Here's a quick paraphrase of a recent conversation:
Chris: "If someone doesn't open your email, can't you just send them the same email again?"
Me: "Well... no. Open tracking is pretty unreliable. Outlook and Apple email servers usually block tracking pixels."
Chris: "Yeah... but if I emailed you a week ago, and sent you the same thing again, are you going to notice?"
While we don't recommend sending repeats of the same email, we believe there's value in reusing your research. Just because they didn't respond doesn't mean your reason for reaching out was invalid.
This is a larger point...
What is cold email personalization?
On paper: it's simply an observation about the person you're emailing, but if used effectively it becomes a reason to reach out.
Why would we change that out?
If we truly believe the reason we're reaching out is valid, why do we lose confidence so quickly when a reply doesn't happen on the first attempt?
This simple back and forth should start to shape your perspective on sequences. I Treat them like a HiiT class.
Four to six emails in a quick burst that are focused on the same reason. When we started working with our advisor Kristina Finseth, it was only right that she shared the same philosophy.
In that original 4-step cadence, email 1 and email 3 look very similar.
Email 3 rephrases email 1.
"Switching value props," doesn't give each value prop a proper chance to be evaluated.
Your outreach should be focused on them, the receiver. That means everything should be framed around what you can observe and the challenges you can derive from it. (Ideally challenges you can help with.)
You can try different angles with a prospect, but it should be framed along the lines of what you observe, not what you can solve.