Cold Email Sequences

Two production 3-email sequences (Automation + AI Enablement) with routing rules and launch checklist

Version 1 · June 29, 2026 salesemail

Content

# Cold Email Sequences

_Parent: Pitch Playbooks_

Two production cold-email sequences sent from Sam Bernard's Confluxion Point mailboxes. Routed by prospect title.

**Sending stack:**
- 4 mailboxes across `getconfluxionpoint.com` and `tryconfluxionpoint.com` (lookalike domains)
- Sender: Sam Bernard, Co-founder
- Tool: Lemlist (with lemwarm bundled warmup)
- Cadence: ~30 emails/day per mailbox → ~120/day total → ~2,400/month
- Reply triage: Sam handles inbox; positive responders added to HubSpot manually

**First launch:** 2026-06-14 (after 21-day domain warmup completing 2026-05-24 → 2026-06-14)

---

## Two product lines, two sequences

| Sequence | Audience | Hook | Length |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Automation** | Operators feeling labor-cost pain | $117K PSA invoice math from ET case study | 3 emails, 8 days |
| **AI Enablement** | Leaders carrying AI risk / IT decision-makers | Crews already using AI ad-hoc + dual-sided ROI | 3 emails, 8 days |

Never mix the two messages in one email. One prospect = one sequence.

---

## Routing — 3,498-contact Apollo list

| Title contains... | Sequence | Why |
|---|---|---|
| CTO, CIO, IT Director, Director of Innovation, Director of Construction Tech, VP Technology | **AI Enablement** | They own the AI policy concern. Speaks their language. |
| COO, VP Ops, Director of Ops, President, CEO, Owner, Founder | **Automation** (default) | Operators feel labor-cost pain hardest. |
| CFO, Controller, VP Finance | **Automation** | They buy on ROI math; $117K story lands. |
| Project Controls, PMO, Preconstruction, Estimating | **Automation** | Workflow-specific pain. |

Expected split: ~500 AI Enablement / ~3,000 Automation.

For President/CEO/Owner/Founder at small GCs (<50 employees), use the **Tier 6 Small Owner variant** of the Automation sequence (below) — different tone.

---

## SEQUENCE 1 — Automation

### Subject line A/B test (Email 1)

| Variant | Subject |
|---|---|
| A (control) | `7 steps to file one invoice` |
| B (test) | `$117k on one invoice workflow` |

After ~100 sends per variant, kill the loser.

### Email 1 — Day 1 — The Pain Hook

```
{{firstName}},

Most ops leaders we work with at GCs are pushing lab invoices, PSAs,
and pay apps through 6–8 manual steps per workflow — download, rename,
file, key into Excel, watch the balance, build the pay app. Repeat.

For one Utah GC, the math came to $117,000/yr sunk into a single
invoice loop.

Every step is something a machine can do — boring, reliable, no SaaS.

Worth 15 minutes to see if {{company}} has a workflow we could
take to zero?

— Sam Bernard
Co-founder, Confluxion Point
```

### Email 2 — Day 4 — The Proof

**Subject:** `Re: 7 steps to file one invoice`

```
{{firstName}},

A quick look at what we built for the Utah GC:

Lab sends a PSA invoice → it lands in the right project folder,
gets line-itemized into the tracker, watched for the billing
threshold, and rolled into the pay app. Automatically. The office
team got two days a week back.

Nine years in data engineering, four of it inside construction.
The senior engineer who scopes the project also writes the code
and supports it after go-live — no agency handoff, no offshore team.

If {{company}} has a workflow eating office hours, happy to look
at it.

— Sam
```

### Email 3 — Day 8 — Break-up

**Subject:** `Closing the loop`

```
{{firstName}},

I'll stop landing in your inbox.

If automating a manual workflow at {{company}} lands on the agenda
for the back half of 2026, we'll be here. If not, no worries —
best of luck through the rest of the year.

— Sam Bernard
Confluxion Point | confluxionpoint.com
```

---

## SEQUENCE 2 — AI Enablement

### Subject line A/B test (Email 1)

| Variant | Subject |
|---|---|
| A (control) | `before your next E&O renewal` |
| B (test) | `is AI opening you up to a lawsuit?` |

> **Note on Variant B:** kept the question mark per Addison's call. The question form costs ~15% in open rate on average vs. a declarative subject, but the fear hook is sharper. If A wins clearly, drop B. If they're close, B is doing real work despite the open-rate penalty.

### Email 1 — Day 1 — The Reality Check

```
{{firstName}},

Your office staff and PMs are likely already pasting drafts, scopes,
and budget docs into ChatGPT on personal accounts. Most contractors
don't realize it's happening until someone asks where the data went.

That's the exposure side. The opportunity side is bigger — one
governed AI workflow (DFR cleanup, RFI drafting, estimating narratives)
typically recovers $150K+/yr for a mid-size GC.

We help contractors do both in 30 days: get a real AI policy +
approved-tools list in place, then build one custom workflow that
pays back the engagement in a quarter.

Worth 15 minutes to see where {{company}} stands?

— Sam Bernard
Co-founder, Confluxion Point
```

### Email 2 — Day 4 — The Two-Sided Math

**Subject:** `Re: <Email 1 subject>`

```
{{firstName}},

The math is two-sided, and both numbers are real:

Downside avoided — an AI-caused incident (contract breach, denied
insurance claim, legal defense) runs $80–250K. E&O carriers are
starting to add AI exclusion clauses in 2026 renewals.

Upside captured — DFR cleanup alone is 10 min/crew/day saved.
At 30 crews, that's $120K+/yr recovered before we touch RFI drafting
or estimating.

We deliver the signed policy, per-role training, audit-ready binder,
AND a custom AI agent built into your tenant — all in 30 days.

Happy to walk you through what that looks like at {{company}}.

— Sam
```

### Email 3 — Day 8 — Break-up

Same template as Automation Email 3 (`Closing the loop`).

---

## SEQUENCE 1 — Tier 6 Small Owner Variant

For Presidents / CEOs / Founders / Owners at GCs <50 employees. Different tone — owner-to-owner, shorter, no corporate framing.

### Email 1 — Day 1

**Subject:** `your office staff drowning?`

```
{{firstName}},

Quick one — most owners I talk to at GCs your size are watching one
or two office people drown in PDFs, Excel, and "where's that invoice"
emails. Same workflow, every week, no end in sight.

We replaced that exact loop for a Utah GC. Their office got two
days a week back. The owner stopped hiring a fourth admin.

Open to a 15-min look at what could come off your team's plate?

— Sam Bernard
Confluxion Point
```

### Email 2 — Day 4

**Subject:** `Re: your office staff drowning?`

```
{{firstName}},

Owner-to-owner: the Utah job paid back in under 6 months. Fixed
price, no monthly SaaS, no offshore team. The same engineer who
quoted it built it.

If there's one workflow at {{company}} where you've thought "this
has to be automatable" — that's exactly what we do.

— Sam
```

### Email 3 — Day 8

**Subject:** `last one`

```
{{firstName}},

Won't keep pinging you. If automating one of {{company}}'s manual
workflows comes up later this year, I'm around.

— Sam
Confluxion Point
```

---

## Rules we follow (and why)

### Never put price in cold email

Pain → outcome → conversation. Price comes in the discovery call once they're emotionally bought in. Quoting `$30K` or `$32K` in cold email gives the prospect a reason to say no before they've felt the pain.

### Lead with "automation," not "AI" — for the Automation sequence

Per `automation-vs-ai.md`: construction owners have been burned by AI vendors. "Boring and reliable automation" lowers their skepticism. AI gets surfaced in the discovery call when their specific pain genuinely needs it.

The AI Enablement sequence is the exception — there we lead with AI because the whole product is about governing the AI they're already using.

### Sender tone: "we" for the firm, "I" for Sam personally

Confluxion Point reads as a firm: "we work with," "we built," "we deliver." Sam's personal actions stay in "I" voice: "I'll stop landing in your inbox," "I talk to" (in the small-owner variant).

### Subject line conventions

- Lowercase. 3–7 words.
- No exclamation marks. Limit question marks (cost ~15% open rate).
- Avoid spam-flagged words: `breaching`, `urgent`, `act now`, `guaranteed`, ALL CAPS.
- Brand names (`ChatGPT`, `OpenAI`) trigger some filters — use `AI` instead unless the prospect-name personalization earns it.

### Cal.com link — signature only, not email body

Cal.com link goes in Sam's email signature (Lemlist + Zoho). Don't paste it inline in cold email body — turns "worth 15 min?" into "click here to book," which feels transactional. Reply-based first; send the link in the reply.

---

## Lemlist campaign configuration

- **Sending window:** weekdays only, 8am–4pm prospect's timezone
- **Stop sequence on:** reply OR meeting booked
- **Daily send cap per mailbox:** 30 (after 21-day warmup ramp)
- **Tracking:** open + click tracking ON (we want the data)
- **Custom domain for tracking:** set up `link.confluxionpoint.com` CNAME to protect main domain link reputation
- **Unsubscribe:** include footer link per CAN-SPAM (Lemlist auto-handles)

---

## Pre-launch checklist (do before 2026-06-14)

- [ ] All 4 mailboxes show "Healthy" in Lemlist deliverability dashboard
- [ ] CSV segmented by title into two lists (Automation + AI Enablement)
- [ ] Cal.com booking page live, link in Sam's Zoho + Lemlist signature
- [ ] Both campaigns built in Lemlist with the sequences above — **not** activated
- [ ] HubSpot reply-triage process agreed with Sam
- [ ] A/B subject variants assigned and split-test enabled on Email 1
- [ ] Day-of-launch: confirm warmup completion before activating campaigns

---

_Last updated: 2026-05-24_

Change notes (optional)

Cancel