Electronic holiday cheer

December 24, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Instead of running to the mailbox to see if you’ve received a holiday card, try opening your inbox.

Electronic holiday cards seem to be catching on with people, including professionals, as a way to send your holiday cheer without stamps. I never received one before, and this year I had two in my inbox from law firms. The interactive cards were cute and professional.

Others here at Indiana Lawyer noted they received a few e-cards last year.

I have a few ideas as to why these are gaining popularity with firms. Electronic cards are probably cheaper. You don’t have to pay printing costs, guess how many cards you’ll need, or pay postage. I’m sure this is upsetting to the United States Post Office.

In addition, you know your recipient will get the electronic card nearly instantaneously; no more waiting several days for the cards to be delivered and hoping some are not lost in the mail.

E-cards are greener than traditional holiday cards, and who doesn’t want to be green these days? You’re not wasting paper on the cards and envelopes – as well as the gas and emissions the postal workers use to deliver them.

The increase of electronic cards is probably related to the decrease of mailed cards we received this year. Firms looking to cut costs may go the electronic-card route or cut back on who they mail cards to.

Are electronic cards going to be the way to go in the future when sending out cards?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT