Cold Email Strategies: How to Get More by Asking For Less

Introduction

When sending out cold emails to potential clients, there's a widespread belief that information is key. We are taught by marketing experts that if we want higher conversion rates we need to provide persuasive content - data, statistics, case studies. We are told to address the recipient's pain points and present convincing evidence of our value proposition.

The logic is straightforward: provide credible information, and eventually, they'll come to us. But, we realize that things aren't as easy as it looks. Persuading people is harder than we think and these strategies don't always work. We push and push, and nothing happens. What are we doing wrong?

When information just isn't enough

It's easy to assume that just giving potential clients the right information is enough to get them interested. We're drawn to the belief that our meticulously composed emails, brimming with robust data and insights, will boost the likelihood of swaying someone's opinion. Yet, this isn't happening. In fact, this strategy often backfires. Instead of altering perspectives, people become more entrenched in their views. Instead of listening, they become more convinced than ever that they don't need your services.

When prospects sense that there's an attempt to persuade them, their defenses go up.

They start to counterargue against the persuasion. Even when you make no overt attempt to persuade, just providing information can sometimes have the opposite effect.

The problem with biases

Studies have shown that what actually happens is that people tend to search for, and favor information in ways that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs. We somehow have a tendency to process information in a manner that confirms what we already think.

Wharton School professor Dr. Jonah Berger calls this phenomenon the "confirmation bias". This bias makes the task of changing minds even more challenging. For people to change their minds, they not only need to be open to change, but they also need to be willing to listen to and consider information that might challenge their current viewpoints.

When new information is presented, people instinctively compare it to their existing beliefs. If the new information aligns within their acceptance criteria, it's likely to be embraced. If it falls outside of their comfort zone, or contradicts their beliefs, it is subjected to scrutiny. It may be perceived as untrustworthy, unreliable or anecdotal. In short, it gets disregarded.

How biases actually work

In 2014, medical researchers looked at how different messages might change parents' views on the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella) and whether they'd vaccinate their kids (Pediatrics 2014). They surveyed 1,759 parents in the U.S. The parents got one of four types of information: (1) facts showing MMR doesn't cause autism, (2) info on how bad the diseases are (3) pictures of kids who got these diseases, (4) a story about a baby almost dying from measles, or they were in a control group that didn't get extra info.

The surprising part? None of these messages made parents more likely to vaccinate their kids. Even more, clearing up the myth that MMR causes autism actually made some parents less likely to vaccinate, especially those who already doubted vaccines. Pictures of sick kids made some parents wrongly think vaccines cause autism, and the dramatic story about the sick baby made some worry more about vaccine side effects.

So, what's the takeaway?

For individuals already inclined to support vaccines, the extra information proved beneficial. It decreased misunderstandings and bolstered their willingness to vaccinate their children. However, for those participants who held less favorable views on vaccines, the information had the opposite effect. Instead of dispelling false beliefs, it actually reinforced their reluctance to vaccinate their children.

If providing information isn't enough, how can we engage more effectively with prospects? How can we overcome people's biases to ensure they truly listen to what we have to say?

Try this: ask for less

Envision this scenario: you're at your desk and an email notification pops up. The email is from Brian, who identifies himself as a university researcher working on a project related to AI and pharma-academic collaborations. He's reaching out to ask if you would be willing to partecipate in a survey. It will involve a preliminary 15-minute call, filling out an online survey of approximately 30 to 40 minutes and a final 15-minute conversation with his team to pore over the survey results. Now, bear in mind, this is for academic research, so your time would be a voluntary contribution, not a paid engagement. Brian assures you, though, that your anonymous input will be instrumental in bridging the gap between academia and the pharmaceutical industry. Would you participate?

---

From: Brian

I hope this message finds you well. My name is Brian, and I'm a scientist at the University of ___, currently involved in an exciting research project focused on the collaborations between artificial intelligence and pharmaceutical R&D. Your expertise and insights in this field have come to my attention, and I believe they could greatly contribute to the depth and quality of our research.

I understand that your time is precious, which is why we have designed a participation process that is brief yet comprehensive. Initially, we would like to schedule a 15-minute introductory call at your convenience, to introduce ourselves and provide you with a clear overview of the project. Following this, we would ask you to complete an online questionnaire, which should take approximately 30-40 minutes. Lastly, we would love to have a 10-minute follow-up interview with you and some of our team members to discuss the questionnaire's findings and any additional insights you might wish to share.

As this is an academic initiative aimed at fostering greater understanding within our field, we are unable to offer compensation for your participation. However, your contributions would remain anonymous and, most importantly, would have a significant impact on the progress of our research.

Could you please let us know a date and time that works best for you?

Thank you for considering our request. We are looking forward to the possibility of your participation and are excited about the potential insights you could bring to our study.

Warm regards,

Brian

What's wrong with Brian's approach

Well, I don't know you, but my best guess is that you'll say no to Brian's request. In fact, you might even be laughing at the boldness of his email. In fact, most people would. An unknown researcher asking for so much of your time without even offering any compensation?

This isn't about the lack of compensation. Many people, including myself, don't have any issues with offering their time or services pro bono for causes that resonate with them. But Brian's request doesn't quite fit the bill. Brian is an enthusiastic scientist, possibly quite a pleasant fellow. His email is articulate and courteous. However, there's a hiccup in his approach: he does not know how to get people to do something they'd rather not do. He does not know about the "foot-in-the-door technique".

The "Foot-In-The-Door" (FITD) Technique

In 1966, Freedman and Fraser investigated the dynamics of compliance, proposing that individuals are more likely to accede to a larger request if they have already agreed to a smaller one. This concept, known as the "foot-in-the-door" technique, suggests that compliance can be gradually increased by starting with modest requests.

The study consisted of two experiments. In the first, the researchers contacted housewives and initially asked them simple questions about their soap usage. This small request was followed a few days later by a larger one, asking if a survey team could come into their homes to catalog household products. The findings were intriguing: those who had agreed to the initial, minor request were significantly more likely to consent to the subsequent, more substantial one.

The second experiment sought to determine whether the effect was influenced by the individual making the request. Would the housewives still agree if the larger request came from a different person? The results indicated that the identity of the requester was less important than the prior agreement to a smaller request.

These experiments shed light on the psychological principle that a small agreement sets the stage for compliance with larger demands. It suggests that the act of agreeing to a minor request can create a sense of commitment, which then makes it more likely for individuals to agree to more significant requests. This finding has implications across various fields, from marketing strategies to social activism, highlighting the importance of initial, incremental steps in achieving broader goals.

We long to be consistent

The foot-in-the-door effect hinges on the desire for consistency. Individuals generally strive to be consistent. Hence, if the larger request is in line with or akin to the earlier smaller one, this approach is likely to be successful. When human beings commit to something, they're more likely to be consistent with it. Robert Cialdini talks about this in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, and he calls it the Commitment Consistency Principle. It’s the idea that if we say or do something that makes us internally back it up, we’ll stand by it. Because we like to be seen as consistent – to ourselves and others.

Here are some additional examples:

Consider a situation where your classmate didn't make it to the most recent session of your psychology course and requests to look at your notes. It's a minimal and sensible favor, so you agree and share your notes with him. Fast forward to a week later, and this same friend is now asking to see ALL of your psychology notes. That's a more substantial favor. Would you feel compelled to comply?

A certain number of studies have shown that this technique could effectively be used, for example, to incite women to undergo screening for breast cancer (Dollin & Booth-Butterfield, 1995), or to incite students to become organ donors (Carducci et al. 1989).

Sherman's (1980) study in Indiana was also quite compelling. He phoned residents, posing a theoretical question about whether they would volunteer three hours for the American Cancer Society. Three days later, a second experimenter called the same people and actually requested help for this organization. Of those responding to the earlier request, 31% agreed to help. This is much higher than the 4% of a similar group of people who volunteered to help when approached directly.

Cold emails strategies: ask for less

Is it possible to use the FITD technique to increase email engagement? Of course you can. Here're some suggestions cold email strategies:

• Requesting a review

• Watching a webinar

• Inviting to a landing page about your services

• Asking to subscribe to your webpage for updates

• Reading a whitepaper

• Testing a product

• Downloading an ebook

So if someone watches one of your webinars on a given topic, they are more likely to buy a course you have on the same topic when you offer it to them. And that's because they've already committed to something and shown their interest. The key thing to keep in mind during your initial stage – and every other stage in your FITD campaign – is to make the process simple. The easier your small initial request is to do, the more likely people will do it.

The foot-in-the-door technique is effective not only because it generates initial momentum, but also because it enables you to present your primary proposition to those who have already expressed interest.

For instance, announcing a new program to your entire email list (potentially multiple times) might lead to some unsubscribes from those who aren't interested. However, targeting your communication to individuals who have demonstrated interest through a small action, such as watching a significant portion of a related video, allows for a more focused approach. When you introduce your paid offer to this engaged audience, you can do so with greater confidence in their potential interest and purchase likelihood.

Another advantage of this approach is that it allows for an initial, smaller commitment through a front-end offer, paving the way for subsequent upselling opportunities. For instance, if you're offering a monthly membership, it's a good strategy to also present the annual option to your customers. However, it's important to note that presenting multiple products or offers simultaneously can overwhelm and confuse potential buyers. Instead of bundling all your offerings and leaving customers to sort through them, it's more effective to encourage a modest initial commitment and then guide them towards more comprehensive options later on.

Conclusions

Struggling to change someone's mind? Consider scaling back your request instead of ramping it up. Make your initial ask smaller to boost your chances of success later. When we try to persuade others, we often go all in. We aim to grab attention fast. We're after the quickest fix. We want our words to stick, our products to be noticed. But asking for less isn't about settling for less. It's about breaking down the big goal into smaller, doable steps. Start with one thing and build from there.

Book a Call