|
|
|
|
|
|
METAFORIX MAIL Volume 2, Issue 6 November 2, 2001 Sites and
insights for the Information Age On Monday
and Tuesday, November 5 and 6, the Internet
Healthcare Coalition will hold its annual meeting at the Marriott
Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. A special panel has been added to
the program dealing with the how the the war on terrorism may affect privacy
and security in Internet healthcare. Thanks for reading. CONTENTS AT A GLANCE
ON MY MIND: The Write Stuff
The Proofreader's Tale Not long ago, I spoke with a woman who sells computer systems by telephone. Potential customers contact her when they're on the verge of buying -- not the other way round -- but still, it's a tough business. It takes many fruitless contacts to close a single sale.Ultimately, I joined her list of fruitless contacts by choosing a different vendor. But the salesperson made an indelibly positive impression for herself and her company by sharing her philosophy of customer service. "Always keep in mind," she said, "that you can't predict your customer's future. Some day that person on the other end of the phone may be a CEO in a position to badmouth your product or to throw a lot of business your way. Treat each customer as though he or she has the potential to make or break your business reputation. Because they do." Those words of wisdom came to mind the other day in connection with my unsuccessful application for a freelance gig. Our nation's crisis hasn't stopped the bills from coming in, so I thought I might earn a few extra bucks by taking on some freelance proofing or editing. After all, I'm a writer, and if the truth be told, I actually like that sort of work, despite its woefully inadequate pay rates. The gig in question involved proofing manuscripts for an "author's submission service." The application process seemed sophisticated and well-designed. After an initial e-mail correspondence, the company snail-mailed its proofreading test packet. The packet consisted of the following: - a one-page form letter, approximately 800 words of miniscule single-spaced text - a four-page grammar and punctuation test, poorly copied from what appeared to be a high-school English text, circa 1978 - a three-page formatting template for short stories and essays, somewhat confusing, but comprehensible - a four-page story, in need of minimal editing, proofing, and formatting in accordance with the template. The letter contained general information about the company's policies and payment rates, along with directions for completing and returning the test. The next-to-last (ninth!) paragraph, seven paragraphs down from the general directions, instructs applicants to include a "biography page (not resume)" as part of the submission, describing current activities and future plans "in your own words." I dutifully completed and returned the packet. I had no illusions of instant acceptance, having many times been turned down based on age and overqualification. Neverthless, I was stunned by the contents and tone of the form rejection letter that arrived a couple of weeks later. After stating that I had unfortunately not scored high enough to land the position, the writer reminds me that "most of our clients are extremely well-educated" people who hold degrees in English. The writer, herself, no longer does any actual reading for clients, because her proofers are "far more qualified" than she to "provide the service our clients have come to expect." Then, not wishing to characterize my proofing as "below average," the writer asserts her belief that I can offer "very good service" to my clients and kindly supplies contact information for placing classified ads in two publications directed to authors. I will not indulge the uncharitable impulse to identify the company that issued the letter. I will, however, share edited versions of the e-mail correspondence that ensued. My e-mail to the writer: Dear Writer, Thank you for notifying me that I failed to score high enough to meet your proofreading standards. To say I am astonished is an understatement. In fact, you may be interested in the process I used to complete your test. Because I am such an experienced writer and so "extremely well-educated" [here I listed my degrees], I checked each answer in at least one usage source to make certain I was not allowing stylistic considerations to interfere with the "rules." Several of your questions do not have "right" answers or have more than one "right" answer. In some cases, the "correct" form depends upon context that has not been supplied. In other cases, experts disagree on the preferred form. If you read the biographical statement I prepared at your request, you are aware that proofreading is not my life's ambition. Perhaps I scored so low that you never got around to reading the bio, or perhaps I was rejected for some reason other than my test score. In any case, I doubt that I am the only "extremely well-educated" respondent to your ad. In light of your generous advice about classified ads, I have a couple of suggestions to offer in return. First, I recommend changing the wording of your form rejection letter - if you must use a form letter -- to make it a tad less condescending. Second, I recommend that you adopt an updated test, rather than one that appears to be at least twenty years old. Thank you for again for considering my application. It will make an excellent case example the next time I do a workshop in business communications. The writer's e-mailed response, received some twelve hours later, prefaced with a date but no salutation: Because we received over 200 tests it would not be wise to utilize our time responding personally to each one. We must use a form rejection. We do not intentionally attempt to be condescending in our letter. I'm sorry it came across that way. Test results are based on many things and our proofreaders must be "good" in a very particular way. In addition to reading work from "well-educated" clients (our proofreaders don't need to be well-educated, simply good at what they do for us), our proofreaders must have a good eye for detail and catch formatting problems as well as correct grammar, punctuation, etc. Most people who apply to proof for us are not a good fit because they don't score well on the formatting area of the test story. They miss improper tabs, abbreviations, bold/center codes. Or, they rewrite or revise in a way that we know will not work for us. We wish you the best in finding work that suits you. My final salvo: Thanks for getting back to me. Your message contains the seeds of a much more honest and less condescending rejection letter. I hope you'll nurture them. Now, there are lots of things wrong with this picture, possibly (although not necessarily) including the sarcasm of my own message. But the story also raises a number of interesting questions: - If the company expects an applicant to spend substantial time "auditioning" for a job, is a personalized salutation on a rejection letter really too much to ask in these days of one-click customization? (To this company's credit, they did have the courtesy to send a letter out at all. Most do not.) - Do the company's letters unintentionally subvert the expertise it claims? I would be loath to engage a writing and editing service that provides poorly organized instructions, relies on antiquated examples, and is tone deaf to the metamessages embedded in its correspondence. Wouldn't you? - Is the content of the rejection letter -- putting aside its tone -- genuinely appropriate for every rejected applicant? In this case, I think the real reason for the rejection is hidden in the the writer's second e-mail, where she discusses what makes a good fit. My guess is that, if all those academic degrees didn't do me in, I was among those who "rewrite or revise in a way that we know will not work for us." I can deal with that. What I can't deal with is a condescending, disingenuous, one-size-fits-all rejection. - Was the correspondence generated by this rejection worth my time or the time of the company? My own answer is a resounding yes. First, responding made me feel better -- not an insignificant consideration in these scary times. Second, I really did develop a case example to use in my workshops. And third, I turned the whole thing into a column. The company's answer, in my view, depends on whether they learned enough from this experience to actually reexamine their application process and make changes their rejection process. But I can't speak for them, now, can I. The moral of the tale is just what the computer salesperson said: "Treat each customer as though he or she has the potential to make or break your business reputation. Because they do." You never can tell whether that job applicant is a potential customer (or a journalist who might splatter your name all over the Internet instead of just turning you into an anonymous example). So, your best bet is to treat every business associate, online and off, as though you were dealing with your most important customer. Cordially,
Access previous issues of Metaforix Mail by date by visiting our archives. Or use the search box on any page of the Metaforix site (www.metaforix.com) to search by keywords.
INFORMATICON Claudia
Rosett on "The Sweet Comfort Of Words Between Friends" "Many of us were read to as children, of course, and may now read to our own. But how often these days do adults read to one another? We are too busy, too wary perhaps of a pastime so decidedly of the past. But reading aloud lets you hear each others' voices in a new way, and value afresh the power of the English language. At its best, it can conjure an enchanted circle."
POST - 9/11 NEW SITES AND PAGES Citizens
of Cyberspace Respond
Here
are some additions to our series highlighting innovative, comprehensive,
and/or just plain excellent Internet responses post-9/11:
Learn how Metaforix can help you and your business take a byte of the Information Age. See what we have to offer at www.metaforix.com. CYBERSPEAK
A Deadlier Strain of Hacking Over the past two months, we have all learned more than we ever wanted to know about hijacking, suicide bombing, bioterrorism, and rogue nuclear powers. Now comes cyberterrorism, malicious attacks on technological and communications infrastructures designed to destroy networks, erase or compromise critical data, interrupt communications, and generally disrupt the flow of business.Whether inflicted by hostile states, sophisticated terrorist groups, or amateur hackers, cyberterrorism has the potential to wreak havoc in every corner of the public and private sectors. For starters, consider banking, energy and water supplies, medical care, transportation, and telecommunications. Today, much of the world's business is transacted via interrelated computer networks. Damage to any part of the network could have widely dispersed consequences throughout entire systems critical to the health, safety, and well-being of citizens. In addition, the easy availability of information on computer technologies offers even people with limited skills the opportunity to inflict vast amounts of damage. Experts recommend coordinated efforts by insurers, private sector businesses, and government agencies to protect against cyberterrorism, mitigate its impact, and/or minimize its costs. Source consulted: "What Businesses Should Know About Cyberterrorism" by Peter K. Yu, GigaLaw.com, October 2001.
MEDIA: Learning from Our Misfortunes Balancing Act Will America's vaunted free press be a casualty of the war on terrorism? What about journalistic integrity?It's challenging enough to be a journalist in these days of 24-hour news cycles, the news-as-entertainment phenomenon, the ever-shrinking circle of media ownership, and the ever-heightening pressure for advertising revenues. Add public scoldings from the President and his aides, cultivation of valued sources, pre-emptive self-censorship, and spin doctoring on a grand, multilingual, multicultural scale. And don't forget sincere love of country and deep-seated concern for the welfare of one's fellow citizens in the global village. What's a news organization to do? Every choice is fraught with peril to patriotism, integrity, and/or career. How are citizens to distinguish fact from propaganda, responsible judgment from political capitulation, security measures from power trips, legitimate news from breaking press conferences? A few examples illustrate the challenge of sorting these questions out: - Shortly after 9/11, an unnamed member of Congress leaves a security briefing and leaks the startling news that the likelihood of additional attacks on the United States is 100 per cent. The President responds by imposing drastic limits on the information that will henceforth be communicated to Congress. Clearly, a secret told to 535 politicians is no secret. Equally clearly, Presidential pique does not trump Congressional oversight rights and responsibilities. There is an obvious and legitimate need for classified information in a time of war, even an undeclared war. There is an equally obvious and legitimate need to preserve the balance of powers, especially in a divided government. The conflicting imperatives remain in conflict. - A month after the attacks, Osama bin Laden delivers to Al Jazeera television a carefully orchestrated video. Bin Laden and another Al Qaeda spokesman praise the perpetrators, call on Muslims worldwide to join the jihad, and threaten further violence. As Al Jazeera airs the tape, CNN does so simultaneously, translating it in real time. Other networks follow suit. Within a day or so, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice convenes network spokespersons to warn them how dangerous it is to air such material, which may contain coded messages to terrorists here on the ground. The networks agree to screen future messages before broadcasting them and to use "journalistic discretion" in deciding whether to broadcast them in full, in part, or at all. Thereafter, observant viewers begin to notice a rash of delays, apologies, and disclaimers peppering discussions of any terror-related topic, however mildly controversial. The notes of caution are so clamorous, a viewer might be forgiven for wondering whether CNN has morphed into the official mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Does this caution result from the sound application of journalistic discretion, or is some less high-minded force at work? - This past Monday, Attorney General John Ashcroft calls a news conference to alert the public to threats of additional attacks within the U.S. over the following week. Although the information, developed by the FBI, is "credible," it is completely nonspecific "as to the type of attack or specific targets." Put aside the question of why the announcement was made by the Attorney General and FBI Director Robert Mueller, with Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge nowhere in sight. The more important question is whether it was justified at all. Was the administration exercising due precaution, or attempting to insure itself against accusations of being unprepared for a new attack? You won't find any answers in this quarter -- just questions and more questions. Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post and CNN, does a consistently excellent job of examining journalistic conundrums post-9/11. I heartily recommend his column and his weekly pundit fest, Reliable Sources. But even Howard Kurtz is far better at posing the questions than he is at answering them.
Please note that the links contained in Metaforix Mail are current as of the time of publication. Some of them may no longer be operative at the time you access past issues. To
Volume 2, Issue 5 October 12, 2001 |
|
||
|
© 2000 -2001 Metaforix Incorporated
|
|||||
