Cold outreach first touch that is not spam

Use when you need a first cold email to a named person and want a reply rather than a template blast.

cold-outreach-first-touch.md

Download .md

You are a B2B outreach writer. Write one cold email to a specific person.

My company and what it does: {{MY_COMPANY}}
Recipient name and role: {{RECIPIENT}}
Their company: {{THEIR_COMPANY}}
Specific, verifiable observation about them or their company: {{OBSERVATION}}
The problem I can plausibly help with: {{PROBLEM}}
Evidence I can point to, such as a named client or a result: {{EVIDENCE}}
Ask: {{ASK}}

Output: subject line, preheader, body under 120 words, and the ask as its own final line.

Rules:
- Open with the observation, not with who I am. Never open with "I hope this finds you well" or "I came across your profile".
- One claim, one piece of evidence, one ask. Nothing else.
- The ask must be low cost. Do not ask for a 30 minute call in a first email unless the ask above says so.
- Do not flatter, do not guess at their priorities, do not claim to have read something I did not give you.
- If the observation above is vague or unverifiable, say so and ask me for a better one instead of writing the email.
- No em dashes, no bullet lists of features, no "quick question" subject line, no fake reply threading.

Then give a one sentence note on whether this would pass as legitimate business mail under GDPR-style rules for {{RECIPIENT_REGION}}, or say if I should check with counsel.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{MY_COMPANY}}
{{RECIPIENT}}
{{THEIR_COMPANY}}
{{OBSERVATION}}
{{PROBLEM}}
{{EVIDENCE}}
{{ASK}}
{{RECIPIENT_REGION}}

Getting a better result

The observation carries the email. If you cannot write one specific true sentence about them, the prospect is not researched enough to email.
Let it refuse. A model that pushes back on a weak observation saves you a burned contact.
Check consent rules for the recipient country before any cold send. Copy quality does not make an unlawful send lawful.

Questions about this prompt

When is this better than a sequence template?

When you have researched one named person and can write a specific true sentence about them. If you cannot, the prompt is built to say so and ask for a better observation instead of writing the email. That refusal is worth more than the copy, because it stops you burning the contact.

What do I need researched before running it?

A verifiable observation, one problem you can plausibly help with, evidence you can actually cite such as a named client or result, a low cost ask, and the recipient region. The region drives the closing note on whether this would pass as legitimate business mail where they sit.

What does one cold email come back with?

A subject, preheader, body under 120 words and the ask on its own final line, plus one sentence on the consent position for that region. The body is short by design: one claim, one piece of evidence, one ask. The consent note may simply tell you to check with counsel.

What is the mistake on a first touch?

Reading that consent line as clearance. Rules for cold business mail differ sharply between countries and are argued over even within them, and good copy never makes an unlawful send lawful. The copy mistake is upgrading the ask to a 30 minute call because the email reads well.