職場絕招: 如何讓郵件回覆率大增

ing-bottom: 71.01%;">

This column will tell you:

這篇專欄文章將會告訴你：

- How to write an email that will produce the results you want;

-如何寫一封能夠達到理想效果的電子郵件

- Why the scientific method can produce practical insights, quickly.

-爲什麼科學的方式能夠快速產生實用的見解

How can I promise this? I've just been reading up on the latest research from Paul Adams and Stefan Hunt of the Financial Conduct Authority - the UK's shiny new financial industry regulator.

我爲何會有這樣的自信？我這段時間一直在研讀保羅??亞當斯(Paul Adams)和斯蒂芬??亨特(Stefan Hunt)的最新研究報告，兩人均來自英國新成立的金融業監管機構金融市場行爲監管局(Financial Conduct Authority)。

I am delighted to report that they've been trying to figure out how to write more effective letters. Better yet, to this end they have conducted a large randomised trial. The wonderful conclusion: science can help us write more clearly.

我樂於告訴大家，他們一直在努力研究如何寫信的效果更佳。更值得驚歎的是，他們開展了大量隨機實驗，得出了一個奇妙的結論：科學可以幫助我們在寫作中更清晰地表達。

The letters in question were being written by a company to 200,000 former customers. The letters raised the prospect of a mis-sold product and offered the possibility of a refund. The question was: which wording would prod customers into claiming their money? The FCA researchers, in co-operation with the company in question, designed variants of the letter, mailed each variant to 1,000 customers, and compared the response rates.

該研究調查的對象，是一家公司寫給20萬名前客戶的信。這些信件表示，該公司之前銷售的一種產品可能有問題，公司可能會向客戶退款。該研究試圖搞清楚的問題是：如何措辭會促使客戶索要退款？兩位研究者與該公司一同擬出了多種版本，並將每種版本發給1000個客戶，然後對比各種版本的回信率。

The original letter looks brief and to the point, but on closer inspection it buries the key detail: the customer may be entitled to a refund. Response rates to this letter were dismally low, less than 2 per cent. Perhaps that is no surprise - the recipients were ex-customers with every reason to throw the letter in the bin, unopened.

原始的版本看上去簡單明瞭，但仔細一看，“客戶可能會有權獲得退款”這個關鍵細節在這個版本的行文中毫不起眼。這封信的回覆率非常低，還不到2%。這或許並不令人意外，收信人都是以前的客戶，他們完全有理由不打開正文就把信件丟進垃圾箱。

The experiment did the sort of thing that profit-seeking companies have been doing for many years: it tested seven different tweaks to the way the letter was written or presented. There are 128 different ways to combine these seven tweaks, and with each of 128 variants sent to 1,000 customers the experiment had a lot of power to pinpoint even quite small effects.

這個實驗所做的，就是追求利潤的公司多年以來一直在做的事情：它檢測了7種行文（或呈現方式）對信件回覆率的影響。對這7種方式中的每一種選擇採納或不採納，就會得到128個不同的信件版本。研究者將128個版本的每一種發送給1000個客戶，因此這個實驗有足夠的能力檢測出哪怕是非常細微的影響。

Here are three tweaks that made little difference: printing “important: please read and act quickly” on the envelope induced a minuscule extra response; adding the regulator's logo achieved nothing; using the company CEO's name and signature instead of “customer services team” actually dissuaded people from responding.

實驗發現，採納以下3種方式收效甚微：在信封上印“重要：請閱讀並儘快採取行動”字樣，幾乎不增加回復；添加監管機構的logo也絲毫沒有用；在落款處放上公司首席執行官的名字和簽名而不是“客服團隊”，事實上會減少回覆。

But four other tweaks had substantial effects: first, cutting a paragraph of waffle that had helped to bury the message about the refund; second, pointing out that a five-minute phone call would suffice to make a claim; third, sending a follow-up letter. And twice as large as any of these effects was adding a couple of bullet points in bold at the top with the key message: you may deserve a refund; if so, call us.

但採納另外4種方式卻有顯著效果：第一，去掉一個讓關於退款的信息更不起眼的無意義段落；第二，告訴收信人，一個五分鐘的電話足以完成申訴；第三，發一封跟進信件。第四，在信件頂端用粗體字標出幾條要點，傳遞出這條關鍵信息：你可能符合退款條件，如果符合，請來電。第四點的效果比前三點中任何一點都強至少一倍。

This research has been marketed by the FCA as “behavioural economics exploring how people make financial decisions”, but like similar work on collecting fines and taxes conducted by the Cabinet Office's Behavioural Insight Team, it is simpler and more pragmatic than that. There is no behavioural theory at play here, and nor do we really gain any insight into why consumers are reacting the way they do. But that's fine. Simple, pragmatic research is a sensible thing for a regulator to be doing - and the cost of this kind of experiment is tiny relative to the potential gains.

金融市場行爲監管局稱，該研究是一次“探索人們如何做出財務決策的行爲經濟學”實驗，但更粗淺和實用——與內閣辦公室(Cabinet Office)行爲研究小組(Behavioural Insight Team)關於罰款和稅收的研究類似。該研究並沒有運用行爲學理論，我們也沒有真正瞭解消費者的行爲方式爲什麼是這樣。但這沒關係。進行簡單、實用的研究對於監管機構來說是明智的，而相對於潛在的收益來說，這類實驗的成本是微不足道的。

True, the results are unsurprising: say what you mean; be brief; ask for action; follow up if you hear nothing. But this is important. It's important because it shows a regulator with an interest in learning and improving, and it's important because while the advice is common-sense, it's advice that many people - and even more bureaucracies - fail to heed.

是的，這些發現都在人們的意料之中：把你的意思直接表達出來；行文簡練；告訴收信者該做什麼；如果沒有迴音就繼續跟進。但這幾點確實很重要，原因在於，它們表明監管機構有興趣去學習和改善，另外，雖然這些建議是常識，但很多人、乃至更多機構都沒有遵從。

And even if the findings seem obvious, the effect is huge. The best letter received seven times as many responses as the original one. The three best tweaks each made more of an impact than the decision to send a letter at all rather than nothing. Brevity and clarity matter: advice worth taking next time you write an email.

另外，即便這些發現看似明顯，但它們的效果卻是巨大的。效果最好的信件版本，回覆率是原始版本的7倍。原始版本回復率幾乎爲零，而採納三種效果最好的方式中的任意一種，都會讓信件回覆率大大提高。行文簡練和表達清晰非常重要：這條建議值得你在下次寫電子郵件時採納。