Cutting Through the Noise with Cold Email – Shane Snow’s Experiment

Shane Snow, bestselling author of Smartcuts: How Hackers, Innovators, and Icons Accelerate Success, embarked on a fascinating experiment to understand how to break through the cluttered inboxes of high-level executives. As a journalist at Fast Company, Shane sought to explore cold email strategies to connect with top executives for mentorship and advice.

He targeted 1,000 of the busiest business leaders in America, including C-level and VP executives from Fortune 500 and Inc 500 companies. These professionals receive hundreds of emails daily, so Shane’s challenge was clear: could he develop an effective cold email strategy to grab their attention and generate responses?

The Experiment

Shane crafted a simple cold email with a clear call-to-action (CTA), asking these executives to share their thoughts on what makes an effective cold email. His message focused on contributing to research that could benefit others. Here’s the base version of the email:

Hi [Exec’s First Name],

I’m conducting a study on cold emails and would love your insight on what makes an effective cold email versus a bad one.
Your input will contribute to research that will help many improve their email practices, ultimately making our inboxes better for everyone.
Best,
[Your Name]

Shane and his team tested various versions of this email to see how small changes in wording could impact open and reply rates. They experimented with:

– Subject lines: vague (e.g., “quick question”) vs. specific

– Length: short vs. long emails

– Gratitude: including a “thanks in advance” vs. not

– Tone: selfless (“your insight will help others”) vs. selfish (“this would be great for my project”)

Request: asking for knowledge vs. asking for a favor

The Results

Out of the 1,000 emails sent, Shane saw the following:

– 293 emails bounced

– 45.5% open rate: This was impressive, as typical business-related emails have open rates around 20%.

– Subject lines: Short, vague subject lines like “quick question” had a 51.2% open rate, while longer, specific ones had a slightly lower rate of 48.8%. Notably, the “quick question” subject line had double the reply rate of longer ones.

– Despite the high open rates, only 1.7% of recipients actually responded, far below expectations.

Key Insight: The Power of Personalisation

Shane concluded that the missing element was personalisation. While factors like subject lines and email length made some difference, the true key to increasing response rates was addressing the recipient’s internal question: “Why me?” Personalising emails to speak directly to the individual’s interests, challenges, or industry could have dramatically improved the response rate.