Why sender credibility impacts email response rates

Your cold email might be ignored - not because it’s bad… …but because it doesn’t feel credible. In 2025, your prospect has seen 100 emails just like yours. They don’t care what tool you’re using. They care whether they can trust you. Here’s how we build credibility inside every cold email - fast: 1️⃣ Start with a clear “why you” Don’t open with fluff. Open with context. → “Noticed you just hired 4 AEs - are you building an outbound engine?” This shows relevance, not randomness. 2️⃣ Drop a result early → “We helped <company> book 76 meetings last quarter without hiring more SDRs.” Prospects don’t need your pitch - they need proof. 3️⃣ Avoid hype, show specifics Don’t say: “We revolutionize pipeline growth with AI.” Say: “We help B2B sales teams increase reply rates by 30–50%.” The more concrete your message, the more believable it becomes. 4️⃣ Keep your signature clean No logos. No banners. No 5 social links. → First name. Role. Company. Maybe one link. That’s it. Looks human. Feels real. 5️⃣ Don’t push for the meeting right away Instead of: “Do you have 30 minutes next week?” Try: “Worth sending over a 2-minute breakdown?” Credibility = low-pressure + high clarity.

A client once came to me frustrated. They had tens of thousands of dormant subscribers — people who hadn’t opened an email in months. So, they did what most marketers do... They launched a re-engagement campaign. Subject lines were optimized. Timing was tested. They even offered discounts and bonuses. Crickets... Hardly anyone opened the emails. Fewer clicked. It looked like the list was just… dead. But here’s the thing: The list wasn’t dead. Emails never reached their audience. The real problem? Their sender reputation was in the gutter. Too many past sends to unengaged contacts. Poor list hygiene. Poor response rates. Spam complaints. They were trying to re-engage ghosts, because the emails weren’t making it to the inbox in the first place. So we flipped the strategy: ✅ Fixed the root deliverability issues ✅ Segmented by most recent engagement ✅ Cleaned the list and re-built trust with aligned content ✅ Slowly reintroduced traffic and warmed up the domain Only then did we try re-engagement again — and this time, it worked. So the takeaway: Your list isn’t the issue, but your email deliverability might be. If your deliverability is broken, even the best emails won’t convert. Fix the foundation first. Then re-engage.

plot twist: your subject line doesn't matter if your sender field sucks. this is my actual inbox earlier in the week… want to guess which emails i'll open first? spoiler: it's not the ones with the most clever subject lines. it's "kelly from goldcast", followed by "aaron carpenter" - because i’ve seen their content before and the content that come from Kelly Cheng and Aaron Carpenter (nice job!). meanwhile, most b2b marketers are obsessing over subject line a/b tests while their emails die because of terrible sender fields. here's what actually works: 🟢 "first name from company" - personal + credible, ideally someone who is known in the industry and works at the company (eg, CEO, founder, or subject matter expert) 🟠 ”employee name” / “CEO name” - if the CEO is well-known in the industry. 🟠 ”employee name” - only if they are known or a subject matter expert, otherwise, who’s that? (who is sean bruce..) ❌ company name only - feels corporate and cold. ❌ “marketing @ company name” - people dont want to be marketed to.. i did a test for a client and switched their newsletters from “[company name]" to "[ceo] from [company]" and saw higher open rates overnight. same content. same timing. different sender. the only difference was adding a human name to the sender field. my inbox behaviour proves this works.. think about why you open emails, because that is probably how your audience thinks about which email to open and read 💡 . your prospects don't buy from companies. they buy from people they trust. —- anyone updating their marketing email sender fields today?

Last week, I spoke with an AE at a TINY new startup (<100k ARR) trying to take down a MASSIVE $48B competitor. Shockingly, he was pretty cocky. He says he’s confident bc they have a secret “weapon”... Their CEO. The CEO is a well-respected industry stud. He’s smart, credible, and a true thought leader. There are 1000s of leaders just like him across the world, dozens within his specific industry. These people sit on a goldmine of rich experience, insight, and access. But most of them do not exchange their caché into the currency of today: Online audience and attention. Brilliantly, this CEO did. He leaned aggressively into sharing his thought leadership on social. After a year, he now has 15K+ Linkedin followers, gets 100K+ impressions per month, and his DMs are flooded. He has the attention of his entire industry. Now, he’s prepared to take down the goliath in his space. And his AE is cocky because he can use the CEO as a “weapon” (his words) to point-and-shoot targets. When the CEO sends a connection request on Linkedin: 59% connection rate 31% reply rate That’s insane. Compare that to your cold email response rates. Once your executive has built the organic content audience, it literally helps everything else in the business: → Cold email → Paid ads → Partnerships → Fundraising → Recruiting So when his team sends out emails on his behalf, the recipients recognize his name, know he’s legitimate, and are more likely to respond. The CEO’s organic social doesn’t just work in a silo. It amplifies the effectiveness of his marketing ecosystem. And he’s just one example of this. Chris Walker, Adam Robinson, and Sam Jacobs all said the same thing on my podcast. Organic content is no longer optional—it’s the play that’s working. And if you don’t do it, your competitors will. 👋 I’m on a mission to master LinkedIn strategy for B2B execs. I publish my findings weekly. Follow + learn with me in public.

Your sender reputation is like your credit score.   Ignore it - and you’ll get denied.   I work with smart, service-based business owners who send great emails… …but can’t figure out why they’re going to spam. Their content is helpful. Their audience opted in. Their tech setup seems fine. So what’s the issue? It’s their sender reputation. Think of it like this... If email providers don’t trust you, your emails won’t get delivered. Even if you're saying all the right things. And your reputation isn't built overnight. It’s shaped by things like: ✅ How many people open your emails ✅ If your list is full of fake or disengaged addresses ✅ If you’re properly authenticated (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) ✅ How often people click, reply—or hit “spam” With my clients, we fix these hidden issues. We clean up the list. Set up proper tags. Warm up the domain. We monitor the metrics that matter—so you don’t lose deliverability without realizing it. Because if your emails aren’t getting delivered, You’re leaving money - and relationships - on the table. If your email is landing in spam, it’s not always about the message. It’s about the trust you’ve built as a sender. Want better email results? Start with your sender reputation. Have you ever checked your sender reputation - or do you assume your emails are being delivered?