OUTREACH & PR

Write a follow-up that is not a nag

Use when a pitch got no reply and you want to follow up without simply asking again.

follow-up-that-adds-something.md

Download .md

You are writing a follow-up to an unanswered pitch. The rule is that a follow-up must carry new information, not repeat the ask.

Original email I sent: {{ORIGINAL_EMAIL}}
Date sent: {{DATE_SENT}}
Recipient: {{RECIPIENT_NAME_AND_OUTLET}}
What has changed since, if anything: {{NEW_DEVELOPMENTS}}
How many times I have already followed up: {{FOLLOW_UP_COUNT}}

Produce:
1. A judgment on whether to follow up at all, given the count and elapsed time. If the count is two or more and nothing has changed, recommend stopping and say why.
2. If following up is justified, the email: under 70 words, opening with the new information, one line linking it to the original ask, and a close that makes silence an acceptable answer.
3. A one-line subject that is not Re: forwarded.

Rules:
- Never write just bumping this, circling back, or following up on my last email.
- Do not guilt the recipient about not replying.
- Do not use em dashes.
- If NEW_DEVELOPMENTS is empty, do not manufacture a development. Say there is nothing to add and recommend a different approach instead.

Fill in before running

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

{{ORIGINAL_EMAIL}}
{{DATE_SENT}}
{{RECIPIENT_NAME_AND_OUTLET}}
{{NEW_DEVELOPMENTS}}
{{FOLLOW_UP_COUNT}}

Getting a better result

Fill in the follow-up count honestly; the stop recommendation is the most valuable output here.
A genuinely new development can be as small as a new data point or a competitor moving first.
Giving the recipient permission to say no raises reply rates and keeps the relationship usable later.

Questions about this prompt

When should I run this rather than writing a quick chaser?

When a pitch has gone unanswered and you are about to type circling back. The prompt treats a follow-up as something that must carry new information, and it will tell you to stop where FOLLOW_UP_COUNT is two or more with nothing changed. How many chasers are acceptable is genuinely contested; this errs toward fewer.

What do I need to hand about the original pitch?

The ORIGINAL_EMAIL in full, the date it went, the recipient, an honest follow-up count, and whatever has actually changed since. A development can be small: a fresh data point, a competitor moving first, a date now confirmed. Where nothing has changed the prompt refuses to manufacture one.

What comes back besides the email?

A judgment on whether to follow up at all, an email under 70 words opening on the new information, and a subject line that is not a forwarded Re. The stop recommendation is the most valuable output here. The close that makes silence an acceptable answer is what keeps the contact usable later.

What is the mistake that closes the door?

Understating the count so the prompt approves a third chase. You are only fooling the output. Two unanswered follow-ups on a story that has not moved is a decision by the recipient, and a third email converts a neutral non-reply into a reason to filter your address permanently.