(Reader Feedback on Format of E-newsletter)
We wanted to share the following critique of the Commentary e-newsletter format to stimulate discussion. In response to the format change, some readers have thanked us for "keeping up" with what's current and for providing a forum for reader feedback, while others have complained about having to be online to read the full commentaries. But this is by far the most impassioned response we've seen. (See our reply below.)
Dear Mr. Josephson,
I have been overwhelmed the past several weeks and have just now begun to look at my commentary e-mails starting back in the middle of October.
I am dismayed that you have "slimmed down" the e-mails we receive.
Even though it was first noted in the Week 538 e-mail, I did not receive the smaller version until Week 539. Perhaps this is because I was receiving my commentaries via non-HTML. I quickly opened Week 545 (the one just received this evening) and saw that now I am receiving it in HTML.
I do not just dislike the new format; I despise it. I save all of these e-mails in MS Word documents so that I can share them with my children without having to be online. In the non-HTML format with all of the commentaries, this was a simple thing to do. Now, however, it will be a nightmare of slow cutting and pasting what is in the newsletter, then going to the website to copy each commentary. Further, to read letters, I will now have to click on each individual one. You have quadrupled the time I need to take to save these e-mails, and there is no good reason that I can see.
I refer you to your commentary 539.5. You aren't comfortable with new technologies, and yet you do this? Please, let those of us who preferred the simple, non-HTML format and getting our commentaries in the e-mail instead of clicking here and clicking there to read them have that back.
I have a poor opinion of people telling me that they are sending me something in an e-mail when in fact the e-mail contains the link to actually get what I want to get. To my view, this is dishonest. You say you are sending your commentaries to us in these e-mails. Not getting them in the e-mail does not make you appear trustworthy.
If you insist on making my already full day even more difficult, then maybe your idea of caring is not what mine is, or you just don't respect my time.
Please, I beg you to reconsider this decision. Because if you don't, I will have to reconsider my belief in your program. I truly don't want to feel that way, because you have helped me to raise my children the right way. But this less personal way of doing things is a real turn-off to me.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Michele Mulidor
Comments
Dear Ms. Mulidor,
Thanks very much for your feedback. I'm very sorry to hear that you're not happy with the newsletter format.
First, let me see if I can help make the current process easier for you.
To save the week's commentaries in a Word document, you can go to charactercounts.org/michael and copy all five in one step. If you'd rather, you could simply print them all from this page. I understand that this requires an extra click to get to the website, but I wanted to make sure you knew that all commentaries are displayed in full there and that you don't have to click each one individually.
If you don't open the newsletter right away, you will see updated commentaries at charactercounts.org/michael when you click that link. (The blog is updated daily.) But now that the commentaries are archived monthly, you can save/print all of them from those pages. Here is a link to this month's archive:
http://charactercounts.org/michael/2007/12
One of the new features that readers seem to like is this comment section, which allows anyone to respond directly to a specific commentary. I invite you to give it a try. You'll recall that in the old newsletter format we featured letters, but there was no way to give readers the opportunity to post follow-up responses. Also, there was simply not enough room to share more than one or two letters, and readers didn't have the option to choose which ones to read.
Other advantages to the new blog format include options to search the site, view a complete archive, and browse by subject.
We received more than a few complaints about the old format, including that it:
- Was too long and required too much scrolling
- Was difficult to find old commentaries
- Landed in junk mail folders because certain words in the full text triggered spam filters. (We know this was an issue because we would be flooded with bounce-back e-mail when a commentary mentioned drug use or sex.)
- Didn't print correctly
- Was too cluttered with announcements and promos
- Didn't include daily updates on the web
I hope you will give the new format a chance and that you'll try using some of the blog's features. Thanks again for your feedback and your interest in our work.
Best regards,
Steve Nish
Josephson Institute Webmaster
Posted by: Josephson Institute Webmaster | December 27, 2007 1:01 PM
Dear Mr. Josephson, I have written twice, clearly describing why your new format does not work for everyone, including me. I explained that I cannot use any of your links because I am behind a corporate firewall. The webmaster has neatly listed the vitures of the new blog format and I can see there are benefits to those who can reach your web site. For readers like me, who cannot reach your web site, your new format is totally unusable.
For years, your radio spot said, and continues to say, that we can receive a copy of the commentaries via e-mail. But the truth is that we can only receive a teaser sentence or two via e-mail and that this will not work for everyone.
Regards, Felipe.
Posted by: Felipe | December 28, 2007 3:48 PM
While not as passionate as Michele, I share her frustration. I enjoyed reading your commentaries in full in the email. Reading them now takes far longer, clicking back and forth, and getting distracted by other items
on the page "clicked" to.
The response, written by your webmaster reminds me of talking to my son who lives and works in the "dot-com" world. Not all of us choose to live life by Blackberry, talk or text constantly by cell phone, or otherwise be dependent on instantaneous technology. Wish he could understand that not everyone wants the absolutely latest technology, just because it's there.
Paula Lantz
Posted by: Paula Lantz | December 29, 2007 5:34 PM
I have been reading your commentaries for years and relish them all. I find your new ezines difficult to navigate and find what I want. It was much simpler previously.
Posted by: Howard | January 16, 2008 1:12 PM