Writing email that gets read

Here's a thought. Newspaper articles are meant to read, right? Well, you can't assume everything. Nevertheless, that's the idea. So why not craft your emails like news articles. Wayne Turmel:

The subject line is the headline. When you read news — either in print or online — how do you decide what’s worth reading, what you’ll save til later and what you don’t care about? You look at the headline. In an email that’s the subject line. There’s nothing more frustrating than looking for an email about the Johnson Project under the heading “re: great seeing you Thursday.” The subject line should tell the reader what the email is about and whether it’s worth reading. If the content changes, don’t just hit REPLY– take the time to change the subject line.

The first paragraph is the “lead.” In a news article, the first paragraph contains the “who, what, when, where, why” — all the important information. You can quickly scan it and figure out if it’s worth further investigation. This doesn’t mean you leave out the details, it just means you don’t put them before the action item — or before telling the reader why this message is important to them. The critical information should be at the beginning of your email — preferably in the first paragraph, so people can read it in their preview pane.

The article is edited before it’s published. Every news article goes past at least two or more sets of eyes before it’s committed to paper or the web. Why, then, do we trust that we can rattle off critical business information without even rereading it ourselves, let alone have someone else take a look at it before we hit “send”? You don’t save any time by creating an email in seconds — and then spending days apologizing for misinformation or the tone of your email. Just because you can send things at the speed of light, doesn’t mean you should. Pause and reread your email before sending it. If it’s really critical have someone else take a look at it first.

When they won't answer your email

We've all experienced the frustration of not hearing from someone we've emailed or phoned. What to do? The reality is that some people are juggling hundreds of emails a day and they do what we do: they triage, answering only the most critical immediately and holding the rest for later.

Peter Bregman, CEO of a management consulting firm, suggests several courses of action:

I've made the mistake of sending multiple messages to the unresponsive person. But I realized something: not a single one of those multiple follow ups worked. Sure the people might have called me back eventually, but I never — not once — got the work.

What to do?

One, elevate the follow up to a crisis email. If, for example, you're pitching your services, you could suggest another client is waiting for your time. I would only suggest saying that if it's true. If it's not, it's a perilous gamble.

Two, recognize that it's not a crisis — at least not to the person you're trying to get a response from — and accept that they will respond in their own time or not at all.

Then, he says, manage your own emotions. How? Follow up once, after the meeting, and the moment you send that follow up — not a week later but as soon as you hit send or hang up the phone — assume they're not interested. They've said "no." Close the book. Take the follow up off your to do list. Move on to the next thing.

One other possibility, Bregman says, and I do this: You can always send other information unrelated to the open issue — articles, updates, referrals — that might be of interest and deepen the relationship. But don't follow up on the open issue.