Notes on the Evolution of Contact Information

I've noticed recently that, when you ask an email correspondent for their contact information (those who don't include it in their e-signature), what one gets is different today than a few years ago.

Today, one gets:

• one or more email addresses,
• cell phone #,
• Twitter handle,
• various URL's to information on the web (usually LinkedIn, Facebook, the person's blog/tubmlr, et al.); and

What one doesn't get:

• a physical address
• IM name
• landline phone #

Exceptions:

• Service providers (e.g., lawyers, accountants, consultants), who give reams of contact information, no surprise
• Executives in large companies with executive assistants (who, increasingly and humorously in some cases, have their own elaborate e-signatures)
• Folks outside the tech/media startup echo chamber in which I live

Interesting how address book technology hasn't kept up.  In Outlook 2007, the version I use, there's no field for one's Twitter handle (one can still enter one's IM address/name), only space for one "web site", and no recognition in any of the "database fields" of the rise of social networks as a part of one's identity and "address".

Comments

[David Hoffman]

and interesting insight Allen. has a permanent lifelong independent “freelancer” I still include a statement below my name that tries to explain what I do and have done. As you and I have discussed. If you are not in a traditional job with the traditional job title, that description is a challenge but without it, I feel that my Facebook and twitter just don't say much about who I am and what I am up to.
Best regards
David Hoffman

[Allen Morgan]

Thanks, as always, for the comment, David. You are probably the most thoughtful person I know about this stuff. It would be an interesting study, if one had time, to examine/analyze a large pool of e-signatures to see what they might tell us!

Maybe when I retire!