Timing of follow-ups is deceptively simple to understand theoretically but incredibly difficult to execute practically. Most people base their follow-up decisions based upon how much they want to hear back from the recipient versus how quickly the recipient is able to reasonably think through their response.
For nearly two decades I followed up right after my first contact. It made sense logically: keep momentum going, show you care, and act fast. However, no matter how hard we tried, we could never exceed a follow-up rate of 8%. This was consistent with industry averages and led me to believe that there was either something wrong with our messaging or the way we were communicating was not timed.
One of our analysts looked at all of our successful sequences over the past year-and-a-half. She broke down each conversation into those that resulted in clients and those that ended with complete silence. Then she examined the timing between messages and the conversations to determine if there was a rhythm associated with conversion.
Her findings were clear-cut; there was some level of response from the initial outreach. As soon as I would send another message within 24 hours of the first, response rates began to decline. If I waited anywhere from 2-3 business days prior to sending additional communications, response rates would increase significantly. However, once I waited longer than five days and attempted to follow up again, response rates would begin to decrease as well due to loss of momentum.
Consistently, the best window was 48 to 72 hours after the initial outreach.
Understanding the psychological reasoning behind timings
When I initially reach out to someone via e-mail, social media, etc., my message sits in their inbox amongst dozens of other similar messages. Eventually, they will become aware of it, mentally acknowledge it, and plan to respond when they have enough information and mental clarity. However, as soon as I send a follow-up within 24 hours of their receipt of my original message, I create an uncomfortable pressure dynamic. At that point in time, they are still processing their thoughts about my request for engagement. In fact, many individuals do not even engage at all with me during this period due to feeling pressured by my rapid communication.
They may dislike the content of my original message; however, they are not avoiding me because of the message itself. They are simply not comfortable with being aggressively pursued prior to having adequate time to evaluate whether responding serves their own interests. Therefore, they mentally defer the conversation until they ultimately lose sight of it altogether.
However, when I wait 2-3 business days before sending another communication related to my initial request for engagement, a psychological shift occurs. By waiting, my original message now has sufficient time to sit within their thinking. They may have discussed my company or approach with peers. They have certainly thought about whether my solution resolves issues they currently face. As such, when I finally send the next message, it appears to be a logical continuation of a discussion that they have already initiated mentally rather than a hasty attempt to pursue them.
At this timing window, responses occur at a rate of approximately 31%-35% regardless of industry or type of prospect.
Implementing this change
I updated our outreach processes so that timing is automated into our CRM. Messages sent will automatically schedule a follow-up message 48 hours later. The individual doing the outreach cannot override this timing for any reason based on how anxious he/she/they are regarding responses.
Simply enforcing this proven timing pattern using technology improved our response rates from 8% to 31% without altering the quality of our messages or the amount of research provided. The only variable that changed was respect for the necessary psychological space between the initial outreach and follow-up.
What does this say about communication?
Immediate follow-up does not optimize for respondent willingness to respond but instead optimizes for sender comfort. A two-to-three business day window optimizes for respondent decision-making psychology. Ultimately, when attempting to generate responses from strangers (individuals you do not yet know), their comfort and decision-making process should dictate your timing, not your urgency or discomfort with results.
This principle extends far beyond LinkedIn to include email outreach and cold calls in addition to any context in which you communicate directly with strangers (people with whom you have no pre-existing relationship). The internal pressure you experience does not justify applying external pressure on others through aggressive follow-up timing.