called and tried to place them on hold.
On other rainy days our paper would be soaked...
Most times it was delivered very well.
Currently we have dropped our subscription due to lack of need. We find a good amount of information online for both local and national. We further rely on local TV news.
I see the online newspaper as a part of our future and believe that the New York Times and Wall Street Journal would agree. Both charge for online service....I believe.
One way to find out how many customers and how much money is to offer full, complete content...maybe even with a few extras...and see what the market returns look like. You would be experimenting on the leading edge in my opinion.
Of course continue with the limited online paper that you currently offer for free.
Posted on July 6, 2007 4:37 PM
Thanks, me, but it's not that easy. There's expense in putting everything online. There's an entire registration and password-protected system that has to be set up, which raises the philosophical questions I referred to earlier.
Plus, the Times and the Journal have unique/destination writers and content that allows them to charge. I'm not convinced we have that.
Still, if we put the whole paper online, how much would you pay for it?
Posted on July 6, 2007 4:53 PM
...hmmmm...great question...
I would pay as little as possible...grin.
I might pay as much as what the delivered paper costs if it contained all the content...plus a little. That would be a great profit. Print only has value for those not online or those with pets.
In my business we use Triad Careers.com and are much more pleased than our earlier attempts with print. The simple interaction between applicant and employer would be my guess why.
Currently I pay zero... for the NR.
Most of the costs you describe or fixed and fairly minimal though others would easily know with much greater accuracy.
I pay $250 per year for briefing.com. Most of their content is available elsewhere for free.
They just package it well.
Develop the interaction between reader and news and ride the crest of the wave. Blogging is not the answer in my opinion...but may represent the wagon as compared to the car.
If I can help let me know. I work cheap for the first hour...smile.
Posted on July 6, 2007 11:27 PM