How to write a negative letter

Draft Letter: Negative Message With Positive Emphasis

Background: Go back to the “Globe Airlines” case and review it. In particular, review the criteria for the reply to Lyn Smith set out by your immediate supervisor Rita Simmons. Ms. Simmons has now told you that you cannot offer the E-TUVs to the customers.

Assignment: Prepare a draft letter to Lyn Smith, in which you attempt to refuse her specific requests while doing everything you can (within the criteria/limitations you are working under) to persuade her to return to Globe as a customer in future. Forward your draft letter to your supervisor, Rita Simmons, as an attachment to a short transmittal memorandum, in which you submit your draft letter to her for review, give a very brief explanation of your approach, and ask her for comment and approval to proceed to send the letter to the customer. Resources: Locker/Findlay Chapters 7 and 8;

Assignment Case: “Globe”; Units 4 and 5 Lecture notes; your own Diagnostic Essay, previously submitted and returned with comments Primary Audience for

Assignment #2: Lyn Smith (for the draft letter); Rita Simmons (for transmittal and draft letter)

Assignment Format: Draft letter – Globe to Lyn Smith, appended to a transmittal memorandum (you to Rita Simmons)

Word Count: up to 1000 words for draft letter and transmittal memorandum

Units 4 and 5: Unit 5

Writing Positive and Negative Messages (Cont.)

Read: Locker/Findlay, Chapters 7 and 8, and “Statstar” case (link on Lectures page) Assignment Case: “Globe”

Discussion Topic: refer to Exercise 8.5 on pages 189 of your text. As instructed there, compose a brief message to your boss correcting the figures. Use ‘correct numbers’ (b), and assume variation (ii). Post your message, and explain why you wrote it the way you did!

Writing Negative Messages (Locker/Findlay Chapter 8)

Back to expected reader reaction: negative (“bad news”) messages are defined precisely by the fact that we, as writers, expect that our reader(s) will be disappointed and/or angry with the information conveyed in the message. Again (page 172), this central fact conditions our primary and secondary purposes and, more specifically, the rhetorical pattern we will use.

As noted on page 173, in many circumstances requiring a negative message the direct approach (from Chapter 7) is entirely appropriate. Pages 173 – 177 (with Figure 8.2 on page 175) gives you an outline of those kinds of circumstances, and a guide to how to organize negative messages. We’ll come back to this below, by taking a brief look at exercise 8.1 (page 187).

However, in some cases (according as to how you analyze both your reader and the context in which you are writing) the level of persuasion required rises to the point where a different kind of pattern is required, and the message needs to be recast as a persuasive message (page 183) using the “indirect approach and the problem-solving pattern of organization when you expect resistance from your reader but can show that doing what you want will solve a problem you and your reader share” (page 199). That is the situation ‘you’ would face in the ‘Statstar’ scenario, and we’ll turn specifically to that case in a moment.

First, though, let’s look briefly at an example of a routine ‘negative’ message (credit refusal) through Exercise 8.1. As with Exercise 7.1, read the brief hypothetical then take a look at the three drafts, and note down for yourselves how well each correlates to the criteria for negative messages, then compare your responses with mine below. 1. This first draft goes wrong right from the start (opening paragraph), which is misleadingly positive. The writer has made a poor attempt to create a buffer (a neutral or even positive statement that allows a writer to deemphasize [‘bury’] a negative message;

discussion in text page 178). The reader’s reaction to this opening will almost certainly be (angrily) negative, because it suggests strongly that she is in fact getting the card! This error is compounded by the transition to the next paragraph, which in effect says ‘no’. The whole thing generates an insulting tone, because the writer, in following the ‘(overly-detailed) reason > refusal’ pattern, manages simply to sound patronizing. This is particularly the case because the writer emphasizes the fact that the reader would likely simply have continuing/worse problems with credit-management were she given the card, and then goes on to point out that she/he certainly wouldn’t want to be in the reader’s position! Finally, we might note that while it’s certainly fine to try to encourage re- application, there’s no point in doing so since unless her circumstances change considerably she’s still going to be turned down. The only way round this would be to build in some positive suggestions as to how the reader might go about putting herself in a better position for success. 2. The second version is, of course, almost a caricature – but still brings up some useful points! It’s just much too ‘direct’ – to the point of being offensively ‘blunt’. Opening with “No, you can’t …” sounds ‘parental’ (patronizing) in the worst possible sense, and telling the reader to get her “financial house in order” is not helpful; the writer would need to provide specifics. Mentioning an alternative is usually effective, but here the effect is undercut by the (almost sarcastic) phrasing, which violates you-attitude. The specifics of the alternative (layaway) are presented in a condescending manner, and the close (which assumes a sale) in the context of this negative message is entirely inappropriate. Finally, back to the beginning: given what follows, even the salutation is presumptuously familiar, and is itself misleadingly ‘positive.’ 3. Finally, we come to the third version which, while not ‘perfect’, is much improved over the first two, beginning with the much better neutral/explanatory opening stating a general principle governing credit assessment, then applying that principle to the reader’s situation to state the (conditional) refusal while also offering a ‘way back’ to her. This provides a context for the layaway suggestion (also in #2), which here works precisely because it’s linked to this explanatory context. What is less clearly effective here is the offering of a second goodwill inducement, the decorating seminars, in the sense that the writer can’t know how the reader might react. Is she interested in doing her own wallpapering? Why would/should she be interested in Persian carpets, given she’s just been refused credit? Nevertheless, overall this version is much more effective, while still a clear refusal, than the first two. The ‘Statstar’ Scenario We’ll turn now to some discussion of the ‘Statstar’ case scenario. Imagine yourself in the position of having to write what is primarily a negative message; in effect, Medley will be saying to Janet Beechum ‘no, you can’t have two things, even though you think you are getting them.’

First, read through the Statstar case; your instructions, and indeed a preliminary analysis of the two ‘misconceptions,’ are contained in Medley’s email to you of December 2/00. The basic problem is this: Beechum (Excel Tire) has been in negotiation with Medley (Statstar) to make Statstar its telecommunications provider. In the hypothetical, we are now at the point where a final presentation to the Excel board is pending (Beechum to board, supported by Medley), but Medley (out of country) has realized that Beechum is proceeding under two material misunderstandings about what she is ‘buying.’

She believes that she is buying a system that (as is the case now) allows a single

‘line’ to carry a single signal that combines various kinds of data transmission. But, at the time that this scenario takes place, that is not the case. Statstar’s ‘single system of communication’ means that it can provide multiple signals of differing types efficiently. She also believes that she can split and re-sell the signals she purchases from Statstar (the “sharing” issue).

First, some background assumptions:

§ The case is set in the United States, around the year 2000 (‘00’). § Statstar is in the business of providing primarily commercial

telecommunications services § Statstar’s current system (state of the art in 00) is ssc (single system of

communication: one ‘system’ efficiently carries multiple signals) § Statstar has developed, successfully prototyped, and is near ready to

release ISDN. For our purposes, this means (as at present) that multiple kinds of data are carried by a single signal – a further simplification over ssc. This (ISDN) is what Beechum may ‘think’ she’s getting. However, assume that Statstar will be in a position to offer her/Excel a ‘free’ and priority upgrade to this (ISDN) system as soon as it is up and running (reader benefit)

§ ‘Signal sharing’. This refers to the fact that it was, and is, possible for a ‘consumer’ to ‘split’ a signal. Think of your cable tv for example: you can (illegally!) split (and pay for!) one signal to feed both your tv and, say, fm radio. You’re supposed to pay twice! This is what Beechum has in mind: Excel could purchase their telecoms from Statstar, and in turn ‘split’ and ‘share’ the signals a) with its own subsidiaries (this is fine) and b) ‘resell’ to third-party (unrelated) tenants in its buildings. (B) is not fine, for two reasons: i) FCC licencing requirements – Excel would have to become a licenced reseller, and the licencing process would be very expensive, and ii) any contract between Statstar and Excel would anyway have a non-competition clause which would prohibit Excel from doing this/in effect, from going into competition with Statstar! So, while what

Beechum is or may be thinking of is certainly easily done, it won’t happen!

Next, the question is, how did these misconceptions arise? Here’s a timeline:

§ Medley uses the term ‘ssc’ (single system of communication) in his 1st letter to Beechum of October 4, in a way (“ … ssc … in one easy process”) which could easily give rise to this misunderstanding, especially in the mind of a non-technical person such as Beechum

§ Beechums’ response to Medley (October 20) makes it clear that she is thinking (as a result of a suggestion by her IT person Wendy Luk) that this may mean “single signal in near future” (i.e. when she/Excel buys; this same letter also raises the second misconception re. “sharing” of signals.

§ Medley on October 25 seems to see that this needs a response, but he lays this off on Lumbar

§ Then, there is an internal communication breakdown at Statstar § Lumbar lays off the job to Hackman (October 25) without stressing the

urgency of the reply, and assuming that Medley himself will deal with the “sharing” issue

§ Nothing happens, until § November 7: Beechum to Medley again – “Where’s my information on

both issues?” Negotiations are in serious peril at this point § November 15th: Lumbar, at Medley’s prompting, responds, but he a)

responds using overly-technical language/jargon which Beechum dislikes, and b) doesn’t address the sharing issue at all. He does, however, refer to Statstar’s forthcoming ISDN (single signal system), albeit over-technically again (more on this below)

§ November 26 (where ‘you’ are now) Beechum to Medley again, making it clear that she is still under the impression that there’s no issue with “sharing” (i.e. splitting/reselling) her signals, BUT also giving an indication that the ‘single signal’ issue is not serious, in that she probably does (if we read her last letter carefully) ‘sort of get it’ from Lumbar’s response, i.e. that she’ll initially be getting ssc, but the upgrade to ISDN will be available in the near future.

So, the problem ‘you’ would face would be to draft a letter to Beechum, for Medley’s signature, which attempts simultaneously to:

§ Definitively clear both misunderstandings, but especially the “sharing”

issue, without § Collapsing the sale (worth $1.5 million +) to Statstar

In drafting your letter, you would have to carefully analyze the available correspondence, especially with reference to establishing what kind of ‘audience’ you have in Janet Beechum. Then, you would need to make the following determinations:

§ Do we need to speak to both the “sharing” issue and the “single signal”

issue? § Do we ‘lay blame’? (There’s lots to go around) § Does Medley take some (or all) responsibility here? § Is a ‘buffer’ available? § Do we have a common interest in proceeding with the deal that can be

emphasized to overcome reader (Beechum’s) reaction to what is a negative message?

To carry this off, you would almost certainly use the classic ‘indirect, or problem- solving’ pattern referred to above. You do expect resistance to the message, but you also (given what we can learn about Janet Beechum) expect logic, at the end of the day, to outweigh emotion. She will be angry – she quite clearly already is – but you should be able to clarify these two points in such a way as to ‘keep her on side.’ You would want to use the materials, and your inferences from them, to generate a discussion using the following pattern (L/F pages 199 to 205):

§ Start by trying to catch her attention (favourably) with common ground,

that is – by trying to suggest that you (Statstar and Excel) have a mutual problem

§ Define the problem § Explain the solution § Demonstrate that any negatives are outweighed by the advantages (to

Excel; i.e. what they might lose in revenue from ‘signal sharing/resale’, which just is something they can’t have, would probably be offset by routine savings and by the costs of FCC licencing even if they were permitted by Statstar to do this)

§ Develop any further reader benefits, tangible or intangible [Note: remember, on this point, you can ‘offer’ Beechum/Excel a very early upgrade to ISDN as soon as prototyping/approvals are done]

Then, conclude by ‘telling’ the reader what you want her to do, in the sense of trying to motivate her to take the action that you (i.e. Medley) want her to take. There are many parallels here to what you are trying to do in Assignment #1, as you draft your letter responding to Lyn Smith’s complaints.