30 B2B cold email & LinkedIn templates with subject lines, body structure, and performance context. New Hire Signal, Post-Funding, Competitor Switch, SDR Replacement, Pipeline Re-Engagement, and Vertical Portfolio Match. Plus 9 advanced templates and 15 LinkedIn outreach structures.
These 30 template structures — 15 for cold email, 15 for LinkedIn — represent the highest-performing outbound patterns in B2B outreach. Each one is built around a specific trigger event, prospect situation, or psychological mechanism, and includes the subject line or opener pattern, body architecture, the mechanism that makes it work, and the mistakes that kill performance. Data benchmarks throughout are drawn from analysis of 2M+ real cold emails and 61,000+ classified replies.
These are structures, not scripts. Copy-paste templates get flagged by spam filters (email providers detect identical content sent at volume) and ignored by prospects who’ve seen the same phrasing from other vendors. The value is the architecture — what to say in which order, which psychological trigger to deploy. Fill in your own numbers, case studies, and prospect research. An email built on the right structure with real data will outperform brilliant copy on a weak structure every time.
Trigger: Prospect changed roles in the last 90 days. New leaders (CROs, VPs Sales, Heads of Growth) evaluate vendors, build their stack, and have budget earmarked for change. The first 30 days produce the highest response rates.Why it works: New executives face pressure to demonstrate impact quickly. They’re more open to outside perspectives than incumbents and actively building vendor relationships. Your outreach arrives when they’re looking for options rather than filtering them.Subject:congrats, [company] or new [title] playbook or [company] outboundStructure:
Signal acknowledgment (1 sentence) — reference the exact role and company
Insight from similar transitions (1-2 sentences) — what typically happens when someone in their role joins at their stage
Proof point (1 sentence) — specific result from a similar transition
Question CTA (1 sentence) — ask about their priorities, not your calendar
Example:
[First name], saw you just stepped into the VP Sales role at [company].When [similar company] brought in a new VP Sales last quarter, the first thing they tackled was the pipeline gap between inbound and outbound capacity — roughly $2.4M in annual pipeline left on the table.We helped them launch outbound that produced 38 qualified meetings in the first 11 weeks.Is closing that gap on your radar for the first 90 days, or are you focused elsewhere?
Word count: 74 words | Response window: First 30 days after role changeCommon mistakes: Waiting past 30 days (urgency drops), generic congratulations without insight, pitching in the congratulations email instead of leading with the transition insight.
Trigger: Company announced a funding round, expansion, or growth milestone in the last 2-6 weeks. Post-funding companies have budget and urgency — investors expect capital deployed into growth infrastructure.Why it works: Funding creates a specific psychological state: public commitments to growth, capital to deploy, and board expectations for velocity. Leadership is actively seeking partners to scale faster than they could build in-house.Subject:post-series B pipeline or [company] pipeline scaling or series BStructure:
Signal acknowledgment (1 sentence) — reference the round type/amount
Scaling challenge insight (1-2 sentences) — the operational bottleneck that typically follows
Proof from a similar-stage company (1 sentence) — specific result with timeline
Question CTA (1 sentence) — about their scaling approach
Example:
[First name], saw [company] just closed the Series B — congrats.Companies at this stage typically hit a pipeline wall: the board expects 3x growth, but hiring 3x the SDRs takes 6-9 months of recruiting, onboarding, and ramp before the first incremental meeting.When [similar company] was at this stage, they added outbound that produced 47 qualified meetings in 11 weeks at $215 per meeting — no headcount added.Is scaling pipeline without scaling headcount proportionally something you’re working through?
Word count: 80 words | Response window: 2-6 weeks post-announcementCommon mistakes: Referencing funding older than 6 weeks, assuming they haven’t thought about scaling, using the funding amount as the hook instead of the challenge it creates.
Trigger: Prospect uses a known competitor, had a bad vendor experience, or is rebuilding in-house after outsourcing failed. Converts 1.8-2.5x higher than generic cold email for burned buyers.Why it works: Validation (naming the specific problems they experienced creates instant credibility) combined with structural differentiation (your approach is architecturally different, not just “better”). These two mechanisms together dissolve the “all vendors are the same” objection.Subject:outbound skepticism or [industry] outbound alternatives or switching costsStructure:
Pattern acknowledgment (1 sentence) — reference the common bad experience
Specific failure modes (2-3 sentences) — name exactly what went wrong
[First name], most VPs Sales at [company type] have tried at least one outbound agency. The pattern: promising pitch, generic lead lists, emails that sound automated, 12-month contract you regret by month 3.The failure isn’t effort — it’s architecture. Shared sending infrastructure tanks deliverability. One copywriter on 40 accounts can’t write emails worth reading. Monthly PDF reports hide more than they show.[Sender company] runs dedicated domains per client, AI-personalized copy reviewed by humans, real-time dashboards, and month-to-month billing.Worth seeing the difference, or is outsourced outbound off the table?
Word count: 90 words | Identification signals: Hiring SDRs after outsourcing, LinkedIn complaints about vendors, G2/Clutch reviewsCommon mistakes: Naming specific competitors by name (legal/trust risk), listing features as differentiation instead of structural guarantees, using this when your own model has the same weaknesses.
Trigger: Prospect has SDRs, is hiring SDR roles, or has visible outbound infrastructure. Uses loss aversion — the math on their current spend reframes the status quo as an overpay problem.Why it works: Most companies haven’t calculated their actual cost-per-meeting from SDRs. A fully loaded SDR costs 75K−120K/year. At 4-8 meetings/month after a 3-4 month ramp, that’s 900−2,500 per qualified meeting. Showing this math against an alternative at 95−350 per meeting creates a gap too stark to ignore.Subject:[company] pipeline math or sdr unit economics or cost per meetingStructure:
Their current math (2 sentences) — fully loaded cost with specifics
Per-unit reveal (1 sentence) — cost per meeting including ramp and turnover
Your math (1-2 sentences) — same calculation, stark contrast
Comparison CTA (1 sentence)
Example:
[First name], a fully loaded SDR costs 85K−110K/year when you factor salary, benefits, tools, and the 20% of a manager’s time on coaching.At 6 meetings/month after a 3-month ramp, that’s roughly 1,200−1,530 per meeting. Factor in 35% annual turnover resetting the ramp clock, and the real number is higher.Our clients in [industry] average 25+ qualified meetings/month at $195 per meeting — fully managed, live in 14 days, zero ramp.Worth 15 minutes to compare the math for [company]?
Word count: 82 words | Best for: Companies with 2+ SDRs or actively hiring outbound rolesCommon mistakes: Round numbers that look fabricated (100Kvs.94,500), attacking the SDR team personally instead of the economics, comparing apples to oranges on meeting definitions.
Trigger: Previously engaged prospects who went dark — old inbound leads, stalled deals, expired trials, positive replies that never converted. Consistently produces 7-14% reply rates because the cold trust barrier is already broken.Why it works: Recognition. The prospect already invested mental energy evaluating you. That sunk cost creates a psychological hook — they’re resuming an evaluation, not starting one. Your job is to give them a reason to unpause through new information.Subject:been a while or [company] — quick update or new [industry] dataStructure:
Acknowledge time passed (1 sentence) — brief, no guilt
New information or proof (1-2 sentences) — fresh case study, updated metrics, new capability
Reconnect to original interest (1 sentence) — what they were evaluating
Low-friction CTA (1 sentence) — permission to say no
Example:
[First name], it’s been a few months — hope things are going well at [company].Quick update: since we last connected, we’ve launched outbound for [X] companies in [industry]. Average result: [metric] qualified meetings in [timeframe] at [$Y] per meeting.You were originally exploring whether outbound could supplement inbound pipeline. Figured this new data might change the math.Worth a 15-minute refresh, or has the priority shifted?
Word count: 65 words | Reply rates: 7-14% typical (3-5x cold outreach)Timing benchmarks: 30-60 days since contact: 10-14% reply. 60-120 days: 7-11%. 120-180 days: 5-9%. 180+ days: 3-7%.Common mistakes: Opening with guilt (“I noticed we never connected”), not having new information (re-emailing without a reason is nagging), referencing old conversations too precisely (feels like surveillance).
Trigger: Multiple case studies from the prospect’s exact industry. Aggregate proof (“across 18 fintech campaigns”) signals repeatable expertise, not a one-off.Why it works: Pattern-level proof is more persuasive to risk-averse buyers than any single case study. It triggers both credibility and competitive pressure — if their peers are seeing results, the prospect faces social risk by not evaluating.Subject:[industry] outbound data or [industry] pipeline benchmarks or 12 [industry] campaignsStructure:
Vertical credibility (1 sentence) — aggregate stat with number of companies
Pattern insight (1-2 sentences) — industry-specific observation only a specialist would know
Best-fit proof point (1 sentence) — single most relevant case study
Benchmark offer CTA (1 sentence) — where they stack up
Example:
[First name], across 18 fintech outbound campaigns, the average result is 31 qualified meetings in the first 90 days at $205 per meeting.The pattern in fintech: companies targeting mid-market CFOs need longer warm-up sequences (7-9 touches vs. 4-5) but convert at 2.3x the rate once they reach the decision-maker.[Similar fintech company] went from 0 outbound meetings to 38/month in 11 weeks.Would it be useful to see how [company]‘s ICP compares to the fintech benchmark?
Word count: 79 words | Best for: Industry-focused campaigns with 8+ case studies in the verticalCommon mistakes: Aggregate stats from too few companies (minimum 8-10 for credibility), mixing industries in the aggregate number, not having an actual industry-specific insight.
Trigger: Prospect relies primarily on inbound marketing. This template reframes inbound as incomplete rather than positioning outbound as additional expense.Why it works: Inbound reaches roughly 3% of any market — the prospects actively searching. The other 97% have the problem but aren’t looking for a solution yet. Competitors with outbound are reaching them first. This math creates urgency without attacking the prospect’s existing strategy.Subject:[company] market coverage or the 97% or inbound ceilingStructure:
Validate inbound (1 sentence) — acknowledge it’s working
Reveal the ceiling (1-2 sentences) — the 97% that inbound can’t reach
Competitive pressure (1 sentence) — competitors reaching the gap
Question CTA (1 sentence) — is outbound being explored
Example:
[First name], [company]‘s inbound clearly works — your content ranks well and you’re generating demand from people actively searching.The constraint: that’s roughly 3% of your addressable market. The other 97% have the problem you solve but aren’t searching yet. Your competitors with outbound are reaching them first.We helped [similar company] add outbound alongside their inbound engine — result was [X] qualified meetings/month from prospects who never would have found them organically.Is outbound something you’re exploring, or is inbound covering the bases?
Word count: 82 words | Best for: Marketing-led organizations, content-heavy companies, inbound-only B2B SaaSCommon mistakes: Attacking their inbound strategy (builds defensiveness), not having the 97% math ready to defend, failing to frame outbound as complementary rather than competing.
Trigger: High-value prospect who hasn’t responded to standard outreach. This template uses reciprocity — offering genuine strategic value with zero strings attached.Why it works: Past tense (“I put together”) triggers reciprocity far more than “Would you like us to create.” The prospect feels the work is already done for them specifically, creating social obligation to at least review it. Reducing friction to “no call required” removes the last barrier.Subject:[company] analysis or put this together for [company] or [topic] for [first name]Structure:
Specific deliverable (1 sentence) — what you created, in past tense
Why it’s relevant (1 sentence) — tailored to their situation
Zero-friction offer (1 sentence) — no call, takes 2 minutes
Soft CTA (1 sentence) — “Want me to send it over?”
Example:
[First name], I put together a competitive outbound landscape analysis for [company] — which [industry] companies in your space are running active outbound, what messaging angles they’re using, and where the gaps are.Takes about 2 minutes to review. No call needed.Want me to send it over?
Word count: 44 words | Best for: Enterprise prospects, C-suite targets, accounts that haven’t responded to 2+ previous attemptsCommon mistakes: Offering something generic (a “free consultation” isn’t a farm giveaway), not actually building the deliverable before sending, making the deliverable require a call to access.
Trigger: VP+ prospects with limited attention. One sharp scenario-based question outperforms any paragraph of pitch for senior buyers who scan emails in under 5 seconds.Why it works: The Zeigarnik effect — the brain struggles to leave open questions unresolved. A scenario question forces mental simulation of a painful future (“If your top 2 SDRs quit…”), and if the prospect doesn’t have a satisfying answer, they reply. C-level replies are positive 14.16% of the time — 3.3x higher than managers.Subject:quick question or [topic] question or one word: pipelineStructure:
One scenario question (1-2 sentences) — under 40 words total
Optional: one line of context or proof (1 sentence max)
Example:
[First name], if your top 2 SDRs quit next month, how long before pipeline recovers?Happy to share what companies your size are doing to eliminate that risk entirely.
Word count: 27 words | Best for: C-suite, VP+ prospects, mid-sequence pattern breaksQuestion formulas: “If [loss scenario], how long until [recovery]?” / “What happens to [metric] when [common disruption]?” / “What’s your backup if [current approach] stops working?”
Trigger: You have genuine data that challenges an industry assumption. Cognitive dissonance forces engagement — the prospect must either push back or ask for more detail, both of which start a conversation.Why it works: Tension between belief and evidence can only be resolved through engagement. The “permission to disagree” CTA paradoxically increases replies by removing sales pressure.Subject:counterintuitive [topic] data or [industry] assumption or the math doesn't add upStructure:
Conventional wisdom (1 sentence) — something they’d nod along to
Contrarian evidence (1-2 sentences) — specific number or pattern
Implication (1 sentence) — what this means for their approach
Permission to disagree (1 sentence)
Example:
[First name], most VPs Sales assume more SDRs equals more pipeline.But data from [X] companies shows teams that cut from 6 SDRs to 2 and added automated outbound generated 40% more qualified meetings at one-third the cost.The bottleneck isn’t effort — it’s the economics of manual prospecting at scale.Is that your world, or have you found a way around it?
Word count: 58 words | Best for: Founders, VPs, intellectually curious prospects, Email 1 or Email 3 (reframe)
Trigger: Strong case study that mirrors the prospect’s situation. Narrative contrast (painful “before” vs. aspirational “after”) is processed 22x more memorably than isolated data.Why it works: The prospect unconsciously places themselves in the story, triggering self-persuasion. The “bridge” — your solution — becomes the obvious connection between where they are and where they want to be.Subject:[similar company]'s pipeline shift or what [similar company] changed or [industry] case studyStructure:
Before state (1-2 sentences) — specific, recognizable pain with real numbers
After state (1-2 sentences) — measurable outcomes
Bridge (1 sentence) — the mechanism that changed
Connection CTA (1 sentence)
Example:
[First name], [similar company] was running 3 SDRs doing 200 dials/day and booking 6 meetings/month. Ramp was 4 months, turnover was 38%, and cost-per-meeting hovered around $1,400.Within 11 weeks, they were booking 34 meetings/month at $210 per meeting — no headcount added.The bridge: they replaced manual prospecting with a system running 4,500 personalized touches per week across email, LinkedIn, and phone.Is [outcome] something [company] is working toward?
Word count: 73 words | Best for: Email 2-3, prospects defending their current approach
Trigger: Campaign is underperforming or standard outreach isn’t getting traction. This template bypasses the “I’m being sold to” filter entirely through mutual-benefit framing.Why it works: Win-win positioning eliminates sales resistance. The prospect evaluates a collaboration opportunity, not a vendor pitch. The conversation naturally evolves into a pipeline discussion once rapport is built. This is the #1 framework for campaigns with under 2% reply rates.Subject:referral idea or partnership thought or mutual [industry] connectionsStructure:
Partnership framing (1 sentence) — position as peer-to-peer, not vendor-to-buyer
Concrete value (1-2 sentences) — specific mutual benefit with evidence
Collaborative CTA (1 sentence) — “worth a quick conversation?”
Example:
[First name], we work with a lot of [industry] companies on their outbound pipeline and regularly get asked for referrals to [their service type].Sent 3 referrals to a similar partner last month. Thinking there might be a mutual fit — we refer pipeline to you, and if your clients need outbound support, there’s a natural handoff.Worth a quick conversation to see if the fit is there?
Word count: 62 words | Best for: Agencies, services companies, underperforming campaigns, referral-based industries
Trigger: Prospect adopted, replaced, or is evaluating specific technology (identifiable through job postings, case studies, or intent data). Technology adoption signals a specific adjacent need.Why it works: Tech stack changes indicate both budget allocation and operational priorities. A company hiring for HubSpot isn’t just buying a CRM — they’re building a marketing operations function that likely needs outbound as a channel.Subject:[company] + [tech] integration or [tech] outbound data or noticed the [tech] hireStructure:
Signal (1 sentence) — reference the specific technology adoption
Adjacent need insight (1-2 sentences) — what this adoption usually requires next
Proof from similar tech adopter (1 sentence)
Question CTA (1 sentence)
Example:
[First name], noticed [company] recently posted a Salesforce admin role — looks like you’re building out the CRM infrastructure.Companies at this stage typically need outbound pipeline to feed into the new system, but most wait 3-6 months to build that muscle after CRM setup is complete — which means 3-6 months of underutilized infrastructure.[Similar company] ran outbound in parallel with their CRM build and had pipeline flowing by week 3.Is outbound part of the current buildout, or a later priority?
Word count: 76 words | Best for: Companies adopting CRM, outreach tools, data platforms, or marketing automation
Trigger: A competitor made a major move — product launch, acquisition, market entry, pricing change. Every company in the space is suddenly re-evaluating their position.Why it works: External competitive pressure creates urgency that doesn’t feel like a sales tactic. The prospect’s motivation to act comes from their market, not from your email.Subject:[competitor]'s move or [industry] shift or re: [competitor news]Structure:
Competitive event (1 sentence) — reference the specific move
Market implication (1-2 sentences) — how this affects companies in their space
How a similar company responded (1 sentence) — with your help
Question CTA (1 sentence)
Example:
[First name], with [competitor] announcing [specific move — acquisition, product launch, market entry], [industry] companies are rethinking how they reach prospects before the competitive landscape shifts further.When [similar company] faced a comparable shift, they launched outbound in [timeframe] and [specific result] — the speed of response was the differentiator.Is [company] adjusting outbound strategy in response, or holding steady?
Word count: 56 words | Response window: 1-2 weeks of news breaking
Trigger: You have genuinely jaw-dropping results — aggregate stats, recognizable logos, or a single case study with numbers too impressive to ignore. Only use when the proof is undeniable.Why it works: Leading with your most impressive number creates a pattern interrupt. The prospect stops scanning because the number demands attention. Stacking credibility (logos, aggregate stats) behind it builds trust that the number is real. Preemptive objection handling removes the “too good to be true” filter.Subject:$[X]M pipeline or [big number] meetings or [impressive metric]Structure:
Biggest number (1 sentence) — lead with the jaw-dropper
Credibility stack (1 sentence) — logos, aggregate, or methodology
Preemptive objection handle (1 sentence) — address “too good to be true”
Qualifying question (1 sentence) — is this outcome a priority
Example:
[First name], across 44 B2B companies in [industry], our outbound campaigns average $1.2M in pipeline generated within the first 90 days.That’s not one outlier — it’s the median across companies ranging from Series A to public, tracked through CRM attribution.The results are real because [one structural reason — e.g., “we run dedicated infrastructure per client and AI-personalize every touchpoint against real prospect data”].Is adding [$X] in pipeline per quarter a priority for [company] right now?
Word count: 72 words | Best for: Email 2-3 when you need proof to close, or Email 1 when the prospect is already warmKey rule: Only use when the numbers are genuinely impressive. Weak proof framed as “extreme” backfires.
LinkedIn operates under different rules than email: shorter messages (under 400 characters for DMs), more conversational tone, softer CTAs, and a warm-up sequence (profile view → like → connect → DM) that lifts reply rates by 27%+. Connection requests with personalized notes get 72% higher acceptance rates (9.36% vs. 5.44%).
LinkedIn vs. Email performance data: LinkedIn DMs to 1st-degree connections average 16.9% reply rate — significantly higher than cold email’s 2.09% average. However, LinkedIn requires the connection accept step first (25-40% acceptance rate), which reduces the effective reach per contact. Multi-channel sequences combining both channels outperform single-channel by up to 287%.
Trigger: Same as New Hire Signal email — prospect changed roles recently.Connection Request (under 300 characters):
Hey [first name] — saw you just moved to [company] as [title]. Always good to connect with [title]s navigating the [specific challenge, e.g., “pipeline ramp”]. Congrats on the move.
Follow-Up DM (under 400 characters):
Quick question — when [similar company] brought in a new [title], the first thing they tackled was [specific challenge]. Took them from [before metric] to [after metric] in [timeframe]. Is that on your radar, or are the first 90 days focused on something else entirely?
Why it works: The connection request is pure relevance — no pitch, no company name. The DM leads with insight about similar transitions, making it feel like peer advice rather than a sales message.
Trigger: Prospect is in your target industry and you want to build a relationship before pitching.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — connecting with [title]s in [industry]. Been spending a lot of time in the space and always useful to compare notes on what’s working.
Follow-Up DM:
Curious — what’s the biggest pipeline challenge you’re seeing at [company] right now? Across the [industry] companies I work with, [specific observation, e.g., “outbound reply rates dropped 30% after Gmail’s filter update”] keeps coming up. Wondering if that’s hitting your team too.
Why it works: Opens with genuine curiosity about their experience. The industry observation creates credibility without pitching.
Trigger: Company recently raised funding.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — congrats on the raise at [company]. Always interesting to connect with founders navigating the post-funding growth phase.
Follow-Up DM:
Quick question — after a [Series X], most founders I talk to hit a pipeline capacity wall. The board wants [X]x growth but SDR hiring takes 6-9 months. Is that something [company] already has a plan for, or still figuring out?
Why it works: Low-friction congratulations in the connect. The DM introduces the scaling challenge as a question rather than a pitch. The “most founders I talk to” framing positions you as a peer advisor.
Trigger: Prospect posted or engaged with content on LinkedIn. This is the highest-conversion LinkedIn opener because the personalization is genuine and verifiable.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — your post on [specific topic] resonated. Especially the point about [specific detail]. Would love to connect.
Follow-Up DM:
Thinking more about your [topic] post — you mentioned [specific point]. We see the same pattern across [X] companies in [industry]. The ones solving it fastest are [one-sentence mechanism]. Curious how you’re approaching it at [company].
Why it works: Referencing a specific post proves you actually read it (not a merge tag). The DM connects their thinking to a broader pattern, adding value to the conversation they already started.
Trigger: Shared connection, alumni network, industry association, or conference attendance.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — we’re both connected with [mutual connection] and it looks like we’re in similar circles in [industry]. Worth connecting.
Follow-Up DM:
[First name], [mutual connection] and I were recently talking about [relevant topic]. Your name came up — they mentioned [company] is [relevant context]. Figured it was worth reaching out directly. How’s [specific initiative or challenge] going?
Why it works: Mutual connections create instant trust. Even a loose shared affiliation reduces the “stranger danger” filter that kills cold outreach reply rates. The name drop must be honest — prospects will verify.
Trigger: You have a case study from a company similar to the prospect’s. Uses the Social Proof framework adapted for LinkedIn’s conversational format.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — work with a lot of [industry] companies on [topic]. Just wrapped something interesting with a company similar to [company]. Worth connecting.
Follow-Up DM:
[First name], a [industry] company your size just went from [before metric] to [after metric] in [timeframe]. The approach was pretty different from what most teams in [industry] are running. Worth sharing the breakdown, or is [topic] not a priority right now?
Why it works: “A company your size” creates curiosity. The “pretty different from what most teams” hints at contrarian insight without revealing it. The opt-out CTA paradoxically increases replies.
Trigger: Prospect has SDRs or is hiring. Adapts the SDR Replacement email template for LinkedIn’s short format.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — connecting with sales leaders building outbound teams. Always useful to compare pipeline economics across different models.
Follow-Up DM:
Quick question — have you ever calculated your actual cost per qualified meeting when you factor in SDR salary, ramp, tools, and turnover? Most [title]s I talk to are surprised by the number. Happy to share the benchmarks I’m seeing across [X] companies.
Why it works: The question format invites dialogue rather than presenting a calculation. “Most [title]s are surprised” creates curiosity without being condescending. The benchmark offer gives them a reason to engage.
Trigger: High-value prospect who needs a reason to engage. Adapted from the Give Away the Farm email framework.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — work in [their space] and have something that might be useful for [company]. Would love to connect and share it.
Follow-Up DM:
[First name], I put together a [specific deliverable — e.g., “competitive outbound landscape analysis” or “ICP targeting breakdown”] for [company]. Takes 2 minutes to review, no call needed. Want me to send it over?
Why it works: Past tense (“I put together”) implies the work is done. “No call needed” removes the last objection. Under 200 characters, which is ideal for LinkedIn reply rates.
Trigger: Prospect previously used an outbound agency or vendor. LinkedIn adaptation focuses on the question rather than listing failure modes.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — connecting with [title]s in [industry] who’ve navigated the outbound vendor landscape. Always good to compare notes.
Follow-Up DM:
Quick question — have you ever worked with an outbound agency? Most [title]s I talk to have a story. Curious whether the experience matched the pitch, or if there’s a reason you brought it back in-house.
Why it works: Opens with empathy and curiosity. “Most [title]s have a story” validates their experience without assuming. The in-house reference shows you understand the typical recovery path.
Trigger: Prospect attended, spoke at, or is planning to attend an industry event.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — saw you’re [speaking at / attending] [event name]. Great lineup this year. Would be good to connect ahead of it.
Follow-Up DM:
[First name], looking forward to [event]. Your session on [topic] looks interesting — especially the [specific angle]. Curious how you’re thinking about [related challenge that connects to your offer]. Happy to share what we’re seeing from [X] companies in [industry] on the same topic.
Why it works: Events create natural shared context. Referencing their specific session or attendance shows genuine awareness. Connecting the event topic to a broader pattern positions you as a knowledge source.
Trigger: You have cross-company data the prospect can’t access anywhere else. Executives are obsessed with peer comparisons.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — we track [specific metric] across [X] [industry] companies. Figured you’d be a good connection given [company]‘s position in the space.
Follow-Up DM:
[First name], we track [metric — e.g., “outbound cost-per-meeting”] across [X] companies in [industry]. Happy to show where [company] stacks up vs. the benchmark. Takes 5 minutes, no strings. Worth a look?
Why it works: Peer comparison data is something the prospect can’t get elsewhere. “No strings” removes commitment fear. Specific numbers create credibility.
Trigger: Company posted specific job roles that indicate a need your service addresses.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — saw [company] is building out the [department] team. Interesting stage — would be great to connect.
Follow-Up DM:
Noticed [company] posted [X] SDR roles. Most companies at your stage expect each rep to ramp in 3-4 months and book [Y] meetings/month. That’s [$cost] before the first meeting. Curious — have you considered what the pipeline looks like if you run outbound in parallel while the new hires ramp?
Why it works: Specific job posting reference proves research. The ramp timeline and cost calculation add value. The question about “running in parallel” plants the seed without pitching.
Trigger: You’ve published research, a report, or a data-driven insight relevant to their industry.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — just published some [industry] outbound data that might be relevant to what [company] is building. Worth connecting.
Follow-Up DM:
[First name], we just published [specific piece — e.g., “the 2026 fintech outbound benchmark report”] based on data from [X] campaigns. One finding that surprised us: [one specific contrarian data point]. Thought it’d be relevant given [company]‘s focus on [topic]. Happy to send the full report.
Why it works: Positions you as a researcher, not a seller. The contrarian finding creates curiosity. Offering the full report gives a tangible reason to reply.
Trigger: A mutual connection, client, or partner suggested you reach out.Connection Request:
Hey [first name] — [referrer name] suggested we connect. They thought there might be some overlap between what [company] is building and what we’re seeing in [industry]. Worth a conversation.
Follow-Up DM:
[First name], [referrer] mentioned you’re [specific context — exploring outbound, scaling pipeline, evaluating vendors]. We just helped [similar company referrer would know] go from [X] to [Y] in [timeframe]. Figured it was worth sharing in case the situation is similar. Open to comparing notes?
Why it works: Referral-based outreach converts at 3-5x cold rates. The mutual connection creates instant trust. Referencing a company the referrer knows adds a second layer of credibility.
Trigger: Previously connected but never had a meaningful conversation, or conversation went cold. LinkedIn DMs to existing 1st-degree connections average 16.9% reply rate.DM (no new connection request needed):
Hey [first name] — it’s been a while since we connected. Quick update: we’ve launched [X] campaigns in [industry] since then and the results have been [specific metric]. Thought you’d find it interesting given [what they do at company]. Worth a quick catch-up, or has the priority shifted?
Why it works: Existing connections receive DMs in their primary inbox. “It’s been a while” is human and non-threatening. The new data gives a reason to re-engage. Permission to pass (“has the priority shifted”) removes pressure.Timing: Works best 30-90 days after initial connection. After 180+ days, treat as a soft cold outreach with additional context.
Template Sequencing: Building Multi-Channel Campaigns
Individual templates produce results. Multi-channel sequences compound them. Running both email and LinkedIn in a coordinated cadence lifts total reply rates by up to 287%.Recommended multi-channel sequence:
Day
Action
Template to Use
Channel
1
Send Email 1
Strongest signal template (New Hire, Post-Funding, or best-fit)
New angle — benchmark offer, free value drop, or results curiosity
LinkedIn
13-15
Send Email 4 (breakup)
Detachment close
Email
1
Email 1: Lead with Strongest Signal (Day 1)
Priority: Signal templates (New Hire, Post-Funding, Tech Stack, Competitive Shift) beat situation templates (SDR Replacement, Competitor Switch) beat proof templates (Vertical Portfolio, Extreme Proof). If no signal exists, match to the prospect’s known situation.
2
Email 2: Add Proof from a Different Angle (Day 4-5)
Never repeat the same psychological mechanism. If Email 1 used relevance (Signal), Email 2 should use proof (Social Proof, Before-After-Bridge). If Email 1 used loss framing (SDR Math), Email 2 should use competitive pressure (Vertical Portfolio).
3
Email 3: Reframe the Problem (Day 8-10)
Change the angle entirely. Contrarian Data, 97% Gap, or Agency Recovery all work as reframes. Each email must stand alone — never reference previous emails. For full framework rotation guidance, see our copywriting frameworks playbook.
4
Email 4: Detach and Close (Day 13-15)
Breakup email. Zero pressure. “If [outcome] is worth exploring later, just reply ‘later’ and I’ll reach out in Q[X]. Either way — no hard feelings.” Breakup emails produce the highest per-email reply rate in most sequences. See our cold email sequence playbook for the full structure.
Plain text only — no HTML, images, tracking pixels, or attachments
No links in Email 1 — reduces deliverability 15-25%
No calendar links in first message — reduces reply rates 30-40%
Email 1 under 90 words (under 60 is better) — emails under 75 words get 1.5-2x reply rates
Subject lines under 6 words, lowercase preferred — 1-3 words perform best
One CTA per email, always a question — demands get deleted, questions start dialogue
No spam triggers: “free,” “guarantee,” “act now,” “limited time”
Peer-to-peer tone — informal emails produce 78% higher positive reply rates than formal
Non-Negotiable Rules (LinkedIn)
Connection request under 300 characters — no pitch, no company name
DMs under 400 characters — 3-4 sentences maximum
Never pitch in the connection request — the goal is acceptance, not a meeting
Never start with firstname as the first word
No calendar links in DMs — suggest a next step conversationally
Warm up before connecting: view profile, like 1-2 posts 1-2 days before sending the request (boosts acceptance 27%+)
Each message must stand alone — never reference previous messages
Testing Rules (Both Channels)
A/B test 2-3 templates simultaneously per segment
Minimum 100 sends per variant before drawing conclusions
Measure positive reply rate, not open rate or raw reply rate
Rotate templates every 3-4 weeks
If below 2% reply rate across 200+ sends: fix targeting before rewriting copy
The ideal cold email according to 2M+ emails analyzed: Target C-level at companies with 1-10 employees. Use informal tone (10.36% positive rate). Keep ultra-short or medium length (both around 8.8% positive rate). Structure as Value Prop → Trust → CTA (9.47% positive rate). Use a video or demo CTA (30.05% positive rate). Send on Monday for volume or Thursday for quality. Focus effort on the first message — it drives 79.4% of all replies.
No. These are structural blueprints. Copy-paste templates get flagged by spam filters (email providers detect identical content at volume) and ignored by prospects who’ve seen the same phrasing. Fill in your own numbers, case studies, and prospect research. The architecture is what produces results — the specific words should be yours.
Which template should I start with if I have multiple signals?
Priority order: (1) New Hire Signal — if role changed in last 30 days; (2) Post-Funding — if announced in last 6 weeks; (3) Competitive Shift — if market event in last 2 weeks; (4) Tech Stack Signal — if recent adoption; (5) Competitor Switch — if bad vendor experience known; (6) SDR Replacement — if they have SDRs; (7) Vertical Portfolio — if strong industry proof but no specific signal. Signal templates beat situation templates by 2-3x.
How do I run email and LinkedIn together without overwhelming the prospect?
Stagger touches across channels, never same-day. The recommended cadence: Email Day 1, LinkedIn profile view Day 2, connection request Day 3, Email 2 Day 4-5, LinkedIn DM Day 5+, Email 3 Day 8-10, LinkedIn follow-up Day 10-11, breakup Email Day 13-15. This spacing ensures the prospect sees your name across channels without feeling bombarded. Multi-channel sequences outperform single-channel by up to 287%.
What reply rates should I expect?
Cold email: 2.09% average, 5-8% good, 10%+ excellent. LinkedIn DMs to 1st connections: 16.9% average. Re-engagement: 7-14% typical. Multi-channel combined: 15-25% for well-targeted campaigns. Key context: only 14.1% of cold email replies express genuine interest — nearly half (45.1%) are auto-replies. Optimize for positive reply rate, not raw reply rate.
How many LinkedIn templates should I test at once?
Test 2-3 connection request variations and 2-3 DM follow-up variations simultaneously. Since LinkedIn limits daily connection requests (typically 100-200/week), you’ll need 2-3 weeks to gather enough data per variant. Measure connection acceptance rate and DM reply rate separately — a great DM can’t save a bad connection request, and a great acceptance rate means nothing if DMs don’t generate replies.
What's the single highest-impact change I can make to cold outreach?
Based on the data: target C-level at smaller companies. C-level replies are positive 14.16% of the time (3.3x higher than managers), and contacts at 1-10 person companies have 18.20% positive reply rates (5.3x higher than 10K+ enterprises). The combination — CEO of a 5-person company — is the highest-converting cold outreach target in B2B. Most teams over-index on company size and under-index on prospect seniority.
Should I personalize every email or can I use merge tags?
Personalization beyond first name and company name (i.e., referencing a specific signal, post, hire, or data point about their business) boosts reply rates 2-3x. Merge-tag personalization (firstname, company) is table stakes — everyone does it and prospects recognize it instantly. True personalization means each email contains at least one observation that proves you researched this specific person. If you can’t personalize meaningfully, use a template built around a strong question (Crispy Question) rather than a weak merge tag.
Ready to deploy these templates with infrastructure that actually reaches the inbox? Book a strategy call to see how Outbound System matches templates to your ICP and runs the entire campaign.