i really think it's the worst!
the conversation about whether or not to sign emails by an officer of your company has been going on for some time. in principal i don't have a strong opinion about this, but i have certain expectations from such 'signed' emails:
- the person that signs this message has read the content and approved it's content
- the email does not come from a 'no-reply' address (an address that only sends and all replies are discarded)
- when a reply is received, the person that signs the email is aware of the response
i have worked in a few online organisations and i've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. surprisingly it's the smaller organisations that seem to get it right. your emails aren't signed by anyone, but when you reply a bunch of people, including the customer service and marketing teams still see your reply and answer to it.
the bigger companies however get it completely wrong: singing the communication, sending from a 'no-reply' address and then don't even make the customer aware of the fact that the email won't be received by any human being!
two of these companies are british gas and british telecom. funny enough, you can find the bt-guy on twitter: warren buckley
. he actually replies there and told me that he signs it so people can find him and he does hear what the customer comments are. i have an idea for you warren: put your email address (or a secondary mailbox, if you want) on the communication you crooks send out - i'm sure that people would be happy to reply!
Labels: ecommerce, online marketing