The Asymmetry of Cold Email Harm vs. Value
1–7 of 7 posts
Re: The Asymmetry of Cold Email Harm vs. Value
#2I wrote a guide about cold email that sparked heated discussion here on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42357273
Many felt all cold email is spam by default. That made me think deeply about the nature of spam and value creation.
The reality I've found is interesting: The harm of an unwanted cold email (0.5 seconds to delete) is dramatically smaller than the potential value created (new jobs, solving real problems, connecting valuable solutions with people who need them).
I wrote about this asymmetry and what separates real spam from valuable outreach.
Would love to hear HN's thoughts on this tension between minor individual friction and broader value creation.
Re: The Asymmetry of Cold Email Harm vs. Value
#3[deleted]
Re: The Asymmetry of Cold Email Harm vs. Value
#4Every unsolicited sales email is spam. No exceptions.
You can tell yourself otherwise, but I will mark it as spam and blackhole all future emails from you.
You are playing with fire.
Re: The Asymmetry of Cold Email Harm vs. Value
#5If I block every email that contains the word “unsubscribe”, then I will block most automated emails, whether I want to receive them or not. It is not viable as a way of stopping spam, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Re: The Asymmetry of Cold Email Harm vs. Value
#6I wrote a guide about cold email that sparked heated discussion here on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42357273 Many felt all cold email is spam by default. That made me think deeply about the nature of spam and value creation. The reality I've found is interesting: The harm of an unwanted cold email (0.5 seconds to delete) is dramatically smaller than the potential value created (new jobs, solving real pro…
The harm is not just half a second to delete an unwanted email.
There is also the cost of: seeing that I have an unread email, switching to my email app, and working out that it’s spam.
If this gets normalised, it will not be just one spam email. There will also be the time to classify and delete spam emails from everyone else who feels entitled to spam me.
There is also the cost of incorrectly deleting a non-spam email, because you’re on a hair trigger because of all the spam you get.
Re: The Asymmetry of Cold Email Harm vs. Value
#7I wrote a guide about cold email that sparked heated discussion here on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42357273 Many felt all cold email is spam by default. That made me think deeply about the nature of spam and value creation. The reality I've found is interesting: The harm of an unwanted cold email (0.5 seconds to delete) is dramatically smaller than the potential value created (new jobs, solving real pro…
Cold emails are almost always spam, and what you're advocating is the old "just hit delete" chorus that email and usenet spammers started with lo these many years ago.
Sure, your _ever so valuable cold email_ takes a second or two to delete. Every fkn time you send it to me. You every other one of the 100,000 companies in the USA. It's not sustainable. Not one bite at the apple. No bites at the apple, spammer.
Once a spammer, always a spammer.