http://www.nordicchamber.cz/upload_files/Image/thank-you-letter.jpg
Above is a thank-you letter from the Embassy of the United States of America to the Nordic Chamber of Commerce. Firstly, I notice that the format is not the similar but not quite the same as what we have learned. The address of the US Embassy is not given (though it may be in the signature block, which may have been cutoff). Also, the date stands alone in the center, under the letterhead. There is an address block and salutation, but no subject line. I suppose that is because the tone of this letter is meant to be more personal.
Clarity:
The letter does convey the message. It is written in direct style, which makes this easier.
Concreteness:
Cited the event, the exact sum donated, and the frame. It could have been more concrete by saying how the money would be used (besides just for Hurricane Katrina relief).
Correctness:
No glaring errors.
Cohesion:
The message stays on topic; very focused with a clear purpose. The message is not long enough to need many transitions.
Completeness:
The letter is posted on the Nordic Chamber of Commerce website, so I infer that they got all the information they wanted. Thus, complete.
Conciseness:
This letter is certainly concise, but perhaps too concise. It is perhaps too blunt and not specific enough. Granted, as this may have been during Katrina repair, it is possible that the writer could not spent as much time writing the letter as he would have liked.
Courteous:
I do find it strange that the writer talked about the frame, but not what the donation will be specifically used for. [The standard joke in movies and TV shows when a not-so-sophisticated character is in an art museum is him standing infront of a famous painting and all he can do is comment on how expensive the frame looks. I am not sure how far this frame of reference extends, but I think it is worth noting.] Overall, one might go as far as to say that this letter violates STARS in regards to being Specific. He also does not mention the food or luncheon itself, rather only speaking at it – could this be taken disrespectful?
While this is not the thank-you letter I would have written, I suppose it did the job, as may be inferred as it is posted on the Nordic Chamber of Commerce’s website.
Edited in response to Kalene's feedback.
Hieyo Matt!
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused when I read your reply. What is "STARS"?
Also, we have to write a critique on the letter based on the 7Cs. The 7Cs can be found in chapter 2 of the textbook. I remember you saying that NUS libraries have copies of the ES textbook. So, I assume that you don't have a textbook.
Just in case you won't be coming to school during the weekends...the 7Cs are courtesy, clarity, cohesion, completeness, concreteness, clarity and conciseness.
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteThe format is definitely quite different from what we normally see in a formal letter. I believed adding a subject heading would be better in explaining the purpose of the letter.
With respect to the 7Cs of writing, I feel that the letter is not coherent enough (Or Specific according to your STARS format). The letter first thanked the party for the money donation, followed by the striking frame and continued with the special demonstration. The different issues do not link with each other and you won't put in such stuff (striking frame) in a thank you letter.
Hope you had a great time in NUS! Cheers!
Johny
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteI do find it strange too when he mentioned the frame being striking. If I was the reader, I would find this being rude, because I feel it is not a way to thank people and there are other ways to make the letter more personal.
You had a clear cut analysis and I also agreed that the letter could give more details on how the money would be spent. In addition, the format needs readjustment, for example “Dear Mr. Silfverschiold:” and “Sincerely,” one colon was used the other was a comma.
Hey Matt,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the format of the letter was quite different with what we have learnt and I find that the " Striking Frame" sentence was sort of a joke. If I were the reader, I would have found the letter to be rude as it seems like my donation was not taken seriously.
Although the language and sentence structures were fine, fulfilling some of the 7Cs, I believed that the major problem in this letter was coherence. Like what the others have said, the sentences doesn't link.