Week 6: The Reader’s Reply Calculation#
Why most cold emails lose a calculation the reader never announces they’re running.
What this lecture covers#
- the reader’s actual cost-benefit math
- a framework for naming which term is weakest
- a redacted email that got four months of silence
- what would have had to change, and why
The reader’s actual math#
Opening an email costs almost nothing. Replying to it does: five minutes, sometimes fifteen, sometimes a commitment that outlives the email entirely.
Every reader runs some version of: is what I get from replying worth what replying costs me?
Most cold emails are optimised for the sender’s side of that question and never touch the reader’s.
A framework, not a formula#
reply likelihood ≈ relevance × specificity ÷ length- relevance: does this concern something the reader already cares about
- specificity: can they act on it without more information
- length: how much of their time it costs to find that out
Not arithmetic. A way to name which term is weakest.
Predict, then watch#
Before the next slide: “Following up on my last email. Would love to grab 30 minutes whenever works for you!” Score it on relevance and specificity before you see the answer.
From: [Sender]
To: [Recipient]
Subject: Following up
Following up on my last email. Would love to grab 30 minutes whenever works for you!
Relevance: unstated. Specificity: none. Length: short, which only means it fails fast.
Fixing the wrong term wastes the rewrite.
Walking a real one#
A redacted email that got silence, four months, no reply:
- opened with a compliment true of a hundred other companies
- asked for “any advice you can share”: no bounded action
- closed with a 30-minute ask and no stated reason it mattered to the reader
Relevance and specificity both failed. Length wasn’t the problem.
A composite version of the same failure, for a case you can quote directly:
From: [Sender]
To: [Recipient]
Subject: Quick question about hiring
Loved what you’re building, really impressive traction. Any advice you can share on hiring would be hugely appreciated. Would you have 30 minutes sometime?
Same three failures as the real case: no bounded action, no reason this particular reader was worth 30 minutes, and a compliment doing the work relevance should be doing instead.
What would have had to change#
Not a better compliment. A named, checkable reason this reader specifically was worth emailing, and an ask small enough to say yes to without thinking.
The framework doesn’t ask for more effort. It asks for effort spent on the term that’s actually broken.
Talk to your neighbour#
Take an email you’ve received that got no reply from you. Which term failed first: relevance, specificity, or length? Compare your answer with the person next to you.
Recap#
- the reader’s cost-benefit is real and usually invisible to the writer
- relevance, specificity, length: diagnose the weakest one before rewriting anything else
- fixing the wrong term wastes the rewrite