Automating follow up without sounding automated to the reader

4 days ago
3 min read

Introduction

Buyers do not object to scheduled messages. They object to messages that are obviously part of a machine: generic content, formatting that belongs to a campaign, a request that ignores what they already said, and the unmistakable sign that nobody is reading their replies. Automation is not the problem; the absence of a person behind it is.

This matters because the alternative to automation, in a small business, is usually nothing at all. Manual follow-up depends on somebody remembering during a busy week, and it therefore happens erratically. A scheduled sequence that reads as though a person wrote it is better than a personal intention that is never acted on.

1. Automating follow up without sounding automated is about content, not scheduling

The reframing.

Nobody can tell whether a message was scheduled. They can tell whether it was written for them, and that is a property of what it says. A scheduled message that reads well is indistinguishable from one typed that morning.

2. Write it as a person, in plain text

The format.

First person, a real name, no template design, no images. The visual signature of a campaign is what identifies it as one before a word is read. Plain text also arrives more reliably, which is a second benefit.

3. Stop the sequence the moment somebody replies

The single most important rule.

A scheduled message arriving after a real conversation has started is the clearest possible evidence that nobody is paying attention. Verify that this works before relying on it. Test it by replying to your own sequence and confirming the next message does not arrive.

4. Reference something specific

The personalisation that counts.

What they enquired about, what you quoted, what they said. A message that could have been sent to anybody is one that will be treated as though it was. One specific detail is enough to change how the whole message reads.

5. Keep the number small

The volume discipline.

Two or three messages, spaced. Long automated sequences are where the impression of a machine comes from, because the content thins out as the sequence continues. If you cannot write five useful messages, do not schedule five.

6. Make each message useful

The content requirement.

Something the recipient gains. A scheduled message with something in it is welcome; a scheduled request is what people mean when they complain about automation. This is the difference the reader actually notices.

7. Have a person review the list occasionally

The oversight.

Look at who is in the sequence and remove anybody it does not suit. Automation without any human check eventually sends the wrong thing to somebody it should not have.

8. Do not automate anything requiring judgement

The boundary.

A response to a complaint, a difficult negotiation, anything after bad news. These need a person, and automating them produces exactly the tone-deaf outcome that gives the whole approach a poor name.

9. Read the sequence in order, as a recipient

The test before switching it on.

Sit down and read every message as though you received them. Most sequences have never been experienced this way by anybody inside the business.

Consent and opt-out requirements apply to automated marketing messages, and they differ by jurisdiction and by whether the recipient is an individual or a business. An enquiry is not necessarily agreement to enter a sequence.

Conclusion

Make it read as though a person wrote it, and make sure a person is actually watching.

Write in plain text and first person without campaign formatting, stop the sequence immediately when somebody replies and verify that this works, reference something specific to that person, keep it to two or three messages, make each one useful rather than a request, review the list periodically by hand, never automate a message that requires judgement, and read the whole sequence in order before it goes live.