Building a follow up sequence that is not annoying to receive

4 days ago
3 min read

Updated: 2 days ago

Introduction

The word sequence suggests something automated and slightly impersonal, and the versions most people have received are exactly that: five messages arriving on a schedule, each one asking for the same thing, none containing anything the recipient wanted. Small business owners who have been on the receiving end of that reasonably conclude they want nothing to do with it.

The alternative is not to abandon follow-up but to build something worth receiving. The distinguishing feature of a sequence people tolerate is that each message contains something useful independent of your request, which means the design question is what to send rather than how often.

1. Building a follow up sequence that is not annoying means each message earns its place

The organising rule.

Before writing anything, decide what this message gives. A sequence in which every item is a request is irritating regardless of the intervals between them. If you cannot say what a message offers, it should not be in the sequence.

2. Send useful things, not reminders

The content principle.

An answer to a common question, a relevant example, a piece of information about their situation, a checklist. The request can sit at the end of something worth reading. Your enquiry conversations contain the material for most of these already.

3. Match the length to the decision

The pacing.

A three-message sequence over a fortnight suits a small purchase. A decision taking six months needs something spread over months, and compressing it produces exactly the effect you are avoiding. Measure your own median decision time and build backwards from it.

4. Space them widely

The interval question.

Days rather than hours, then weeks. Frequency is what most people experience as pressure, and long gaps are almost never resented. Nobody has ever complained about being contacted too infrequently by a supplier they were considering.

5. Make every message stand alone

The practical requirement.

People miss messages. Each one should make sense to somebody who has not read the previous ones, rather than referring back to something they never saw. It also means the order matters less, which makes the whole thing more robust.

6. Write it as a person

The tone.

First person, plain language, a real name, no marketing formatting. A sequence that reads as though somebody typed it is tolerated; one that reads as a campaign is not. Plain text frequently outperforms designed templates for exactly this reason.

7. Make stopping easy and honour it immediately

The respect requirement.

A clear way out in every message, acted on at once. Attempting to retain somebody who has asked to leave produces complaints and, in many jurisdictions, breaches the rules.

8. Stop when they respond

The obvious failure to avoid.

Somebody who replies should be taken out of the sequence immediately. Continuing to send scheduled messages after a real conversation has started is the single most damaging error in this area.

9. Read the whole thing yourself, in order

The final check.

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

The rules governing electronic marketing, consent and opt-out differ by jurisdiction and by whether the recipient is an individual or a business. An enquiry is not necessarily agreement to receive a sequence, and the position is worth confirming rather than assuming.

Conclusion

Make each message worth opening, and the frequency question largely resolves itself.

Send something useful rather than a reminder, match the length of the sequence to the length of the decision, space messages by days and then weeks, write each one to stand alone, use plain first-person language rather than campaign formatting, make stopping easy and act on it at once, remove anybody who replies from the sequence immediately, and read the whole thing in order as a recipient would.