5 Comments
User's avatar
Elizaveta Sukhonosova's avatar

The system logic here is real solid, but Move 4’s prompt rules assume a buyer who behaves like a SaaS buyer or a tech-savvy new-generation kind of buyer I think - a fast reader, replies to cold email, says yes to 15 minutes without much friction. Let’s say if you were to outbound industrial buyers like Vp Ops etc, I notice they don’t move like that, also loss framing works differently when the loss is abstract (like falling behind competitors) versus concrete (a compliance deadline). The scoring gate in Move 3 is the actually transferable idea. 💯 just email rules in Move 4 need a bit of rewrite for anyone selling into manufacturing, energy, construction etc (unless the persona is a digital/It/transformation)

Thank you for sharing this, was super interesting

Elric Legloire - Outbound Chef's avatar

Good point. Move 4 is probably the one to use with more care.

They sell to technical personas, mostly CTOs, CIOs, and data leaders at tech, manufacturing, media companies, etc.

I tried a similar approach with security leaders, who are also technical buyers, and it worked well.

But I agree: this move may not be replicable for everyone.

Maja Voje's avatar

What a great one! Love the email example inside. More of this, please. Have a great week!

Elric Legloire - Outbound Chef's avatar

will do! 🫡 you too have a great week!!

GTM Strategies That Scale's avatar

The "one prompt can't do the work a good rep does" line is the whole argument in one sentence. What's interesting is this maps almost exactly onto why generic international outreach fails too — a single template sent to five markets skips the same research-then-write sequence, just at the market level instead of the account level.