Thank You Note Bankruptcy and the Beauty of a Blog Community…

I was just loving the multiple, varied, and challenging responses to my post on Thank You Note Bankruptcy as they came in.

This is why I tell people that I think the comments are the BEST part of the blogging experience. I like how commenters respond and build on each other. This is what makes us a mini-community and why people say that “blogs are conversations.”

So, jump in and add a comment.

Now, onto the matter at hand.

There were some AMAZING comments. What’s better than having your readers quote back your previous posts to you and telling you that you are a hypocrite?

I’ll tell you: NOTHING! Well done, Ben.

Now, Gadi led the charge in asking for my response. And, if I were smart, I would have buried this in the pre-4th of July deadzone so people wouldn’t see how much of a beating I took, but you know me and 2400 posts into the FOJ blog, that’s not how I roll.

Anyway, there are two points here.

1. Is it ungrateful to not write a note or at least somehow acknowledge the gift?
2. What is the point of the gift-giving process?

Let’s dispatch with number 1. I’ll grant that it’s ungrateful to not acknowledge. I’m all in favor of acknowledging, I was just asking about notes. The consensus seems to be stop blogging, write some T.Y. notes. Ok, done.

Now, the second point, for which Jamie and Keren were the primary proponents, that gift-giving is about BOTH the giver and the receiver.

Jamie wrote:

when you shun the whole process, or try to engineer it for some people, you are taking away something from them. Gift-givers get something out of going out of their way to give you something. At least I know I do. I enjoy thinking about a couple or a family on a special occasion and trying to figure out what they need and how I can give them something to help with that need.

And Keren wrote:

While I am not opposed to registries, gift-giving is neither entirely about the recipient, nor entirely about the giver - it is about both. Which is why, sometimes, there is special value in the giver going outside of the registry box to think about what would be a good gift for the recipient (although, as I have said before, the process should not be unduly influenced by the giver's own preferences).

But, here is the part I can’t reconcile.

Both of them say that one of the best parts of the process for the giver is in the effort to try and find that good gift for the recipient. Their intentions are pure, they want to get a “fit” based on a whole slew of criteria. Great.

But, as we all know, some times the giver is wrong in his/her assessment of what is a perfect fit. (Let’s assume that a portion of those were from people with Keren/Jamie pure intentions.)

So, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the Keren/Jamie’s of the world (hereafter: KJ) are right in their “out of the box” thinking 65% of the time that a non-registry gift is a good fit. Whereas, if you give a gift that is off the registry, it is 100% certain that it is a good fit.

According to their logic then, they’d rather have a 65% chance of having a perfect fit and a 35% chance of giving a gift that isn’t right than taking the 100% guarantee.

But, I guess it comes down to process vs. results.

I am focused on results, not on process. So, for me, that doesn’t work.

If I give you a gift, I want to KNOW that I have given you something that you value.

(Maybe that’s a global micro-brand thing, I don’t know, but I know the reactions I have had (and I’ve seen from others) when you get a gift that is just a dud. You want to be grateful, but man, who really needs this thing, right?)

KJ, on the other hand, puts more emphasis on the process of gift giving.

They enjoy the thought, preparation, search, the creative aspect of aligning all of the factors that come into playa, and challenge of finding the perfect fit.

To me, that just doesn’t make sense, since I’d rather have the bird in the hand, so to speak.

Frankly, it also seems a bit selfish. If the gift is FOR the other person, then the only thing that matters is whether it benefits the other person or not. In the KJ scenario, they are perfectly happy that they enjoyed the process of finding the perfect gift even though they actually didn’t accomplish that goal 35% of the time (or whatever it is, but we know it is less than 100%).

I guess KJ likes the self-deception :-)

The process (and results) are about the recipient, not about the giver, nor what I get out of the process as the giver.

I’m going to pay for this one.

Ok, readers…you smell blood in the water, now go for it!