Thank you messages

onlyroz

LadyDee wrote: »

If I received a text to thank me for a present, it would be the last present they received from me. They should jolly well pick up the phone and actually speak to you. Texting in such a situation I think is totally unacceptable.

I'm afraid you need to move with the times. People have moved beyond letters and phone calls as the dominant means of communication. A text, email or other kind of instant message should be perfectly acceptable in the modern day.

This year my kids got a present from an aged technophobe aunt who lives at a distance and also from another aunt who is far more tech-savvy. The aged aunt got a phone call from me and will receive a hand-written note from the kids in a few days. The other aunt was thanked via Facebook, accompanied by photographs showing what the kids spent their money on.

TBagpuss

onlyroz wrote: »

I'm afraid you need to move with the times. People have moved beyond letters and phone calls as the dominant means of communication. A text, email or other kind of instant message should be perfectly acceptable in the modern day.

This year my kids got a present from an aged technophobe aunt who lives at a distance and also from another aunt who is far more tech-savvy. The aged aunt got a phone call from me and will receive a hand-written note from the kids in a few days. The other aunt was thanked via Facebook, accompanied by photographs showing what the kids spent their money on.

I don't entirely agree. I think it depnds on the content as much as the medium, and also on the recipient. I agree that letters are not the dominant form of communication any more but don't agree that phone calls are not, and I think that tere is still a big difference between e-mails and texts.

i think that getting a thank you note via e-mail would be acceptable to most, getting nothing but a text is, and feels, rather as though the sender is doing the absolte bare minimum. It's better than nothing, but I don't think it is equivalent to takin the trouble to send a card, letter, e-mail ot to make a phone call.

Politeness is about considering the other people you are interacting with, so in thanking someone for a gift, it is reasonable to consider how they are likely to pervcieve things (within reason!). Sending a text to your mate, if that is how you primarily communicate, may well be fine. Senidng one to your grandparents, unless texting is *their* principal means of communication, is much less gracious or polite.

Marvel1

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

if they cannot be bothered to visit you too. 150 miles is nothing.

Visiting works 2 ways.

Lily-Rose_3

onlyroz wrote: »

I'm afraid you need to move with the times. People have moved beyond letters and phone calls as the dominant means of communication. A text, email or other kind of instant message should be perfectly acceptable in the modern day.

This year my kids got a present from an aged technophobe aunt who lives at a distance and also from another aunt who is far more tech-savvy. The aged aunt got a phone call from me and will receive a hand-written note from the kids in a few days. The other aunt was thanked via Facebook, accompanied by photographs showing what the kids spent their money on.

TBagpuss wrote: »

I don't entirely agree. I think it depends on the content as much as the medium, and also on the recipient. I agree that letters are not the dominant form of communication any more but don't agree that phone calls are not, and I think that there is still a big difference between e-mails and texts.

Politeness is about considering the other people you are interacting with, so in thanking someone for a gift, it is reasonable to consider how they are likely to perceive things (within reason!). Sending a text to your mate, if that is how you primarily communicate, may well be fine. Sending one to your grandparents, unless texting is *their* principal means of communication, is much less gracious or polite.

I wouldn't have thought an old technophobe aunt or granny would have had a mobile phone to allow texting. Or a computer for emailing. I know older people (over 70 in my experience,) seem to prefer a handwritten letter or phone call, or even a quick visit if they live close enough.

So with that in mind, that is what they would get/have got in the past from me, my hubby, and my daughter. Many people believe sending cards is pointless or daft these days, (including my daughter and her buddies,) but I like it, and appreciate it, and so she sends them to me - and also her dad (my hubby.)

As has been said on here, some people need to be treated differently to others.

FBaby

I totally agree with Tbagpuss. The purpose of saying thank you is to show thoughtfulness back to the giver. It is the preferred mean of the giver that matters. If they are going to be as happy with a one word text than a long letter, than fine, however, if they feel that their attention deserves a bit more appreciation and cards are what they prefer, then that's what it should be.

Tammykitty

The only time I ever sent a thank you card was for wedding presents.


Everything else - I generally get in person, or thank the giver in person the next time I see them, very occasionally I will send a text thanking someone if I won't see them for a while.


again, other than wedding or new baby gifts, I don't think I have ever received a thank you card - have had a few texts though

annandale

The person I texted to thank for a gift is someone who I communicate in that way with all year round. I also see him regularly. It's my brother. He doesn't chat a lot on his phone. Some people don't.

I saw him on Xmas eve and thanked him in advance for the presents. If I hadn't texted him on Xmas day to thank him, he'd have texted me. It's his preference to text rather than call and I respect that.

There is no one size fits all. Everyone is different.

I'll also say that I had a relative who was very hard of hearing and even though she had a landline phone phoning her wouldn't have been my first option to thank her.

There could be numerous reasons why people don't phone as the first preferred option and what works for one family won't necessary work for another

onlyroz

TBagpuss wrote: »

I don't entirely agree. I think it depnds on the content as much as the medium, and also on the recipient. I agree that letters are not the dominant form of communication any more but don't agree that phone calls are not, and I think that tere is still a big difference between e-mails and texts.

i think that getting a thank you note via e-mail would be acceptable to most, getting nothing but a text is, and feels, rather as though the sender is doing the absolte bare minimum. It's better than nothing, but I don't think it is equivalent to takin the trouble to send a card, letter, e-mail ot to make a phone call.

Politeness is about considering the other people you are interacting with, so in thanking someone for a gift, it is reasonable to consider how they are likely to pervcieve things (within reason!). Sending a text to your mate, if that is how you primarily communicate, may well be fine. Senidng one to your grandparents, unless texting is *their* principal means of communication, is much less gracious or polite.

If the message is the same (e.g. "Thanks Auntie Flo for the £20 - I spent it on a new video game. I hope you have a happy new year") why does it matter how it's delivered? You're saying that because it's quick to send a text but time consuming and costly to write a letter that the letter has more value? Sounds a bit snobbish to me.

It's the sentiment that's important - i.e. the gift was graciously received and appreciated. The delivery of the message should be irrelevant. Sure, if Auntie Flo doesn't have a mobile then you'll have to call or write to her. But if she has a mobile or Facebook account or email address then why not use it?

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

If the message is the same (e.g. "Thanks Auntie Flo for the £20 - I spent it on a new video game. I hope you have a happy new year") why does it matter how it's delivered? You're saying that because it's quick to send a text but time consuming and costly to write a letter that the letter has more value? Sounds a bit snobbish to me.

It's the sentiment that's important - i.e. the gift was graciously received and appreciated. The delivery of the message should be irrelevant. Sure, if Auntie Flo doesn't have a mobile then you'll have to call or write to her. But if she has a mobile or Facebook account or email address then why not use it?

But, given that there are people who do feel like this, surely it's only courteous to contact them in the way that they would prefer, even if you personally feel it unnecessary?

onlyroz

missbiggles1 wrote: »

But, given that there are people who do feel like this, surely it's only courteous to contact them in the way that they would prefer, even if you personally feel it unnecessary?

You could argue that quibbling over the delivery method of a thank you message is just as discourteous as the recipient not sending the message. If somebody was going to demand from me a very specific type of gratitude then I'd be happy for them to not bother with a gift the next year.