PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
I receive dozens of cold outreach emails every day. Most follow roughly the same pattern:
“We are a XXX-based website Design and Development Company with 10+ years of experience and a Team of 100+ professionals. We offer Website Design and Development services at competitive prices. We work with WordPress, PHP, Laravel, Shopify, Magento, React.js, Node.js, and other Technologies.”
Then comes the question: “Are you planning to build a new website? Or redesign an existing one?”
Before going further, it is worth acknowledging that not every message like this is the same thing.
Some are obvious scams. Some are phishing attempts. Some are lead brokers collecting opportunities they intend to sell elsewhere. And some are perfectly legitimate businesses using remarkably poor prospecting practices. From the email alone, it is often impossible to distinguish between them. Ironically, that uncertainty is part of the problem.
The same outreach pattern can be used by a genuine freelancer, a development agency, a lead-generation operation, or a fraudster. The mechanics are identical. Only the intention differs. What interests me here is not whether a particular message is legitimate. It is the acquisition logic behind it. Because the same logic appears far beyond email outreach.
The message tells me a great deal about the sender. Yet very little about me.
Ten years of experience. One hundred professionals. A long list of technologies. Competitive prices.
What it doesn’t tell me is why they think I need them. That distinction matters. Because there is a difference between sales activity and a sales system.
A company landing page, a personal blog, a portfolio site, an e-commerce store, a one-page brochure website. The email doesn’t know and doesn’t appear interested in finding out. It knows an address exists. Beyond that, everything is assumption.
Years ago, I put a temporary catch-all mailbox on a domain while setting up a new website. The address was publicly visible for perhaps a day, probably less. It was never intended to become a permanent contact address. It was found almost immediately. The messages have continued ever since. Dozens a day. Hundreds filtered over time. Some senders have been blocked at domain level. New ones continue to appear.
I didn’t conduct a security study. I simply happened to create a very small experiment. An address with virtually no history was placed on a website. Within hours, it had become a prospect. That tells me something about the acquisition mechanism. It wasn’t: “We identified a company that might need our service.” It was: “We found a domain. Let’s find every possible route into it.” The first is prospecting. The second is enumeration. And when enumeration is combined with a generic sales message, you get industrialised irrelevance.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the company sending the message is completely legitimate. Ten years in business. One hundred professionals. A substantial technical capability. Enough revenue to survive for more than a decade. Why is its acquisition mechanism still behaving as though it has just discovered SMTP? There is an interesting contradiction here.
The claimed organisation is mature. The sales process isn’t. The organisation may have a CRM, automated campaigns, analytics, lead databases, enrichment tools, email infrastructure and sophisticated software. Yet the underlying logic can remain remarkably primitive: Find an address → send a message → wait for a response.
The technology has become sophisticated, but the system has not. That is the part that interests me.
There is nothing inherently wrong with cold outreach. A well-researched approach can be perfectly legitimate. If someone understands my business, identifies a genuine problem, explains why their experience is relevant and gives me a reason to talk to them, I can decide whether the conversation is worth having. That is prospecting.
What we increasingly see instead is the industrialisation of activity. Find more addresses. Send more messages. Automate more follow-ups. Increase volume. Optimise deliverability. Improve open rates. Generate more leads.
The machinery becomes increasingly efficient. But efficient at what? That is the question. If the system never establishes whether the recipient is actually a prospect, increasing the number of contacts does not make the system more sophisticated, it makes the wrong activity cheaper. A system capable of sending 100,000 messages isn’t necessarily more sophisticated than one sending 100. If neither learns from the outcome, you’ve simply automated repetition. And this is perhaps the most revealing part.
The system doesn’t need to know who I am. It needs to know that: domain → website → email address → potential lead
Once that chain exists, everything downstream can be automated. The problem is that the address is not the prospect, it is merely an identifier. It tells you where a message might be delivered. It tells you almost nothing about whether anyone there needs what you’re selling. Yet once the address enters the system, it can acquire a remarkable status. It becomes a lead. It gets enriched, scored, distributed, contacted. The machine didn’t discover a prospect, it manufactured one out of an email address.
The distinction between activity and effectiveness becomes impossible to ignore. The system may find addresses faster than any human could. It may send thousands of messages while the sales team is having lunch. It may track every open, click and reply. It may even use AI to personalise the wording. None of that answers the fundamental question: Why this company, why now, why us? If there is no answer, the sophistication is largely cosmetic.
There is another irony hidden inside the standard outreach message. The sender treats credentials as though they automatically create credibility. Ten years of experience. One hundred professionals. Multiple technologies. But experience doesn’t answer: Why should I talk to you? Size doesn’t answer: Why do you understand my problem? Knowing Laravel doesn’t answer: Why do you think I need Laravel? The sender has substituted credentials for diagnosis. That is a familiar organisational mistake in another form. We assume that having more capability automatically means having better judgement. Well, it doesn’t.
A company can possess considerable technical capability and still have a crude commercial system. A business can automate almost every step of its sales process and still have no idea who it is actually selling to.
There is, of course, a reason this approach persists. The marginal cost of another email is tiny. If a campaign can reach tens of thousands of addresses for very little money, it doesn’t need to be particularly intelligent. It only needs a conversion rate high enough to cover the cost of the machinery. That creates a strange incentive. When sending another message costs almost nothing, relevance becomes economically optional. Volume can compensate for quality. At least for long enough to make the system appear successful. And once volume becomes the metric, volume becomes the objective.
That is where the trouble begins. Organisations are very good at measuring activity. Messages sent. Leads generated. Meetings booked. Calls made. Tickets closed. Tasks completed. Reports produced. The danger begins when the measurement becomes detached from the purpose.
The system starts optimising what is easy to count rather than what actually matters. In this case, the measurable thing is the number of addresses reached. So the system becomes extraordinarily good at finding and contacting addresses. Whether those addresses belong to genuine prospects becomes almost incidental.
That is not a failure of automation. It is a failure of the model behind the automation. More processing does not compensate for a bad model of the thing being processed. More activity does not necessarily produce more progress. Sometimes it simply produces more activity. And that may be the most dangerous form of efficiency: Being exceptionally good at doing the wrong thing.
I wish this piece were about spam and scams alone. Unfortunately, it isn’t. The same pattern appears inside perfectly legitimate organisations every day. Not necessarily through mass email campaigns, but through the same underlying logic: activity replacing effectiveness, volume replacing understanding, and measurable output replacing meaningful outcomes.
The technology changes. The metrics change. The dashboards become more sophisticated. But the mistake remains remarkably consistent. The organisation becomes increasingly efficient at proving it is busy while quietly losing sight of why the activity existed in the first place.
See also: