I wrote this post 2 years ago and as I re-visited it recently I was struck by how much more I believe this is true today. Thankfully, the “social seller/spammer” has stopped emailing me, but I noticed there were still a number of really bad cold emails in my Inbox.
Bad emails can linger like the takeaway leftovers in the back of the refrigerator. Most cold callers aren’t good enough at what they do to make an impression (either bad or good) that lasts. Cold Calling isn’t for every application or every salesperson, but you should spend some time figuring out why it isn’t before you discount it.
Bonus points for realising, “my market is different” is not valid in any way.
Here’s the post repeated
The blogosphere is full of commentary that Cold Calling is dead. You don't have to search far to find someone, usually someone selling a course, that will be pushing this angle.
A quick Google search shows 73,300,000+ Results.
Normally, their variation on the theme is a coordinated social media strategy that allows prospects to find you and contact you when they are interested. Supposedly the nirvana for salespeople everywhere.
Then there is email marketing. Spurred on by the zero cost of delivery, salespeople have been on a decade long quest to get your email address and "get you in their sales funnel".
With no real cost associated, they blast out messages (jab, jab, right hook?) and wait for responses to flood their inbox with interest.
Reality is that all three approaches have their merit.
My question to salespeople (and buyers) is really pretty straightforward. Who was the last person that cold called you, good or bad?
How much specific detail can you remember about the caller, even the really horrible ones?
If it happened today, maybe a little.
If it happened last week, not much.
If it happened last month almost nothing.
This is as much a fault of the caller as anything, but my point is that no damage was really done if the buyer/recipient doesn't remember the person calling or the company they were calling from much less the whizz-bang product or service that failed to interest them.
Contrast that with my experiences of late with a certain email marketer. I've been on his list for quite some time, but usually just delete his emails. Not long ago, I realised that I was actually on his list twice so was deleting twice the amount of email that I needed to.
I decided to unsubscribe, but despite having the same email address on both "accounts", I could only get off his list once.
I then setup a rule to send his emails to a folder to see what the true volumes were. As I wasn't deleting them daily, I kind of forgot about until it recently.and checked on the folder. After 90 days here is what I saw:
That's right, 229 emails in 90 days. Many with the same headlines imploring me to save money on a deal that was expiring soon.
How is that "less intrusive" than a cold call?
How is that "more effective" than a cold call?
I guess it comes down to "for whom".
Cold emails and social media posts spare the poster the direct feedback of a no.
Do you think the guy who sent me 229 emails in 90 days is sitting at his desk bemoaning his lack of success in getting me as a customer? I doubt it.
In fact, he will continue to send me emails until I unsubscribe yet again or buy something. If I buy, it's proof that his system works. If I unsubscribe, there is no direct rejection despite me saying no to receiving any further communication.
Contrast that with picking up the phone, talking to a potential prospect and getting a direct no.
Is there a difference?