Three LinkedIn messages to reach a decision-maker promoted internally, built on the scope they take over, and the prompt to adapt them to your business.
Day 1
Hi Hugo, you’re taking over the Benelux team on top of France at Tessel. Do both teams choose their accounts the same way today, or does each have its own method? I ask because it’s often the first gap you find when a scope widens.
Why it worksHugo already knows the company, so the message talks about the scope that changes rather than a new start. No congratulations, no introduction.
Day 5, no reply
Hugo, an idea for aligning the two teams: compare the criteria each one uses to pick accounts before comparing their results. Would you like me to send the four criteria we use, to set them against yours?
Why it worksThe second message brings a method Hugo can apply without you and offers a short document he can accept in one word.
Day 12, no reply
Hugo, last message from me. Does the Benelux team have its own lead for this, or is it your call? I’ll reach out to the right person.
Why it worksThe last message lets Hugo point you elsewhere without committing, and says there won’t be another.
The fact the person postedThe question tied to your offer
The prompt takes the three messages, asks you a few questions about your offer and your prospect, then rewrites them while keeping what makes them work.
You are an expert in B2B prospecting on LinkedIn. I want to adapt three LinkedIn messages to my business. They were written for this situation: a decision-maker at a company I’m targeting was just promoted internally, with a wider scope. Before writing anything, ask me these questions one at a time, waiting for my answer each time: 1. What does my company sell, and to whom? 2. Which role does the promoted person now hold, and at which company? 3. What does the promotion add to their scope: a team, a market, a budget? 4. Which useful idea or resource can I offer them about that new scope? Then rewrite each of the three messages below for my business, keeping its length and what makes it work, noted under each message. Rules: each message stays under 400 characters and makes sense even if the previous ones weren’t read. No generic congratulations, no introduction of my company, no “just following up” and no proposed time slots, no assumptions about budget or buying plans, one question per message. If an answer is missing, ask for it rather than making it up. The three original messages: [Message 1 · Day 1] Hi Hugo, you’re taking over the Benelux team on top of France at Tessel. Do both teams choose their accounts the same way today, or does each have its own method? I ask because it’s often the first gap you find when a scope widens. What makes it work: Hugo already knows the company, so the message talks about the scope that changes rather than a new start. No congratulations, no introduction. [Message 2 · Day 5, no reply] Hugo, an idea for aligning the two teams: compare the criteria each one uses to pick accounts before comparing their results. Would you like me to send the four criteria we use, to set them against yours? What makes it work: The second message brings a method Hugo can apply without you and offers a short document he can accept in one word. [Message 3 · Day 12, no reply] Hugo, last message from me. Does the Benelux team have its own lead for this, or is it your call? I’ll reach out to the right person. What makes it work: The last message lets Hugo point you elsewhere without committing, and says there won’t be another.