8 ms·

Email Introduction Etiquette

402 points by jaf12duke 13y ago

joelandren 13y ago
This is spot on, but this is still a PITA for everyone involved. There should still be a better way.
- livingtech 13y ago
  Yes, I fully expected this to be an article about how to "fix" this problem situation. I have to say that I have been in a few of the positions in this sort of chain, and now if I'm the inviter, I always just CC both. Not forwarding on the entire chain feels dishonest. (Obviously the invitee doesn't need to read the whole thread, but it's there for posterity, and to give context.) If the "busy person" is so rude that they wouldn't want the introduction in the first place, then they can be that rude themselves, and not leave it to the middle person, IMO. If they're not rude but not interested, then they can take the 2 minutes it takes to compose a "bowing out" email. Sheesh.
  - a5seo 13y ago
    > If the "busy person" is so rude that they wouldn't want the introduction in the first place, then they can be that rude themselves I disagree. The "busy person" didn't ask to be put on the spot to decide whether the inviter's social capital is insufficient to overcome their busy-ness or lack of interest in the intro or whatever reason they have for declining, so you shouldn't put them in that spot. Assuming it's laziness totally misses the social dynamics.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    As a frequent introducer, I would never forward the whole chain. Consider the case of a friend looking for a job. If they come to me asking for an introduction, they may be open with me about things they wouldn't tell a stranger in the first minute of contact. E.g., concerns about the target company, fears they might not measure up, things going on in their life. It's hard for me to know what they don't want shared, I want to minimize the risk a violation of trust, and I don't want to guess at what the recipient might have an issue with. So I'll always write my own intro or ask for something I can forward. Also, if someone dumps some unwelcome request from a pal in my lap, I'd be irritated that I had to do the work of bowing out. It's their friend, not mine, so it shouldn't be my problem. For that reason, I always ask permission to do an intro unless I have strong reason to believe the intro would be welcome. (E.g., if somebody told me they're looking for developers, I'll do intros without confirming an interest in each specific person.)
    - danielweber 13y ago
      I once worked at a place where the board members were having a discussion about the CEO, and then of the board members decided to just cc: said CEO into the conversation at random, because "well we are talking about him and he deserves to know." That board was not well-functioning.
  - auctiontheory 13y ago
    Not forwarding on the entire chain feels dishonest. Knowing what information (is appropriate) to share with whom is not only not dishonest, it respects other people's privacy, and is a key life skill for effectiveness.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    I tend to agree with you here. In the scenario proposed by the article, the busy person is still essentially doing the same amount of work. Having to consider the intro, reading up on the subject and the requester, etc, etc. If the answer is a flat no, then so be it, but let them hear it directly from the person. I find it hard to believe that somebody could be so busy that taking a few minutes to respond to such a request would actually be a problem. If it is so onerous, perhaps setting aside a few hours out of one day per week to handle these requests would be prudent? That way, you can minimize the impact it would have on your day-to-day life.
    - pbreit 13y ago
      The problem isn't that the "busy person" is too busy to respond, it's that the "busy person" did not request to be involved and should be forced to be the bearer of the bad news.
      - swalkergibson 13y ago
        Hearing bad news is a part of being an entrepreneur. Speaking only for myself, I would prefer to hear no directly from the horse's mouth.
        pbreit 13y ago
        That, again, is not the point. It's not what you want, it's what the "busy person" wants, the one who's being asked to do a favor (or more).
      - pbreit 13y ago
        oops...should not be forced.
  - ganeumann 13y ago
    I am the recipient of a lot of these, as an angel investor. I insist on the double-opt-in. It saves me time, and it saves the introducee time. Here's a simplified view of my email life: I have a couple hundred people (the intermediaries) I have worked with before or am friends with who each work with or talk to many entreprenuers. Each of these people knows dozens of investors. When they like an entrepreneur, they try to decide which investors would be interested in that entrepreneur. This isn't easy because angel investors change what types of things they are looking for and whether they are looking for anything at all all the time (based on what they have already invested in, on how much time and money they currently have to invest, etc.) They then send out intros to many investors. I get about a thousand of these a year. Now, there are two types of intros. The most common is "[Founder] is looking for an investor for his company, which looks like [company]." The second is "[Founder] asked to be specifically introduced to you." If the latter, I always take the introduction. If the former I filter for only the stuff I might actually invest in. This saves me time because--since I have a pre-existing relationship with the intermediary--I can say something like "I don't invest in companies like [company], I am looking for [thesis] right now." This takes 30 seconds. If I was to reply to the founder, it would take a lot longer not to be rude. Rudeness is discouraging (I know, I raised money for my own company, lots of investors were rude), and it burns bridges. If an entrepreneur told an intermediary she thought I was rude in my reply, that intermediary may no longer send me anything. I know I, when I've been the intermediary, have stopped sending people stuff because the feedback from the entrepreneur was that they were rude. Also, the whole point of the intermediary is to save the entrepreneur time. The intermediary sends out a score of emails asking who is interested, and some smaller number reply. The intermediary then makes the connection. Now the entrepreneur only has to deal with the people who have self-qualified as potentially interested. This saves them time (and also puts them in a slightly better negotiating position.) The only negative to this process is the time it takes for the intermediary. I am an intermediary as much as, or more than, I am a recipient of these intros. It takes time. I've often thought about how to automate much of this introducing work: deciding which people would be most likely to want the intro, sending the emails, tracking replies, making the intros, and tracking which intros worked to feed back into the process. I suppose this is what software like Salesforce does for salespeople, but I've never found a personal CRM that can do this for me. Would love to have one.
- kyleashipley 13y ago
  I don't have a ton of love for LinkedIn, but this is a problem they've taken on and solved to some degree. If I have a second-degree LinkedIn connection, I can request an intro through an intermediary, who has the chance to reject it, pass it along, and so on. I'm not sure how much the investment community uses LinkedIn, but it seems like the closest thing to a solution right now.
  - joelandren 13y ago
    I'm reluctant to use LinkedIn for two reasons. 1) Comes across as impersonal to the person I'm contacting. 2) LinkedIn is often checked infrequently at best. I'm sure any solution would have same obstacles to overcome, but this is why I don't use it.
JaakkoP 13y ago
Great, actionable advice! I've been using Gagan Biyani's "forwardable email" as a guideline, which is very similar. https://www.udemy.com/raising-capital-for-startups/ https://www.udemy.com/raising-capital-for-startups/ It seems that the likelihood of the email being read increases the shorter email is. At the same time, I have found the shorter the email, the harder it is to write.
mathattack 13y ago
As someone who does a lot of introducing, if someone already owes me a favor, sometimes I try to cut the middle step of, "Would you talk to X?" and just cc: them both, but I realize it's a bit presumptuous. As the OP rightfully suggests, it's the little things in etiquette that are important.
- aroch 13y ago
  I do this as well, though it seems in my field this is fine and acceptable behavoir (Unless you're from a competing research group...)
tvladeck 13y ago
If you're like me, and sometimes jump to the discussion before reading the article, please go ahead and read the article. It's one of those rare ones that is truly a summary of itself: super short, information dense, with every part having meaning and nothing else. This protocol is super simple, and allows for very efficient transfer of information without putting people in uncomfortable situations.
- jorde 13y ago
  Here's another take on the subject: double opt-in introduction by Fred Wilson: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/11/the-double-optin-introduction.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/11/the-double-optin-introductio...
  - bsirkia 13y ago
    As with anything, it always depends on the context. If I'm introducing someone to an investor I barely know, I'll make sure they opt in. If I'm introducing them to an investor I see every day and know they trust me, I'll just go for it w/o the opt-in. This article and Fred Wilson's are great examples of how to maximize etiquette.
  - carterschonwald 13y ago
    thats what I do! I explicitly ask both parties before I make an intro.
  - SonicSoul 13y ago
    so if one person opts in, and the other does not, do you just tell the first: "sorry he wasn't interested in meeting you"?
    - aptwebapps 13y ago
      I guess it just shifts the dilemma to the person setting up the interview - which is what makes it more polite.
    - nrs26 13y ago
omarkatzen 13y ago
This is why it's unreasonable to have any faith in the contemporary Silicon Valley. Cold-calling used to work out there, because it was full of people who just wanted to do a good job and help each other succeed. Now, you need an introduction because it's full of emasculated social climbers who need some way of determining whether a person is of sufficient social status to merit 30 seconds of consideration. Because of that, the positive-feedback loops that occur when hard-working people want each other to succeed have completely stopped in the Valley.
- wdewind 13y ago
  I think people are just busy dude.
  - conwayanderson 13y ago
    Agreed. Most people are just too busy doing what they do best: building something or helping others build something. All of those "coffees" that build a bridge to nowhere add up.
- wpietri 13y ago
  Oh, please. This intro etiquette isn't about status; it's about respect for people's time. People still generally want to help people succeed. But people are also busy. I do intros like this pretty much any time I talk to two people who are likely to benefit by talking. I'd guess I average 2 a week. I've been in San Francisco 14 years, and I think this place is even easier to navigate now than when I got here. Few cold call anymore, but that's more because we've got better things than phones. Meetups, conferences, mailing lists, on-line groups, and Twitter all allow people to connect in ways much better than strangers using a loud mechanical bell to interrupt somebody in the middle of whatever they were actually trying to do.
  - omarkatzen 13y ago
    People still generally want to help people succeed. Doubt it. Rents and house prices are at a record high due to horrible NIMBY regulations and no one's doing a damn thing about it. Startup equity slices are tiny, and the old Silicon Valley guarantee (that working for a startup meant the founders would take a personal interest in setting you up to be a founder in your next gig) is long gone. VCs are funding lots of well-connected rich idiots, but if you don't come from the "right" social milieu, it's nearly impossible to get. What used to be a quirky and different society is now a shitty knock-off of Manhattan that copies its worst parts but none of its good ones. Few cold call anymore, but that's more because we've got better things than phones. s/call/email/g. You know what I mean. Obviously calling someone you don't know is considered pretty rude these days.
rcavezza 13y ago
Related: One of my favorite articles on how to send an email introduction: http://jfleeg.tumblr.com/post/21231029406/the-art-of-making-an-email-intro-photo-above http://jfleeg.tumblr.com/post/21231029406/the-art-of-making-...
peterwwillis 13y ago
> makes a specific ask You mean ask a specific question? Or is this silicon valley jargon? edit: Through the power of The Googles I now realize he could have been using the stock market form of 'ask'. It makes some sense since you're asking for an investment. Not that I like it any better... The price a seller is willing to accept for a security, also known as the offer price. Along with the price, the ask quote will generally also stipulate the amount of the security willing to be sold at that price. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ask.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ask.asp
- javindo 13y ago
  Doesn't necessarily have to be jargon, it's a fairly common phrasing "would you ask that of him?" / "the client had an ask which we fulfilled". I suppose it can sound a bit biz-buzz but nothing specific to SV.
  - dictum 13y ago
    "Would you ask that of him?" fits the normal usage of ask as a verb, though. In "the client had an ask which we fulfilled" (where ask means "request", I presume) "ask" was nounified.
- wpietri 13y ago
  It is jargon. It's the thing one is going to ask for. The meaning is slightly more specific than a generic word like "request" or "desire". It implies something specific, focused, and prepared.
  - peterwwillis 13y ago
    If that's the case, the word 'specific' in the sentence is what makes it specific, not the phrasing. You already know they want you to provide a request for something, but you don't know it's something specific until they specify specifically. 'give a specific ask' and 'ask a specific question' are therefore equivalent, with the exception that the former looks like it was written by a 5th grader.
kanamekun 13y ago
This proposed workflow reads like a product spec for a great web app... hopefully someone builds a website which does this exactly!
- bluetidepro 13y ago
  Do you think we really need a web app that does something this simple that can be accomplished via any existing email app/product? And I'm not trying to be a dick by saying that, I'm actually curious. I feel like I see sites that would do something like this (do something general, something that could easily be done with an existing app/product) a bunch of times each week that seem neat for a min, but then I completely forget about them. It always ends up being that the existing app/product you use a 100x a day is just easier to use/remember.
bentcorner 13y ago
I find the social dynamics of To/CC/BCC really interesting. You only see it in Emails and it doesn't exist in any other communication medium. Most social communication platforms I can think of the top of my head only really support the "To" part of email.
- Groxx 13y ago
  fwiw it exists in MMS too, though I'm not claiming that's a good thing.
- josh2600 13y ago
  CC and BCC originate from secretaries taking notes on desks in large firms. There was a note for the person who the message was intended for and a carbon copy (literally a sheet of carbon under the top note) that would be archived. Blind Carbon Copies were simply copies that the original intended recipient was not aware of; ergo, one might say that Carbon copies are significantly older than email. CC and BCC are practical parts of communication but only formalized in a technical manner (beyond their physical carbon counterparts) in email, but we certainly engage in conversations which are of an "FYI" nature all the time. Source: I am a communications nerd both from a technical and historic perspective.
- wpietri 13y ago
  Actually, the To/Cc thing predates email by quite a bit. CC stands for "carbon copy" [1], which referred to typing a letter with a sandwich of regular paper and carbon paper, so that you got one or more copies in addition to your original. The To/Cc headings were a common thing on paper memos. I'm sure the Bcc behavior was common as well with paper memos, but I suspect the name only appeared with the invention of email. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_copy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_copy [2] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carbon+copy%2Cblind+carbon+copy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccarbon%20copy%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cblind%20carbon%20copy%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carbon+copy%2C...
  - rayiner 13y ago
tfigueroa 13y ago
A fine article, but - maybe this makes me a jerk - a bit obvious.
- dsjoerg 13y ago
  You'd think that, but the things that are obvious to you are not obvious to everyone <--- which itself is a thing I used to think would be obvious to everyone.
goblin89 13y ago
Can anyone clarify—why BCC? More precisely, what purpose does moving Mark to BCC, and then acknowledging that and addressing him in the letter, serve? Why not just exclude him from the conversation completely, or leave in CC if you're still addressing him?
- patrickmay 13y ago
  It confirms to Mark that you received his email and are responding to Suzanne but leaves him out of the rest of the conversation when Suzanne replies.
- jkaljundi 13y ago
  You say thanks to Mark, but save him countless minutes of pressing Delete on the future CC's back and forth. Busy people get already too much e-mails and it is often a pain to get out from those discussions.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dudus 13y ago
  Most people don't make a good use of BCC. Another instance where it is useful is when asking a question at a mail list but asking that anyone who answers only addresses the you not the whole email list. Just send the email with the list in BCC, and that's gonna be automatic.
  - bentcorner 13y ago
    And then face the rage of a thousand suns when you break email filtering rules ;) (personally I have rules that catch this sort of behavior so it doesn't bother me, but I've seen it happen).
  - yuvadam 13y ago
    That's a pretty rude and selfish way to approach a mailing list. I wouldn't be surprised if such a question goes on to be ignored.
jqgatsby 13y ago
I've often been tripped up by the semantics of the word "meet" in email introductions, as in "Nice to meet you". Everyone seems to want to reserve the word "meet" for actual in-person meeting, and I've seen such constructs as: "Pleased to 'meet' you" "Pleased to e-meet you" "Pleased to virtually meet you", etc I'd love to hear how the language-sensitive hacker news crowd deals with this issue, and also what tortured constructions you've seen recently. Currently I'm using "pleased to make your acquaintance" or "thanks Jim for the intro", but neither of those is completely satisfactory.
- gk1 13y ago
  I say "nice to meet you" or "nice to be introduced to you." If I'm feeling particularly edgy then I say "nice to be intro'd to you."
auggierose 13y ago
Wow, this is anal. You can learn a lot about people by observing their etiquette. (I am pretty sure what the first comment to this comment will be)
lumens 13y ago
It's nice to have a reference like this, but as the comments on this thread display, everyone has their own preferred variant(s). It's silly to think that there is a "one size fits all" email intro framework. Different contexts require different amounts of background information and introducer participation. Really, the greater theme at play is the need for people to think more about how their actions (here, nearly effortless electronic ones) effect others. Sending email intros without understanding the benefits and detriments to both sides is impolite at best and downright rude at worst. The Golden Rule applies, even to email.
stevewillows 13y ago
Anytime I have worked for a larger organization, I wished they would have a quick session on best practices / etiquette with communication.
pagade 13y ago
Nice. Also learned how and when to really use BCC.
Myrmornis 13y ago
The "fresh email" from Mark fails to satisfy the author's own prescription: it does not "make a specific ask".
briankim 13y ago
Thanks, the BCC bit was interesting.
chinpokomon 13y ago
This is generally the protocol I use. I like to use BCC during the handoff if the referral is coming to me. I'm surprised at how often I get pulled into conversations that I don't need to be a part of, because someone doesn't BCC me in return.

402 points by jaf12duke 13y ago

joelandren 13y ago

This is spot on, but this is still a PITA for everyone involved. There should still be a better way.

livingtech 13y ago
Yes, I fully expected this to be an article about how to "fix" this problem situation. I have to say that I have been in a few of the positions in this sort of chain, and now if I'm the inviter, I always just CC both. Not forwarding on the entire chain feels dishonest. (Obviously the invitee doesn't need to read the whole thread, but it's there for posterity, and to give context.) If the "busy person" is so rude that they wouldn't want the introduction in the first place, then they can be that rude themselves, and not leave it to the middle person, IMO. If they're not rude but not interested, then they can take the 2 minutes it takes to compose a "bowing out" email. Sheesh.
- a5seo 13y ago
  > If the "busy person" is so rude that they wouldn't want the introduction in the first place, then they can be that rude themselves I disagree. The "busy person" didn't ask to be put on the spot to decide whether the inviter's social capital is insufficient to overcome their busy-ness or lack of interest in the intro or whatever reason they have for declining, so you shouldn't put them in that spot. Assuming it's laziness totally misses the social dynamics.
- wpietri 13y ago
  As a frequent introducer, I would never forward the whole chain. Consider the case of a friend looking for a job. If they come to me asking for an introduction, they may be open with me about things they wouldn't tell a stranger in the first minute of contact. E.g., concerns about the target company, fears they might not measure up, things going on in their life. It's hard for me to know what they don't want shared, I want to minimize the risk a violation of trust, and I don't want to guess at what the recipient might have an issue with. So I'll always write my own intro or ask for something I can forward. Also, if someone dumps some unwelcome request from a pal in my lap, I'd be irritated that I had to do the work of bowing out. It's their friend, not mine, so it shouldn't be my problem. For that reason, I always ask permission to do an intro unless I have strong reason to believe the intro would be welcome. (E.g., if somebody told me they're looking for developers, I'll do intros without confirming an interest in each specific person.)
  - danielweber 13y ago
    I once worked at a place where the board members were having a discussion about the CEO, and then of the board members decided to just cc: said CEO into the conversation at random, because "well we are talking about him and he deserves to know." That board was not well-functioning.
- auctiontheory 13y ago
  Not forwarding on the entire chain feels dishonest. Knowing what information (is appropriate) to share with whom is not only not dishonest, it respects other people's privacy, and is a key life skill for effectiveness.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  I tend to agree with you here. In the scenario proposed by the article, the busy person is still essentially doing the same amount of work. Having to consider the intro, reading up on the subject and the requester, etc, etc. If the answer is a flat no, then so be it, but let them hear it directly from the person. I find it hard to believe that somebody could be so busy that taking a few minutes to respond to such a request would actually be a problem. If it is so onerous, perhaps setting aside a few hours out of one day per week to handle these requests would be prudent? That way, you can minimize the impact it would have on your day-to-day life.
  - pbreit 13y ago
    The problem isn't that the "busy person" is too busy to respond, it's that the "busy person" did not request to be involved and should be forced to be the bearer of the bad news.
    - swalkergibson 13y ago
      Hearing bad news is a part of being an entrepreneur. Speaking only for myself, I would prefer to hear no directly from the horse's mouth.
      - pbreit 13y ago
        That, again, is not the point. It's not what you want, it's what the "busy person" wants, the one who's being asked to do a favor (or more).
    - pbreit 13y ago
      oops...should not be forced.
- ganeumann 13y ago
  I am the recipient of a lot of these, as an angel investor. I insist on the double-opt-in. It saves me time, and it saves the introducee time. Here's a simplified view of my email life: I have a couple hundred people (the intermediaries) I have worked with before or am friends with who each work with or talk to many entreprenuers. Each of these people knows dozens of investors. When they like an entrepreneur, they try to decide which investors would be interested in that entrepreneur. This isn't easy because angel investors change what types of things they are looking for and whether they are looking for anything at all all the time (based on what they have already invested in, on how much time and money they currently have to invest, etc.) They then send out intros to many investors. I get about a thousand of these a year. Now, there are two types of intros. The most common is "[Founder] is looking for an investor for his company, which looks like [company]." The second is "[Founder] asked to be specifically introduced to you." If the latter, I always take the introduction. If the former I filter for only the stuff I might actually invest in. This saves me time because--since I have a pre-existing relationship with the intermediary--I can say something like "I don't invest in companies like [company], I am looking for [thesis] right now." This takes 30 seconds. If I was to reply to the founder, it would take a lot longer not to be rude. Rudeness is discouraging (I know, I raised money for my own company, lots of investors were rude), and it burns bridges. If an entrepreneur told an intermediary she thought I was rude in my reply, that intermediary may no longer send me anything. I know I, when I've been the intermediary, have stopped sending people stuff because the feedback from the entrepreneur was that they were rude. Also, the whole point of the intermediary is to save the entrepreneur time. The intermediary sends out a score of emails asking who is interested, and some smaller number reply. The intermediary then makes the connection. Now the entrepreneur only has to deal with the people who have self-qualified as potentially interested. This saves them time (and also puts them in a slightly better negotiating position.) The only negative to this process is the time it takes for the intermediary. I am an intermediary as much as, or more than, I am a recipient of these intros. It takes time. I've often thought about how to automate much of this introducing work: deciding which people would be most likely to want the intro, sending the emails, tracking replies, making the intros, and tracking which intros worked to feed back into the process. I suppose this is what software like Salesforce does for salespeople, but I've never found a personal CRM that can do this for me. Would love to have one.
kyleashipley 13y ago
I don't have a ton of love for LinkedIn, but this is a problem they've taken on and solved to some degree. If I have a second-degree LinkedIn connection, I can request an intro through an intermediary, who has the chance to reject it, pass it along, and so on. I'm not sure how much the investment community uses LinkedIn, but it seems like the closest thing to a solution right now.
- joelandren 13y ago
  I'm reluctant to use LinkedIn for two reasons. 1) Comes across as impersonal to the person I'm contacting. 2) LinkedIn is often checked infrequently at best. I'm sure any solution would have same obstacles to overcome, but this is why I don't use it.

JaakkoP 13y ago

Great, actionable advice! I've been using Gagan Biyani's "forwardable email" as a guideline, which is very similar. https://www.udemy.com/raising-capital-for-startups/ https://www.udemy.com/raising-capital-for-startups/ It seems that the likelihood of the email being read increases the shorter email is. At the same time, I have found the shorter the email, the harder it is to write.

mathattack 13y ago

As someone who does a lot of introducing, if someone already owes me a favor, sometimes I try to cut the middle step of, "Would you talk to X?" and just cc: them both, but I realize it's a bit presumptuous. As the OP rightfully suggests, it's the little things in etiquette that are important.

aroch 13y ago
I do this as well, though it seems in my field this is fine and acceptable behavoir (Unless you're from a competing research group...)

tvladeck 13y ago

If you're like me, and sometimes jump to the discussion before reading the article, please go ahead and read the article. It's one of those rare ones that is truly a summary of itself: super short, information dense, with every part having meaning and nothing else. This protocol is super simple, and allows for very efficient transfer of information without putting people in uncomfortable situations.

jorde 13y ago
Here's another take on the subject: double opt-in introduction by Fred Wilson: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/11/the-double-optin-introduction.html http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/11/the-double-optin-introductio...
- bsirkia 13y ago
  As with anything, it always depends on the context. If I'm introducing someone to an investor I barely know, I'll make sure they opt in. If I'm introducing them to an investor I see every day and know they trust me, I'll just go for it w/o the opt-in. This article and Fred Wilson's are great examples of how to maximize etiquette.
- carterschonwald 13y ago
  thats what I do! I explicitly ask both parties before I make an intro.
- SonicSoul 13y ago
  so if one person opts in, and the other does not, do you just tell the first: "sorry he wasn't interested in meeting you"?
  - aptwebapps 13y ago
    I guess it just shifts the dilemma to the person setting up the interview - which is what makes it more polite.
  - nrs26 13y ago

omarkatzen 13y ago

This is why it's unreasonable to have any faith in the contemporary Silicon Valley. Cold-calling used to work out there, because it was full of people who just wanted to do a good job and help each other succeed. Now, you need an introduction because it's full of emasculated social climbers who need some way of determining whether a person is of sufficient social status to merit 30 seconds of consideration. Because of that, the positive-feedback loops that occur when hard-working people want each other to succeed have completely stopped in the Valley.

wdewind 13y ago
I think people are just busy dude.
- conwayanderson 13y ago
  Agreed. Most people are just too busy doing what they do best: building something or helping others build something. All of those "coffees" that build a bridge to nowhere add up.
wpietri 13y ago
Oh, please. This intro etiquette isn't about status; it's about respect for people's time. People still generally want to help people succeed. But people are also busy. I do intros like this pretty much any time I talk to two people who are likely to benefit by talking. I'd guess I average 2 a week. I've been in San Francisco 14 years, and I think this place is even easier to navigate now than when I got here. Few cold call anymore, but that's more because we've got better things than phones. Meetups, conferences, mailing lists, on-line groups, and Twitter all allow people to connect in ways much better than strangers using a loud mechanical bell to interrupt somebody in the middle of whatever they were actually trying to do.
- omarkatzen 13y ago
  People still generally want to help people succeed. Doubt it. Rents and house prices are at a record high due to horrible NIMBY regulations and no one's doing a damn thing about it. Startup equity slices are tiny, and the old Silicon Valley guarantee (that working for a startup meant the founders would take a personal interest in setting you up to be a founder in your next gig) is long gone. VCs are funding lots of well-connected rich idiots, but if you don't come from the "right" social milieu, it's nearly impossible to get. What used to be a quirky and different society is now a shitty knock-off of Manhattan that copies its worst parts but none of its good ones. Few cold call anymore, but that's more because we've got better things than phones. s/call/email/g. You know what I mean. Obviously calling someone you don't know is considered pretty rude these days.

rcavezza 13y ago

Related: One of my favorite articles on how to send an email introduction: http://jfleeg.tumblr.com/post/21231029406/the-art-of-making-an-email-intro-photo-above http://jfleeg.tumblr.com/post/21231029406/the-art-of-making-...

peterwwillis 13y ago

> makes a specific ask You mean ask a specific question? Or is this silicon valley jargon? edit: Through the power of The Googles I now realize he could have been using the stock market form of 'ask'. It makes some sense since you're asking for an investment. Not that I like it any better... The price a seller is willing to accept for a security, also known as the offer price. Along with the price, the ask quote will generally also stipulate the amount of the security willing to be sold at that price. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ask.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ask.asp

javindo 13y ago
Doesn't necessarily have to be jargon, it's a fairly common phrasing "would you ask that of him?" / "the client had an ask which we fulfilled". I suppose it can sound a bit biz-buzz but nothing specific to SV.
- dictum 13y ago
  "Would you ask that of him?" fits the normal usage of ask as a verb, though. In "the client had an ask which we fulfilled" (where ask means "request", I presume) "ask" was nounified.
wpietri 13y ago
It is jargon. It's the thing one is going to ask for. The meaning is slightly more specific than a generic word like "request" or "desire". It implies something specific, focused, and prepared.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  If that's the case, the word 'specific' in the sentence is what makes it specific, not the phrasing. You already know they want you to provide a request for something, but you don't know it's something specific until they specify specifically. 'give a specific ask' and 'ask a specific question' are therefore equivalent, with the exception that the former looks like it was written by a 5th grader.

kanamekun 13y ago

This proposed workflow reads like a product spec for a great web app... hopefully someone builds a website which does this exactly!

bluetidepro 13y ago
Do you think we really need a web app that does something this simple that can be accomplished via any existing email app/product? And I'm not trying to be a dick by saying that, I'm actually curious. I feel like I see sites that would do something like this (do something general, something that could easily be done with an existing app/product) a bunch of times each week that seem neat for a min, but then I completely forget about them. It always ends up being that the existing app/product you use a 100x a day is just easier to use/remember.

bentcorner 13y ago

I find the social dynamics of To/CC/BCC really interesting. You only see it in Emails and it doesn't exist in any other communication medium. Most social communication platforms I can think of the top of my head only really support the "To" part of email.

Groxx 13y ago
fwiw it exists in MMS too, though I'm not claiming that's a good thing.
josh2600 13y ago
CC and BCC originate from secretaries taking notes on desks in large firms. There was a note for the person who the message was intended for and a carbon copy (literally a sheet of carbon under the top note) that would be archived. Blind Carbon Copies were simply copies that the original intended recipient was not aware of; ergo, one might say that Carbon copies are significantly older than email. CC and BCC are practical parts of communication but only formalized in a technical manner (beyond their physical carbon counterparts) in email, but we certainly engage in conversations which are of an "FYI" nature all the time. Source: I am a communications nerd both from a technical and historic perspective.
wpietri 13y ago
Actually, the To/Cc thing predates email by quite a bit. CC stands for "carbon copy" [1], which referred to typing a letter with a sandwich of regular paper and carbon paper, so that you got one or more copies in addition to your original. The To/Cc headings were a common thing on paper memos. I'm sure the Bcc behavior was common as well with paper memos, but I suspect the name only appeared with the invention of email. [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_copy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_copy [2] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carbon+copy%2Cblind+carbon+copy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccarbon%20copy%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cblind%20carbon%20copy%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=carbon+copy%2C...
- rayiner 13y ago

tfigueroa 13y ago

A fine article, but - maybe this makes me a jerk - a bit obvious.

dsjoerg 13y ago
You'd think that, but the things that are obvious to you are not obvious to everyone <--- which itself is a thing I used to think would be obvious to everyone.

goblin89 13y ago

Can anyone clarify—why BCC? More precisely, what purpose does moving Mark to BCC, and then acknowledging that and addressing him in the letter, serve? Why not just exclude him from the conversation completely, or leave in CC if you're still addressing him?

patrickmay 13y ago
It confirms to Mark that you received his email and are responding to Suzanne but leaves him out of the rest of the conversation when Suzanne replies.
jkaljundi 13y ago
You say thanks to Mark, but save him countless minutes of pressing Delete on the future CC's back and forth. Busy people get already too much e-mails and it is often a pain to get out from those discussions.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dudus 13y ago
Most people don't make a good use of BCC. Another instance where it is useful is when asking a question at a mail list but asking that anyone who answers only addresses the you not the whole email list. Just send the email with the list in BCC, and that's gonna be automatic.
- bentcorner 13y ago
  And then face the rage of a thousand suns when you break email filtering rules ;) (personally I have rules that catch this sort of behavior so it doesn't bother me, but I've seen it happen).
- yuvadam 13y ago
  That's a pretty rude and selfish way to approach a mailing list. I wouldn't be surprised if such a question goes on to be ignored.

jqgatsby 13y ago

I've often been tripped up by the semantics of the word "meet" in email introductions, as in "Nice to meet you". Everyone seems to want to reserve the word "meet" for actual in-person meeting, and I've seen such constructs as: "Pleased to 'meet' you" "Pleased to e-meet you" "Pleased to virtually meet you", etc I'd love to hear how the language-sensitive hacker news crowd deals with this issue, and also what tortured constructions you've seen recently. Currently I'm using "pleased to make your acquaintance" or "thanks Jim for the intro", but neither of those is completely satisfactory.

gk1 13y ago
I say "nice to meet you" or "nice to be introduced to you." If I'm feeling particularly edgy then I say "nice to be intro'd to you."

auggierose 13y ago

Wow, this is anal. You can learn a lot about people by observing their etiquette. (I am pretty sure what the first comment to this comment will be)

lumens 13y ago

It's nice to have a reference like this, but as the comments on this thread display, everyone has their own preferred variant(s). It's silly to think that there is a "one size fits all" email intro framework. Different contexts require different amounts of background information and introducer participation. Really, the greater theme at play is the need for people to think more about how their actions (here, nearly effortless electronic ones) effect others. Sending email intros without understanding the benefits and detriments to both sides is impolite at best and downright rude at worst. The Golden Rule applies, even to email.

stevewillows 13y ago

Anytime I have worked for a larger organization, I wished they would have a quick session on best practices / etiquette with communication.

pagade 13y ago

Nice. Also learned how and when to really use BCC.

Myrmornis 13y ago

The "fresh email" from Mark fails to satisfy the author's own prescription: it does not "make a specific ask".

briankim 13y ago

Thanks, the BCC bit was interesting.

chinpokomon 13y ago

This is generally the protocol I use. I like to use BCC during the handoff if the referral is coming to me. I'm surprised at how often I get pulled into conversations that I don't need to be a part of, because someone doesn't BCC me in return.