Simplifying Phone Message Can Lead to Complications
My discussion of what kind of message to leave on one’s answering machine has provoked numerous suggestions, none of them quite satisfactory.
It is curious that even when one has unlimited time to think up something clever and useful to say, the thing eludes him.
That suggests how difficult it is to be clever in conversation, when one’s responses must be instantaneous.
Readers agree with me that the too-cute message is hard to bear, and those that give too much information are tiresome.
Meyer Kaplan of Seal Beach suggests a message for me, noting that it only takes 15 seconds and covers all bases:
“Hello and thanks for calling the Smith residence. At the tone signal, please leave a message. In giving a phone number, kindly speak slowly. In the meantime, have a nice remainder of the day. Bye, for now.”
Somehow that doesn’t do it for me. Why thank anyone for calling when you don’t know who it is and what he wants? It might be a neighbor telling you that your dog has desecrated his lawn. It might be a cemetery salesman. Why say “tone signal”? Isn’t the tone a signal? Why suggest the caller speak slowly only in giving a number. How about speaking slowly when he gives his name? Wishing him a nice remainder of the day is too cute. It might make him realize that time is fleeting and he has just wasted some of his day by making a fruitless telephone call.
It isn’t easy.
Leslie Leis of Whittier poses a tricky philosophical question. “You can’t say ‘Hello, this is Jack Smith,’ ” he says, “because it is not you! It is a recording of your voice on the answering machine.
“I could be coy and tell you to call my number to see what my message is, but you’re a busy man so I’ll go ahead and tell you. Very simply, ‘Hello, this is Leslie’s answering machine. Please leave your message after the beep. . . .’ More often than not, the caller will say, ‘Hello, Leslie’s answering machine . . . ‘ “
There is a flaw in Leis’ argument. True, when the machine says: “This is Jack Smith,” it isn’t really me talking; it’s the machine. On the other hand, machines can’t talk. So it’s not really the machine talking; it’s me.
Eddie Saeta of Camarillo goes for brevity. He suggests “When you hear the beep . . . speak.”
That is indeed a practical solution. It leaves out the unnecessary information. All the caller really needs to know is that the person he is calling is not answering, either because he is not home or is otherwise occupied, and that the caller may leave a message on his machine.
Juanita Cirelli of Whittier suggests the blunt “It’s your dime. Spend it.” That response was popular in the 1920s, when phone calls cost only a nickel. (“Go ahead. It’s your nickel.”)
Fred Okrand of Van Nuys disagrees with my idea that the person called need not identify himself. “If only as a matter of courtesy, it is a nice thing to do. Actually it is essential. The identification should be either by name or phone number. “
“Your argument that if the caller has ‘dialed the incorrect number there’s no point in telling him who you are’ is not well taken,” he says. “It is precisely in such an instance that identification is necessary.
“The caller will then realize that he or she has gotten a wrong number, will hang up and will dial again. Without knowledge that the wrong number has been reached, the caller will have been lulled into leaving a fruitless message which may well result in untoward consequences.”
He is right. It is only courtesy to state one’s number. I am fascinated, though, by his suggestion that not stating one’s name or number might lead to “untoward circumstances.”
One rarely hears the word untoward anymore. According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, it means “inappropriate, improper, unseemly, etc.” I wonder what untoward circumstances might result from a failure to state one’s name or number.
Let’s say that, thinking he has the right number (though, in fact, he doesn’t), the caller says, “This is Fred” and leaves a message making an illicit proposition to some female. To you, the message seems intended for your wife. It so happens that you know a Fred, who, you wrongly suspect, might just be capable of such an overture. The consequences might be worse than untoward. They could be catastrophic.
Yes, by all means, let’s identify ourselves.
I am changing my message to the following:
This is Jack and Denny Smith’s. Please leave a message. Enunciate clearly. Please be sure you have the right party before you make any untoward suggestions.
