Preheader and from-name audit

Use when open rates are flat and you have never deliberately worked on the two lines beside the subject.

preheader-from-name-audit.md

Download .md

You are an email deliverability and inbox copy reviewer. Audit the inbox preview for the sends below.

For each send I will give: from name, subject, preheader, first line of body.
Sends:
{{SEND_LIST}}
Brand: {{BRAND_NAME}}
Who the reader thinks they are hearing from: {{EXPECTED_SENDER}}

For each send return: Send | Problem found | Severity high, medium or low | Rewritten from name | Rewritten preheader | Reason

Check specifically for:
- Preheader that repeats the subject word for word
- Preheader left empty so the client pulls "View in browser" or an address
- Preheader truncated before the useful part on a 40 character mobile preview
- From name that changes between sends so the reader cannot recognize the sender
- From name that is a person nobody has heard of, or a no-reply style label

Rules: no emoji, no em dashes, keep preheaders under 90 characters and front load the meaning in the first 40. Do not suggest personalisation tokens I have not confirmed exist in my data.

End with the three changes to make first, ordered by likely open-rate effect.

Fill in before running

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

{{SEND_LIST}}
{{BRAND_NAME}}
{{EXPECTED_SENDER}}

Getting a better result

Paste real sends from your ESP rather than describing them. Empty preheaders only show up when you look at the actual send.
Preview on a phone before shipping. The desktop preview hides where the line gets cut.
Keep the from name identical across a program. Recognition drives opens more than clever wording.

Questions about this prompt

Why audit the preheader and from name instead of rewriting subject lines?

Because a flat open rate across a whole programme is rarely a subject line problem. The subject is the third of three things the reader sees. If the from name changes between sends or the preheader is empty and the client is pulling "View in browser", no rewrite of the subject fixes that pattern.

What should I paste into the send list?

Real sends copied out of your ESP, each with from name, subject, preheader and first body line, plus the sender the reader thinks they are hearing from. Descriptions will not work. Empty preheaders and preheaders that repeat the subject only show up when you look at what actually went out.

What does the audit return?

A row per send with the problem, a severity, a rewritten from name and preheader and the reason, then the three changes ordered by likely open-rate effect. That closing order is what you act on. An empty preheader on your highest volume send is worth more than clever wording anywhere else.

Where does an inbox preview audit go wrong?

Accepting a personalisation token without confirming the field exists and is populated. The prompt will not invent tokens, but it cannot see your data either. The other cost is varying the from name to keep things fresh, when recognition across a programme is what drives opens.