In one of the first recorded corporate rollouts of messaging technology, IBM claimed voicemail saved the company $1,100 per person per year in lost productivity. Today, over 70% of the phone calls you make will be answered by voicemail. Is it still saving us money?
Arguably, yes. (Though it may not always feel that way.)
The proof becomes self-evident when you encounter a non-voicemail company. "You mean I can't just leave her a voicemail?" you tell the phone-answerer, who sits with pen in hand ready to take your message. You contemplate your message. It was going to be an intricate explanation of a current project status. Instead, you dictate, "Just ask her to call me back, okay?"
What's missing in manual message taking (that voicemail provides) is a rich communication environment. You know this instinctively. The message you leave by voicemail includes inflection (implying emotion) and dives right into details that might take hours to explain to a a receptionist. That is, if you're leveraging voicemail for all it's worth.
The vmail disconnect
So why are we so often frustrated by voicemail? Some frustration occurs when we treat voicemail like a receptionist. Anyone who leaves a message with their name, phone number and a simple request to call them back, is using the tool in the least effective way.
Powerful communicators understand that voicemail is a conversation frozen in time. They continue the conversation where you last left it, including details, inflection and precise requests for actions or needs. Why? Because, when you call them back, you'll get voicemail. Then it's your turn to continue the conversation.
If they left a question, you could provide the answer.
If they asked for confirmation, you could confirm.
If they needed clarification, you could direct them appropriately.
If they only left you their name and number, you're not left with many options. You'll call back ... and get voicemail. You could say, "Hey, it's me. Just calling you back." or hang up and try again later (only to get voicemail again). Now you're frustrated.
This kind of disconnect could have occurred in a pre-voicemail era. Your frustration doesn't come from voicemail. In fact, voicemail was intended to avoid this exact situation by allowing users to leave you detailed messages. Your frustration, more accurately, comes from antiquated use of a modern tool. Voicemail is not a receptionist.
A simple template can help
Voicemail is not a true, two-way medium, but a hybrid of sorts. It's no substitute for a real conversation when one is required. But voice recordings deliver far more effective messages for those who choose to maximize the technology. Use a simple template to leverage voicemail's strengths:
- Name & Contact: Start with your name and preferred method of reply. For example, "Hey, this is Jeremy. I'll be in a conference, so please reply by email to jeremy@jeremybroussard.com." If there's no need to reply, say that here.
- Details: If you have a request, put it first. If you're delivering information, say that. Remember, this person's reply can only be as specific as your message.
- Name & Contact: Voicemail has been available since the 70's. Unfortunately, many systems still don't allow users to rewind messages easily. Help them out by repeating your name and contact info at the end of your message.
Here in present day
If your company uses voicemail the same way you might utilize a receptionist, the receptionist could arguably be less expensive. But if you're team is leveraging the strengths of voicemail, continuing conversations, leaving detailed but effective messages, you can begin to realize the savings IBM claimed back in the 80's.
Of course, mail is mail. It needs to be pulled from the container, sorted, prioritized and processed. Snail mail, voicemail and email containers each fill with junk from time to time. But effective use on your part will inspire effective use in return. Leaving us all understanding how voicemail—for lack of a better word—is good.
No comments:
Post a Comment