Because my post, “How to Write E-mail that Sucks,” garnered several comments, I thought we could discuss another e-mail issue. Over on the Business Writing blog, Lynn Gaertner-Johnston raises the question of whether subject-only e-mails are good or bad. She had someone write to her complaining about this practice, but she doesn’t think they’re necessarily a bad thing.
I’ve gotten them before, and they don’t usually bother me. For example, I had one co-worker who would send out messages withe subjects like “I’ll be out of the office this afternoon” and nothing in the body. After all, there wasn’t much more to say; the subject let me know all I needed. (She did usually append “[EOM]” to the subject to indicate that that was the end of the message.)
Of course, like all other things, they could be abused. For example, some messages can’t be condensed into a single line, but you can bet someone will try in a vain attempt to gain some sort of false economy.
What do you think? Good, bad, or indifferent?
It’s very simple, if you ask me: if you can fit your content in one short line ("Will be late this morning"), why not? Otherwise, use the body of the e-mail for details.Occasionally, I’ll do this, but simply write "Subject says it all." in the body.
I agree that subject-only e-mail is OK, especially when writing to colleagues who know you well. It’s always important to pay attention to the subject line. Like the headline of a newspaper article, the subject is the first thing that readers see. Does it catch the reader’s attention? Tell the reader what to expect in the e-mail? Give readers the most important point? Include information that will help readers find the e-mail again if they put it in a folder?