How to write warm emails(akhilkg.me)
akhilkg.me
How to write warm emails
http://akhilkg.me/blog/cold-emails
36 comments
that's just good cold emailing. kinda misleading to redefine "warm" to "cold but with some effort put in". same issue with this article, "warm" is in quotes.
This, please.
There's nothing more infuriating to me than automated emails pretending to be friendly, interested, you name it… to get your attention and waste your time while obviously not being worth the sender's own time.
If you want to get attention and leave a good first impression, earn it by making your emails undoubtedly specific.
There's nothing more infuriating to me than automated emails pretending to be friendly, interested, you name it… to get your attention and waste your time while obviously not being worth the sender's own time.
If you want to get attention and leave a good first impression, earn it by making your emails undoubtedly specific.
"
Dear Late2Part,
I couldn't help noticing that we both have Software in common, as well as Helping the world be a better place.
Since we have so much in common, surely you'd love to test out my new logs as a service that is like Splunk but without the overhead of words and reasons "
The identity and attept at affinity is only useful if it's genuine.
Dale Carnegie explains where the line is and how to make sure one is on the right side of it.
I couldn't help noticing that we both have Software in common, as well as Helping the world be a better place.
Since we have so much in common, surely you'd love to test out my new logs as a service that is like Splunk but without the overhead of words and reasons "
The identity and attept at affinity is only useful if it's genuine.
Dale Carnegie explains where the line is and how to make sure one is on the right side of it.
[deleted]
There was a very funny episode of the much ignored recent tv show "Corporate", called "Thanks!" [1] which dealt with the the now common use of the exclamation mark [!] to convey "pleasantness" in an email
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9648664/?ref_=ttep_ep4
Until I'd watched this i wasn't entirely aware how much I used this too in correspondence to infer joviality or some such.
[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9648664/?ref_=ttep_ep4
Until I'd watched this i wasn't entirely aware how much I used this too in correspondence to infer joviality or some such.
The "communication experts" seem intent on outdoing each other. I remember reading an announcement from stackoverflow (IIRC) which had hired someone for community management. They were, and I quote, "beyond excited." How ridiculous is that?
If you have to thoughtfully, artificially compose emails, they won't be authentic anymore but fake, radiating faux "warmth"
There's not much value in authenticity if you're cold, lack social awareness, and you can't compel others.
The first step to learning to be warm is to practice being warm so that it's eventually authentic.
That said, TFA's examples are particularly saccharine. They remind me of when you're talking in good company and someone keeps feeling the need to use preambles like "I totally know where you're coming from and what you said is completely valid, I don't want to step on your lived experience, but let me come at it from a different angle with [...]" and I'm thinking "my god, just fucking say it."
The first step to learning to be warm is to practice being warm so that it's eventually authentic.
That said, TFA's examples are particularly saccharine. They remind me of when you're talking in good company and someone keeps feeling the need to use preambles like "I totally know where you're coming from and what you said is completely valid, I don't want to step on your lived experience, but let me come at it from a different angle with [...]" and I'm thinking "my god, just fucking say it."
The entire Internet is radiating faux emotions, awaiting those who are unsuspecting idiots.
While I agree, my experience has shown that most people won't be able to tell the difference.
That's why the joke "recently, fake Christmas decorations have appeared: they look just like the genuine ones, but don't bring any merriness" is actually a joke.
Yes and no. It depends on how the skills and tools are used. Good authors study the craft of writing, the mechanics of writing. That doesn't guarantee that they will turn out stilted, sterile, or artificial books.
Just like some of us have had to learn how to convey our genuine emotions in our posture and tone of voice, sometimes we have to be similarly purposeful and thoughtful in writing so that our genuine intention is more clearly represented in the written word. Whether in person or in writing, the soft-skills of personability doesn't always come naturally. It can take purposeful, thoughtful composition.
Of course, it is possible to use those same tools to deceive, so yes, they can lead to fake and artificial results, but it depends on the intent of the writer.
Just like some of us have had to learn how to convey our genuine emotions in our posture and tone of voice, sometimes we have to be similarly purposeful and thoughtful in writing so that our genuine intention is more clearly represented in the written word. Whether in person or in writing, the soft-skills of personability doesn't always come naturally. It can take purposeful, thoughtful composition.
Of course, it is possible to use those same tools to deceive, so yes, they can lead to fake and artificial results, but it depends on the intent of the writer.
beautifully put!
I'm not sure that's the case.
There's nothing wrong with thinking about what you're writing.
In fact, a lot of modern problems caused by social media are directly caused by the fact people aren't thinking about what they're spewing out into the text field.
There's nothing wrong with thinking about what you're writing.
In fact, a lot of modern problems caused by social media are directly caused by the fact people aren't thinking about what they're spewing out into the text field.
[deleted]
tldr: suck up to the person you want to get a response from, and the email will then be classified as 'warm'
It's sad that you feel it's "sucking up" when you place value on the other person's existence when considering how you couch your message's intent.
A mathematical formula will always have the same result, but a linguistic formula will not. It is unique to every single individual to have ever existed. The words each have a hidden iceberg of meaning which is compounded by the context, not just within the expression, but within the receiver's life.
Things such as relationship problems, election concerns, digestion, PTSD, and background music can all dramatically change how an email is received.
I hope you grow beyond your cynicism.
A mathematical formula will always have the same result, but a linguistic formula will not. It is unique to every single individual to have ever existed. The words each have a hidden iceberg of meaning which is compounded by the context, not just within the expression, but within the receiver's life.
Things such as relationship problems, election concerns, digestion, PTSD, and background music can all dramatically change how an email is received.
I hope you grow beyond your cynicism.
There is something to be said for taking the reciever's context into account, but it's not possible or desirable to account for the state of their digestion &c in every communication.
An excess of empathy gets in the way of clear communication, and recievers should accept that their context is not completely available to senders. They have some responsibility to interpret charitably, and if they don't they're failing to follow basic principles of cooperative social interactions.
A cruder way of putting it: you shouldn't expect everyone who talks to you to be minutely concerned with your personal shit.
An excess of empathy gets in the way of clear communication, and recievers should accept that their context is not completely available to senders. They have some responsibility to interpret charitably, and if they don't they're failing to follow basic principles of cooperative social interactions.
A cruder way of putting it: you shouldn't expect everyone who talks to you to be minutely concerned with your personal shit.
It is up to the person responding to take your message as they will. Reaching out and attempting to align with the party you are contacting is being vulnerable and has no guarantee of a favorable response - or one at all. However, that is something in itself that may either characterize the individual or could simply be a reflection of what they are currently going through. Some knowledge of this can be baked into the initial message to imply understanding of that person's situation in life, mental state, interests, etc. It is more difficult to connect with someone whose point of view you are oblivious to.
Don't write emails, and if you must, keep them short.
Use messaging, meetings, wikis, issue trackers, any specialised tool you need to use to improve communication.
Use messaging, meetings, wikis, issue trackers, any specialised tool you need to use to improve communication.
While this is true for personal emails, the linked article is really talking about marketing emails to strangers.
Don't send marketing emails to strangers! I opt out!
Over here in Europe where everyone seems to be on it chat via WhatsApp is really effective. Only used it for customer development & not hard sales though. Very very low barrier & personal.
If you spam me with SMS or on WhatsApp for sales, I'll just block it and not buy anything. Not sure how others would react, but to me it's just as intrusive as a phone call.
Unfortunately, I'm sure in 5 years no one will care and we'll all live with the spam.
Unfortunately, I'm sure in 5 years no one will care and we'll all live with the spam.
Same here. If I'm not your costumer and I gave you permission, to reach me by whatsapp is an invasion of my privacy.
There's just so much content pushed out by using marketing automation tools that is nicely written, but totally generic. If your otherwise nice email falls into this category, then it might just get ignored.