1. This letter does not seem to be very effective. The approach was very unprofessional. I assume the needs of the reader was met: he or she will receive a replacement. However, I do not recall the reader asking who or what caused the defective shipment. The tone of the writer and the writer him/herself is both selfish and improper. There is no need to mention the fact that the new employee who apparently caused the damaged shipment was fired. It somewhat shows or portrays that new employees are not receiving proper training, which is a bad representation of the business whether true or false. The statement, “although it will cost our company several hundred dollars,” is completely unnecessary. Was it supposed to be a comforting statement? As if the company is doing the reader a huge favor; it is not the reader’s fault the shipment was damaged. Also, saying “we trust that you will not complain again,” does not seem reassuring, it nearly sounds like a threat. The writer does save the reader much time with all of the excuses and needless spaces. This letter does not seem to build goodwill. The writer should have led with the good news that the reader would be receiving a new shipment. (The salutation/greeting should have been written as “Dear Pat Sykes:,” since the gender is unknown.)
2. This letter is somewhat effective but completely amateur. This letter was written as if the reader was the writer’s middle school classmate. The apology in the first sentence was totally unprofessional and informal. The writer’s words and tone portrayed him or her as a surfer who did strongly disliked their job. This letter did appear to save time and meet the reader’s needs: an apology, new shipment, and even partial reimbursement of money. The message may not have been correct, but it was definitely clear and time saving. I believe the writer built goodwill. (The salutation/greeting should have been written as “Dear Pat Sykes:,” since the gender is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document