(1) No, not at all. But I never claimed it was. I actually think it is a good idea to make automated messages appear to be from an actual individual...my point was that you need to be consistent...if you're going to be personal be personal throughout the entire process (and don't revert to a ticketing system halfway through...or don't let customers think you're reverting to a ticketing system).
(2) Again, related to the point above. I'm not bothered by the fact that they are using their software to manage their correspondence, I'm bothered that they tried to pretend they weren't. If I had sent an unsolicited e-mail I would have expected a prompt automated reply. But I didn't send an unsolicited e-mail, rather they reached out to me with questions and a misrepresentation of their knowledge of my company's website.
(3) I made it clear that it wasn't my style but that I understand how others may like it. And I don't agree with the implication that all "web companies" should be measured on different standards/metrics than brick-and-mortar companies.
Fair enough - I understand now that it was the inconsistency in their level of personality that was the issue. I agree that insincerity is bad but it's pretty borderline how much you'd read into one of these "semi-automated" emails anyway - most companies will give you the usual "we love what you're doing and want to help you out" and I don't think anything more if it than I do when someone says "hello how are you" without expecting a breakdown of my day.
I guess with point (3), you can't have your cake and eat it too - you either have formal but impersonal or informal but personal. Web companies often opt for the latter, because engagement with customers as real people has proved to be a great long-term strategy.
I think the thing that feels most uncomfortable is that the first sentence is basically an outright lie. It's clearly, as you say, the standard "you're cool, so are we, let's play" line. The issue, I guess, is that they've tried to masquerade that as something else.
Comments
(1) No, not at all. But I never claimed it was. I actually think it is a good idea to make automated messages appear to be from an actual individual...my point was that you need to be consistent...if you're going to be personal be personal throughout the entire process (and don't revert to a ticketing system halfway through...or don't let customers think you're reverting to a ticketing system).
(2) Again, related to the point above. I'm not bothered by the fact that they are using their software to manage their correspondence, I'm bothered that they tried to pretend they weren't. If I had sent an unsolicited e-mail I would have expected a prompt automated reply. But I didn't send an unsolicited e-mail, rather they reached out to me with questions and a misrepresentation of their knowledge of my company's website.
(3) I made it clear that it wasn't my style but that I understand how others may like it. And I don't agree with the implication that all "web companies" should be measured on different standards/metrics than brick-and-mortar companies.
Fair enough - I understand now that it was the inconsistency in their level of personality that was the issue. I agree that insincerity is bad but it's pretty borderline how much you'd read into one of these "semi-automated" emails anyway - most companies will give you the usual "we love what you're doing and want to help you out" and I don't think anything more if it than I do when someone says "hello how are you" without expecting a breakdown of my day.
I guess with point (3), you can't have your cake and eat it too - you either have formal but impersonal or informal but personal. Web companies often opt for the latter, because engagement with customers as real people has proved to be a great long-term strategy.
I think the thing that feels most uncomfortable is that the first sentence is basically an outright lie. It's clearly, as you say, the standard "you're cool, so are we, let's play" line. The issue, I guess, is that they've tried to masquerade that as something else.