In short
In August 2021, during my first week as a salesperson at Efficity, I sent 60 LinkedIn messages. The same text, copied and pasted. I got a single reply: "You're all the same."
That person was right. My message said nothing about whoever received it, and any other salesperson could have sent it. Everything that follows comes from that one sentence.
The six examples below are fictional. They show, line by line, what tips a message towards a reply or towards silence. They are written for a B2B SME contacting other businesses.
The anatomy: three parts
- The observation: something the person has produced, not something a database already holds.
- The bridging sentence: it links that observation to your line of work.
- The short question: it can be answered in one line, from a phone.
Nothing else. No link, no attachment, no description of your offer.
Three messages that fail
1. Opening with the pitch
Hello Ms Durand, I hope you don't mind me reaching out. Our company helps manufacturing SMEs optimise their purchasing. Would you be available for a 30-minute call this week?
What goes wrong. The message talks about the sender from the first sentence. "I hope you don't mind" apologises for intruding. "Our company" interests nobody until a problem has been named. And the meeting request asks thirty minutes of someone who does not know you.
2. Fake personalisation
Hello Ms Durand, I noticed you are Managing Director at Durand Packaging. What an impressive career! I happen to work with leaders like you on…
What goes wrong. "You are [job title] at [company]" copies two fields that a mass mailing fills in by itself. The recipient knows it. The generic compliment makes it worse: it shows that nobody actually read the profile.
3. The overlong message
Ten lines telling the company's story, its four areas of expertise, two client references and a proposed time slot.
What goes wrong. On a phone, the message is cut off after a few lines. What remains visible talks about you. The rest will not be read.
Three messages that open a conversation
4. An observation about a post
Hello Ms Durand, your post on supplier lead times caught my attention, especially the part about orders placed "just in case". Have you found a way to keep those down, or has it become the price of security?
Why it works. The observation is precise and verifiable: a specific passage, not "your post was interesting". The question is about her problem, not your offer. She can answer in one line, and even disagreeing makes a good reply.
5. The trigger event
Hello Mr Peeters, I saw you're hiring a second salesperson. That's often the point where prospecting has to move from "when we have time" to a regular routine. Is that the case for you, or is it already in place?
Why it works. The job opening gives a reason to write now rather than in six months. The message puts forward a plausible hypothesis and leaves room for it to be wrong, which makes replying easy, even with a no. Other events of this kind, and how to rank them, are covered in buying signals: the right time to contact a company.
6. A genuine connection
Hello Mr Weber, we have both worked with Paul Martin, who ran logistics for one of my clients. He told me about the way you organise your delivery rounds. What takes up most of your time at the moment: the planning or the day's surprises?
Why it works. The connection is real and verifiable. The question offers two options, which makes it easy to handle, while still letting the person answer something else.
Never invent a connection. A false "we met at…" can be checked in ten seconds and closes the door for good.
Register by market
In France, French-speaking Belgium, French-speaking Switzerland and Luxembourg, a first B2B message in French uses the formal "vous". Switching to the informal "tu" happens at the prospect's initiative. In German, the formal "Sie" remains the rule; in Dutch, practice is more relaxed. The differences between these four markets are covered in detail in the article on prospecting in France, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg.
The check before sending
| Point | Question to ask yourself | |---|---| | Observation | Is it verifiable, and produced by the person? | | Bridge | One sentence, without describing the offer? | | Question | Can it be answered in one line? | | Length | Readable on a phone without scrolling? | | Target | Does the person match my ideal customer? |
The last row matters most. A well-written message sent to the wrong person still gets no reply: that is the whole point of writing your ICP in one sentence.
After the first message
The first message is only the first touchpoint of a sequence. What happens on day 3, day 7 and day 14 matters just as much, and follows other rules: the multichannel sequence.
This is the Personalise step of the Trouve Tes Clients method: the tool suggests an observation and a draft based on the profile, and you decide what gets sent. What you should keep in your own hands in that draft is covered in personalising with AI without writing like an AI.