Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Comments
by Bronze Contributor chieff
on ‎09-13-2010 03:35 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't agree.  If I am emailing to a secondary contact, then they're not a secondary contact to me - they deserve their own record.  Of course I use Company records to organize multiple contacts into a coherent record.  I use EMarketing (SwiftPage) and I value the results feedback of whether they opened the email, and the ranking, and secondary contacts don't have their own history - another reason to promote them.

I teach my users that Secondary Contacts = Second Class Citizens, I rarely use them, other than to hold the name of someone who I have NO contact with - a way to remember their name & title.

by ladybt28
on ‎09-13-2010 04:07 PM

 I will explain why it is important that the emails between the secondary contact and the company and/or contact record is important.  We are insurance brokers representing some 26 insurers.  Inside the insurers there may be 5 or 6 secondary contacts we would/may email regarding the client company or the insured person within the client company.  It is very important the history of any contacts/tasks etc remain under the client company and/or client contact in that company so that anyone looking at the system can see who has been contacted and the "history" of events relating to that client.

At the moment we go through our outbox to attach all the relevant emails to the clients manually and the same for the inbox when the insurer contact emails us back bearing in mind we may have 26 emails coming back!

We do have Company/Contact records for each of the insurers but because the insurer contact changes on a regular basis or they are a member of a large team where anyone can pick up the email and deal with it we do not want our histories for anyone of our 278 clients stored under the insurer entry, we need it all recorded under the client entry.

Maybe I am missing something here and in that scenario I can link them another way but I would say in our situation, which cannot be unique surely secondary contact email history would be the way to go.  If I missing something then can someone point me in the right direction so it is easy for us.

by Bronze Contributor chieff
on ‎09-14-2010 07:42 AM

I'm not sure this would help, but I found this 'feature' by accident.  If you create extra e-mail fields on the contact record (you have to anticipate the largest number of contacts you would have for a given insurer) and put each secondary's contact into ONE of those fields, then when you send email, since ACT! tries to match on ANY e-mail type field, it would attach the email to the contact's record.

by ladybt28
on ‎09-14-2010 08:04 AM

Thanks for that I will give it a go. Usually there is a work around for most problems in Act, some more convuluted and tiresome than others.  However, my point is Secondary Contacts email in this instance would be a simple and obvious solution.  I know that it has come up a bit in the forum; I am always in here looking at stuff so I know I am not the first to ask, comment or raise it as an issue, regardless of the way users want to use it. Some just do!

Some of us work in industries where regulation says "if it's not logged, it never happened"

 

What I would really like to know is....why doesnt secondary email record a history and would it be very difficult to implement.

by Bronze Contributor chieff
on ‎09-14-2010 08:18 AM

Well, to add to the mystery, did you know that secondary contacts are stored in the contact table just like regular contacts?  They simply have some bit set to denote them as secondary contacts and some link to the main contact record - we're not talking a separate table here.  That means they have ALL of the fields that the primary contact has, they're just not exposed.

by ladybt28
on ‎09-15-2010 06:00 AM

So..me not being a techy!! ...Are you saying that it would be easy to "expose" them so that they recorded a history and that new code or tables would not have to be written?

Could someone from Sage comment please...if it really is that easy.... why hasn't/can't it be done?

by Bronze Contributor chieff
on ‎09-15-2010 06:59 AM

I'm not from Sage, but I understand why they don't expose them - right now, we have the industry-standard ACCOUNT-to-CONTACT relationship.  If they exposed them, then we would have ACCOUNT-to-CONTACT-to-CONTACT/SECONDARYCONTACT whatever you want to call it, and that would be too confusing for many users.

by ladybt28
on ‎09-15-2010 09:18 AM

With the greatest respect Chieff.... type in "secondary contacts" into the community forum here and you will see nearly 100 discussions about these fields.  When read carefully the users are usually complaining that these fields are not working or they cannot do with them, what they would normally "expect" to do with something called "secondary contact".   So I have to say, I don't think they would be "confused" at all by having them exposed.

Forget about industry labels - what about the tasks the users need to complete?  If enough people ask the sameor similar questions then it's cos the user needs to "use" whatever it is they are asking about!

 

I know its not your problem...but if Sage think we would be so easily confused by something as obvious as treating a secondary contact as a "contact" then they don't respect the users very much!  Sage are the ones who are confused..."Secondary CONTACT"...its in the name!!.. rant over but thanks very much for your input.  I hope all the users who have posted before see this and VOTE so we can make better use of "Secondary Contacts".

by JM
on ‎09-15-2010 05:23 PM

ladybt28,

I voted for your request but don't hold your breath. As I've said to others and it goes for this as well it's not high enough.  Yes 100 does not cut it on Sage list when there are others with more importance and Sage usually only kicks out each year 2-3 features and a couple of bug fixes.  It's negative of me to say it, but the reality is don't wait come up with a workaround or hire a developer to customize it for you min. $1500.  My point based on your needs creating each contact and not use secondary contacts and don't create multiple email fields for contact.  To record to history any email activity it looks like you only need to create up to (26insr x 6) 156 extra records.  Next Associate the contacts to their respective company record.  Now when you go to a Company record you will see all Histories of all those contacts associated to it.

 

Now think beyond storing history email activity, think how can I grow, and maintain my network of contacts to help grow the business through networking.  Since ACT 2010 the power using Swiftpage email can automate the messaging with even secondary thought of class people.  Customized messages quarterly sent emails give you feedback like not correct email, who else is it being forwarded to, have they left the company and an auto reply give you a new contact and or where they went to.  Never assume all secondary people do not move up in the work force or they don't talk about you with their new company.  This way if they change companies you only need to change in Contact record their email, address, ect.. and change/add the new company they work for.

 

JM

by Silver Elite Contributor
on ‎09-17-2010 01:18 AM

I agree with the original proposal. In my experience the balance is well in favour of having emails from secondary contacts recorded. The history record should also show to which secondary contact the email was sent.

 

For the benfit of people who don't want this behaviour perhaps we could have a "record history for secondary contacts" check box in email preferences.

 

Jeff

Labels