Reply immediately

Text: an original contemporary media-commentary-style practice extract.

Every message in our conference-planning group began with the words PLEASE RESPOND IMMEDIATELY. The phrase appeared above requests for volunteers, questions about equipment and polls on minor design choices. On Thursday afternoon, it introduced two messages posted within a minute of each other. One asked us to choose between grey and green name badges. The other asked whether anyone could collect a guest speaker from the station.

The badge poll received fifteen votes in eight minutes. The request for a driver received none. At the station, the speaker waited while the organiser left the conference desk to collect her. Later, the organiser pointed to the group’s twenty-six responses that afternoon as evidence that the heading worked. In one sense, it had: we had tapped, commented and selected with impressive speed. Yet the total counted every response as equally useful.

It would be unfair to blame the wording for everything. Voting took one touch, while collecting somebody required time and a car; moreover, the messages themselves made the different tasks clear. Repeated insistence had not made us indifferent. It had encouraged plenty of activity, but it had not helped us direct that activity towards the task that most needed doing. A call for attention is of limited value if it cannot distinguish a preference from a practical responsibility.

In this extract, the writer tries to question the effectiveness of repeatedly using urgent language.

Evaluate how successfully this is achieved. Support your views with detailed reference to the extract.