"Regrets only" invitation response

[marbel]

Again, though, do they want a reply if yes, if maybe, if no, if all. I do prefer the person let me know what reply they want. When I send out invitations for things I usually say what kind of reply I'm looking for. I sent one out for a home school group meeting, and just asked people to reply if they couldn't make it. For birthday parties I usually ask for a reply if they are coming.

 

Kelly

 

I see what you mean.  But I also think "the favor of a reply" covers all possible replies.  It means:  reply to this invitation.     There are no "ifs" (reply if you can come, reply if you can't come), just "reply."

 

Maybe that's not as clear to everyone as it is to me?  Guess not. 

 

It does make it easier if people just reply with whatever their answer is, because then there's no wondering if they got the invitation. I think Quill mentioned that upthread. 

 

[HS Mom in NC]

I've gotten quite a few invitations lately that just spell it out and dispense with all the unspoken assumptions because, obviously, if people all agreed and understood the assumptions the same way we wouldn't have the problem we're discussing right now.  There's nothing wrong with just saying what you mean such as, "Please let us know if you're attending or not by XX/XX so we can have an accurate headcount for food and entrance fees." I don't understand the angst people have about being direct. More direct and precise solves all this fuss.  That, of course, doesn't mean there will never be a no show but it makes it clear that having a head count by a certain time matters to the host so the invitee can't plead ignorance. Having contact information for more than one way to send a reply helps too.

The other thing people seem to have uncertainty about is dealing with a maybe.  If you'll be there if you can get the time off work but you won't know if you can get the time off by the reply date, your kid's sports finals are then and the kid is currently in the play offs and you don't know if they'll win, or you're on call to help a dependent who is unpredictably medically up and down and you don't know if they'll be well that day,  just explain the situation to your host for heaven's sake.  If you can be there but later than the start time because you have to pick someone up at the airport, that incredibly hard to get appointment partly overlaps, you have to drive through the worst part of traffic and travel time is less predictable, or something like that, just tell the host.  That's more useful to them than not replying at all.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

I don't understand the angst people have about being direct. More direct and precise solves all this fuss. 

 

<snip>

 

I don't think anyone has any angst about being direct.  I think what bothers people is that potential guests don't even respond to a direct request for a response.

 

Evite is a perfect example.  There are 3 buttons to click:  yes, no, maybe.  People will read the invitation but still not click a button.  It's direct, it's easy... and people still don't respond. 

 

That's what's causing the angst.

[shawthorne44]

Another idea since this is a rotating thing.   Let everyone know that there will a Church Picnic on X day and Y time.  But, no location.   Make a gmail or hotmail address called ChuchNamePicnicRSVP@gmail.com.   

 

Then when people RSVP, whoever is the host can respond with the location.  

 

[HS Mom in NC]

But I also think "the favor of a reply" covers all possible replies.  It means:  reply to this invitation.     There are no "ifs" (reply if you can come, reply if you can't come), just "reply."

 

Maybe that's not as clear to everyone as it is to me?  Guess not. 

 

 

This is what I was responding to. It isn't direct because as you stated, it isn't clear to everyone.  There were posters in this thread who said they didn't know RSVP means respond even if you aren't coming. Simply stating that people should respond whether or not they can attend clears up most of the confusion. That's a separate issue from responding with one answer and acting on the opposite answer.  I have personally witnessed people (MIL & SIL) gasp when I suggested writing, "An RSVP is expected whether or not you plan to attend so we can have an accurate head count." on a formal, snail mail invitation for a bridal shower.  Apparently their sensibilities on the matter are so frail and delicate that explaining what what was meant by RSVP was some sort of social gaffe. Either that or their so married to tradition that they would rather hang onto it even though it isn't useful for the time and place they live in. So yes, there is angst about it.  If there weren't angst about just stating directly what you expect people to do in response to getting your invitation then people would've stopped using the archaic RSVP without an explanation years ago.

 

I hate evites. Too many people don't put in the subject line that it's an invitation and that makes it easily overlooked. Sometimes people have computer problems that don't get fixed right away so they don't get it.  Sometimes people take a break from electronics and aren't aware an invitation came along.  Better to call, text, or PM  directly.

 

[marbel]

This is what I was responding to. It isn't direct because as you stated, it isn't clear to everyone.  There were posters in this thread who said they didn't know RSVP means respond even if you aren't coming. Simply stating that people should respond whether or not they can attend clears up most of the confusion. That's a separate issue from responding with one answer and acting on the opposite answer.  I have personally witnessed people (MIL & SIL) gasp when I suggested writing, "An RSVP is expected whether or not you plan to attend so we can have an accurate head count." on a formal, snail mail invitation for a bridal shower.  Apparently their sensibilities on the matter are so frail and delicate that explaining what what was meant by RSVP was some sort of social gaffe. Either that or their so married to tradition that they would rather hang onto it even though it isn't useful for the time and place they live in. So yes, there is angst about it.  If there weren't angst about just stating directly what you expect people to do in response to getting your invitation then people would've stopped using the archaic RSVP without an explanation years ago.

 

I hate evites. Too many people don't put in the subject line that it's an invitation and that makes it easily overlooked. Sometimes people have computer problems that don't get fixed right away so they don't get it.  Sometimes people take a break from electronics and aren't aware an invitation came along.  Better to call, text, or PM  directly.

 

 

Since "RSVP" means "please respond" it would be even more clear to say "a response is expected whether or not you plan to attend..."   "An RSVP is expected..." is still unclear, if people don't know what RSVP means.

 

I am not sure I've ever received a formal invitation (such as to a wedding) without a reply card, which has people checking yes or no, or with a website to respond yes or no.  And yet, people still fail to respond to wedding invitations, no matter how clear.  So I still think it's not always a problem with the clarity of the request, but that people just don't care to respond at all. 

 

(Though I would say "please respond..." rather than "a response is expected" because honestly the latter sounds rather hostile to me, not something that I'd find on a social invitation.)