Sales outreach
Outreach that doesn't read as outreach.
Most cold email loses the recipient in the first sentence. We rewrite outreach for a specific reason, a relevant proof point, and a low-friction ask — the three things reply rates actually move on.
Before & after
Before
Hi Sarah, I hope this email finds you well. My name is Alex and I'm reaching out from Acme Corp. We help companies like yours optimize their customer support operations through our innovative AI-powered platform. I'd love to schedule a brief 15-minute call to learn more about your current challenges and explore how we might be able to help.
After
Hi Sarah — saw your team posted a Senior Support Lead role last week. Two of your peers (Vercel and Linear) hit their CSAT targets after moving their tier-one resolution to async. Worth a 15-minute call to compare notes? Either way, congrats on the growth.
What changed, and why
- Opens with a specific, observable trigger — a job posting — that proves the email is not a sequence.
- Proof point is two named peers and a specific outcome, not 'companies like yours.'
- Ask is low-friction (15 minutes, compare notes) and pre-committed to value either way.
- Closes with a genuine note that lands even if the recipient does not reply.
- Cut the length by nearly half and roughly doubled the typical reply rate in our editorial benchmarks.
When to use this rewrite
Use on any outbound message where the recipient does not already know you and where reply rate matters more than send volume. For pure-volume motions, the economics may favour template; for any motion above SMB ACV, specificity wins.
What to avoid
Do not fake the trigger. If you did not actually see the job posting or research the peer comparison, do the work or pick a different angle. Faux-personalised outreach is worse than honest template outreach because it is identifiable.
Common questions
How does this work at scale?
It does not — the point. Specific outreach is slower per send and dramatically more effective per send. The right volume for this kind of outreach is far smaller than most teams default to.
Will replies scale with the better writing?
Reply rates in the 5–15% range are realistic for well-targeted outreach in this style; 1–3% is realistic for template outreach. The difference compounds when you account for meeting quality, not just count.
Does the writing style work in regulated industries?
Yes, with the standard adjustments for register. The principle of leading with specifics rather than positioning language is industry-independent.