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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT