Slightly Off KIlter

Normal is overrated

Email Free? Not for Me!


I always knew that Marketing people were… different. But still…


According to an article in The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Aug. 26, 2004), Jeremy Burton doesn’t like email.
Mr. Burton is the V. P. of Marketing at Veritas Software Corp. (a company that makes computer backup software fergoshsakes!) . OK, so it’s a bit weird for someone working in the computer industry to dislike email. I personally think he needs to rethink his career path. But that’s not the problem.


The problem is that, as a company VP, Mr. Burton is in a position of power — the power to force other employees to share his eccentricity. Mr. Burton has declared Fridays in his department (i.e. the entire Marketing department at Veritas) to be “email free”. Uh huh. Offenders are charged $1 per message (the penalties go into a fund for charity).


The ban (of course) only applies to email within the Marketing department. Mr. Burton’s influence does not extend to other departments at Veritas (thank goodness). And (for similar reasons) the ban does not apply to email between Marketing and other departments. But employees in Marketing can no longer send email to employees in Marketing on Fridays.


Mr. Burton urges his underlings to use the phone, “walk over and chat” or, we must suppose, set up meetings. All of which are, of course, disruptive and interrupting modes of communication. Perhaps Marketing people don’t care.


Personally, I hope someone in Marketing stands up for written communication. I hope the President of Veritas suggests to Mr. Burton that he lay off the social experimentation. I also hope this silliness doesn’t spread to any other departments within (or beyond) Veritas.


Ironically, the initial announcement of the ban was made in email.

Note: The original title of this post was “Luddites Among Us.” After reading Michael Wooller’s comments (below), I have changed the title. Although the popular modern meaning of “Luddite” is anti-technology, the original Luddites weren’t so much fighting technology (and they had assuredly never heard of email. :). Given that I myself wish the word “hacker” wasn’t so often misused, I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Wooller’s position. — Vicki, Dec 26, 2007.

Vicki Brown's avatar

Posted by:

Vicki Brown

I am an information technologist and former technical writer/ editor /software developer. These days, I’m largely retired.

3 responses to “Email Free? Not for Me!”

  1. Michael (luddite) Wooller Avatar
    Michael (luddite) Wooller

    In spite of the many apparent contradictions in Mr Burton’s actions, he has a point. E-mail certainly has its uses, but if you want to resolve an issue or arrive at some sort of conclusion, face to face is better. It allows for dialogue. E-mail is a bit like management by post but a bit faster. By having one day a week e-mail free, the various methods of communication are kept in perspective.
    Another thing I have noticed that people will tend to go off on tangents in e-mails. It’s harder to do that face to face.
    Now, I must take you task for the use of the word ‘Luddite’. Luddites were only opposed to technology that enslaved humans, not technology that enhances what it is to be human. The name was used as a derrogatory term by the victors of the industrial revolution, the British Government and the industrialists. I write about it in my blog.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Vicki Avatar
    Vicki

    I disagree with you about tangents. I’ve seen many people go off on tangents in face-to-face communication. IN fact, going off on a tangent is the best way to alter the discussion.
    Also, personally, I’m at a severe disadvantage when I have to “think on my feet”. So, I’ll maintain my position about email. Face to face discussions are not good for me, personally.
    As for Luddites, the original Luddites were opposed to technology that a) reduced skilled labor requirements and b) made goods cheaper. The sewing machines and looms weren’t enslaving humans – they were threatening the livelihood of the skilled craftsmen. It was all economic.
    That said, in modern times, the word “Luddite” is used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. You don’t have to like that. But I don’t think you’re going to win the battle to remove the modern meaning of the term.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Michael (I'm still a Ludddite) Wooller Avatar
    Michael (I’m still a Ludddite) Wooller

    For you e-mail is good. In a loving compassionate world we can both maintain our viewpoints happily.
    Now as for Luddites……….. I can’t tell you that they had any idea about the implications of what was to become the ‘industrial revolution’. And you are right they were protesting the production of cheap inferior goods by unskilled as well as child labour, but it was more than economic – it was lifestyle and to them the machines represented the threat to their way of life. This is why, in the end, they went around destroying them.
    The fact that the term Luddite has its present meaning is testament to the fact that it’s the victors that write history. The mythical Ned Ludd and co. lost. I maintain the right, however futile, to call myself a Luddite according to my definition i.e some one who will embrace technology that, first and foremost, serves humanity and is against anything that tries to enslave. The technology that gave us the internet (and this communication), YES. Talking to a voice recognition telephone system and ending up trying to get sense out of some one in a third world country with English as a second language NO.
    Anyway, this is far too long for a comment so I’ll wish you well and and go back to the vegetable garden.
    My love to the ‘furkids’
    Michael

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment