It has nothing to do with “low class” or “common”. I work for a large conservative public company and the vendors I deal with have something to do with legal or technology or (usually) both. There’s this whole risk assessment process they have to go through. We ask al kinds of questions about how long have they been in business, what safeguards do they have for the data they retain, how are their financials, etc, etc. IOW, the vendor doesn’t have to be huge, but they are generally sufficiently large, well established and stable that they have their own email server.
It might help to know what kind of business you are thinking of where the people have gmail accounts. I’m imagining something like a small roofing contractor or something which isn’t really what I deal with.
As mentioned, it depends upon the service. And the adjectives “lowclass” and “common” aren’t correct, as we’re talking about levels of professionalism and organization here.
It’s not the “common”-ness that’s the issue, having a generic email address implies a lack of technical sophistication within your organization, which can be a bad thing… or not.
The couple that comes in twice a week to clean the office does not need a website/email domain because the task (cleaning) is non-technical. My printer needs one, however, because I want to see PDF samples of their work: I would expect somebody capable enough of investing the hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital equipment and knowledgeable staff needed to be a professional print shop to have their own website and email domain. Same thing with my lawyer, CPA, phone services provider, internet provider, electric company, all up and down the chain. Having your own business domain is the rule, not the exception.
Lastly, being able to provide the lowest bid doesn’t guarantee you the work - you still have to convince me you will be able to perform.
certainly.
I am a lot more doubtful of a generic email address. It indicates (assuming no question of fraud) that the person works for a very small outfit who isn’t interested in technology. Not necessarily bad, but I am more cautious.
As a big company, we don’t generally do business with very small vendors. A few years ago I needed some software from a nine person company, and it was hell to get purchasing approval to buy it. If we need a freelancer or a consultant, we go through an established firm to get a person - less liability, less chance the IRS is going to tell us they were “really” an employee.
I occasionally get emails from username@generic.com, and it almost always means I will spend hours answering basic and/or stupid questions and in the end they won’t do what I advise they should do anyway. This pattern is so predictable. I try to think of it as charity work.
Thankfully, 99.5% of my emails are from username@lawfirm.com, and they always ask straightforward questions and they always do what I advise they should do. Everybody wins.
I’m not in a position to decide whether to engage the OP’s services or not, but I think some kinds of email address domains would betray potential cluelessness. If someone uses <their_cute_aol_name>@aol.com, or even <firstname.lastname@aol.com> I question their tech savvy for not having kicked AOL to the curb by now, their common sense for subjecting themselves to AOL’s pop-up and banner laden experience when they are already paying their ISP to get on the Web, and their ability and means to work and communicate online. Somebody who uses AOL might ask you for a fax or something, where others would ask for a scanned signed document attached to an email. On the other hand, if I don’t have the luxury of favoring some associates and disfavoring others, I have to suck it up.
IMHO hotmail and gmail addresses look a lot better for those who don’t want to set up their own domain.
A firm is just what it’s called. I would call that a firm, too. I bet a lot of lawyers would. I’m sure he knows you know how many people are there. I venture to guess he just means “my firm” as in “my company” – same thing. I doubt he’s trying to sound bigger than he is.
It’s a minor point in the overall scheme of things, but it is a point. If I don’t know you and you don’t come recommended, it will probably be enough not to have me take a second look at your company and what you do.
I didn`t mean to imply there’s an absolute right or wrong. It’s more a matter of my perception. It seems to me that if you have, say, an hour long meeting with someone, whether they’re a 1 man shop or from a huge firm, they ought to naturally switch between referring to themselves as the firm and as an individual.
I was commenting on a phenomenon I’ve observed where some small shops seem unwilling to refer to themselves as anything but plural. For instance, it might be reasonable to say “yes, we’ll do a patentability study in 3 weeks and we can have another meeting to discuss.” But then when we’re having a lengthy in-depth discussion of the findings, I want to hear his opinion on how the examiner is likely to respond to claims, not “our opinion”. It’s unnatural to have a conversation with someone who insists on being plural. It’s like talking to the Borg from Star Trek.
In Spain it is very normal for small companies to have an email that’s littlecompany@bigprovider.es; I would find it strange if a place with more than 20 employees had one of those, but for a small company or a self-employed professional it’s perfectly normal.
Some prefer gmail to bigprovider because if they switch internet providers, the gmail address doesn’t change.
.es adresses are ridiculously expensive and require setting up, at the very least, the email server. For someone like me, always on the move, it’s a completely unnecessary expenditure of time and money; for many small firms as well. I’ve seen too many webpages (some from very large companies which really should be able to afford better) which were little more than the company’s logo: no webpage is better.
